Victory in Britain does not sweep away concerns about free speech in Europe
Kristie Higgs in front of the court. Photo Christian Concern
European Union
It was a groundbreaking judgment by England’s Court of Appeal on Wednesday: reversing the dismissal of a Christian teacher for private Facebook posts. But still, the freedom of expression remains a case of deep concern for Christians all over Europe. According to ADF’s Adina Portaru, the most basic human right is under direct threat.
Stay up to date with Christian news in Europe? Sign up for CNE's newsletter.
Last Thursday, the Court of Appeal in England reversed a ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that defended the sacking of a Christian school teacher at Farmor’s Secondary School, in Gloucestershire. In 2019, Kristie Higgs shared a petition on Facebook that was aimed against compulsory sex education in schools.
In another post, she shared an article about schoolbooks, used at her son’s Church of England’s primary school, promoting transgender ideology. An anonymous person reported her to her headteacher, who concluded that Higg’s private posts “could bring the school into disrepute” and sacked her.
According to the judgment, the court concluded that her dismissal was “unquestionably a disproportionate response”. The language of her re-posts may have been beyond the “threshold of objectionability”, but were not “grossly offensive”.
For this reason, the school’s reputation cannot be said to have been damaged. More importantly, the court also said that Higg’s dismissal constituted “unlawful discrimination on the ground of religion and belief”.
In a comment on her victory, Higgs welcomed the judgment’s recognition of the right of Christians to express their beliefs publicly. “Expressing biblical Christian teaching on gender and sexuality may appear to be offensive to those who hold the opposite views, but as today’s judgment signals, Christians have a right to express their beliefs publicly.”
“This is not just about me”, she added. “Too many Christians have suffered discipline or marginalisation at their work because of their Christian faith.”
Higgs’ battle has lasted for six years, and during all those years she was defended by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC). CLC calls the judgment ‘seminal’. The ruling confirms that the Equality Act protects traditional Christian beliefs on social issues, such as opposition to the ideas of transgenderism and ‘gender-fluidity’ and opposition to same-sex marriage.
Chief executive Andrea Williams said: ‘The authoritative judgment re-shapes the law on freedom of religion in the workplace. For the first time in employment law, the judgment has effectively established a legal presumption that any dismissal for an expression or manifestation of Christina faith is illegal’.
Essay
In spite of this victory and the joy it has brought in Christian circles, this week also saw the publication of a less optimistic essay about the future of free speech in Europe. ADF International’s Adina Portaru writes that ‘Europe is taking a dangerous turn towards censorship through the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), nicknamed the ‘Digital Surveillance Act’.
The DSA is intended to foster a ‘safer online environment’, but according to Portaru the new law, which has becoming fully legally binding since February 2024, in reality ‘opens the door to unchecked restrictions on free speech and expression’.
In the near future, it may happen that someone logs into his social media account only to find that his posts have disappeared. Without a warning or an explanation. Under the DSA, vague terms like ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ will be used to silence dissenting voices, Portaru warns.
Lawful opinions on life, marriage, or family can be quietly erased simply because they are deemed ‘controversial’. According to the DSA, it is up to the large platforms (like Google, Amazon, Meta and X) to remove illegal content and illegal ‘hate speech’, thus transforming tech companies into the role of unaccountable speech police, suppressing debate and dictating what is ‘acceptable’ discourse.
This means that democracy is directly at stake. ‘The ability to question authority, challenge prevailing narratives, and freely express one’s beliefs is the bedrock of any democracy. If these freedoms crumble, so too does democracy itself.’
Important questions have not been answered: Who decides what is ‘discrimination’? Who defines ‘hate speech’? Who holds the digital gatekeepers accountable? What about the risk of platforms over-policing content, silencing voices that challenge the status quo and encouraging self-censorship?
As for the second question, the DSA relies on a definition given in a EU Framework Decision of 2018: ‘hate speech’ is said to be ‘incitement to violence or hatred against a protected group of persons or a member of such a group.’ This definition is rather circular, hate speech being defined as ‘incitement to hatred’, and fails to specify what ‘hate’ entails. The risk here is that individual perception (experiencing hate or feeling hate) becomes more important than clear, objective harm.
Räsänen
A famous hate speech case is the trial of Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, who shared her faith-based views on marriage and sexual ethics in a 2019 tweet, a radio show, and in a 2004 pamphlet. After two trials and many years of public scrutiny, she was acquitted of hate speech charges. But the state prosecutor has appealed the case, taking it to the Finnish Supreme Court.
Another recent example of censorship is provided by the case of Billboard Chris, a Canadian father who devotes his life to fighting gender ideology, among others by street advocacy that regularly goes viral. Next month, he will have to stand trial in Australia for posting on X.
In 2024, Chris criticised a radical WHO appointee, and his post was subsequently geo-blocked by Australia’s ‘E-Safety Commission’. The result is that a Canadian citizen must travel to Australia to defend his right to speak freely on an American-owned social media platform.
In short, the DSA is not only about combatting hate and violence, but may target any speech deemed controversial or that challenge the status quo. By mandating the removal of broadly defined ‘harmful’ content, this legislation sets the stage for widespread censorship.
The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe but may be the censorship of speech of citizens worldwide, as tech companies may impose stronger regulations globally to comply with European requirements.
One year after its acceptance, members of European Parliament are now raising the alarm and advocate revisions or even the annulment of DSA.
Related Articles
