Should Hate Speech Sanctions

be Disregarded, Maintained, or
Extended?

Name
Candidate Number:
College:
Edexcel Extended Project Qualification

Mentor:
Word Count: 5540
Blank page
 - CONTENTS -
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………… 1

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………….… 2
Current Laws on Hate Speech ….……………………………………………………………… 3

Discussion
Chapter 1 - Hate Speech as Freedom of Expression ………………………………………… 5
Chapter 2 - Hate Speech Offences in Britain's Current Political Landscape ………………… 8
Chapter 3 - Deterrence and Recidivism ……………………………………………………… 12

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………… 14

Evaluation …………………………………………………………………………………… 16

Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………………… 18

Project Proposal Form ……………………………………………………………………… 22

Action Plan …………………………………………………………………………………. 24

Activity Log………………………………………………………………………………… 26

Literature Reviews ……………………………………………………………………….... 37

Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………….. 40
 - ABSTRACT -

With the constantly unpredictable nature of current affairs, people are inevitably drawn to the effects
this will pose upon themselves and the society around them. Hate speech exerted in the world around
us over the previous year has arguably been in its most vicious form than it has been for several
decades, this provides the most socially and legally apt time to discuss a change of sanctions. This
dissertation will unmask the true contributory causes of a hate ridden section of society, alongside
tackling the question of whether these sanctions can be ignored altogether.

The primary aim of this dissertation is to make a judgement of whether hate speech sanctions should
be disregarded, maintained, or extended. The secondary aim will be to identify the key contributory
factors that have amounted to the profound changes transforming a minority of the population.
Background information encompassing the legal and social-historical context will also be used to
substantiate the argument at hand, providing a foundation to the discussion section of this
dissertation.

This dissertation concludes that whilst removing sanctions may be regarding of sound theory to some,
our imperfect world makes complete disregard of sanctions, at best, precarious. The findings
demonstrated a societal necessity to at least maintain sanctions, and in ideal circumstances, extend
them based around the unprecedented extremes of events that have occurred over previous years. It is
a legal and social necessity to protect those at a heightened risk to threats, and an extension of
sanction is arguably the only possible way to attain this.
 - INTRODUCTION -

Hate Speech is commonly defined as “speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of
attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.” (Nockleby,
2000, p.1277). With conflicting opinions becoming ever more apparent since the recent election of
President Trump and the UK’s vote to withdrawal from the European Union, the issues of hate
speech have been drawn to the attention of various political, social and legal spheres. Minority groups
seem to have played the pawn in the game of politics throughout numerous campaigns; they have
been portrayed as rapists, terrorists and job thieves, to name a few (Gabbatt, 2015, np). Through such
strategies, it may be argued that politicians have been instilling the notion that minorities prose a
threat to quintessentially British values, whilst also emboldened and neglectfully encouraging those
ridden with angst to act. Perhaps it is only logical, since the subject is so pertinent and permeates
such a vast spectrum of society that it is appropriate to bring into question whether we need to amend
the sanctions formed around hate speech, so to properly acclimate to our political environment.

However, this judgment cannot automatically be

presumed, as with any large-scale conflict, there is
naturally an alternate standpoint. The first section of this
dissertation explores the fundamental argument of hate
speech as free speech, discussing the absolutist stance,
alongside the history and outcomes of similar sanctions
in other countries. The precedent formed from such
examples explores whether plausible model could be
formed for our own country, raising the argument of
whether a functioning society could be upheld alongside
Hate Speech Sanction Protest in America
a complete disregard of sanctions.
(Source: Dieffembac, 2016)

Following on from this, the argument will be developed in relation to the current political landscape
and events; arguing the apparent need to extend sanctions so to be in line with the magnitude of hate
speech seen in this previous year. As part of this, various national and international figures and events
will be explored as trigger factors involved in the escalation of hate speech, looking at acclaimed
propaganda and public speeches to the private evaluation of affairs by Members of Parliament.

Due to the constantly changing nature of affairs, there is an inevitable interest around the
amalgamation of the current political landscape with human rights law, and the research surrounding
it. Furthermore, it may be held that the combination of these two aspects have been somewhat
overlooked. Hate crime is arguably so heavily researched and prevalent due to its physical and openly
demeaning nature, leaving hate speech virtually untouched. It may be held that hate speech is just as
powerful and as present, if not more so due to its underlying disruptive and destructive nature. Thus,
this dissertation aims to fill this literary gap which amalgamates human rights and hate speech.

As part of this dissertation, frequent reference will be made to the current English Law, so to have a
greater understanding of the legal context. This is outlined in the following section which will act as
an extension of the introduction. This contextual understanding will aid the conclusion of whether
hate speech sanctions should be disregarded, maintained or extended.

Current Laws on Hate Speech

The Current laws for Hate Speech in England are scattered across several statutes, which provide
definitions, exceptions and sentencing for their relevant offences. These laws will be referred to as
sanctions in this dissertation. Due to the separation of the law, each statute differs in its definition and
punishment. Thus, it is necessary to have a strong overview of the current sanctions in wider context
so to effectively come to a judgement of whether these sanctions should be disregarded, maintained
or extended.

Pictured: The House of Commons, where proposals become laws through statutes
(Source: UK Parliament, 2016)

In England and Wales the most commonly referred to statute is Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986,
which prohibits expression of racial hatred, defined as "hatred against a group of persons by reason
of the group's colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.” (legislation.gov.uk, 1968, np).
This law is explained through Section 18 of the act, which states:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any
written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if:
f

(a) they intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby
(legislation.gov.uk, 1968, np)

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 later amended this statute. In relation to religious
belief, the act stated that the relevant act must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting,
increasing the difficulty to obtain liability for this offence.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 also added to part 3a (legislation.gov.uk, 2006, np), by
reiterating amendments made by the Justice and Immigration act 2008 but also protecting freedom of
expression through S 29J (legislation.gov.uk, 2008, np). This states nothing should be given in a way
“which prohibits or restricts discussion” but should not be “proselytising or urging adherents of a
different religion to cease practicing their religion” (legislation.gov.uk, 2008, np), meaning that
speech spoken should not restrict the rights of others.

Since the amendments, offences contained under Part 3 of the Act carry a maximum sentence of
seven years imprisonment or a fine or both. These considered sentences shall form a central focus, as
it is the current law that needs to be taken into account when deciding whether sanctions are
sufficient, and whether they should be disregarded, maintained or extended.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 also presents a similar type of law, and has since
been added to s4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which prohibits anyone from causing alarm or
distress:
x

A person is guilty if an offence if, with the intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or
distress, he:
g

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour or

))) )(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening,
)))))))))))))abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment,
))))))))))))alarm or distress. (legislation.gov.uk, 1994, np)

An individual guilty under this act is liable for a six month prison sentence, a fine not exceeding level
5, or to both.

The sanctions set out by these Statutes provide the legal context of the question in focus, which will
be later discussed in Chapter 2 and 3. With the possibility of a seven year sentence available and an
unlimited fine, it is key to draw upon these sanctions whilst considering whether hate speech
sanctions should be disregarded, maintained or extended.
 - CHAPTER 1 -
Hate Speech as a freedom of expression

Free speech is often argued as a cornerstone of a free society, and that any limitations on free speech
can be judged as an attack on free speech. The progression of human thought is essential so that we
can progress debate within our society. Thus, by being given the opportunity to allow our viewpoint
to be heard without punishment we plausibly allow the best opportunities for society.

Following this principle, a widely supported stance in America, laid out by Justice Brandeis in
Whitney V California (1927), states that “the best and only cure for ‘negative speech’ is more
speech”(John Downing, 1999, p.176). This hypothesis amalgamates the core of the absolutist
argument - that public outrage at prejudiced behaviour will provoke a counter-reaction, in which
problems have the opportunity to be exposed, criticised and condemned, perhaps to such a degree that
it may result in a healthier situation than if the problem was not confronted at all. In line with this,
Whillcock and Slayden (1995) and Smith (1995) suggested that there are innate social laws from
which positives emerge from the negatives. Following the principle of ‘more speech’, Whillcock and
Slayden write “rather than isolation, exclusion and quarantine” (Whillcock and Slayden, 1995, p.15)
we should expose hate speech “to the air of speech and the light of reason, the healing antibiotic of
the counterargument” (Smith, 1995, p.260). The ‘more speech’ hypothesis is widely observed in the
event of a hate crime, this is where communities come together to stand up and speak out against the
events, to air against hostilities, and so that dialogue occurs so that a healthier outcome arises. In the
UK, following the referendum, incidents such as a firebomb attack on a halal butcher’s shop and the
distribution of ‘vile’ Islamophobic leaflets took place in Birmingham. As a response to the hatred and
intolerance, the community came together to form a “Love your neighbour” campaign (Elkes, 2016,
np). This illustrates the idea that positive speech immerses itself from the negative speech, perhaps
creating a healthier environment than if regulations on hate speech were maintained.

In America, this disregard for sanctions is reflected through the First

Amendment, which states that “Congress should make no law… that
abridges freedom of speech” (Founding Fathers, 1971, np). Many
interpret this around the concept of self-governance, that that the concept
of democracy is only valid if it is self-governed by the people; to be
appropriately knowledgeable there must be no constraints on
“suppressing the free exchange of information and ideas” (Meiklejohn,
1948, p.12). These self-proclaimed ‘free speech absolutists’ believe that
“If someone’s voice is silenced, then I am deprived of the right to hear”
(Hitchens, 2011, np). This stance suggests that through the
implementation of sanctions we are denying citizens’ rights, and we
would be a more educated, enlightened and enriched society if these
sanctions were wholly disregarded.

Mieklejohn’s highly renowned However, Meiklejohn, a chief proponent on the argument of free
book regarding the constitution. speech, presents the doctrine as somewhat paradoxical, as the doctrine
(Source: Google books, 1948)
ultimately “does not forbid the abridging of speech, but does forbid the abridging of the freedom of
speech” (Meiklejohn, 1948, p.19). This is widely encompassed around the idea that hate speech is
ultimately a strategy to prevent another person expressing their human
rights, is seemingly an attempt to mute the expression of those
belonging to a particular race or ethnicity. Following this logic, the
argument falls back on itself, as free speech is a threat to free speech
itself. Thus, a balance of interests must be addressed, an idea which is
reinforced by Heinze who states “the democratic imperative of
individual freedom must be balanced against the democratic
imperative of equality.’ (Heinze, 2014, np).

