Harrison Griffiths on why we should never underestimate the far-reaching consequences of seemingly small rights violations.
Whichever part of the world you live in, your political system is probably heavily influenced by Serious Sensible Centrists. This label encompasses political, academic, and media elites from a wide range of backgrounds. But one thing unifies them all—they are prisoners of the Overton Window. They outsource the boundaries of acceptable opinion to others and sneer at those proposing bold, novel ideas. They tend to look down on those who hold consistent principles. To them, signalling pragmatism and ‘maturity’ matters above all else.
Their term ‘slippery slope fallacy’ is a perfect manifestation of their mindset. When governments implement seemingly small, pragmatic infringements on our liberties, the Serious Sensible Centrists are on hand to dismiss those warning about the long-term consequences—smirking at us like a parent might smirk at their ‘edgy’ teenager’s rebellious fashion choices.
But far from being a fallacy, slippery slope arguments are all too often prophecies. Britain is proving it.
Freedom of speech in the UK is in a dire state. In early March, a man was arrested in London for holding a sign that said Hamas is a terrorist group—a view which happens to be the British state’s official policy. In the same week, a Christian street preacher had his signs stolen from him by an angry mob. Rather than protect his right to peacefully express his opinions, the Police issued him with a warning not to preach sermons which had not been pre-approved by local authorities.
These are just two examples in the long-running decline of freedom of expression in the UK, one which only seems likely to advance further. The government is currently considering broadening the already vague definition of ‘extremism’ in UK law in response to protests about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. The opposition Labour Party, which is all but certain to gain power later this year—have pledged a vague ban on ‘conversion therapy’ which may criminalise those counselling people against gender conversion.
Free speech in Britain has not died in authoritarian fervour—it’s died with a slow whimper. Well-intentioned laws passed in the mid-1980s to prohibit the most repugnant types of speech have only served to lubricate the slippery slope that we’ve been sliding down ever since.
Most people in Britain consider hateful speech inspired by racism, sexism, homophobia, and the like to be beyond the pale. They are absolutely right to do so. But when the government started to coercively enforce that preference, it did three dangerous things:
Firstly, it denied those people their right to peaceful free expression. No matter how repugnant their words are, they still maintain that right. If we don’t like what they have to say, there are peaceful means we can employ to tackle them. But nobody has the right to use violence in response to words.
Secondly, the law’s provisions are vague and broad. This gifts law enforcers wide scope to interpret them. Whether through malice, bad incentives, or poor judgement, this will inevitably lead to abuses. Take Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which criminalises the digital exchange of ‘grossly offensive’ messages. With laws like that, it’s no wonder we’ve seen cases like the arrest of Count Dankula for posting a satirical video of his dog performing a fascist salute, or of a woman in Liverpool who was convicted for reciting the lyrics of a rap.
“You might not like smoking or smokers, but unless your lifestyle resembles that of a Tibetan monk, they’ll come after your preferred indulgence at some point.”
Thirdly—and most importantly—when a government crosses the clear, principled boundaries of individual rights, it gives itself the power to decide the scope of that right in the future. In the 1980s, the government may have intended that power only to be used against advocates of race conflict. Fast forward to 2024 and pro-life advocates, religious conservatives, pro-Israel protesters, pro-Palestine protesters, feminist campaigners, gender-critical voices, and many more have been silenced by the British state’s censorship.
In January 2023, the leader of the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, asked Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to reconsider plans to introduce so-called ‘buffer zones’ around abortion clinics. Within these areas, people suspected of activity opposing abortion (even if that only comes in the form of silently praying) risk arrest.The Prime Minister responded, “Of course we believe in freedom of religion, belief and expression in this country, but we are also balancing that with the rights of women to seek legal and safe abortions.”
Speech is not violence. A person’s words cannot impede access to abortion and do not need to be balanced with any other right. When the government has the power to define the scope of a right, it will inevitably propagate nonsensical justifications for restricting it.
The slippery slope effect in the UK can also be seen when it comes to lifestyle freedom. When the indoor smoking ban came into effect in 2007, The Guardian’s Simon Hoggart wrote: “This is not a freedom issue. It is no stride on the long march to serfdom.”
“Don’t be deterred from standing up for the freedoms of unpopular people. If we give them an inch, they will take a mile. ”
The 17 years since have seen an onslaught of ratcheting regulations on the right to smoke. Sin taxes have ramped up, plain packaging regulations have been passed, and now a Conservative government has made Britain the only country in the world to pursue a gradual, but ultimately total, prohibition on tobacco products.
Smokers are an unpopular minority in Britain. This made them an easy testing ground for nanny statism. But it hasn’t ended there; the same techniques and ideas used in the war on smoking are also being employed in the wars on sugar, fat, and vaping. You might not like smoking or smokers, but unless your lifestyle resembles that of a Tibetan monk, they’ll come after your preferred indulgence at some point.
The decline of the freedoms of speech and lifestyle in the UK clearly demonstrates that the slippery slope is no fallacy. Liberals and our allies were right to warn that even small impositions on the liberties of some unpopular group of people will inevitably take us down a far more sinister road.
So wherever you’re from, no matter how hostile the environment for liberty, don’t be afraid to make arguments based on principle. Don’t be deterred from standing up for the freedoms of unpopular people. If we give them an inch, they will take a mile.
This piece first appeared in print in the Fearless for Freedom Issue.
