Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness D'Souza and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

My Lords, in defending freedom of expression, which often includes offensive speech, various criteria are maintained, which largely concern the context in which the speech occurs. There are two particular aspects. The first is whether the hate speech, misogynistic or otherwise, is able to be avoided. Is there a way in which the individual can avoid the speech, for example by not turning on the radio or their text messages, or whatever it might be? The second is one that has already been alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. It is the extent to which there is a direct relationship between hate speech, misogynistic speech, and actual harm coming to an individual woman.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who is to be commended on almost everything that she does, talked about protecting thoughts. In a way, what one is doing is contradicting that by saying that if someone is thinking about delivering offensive speech that will automatically, if it is expressed, lead to action. I think there is a tiny bit of confusion here. Although I will support the amendment, there is an element of curtailing freedom of speech that we ought to be mindful of.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, recently I was going home late and I got into a cab and was chatting to the cabbie. At some point he said, “Oh, you posh young birds”. It was so inappropriate on so many levels that I did not know what to do. I did not tip him, of course. It struck me that it was not necessarily offensive—but I did object to it.

I have heard today two incredibly powerful speeches in favour of the Motion, from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I do not understand why the Government have not heard this message. It is not coming from just these two people; it is coming from millions of women who experience misogyny and really do need protection. It is not enough to say, as the police often do, “Don’t wear short skirts, don’t go out after dark and don’t drink too much” and things like that. This is on a completely different level. It is about protecting women who cannot protect themselves, so I hope that the Government are listening.

I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was writing very seriously during these speeches. I hope he was making prestigious notes about what was said and how important it was, and I hope the Government are listening.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness D'Souza and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords. Clause 1 makes a neat distinction between free speech and incitement. New subsection (1A)(a) states:

“expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”.

That surely is free speech, depending on the context in which it occurs. New paragraph (b), which states,

“in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation”,

is incitement and infringes Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, the first paragraph does not because free speech must be maintained and protected, depending on the context. This of course goes back to the old adage that falsely crying “fire” in a crowded theatre is incitement, whereas to shout “fire”, falsely or otherwise, on a crowded corner is clearly not incitement because people are not in danger of violent disruption. It is important that that distinction is made in the Bill.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I start by making it clear that I am completely opposed to people encouraging the membership and support of terrorist organisations. I did not need to say that but I felt that I should.

However, Clause 1 casts the net far too wide and risks criminalising perfectly innocent behaviour. There is widespread concern in this House about the fact that it is far too wide. Therefore, my Amendments 2 and 4, alongside the other amendments in the group, seek to make this new offence a reasonable one. Without making significant changes to the clause it will be in clear breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. As currently drafted, the offence is too vague to be “in accordance with the law” and too broad to be a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim.

From the Government’s Explanatory Notes to the Bill it is clear that this clause is a response to the case of the Crown against Choudary, as we have heard, in which the Court of Appeal considered the existing Section 12 offences. The Explanatory Notes state:

“The Court of Appeal was clear that a central ingredient of the”,


existing,

“offence was inviting support from third parties for a proscribed organisation and that the offence ‘does not prohibit the holding of opinions or beliefs supportive of a proscribed organisation; or the expression of those opinions or beliefs’ ... This clause therefore provides for a new offence which criminalises the expression of an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”.

It is therefore necessary for this House to consider Clause 1 in light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Choudary.

The focus in that case was on the meaning of “inviting support” in the existing Section 12(1) offence. There were additional questions of whether that offence was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The answer to the first question meant that there was no breach, but using the court’s analysis is illuminating.

Without wanting to get into a legal wrangle, as we have done so often in the past, such as on the different between “agreement” and “consensus”, I have to explain the definition “inviting support”. The court used dictionary definitions. Inviting was taken to mean making a request; support was taken to include the provision of assistance, encouragement, advocacy and endorsement—a mix of practical, tangible and intangible support. On that basis, the court held that there was not a breach of human rights. Although the right to freedom of expression was engaged, it was a legitimate aim to restrict that right when it comes to inviting support for proscribed organisations.

Next, in accordance with jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, the court asked whether the Section 12(1) offence was a proportionate response to the legitimate aim. If it was, it was lawful; if not, it would be an unlawful breach of human rights. In paragraph 70 of its judgment, the court determined the following:

“When considering the proportionality of the interference, it is important to emphasise that the section only prohibits inviting support for a proscribed organisation with the requisite intent. It does not prohibit the expression of views or opinions, no matter how offensive, but only the knowing invitation of support from others for the proscribed organisation. To the extent that section 12(1)(a) thereby interferes with the rights protected under article 10 of the Convention, we consider that interference to be fully justified”.


