Introducing the term “freedom-restricting harassment” (FRH), Sara Khan, the Independent Adviser to Government for Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience, finds that threatening, abusive and intimidating behaviour directed at people because of their views is “shockingly widespread” both online and in real life. 85% of people surveyed believe FRH takes place and 76% report having restricted their expression of personal views in public for fear of such harassment.
The government published her report on 25 March.
She cites journalists, arts and culture workers, teachers and local faith leaders under fire because they challenge or refuse to comply with bigots.
A Batley teacher went into hiding in March 2021 after a campaign of threats and intimidation directed at him for the use of a cartoon in a religious studies lesson. Despite the fact that the lesson and scheme of work had been approved by the school and used before, the school apologised and the teacher remains in hiding three years later.
In Oldham, Khan says, conspiracy theories are “having a serious effect on the functioning of local democracy and restricting the ability of existing and potential future council leaders and senior officials to carry out their democratic mandate”.
In Barrow-in Furness, false claims of rape and trafficking by an Asian grooming gang created huge community tensions before they were exposed.
It would be foolish for the left to deny there is a problem. None of the examples cited is frivolous or unimportant.
The responsibility of the current Tory government is, however, never properly recognised in the report. While the impact of the cost-of-living crisis is referred to, it’s treated as if it is a force of nature which those who want to sow communal and other divisions simply exploit.
But the poverty, disadvantage and disillusion that follow from it are the direct result of at least 14 years of government austerity and attacks on public services. And the government is a key player in the exploitation of the economic and social grievances it has itself generated.
Having thrown greater numbers of people into poverty and despair its leading spokespeople have been relentless in blaming migrants, refugees, foreigners, local councils and anyone standing up for the rights of the marginalised (“the woke brigade”) for social problems.
Even when forced to be critical of open hate speech by its own side (Lee Anderson, Frank Hester) the government has refused repeatedly and pointedly to use the term racism to describe the offending behaviour.
The Report is most clear in saying that neither the government nor the other parties seem to have a coherent strategy on this.
Khan calls, among other things, for the establishment of an Office for Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience and a five-year plan to promote cohesion and recognition for victims which would include support by the Victims’ Commissioner. Such things may even have helped some of the victims cited, not least the beleaguered Batley teacher, but they are largely bureaucratic, as the recommendations of official reports generally are.
A lot of Khan’s report and recommendations point to the need to promote social cohesion and respect for a democratic culture at local level, but Tory cuts have led to a situation where one in five English councils face bankruptcy and all are prioritising statutory responsibilities and cutting or abandoning all other services.
Unless the fundamental causes are acknowledged and we have a labour movement and a government prepared to start tackling them, this report is likely to be just another opportunity for politicians and commentators to cherry-pick the examples of divisive behaviour that most suit their pre-conceived agenda and demand that the state do “something”.
That “something” invariably means more repression, control and censorship.