On Tuesday, Theresa May used the centenary of women's suffrage to announce plans to implement a new offence named Intimidation in Public Life. The move has is based on recommendations in a report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
As the Prime Minister said in her speech, it is unsettling that vitriol towards public figures, particularly in politics, is overwhelmingly directed towards women. This has to be addressed. There's really no two ways about that.
But is a new offence, of intimidating a politician or candidate, the answer? Before creating new offences like 'Intimidation in Public Life', there needs to be careful consideration.
Are there laws that already cover this? What are we making illegal? Are we creating new problems?
Yes, free speech is all too often of recent used as a cover, a screen to ensure freedom from the consequences of speech.
And yet, remember that in 2016 a young female student was censured because an MP and a University didn't, wilfully or out of ignorance, understand a meme.
Ian Hislop, the editor of Private Eye, when speaking at a Leveson Inquiry hearing on the phone tapping scandal, said that:
"Statutory legislation is not required and most of the heinous crimes that came up and have made such a splash in front of this inquiry have already been illegal - contempt of court is illegal, phone tapping is illegal, policemen taking money is illegal - all of these things don't need a code, we already have laws for them."
It's something we need to remember when policy may be adopted as a reaction - such as to the incident at a Jacob Rees-Mogg talk at the University of the West of England, to which this announcement has been unsurprisingly strapped.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life have produced an in depth report. It makes for interesting reading. There are important recommendations to consider. One of them is that they report that the criminal law is basically fine.
They committee issues a bipartisan call for the major players - the big political parties, the police, the media - to show leadership and work together in cross-party solidarity.
In terms of legislation, the committee recommends a strictly electoral offence of intimidation and action to hold social media services liable for content posted on their platforms.
The recommendations of the committee are focused, strictly limited and lean towards better use of current tools - not least of which is the need for major bodies to challenge bad behaviour. Even their recommendation for a new offence they subject to the condition of consultation and comes across as a call for sterner sentencing when the target is a public figure.
Prime Minister Theresa May, however, has been criticised in the past for having a 'cavalier' attitude to civil rights and a well documented history for pursuing a path to public order through heavy-handed surveillance.
Unsurprisingly, her announcement is already being dissected by rights groups, such as Liberty, who are already expressing their concerns.
The report does not call for a heavy-hand. In her speech, May said that she would consult on the proposed new intimidation offence. Considered, tentative steps are appreciated. The way forward must be careful and measured. And, perhaps, even left a path untaken.
References
Nigel Nelson's 'Theresa May proposes new law that would have jailed protesters who disrupted speech by Jacob Rees-Mogg: On Tuesday the PM will unveil plans to create a new offence of intimidation in public life in a speech to mark 100 years of votes for women'; in The Mirror; 4 February 2018.
'Intimidation in Public Life: A Review by the Committee on Standards in Public Life'; from the Committee on Standards in Public Life; December 2017.
James Chalmers' 'Quick note: this idea of using the criminal law to target “intimidation in public life” is not some overnight Tory invention to exploit the JRM fracas, but something the Committee on Standards in Public Life asked the government to consult on'; Thread from Twitter; 4 February 2018.
Amelia Tait's 'Get in the sea: when is a death threat not a death threat? Labour MP Thangam Debbonaire has been criticised for overreacting to a popular internet joke. But are memes and menace really mutually exclusive?'; in the New Statesman; 15 August 2016.
'Leveson Inquiry: Ian Hislop says new press laws not needed'; on the BBC; 17 January 2012.
Alan Travis' 'What does Theresa May's record as home secretary tell us? While the new prime minister made a stirring call for equality in her first speech, her years at the Home Office hint at someone cavalier about civil liberties and quick to evade responsibility when it suited her'; in The Guardian; 18 July 2016.
'As the PM herself said, intimidation is already a criminal offence. This is either political grandstanding dressed up as action on women’s rights, or a threat to our rights to free speech and full participation in our democracy – undermining the legacy of the suffragettes'; from Liberty, on Twitter; 6 February 2018.
Sarah Marsh & Rachel Obordo's 'Women's suffrage centenary: May pledges consultation on criminalising abuse of MPs - as it happened | On the centenary of 1918 suffrage act, we update you on activities around the country, and discuss current goals for women’s rights'; in The Guardian; 6 February 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment