Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser   

2024-02-06

Once upon a time (and not so long ago) judges in Britain declared that freedom of speech without the freedom to offend was not worth having.

But under what circumstances does one man's "hate speech" override another's "freedom of speech"? It's a question that our parents/grandparents would not have understood, but with which we today must grapple.

Back in the day, Britain's judiciary used to take a robust view on people who decided to be offended by mere words. Provided that there was no incitement to commit a crime, Joe/Jemima Citizen was invited to take the rough with the smooth and grow a thick skin. It's a clear and unambiguous approach that used to put everyone on an equal footing in law, and facilitated full and frank discussion around many topics that some believe have become treacherous legal minefields today.

Are we better off as a society for what many may regard as a legal quagmire of ever-expanding "protected characteristics" and "reasonable" but imprecisely defined behaviour?

And as a result, are the dice of justice now unfairly loaded in favour of the establishment?

The Daily Sceptic investigates the case of surgeon Adil, who was amazingly up front with his theories about "the pandemic" at an early stage. 

Now "the pandemic" was an extreme scenario in the teeth of which to choose to exercise one's freedom of speech (and indeed freedom of conscience), which rather goes to illustrate Mr Adil's iron-hearted integrity in speaking out. He had nothing to gain other than his integrity still intact, and everything to lose. He lost.

Some might think that it would be brave judge indeed that would support his individual right to freedom of expression in the teeth of the combined might of the governing establishment in all its extended forms, but the ancient maxim "Let justice be done though the heavens fall" has purpose - one might think precisely in circumstances of outrageous governmental overreach

Dr. David McGrogan, Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School , reports for The Daily Sceptic on how he lost.