A councillor in Bracknell has claimed freedom of speech is ‘under attack’ in a debate over the right to expression and democracy.
Representatives debated a perceived erosion of free speech at a full meeting of Bracknell Forest Council.
The Conservatives submitted a motion demanding the council uphold freedom of speech amid an investigation into Sandhurst Town councillor John Edwards for allegedly ‘stirring up racial hatred’.
Cllr Edwards has raised questions about the Grange Hotel in the town centre being used as ‘transition accommodation’ while housing is found for people who have been granted the right to stay in the UK after fleeing from Afghanistan.
Introducing the motion, cllr John Harrison (Conservative, Binfield North & Warfield West) said: “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy, without it, our ability to debate, challenge and represent our residents does not exist, and the very heart of our democratic process is silenced.
“Yet, free speech in Britain is under attack like never before, and our allies are starting to question if we are a free country.
“We have had up to 30 arrests a day for social media posts, retweets, memes or even silent prayers in this country.”
He went on to mention the arrest of Father Ted writer Graham Linehan at Heathrow Airport over allegations of a hate crime against trans people, and the case of Lucy Connolly, who was locked up for stirring up racial hatred after she posted on X/Twitter that hotels housing asylum seekers should be ‘burned down for all she cared’.
Cllr Harrison said Mrs Connolly had been “badly led” by pleading guilty. Ricky Jones, a Labour councillor in Dartford, who said “we need to cut all their throats” referring to fascists and neo nazis, pleaded innocent and was cleared of inciting violent disorder.
Provisions of the motion included an explicit protection for freedom of speech and a review of the council’s code of conduct policies.
During the debate, Stephen O’Regan (Labour, Binfield South & Jennett’s Park) said: “We shouldn’t take too many lessons from the United States about freedom of speech.
“I know that they like to quote their Constitution, but that’s not an unlimited right.
“In the US, you are not allowed to incite violence, you cannot defame people, their right to free speech is pretty well constrained as it is in most civilised democracies, as it is here.
“So I don’t think we should be listening too much to popular podcasters and politicians who come over here to lecture us on that point.”
It is unclear who cllr O’Regan was referring to. US Vice President JD Vance previously suggested free speech is under attack in the UK.
Cllr Patrick Smith (Liberal Democrats, Swinley Forest) argued freedom of speech is upheld in the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Conservatives may exit from if they return to government.
He called this “ironic”.
Cllr Smith said: “Genuine freedom has to be universal; if you want to pick and choose when, where and to whom fundamental freedoms apply, you are not advocating for human rights, only for your own.”
Agreeing, cllr Nazar Zahuruddin (Liberal Democrats, Sandhurst) said: “Let’s be honest, this motion isn’t just about free speech, it’s about creating space for views that may be lawful, yes, but also harmful or deeply offensive without recognising the real world impact they can have.”
Mary Temperton (Labour, Great Hollands), the council leader, used democratic procedure to adjust the amendment.
Her amendment stated: “This council agrees that freedom of speech is the cornerstone of democracy, as long as it is not used to incite hatred – as is the law.
“This council will uphold the standards of democracy by following the Nolan principles, our Code of Conduct – based on the Local Government Association guidance and our own Mayor’s Charter.”
Summing up, cllr Harrison said: “I think we’re being gaslighted a bit to be told that there is a lot of freedom of speech in this country.
“There’s certainly freedom of speech to call for the extermination of the Jews from the river to the sea, that seems to be alright, but questioning whether or not certain groups are getting preferential treatment seems to be something that needs to be reported ot the police.”
He added that, while he would not vote for the amendment, he was not “madly opposed to it” either.
The amendment passed with 21 councillors for it, six against and one abstention. The vote was held on Wednesday, September 10.
