Arrested for praying? Justice has finally been done, but the fight isn’t over

In the UK our freedom of speech is one of the most central and cherished aspects of our society. Over the centuries many battles – sometimes literal ones – have been fought to ensure that we are free to speak.

Our free speech isn’t restricted because others disagree with it, or as Lord Justice Sedley said in a highly influential court judgment: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom to only speak inoffensively is not worth having.”

I should therefore be celebrating the £13,000 payout to the Christian campaigner Isabel Vaughan-Spruce following her arrest, prosecution and acquittal (twice) for silently praying outside an abortion clinic. This is a victory for common sense, and a recognition that the law does protect our freedoms. In many cases where Christians are arrested while engaged in similar activities or street preaching, the charges are often dropped, the cases do not make it to court, or if they do they are found not-guilty. That is a reminder of the strength of our legal system and the rights it protects.

But my excitement at this news is heavily tempered by concern about how freedom of speech could be curtailed in the coming years. The last government passed a law creating buffer zones around abortion clinics, and while their draft guidance exempted silent prayer, the new government are likely to publish final guidance in the coming months which could criminalise the very behaviour that Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was wrongly arrested and now compensated for.

It’s not the only area Christians should be concerned about. In its attempt to address violent extremism the government may be about to pass new laws that have the consequence of criminalising some speech. 

There are two areas of particular concern. First, during the passage of the Online Safety Act consideration was given to including a responsibility on companies to restrict legal but “harmful” content. This wasn’t included in the final wording of the law, primarily for the very reason that concerns me – how do you define what counts as “harmful”, and how do you do it in such a way that doesn’t incentivise companies – in particular internet platforms – from restricting in broader and censorious ways? 

The second area of concern is the revisiting of what counts as extremism. In 2017 the Evangelical Alliance joined with other Christian groups to commission polling on what people considered extremist. 28 per cent said that Jesus was an extremist and 36 per cent said it was extreme to think the UK should leave the EU. It was clear then and is clear now, that the label of extremism is an unhelpful tool in fostering a tolerant and plural society.

The suggestion that a broad definition of extremism could be used to shut down ideas, is one we should all resist. Not only would it lead to an overly sanitised and unhealthy society, but it would foster the undercurrents of dissent which threaten our communities.

We should use our freedom of speech and hold tightly to the protection of it. We should also stand with those whom we disagree fundamentally and protect their speech, just as we want ours safeguarded.