ONE of the cornerstones of our great democracy is free speech.

But, today, offending anything or anyone all too often is followed by calls to resign or even threats to personal safety.

The on-line abuse suffered by parliamentary candidates during the last election is a prime example.

To be clear, I believe violent and threatening behaviour on the internet should be prosecuted.

But things become less clear when legitimate criticism, whether on or off-line, is shut down.

Brave Labour MP Sarah Champion found that out to her cost last week, when she was fired by Mr Corbyn for writing: “Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls.”

The MP represents Rotherham, where 1,400 girls, aged 11-15, were abused in what the National Crime Agency calls the “biggest child protection scandal in UK history”.

Those convicted were predominantly British Pakistani men.

However, it’s not just MPs who are increasingly being placed under the cosh.

There are countless incidents where remarks, which some may find offensive, have been blown out of all proportion, resulting in lost careers and reputations.

A deafening silence is the consequence, where good people fear to speak up.

The void is then filled by those who want to repress free speech, and they exist, believe me.

Legislation, too, can easily become an enemy of free speech, often unintentionally.

So proposals must be scrutinised carefully.

This week, for example, it’s planned that on-line hate crimes will be treated with the same severity as face to face intimidation.

Yes, the law must keep pace with technology, but the boundaries are not always easy to identify.

Let’s watch this space carefully because I don’t want tolerance to be subjugated to the will of the intolerant.