In relation to the government, the argument follows that laws and

restraints should only be placed if it threatens another's rights, so to
“enlarge and enrich freedom of speech” (Meiklejohn, 1948, p.16).
This revolves around the idea that there is such a thing as unqualified
speech, and that the government have a responsibility to promote free Mieklejohn’s feature in Time
speech for the welfare of the people; following the key principle that Magazine as a philosopher and
“Rights must be limited by respect for others, and by the needs of free speech advocate
society as a whole” (Heinze, 2014, np), so to create a practical (Source: Time Magazine, 1928)
balance.

The need for these laws, which control free speech and hate speech, are further supported by
functioning examples in international law. They reflect the balance of interests between the degrees
of free speech related to its restriction to others free speech. Article 10 of the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Europarl,
2000, p.10). Furthermore, Article 21 prohibits discrimination based on any ground, including sex,
ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability (Europarl, 2000, p.13). This is also reflected in
English Laws referred to in the previous chapter; specifically, The Racial and Religious Hatred Act
2006, which protects freedom of expression through S 29J stating nothing should be given in a way
“which prohibits or restricts discussion” but should not be “proselytising or urging adherents of a
different religion to cease practicing their religion” (legislation.gov.uk, 2006, np), meaning that
speech spoken should not restrict the rights of others. This regulation of Hate Speech implemented
through sanctions provides a firm working foundation, and a proven effective solution towards he
issues at hand. Thus, it can be held that the current regulations maintained in the UK are appropriate
for their purpose.

These principles of addressing a balance were further reflected in in the ECHR Case of I.A V Turkey
2005 (Merlin, 2005, np). This is where the claimant, the Turkish Authorities, convicted a book
publisher for publishing insults against “God, the religion, the Prophet, and the Holy Book” (Merlin,
2005, np). It was held that this did not violate freedoms, as under Article 10 the country had not
pursued “the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting the morals and rights of others.”
(Europarl, 2000, p.10). This brings into context the balance which must be reached. In these
circumstances, the right to impart ideas of religious theory to the public, and conversely the role to
respect religious freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The court made clear that laws were in
place to counteract such abuse, however a distinction must be made between “provocative” opinions
and abusive attacks, perhaps finding a balance between risk based and rights based legislation. This
case illustrates how a balance can be addressed through maintaining the government’s regulations,
illustrating that current sanctions of Hate Speech can be used effectively and fairly, thus making it
justifiable to maintain the current sanctions.

A further argument made by Heinze against absolute free speech is the “Weimar” or Snowball
Argument (Heinze, 2014, np). This follows the example of democracy under the Weimar Republic. In
1919, the German state reinstated a new government who operated under proportional representation,
which effectively allowed the election of extremist left wing and right wing parties. This resulted in
complete free speech from both extremist sides, and increasingly intense and prejudiced views being
expressed. Such political freedom of speech ultimately resulted in the election of the Nazi’s, leading
to oppression, censorship and ultimately the Holocaust, demonstrating the possible detrimental
effects of unregulated free speech. (Clare, 2015, np).

Pictured: Elected delegates meeting in the Reichstag in February 1927.

(Source: Facing History, 2016)

By not implementing effective regulations on free speech early on “seemingly innocuous offences
snowball into more pernicious forms” (Eric Heinze, 2014, np). This means that the fundamentals of
free speech are seemingly harmless on the surface, but soon penetrate and poison deeper layers of
society. Consequently, it is simply too late to take action, and extreme forms of hate speech and
crime occur such as that of extremist groups in the Weimar Republic. Furthermore, this denounces
the earlier argument based around the “more speech hypothesis”, as free speech simply resulted to
more separation than culmination following the snowball effect, as well as disproving the theory of a
“healthier environment” through positive speech arising from negative speech. This brings to
attention the dire need for the government to maintain the punishment and the regulation of hate and
free speech, so to defend human rights and to maintain a functioning and fairer society.
 - CHAPTER 2 -
Hate Speech Offences in Britain's Current Political Landscape
The previous year has arguably seen the most profound changes to the political landscape in
centuries; with an overhaul of the status quo characterising the fluctuation of hate speech we see in
Britain today. Triggering events such as the vote to leave to European Union and the emergence of
controversial populist politicians such as Trump and Farage have arguably encouraged hate speech,
and the materialisation of parties such as UKIP catalysing controversial moves and emboldening
prejudiced attitudes. Even though a seven-year discretionary sentence in place may be considered
sufficient by some, it can also be argued necessary to increase the punishments placed upon hate
speech offenders, so to respond to the recent influx appropriately.
The Election of Donald Trump
The recent presence of political neophyte Donald Trump has arguably been a significant influence on
the fluctuation of hate speech. In wake of the US election, a surge of hate speech has struck
minorities; including Muslims, Hispanics, LGBT and the black community (Dearden, 2016, np), with
Trump being held responsible due to the rhetoric he commonly uses. His campaign was seen to
propel a melange of prejudiced proposals, most notably his executive order “Travel Ban” and
intendment to build a wall on the border between Mexico and America. (Foster, 2017, np).

Implemented in January this year, Trump’s

Executive Order Travel ban has been widely
interpreted as a “Muslim ban”; due to the
banning of seven Muslim majority countries;
Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and
Yemen (Foster, 2017, np). Regardless of this,
Trump claims the basis is “not about religion -
this is about terror and keeping our country
safe”. (Trump, 2016, np). Even though this ban
is supposedly formed on a legitimate basis, it is Pictured: Trump on his Presidential Campaign Trail
strategies implemented and language used that (Source: Kruger, 2016)
causes this damage, with minorities playing the pawn in the game of politics being used and abused
to Trump’s desire. Throughout his campaign Trump’s rhetoric inadvertently suggests that Muslims
pose a threat, engendering feelings of distrust, fear and uncertainty towards minority communities,
with The Spokesman for Islamic American Relations commenting on the “tremendous levels of fear
given the anti-Muslim rhetoric we have seen from Donald Trump during the Campaign”. (Kentish,
2016, np).

To exacerbate these circumstances, Trump’s language not only changes attitudes but emboldens
individuals to act on them. This instilment of fear and acceptance of marginalisation has been sown
across America, and is perhaps becoming embellished in the fabric of society, making it common
practice to be targeted. One instance of such occurred in a local supermarket, with one women’s hijab
being pulled off with the attacker saying “This is not allowed anymore, so go hang yourself with it
around your neck and not on your head” (Dearden, 2016, np), This highlights the extent of which
discrimination has stretched to under Trump’s racially charged leadership.
Furthermore, Trump’s nationalistic approach extends to the promise to build a wall between America
and Mexico has heightened minority tensions. Trump’s rhetoric against Mexicans throughout his
campaign through portraying them as “rapists” and “job thieves” has had implications in several
states (Gabbatt, 2015, np). The extent of the danger this rhetoric poses has been highlighted by the
presence of hate speech in schools, where “build the wall” chants (Dearden, 2016, np) have been
heard as well as swastika graffiti accompanied by the words “Make America White Again” (North,
2017, np). The presence of such a rhetoric in schools demonstrates how hate speech is not a remote
occurrence within a narrow section of society, but is slowly diverging and becoming
intergenerational, stressing the need to deter such behaviour through the extension of sanctions.

Pictured: Racist graffiti on school property and along sidewalks in America, following the election of Trump
(Source - left: CNN, 2016) (Source - right: Nassau County Police Department, 2016)

Arguably, Trump’s rhetoric is creating a precedent for people in the UK, conveying the message that
it is acceptable to discriminate solely on the grounds of religion and nationality. Trump’s imperious
influence is argued to have leverage on hate speech in the UK, whether it be what is perceived
through the media, or through direct comments. In the past, Trump has stated “places like London
and other places that are so radicalised that police are afraid for their own lives” (Buchanan, 2015,
np). Such statements would inevitably engender fear and shock, followed by an acceptance that such
issues are present, and eventually intolerance of minorities.

MP’s have also commented on the extent of the issue, stating “hate crime is being inflamed” through
language that is “damaging, dangerous and deeply divisive” (MP Jack Dromey, 2016, np). Even the
supposedly neutral speaker, John Bercow, has spoken out against the arrival of Trump in Parliament,
due to the detrimental effect this is perceived to have on the UK. The recognition of the harmful
effect that Trump has, by professionals and communities alike, highlights the issues with the
dangerous precedent that Trump is creating. Following this line of argument, it can be argued that
this “inflammation” needs to be equally proportional sanctions so to deflate the issue, thus it can be
deemed necessary that hate speech sanctions are extended so to account for this.
Vote to Leave the European Union
One of the most controversial decisions of the last decade was that of the EU Referendum, which has
arguably ensued a deeper level of hate and prejudice within the UK. Much like Trump, the strategies
used through campaigns have somewhat drawn upon racial minorities.

These strategies were widely recognised and condemned, even in the Commons where the
Campaigns were formed, “I fear that many hate crimes have occurred against the backdrop of a
campaign to which certain elements gave a stamp of racism” (Lord Rana, 2016, np). Comments
such as this from the centre of Parliament highlight the divisive strategies adopted in campaigns,
trying to gain power and elective leverage through fear, thus it is highly expected that such a tactic
will have undesirable and harmful effects on society henceforth. This was demonstrated by the 60%
spike seen in hate crime following Brexit (BBC, 2016, np), and targeting of religions is visible as “in
2015 there was a 326% increase on 2014 figures in street based anti-Muslim incidents”. (Sherwood,
2016, np)

Hate crimes before and after Brexit - Percentage rise in recorded hate crimes, June to August 2015 and 2016.
(Source: The National Police Chief’s Council, 2016)

Anti-Immigration propaganda had a key part to play

in this rise, Farage’s “Breaking Point” poster released
16th June 2016 (Stewart, 2016, np) was one of these
pieces of propaganda, which depicted thousands of
Syrian refugees crossing the border. Farage’s
influence on the campaign is said to have been a core
trigger of the anti-immigration behaviour that has
arisen, and has seen to be actively promoting it in
some circumstances, “if people feel that voting
doesn’t change anything, then violence is the next Pictured: Farage promoting his “Breaking Point” poster
(Source: EPA, 2016)
step”(Farage, 2016, np).

