The Home Office is currently considering its response to a public consultation which saw many people make the case for the removal of “insulting words or behaviour” from Section 5.
This is a campaign which brings together people from all walks of life; from the religious to the secular and from right across the political spectrum. The Christian Institute and the National Secular Society have both recognised the need for reform of Section 5 if we are to guarantee freedom of expression and the right to a good debate.
At best, Section 5 is the legal embodiment of a well-meaning bureaucrat, and at worse it is used as a way of silencing those who the authorities don’t agree with – be they religious preachers, political activists or protesters.
This campaign is about freedom of speech, but it is also about the reach of the criminal law. Should we really rely on the state to protect us from insult?
The following passage from a legal textbook, The Law of Public Order and Protest, notes that Section 5
“…extends the criminal law into areas of annoyance, disturbance and inconvenience. In particular, it covers behaviour which falls short of violence or the threat of violence.”
An inconvenience with no threat of violence is not the sort of situation which should warrant the involvement of the police and the courts, but as our Section 5 Victims page demonstrates, that is exactly what is happening.