Jewish groups welcome proposed hate crime measures despite concerns over free speech

“We are carefully considering how best to protect individuals and communities from hate whilst also balancing the need to protect the fundamental right to free speech.”

The first part of the statement echoes Labour’s election manifesto that explicitly pledged to “reverse the Conservatives’ decision to downgrade the monitoring of antisemitic and Islamophobic hate”.

In March last year, then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman took the decision to change police guidance on non-crime hate incidents because of worries that authorities were overstepping the mark when it came to freedom of expression.

At the time, she expressed concern “about reports of the police wrongly getting involved in lawful debate in this country,” adding: “We have been clear that in recording so called non-crime hate incidents, officers must always have freedom of expression at the forefront of their minds.”

Many Jewish communal organisations were pleased with the reports.

A Community Security Trust (CST) spokesperson told the JC: “Sharing antisemitic incident data with police is an important part of our work in ensuring that the police have a full understanding of antisemitic activity and can anticipate potential increases in community tension.

“As long as appropriate safeguards are put in place to avoid vexatious complaints and prevent the permanent recording of irrelevant reports, this proposal ought to enhance the police’s ability to keep track of levels and patterns of antisemitism.”

Danny Stone, director of the Antisemitism Policy Trust also welcomed the move: “We have sought to highlight the value of non-crime hate incidents for many years, and stressed their importance to the last government. It is therefore very welcome news that the Home Secretary is listening to the concerns that we and others have raised and is seeking to put victims at the heart of her approach to tackling hate across the UK.”

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism was also sympathetic but criticised the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for inaction on antisemitism: “We welcome the new Government's interest in this area and look forward to their proposals for tackling the unprecedented levels of antisemitism.

“Police forces are, by and large, good at recording antisemitic hate crime, in contrast to the CPS, which continues not to publish statistics for antisemitic hate crime prosecutions, despite repeatedly promising to do so.”

The CAA, had been “calling for transparency at the CPS for years now, and the new government can step in to finally bring it about. Without this information, the Jewish community and wider public cannot hold the criminal justice system to account."

In 2022, despite outrage from many in the Jewish community and then-Justice Minister Mike Freer, the CPS dropped charges against two individuals who drove cars draped in the Palestinian flag through heavily Jewish areas of north London as part of a convoy, from which shouts could be heard, “ “F*** the Jews… Rape their daughters”.

Despite the broad communal welcome for the reported proposals, some have urged caution about an influx of measures that, they argue, unecessarily further restrict freedom of expression.

As with the government’s decision to pause the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, the decision was welcomed by Jewish communal organisations, in that case, the Union of Jewish Students and the Board of Deputies.

However, Cambridge University Professor David Abulafia, who wrote in the JC last week and disagreed with the approach taken by UJS and the Board, had similar reservations about the suggested approach to hate crimes.

He told the JC: “People must be held accountable for statements that intimidate and threaten, which is not nowadays always happening, particularly in relation to antisemitism. But hurt feelings are not a police matter, and must be countered by intelligent explanation and open debate, not by thought control.”

Toby Young, director of the Free Speech Union (FSU), a membership organisation that campaigns for free speech, told the JC that despite the instruction by Suella Braverman to only record non-crime hate incidents sparingly, police had not slowed down. He claimed that, according to data from the FSU, since 2014 around a quarter of a million non-crime hate incidents had been recorded – more than 65 a day.

The use of non-crime hate incidents had not, he said, “prevented the surge in antisemitic incidents since October 7, so I doubt recording even more, if that's what Yvette Cooper wants, will make any difference.”

He continued, “My objection to them, though, is not that they don't appear to have any impact on hate incidents or hate crimes. Rather, it's to the fact that people are being punished – non-crime hate incidents can show up on enhanced criminal records checks and stop you getting a job – for committing non-crimes.

“If the Labour government wants more people to be punished for being antisemitic or Islamophobic, it should bring forward a bill to achieve that and that can then be debated in parliament. Trying to go about this in an extra-judicial way is underhand and undemocratic.

“It's as if this government really, really hates free speech, but doesn't want to legislate against it because it knows that would be unpopular so it's trying to erode it in sneaky ways behind the scenes. We mustn't let it get away with this.”