Full transcript
0:00There are two fairly alarming things
0:01that I need to talk to you about in this
0:02video. Alarming because they have the
0:04potential to affect everybody in this
0:06country. And I'm not talking about the
0:08fact that I'm back in a sweater because
0:09it's too cold again this morning and I'm
0:10fearful that summer is nearly over.
0:12But first of all, the government leaflet
0:15to asylum seekers contained this bit
0:18that said do not photograph or film
0:20people in public, which in a broad sense
0:22is legally wrong, but it raises an alarm
0:25bell, which I'll come back to in the
0:26second half of the video. And secondly,
0:29there is the story from Free Speech
0:31Union, who is now defending people who
0:34have been charged with offenses because
0:37they were holding up a sign that said,
0:40and I quote, F star star star Islam
0:44during the Unite the Kingdom rally. So,
0:46we'll talk about that in this video as
0:48well because in effect, that means that
0:51blasphemy laws are essentially creeping
0:53back into reality for the UK.
0:57Even though we got rid of them 18 years
0:59ago for very good So, I'll discuss that
1:01in this video as well. And before we get
1:03going, please do support the channel and
1:04subscribe. About half of you still don't
1:06do that, and I would appreciate it if
1:08you did. Thank you so much indeed. Let's
1:10take a look at this. So, Free Speech
1:12Union, which I strongly suggest you
1:14join, by the way, I'm a gold member.
1:16Free Speech Union reports that Britain's
1:19blasphemy laws are being revived
1:22effectively, but for Islam alone.
1:25Now, I'll make my caveat at the
1:26beginning of this video, which I always
1:27do, that I do not support or encourage
1:31people being hateful and disrespectful
1:33and so on. That is just not me. I am
1:35here to tell you what the law is and the
1:37law is not. So, please do see the
1:39distinction between them. But we do not
1:42have blasphemy laws in the UK any
1:45longer. We [snorts] got rid of those. We
1:47abolished all offenses for blasphemy in
1:492008.
1:50And in fact, in the Public Order Act, we
1:53specifically and expressly protect
1:56criticism of religion.
1:58So, how on earth are these people being
2:01charged with anything at all?
2:03Let's read on. So, two protesters have
2:05been arrested for holding these signs
2:07for potential breaches under the Public
2:09Order Act 1986,
2:11potentially with religious aggravation.
2:14The Free Speech Union and Big Brother
2:16Watch are united in opposing the police
2:19decision to arrest and investigate these
2:21two individuals.
2:23In a legal letter sent to the Crown
2:24Prosecution Service, the Free Speech
2:26Union and Big Brother Watch argue that
2:28it is not an offense to oppose any
2:30religion, whether Islam, Christianity,
2:32or other, nor is an offense to simply
2:35express hostility towards a religion.
2:37They say, "We also point out that there
2:39is no blasphemy law in this country
2:42after Parliament abolished the offenses
2:44of blasphemy in 2008, and that there is
2:46no right not to be offended." Lord Young
2:49said, "Criticizing a religion, however
2:51robustly, is not a criminal offense in
2:54this country, and nor is breaching a
2:57religion's blasphemy code." The Free
2:59Speech Union would also come to the
3:01defense of anyone being investigated for
3:03holding a sign that said, "F
3:04Christianity or F Buddhism."
3:07This case further highlights the plight
3:09of free speech in Britain today. A
3:11recent poll of Liberty found that a
3:13majority of Britons, 51%, believe their
3:16free speech rights have been eroded
3:18since Labour came to government in July
3:192024. And there is an article discussing
3:22this more detail in the Telegraph. But,
3:26[snorts] let's look at the law, shall
3:28we? Because is Lord Young right here to
3:31say that there is no such offense? Okay,
3:33just for a moment I'd like to get
3:35personal. Now, I don't often get
3:36personal on this channel, but here goes.
3:39So, first of all, it came to my
3:40attention the other day that some people
3:42think that BlackBeltBarrister is just a
3:43play on words. It's not just a play on
3:46words, I am actually a black belt. I've
3:48been a black belt for many, many years.
