Look Who it Was Random video

📺Is Freedom of Speech Under Attack in the UK?📺

4,202 views · Published 2 April 2018 · 10:56 · Indexed 30 October 2026

Channel: Jeff Taylor · 2018 · News & Politics

Watch on YouTube

PLEASE SUPPORT MY YOUTUBE WORK ON PATREON: http://bit.ly/2oUVQfm

FACEBOOK: @JeffTaylorBrexit

With recent news that Jihadi fighters could be let back into the UK for 're-integration', but young white foreign commentators have the might of anti-terrorism laws pitted against them to permanently bar them from the UK, many people have questioned whether free speech exists in the UK.

LIKE THIS? PLEASE SHARE IT using the url - https://youtu.be/-VaDxP1_-to

*SUBSCRIBE* to Jeff Taylor Here: https://goo.gl/NyzUPo

How to *SUPERCHARGE* your YouTube videos - start for FREE: http://bit.ly/2vbl9z2

Let's put one thing straight right from the start. You either have the freedom to say exactly what you want, when you want, to whom you want through any medium you want - which is free speech or more accurately free expression because it covers all types of communication, or you do not - which is controlled speech.

If the police can use the law of the land to prevent you from saying something, then you live in a land of controlled speech. Which do you think more accurately reflects the state of play in the UK today?

So let's see what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights born in 1948 from the horrors of the Second World War, says about this.

In its preamble it makes a very strong point:

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."

So the law should be there to protect our rights including that of the freedom of expression, we should not be forced into violence to protect them for ourselves - usually taking them back from the state.

And in Article 19 it says:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Seems pretty clear cut until you learn that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a UN resolution so is not binding on nations.

No, it is a sort of vision statement, a dream, an 'if the world was perfect' thing.

Then the politicians and lawyers get hold of it and produce Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and also Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of these are binding as I understand it.

Both documents start off in a similar vein to the vision put forward by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but then add on that the right of freedom of expression carries responsibilities, so it can be restricted so as to respect the rights or reputations of others and to protect such things as national security.

So already the state has the legal means it needs to control free speech for the needs of the state.

In the UK there are many laws to prevent people inciting violence or other crimes for example through expression - all seemingly sensible stuff. But at what point does mere criticism become 'hate' in the modern parlance and so then incitement?

And more importantly, who decides where those lines are drawn and who they apply to?

But there are other considerations as well.

Let's take a look at the oath that all police officers, from the chief constable down to the constable on the beat, swears to before they can be issued with their warrant card:

"I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people;

"and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

And how much should social media like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter be held accountable for any hate or incitement?

Sources:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-british-jihadis-return-uk-iraq-syria-report-islamic-state-fighters-europe-threat-debate-terror-a8017811.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/29/extremists-returning-jihadists-offered-council-house-bribes/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lauren-southern-far-right-canada-racist-calais-detain-uk-ban-enter-visa-a8254116.html

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

https://www.durham.police.uk/About-Us/Documents/Police%20attestation%20slide.pdf

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/oaths/

https://freedomhouse.org/issues/freedom-expression,

More from this channel