New free speech law to protect against wokery and cancel culture

Freedom of speech is to be enshrined in a new British bill of rights to protect against wokery, political correctness and the advance of European-style privacy laws.

Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary, wants the “quintessentially British” human right of freedom of expression to be given “extra weight”, because of his concerns that it is being whittled away by privacy concerns and the rise of “cancel culture”.

His proposed new Bill, to be foreshadowed in a consultation paper on Tuesday, will reinforce the primacy of Parliament to protect free speech against the “back door” introduction of privacy laws through court cases, such as the Duchess of Sussex’s legal victory over the Mail on Sunday.

It also follows public figures being barred from speaking at universities and other institutions because of their outspoken views. In the most recent case, Rod Liddle, the columnist, was “cancelled” by students when he started speaking at Durham University.

Ministers are looking to see what lessons could be learned from other countries with fierce freedom of speech laws, such as the US with its first amendment, and South Africa’s constitutional right to freedom of expression.

“However unedifying someone’s views, they have a right to articulate them within the bounds of decency and other laws,” said a source.

“It is making sure we don’t go down the route of cancel culture, where people feel they cannot speak freely because of fear of recriminations.

“Dominic feels very strongly that the parameters of free speech and democratic debate are being whittled away, whether it's a privacy issue or wokery and political correctness.”

Freedom of speech bill will enable ‘vigorous democratic debate’

Writing in The Telegraph, Suella Braverman, the Attorney General, said the Bill would “strengthen” the right to freedom of expression and “preserve space for wide and vigorous democratic debate”.

She added: “We propose that the Bill should make clear the utmost importance attached to this right, and that in balancing competing rights the courts should only interfere with it where there are exceptional reasons to do so.”

The new Bill, overhauling the current Human Rights Act, will also enshrine another “quintessential British” right to a jury trial. However, this will be balanced by restrictions on criminals’ ability to use human rights laws to evade deportation or secure their release from jail.

Foreign criminals convicted of certain serious crimes, or who have served lengthy sentences, will no longer be able to block their deportation by claiming it breaches their Article 8 rights to a family life. These account for 70 per cent of successful appeals against removal from the UK.

They even included one where the offender had assaulted his partner and paid no child maintenance to support his family, but still successfully appealed deportation. Mr Raab said the reforms would prevent abuses and add “a healthy dose of common sense”.

‘Filter’ to weed out ‘spurious’ human rights claims

The reforms by the Government will pave the way for an overhaul of the Parole Board, by placing the protection of public safety above the rights of criminals to be freed from jail.

Mr Raab is proposing a new “filter” to weed out “spurious” human rights cases before they get to court. All cases will have to get permission to be heard by the courts, with those deemed to be without merit barred from being put before judges.

The Ministry of Justice expects a “significant number” to fall foul of the new test conducted by judges to prevent court time being wasted and put the focus on “genuine, credible” cases.

Mr Raab proposes ending the duty of courts to take into account Strasbourg case law, freeing them to base decisions on UK tradition and law. Lawmakers will also be empowered to interpret European court rulings against the UK in a way that respects country's laws and traditions.

For example, although European courts upheld the rights of prisoners to vote, the UK only allowed it to be extended to offenders on home detention curfews.

Reform of our laws is vital to protect human rights and respect the will of Parliament

By Suella Braverman, Attorney General

Edmund Burke wrote that human rights are an “entailed inheritance derived to us from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to our posterity; as an estate specially belonging to the people of this kingdom without any reference whatever to any other more general or prior right”. I could not agree more.

More than 20 years after the enactment of the Human Rights Act, it is time to look again at the human rights framework.

Our reforms would ensure that rights embedded in the European Convention on Human Rights can be interpreted in light of the UK’s particular circumstances - including our common law, our constitutional arrangements and our keystone, Parliamentary sovereignty.

While judges will always have an important role to play in the modern interpretation of conceptions of liberty which go back to the Enlightenment and beyond - such as free speech, the right to fair trials and freedom from cruel punishment - the ultimate guardian of our “inherited freedoms” is Parliament.

That is why the Government is announcing the launch of a consultation on reforming the Human Rights Act, which sets out our vision for the protection of human rights in the UK.

The consultation includes a package of proposed amendments, including potentially revising and replacing the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights.

We want to make sure that the rights themselves are given their proper interpretation. Our reforms would therefore strengthen the right to freedom of expression, preserving space for wide and vigorous democratic debate. We should make clear the utmost importance attached to this right.

We also want to make sure that human rights work within the unique context of our historic constitution. That is why our reforms would empower courts to apply human rights in a UK context, affirming the Supreme Court’s independence from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It should not slavishly follow Strasbourg and nor should it gold-plate it.

We also want to make sure that the balance between our domestic institutions is right. That is why we want to amend Section 3 of the Human Rights Act to avoid the meaning of legislation passed by Parliament being amended or diluted.

The changes would also guarantee Parliament its proper role in addressing the adverse Strasbourg Court judgments against the UK. A clause could also be included which affirms Parliament’s supremacy in the exercise of the legislative functions.

Together, these arrangements would ensure that Parliament plays its proper democratic role in how to respond to Strasbourg judgment.

The reforms guide UK courts in interpreting rights and balancing them with the interests of society. Unfortunately, human rights litigation has sometimes been used to unduly frustrate the deportation of foreign criminals. Our amendments would give us an opportunity to rectify this.

For example, we could restrict the rights available to certain categories of those subject to deportation. We could also stipulate that when courts conduct the balancing exercise, deportation can only be prevented in accordance with legislation enacted by Parliament, or limit the grounds on which a deportation decision can be overturned.

The aim of these reforms would be to restore credibility to the system and help ensure we can protect the public by deporting those who pose a serious threat.

There are important procedural reforms which are needed too, to make sure that rights are properly and fairly enforced. We propose the introduction of a robust permission stage to ensure that trivial cases do not undermine public confidence in human rights.

We will seek to change the way that remedies can be awarded in human rights claims. For example, courts should consider the behaviour of the claimant when considering whether to award damages. This recognises that responsibilities exist alongside rights and puts a stop to rewarding those, including suspected terrorists, who may themselves have infringed the rights of others.

There is more work still to do. Importantly, the Government’s plans will explore how we can protect our Armed Forces from persistent human rights claims for actions taking place overseas, and avoid the uncertainty of applying different rules in an area already covered by the law of armed conflict. This is a problem which has arisen due to a flawed interpretation by the Strasbourg Court, and we should work with our allies and partners in seeking to reverse it.

Given the importance of human rights to each and every citizen, it is right and proper that civil society is always alert when changes are proposed. That is why we are consulting widely on these proposed reforms.

It is a hallmark of a healthy democracy that we can have these debates, challenge accepted ways of doing things and ensure that our laws are working the way they should, through the democratic process.

The Government will be robust in making its case for reform. We are also committed to ensuring that any reforms command public confidence. Part of that task includes restoring credibility to the phrase “human rights” in the eyes of the public by ensuring that it enriches our democracy - after all, liberty is “an estate specially belonging to the people”.