When interviewed, Nigel Adams MP responded on the events of Farage and other parties stating
“There were some fringe elements on both sides, some pretty unhelpful contributions – including
racial intolerance but also including unmerited accusations of racism towards people who simply
disagreed”(Adams, 2017, np). Such acknowledgement by individual MP’s at the centre of events
affirms the abhorrent strategies used, however Adams denied this had any impact on fluctuation of
hate speech offences; “there are a lot of factors which would contribute, one of which is a higher
level of reporting, and a change in how reports of hate crime and hate speech are handled,
specifically designed to encourage more reporting, which will explain some of these statistics.”
(Adams, 2017, np).

Even though it can be seen that these factors may have ‘some’ effect, it may be argued that this does
not account for the 60% spike in hate crimes, and Adams himself acknowledges the “racial
intolerance” seen in the Referendum, thus suggesting it must also be part of the cause of influx. The
likelihood of this is further downtrodden by Adams due to his partisan alignments, as a core figure in
the Brexit Campaign he unlikely to admit any down fallings. Therefore, although Adam’s statement
of other contributing factors may be somewhat relevant, it seems that the factor of racial strategies
involved are of more significance. Therefore, in concurrence with the influence of Trump, an
extension of sanctions following the Referendum result can be deemed necessary to address the
influx of hate speech offences.
 - CHAPTER 3 -
Deterrence and Recidivism
One question which is often raised when contemplating the extension of sanctions is whether such a
change will make a substantial difference in offending rates. To decide this, it is necessary to analyse
whether the sanctions currently implemented in our law is an effective deterrent, and truly deters
potential offenders. Deterrence is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “The action of discouraging
an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences” (Simpson, 1989, np), and
such implementation of deterrence strategies through extended sanctions may provide numerous
benefits for society.

Pictured: Anti-Immigrant Protesters in Dover, would deterrence stop them?

(Source: Daily Mail, 2016)

Hate Speech Sanctions theoretically work on the basis that those who hold hateful views refrain from
acting on them, as they fear going to prison for any amount of time, and any additional punishment
through the extension of sentences affects risk calculation and the worth of the crime before they
commit it.

However, it is argued that hate speech enhancements, the extension of a sentence based on its
prejudiced nature, is ineffective, and that an extension of sanctions would barely make a difference to
offenders when considering committing a crime. This is as hate speech is based upon irrational
inbuilt hatred and prejudice, so it is likely to be rationally taken into consideration in a calculated risk
analysis. Thus, it may be judged that it is therefore illogical to place a higher sentence if it is not
taken into consideration. Perhaps this shows that it is not worth extending sentences as they do not
act as a deterrent, and would not effectively decrease the number of hate speech offences occurring.

This doubt of deterrence is addressed by Michael Tonry, a leading scholar on crime and punishment,
who argues that “Such research is incapable of taking into account whether and to what extent
purported policy changes are implemented, whether and to what extent their adoption or
implementation is perceived by would-be offenders, and whether and to what extent offenders are
susceptible to influence by perceived changes in legal threats” (Tonry, 2008, p.208). This
summarises the conspicuous nature of the argument, and that we cannot truly understand it at a
research level. However, even though these sentences may not be contemplated before the offence,
they may prove useful after in the form of allowing increased time and effort to stop reoffending.

This is widely supported by statistical data, which has found that an increase of just one month in the
average sentence length for burglaries – from 15.4 to 16.4 months – would reduce thefts in the
following year by 4,800, out of an annual total of 962,700 (Helm and Doward, 2012, np). This slight
increase in sentence has created disproportional benefit to society, and it must be deemed that if this
impact within society can be transferred to Hate Speech Sanctions, it is arguably only logical to
implement an extension so to account for the fluctuation in offences.

An increased sentence also means longer time to remove any deep hatred installed, and a longer
period of rehabilitation can provide criminals with increased time and effort to stop reoffending. It is
deemed that hatred and bigotry is learnt, and is part of nature rather than nurture, and that it can be
equally unlearnt. EXIT Sweden has provided a prime example of how this works; through engaging
with young people they have untaught these habits of even the most extreme views. A report by the
National Council for Crime and Prevention (2001) illustrated the effective nature of deterrence. 133
individuals received support from EXIT during 3 years. Of these, 125 had left the white power scene,
and had also refrained from criminal activity, with only 4 returning to the scene. “Seventeen youths
who had received assistance reported that EXIT had played a crucial role in their disengagement
from the White Power scene.” (Iganski, 2012, p.13). This had also proven effective within
communities, with heightened satisfaction amongst parents, schools and the official authorities.

It can be judged that, even though there is inconclusive evidence on whether deterrence works
beforehand, extended sanctions may certainly have a positive effect after the offence. An extension of
sanctions provides a longer time to unlearn a prejudiced nature, as shown by evidence of EXIT
Sweden, and has also been shown to have a disproportionately beneficial effect on society following
statistics on burglary, which are somewhat transferable to hate speech offences. Following this, it is
logical to extend sanctions, as this would theoretically reduce recidivism through both rehabilitation
and the hardships of the longer sanctions imposed.
 - CONCLUSION -

The build of political unrest over the previous year has provided an opportunity for reform and
change. The emergence of Trump and his exhibition hate speech seen throughout his Presidential
Campaign alongside Britain’s decision to leave the EU, brought many citizens to question hate
speech, presenting the first obvious manifestations around the debate. This poses the most politically
and socially apt time to discuss a change to sanctions; whether that be disregard, maintenance or
extension.

As to make a judgement on this debate, Mieklejohn’s work brought to light some paradoxical issues,
such as that of free speech acting as a threat to others free speech. This was addressed in cases such
as I.A. V Turkey that discussed the clear necessity of compromise, which could not be achieved
without sanctions. Theories which branched from this, based on the “more speech” hypothesis, also
proved impractical through the precedent created by the Weimar Republic, which eventually resulted
in the chaos which was the Holocaust. Consequently, it is only logical to maintain some kind of
sanction, and to eradicate the option of disregarding them entirely, so not to face a retrogression to
previous atrocities caused by hate speech.

Despite arguments of other minor factors being the cause of Hate Speech, such as that of Adams, it is
clear that the Election of Donald Trump and the vote the leave the EU were both significant
contributory factors, which can be seen to have entrenched a deeper dividing line between different
races and religions. This line has been drawn through
the strategies implemented through campaigns, which
have engendered worry and concern into citizens and
has in turn encouraged and emboldened them to act.
Indeed, the observed 60% spike after Brexit
highlighted the direct link between the perceived vote
of separation from other races and religions, and the
abuse these races and religions received henceforth.
Thus, it is only logical to extend sanctions following
an increase in hostile and prejudiced attitudes, so to
appropriately address the necessity of reducing Britain now stand alone after voting to leave the EU
offences, which a maintenance in sanctions would (Source: Stephen Chung, 2016)
not achieve.

Furthermore, evidence drawn around deterrence and recidivism also advocated widespread benefits
as a result of extended sanctions. Although research on deterrence and issues raised by Tonry were
somewhat inconclusive, the positive effects of implications after the offence redeemed the
plausibility of an extension of sanctions. It was seen a matter of months could make a substantial
difference to recidivism rates, as well as providing a longer period of opportunity to remove learnt
prejudice, as demonstrated by the transformation of extremists involved in the White Power Scene in
Sweden, which may not have been achievable in the time provided if sanctions were maintained.
Therefore, it can be seen as plausible to extend the sanctions designated by the Public Order Act 1986
Part 3 S18, which outlined a seven-year sentence, and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
1994, which later acted as an amendment to this act and recommended a maximum sentence of 6
months. The discretionary nature of an increased sentence allows a judge to have flexibility and to
take into account the extent of damage caused, meaning the most serious crimes will be allocated the
new extended sentence, hopefully resulting in successful rehabilitation and reduced recidivism
providing extensive benefits to society.
 - EVALUATION -

I thoroughly enjoyed the process of my Extended Project, as it provided me the opportunity to

amalgamate my passion of law with the wider understanding of current affairs I gained through my
research. I think that the opportunity to write on an area I enjoy so thoroughly eased me into research
and dissertation development naturally; allowing my arguments and topics to flow and have deeper
meaning, which made the experience thoroughly enjoyable.

I feel that this opportunity has provided me with greater understanding of what may be expected of
me at university and the skills that are necessary to succeed. The dissertation allowed me to develop
my referencing, research skills and writing style, all of which will contribute to my work beyond
college education. This opportunity also taught me a lot about myself and my style of working,
allowing me to reflect and manage what I did most effectively and what it needed to improve on, and
on a personal level, I learnt a lot about what was needed to reach my potential in a piece of work.

One of my personal hurdles was reaching the deadlines set, which I believe was a problem due to
other commitments I had such as mock examinations. However, whilst facing this difficulty I also
learnt how to manage my time more effectively, making plans and setting personal short term goals
to keep on top of my work as exams were looming nearer. I believe such skills will serve me well in
the future, for example in university with associated coursework and revision for exams. So to
improve this in the future, I hope to make better use of the resources available online so to have
clarity over my progress.

Another issue I faced was narrowing down my discussion areas. For example, in my initial research
stage, I spent too much time on standpoints and areas that would later prove unnecessary to include,
for example triggering events of the death of Lee Rigby, which had significance but could be deemed
minor on the spectrum when compared to influences such as Trump and Brexit. Ideally, I would have
focused on a set of arguments much more quickly, after broad research of each topic. This skill will
prove of paramount importance in university when there is the need to balance several research
projects at once, as being able to locate the most relevant and prominent research on an area will
allow me to deal with my work much more quickly and effectively.

I felt that my depth of research improved over time, and by the end of my course I had a wide
understanding including the legal context and relevant cases involved. This background knowledge
allowed me to confidently develop my dissertation, and gave me a framework on which to build my
arguments from. Although I believe my research was done to a high standard, I struggled with the
consistency of my referencing, and remembering to do it when looking at new sources. To combat
this issue, I would keep notes and make reminders during the research phase so to keep in time with
my plan.

One of my strengths I believe was my actual writing of the dissertation, as my extensive research
provided me with firm foundations to work from, so I found the discussion areas naturally flowed.
However, as mentioned if a structured draft was prepared earlier I would have initiated my discussion
much earlier, I also feel like this opportunity would have allowed me to bounce off arguments more,
and form new ones in the progress, as I feel that some areas were merely skimmed over or not written
about at all due to time restraints. To combat this I could organise my time more effectively,
developing plans and personal short term goals to achieve this.