3:51I've trained in martial arts for over 30
3:52years. And so, what that means is I like
3:55to take care of myself both health-wise,
3:57fitness-wise, and all of that sort of
3:59stuff. So, well over 3 years ago now,
4:01believe it or not, I gave up alcohol
4:03completely. But, that meant that I was a
4:05bit bored in the evening. Water became
4:07boring, soft drinks became boring, tea I
4:10just wasn't great in the evening. So,
4:11then I came across a company called
4:13Huel. They reached out to me to produce
4:15iced teas, energy drinks, and hydration
4:18drinks. And honestly, I am still
4:20drinking those today. And they do a
4:23whole range of different flavors. They
4:25are full of vitamins and antioxidants,
4:27and they are genuinely really delicious
4:29drinks. I have this with me every day.
4:32It ensures that I drink a lot of water
4:34throughout the day, and it just tastes
4:37amazing. And it really has made this
4:40journey of not drinking any alcohol
4:42completely easy, because throughout the
4:44evening, there's a load of different
4:47iced teas and other drinks that I can
4:49have throughout the evening. But, also
4:51they do milkshakes, which I actually
4:53use, I'll give you a secret, I actually
4:55use it to make flavored lattes. Now,
4:58it's supposed to be a milkshake, it's
4:59fantastic as a milkshake, but this is
5:01the hazelnut one which I put in my
5:03coffee, which makes the most amazing
5:06hazelnut coffee you've ever tried.
5:08Unless you've tried it, you've no idea
5:10how amazing it is. My favorite one of
5:12these is the hazelnut, and my favorite
5:14one of these is the strawberry and kiwi.
5:16But, they do a whole range of different
5:18flavors. You will find something for
5:19you. They do different flavors
5:21throughout the year. They are just
5:22amazing. And if you use my code BARISTA,
5:24you will get 10% off your entire order
5:26and your ongoing order, which is a
5:28fantastic deal. If you've never tried
5:30them before, I suggest you go with a
5:32starter set deluxe, which comes with a
5:33free shaker as well. And if you want a
5:36straightforward £5 discount, you can use
5:39BARISTA5 to get £5 off your order, so
5:42you can just bring the price down a
5:43little bit and give them a try. And give
5:45them a try, you absolutely should. So,
5:48I'm genuinely grateful to Holy. They
5:49have really, genuinely changed my life.
5:52Cheers. Is Lord Young right here to say
5:55that there is no such offense
5:58under the Public Order Act? So, as a
5:59broad statement, before I look at the
6:01specific offenses, there is no generic
6:03offense of blasphemy in the Public Order
6:06Act. There just There just isn't one,
6:08expressly or otherwise. There are There
6:09are only certain offenses that might be
6:12racially motivated, which is not the
6:14same thing as a blasphemy offense. There
6:17just isn't one in the Public Order Act.
6:19So, let's take the relevant offenses
6:21under the Public Order Act one by one.
6:23We have the Section 4 offense, which is
6:25fear or provocation of violence, where a
6:27person is guilty of an offense if he
6:29uses towards another person threatening,
6:30abusive, or insulting words or behavior,
6:33or distributes writing, signs, etc. with
6:35the intent to cause that person to
6:37believe that immediate unlawful violence
6:39will be used against him or another
6:41person, or to provoke the immediate use
6:43of unlawful violence, etc. And so, to
6:45charge anyone under Section 4, they must
6:47show that whatever it was they were
6:49accused of doing was with the intent to
6:51cause that person to believe that
6:53immediate unlawful violence will be used
6:55against him or another by any person, or
6:58to provoke the immediate use, etc. Next,
7:00we have the 4A offense, which is
7:02intentional harassment, alarm, or
7:04distress. There are two bits that make
7:06this difficult to charge. One is that
7:09there must actually and factually be
7:11harassment, alarm, or distress. And
7:13secondly, it must be proved that it was
7:15intentional.
7:16So, a person is guilty of an offense if,
7:18with intent to cause a person
7:20harassment, alarm, or distress, he uses
7:22threatening, abusive, or insulting words
7:24or behavior, or disorderly behavior, or
7:26any sign, etc. thereby causing that
7:29person harassment, alarm, or distress.
