As the Allison Pearson debacle begins to settle down, the lesson being drawn by many is that the police have no business harassing people for voicing opinions that are legal, no matter how offensive or hypothetically damaging they might be. Many of us have been urging as much for years. But taking stock now, surely most can agree that it’s not the state’s role to monitor speech, morality or the way we conduct ourselves in our private lives.
‘Respect orders’ are befitting of Blair’s moralising crusade that begat Asbos
If this is indeed a growing consensus, then the Labour government seems to be veering in the opposition direction. On Friday it announced a new measure to tackle antisocial behaviour, ‘respect orders’. Essentially Asbos for grown-ups, these will give police and councils the power to impose restrictions and punishments on hooligans, drug users, street drinkers, nuisance neighbours and the like. The police will be able to ban offenders from urban centres and parks, with perpetrators compelled to attend anger management courses or rehabilitation treatment for drug or alcohol problems. Those who breach orders would be deemed committing a criminal offence, giving police the powers of arrest; a maximum sanction would be two years in jail.
This initiative may please some who despair of persistent, low-level disorder in their neighbourhoods. But might police time not be better prioritised in tackling crimes such as burglary, robbery (of smartphones and bikes, particularly) and shoplifting, which in many people’s eyes has essentially become decriminalised? These are serious offences, often committed by repeat offenders who have been proven – not imagined – to go on to break the law again.
These ‘respect orders’ are underpinned by the same mindset that gave us Tony Blair’s Asbos, David Cameron’s ‘Nudge Unit’ and indeed the now infamous ‘non-crime hate incident’ (NCHI), of which there have been over 13,000 cases recorded up to June this year. All these measures are designed not to tackle actions that break the law, but are devised to change the way we behave, speak and – ultimately – think. It’s no surprise that the same week Home Secretary Yvette Cooper unveiled these ‘respect orders’, that she should have doubled-down on the importance of NCHIs. Speaking to an annual summit of police chiefs, she defended them in principle in the fight against tackling hate crime in relation to antisemitism and Islamophobia.
‘Respect orders’ are befitting of Blair’s moralising crusade that begat Asbos, the idea that the state should improve us. Rather than crack down more on crime, this measure seeks to address behaviour that is often merely unpleasant; just as NCHIs address speech that isn’t illegal, but merely ‘offensive’. This is why those who break respect orders could face being subject to anger management or treatment for addiction: it’s all together a therapeutic approach to law and order.
The long-term aim of ‘respect orders’ echoes precisely that of NCHIs, too: to prevent crime that might happen in the future. Cooper has said that these measures would make sure the ‘most serious offenders are dealt with before their behaviour can escalate and cause further harm.’ This unspoken doctrine of ‘precrime’ – a concept that once belonged to the mind of the science-fiction author Philip K. Dick – has been behind the NCHIs all the way.
One of the best-known subjects of an NCHI was Harry Miller, who was visited by Humberside Police in January 2020 after a complaint over an alleged transphobic tweet. Miller successfully sued. During his legal action, Paul Giannasi, then a retired police officer, and now the Hate Crime Policy Lead at the National Police Chiefs’ Council, submitted a witness statement that said: ‘Failure to address non-crime hate incidents is likely to lead to their increase, and ultimately increase the risk of serious violence and societal damage.’
For too long some commentators have dismissed talk of ‘culture wars’ as a myth or distraction. What we are witnessing now is these culture wars becoming all-too-real. The hyper-progressive doctrine that emerged to become wokery ten years ago is now being enacted by the law. Being offensive, hurting people’s feelings, questioning dogma on gender, speaking incorrectly out on matters on race (even if abhorrently): ten years ago these transgressions would have seen you ostracised by your peers at university. Today they might land you a visit by the police.
This is why speech and behaviour have become an obsession for the left, and for Labour. They have been captured by this new morality, one that they are now putting into effect. Such disparate figures as a gender-critical feminist, Julie Bindel, a conservative journalist, and people who said disgusting things after the Southport murders have all been the subjects of disproportionate attention or punishment. They’ve made transgressions against the new moral order. They are heretics. They’ve just had too much to think.
Comments