If I had the opportunity to develop my dissertation further, I would have added more legal cases to
support my theoretical evidence, for example to demonstrate how compromise work in practice as
shown in I.A. V Turkey. I would have also liked to expand on other triggering factors, such as other
extremist parties such as BNP, as well as a more focused approach on the effect sanctions would have
on individual communities when looking at deterrence and recidivism, and any wider implications
this may have.

If I were to delve into further study aside from this dissertation, I would explore my interest of the
extent to which different contributory factors have had an effect, and the arguments surrounding this.
Furthermore, I have considered moving from the focus on British Law to concentrate on EU Law, so
to observe wider implications of sanctions, and whether it is being successfully instigated by partner
countries, creating a wider overview of whether implementation of international hate speech law is
successful.
Bibliography
Books
Downing, J. D. H. (1999). Hate Speech and First-Amendment Absolutism Discourses in the Us.
Discourse & Society, 10(2), pp.175-189.

Meiklejohn, J. (1948) Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York, Harper Brothers
Publishers, pp.12-19.

Simpson, J. (1989). Oxford Dictionary. Clarendon Press, Oxford, Oxford University Press, np.

Whillock, R. K., and Slayden, D. (1995). Hate speech. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications,
pp.15.

Book Chapter in edited works

Nockleby, J (2000) Hate Speech. In: Levy, L., and Karst, K. eds. Encyclopedia of the American
Constitution. Detroit, Macmillan Reference USA, pp.1277-1279.

Smith, S. (1995) There’s such a thing as free speech – it’s a good thing too. In: Whillock M. and
Slayden, D. eds. Hate Speech. London, Sage Publications, pp.260-261.

Webpages
Buchanan, R. (2015) Donald Trump claims parts of London are 'so radicalised' police officers are
'afraid for their lives'. Independent Online (Internet) Available from:
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-claims-parts-of-london-are-so-
radicalised-police-officers-are-afraid-for-their-lives-a6765026.html> (Accessed 6 November 2016)

Clare, J. (2015) Weimar Problems John D Clare Online (Internet) Available from: <
http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar3.htm> (Accessed 9 March 2017)

Dearden, L. (2016) Donald Trump's victory followed by wave of hate crime attacks against
minorities across US - led by his supporters. Independent Online (Internet) Available from:
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-president-
supporters-attack-muslims-hijab-hispanics-lgbt-hate-crime-wave-us-election-a7410166.html>
(Accessed 15 March 2017)

Elkes, N. (2016) Love Your Neighbour: A Birmingham grass roots campaign to build bridges after
Brexit. Birmingham Mail Online (Internet) Available from: <http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/
news/midlands-news/love-your-neighbour-birmingham-grass-11555771> (Accessed 1 March 2017)

Foster, A. (2017) What are the countries Donald Trump is banning travel from? And what are his
reasons? Express Online (Internet) Available from: <http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/761087/>
(Accessed 20 January 2017)
Gabbatt, A. (2015) Donald Trump says he 'will win Latino vote' despite calling Mexicans 'rapists'.
The Guardian (Internet) Available from: <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/donald-
trump-latino-vote-mexico-immigration> (Accessed 25 October 2016)

Hitchens, C. (2011) Christopher Hitchens on Freedom of Speech. Reader's Digest (Internet)

Available from: <http://www.rd.com/culture/christopher-hitchens-on-freedom-of-speech/> (Accessed
7 February 2017)

Heinze, E. (2014) Nineteen arguments for hate speech bans – and against them, Free Speech Debate
(Internet) Available from: <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discuss/nineteen-arguments-for-hate
-speech-bans-and-against-them/> (Accessed 9 December 2016)

Kentish, B. (2016) US Muslims warned not to wear hijab after Donald Trump’s shock election
victory. Independent Online (Internet) Available from:
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-muslims-react-donald-
trump-islam-islamophobia-a7408401.html> (Accessed 9 December 2017)

Mason, R. (2016) 'Hate crime is being inflamed': MPs debate banning Donald Trump from UK.
Guardian Online (Internet) Available from: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/18/
donald-trump-should-be-banned-from-uk-for-inflaming-hate-mp-says> (Accessed 10 February 2017)

North, A. (2017) A High School Defaced With ‘Trump’ and Swastikas. The New York Times
(Internet) Available from: <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/opinion/a-high-school-defaced-
with-trump-and-swastikas.html> (Accessed 30 January 2017)

Rana, D (2016) Hate Crime. Hansard (Internet) Available from: <https://hansard.parliament.uk/

Lords/ 2016-07-05/debates/16070553000243/HateCrime#contribution-16070553000110> (Accessed
10 March 2017)

Sherwood, H (2016) Incidents of anti-Muslim abuse up by 326% in 2015, says Tell MAMA. The
Guardian (Internet) Available from: < https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/29/incidents-
of-anti-muslim-abuse-up-by-326-in-2015-says-tell-mama> (Accessed 10 March 2017)

Stewart, H (2016) Nigel Farage's anti-migrant poster reported to police. The Guardian (Internet)
Available from: <https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-
breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants> (Accessed 25 October 2016)
Online Journal Article
Iganski, P (2012) Challenging Hate Crime. EU Programmes Body (Internet) pp.13. Available from:
<http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/65875/1/07_Programmes_for_Offenders_of_Hate.pdf (Accessed 20
February 2017)

Norris, P., and Inglehart, R. (2016) Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots
and Cultural Backlash. Harvard (Internet) pp.1-8. Available from:
<research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1401> (Accessed 1 March 2017)

Tonry, M (2008) Learning from the Limitations of Deterrence Research. Washington University
(Internet) pp.208. Available from: <http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/courses/371/Readings
/Tonry%20Deterrence.pdf> (Accessed 15 December 2016)

Legislation
Article 10 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000, pp.10. Available from:
<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf> (Accessed 25 March 2017)

Article 21 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000, pp.13. Available from:
<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf> (Accessed 25 March 2017)

Public Order Act, 1986, Part 3, S18. Available from: <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64>

(Accessed 1st February 2017)

Public Order Act, 1986, S4A. Available from: <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64

/section/4A> (Accessed 2nd January 2017)

Racial and Religious Hatred Act, 2006, S29J. Available from:<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/

2006/1/schedule> (Accessed 30th January 2017)

Cases
I.A. V Turkey (2005) Available from: <http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2005/10/article3.en.html>
(Accessed 27 January 2017)

Whitney V California (1927) 274 U.S. 357. Available from: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Whitney_v._California> (Accessed 8 December 2017)

Emails
Name (email), 3 March 2017. Re: EPQ Dissertation. Email to N. Adams
(nigel.adams.mp@parliament.uk)

Images
Chung, S, (2016), Theresa May plans to trigger Brexit in two weeks despite defeat by 'posturing'
Lords over rights of EU citizens. The Telegraph (Online). Available from: <http://www.telegraph.co.
uk/news/2017/03/01/brexit-lords-vote-debate-theresa-may-pmqs-live/> (Accessed 14 March 2017)

CNN, (2016), Harassment in schools skyrockets after election, teachers report. CNN (Online).
Available from: <http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/29/health/school-survey-post-election-negative-
incidents/> (Accessed 20 December 2016)
Dieffembac, L, (2015), “Hate Speech” Proposal Threatens Free Speech. Breitbart (Online). Available
from: <http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/08/27/canadian-hate-speech-proposal-
threatens-free-speech/> (Accessed 15 February 2017)

EPA, (2016), Michael Gove 'shuddered' at UKIP migrant’s poster. BBC News (Online). Available
from: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36570759> (Accessed 2 March 2017)

Facing History, (2016), Choices and Consequences in Weimar Germany. Facing History (Online).
Available from: <https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/readings/
choices-and-consequences > (Accessed 30 March 2017)

History, (2016), The U.S. Constitution. History (Online). Available from:

<http://www.history.com/topics/constitution> (Accessed 27 January 2017)

Kruger, G, (2016), Translating ‘Make America Great Again’ into English. National Review (Online).
Available from:<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430227/donald-trumps-supporters
-establishment-bad-and-whats-book> (Accessed 25 March 2017)

Lee, T, (2016), Neo-Nazis bring Dover to a standstill. Daily Mail (Online). Available from:
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520511/Scuffles-break-police-far-right-protesters-Dover-
just-day-refugeeswelcome-projected-white-cliffs.html> (Accessed 7 January 2017)

Nassau County Police Department, (2016), Large swastikas and 'make America white again' are
scrawled on sidewalks and college bathrooms in Long Island. Daily Mail (Online). Available from:
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4048468/Large-swastikas-make-America-white-seen-
scrawled-sidewalks-college-bathrooms-Long-Island.html#ixzz4cp09xD9N> (Accessed 1 March 2017)

Selby and Ainsty, (2016), Nigel Raises Flood Insurance for Small Companies with PM. Selby and
Ainsty (Online). Available from: <http://www.selbyandainsty.com/nigel-raises-issue-of-flood-
insurance-for-small-businesses-with-prime-minister/> (Accessed 4 December 2017)

The Guardian, (2016), Lasting Rise in Hate Crime After EU Referendum. The Guardian (Online).
Available from:<https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/07/hate-surged-after-eu-referendum
-police-figures-show> (Accessed 1 March 2017)

Time Magazine, (1928), Time The Weekly Newsmagazine Cover. Time Magazine (Online).
Available from: <http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19281001,00.html> (Accessed 30
December 2016)

UK Parliament, (2016), Members of Parliament. UK Parliament (Online). Available from:

<http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/> (Accessed 28 March 2017)
Meiklejohn, A, (1948), Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. Digital Library (Online).
Available from: <http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/UW.MeikFreeSp> (Accessed 15 March 2017)
Project Proposal form
Learner Name Name Learner number N/A

Centre Name College Centre Number N/A

Teacher Assessor Mentor Date 21/10/16

Unit Extended Project L3

Proposed project title Should Hate Speech Sanctions be disregarded, maintained, or extended?

Section One: Title, objective, responsibilities

Title: Should Hate Speech Sanctions be disregarded, maintained, or extended?

