Freedom of speech in the United Kingdom is not protected by a single, written constitution or a supreme constitutional clause equivalent to the US First Amendment.  Instead, it is primarily protected by statute and common law, most notably through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. 

Key Legal Protections and Limitations

Qualified Right: Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, freedom of expression is a qualified right, meaning it can be restricted if the government deems such restrictions “necessary in a democratic society” to protect national security, public safety, health, morals, or the rights of others. 

Statutory Restrictions: A network of modern statutes significantly limits speech, including the Public Order Act 1986 (criminalizing speech intended to stir up racial or religious hatred), the Communications Act 2003 (prohibiting grossly offensive online communications), and the Online Safety Act. 

Parliamentary Privilege: Freedom of speech for Members of Parliament is historically guaranteed by the Bill of Rights 1689, which states that debates and proceedings in Parliament cannot be “impeached or questioned” in any court or place outside of Parliament. 

Residual Liberty: Historically, free speech existed as a residual freedom, meaning individuals were free to say anything that was not explicitly forbidden by statute or common law (such as laws against defamation, obscenity, or incitement to crime). 

While the UK ranks higher than the US in some global press freedom indices, critics argue that the lack of a rigid constitutional backstop allows Parliament to theoretically alter or curtail these protections through ordinary legislation. 

“Can I use my freedom of speech ‘rights’ to say “Globalise the Intifada” in public in the UK?”

There is no absolute “right” to say “Globalise the Intifada” in public in the UK, and doing so carries a significant risk of arrest, particularly in London and Greater Manchester. 

While the UK does not have a constitutional right to free speech, the phrase is protected in principle under the Human Rights Act 1998 as freedom of expression.  However, this is a qualified right.

The Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police have announced they will “act decisively and make arrests” in response to placards and chants using this phrase, citing a changed security context after attacks in Manchester and Sydney.  They argue the slogan can be seen as threatening or abusive and may stir up racial or religious hatred, falling under offences in the Public Order Act 1986. 

The legality hinges on context and intent.  Authorities like the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must prove the speaker intended to stir up hatred or provoke violence. Critics, including academics and human rights groups, argue that arresting people for this chant risks a “chilling effect” on legitimate political speech and protest, especially for Palestinian solidarity. The government has not banned the phrase outright, but police are actively enforcing existing laws against it. 

“What if I clearly say “Clobolize the Interfarter” in public?”

Saying “Clobolize the Interfarter” in public is highly unlikely to lead to arrest in the UK, as the phrase appears to be a nonsensical or humorous mispronunciation with no known political or threatening meaning.

The original phrase, “Globalise the Intifada,” is being actively policed in some UK areas due to its association with political conflict and potential to incite hatred. However, “Clobolize the Interfarter” does not convey a clear, threatening message and would likely be interpreted as gibberish or satire. 

Since UK laws on public order and hate speech require the speech to be threatening, abusive, or intended to stir up hatred, this specific utterance would not meet the threshold for prosecution under statutes like the Public Order Act 1986.