This is where it becomes obvious to me that Clause 1 would be an unlawful interference in human rights. In fact, it is so obvious that I am surprised the Government could bring a clause of this sort before the House. Making a statement in the Bill that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights is plain wrong.

Clause 1 seeks to create a much broader offence than the existing statutory one but in doing so, it crosses all the red lines that were identified as making the existing offence lawful. The existing offence does not criminalise the expression of views and opinions—free speech—whereas Clause 1 does. The existing offence is limited to “support”, whereas Clause 1 uses the broader term “supportive”, and the existing offence applies only to people with the requisite intent—a guilty mind—whereas Clause 1 extends to anyone who is “reckless” whether they meant to support a terrorist group or not.

The Bill casts the net far too wide. It risks criminalising all sorts of opinions that are supportive of a proscribed organisation. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of “supportive” is something that,

“provides strength by assistance, belief, or tolerance; providing sustenance or resources; sustaining; that provides evidence or authority; confirmatory, corroborative”.

Even expressing an opinion of tolerance would fall foul of this new offence. I believe that the Government have deliberately used the broader wording, so my Amendment 2 seeks to retain the existing word “support”. I would welcome the Minister explaining the Government’s reasoning and what effect they intend by using “supportive” in its place.

My Amendment 4 aims to do the same as Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which I support and am supportive of. Casting the broad net of guilty intent in this offence over people who did not intend to encourage support will catch so many innocent people; it is just plain wrong. It would include any expression of tolerance where a person, perfectly innocently and sensibly, advocates a ceasefire and peace talks with a proscribed organisation, if that person identified the risk that someone might feel encouraged to support the organisation as a result. Put simply, Clause 1 criminalises the search for peace, makes innocent people guilty and is an unforgivable breach of our human rights. I will vote against its inclusion in the Bill.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness D'Souza and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support the amendments. I speak not as a grandmother, although I am one, but as somebody who not only voted for Brexit but campaigned for it. Therefore, I carry quite a heavy burden to help ensure that we get the best outcomes for people living in our country.

When voting to leave, no one voted to lose their rights. The amendments would ensure that the Government safeguarded the rights and protections of people as we negotiate leaving the EU. It has been hard to get much sense out of the Government about their plans for Brexit. The default message is to refer to the Prime Minister's Florence speech or Lancaster House speech, but platitudes about “getting the best deal” or “making Brexit a success” simply are not enough to guarantee that our Government do not risk undermining our basic rights and protections during the Brexit negotiations.

The Government seem unable to agree on many of the big issues and it is unclear who is in charge. In the absence of principled, clear leadership, Parliament must take the reins and do what is right for the majority of people. The amendments would protect both British citizens and EU citizens, people who have built their lives around the opportunities given to them by EU membership. They would force the Government to stop abusing our rights as a political bargaining chip. There should never have been any question over the rights of EU citizens living in this country, but our Government insisted on using our basic rights as part of their struggle to gain bargaining power in negotiations.

It is often conceived by supporters of remaining in the EU that the main motivation for Brexit is a narrow-minded, nasty little racist attitude which blames all our country’s problems on foreigners. I could not be further away from that world view, although I believe that some of the Brexiteers—I have some names here but will not read them out—and others have a lot to answer for in the way that they used migrants as scapegoats for the very real destruction that our own Government have cast upon our society with their slash-and-burn austerity measures. The Government sowed the seeds for a lot of the division and anger that prevail in our country.

I celebrate migrants and migration. Humans have always moved around as we seek opportunities and form new communities. It is an essential part of what it means to be human and without migration we would probably be stuck in isolated little groups, still using flint tools and eating with our fingers. Instead, humans have done the most astonishing things and we have all gained enormously from the massive cultural and technological growth that results from humans meeting humans and sharing ideas, cultures, stories and lifestyles. These amendments would do what is absolutely right and fair. They are about breaking Brexit away from those who espouse anti-immigrant views and saying that Brexit is about being more open, tolerant and diverse than ever before. A Brexit that cannot achieve that is not a Brexit worth having and not one that I will support.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, if there is to be a commitment to the highest standards of protection of citizens’ rights—I go back to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel—this would presumably include the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. But the Bill suggests that we omit that charter, so can the Minister say what would be the mechanism by which those charter rights would be guaranteed for EU citizens who remain resident in the UK?