Project objectives:
- To evaluate whether Hate Speech Sanctions should be disregarded, maintained or extended
- To explore whether the sanctions of predjucically motivated crimes are currently sufficient for
our political climate (exploring legal context through statutes and international law)
- To delve into the possible triggers of the fluctuation of Hate Crime we currently see in Britain,
for example the EU Referendum and the Election of Donald Trump
- To learn how to effectively reference in text and within a bibliography in the Harvard style
- To learn how to effectively use research materials, and how to write in an academic and legal
style in preparation for university

Section Two: Reasons for choosing this project

I chose thus subject due to my interest in current affairs, politics and law. My AS politics studies drew me
into the happenings of the EU Referendum, and the subsequent effects on society following the results
intrigues me.
A further reason for choosing a topic with a legal basis is that my area of interest at Undergraduate Level
is Law. I believe that by undertaking an EPQ I could gain a deeper insight into the type of research I will
need to undertake, as well as intense analysis and writing in an academic style.
I am also interested in the combination of human rights and current affairs as this amalgamation has
been somewhat overlooked. Hate crime is arguable so heavily researched and prevalent due to its openly
aggressive and physical nature that Hate Speech has remained relatively untouched. I wanted to explore
this area so to learn about the link between these two areas, and the implications this holds for society.

Section Three: Activities and timescales (*In more detail in full activity plan p.24) How long this will take:

Complete Action Plan 3 Hours

Initial Research Task 1 Month
Numerical Analysis through surveys of Public Opinion 5 days
Organised structure of the dissertation with areas on both sides of debate 1 Month
Filling out these areas of debate to form a substantive discussion 2 Months
Forming a conclusion based upon the evidence analysed 2 Months
Evaluation of work on which to base planning and delivery of my presentation 2 Weeks
Milestones:
- Milestone 1 – Friday 16th September 2016
o Complete initial proposal and hand in the TLAS

- Milestone 2 – Friday 21st October 2016

o Completed typed proposals
o A detailed plan
o Current activity log
o Commentary on at least 6 sources (literature review)

- Milestone 3 – Friday 9th December 2016

o A first draft of the project
o Bibliography
o Current activity log

- Milestone 4 – Friday 7th April 2017

o Final submission of project

Section Four: Resources (*Further expanded on in activity log, p.26)

- Libraries – books, journals, newspaper articles, access to computers for research and writing
- Computers – to access online information, plan, write my dissertation and prepare presentation
- Printer – so to be able to provide a final hard copy of my dissertation
- Rehearsal space – to be able to practice and deliver my presentation at the end of the project

Areas of research covered:

- Current Laws on Hate Speech – to be able to analyse the current sanctions in their legal context
- Hate Speech as Freedom of Speech – exploring whether there should be sanctions imposed
- Hate Speech Offences in Britain's Current Political Landscape – exploring hate crime in relation
to current affairs, specifically Britain’s Departure from the EU and the election of Trump
- Deterrence and Recidivism – looking at whether implementation of sanctions would be effective

Comments and agreement from tutor-assessor

Is the learner taking this project as part of the Diploma? Yes/No

If yes, which Diploma are they taking? ______________________________________________

Comments (optional):

Is project derived from work which has been/will be submitted for another qualification? Yes/No

Which qualification (title and unit)? _______________________________________________

Comments (optional):

I confirm that the project is not work which has been or will be submitted for another qualification and is
appropriate.

Agreed: (name) (date)

Comments and agreement from project proposal checker

Comments (optional):

I confirm that the project is appropriate.

Agreed: (name) (date)

 - ACTION PLAN – TIMELINE -

Activity Time Period Date Date Completed

Preliminary research – This will consist of gathering a 2 weeks 1st September – 16th September
number of options for my project. This will mainly consist of 16th September
internet research and reviewing AS Level books to find
inspiration for a topic; mainly based on my Politics and Law
books since they hold an integral part of what I want to
pursue at degree level.

Proposal Form – This will outline my aims for the project, 2 weeks 1st September – 16th September
as well as summarising my motives for undertaking it, and 16th September
also the resources I will require. This will be done alongside
my preliminary research.

Initial Research – After approval of my topic area I will 1 ½ months 16th September 16th October
explore different relevant political and legal aspects. This – 30th October
will mainly consist of secondary and tertiary evidence, and
will form the foundations of my argument.

Primary plan – This will outline the key points I would like 10 days 1st November – 10th November
to include in my dissertation, such as key sections and areas I 10th November
would like to explore. This will be formed from categorising
my preliminary research

Detailed planning – After outlines have been made each 2 weeks 10th November – 25th November
section will be expanded on to form a substantive argument 30th November
on each point. Each source will be implemented into my
work, with the arguments arising from each of these noted, as
well as any future research that needs to be undertaken. I will
also begin to draw an idea about to conclusion of my work.

Primary Drafting – Complete first draft. This will consist of 1 ½ months 25th November – 30th January*
a fully-fledged piece, with all arguments formed as well as a 25th January
conclusive summary on the topic.

Additional development and research – Points of interest 2 weeks 10th January – 15th March*
that have been triggered in the Primary Drafting stage can 10th March
now be developed in more depth. This will involve the
collection of additional secondary and tertiary research and
will largely be motivated and fuelled by the introduction of a
personal tutor who can appropriately guide the dissertation.
This will also introduce a final conclusion, of which the main
points will not change after this penultimate research stage.

Analysation – Objectively looking at the piece as a whole 1 week 10th March – 15th March
will reveal possibly over and under developed points, as well 15th March
as balances of debate. This will be adjusted and developed
accordingly.

Final draft complete – This will be a completed and 2 weeks + End of March 17th March
perfected final product, thoroughly checked by my personal
tutor to check for errors. This will be completed before the
deadline so to account for any contingency development or
small adjustments.
Preparation for Presentation – This will consist of creating 10 days 20th March –
30th March
a PowerPoint Presentation to run in the background of the 30th March
talk on my topic. Bullet point notes will be stated on the
board, and will not simply be read from it so to avoid a rigid
and tedious presentation. Furthermore, I will begin to learn
my speech from a condensed set of prompt cards so to be
prepared for the final presentation.

Final rehearsal for presentation – Several successful run 1 week 6th April 6th April
throughs must undertake without notes so to be fully
prepared. The presence of an audience also provides the
opportunity to be given questions which may be presented at
the talk, giving an extra element of preparation.

Presentation – The presentation will be viewed with the 1-hour slot 7th April 7th April
presence of an audience. A moderator and marker will also
monitor my performance.

Evaluation – A full evaluation of the projects process will be 1 day 7th April 7th April
presented and fully analysed, showing how problems were
resolved and how the dissertation was efficiently completed.

Final administration – A final product will be 4th April – 7th April

3 days
amalgamated, consisting of a contents page and all its noted 7th April
sections, ready for the hand in date. Preferably done well in
advance of the deadline day due to the upcoming exams.
Handed in.

*Explanations and adaptions for missed deadlines are accounted for in the activity log in red front
 - ACTIVITY LOG -

Date Activity Comment

Summer Preliminary Research Preliminary research was undertaken so to narrow down my
Holidays and Brainstorming interests into an area of which I wish to delve into. I decided that
for Draft Proposal this topic must have sufficient arguments on either side so to create
strong academic arguments and proses so to come to the best
conclusions. Furthermore, I desired that this interest area was
something that I found truly interested so that I enjoyed it fully and
fulfilled the arguments potential within the dissertation. Although I
found some areas that interested me, I found that there were not
enough resources to pursue them further. After this initial insight, I
decided that I wanted my EPQ to be based upon the framework of
Law and Politics, building upon my work for AS. After
brainstorming these ideas I learnt that my key interest for this
dissertation would be based upon fundamental human rights, and
key arguments based around these. The area of “hate speech”
seemed highly relevant to the law scene, as well as having many
historical figures opinions as well as many up to date articles,
perhaps making an interesting topic to delve into whilst comparing
the different opinions over time and comparing different
academics. Based on this preliminary research I decided that this
would be suitable to pursue, but only after having a number of EPQ
sessions so to better understand the process and if my dissertation
idea was of an appropriate nature.

16th September Draft Proposal form From this, I formed my draft proposal forms amalgamating my
initial ideas, although I was aware that this would need expanding
on or changing following my first EPQ lesson. Due to not having a
thorough introduction by this stage, I struggled to complete some of
the areas but attempted to the best of my ability having not had a
HE skills lesson. To fill my lack of knowledge in this area I
contacted friends who had done an EPQ in the previous year for
advice and exemplar material to show what was expected in each
section of the form, which proved very beneficial.

September Monthly review At this early stage I am satisfied with the progress I have made. I
believe I have found a suitable topic to explore but am yet to gain
approval of the topic awaiting staff review of my proposal form. In
the time before receiving this I have focused my effort in other
commitments and subjects so to distribute my time evenly, and so I
can commit other time in the future to my EPQ through planning in
advance.

3rd October HE Skills – Session 1 This first EPQ meeting allowed me to expand my understanding
and knowledge of what was included within an EPQ from what I
had learnt previously from my friends experiences, for example the
individual section involved and the weighting placed on each of
these. This allowed me to develop a plan of which I was to follow
to successful complete my project to a high standard. Even though I
had a rough idea of what I wanted to pursue, this session taught me
that this had to be something that I had a strong interest in, and
something of which I could build a substantive argument upon.
5th October Creating a plan To complete my extended project to a high standard, I have
allocated time throughout my week to make sure my dissertation
and other work is completed within good time. This time
management has allowed me to balance my activities efficiently;
and so that I can reflect on the work that I have done, giving me
contingency time so to improve on my work. This adjusted over
time according to different commitments.

3rd October – Redraft of my After my preliminary research and my initial EPQ session, I
10th October Proposal Form concluded that a topic which both amalgamated my passion for law
(of which I wish to study at undergraduate level) and political
current affairs through "hate speech" would be ideal to focus my
dissertation upon; forming my question " Should Hate Speech
Enhancements be kept, and if so, should they be extended?" Even
though this topic had been widely explored in the past by many
scholars, it was in my interest to analyse these views and to
scrutinise them directly against the occurrences in the recent
political and legal scene, such as the results of the EU Referendum.
This new slant upon classic arguments such as "free speech" fulfils
my aim to explore something new, while still keeping my
arguments on a legal and academic level.

