As I understand it, he was making a pro-Hamas speech (not pro-Palestine). Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK.
The UK had a particular problem with preacher Anjem Choudary [1] indoctrinating followers to be militant islamists. He is reckoned to the be linked to up to 40% of terrorist incidents in the UK (including the 7/7 attacks in London).
Following this period the anti-terror laws were made stronger and "inviting support for a proscribed organisation" became illegal. Presumably that means recruiting either directly or indirectly through speeches.
So, I can understand how this happened. But your summary really only belies your bias I'm afraid, this: "arrested a jewish son of holocaust survivors for hate speech after he denounced Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner" isn't true. Even the article you link states that he was arrested for inviting support for a proscribed organisation. He wasn't arrested for denouncing Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner.
The issue is very emotive and charged. I am not taking sides. But it's often the case that whenever anyone falls foul of laws, that have been designed to protect the people of the UK, either directly from abuse because of who they are, or indirectly via terror, then those affected complain about a lack of freedom of expression.
It seems they didn't charge him, so maybe the police overreached in this instance. I haven't seen the speech, so I can't comment, and certainly I wouldn't defend the UK police as they could certainly do with some reform. But, it's also possible that this was quite a difficult tightrope for the police to walk in terms of the law.
Some of these laws may seem draconian, but the people of this country who are not racially abusing people, or targeting people because of their sexual orientation, or gender, or inviting support for a proscribed terrorist organisation (which is 99.999% of us), will never fall foul of this legislation.
How does that follow? The main problem with freedom of expression in Iraq isn’t the censorship of video games that include actions against Iraq. If that was the only censorship in Iraq, the UK and Iraq would be on the same level.
Neither follows. Of course the UK is nowhere near Iraq in terms of censorship. Yet, here the UK prescribes to their standards on grounds just as hollow.
Think about what makes this case different, why it was treated as such, and what the motivations were (Hint: Not related to counter-terrorism).
UK is turning into Oceania. Police are knocking on people's doors for tweets. And in a way in Iraq chances are you will have greater freedom of expression because the state capacity is low. UK can enforce shit.
If you’re referring to the faux outrage whipped up by Daily Telegraph ‘journalist’ Alison Pearson, then that too isn’t accurate [1]. A member of the public reported a crime (inciting racial hatred), the police followed up on that, as is their duty.
She lied to suit her own divisive narrative.
Free speech absolutionists are whipping up fervour with divisive rhetoric. It’s as simple as that. In the UK we have free speech rights but also responsibilities. That’s how it should be. Unfettered free speech without a thought to the public and social consequences is reckless imho.
For those that care for facts rather than the divisive rhetoric of twitter: this is a decent overview of the freedom of expression rights and responsibilities in the UK [2]
"In contrast, freedom of speech does not protect statements that discriminate against or harass, or incite hatred or violence against, other persons and groups, particularly by reference to their race, religious belief, gender or sexual orientation. In the UK, this includes laws specifically designed to protect people from suffering abuse on account of who they are."
No, I'm not. I don't read the Daily Mail. Are you trying to imply that was just one case and police don't spend time on them at all?
"My Lords, so-called non-crime hate incidents may have been introduced for perfectly good reasons after the Macpherson inquiry, but last year the police recorded more than 13,000, including some against schoolchildren and others for utterly absurd reasons—I myself was investigated for calling Hamas Islamists" [0]
No one has been specifically prosecuted for speech as far as I am aware of. The individuals locked up were quoted as being prosecuted for speech by less than accurate media and were persistent offenders and violated their release or suspended sentence terms.