I was pleasantly surprised this morning to find when I opened up the page of The Critic magazine, which is something I do when I have my first morning coffee, to find two solid writers dishing it out to some rather iffy groups. The article concerns the rather sinister Independent Advisory Group on ‘hate crime’ and their links to and influence over government.

The two writers behind this piece Richard Norrie who is a researcher from Civitas and Hardeep Singh who has written for the Telegraph are solid credible people and I’m really pleased to see such individuals taking an interest in the groups that make up the Independent Advisory Group.

Mr Norrie and Mr Singh said:

The Independent Advisory Group (IAG) on hate crime is a group of advisors from charities and academia, who provide advice on hate crime, and has included groups like Stonewall and Tell MAMA. This might be thought of as the SAGE of hate crime. There are scant details publicly available but the group has existed since around 2007, and has sat in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. 

The problem is some groups involved derive income in part from policy they provide advice upon, bringing into question their independence. For instance, Galop is represented in the group (as of March 2021) and received £1.2 million since 2016/17 from the Home Office for work including tackling hate crime. Tell MAMA received £4 million over the last five years. The Community Security Trust receives about £14 million each year, while Stonewall has recommended its controversial “Diversity Champions” scheme as a way to fight hate crime. The Home Office is still a member, paying £3,000 each year.

Mr Norrie and Mr Singh are correct to raise questions about the independence of the groups that make up this IAG. Take the Community Security Trust for example. They used to be a brilliant group providing security advice and personnel to protect Jewish synagogues and other Jewish communal property. They were mostly funded by the Jewish community itself via donations and bequests and were as far as I was concerned notably non-political. Their job was to keep Jews safe and it didn’t matter to them whether or not the Jew was politically Left or like myself politically Right. However after they started to take money from the Government they started to get more political and more on the side of the Diversity, Equality and Inclusion cultists. They got so political that I felt that I could no longer trust their impartiality and as they were cooperating with and working with groups that I have a political dispute with, that when my son had a Jewish lifecycle event I eschewed the chance to have the CST provide the sadly necessary security for the event and instead hired a private security guard to provide security.

Mr Norrie and Mr Singh also said that the idea behind the IAG’s came from a good place, the desire for increased trust between minorities and the policing and justice systems. The problem is, as the authors of the Critic piece says is that there is a massive lack of transparency with regards to the membership of the IAG and its membership is somewhat of a monothought clique. There are as the authors pointed out no representation for those who are sceptical of the whole concept of ‘hate crimes’.

Mr Norrie and Mr Singh continued:

IAGs were initially set up based on recommendations of the Macpherson report — the idea was to foster trust with independent observers of state activity, and for the state to have advice to inform policy, procedure, and intelligence for major incidents. It’s difficult to argue with the founding principles behind IAGs, but the lack of openness is self-defeating. 

Its membership was obtained by a FOI disclosure in March 2021, so we cannot say for sure who currently sits on the group. Some groups represented are inter-related, such as Faith Matters and Tell MAMA. Five members have all published articles in the same book, implying something of a clique. There are no representatives of Christian, Sikh or Hindu groups either. Most notable is the absence of any known hate crime sceptics, such as Harry Miller. While the group genuinely will have something to offer, “hate crime” is controversial for many.

I completely agree with the authors that the impetus for setting up the IAG came from a good place, the desire for everyone no matter who they are, to be treated equally by the state. However I’m also equally concerned that at the time the FOI disclosure was made there was no Christian, Sikh or Hindu representation nor any input from those who might ask awkward questions of how the ‘hate crime’ system runs. There doesn’t even seem to be any representation from the broader Jewish community, just the CST. Where are for example the representatives of the Haredi Jews who of late have suffered an enormous amount of Jew hatred sometimes from members of the Muslim community primarily because they are identifiable by dress and habit as Jews?

A matter that the authors raise that should give concern is how members of the IAG are being given access to Government ministers, ostensibly to give ‘training’ to them but which could end up with ministers being given a one sided and biased account of ‘hate crime’ matters. It is indeed worrying that groups that are politically controversial such as Stonewall are being given access to ministers in order to influence them via the IAG.

Of especial concern to me is the censorious attitude of some IAG members and their hostility towards freedom of speech recorded by the authors of this Critic piece. The authors managed to obtain heavily redacted copies of some minutes of the IAG and they show that this group is hostile to free speech.

Mr Norrie and Mr Singh said:

The minutes show the group discussing more nebulous concepts such as “hateful extremism” and “hate”, shorn of any crime. The minutes reference a pan-European approach, “which highlighted a long-standing commitment to criminalise racial hate”. This alarmingly shows non-elected individuals entertaining ideas of regulating thought and speech.

Very alarming indeed. But things get worse. The IAG also are supportive of pro-censorship groups like Stop Funding Hate which this particular blog has written about extensively before and which I see as a danger to free speech. Mr Norrie and Mr Singh added that one of the things that the pro-censorship groups associated with the IAG want to achieve is an amendment to the Editors Code that may well make it impossible for newspapers to discuss matters such as grooming gangs, Islamic extremism or anything negative about the Cult of Trans.

On the subject of the IAG inviting in pro-censorship types and seemingly approving of them Mr Norrie and Mr Singh said:

The group will also invite in external organisations. One such group appears to be Media Diversity, which raised how the existing guidelines used by IPSO to regulate the print media were insufficient to censor Rod Liddle for an offensive joke. The media spreading “hate” was discussed, with the work of the campaign group Stop Funding Hate noted. This is entertaining ideas of controlling a free media, undertaken by unelected individuals within the state, paid for by the taxpayer, who is unaware. 

Like it or not but a free press warts and all is vital for the proper function of a free and democratic society. The fact that the IAG is closely associated with groups that do not wish to see a free press makes me wonder just what sort of society the IAG and its members really want? It certainly doesn’t look like they want a democratic society with a free press and free speech.

The authors conclude by making an interesting observation about the IAG. It appears that they are no longer directly connected to government but have been dumped upon the National Police Chiefs Council. This move doesn’t make the IAG and its secrecy or its associations with pro-censorship types less worrying, but in my view more worrying. They are now in a position to directly influence ‘hate crime’ policy at a police chief level and because of this it makes the lack of transparency of the IAG along with its penchant for hanging around with pro-censorship groups all the more worrying.

I’m pleased to see that this worryingly shadowy group and its members are at last getting the attention of quality writers like Mr Norrie and Mr Singh. I’m so pleased to see this that it’s making me ponder this question: Is it too early to have a drink to celebrate this exposure of the IAG to better public scrutiny?