10th October HE Skills – Session 2 In this session we looked at current events in the media, and
reviewed them as sources based on a number of characteristics;
such as political bias and why a story may be portrayed in a certain
way. This session helped me to evaluate the sources I had already
looked at in my preliminary and initial research, and helped me to
either disregard them from my dissertation, or to add them to my
source reviews of why they failed to prove useful. The notes I made
were thoroughly used when working towards my first hand in
deadline, and gave me a better overview of what I had to achieve in
terms of source reviews for that date, and also made these source
evaluations of a higher standard. (Primary research ongoing)

17th October HE Skills – Session 3 In this session our head Librarian Anne Cassidy taught us how to
find useful sources, through using Infotrac and other relevant sites,
so to find articles and documents from years back, this proved
particularly useful when paired with my ongoing primary research.
I also found this useful as it allowed me to find resources I was
otherwise struggling to find that dated back to the EU Referendum.
Anne also taught us how to effectively reference our sources, which
meant I could better organise and cite my research from my initial
stage, which I had previously been emailing myself to an EPQ
folder. This would prove useful in my primary research as, as the
workload increased, an effective way of documenting my sources
was needed. This resulted in my making a Bibliography.

10th October Bibliography To keep my resources organised, I created a document to store all
of the resources I had used. This proved particularly important in
the intensive preliminary research period as it allowed an effective
understanding of each area, and also giving me the opportunity to
revisit certain documents. This was also paired with a few lines,
analysing the relevance and reputation of each source, making sure
that each one implemented into my dissertation was accurate and
reliable.
16th September Primary research After my preliminary research and with an objective question in
– 30th October mind, I am now able to delve deeper into my topic; beyond what I
found of interest in my AS studies, and into newspapers,
documentaries, first-hand accounts. The College's Infotrac system
proving especially useful when backtracking to recent months of
news, allowing me to accurately account for and analyse events.
These additional materials will help to strengthen my arguments,
creating a more substantive and stimulating dissertation. Following
this, I created a shortlist of a few possible debates within the topic,
and following this started my research gathering information from a
number of sources. After encountering a number of irrelevant
sources so looked back at notes from HE Skills Lesson on how to
effectively find and use resources to solve problem. After finding
relevant sources, I discovered that some of my shortlisted areas of
interested lacked substantive information, so they were discounted
on the basis that I could not explore enough options to form a high
standard EPQ. Following this, I evaluated several sources from a
range of media including newspaper articles and television
programmes.

21st October Hand in deadline This deadline provided me with the opportunity to amalgamate to
work I had done and to organise it effectively. At this deadline I
was required to hand in 3 source reviews, my activity log so far and
a complete plan for the year.
Feedback: My EPQ Skills tutor was satisfied with the work I had
done, but advised me to add more depth to my plan; outlining what
to include in each individual section. Following this, I revisited my
work in the half term holidays to add to what I had done making
sure I had a substantive explanation to each section.

31st October HE Skills – Session 4 In this session we explored the credibility of evidence, in reference
to what we should and should not include in our dissertation. Key
focuses were recognised when evaluating credibility including;
reputation, ability to see, vested interest, expertise and neutrality.
This helped me to minimise the number of incredible sources I had
gathered, and would gather from now on. This will also help me
develop my work over the half term more effectively.

October Monthly review This month I feel that I am well underway with my initial research,
and after my HE skills lesson I find myself more organised and
prepared for the tasks ahead. This development of skills allowed me
to further my work over the half term holidays in an effective
manner. I believe I have a substantive amount of information to
start forming the basis of my argument, nevertheless there is a lot
more work to do, and will probably consist of contingency research
throughout the course of my dissertation.

7th November HE Skills – Session 5 In this session we continued the work on credibility from the
previous session, applying the criteria to the video we watched on
the Philadelphia experiment. This application deepened my
knowledge of how to use this in different circumstances, and also
introduced plausibility, consistency and corroboration. This was
intertwined into the 3 source reviews I had completed up to date.
1st November – Key sections of After my initial research task, I had decided that I wanted to
10th November dissertation decided explore two key areas, whether hate speech enhancements are
needed, and if they are, should they be extended following recent
events. This allows me to explore fundamental argument, as well as
pursuing the views of those in current affairs to see if a change in
the law would be beneficial. Once these two sections were formed,
I noted down the key titles or areas I wanted to explore, for
example in the “Should Hate Speech Enhancements be Extended
Section” I formed sections upon different reasons and influences on
hate crime, such and political figures and the EU Referendum. This
allowed me to gain a breadth of different impacts and arguments to
filter into my conclusion.

10th November – Expansion of key Following this, I used my initial research task to filter my
25 November topic areas and information into the different categories. Filling each area out with
further research a substantive number of bullet points allowed the arguments to gain
rhythm so that I could see where each section was taking me in
terms of my argument. This also included further research so that
this could be achieved in each section. I encountered some
problematic situations where there was not a substantive amount of
information in one area, so ultimately tried to merge sections
together, usually resulting in the expansion of an argument.
This expansion has formed the basis of my essay, forming a rough
guide of which points I hoped to follow. This brief point by point
dissertation plan has helped me understand my argument as a
whole, and has also triggered further interesting aspects. For
example, my research into Mieklejohn’s arguments of free speech
triggered my interest in how this view aligns with current political
conventions such as the ECHR, and furthermore any bills that have
been recently been passed regarding the topic. This has allowed my
research to expand beyond my initial boundaries, encapsulating
even more current and relevant areas which could develop research
points in my dissertation even further.

14th November HE Skills – Session 6 In this session we explored how to effectively construct an
argument, this was especially relevant due to the stage of the
dissertation I am currently at; filling out the bullet points I have so
far produced. We learnt that to create an a high standard
dissertation, the argument must attempt to persuade through the use
of reasons to support a conclusion. This definition alongside the
numerous sets of vocabulary lists provided to enhance our work
have proved extremely useful, and have been embellished into my
bullet point list so to later form a well flowing argument following
the correct structure.

21th November HE Skills – Session 7 With ongoing research of my key topic areas I continue to expand
my skillset by attendting the HE Skills lesson to enhance my work.
This session taught us about flaws, the weaknesses within
arguments of which we needed to avoid to create a high standard
dissertation. This allowed me to critically evaluate my bullet point
plans, and to eradicate any irrelevant or weakly argued points. I
discovered that there may have been some causation issues within
my work, and rectified this by re-analysing my work and only
presenting correlations with a strong link (cause and effect
relationship)
25th November – Formation of my After the completion of my research I believe I have a good enough
31th November dissertation footing to begin my introduction. My introduction gave me the
introduction opportunity to map out my objectives, which consequentially
helped me keep track of my progress as the year progressed. The
introduction also proved an opportunity to introduce the reader to
my topic, defining key terms so to enhance their understanding, so
that the arguments within the dissertation would be understood with
full effect. I believe that my work accurately summarised the key
areas within my dissertation, explaining why the subject matter is
so relevant to current events, as well as removing any queries
before the main argument was delved into.

28th November HE Skills – Session 8 This session introduced ethical principles that may prove useful
within our dissertations. After watching Michel Sandels “The
Moral Side of Murder” we were introduced to a deeper side of
reasoning in relation to ethical dilemnas, challenging our current
perceptions and allowing us to look objectively at different
situations. The video we focused our debate and reasoning around
is strongly linked to the work I am planning to do on free speech,
the utilitarianism aspect that the silence of one means the freedom
of many is highly relevant, and my previous knowledge of it from
my A2 Religious studies can be encompassed within my expansion
of this area.

November Monthly Review With my draft introduction completed, and a large amount of the
foundations of my arguments done, I believe I will complete my
complete draft by the Christmas deadline on December 9th. I now
need to keep ahead of my timetable if possible as revision for mock
exams in January is slowly taking charge. In December I plan to do
short bursts of work to add to my current 1300 words of
dissertation so to reach my personal goal of 3000 words by the
Christmas holidays, by which time I will be well into mock revision.

1st December – Development of Free At this stage I am purely linking up my bullet points so to create
5th December Speech argument momentum within my argument. This included linking my
definitions of free speech to the works of Mieklejohn as well as
aligning it to current ECHR so to enhance the legal dimension of
my EPQ. After carrying out contingency research so to fill out my
work, and to gain a deeper understanding, I discovered the
numerous conflictions within the area, and found out that ultimately
the argument fell back upon itself. This also triggered further areas
of which I wished to explore, such as issues within the courts
related to hate crime (e.g. intent) and largely related to section two
on current events.

5th December HE Skills – Session 9 This week we were taught how to create an effective powerpoint
presentation. I found this valuable, as although I have experience in
public speaking, I have never spoken with the aid of technology. I
noted down key techniques to include so to prepare an effective
powerpoint presentation. Furthermore, we learnt how images can
be used effectively in Powerpoints, with the occasional one being
appropriate as long as it illustrates a purpose. This also
transferrable to my dissertation, so following this I took action and
added relevant pictures to my work to enhance understanding, for
example adding charts and diagrams to show the increase of hate
crimes in the following the result of the EU Referendum.
5th December Development of After reading numerous conflicting arguments based around
section on increased sentences on deterrence, and after making key bullet
Deterrence and the points, my interest was triggered in recidivism, that is the chances
impact on it from of reoffending, almalgamiting deterrence (sentences), social
hate speech situations within prisons as well as rehabilition, to see if hate crime
enhancements enhancements would make any difference. My bibliography also
allowed me to refer back to related articles and statistics on
Deterrence, hopefully making and accurate and insightful resource
out of my work.

5th December – Development of After having a strong foundation formed for section one of my
9th December Section 2: Should dissertation (totaling 2200 words), I felt like this would be a good
Hate Crime time to introduce influencing factors, 2 particularly of interest being
Enhancements be political figures and the EU Referendum. I believed that this is an
extended? appropriate time due to the amalgamation of information on current
events I have gained from writing section one, and I do not wish to
lose my momentum over the intense revision periods for mocks,
thus I dedicated short periods of intense writing time to this area.
Since this area is so closely focused upon current events, I am also
anticipating my pairing with a tutor so to provide specialism in
these certain areas and to give me better guidance. For example, my
political figures area consists of Donald Trump and the impact of
UKIP upon hate crime, and specialism in this area, and similar
relevant areas could boost my dissertation massively, perhaps
triggering broader and deeper topic exploration.

