He should not have been arrested.
In Britain, the authorities have dropped charges against Tory Councillor Anthony Stevens, aged 51, who was arrested for allegedly engaging in a “hate crime” by expressing support for Christian freedom of speech on Twitter.
Christian Concern reported that the Crown Prosecution Service informed Stevens this week about the dismissal of his case without further action. The legal arm of Christian Legal Centre supported the councillor throughout this ordeal.
Stevens had filed a complaint with the Independent Office for Police Conduct and challenged bail conditions that limited his council duties.
The arrest occurred in August at Stevens’ residence due to his social media posts advocating for Conservative Councillor King Lawal, who faced suspension for stating “Pride is Sin” on X. Stevens retweeted a petition for Lawal’s reinstatement and shared Lawal’s interview with MP Jacob Rees-Mogg on GB News, championing freedom of speech. Arrested under the Public Order Act 1986, Stevens was held for six hours at Kettering police station and questioned about “inciting racial hatred,” which he refuted.
During interrogation, Stevens was probed about his political affiliations and tweets supporting Lawal. He stressed his belief in free speech regardless of agreement with the content. Additionally, he faced questions about two other posts: one depicting a video of a burned Quran and another highlighting differential treatment of Christians and Muslims by police. He defended these as instances of free speech and religious discrimination awareness.
Baroness Jacqueline Foster criticized Stevens’ arrest publicly, prompting Northamptonshire Police Chief Constable Nick Adderley to review the case. In response, Stevens received a letter from Detective Inspector Mark Hopkinson, which was perceived as an attempt to deter media engagement. Stevens’ legal representatives denounced this as oppressive and unconstitutional.
Though relieved about the dismissal, Stevens highlighted the substantial toll on his reputation, business, health, and relationships.
“I’ve been vindicated, and I’m relieved that no further action will be taken, but the toll has been immense,” he expressed. “My reputation, business, health, and relationships suffered due to this misuse of police authority.”
Stevens raised concerns about a lasting note on his police file and detailed his distressing encounter with the police and allegations from Labour councillors, emphasizing bias and collusion between the councillors and the police to silence him.
He reiterated, “The accusation of racial hatred was baseless and insulting, an attempt to defame me. My sole ‘crime’ was supporting the only black local councillor in Northamptonshire and his right to express Christian beliefs.”
Lord Macdonald, former director of public prosecutions, stressed the importance of police comprehension of free speech, especially within political contexts. He cautioned against criminalizing offense, highlighting its potential erosion of a fundamental British value.
Following his reinstatement in October, Lawal clarified, “The tweet was an expression of my Christian faith, quoting biblical passages. This was exercising my right to free speech. I never intended to cause distress, harassment, or alarm.”
Lawal’s tweet had responded to threads exposing inappropriate behaviors at LGBT pride events, particularly in the presence of children, which he found unacceptable. His subsequent explanations, citing biblical teachings on sin encompassing various actions beyond homosexuality, failed to ease the controversy.