Parliament petition "Abolish Non-Crime Hate Incidents"

[Seainasive]

Now posting without the link. We should try to get this to 10,000 signatures.

What absolute nonsense. Should we also stay off Facebook because Zuckerburg is a tool? Should I resign from work because my CEO is a arsehole? Almost everything in 2025 is run by rich wankers who dont care much about the vulnerable, whether it's going to the supermarket, wherever you work, pretty much all social media.
And now is the time that more moderate voices need to be heard on twitter and everywhere. It benefits no one to create more bubbles where people only hear what they want.

"What we have ATM is social media filled with people who are emboldened to say whatever they like behind fake usernames. How would you deal with this?"

So as this is happening while NCHI can be recorded, this is clearly an ineffective way of tackling the issue.

Personally I would like the police to use their limited resources on actual crime, so I will be signing. The Orwellian way NCHI are being deployed is dreadful and needs to end.

There are already places to report someone who you feel is radicalised through Prevent.

Reporting people to the police for saying something that you don’t like that is not a crime is misusing police time, and too easily misused as an abuse tool. The result has a chilling effect on legitimate discussion. When a government gets so involved in policing the discussion of its population that these Non crime hate incidents are able to be registered it has to be questioned how far this will go.

It also has to be questioned whether the government is now seeking to ensure that the population is protected from hearing things that individuals don’t like to hear. When did that become a priority of the government?

Signed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

18,614 just now, after my email confirmation arrived.

NCHI, in my view, raise a fundamental issue with the rule of law. Since Magna Carta a core issue has been the power of the state to interfere in the lives of citizens. The State does not have an unfettered right to interfere in people’s day to day activities; there are boundaries.
In this country we have policing by consent and part of the compact between the police and the citizens is an implied term that the police will only interfere in the rights of citizens to the extent necessary to fulfill their function.
It is not clear to me how recording NCHI are necessary to meet the obligations of policing a modern society. However, NCHI do have the potential for serious consequences for the individual and so are a clear and direct impingement on the rights of the citizen concerned. Consequently, in my view, NCHI represent an overreach of police powers into areas like free speech. The courts have already recognised their “chilling effect” Harry Miller’s case. Other cases have recognised you don’t have a right not to be offended. In simple terms, the concept of NCHI create an interference with the rights of citizens that goes beyond that which is necessary for the proper execution of the duties of the police.

It's bumping up nicely

Non crime hate incidents are a joke. Why can’t they be treated as real actionable offences with proper sanctions? Is it because the police don’t have the resources to go after people anymore?

I think most people would disagree with you. The fundamental core of a civilised society is for people to be tolerant of one another. ‘Hurty words’ as you call them cause genuine, long lasting damage to people all over the country and passing it off as just causing offence is incredibly dehumanising for everybody.

A great insightful post that bears repeating. 👏👏
The over reach of police powers is extreme - as is the politicisation of a force that is meant to be politically neutral.

I think we have too much hate speech, not too little. I'd like to see politicians of all colours model moderate speech, the mainstream press (the tabloids) become less hateful and be pulled up on it where they are and the social media companies remove hate filled posts. Sadly it seems to be going the other way in the name of free speech.

I think Utopia is a fantasy, and trying to force humans to live in a society where no 'hurty words' are allowed is a pie in the sky dystopian nightmare, which is far more dehumanising than any 'hurty words' could ever be.

How do words cause long lasting damage to people? Can you give some examples?

I'm more of a sticks and stones person. I think people should be more resilient. It may be a bit 'victim' blame-y but it's the only proportionate and sustainable way forward especially regarding social media. Save the coppers to use when there is a crime or where one is imminent.

The law has already set the threshold for actionable behaviour under the Public Order Act, the legislation on offensive and threatening communications and on harassment. Behaviour that does not reach those thresholds may be obnoxious but it is not criminal and so not a police matter.

I'd agree that people should be tolerant of one another. That does not include claiming you are damaged because someone does not agree with your self image, you need to be tolerant of different views.

Words can be very cruel and sometimes people are harmed by them. We need to build more resilience in young people. There are laws against real crimes, someone correctly identifying your sex is not a crime.

I think Labour will change things for the better in that regard, for sure. Racism and Islamophobia in this country isn’t taken anywhere near serious enough, they should carry a tariff at minimum of at least 10 years but there’s no way we have enough prison spaces to lock up another 100,000 people. It’s going to be a tough proposition for this government to tackle so I hope they are up to the task.

10 years! Imo death's too good for them. They should be made to wear itchy jumpers, in an unflattering colour and trousers that are just a little too loose round the waist, so they have to keep hitching them up. Socks that creep down and bunch round their toes.

Signed and forwarded to friends and family!

Yep. If a term or action breaks the written law, debated and passed by Parliament, we should obey it, and expect to be punished if we break it ( and that includes every adult, British or non British, Black, brown , white, disabled or fit. Everyone).

If it is not deemed a crime by the Law, it cannot be investigated or prosecuted.

signed

Define Islamophobia? Is objecting to hardline culturally influenced interpretations of Islam that treat women as chattels Islamophobic? There is a requirement on Muslims to learn so calling out people within the Muslim community who think women’s education should be restricted is not Islamophobia but I can see that people will try to claim it is rather than recognise flaws in their own behaviour. It’s a very complex area - no religion is above scrutiny or criticism.

I am a Christian married to a Muslim immigrant from North Africa. My DH and my two DC are practicing Muslims. They have issues with some of the more hardline people will they get labelled Islamophobic too.

It is very dangerous to set one group up as above criticism as we have found over the last few years. It can give bad actors a shield to hide behind and consequently damages those it was intended to protect.

Do you realise that the first attempt at prosecuting someone for transphobia in this country was brought against a trans woman after a complaint by a non trans person. Funnily enough the court threw it out!

No-one should be above criticism.

Je suis Charlie.

Yes great idea let's start locking people up for being critical of religion.

Of course we should be allowed voice our rational fear or dislike of a political and religious ideology that treats women and girls as second class citizens. Look at what is going on around the world in the name of Islam. I know Labour have authoritarian tendencies but it won't go well for them if they attempt to bring back blasphemy laws.

10 year anniversary this year 😢