7:31So, they must prove both harassment,
7:32alarm, or distress and the intent to
7:35cause it. So, that is more difficult to
7:37charge. Then, we have the Section 5
7:39offense, which is an easier charge than
7:41Section 4A because it lacks the intent
7:44aspect and it lacks the factual aspect,
7:46but it does make the words or behavior
7:49more difficult to prove. This was the
7:52charge they run with in the Hamit Coskun
7:54case. That's where he was originally
7:56found guilty for, if you recall, burning
7:58the Quran and shouting the same thing,
8:01but then that conviction was quashed by
8:03the Crown Court. DPP appealed to the
8:06High Court and the High Court said, "No,
8:08we agree with the Crown Court that just
8:10wasn't an offense." And I'll show you
8:11that in a moment. But that was the
8:13section 5 offense here, which is
8:15harassment alarm or distress, but
8:17without the intent and without actual
8:20harassment alarm or distress. This is
8:22where a person's guilty of an offense if
8:23they use threatening or abusive words or
8:25behavior. Note that the insulting bit
8:27has been dropped, thus making that more
8:30difficult to prove, or displays any
8:32signs, writing, etc. within the hearing
8:35or sight of a person likely to be caused
8:37harassment alarm or distress.
8:39So, it is a more difficult proof of the
8:41abusive or threatening words or
8:43behavior. So, abusive is more than
8:46insulting. It is more than upsetting and
8:48is more than offensive. Abusive is quite
8:51a strong word. And threatening is quite
8:53clear. Um so, [snorts] you know, there
8:55must be an actual threat made. So, the
8:58only real way that this could be charged
9:00here is that they are arguing that it is
9:02abusive words or behavior within the
9:04hearing or sight of a person who is
9:07likely to be caused harassment alarm or
9:09distress thereby. But before I show you
9:11the High Court judgment in the Hamit
9:12Coskun case, I'll just show you 29J of
9:15part 3A.
9:17Part 3A is intentional stirring up of
9:21hatred against people on religious
9:23grounds. However, 29J makes it expressly
9:27clear that nothing in that part, as you
9:30can read here, nothing in that part of
9:33intentionally stirring up hatred against
9:35people on religious grounds. Nothing
9:38restricts discussion, criticism,
9:40expressions of antipathy, dislike,
9:42ridicule, insult, or abuse
9:45of particular religions or the beliefs
9:47or practices of the adherents of the
9:49people. So, anything to do with
9:51criticizing the religion itself, even if
9:54it is just criticism, discussion,
9:56expressions of antipathy, dislike,
9:59ridicule, insult, or abuse, they are all
10:02expressly protected and carved out of
10:05part 3A, which is the intentional
10:08stirring up of hatred against people on
10:10religious grounds. So, this is the High
10:12Court judgment in the Hamit Coskun case.
10:14Now, you'll see here, if you care to
10:16pause and read it, the facts of the case
10:19are very broadly similar
10:21in that he was burning the religious
10:23book and shouting similar things. Now,
10:25to be clear, I don't support burning
10:27religious books of any kind. That is not
10:30who I am, so I don't support and
10:31advocate for doing that, but that
10:33doesn't mean that it's an offense. So,
10:35I'll tell you what the law is or is not.
10:38So, you can see here that this was
10:39charged as a section 5 harassment,
10:41alarm, or distress charge that I've just
10:44explained because the others wouldn't
10:45have been appropriate. And if we skip to
10:47the end here, paragraph 29, we can see a
10:50summary here. So, stripped to its
10:52essentials, the DPP's case is that the
10:54Crown Court, having correctly directed
10:56itself as to the relevant law, was not
10:58entitled to reach the conclusions it
11:00did, i.e. that it wasn't an offense. The
11:02only conclusion rationally it on the
11:05evidence was that the respondent's was
11:07shown to the criminal standard of proof
11:09to be both disorderly and likely to
11:11cause harassment, alarm, or distress
11:13within the meaning of section 5.
