Nothing to Say about the Riots

I have been asked for my opinion on the riots of the past fortnight. When Dr Gabb was Director of the Libertarian Alliance, there would have been immediate and strongly-worded news releases and analytical essays. I have said nothing, and, excepting Michael Wood, who has himself been cautious, no one else has offered to do the job for me. The reason is obvious. We now live in a social credit police state, where dissent is unsafe….

I had the next thousand words of this article read by a lawyer. Here is the advice he gave me:

Publishing the article you provided may raise legal concerns under British law, particularly due to its discussion of potentially sensitive topics such as riots, dissent, and the legitimacy of the government. While the article does not explicitly incite violence or unlawful activity, it does touch upon themes that might be scrutinised under various legal frameworks.

Legal Considerations:

1. Public Order Act 1986: This Act prohibits the incitement to violence or public disorder. The article’s analysis of riots and the potential for revolutionary sentiment, while careful not to endorse or encourage disorder, could be interpreted by authorities as inflammatory, especially if it is viewed as indirectly supporting or justifying the motives behind such actions.
2. Terrorism Act 2006: Section 1 of this Act covers the glorification of terrorism, including any statement likely to be understood as encouraging or glorifying acts of terrorism. The author’s caution about being accused of “terror offences” suggests awareness of this. While the article does not glorify or encourage terrorism, its focus on government legitimacy and revolutionary conditions might draw attention, especially if interpreted as creating sympathy for anti-government actions.
3. Communications Act 2003: Section 127 of this Act criminalises sending messages via electronic communications that are “grossly offensive” or of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character”. While the article is neither obscene nor indecent, its critical tone towards the government might be considered “offensive” by some, particularly in the current politically sensitive climate.
4. Defamation and Sedition Laws: Although sedition laws in the UK have largely been repealed, certain sections of the article that question the legitimacy of the government could potentially be interpreted as seditious or defamatory. Even though the article seems to avoid direct defamation, the tone and implications could be perceived as undermining state authority.
5. Hate Speech Laws: Although the article does not contain overtly hateful language, any references to “native population” versus “others” could be problematic if interpreted as inciting racial or ethnic tensions, particularly in light of the legal framework set out by the Equality Act 2010 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

Conclusion:

It is likely that the publication of this article could attract legal scrutiny. The primary risks stem from potential interpretations of the text as inciting or justifying public disorder, undermining state authority, or offending public order laws. The author’s clear statements against rioting and disorder provide some legal protection, but given the current sensitivity surrounding discussions of civil unrest and government legitimacy, there is a tangible risk that this article could be viewed unfavourably by the authorities.

Given the legal environment described in the article itself, it might be prudent to seek further legal advice before publication, particularly to assess whether any specific passages could be revised to minimise potential legal risks while still allowing for robust expression of the author’s views.