9th December Draft Deadline For this deadline I was expected to have completed 6 source
reviews, an up to date activity log as well as a completed plan,
however the main focus of the deadline was to hand in a draft copy
of the dissertation. My dissertation at this stage currently totals
2720 out of my 3000 word target, however I am satisfied with this
amount as I am hoping after Christmas that my one to one tutor will
advise me on which areas to expand, or perhaps new possible areas
or reads to enhance this overlap of law and politics. In the
meantime, so to try and gain further knowledge I have emailed my
local MP and some newspaper columnists who have shown interest
in the effects of the EU referendum on society. MP Nigel Adam’s
close alignment to Boris Johnson in the Brexit Campaign would
prove especially useful, hopefully forming key opinions of my
dissertation. This time has allowed me to pursue further knowledge
whilst awaiting my feedback from the 9th December deadline.

12th December HE Skills – Session This session consisted of an overview of our EPQ journey,
10 including how to write effectively, how to research, making sure
our activity logs are up to date, plus what would be happening after
the Christmas break. This allowed me to reflect on the process so
far, giving me an overview of what needed to be completed.

December Monthly Review The draft deadline this month pushed me to achieve my target of
3000 words, as well as having an up to date activity log. I feel that
my work over the Christmas period will be limited due to only
gaining my feedback once I meet my mentor, plus the focus I need
to place on my mock exams – but hopefully the progress I have
made before will be substansive enough to keep me on track of my
targets until I meet my mentor.
29th January 1st Mentor Session In this session I met my mentor Melanie, who has a strong basis of
knowledge around my EPQ. We reviewed the work I had done
before Christmas. It had been suggested that I perhaps change the
title to make it more clear due to its long winded nature, so to make
the argument at hand clearer. Melanie also suggested I look at a
few articles to add to my dissertation to expand on what I had
researched in terms of international law (ECHR, EU). I was also
advised to add my page numbers so to make the structure clearer,
which were added on my laptop in the session.
Furthermore, to make the structure even clearer, I was advised to
look at the structure in the EPQ booklet which included chapter
titles, being advised to do 2 or 3 discussion chapters in my
dissertation.

29th January – Development of EPQ Based on the feedback given, I decided to alter my title so to make
2nd February from first mentor the argument at hand clearer. This had to be done so that it had the
session. same meaning, and would not interfere with any of my previous
research. To resolve this I considered a number of “to what extent”
questions, but found the best questions were based on a number of
options, which left me with the question of “Should Hate Speech
Sanctions be disregarded, maintained or extended?”, which was
much clearer in what judgement was trying to be achieved.

Following advice I also looked at further law, and created a new

background chapter, as an extension of my introduction. This
contained a number of UK statutes which outlined different
definitions and sentences, which are key to making a judgement. I
also added Chapters before the each discussion title so the enhance
the clearness of my structure.

January Monthly Review I struggled to meet my personal plan deadline this month due to
focus on mock revision, and also felt that I didn’t have substancial
information to yet form a conclusion, thus not reaching my target of
drafting the while dissertation. My feedback from Melanie later on
in the month proved very helpful and highly useful. Work on my
title helped me feel more comfortable pursuing further research
and making judgements around the question using the suggested
online resources whilst also following my tutors advice.

3rd February 2nd Mentor Session In this session we discussed my need for referencing throughout my
work. Melanie helped me to indentify areas where quotes were too
long, and also taught me how to refence in an Harvard style, giving
me a resource which would help me effectively cite from a number
of different sources. We also addressed the need to extend on the
introduction, which at this stage was around half a page.

3rd February – Development of In this period I adressed areas for improvements suggested in the
4th February Referencing 2nd Mentor Session. I developed my bibliography through
referencing in the correct style and manner, as well as going back
into the dissertation and adding source information.

4th February – Expansion of Although initially wondering where to start expanding on my

9th February Introduction introduction, Melanie gave me guidance of what I could do for
improvement, such as expanding on the structure of the
dissertation, why it was an interesting topic to me personally.
h
10th February 3rd Mentor Session In this session I discussed with Melanie the expansion of my
introduction, even though a lot of it was about my personal interest
she suggested writing in third person due to the dissertation being
an academic piece, which I later improved to account for this. We
also discussed the expansion of my first chapter on whether Hate
Speech Sanctions are necessary, and perhaps the drawing in of key
foundational cases around Hate Speech to advance the argument, as
well as historical examples I could use to demonstrate the success
or failure of hate speech sactions.

10th February – Development of First Following guidance from Melanie I looked at core cases around the
16th February Chapter need for free speech. Whitney V California seemed to play a
predominant role in the foundations of absolutist free speech, and
commentators such as Smith, Whillcock and Slayden proved vital
to the development of the counter-argument, which favoured the
absolutist stance. Research into historic examples also looked at
absolutist free speech through the Weimar Republic, providing
concrete evidence of why sanctions are needed, disproving
previous theories. This also pushed me towards my target word
count of 5000, with a fully developed chapter with substancial
counteracting arguments almost completed.

17th February 4th Mentor Session In this session Melanie and I looked over the dissertation as a
whole and discussed the use of pictures in my EPQ, so the improve
the readability of my work. It was agreed that these must be
relevant photos, appropriately chosen and captioned alongside a
source. Following this session I researched relevant photos which
would enhance my points, such as propoganda posters and graphs
to demonstrate the increase of Hate incidents following certain
events.

We also looked at the expansion of the second section of my work

around triggers. After raising my concerns that it felt disjointed,
Melanie suggested further research so to give me a better grounding
in the section so to make it flow better, as well as using resources
such as Word Hippo and Theasaurus online so to help me develop
the academic nature of my piece.

17th February – Development of So to expand on this topic, I firstly decided to structure my triggers
23rd February Second Chapter into two sub sections; The Election of Trump, and the Vote to
based on feedback Leave the European Union. I started with an introduction
highlighting the key arguments involved and how this could effect
the final judgement. I then delved into Trump’s emergence and
presense in the political scene, and used this as a basis for recent
Hate Speech Attacks, theorising around the connection between
Trump and Hate Speech.

Furthermore, so the expand on my second sub section of the EU

Referendum I re-emailed my MP for a response on current events,
on which I got a reply to days later. Following this I implemented
his somewhat subjective opinions into my work, so to provide a
primary source and knowledge from the centre of parliament itself.
This proved useful as a counter argument, and provided a new
standpoint from which to research and explore.
24th February 5th Mentor Session In this session we took a more general overview of the project,
looking at the deadline in just over a month and creating a plan of
what still needs to be completed. It was apparent that development
of the third chapter was needed, as well as a conclusion, abstract,
and the presentation after concluding my dissertation work.
Melanie also sent over some highly useful resources on how to
successfully present.

24th February – Development In this period I outlined what I needed to achieve in the time scale.
29th February I took into account the need for a fully fledged third chapter so to
complete my conclusion appropriately. On this basis, I carried out
an expansion of the deterrence and recidivism, looking at the
benefits and possible issues of an extended sentence. This proved
somewhat problematic as the results on google were largely
irrelevant and inconsistant, so I referred back to college resources
to find the most appropriate information, such as that of Tonry

February Monthly Review This month I feel that I have made solid progress on my work, and
am on track to meet the deadline. Melanie has helped me progress
in line with the marking criteria, and has provided me with key
resources so to deepen my level of research. I feel that my
gathering of primary evidence has given me a wider understanding
of the topic, and has brought up some interesting standpoints on
which I can expand on. I feel like my structure is now finalised, and
I can work towards fine tuning and concluding my dissertation, so
to move onto the evaluation and presentation work.

3rd March 6th Mentor Session In this session I raised with Melanie how to reference cases and
Statutes, which made up a fair proportion of my introductory page
on legal context. I then addressed this following our meeting and
updated my Bibliography. We also discussed a possible hand in
date for the final draft being around mid- March, so to be able to
fine tune it effectively after, however in the meantime it was
necessary for me to get this to the highest standard I could.

3rd March – Fine tuning Working on the feedback for the previous mentor session, and since
10th March the arguments of each sections were formed, I spent this week
carefully reading each chapter to pick up on any ambiguous terms,
developing language sophistication, as well as making clear links to
the question.

10th March 7th Mentor Session In this session Melanie provided me with a resource which allowed
me to track my progress to date, and my confidence in different
areas e.g. researching. This allowed me to reflect on what I had
achieved, and what I need to work on to attain my target grade.

15th March Deadline for I struggled to reach the deadline this month due to a conclusion yet
secondary research being decided. At this stage I am still in development of my third
chapter, and plan to refer back to the EPQ Resources provided
online so to create a well judged conclusion, however the other
sections of my work are near completion, so overall, I believe I am
on track to meeting the final deadline on the 8th April.
10th March – Adjustment to the To develop this, I also took a closer look at the EPQ Handbook’s
17th March marking criteria marking criteria, highlighting key words and phrases which I
interpreted as important to attain the band, also trying to interpret
which parts of my work fit which criteria. I then spent the week
applying this to my work accordingly, hopefully to make it clear to
my marker asessor that I was fulfilling the requirements.

17th March 8th Mentor Session This week I handed in my draft final piece to Melanie, so to receive
my final comments for fine tuning my work the following week.
We discussed what kind of guidance would be provided through
doing this and how it would help me develop my work so it was at
the intended standard for completion.

24th March 9th Mentor Session In this session Melanie and I discussed the comments included in
my work, the general consensus was that there were a few
improvements to be made so to be working at my intended level.
This consisted of adjusting my page numbers, as the first page was
currently the front cover, I was advised that my first page should
start on the abstract and adjusted this accordingly.
The second suggestion was to shorten my sentences. We agreed
that both fluency and readability would be much improved by
simplifying the structure of my work. However, I decided it would
be more appropriate to correct this at a later date and correct more
obvious and trivial problems first (such as referencing).
Another key area that was picked up on was referencing. We
agreed that my worked lacked evidence in some areas, particularly
in Chapter 2 on current affairs in relation to hate crime. My
referencing of images also needed to be slightly adjusted to to be in
the correct format.
Following my session, I also corrected any gramatical errors which
were highlighted by my tutor, as well as any areas which were
underlined as confusing, which substancially improved the
readability of my work.
g

th
24 March – Correcting Firstly, based on the feedback from my session with Melanie, I
30th March referencing issues looked at the issues with my image referencing. I had initially used
a “Source by” and “Image by” format, but to improve my work
Melanie suggested using a “Source, Date” format, which I
immediately implemented following the session. This also involved
some editing to my bibliography so to account for these changes.
Later in the week I also began to re-source the sites from my
bibliography so to implement them into Chapter 2, so I had
sufficient evidence for the arguments I was pursuing. This also
resulted in the expansion of my literature reviews, which was
extended to 8 sources.

