Let us begin with a partial shopping list of these laws, each of which can be easily found on an internet search engine:

--Parts 3 and 3A of the Public Order Act 1986

--Section 4A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

--Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003

--The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

The force of these laws have had a chilling effect on the ancient English and British traditions of free expression, the freedom of speech, the freedom to publish and the freedom to peaceably demonstrate.

They are unnecessary because in a free society, it is not the responsibility of the state to enforce any moral code. This is true of popular and righteous moral codes and it is all the more true of sectarian and grotesque mores.

For centuries, this country had one of the strongest moral codes in the world. Like the Constitution, these codes were not contained in a single corpus of law. Moreover, these codes were largely absent from the law itself. The morality of the United Kingdom was derived from the Christian values of a society that by the turn of the 20th century was prosperous, literate, pious and well mannered. No one needed to be told by a policeman or an MP when they were in the moral wrong. Families, communities, friends, publicans, school masters, shop keepers and clergy were able to perform this job without a fuss.

When governments in this country have tried to legislate moral codes through statute, one soon discovers that the opposite effect is achieved. Rather than becoming more polite, more tolerant and more well-mannered, people become more embittered, sectarian, angry, intolerant and bestial when the power of the state seeks to regulate the human conscience. Whilst Britain’s famously polite culture is often cited as something unique in the wider world, the problems of government interference in the moral life of ordinary people has the same negative effects across international borders and cultural frontiers.

It is likewise rather telling that whilst the New Labour government of Anthony Blair passed multiple pieces of legislation aimed at censorship free expression, that was also the government which got rid of ancient and scarcely invoked blasphemy laws. Most busybodies readily expose themselves as the greatest hypocrites if one is paying close attention.

These laws are bad because even if one rejects the principle of government non-interference in the conscience and public expression of individuals, it is still possible to see that these laws create problems where there are none and exacerbate problems where they exist.

The vast majority of people are not terribly bothered by the allegedly controversial speech of others. Unlike the political class and various agitation groups, most people are decent enough to follow the timeless mantra of ‘live and let live’. Politicians and those who aspire to hold public power are the hectoring busybodies. Thankfully, the majority of people are quite the opposite – they are polite and tolerant.

Moreover, most allegedly controversial speech is entirely unknown to the wider public apart from the obsessive types that stalk social media with the intention of finding something over which to feign offence. If the story stopped here, one could say that there is no such thing as bad publicity for those found guilty by the mob of “speaking offensively”. But when the force of law is on the side of the stalkers, the trolls, the bullies and the busybodies, rather than on the side of those who would wish to live and let live, one clearly is dealing with very bad law indeed.

Fake morality is often the last refuge of the contemporary scoundrel. Such people prey upon the good nature of the majority of people who quite rightly want to see more tolerance and less bigotry, more politeness and less chaos, more social harmony and less sectarianism. And yet, the laws and customs that our modern political censors enforce are nothing of the sort. They criminalise expression rather than protect it, they seek to put people into monolithic groups rather than grant them the dignity and autonomy of the individual, they seek to pit people against each other rather than to encourage the calm that is the product of critical thinking, creativity and curiosity.

Repealing laws which criminalise free expression is the clearest path away from the road to intellectual and spiritual serfdom. Moreover, if the political class bothered to talk about how free speech creates tolerance, social harmony and good manners, perhaps the mobs emboldened by censorious politicians might think twice before embarking on the road to social destruction which for the bully, is too often rewarded first with fame, then with wealth and finally with political power.

There is no place for the hatred of the mob in a civilised country. Freedom is the only way to keep things civilised and indeed, the only way to keep things civil.