11:15However, when you skip to the end,
11:16you'll see that the court said, "Having
11:17considered with care the DPP's
11:19submissions about the Crown Court's
11:20seven reasons, we conclude that these
11:23are essentially no more than
11:25counterarguments offering a different
11:26perspective or a different approach to
11:28the facts and circumstances of the case.
11:31And ultimately, for these reasons, our
11:33answer to the question posed in the case
11:35stated is yes, and the appeal is
11:37dismissed. And so, coming back to the
11:39Free Speech Union case here, and the two
11:41protesters who've been arrested, without
11:43making conclusions or making statements
11:44of fact here, I've just explained the
11:46law as to the only offenses that they
11:48could be investigated for, the
11:50similarities with the Costigan case, and
11:53what the court said in that case. And
11:55that is why Free Speech Union here is,
11:57in my view, correctly challenging both
11:59of these investigations. And now, very
12:01briefly, otherwise this video will be
12:02far too long, lots of people have asked
12:04me about this particular leaflet here,
12:06which I didn't really address in my
12:07previous video. I didn't really see the
12:09need to, but I think I will here,
12:11because remember this leaflet, and the
12:13others like it, are directly aimed at
12:16asylum seekers. Indeed, they are labeled
12:18asylum consequences of behavior, and
12:21they are a guide to behavior for asylum
12:23seekers. There is no question at whom
12:26these leaflets are directed. And it says
12:29here, "Do not photograph or film people
12:32in public." Now, that might well just be
12:33a statement discouraging them to film or
12:36photograph people in public,
12:38but it is not an offense, in general, to
12:41film or photograph people in public. But
12:44then, of course, there is a bit of text
12:45which is somewhat enlightening as to why
12:47they might have put this leaflet out. It
12:50says, "In the UK, you should not take
12:52pictures or videos of someone without
12:54their permission." Now, that is legally
12:56wrong as a broad statement, because
12:58there is no law that says you cannot
13:00take pictures or video of someone in a
13:02public place without their permission.
13:05Whether you should do so or not is
13:06another question. You know, there there
13:08is always a question about it. There's a
13:10reasonable expectation of privacy. So,
13:12there have been cases where the courts
13:14have found that there was a reasonable
13:16expectation of privacy, and thus it
13:18might be a breach of various bits of
13:19law, including the Data Protection Act,
13:22and various things, you know, it might
13:23be harassment, it might be all sorts of
13:25unwanted conduct. Um
13:27>> [snorts]
13:27>> depending on the type of pictures and
13:28photos that you take as well.
13:30Um so broadly speaking, it's not an
13:32offense and there's no law against it,
13:35but it does depend on the circumstances.
13:37But this goes even further and says this
13:38includes taking pictures or videos in
13:40public spaces like streets and parks and
13:43in private spaces like a home.
13:45And now this gives us the reason why
13:48this leaflet has had to come out because
13:50against the backdrop that it is
13:52generally not an offense to film or
13:54photograph someone in public, generally
13:56in a park while you're walking around.
13:59Obviously, there have been stories of um
14:02women and girls and children being
14:04filmed and photographed in parks and
14:07even in their own home and things like
14:08this. And then the bit below it, sharing
14:11sexual pictures or videos of someone
14:12without their permission being a serious
14:14crime. That makes it quite obvious as to
14:16why they deemed this leaflet necessary.
14:19Because whilst it is not an offense
14:21generally to photograph or film people
14:23in public, they obviously felt it
14:25necessary due to the behavior that's
14:26been reported and they want to tell them
14:28not to do it. If anything, that just
14:31proves that they know this is a risk,
14:33they know that it's happening and I
14:35think they need to take other steps.
14:37Leaflets are not going to cut it. If
14:39someone is going to break into this
14:40country illegally and then do this kind
14:42of thing, a leaflet's not going to make
14:44any difference. Now as I said in my
14:45previous video, I do think it's better
14:47that they give them these leaflets than
14:49not, but ultimately, I don't think it's
14:51going to do anything and I think they
14:52need to take much bolder steps than just
14:55leaflets to sort this problem out.
14:56Again, politely and respectfully leave
14:58me your comments in the box below and as
15:00always, thank you for watching.