24th March – Structuring of Alongside correcting reference issues, I also began to explore what
30th March presentation I wanted to include in my EPQ Presentation. This largely consisted
of internet research, as well as reflecting on the work I had
currently done. As part of this I developed an evaluation to explore
my points of strengths and weaknesses on which to form my
presentation upon.
31st March 10th Mentoring With the EPQ internal deadline close at hand, Melanie and I
Session discussed how my presentation was developing, and what stage I
was at in relation to when I was to present on the 7th April.

I also queried how to reference Online Government Legislation, of

which Melanie provided information on so I could amend my
sources later that day. Overall, we agreed that I was making
sufficient progress to complete my work by the deadline, and that I
had to maintain this level of work until the end of term.

March Monthly Review This month I believe I have made solid progress on my dissertation,
as well the evidence surrounding it in my source reviews and
organisation aspects such as my activity log. I believe that I have
substancially improved my work through fine tuning aspects of my
bibliography and in-text referencing, as I have provided a stronger
basis for my argument and by doing so I think I have improved the
standard of my work. From now on, I am to fine tune gramatical
errors and my sentence structure so to finish my work in the
following week, as well as developing my presentation so to have it
completed by the deadline. I feel confident in my progress but
realise that I have to maintain my level of work so to finish and
amalgamate all my sections by the deadline.

1st April – Final fine tuning of At this stage I went back to Melanie’s suggestions from the final
6th April work draft; based upon the idea that I should shorten my senteces so to
improve readibility. This consisted of slowly working through each
chapter and making minor adjustments which would hopefully
improve fluency and thus the standard of my work. This also
imcluded the implementation of more academic language to
complement the topic and to raise the standard of debate.

1st April – Development of my After completing the structure of my presentation; I had to fill out
6th April Presentation the information on each slide so to suitably inform the reader of
each stage in the process. I also used images and animations in my
presenation to enhance understanding and the slides appearance so
to make them more interesting. After doing this, I made prompt
cards so to aid me in my presentation, and so that I did not solely
rely on reading from the powerpoint. These were brief bullet points
which would trigger other areas of relevance and would hopefully
allow me to voice an interesting debate and the processes behind it.
 - LITERATURE REVIEWS -

“Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government” – Alexander Meiklejohn (1948)

One of the core underlying influences within this dissertation was the work of Meiklejohn in his book
‘Free Speech in Relation to Self-Government”. Throughout his book, Meiklejohn held a nonpartisan
and objective overview, whilst logically addressing and resolving several paradoxical conflicts within
definitions provided in the Constitution. This unbiased resolvement of arguments proved paramount
to this dissertation, as it allowed a balanced template on which to develop. Although Mieklejohn’s
arguments were largely sustained around American Politics and the Constitution, the core arguments
provided seemed applicable to English Politics, thus proving of significant relevance to supporting
the use of sanctions today. Further purpose of Mieklejohn’s work derived from his background as a
renowned philosopher, educational reformer and a well-regarded free speech advocate. His extent of
education as a student and later a Dean of Brown
College, alongside his decades of interest in the subject
affirm his credibility and extent of understanding of
the topic, allowing him to present such a strong
overview and resolvement of arguments through his
work. Although it may be deemed there is lack of
temporal relevance due to the date of publication in
1948, it is the fundamental arguments and theoretical
basis of Mieklejohn’s work which gives it significant
The signing of American Constitution
relevance, as social values through time remain
(Source: History Online, 2016) consistent, allowing the application to modern day
Britain in this dissertation.

“Nineteen arguments for hate speech bans – and against them” – By Eric Heinze (2014). Available
from:<http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discuss/nineteen-arguments-for-hate-speech-bans-and-against
them/>

The ‘Free Speech Debate’ article titled “Arguments for Hate Speech Bans – and against them”
(Heinze, 2014) also proved key in the formation of argument in Chapter 1. Although initially
interpreted as an objective and unbiased piece as implied by the title, the article’s structure was an
amalgamation of counter arguments, attacking any argument justifying bans. Even though this piece
was one-sided in nature, it still introduced the alternate standpoint of absolutism, which has
prominence as a counterargument in the first chapter. In addition, the source also provides historic
examples of unsuccessful sanctions and their consequences, such as that of Weimar Republic,
providing concrete factual evidence thus making it of significant relevance. Furthermore, Heinze
himself is a Professor of Law and Humanities and Queen Mary’s University, London, inferring
arguments made are formed on concrete evidence as referenced. The further knowledge that this
piece was monitored by expert advisors and formed from resources at the University of Oxford
affirms Heinze’s credibility. Although largely subjective, this source proves crucial in this
dissertation due to the prevalence of an alternate standpoint to deepen the argument, so will have
prominence in the first chapter following these reasons.
I.A. V Turkey (2005) Available from: <http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2005/10/article3.en.html>
Legal cases also hold utmost importance in dissertation, as they display practical application of free
speech sanctions. Multiple sources of the case of R V Turkey were amalgamated into a single thread
on webpage “Merlin”. This page provided objective and factual account of the case, including the
occuring’s within court and necessary details about the hate speech offence. On face value, the lack
of academic merit and reputation of the site questioned its credibility and reliability to implement it
into the dissertation, for example it could be an illegitimate page with a vested interest to show
Turkey in a negative light. However, such doubts could be dispelled through the cited references to
Government which corroborated details of the case, affirming its credibility. The case held further
relevance due to its demonstration of the compromise of free speech laws in action, proving it as
essential evidence to support the argument of maintaining sanctions. Cases such as these are
imperative in showing the effect of the Law and act as a significant indicator for whether hate speech
sanctions should be disregarded, maintained or extended.

Email to Nigel Adams Re: EPQ Dissertation. (nigel.adams.mp@parliament.uk)

When conducting research in relation to current
affairs, the most contemporary sources are those at
the source of the decisions. Contact with MP Nigel
Adams allowed a broader insight into the topic, and
an overview of current issues as well as some
interesting alternate standpoints. However, political
bias posed numerous issues, and as he was
personally involved in the Leave Campaign he
failed to acknowledge is weaknesses and only
Nigel Adams MP debating in the House of Commons
spoke its praises, and withheld the ideas of his (Source: Selby and Ainsty, 2016)
parties throughout. It may be held that due to the
less public nature of this communication, there would be less of a foreboding pressure of partisan
alignment, for example there is more pressure, and more chance of political bias or manipulation of
facts when speaking in the Commons under a whip or where their reputation within their party is at
stake, as this provides innumerable benefits to politicians themselves. On balance, the comments
given will have significant presence in this dissertation due to the alternate viewpoint held, so to
develop the argument deeper, however this will be acknowledged as subjective opinion rather than
fact due questions around credibility and visible bias.

Public Order Act 1986, Part 3, S18. Available from: <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64>

This source was useful as it provided a legal context to my dissertation, so to be able to build an
effective judgement on sanctions. The material itself was easy to find as all statutes are culminated on
the governments website, however the lack of clarity in both navigation and language in some areas
of the statutes made it difficult to find relevant information. When this was located, it revealed an in-
depth insight into the workings of sanctions, providing the necessary background needed to develop
my argument and come to substantiated conclusion.
Hate Crime Debate – input by Lord Rana. Hansard (Internet) Available from: <https://hansard.parl
iament.uk/Lords/2016-07-05/debates/16070553000243/HateCrime#contribution16070553000110>
A source of further political knowledge was through looking at Online Hansard reports, specifically
the Hate Crime debate referring to comments of Lord Rana. This report, being released only days
after the EU referendum, addressed the increasing struggles being faced by our country and proved
especially relevant to my work, as the comments made suggested a need for the extension of
sentences. The Hansard Reports themselves provide a very reliable account, and have gained
exceeding reputation over the hundreds of years they have been collected. Alongside the verbal
records of these debates on BBC Parliament, the corroboration seems almost faultless and provides a
very strong account of occurrings’, affirming their credibility and reliability as a source. However, it
may be seen that what is being said by the politicians may have been selected and manipulated in a
certain manner so to favour their point and party. Partisan alignment may mean that politicians distort
the facts so to promote their view and to gain themselves a credible reputation within their parties,
such as the whip, which provides innumerable benefits to the politician themselves. This means the
arguments are based upon vested interest, thus cannot be deemed objective and neutral, however,
they do present key arguments and points which may be implemented into my work, as well as
numerous direct quotes which can be applied.

Love Your Neighbour: A Birmingham grass roots campaign to build bridges after Brexit – By N
Elkes. Available from: <http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/love-your-
neighbour-birmingham-grass-11555771>
The Love Your Neighbour Article is an overview of recent hate speech occurings' in Birmingham.
This was useful to give concrete recent evidence of the "more speech" hypothesis in action, which
argues for a disregard of sanctions as positive consequences arise from negative acts, so was
significant in my argument. Although an overview of events was provided, credibility could be
questioned based on reporter bias. As so many negative offences had occurred, the reporter may have
been trying to show Birmingham in a positive and progressive light through their reactions to the
event, perhaps even over emphasising the success of the campaign so to protect the reputation of the
area. Reporter bias brings into question the reliability of the source, however, at an objective level
this source still provided key facts and evidence of occurrings, which can be added to expand on hate
speech sanction counterargument, proving it to be of limited use.

Hitchens, C. (2011) Christopher Hitchens on Freedom of Speech. Reader's Digest (Internet)

Available from: <http://www.rd.com/culture/christopher-hitchens-on-freedom-of-speech/>

Hitchens' article on Freedom of Speech postulates the idea of Free Speech as a right to not only to
those speaking, but also those listening. His arguments contradict the maintenance of sentences and
fully adopt the absolutist stance of abolition used as a counterargument in the first chapter. However,
one issue with this piece is that it is largely subjective, formed on opinions and speculation rather
than solid evidence. Nevertheless, Hitchens admittedly raises some thought provoking points, and his
background as a British author, columnist and journalist provides a solid and credible basis for him to
form antagonistic views upon. Therefore, it can be deemed that Hitchens' standpoint, although largely
subjective, poses an interesting stance that will deepen my argument in the first chapter, thus will be
of significant use.
 - APPENDIX -
EPQ Presentation – Slides
 - APPENDIX CONTINUED -
EPQ Presentation Handout Sheet Resource