Judge says cops violated free speech with ridiculous 'hate' claim

A judge has ruled that British police unlawfully interfered with the free speech of a man who opposed transgender ideology in his social-media comments.

The Christian Institute reports that Justice Julian Knowles ruled that the visit by police to the workplace of Harry Miller left the impression he could be prosecuted.

But he judged, "In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."

TRENDING: Trump at CPAC exposed Joe's form over substance

The judge added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having."

Several free-speech organizations welcomed the verdict, including the Christian Institute, whose lawyer, Pal Conrathe, explained the decision was a "strong warning to local police forces not to interfere with people's free-speech rights on matters of significant controversy."

The judge, however, did not overrule the "police guidance" under which the officers told Miller the situation was a "non-crime hate incident," and as a result, Miller is preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court.

WND reported when the case developed that police had admitted that what Miller, a former police officer, did wasn't a crime.

But they logged his actions anyway, as a "hate incident."

Christian Concern's Tim Dieppe reported Miller, a Lincoln resident and director of a company that employs about 70, one day got a call from his office saying police wanted to talk with him.

"He called the police and spoke to PC Mansoor Gull who told him that an anonymous person had reported him for hate speech. The caller had found the company he is a director of and reported that his workplace would not be a safe place for trans people," the report said.

"Gull said that he was in possession of 30 offensive tweets by Harry Miller. Miller asked if he had committed a crime. PC Gull said no. Miller then asked if any of the tweets came close to being a crime. PC Gull then read what he called a 'limerick' which Miller had re-tweeted. Miller did not even write the poem which asserts that transgender women are really men and that trans surgery is artificial. Miller then asked why PC Gull was wasting his time on a non-crime, to which PC Gull replied: 'It's not a crime, but it will be recorded as a hate incident,'" the report said.

Such an "incident" would be those events that are a "non-crime" but are thought by anyone "to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race/religion or perceived religion/sexual orientation…," the report said.

Dieppe explained, "Basically, if anyone perceives anything as a hate incident then it is a hate incident. The police will then have to record it, and there is no innocent till proven guilty. There is no proven guilty at all. In fact, there is no way to prove innocence either. Such an allegation will be recorded against you forevermore, with no recourse to fact or anything else. No matter whether the motive of the reporting person was actually hate in the first place! When Miller later asked Humberside police to remove him from their hate-crime statistics, they said they couldn’t because they were following the policing guidelines."

The report alarmingly documented that the police officer told Miller he needed to speak with him, even though there was no crime, because, "I need to check your thinking."

The officer told Miller, according to the report, "What you have to understand, Mr. Miller, is that sometimes a female brain grows with the wrong body parts and that is what being trans is."

Miller's lawsuit seeks to clear his name of a "hate incident."

The Christian Institute noted that Miller in 2018 and 2019 posted several social media statements about the Gender Recognition Act of 2004.

The judge noted in his ruling, "The effect of the police turning up at his place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom."

He continued, "I find the combination of the police visiting the claimant's place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the claimant's right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect."

Ciarán Kelly, a deputy director at The Christian Institute, said: "We’re delighted the judgment upholds freedom of speech on this contentious issue. But it needed to go further and challenge the police guidelines on recording ‘hate incidents’. We hope the Supreme Court will now do that."