In the United Kingdom, an average of 30 individuals are arrested daily for making offensive comments. Additionally, around 13,000 people each year are recorded for “non-crime hate incidents,” which can include actions as innocuous as hanging laundry that a neighbor perceives as targeting them. This situation has raised alarms about the potential for overreach in policing hate speech.

A new bill in Canada, known as C-9 or the Combatting Hate Act, proposes to grant police greater authority to determine what constitutes hate speech. The legislation aims to eliminate the requirement for the attorney general to approve hate crime charges, which supporters claim will streamline law enforcement's response to hate incidents. However, critics argue that this could undermine free speech and lead to increased prosecutions.

Joanna Baron, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, expressed concern about the implications of the bill. "Creating new offences for hate-motivated crimes and lowering safeguards like attorney general oversight is unnecessary and invites excessive prosecutions," she stated.

The issue of police intervention in hate speech cases was highlighted by a recent incident involving Deborah Anderson, a cancer patient in London. An officer visited her home due to comments she made on Facebook, which upset someone. During the encounter, Anderson challenged the officer, questioning why he was there simply because someone was offended. The officer suggested that if she admitted to the comment and apologized, it would resolve the matter. Anderson firmly refused, stating, "I’m not apologizing to anybody."

The situation escalated when the officer threatened to call her in for a voluntary interview, a tactic that has been criticized as a form of intimidation. Although the police later stated that no further action would be taken, the incident sparked outrage and drew attention to the broader implications of police involvement in regulating speech.

British lawyer Colin Wynter criticized the police's approach, arguing that they should assess the seriousness of complaints before sending officers to follow up. He emphasized that police discretion should be exercised in determining the validity of such reports.

The ongoing debate over police authority in hate speech cases raises significant questions about the balance between protecting communities and preserving free speech. As incidents like Anderson's gain attention, the conversation around the role of law enforcement in regulating speech continues to evolve.