Without free speech, this island seethes with resentment

20 Apr 2011 | Uncategorized

This article was published on Comment is Free

Police warnings that anyone attempting to burn a union flag during the royal wedding next week will be arrested are part of a worrying drift towards a legally sanctioned fetishisation of symbols both religious and secular in Britain. The warning came following an application by the far-right Islamist group Muslims Against Crusades (an offshoot of the outlawed al-Muhajiroun) to protest near Westminster Abbey on 29 April.

Earlier this week, Andrew Ryan, an English Defence league member with a history of public order offences, including racial chanting, was sentenced to 70 days in prison for burning a Qu’ran (he also received a 30-day sentence, to be served concurrently, for stealing the book from a local library).

The symbolic burning of books is wrong. The imprisonment of English Defence League member Andrew Ryan for burning a copy of the Qur’an is wrong. These two sentences are not contradictory.

In January, Ryan stole a Qur’an from a Carlisle library (that is definitely wrong, by the way), took it to Carlisle town hall and set fire to it with a cigarette lighter, while shouting derogatory slogans about Islam. It was, district judge Gerald Chalk commented when sentencing Ryan, “an act of theatrical bigotry”.

This is true: but does it amount to racially aggravated harassment, for which Ryan was convicted?

One could claim so if Ryan had taken his one-man protest to a local mosque, or Islamic cultural centre, or actively sought Muslims in the area. But he went to the town hall. So it’s difficult to see who exactly he was harassing. “Harassment” suggests targeted action.

He could, perhaps, have been convicted instead under section 5 of the Public Order Act, which is the law that did for al-Muhajiroun member Emdadur Choudhury, fined £50 for burning poppies on Armistice Day. That law itself is deeply insidious in its vagueness, and has been used several times in the arrest of street preachers putting forward conservative Christian views on homosexuality.

It’s worth mentioning Choudhury’s paltry fine, because that is certainly what Ryan’s supporters in the English Defence League will do. Why is it that one act of theatrical bigotry merits a fine, and another a 70-day jail sentence? Why does the desecration of a symbol of national mourning merit less punishment than the desecration of a religious text? While judges’ decisions are independent, this will only add to the EDL and its supporters notion that there really is “one law for them … “.

The English Defence League will be keen to portray Andrew Ryan as a martyr. They now have their very own shahid, persecuted for his beliefs by the deadly combination of Islamists and an establishment all too keen to capitulate.

So here, then, we have a practical argument against both these convictions: when we privilege certain types of speech, we create grievance. When we privilege in law certain ideas, we create resentment against people who hold those ideas. We see this in every impotent rage against “political correctness”; every indignant howl on the protection of religion and believers. The social cohesion argument that underpins so many government and police curbs on free expression does not really seem to be working.

Choudhury and Ryan were both convicted for actions that some might find upsetting. Their convictions legitimise and deepen the culture of taking offence that will not be resolved unless we begin to accept that free speech is not always easy to defend, but vital if this not to become an island of seething, hidden resentments masquerading as a coherent nation. More jaw-jaw, less law-law?

Wikileaks’ Julian Assange refused bail

7 Dec 2010 | News and features

A London court today refused to grant bail to Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange. Assange is facing extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges including one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape.
(more…)

Simon Singh victory doesn't mean libel laws work

15 Apr 2010 | Uncategorized

This article first appeared  on liberty central

Simon Singh’s bogus journey has finally come to an end. Almost two years to the day since Singh first wrote an article in the Guardian questioning the claims made for spinal manipulation by the British Chiropractic Association, the organisation has dropped its libel case.

There is no way the BCA could have anticipated what would follow from bringing their claim against Singh. In the last year, Singh’s case has become a rallying point for free expression organisations such as Index on Censorship (who formed the libel reform coalition last December with Sense About Science and English PEN), scientists, bloggers, comics, and what Ian Sample described in the Guardian this week as a “rising army of sceptics“.

One in four British chiropractors is now under investigation by the General Chiropractic Council following a campaign by Singh’s sceptical supporters. Singh was brave in standing up to the BCA. But he was exemplary in insisting from day one that the case was not just about him. The absurdity of this case highlighted to many the injustices of English libel law, from the grossly inflated costs, to the utter inadequacy of our concepts of fair comment and public interest. In the court of appeal ruling handed down on 1 April, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge emphasised that Singh had written an honest opinion, based on reasons, and suggested that this should be the future template for “fair comment” defences.

This is a day to celebrate for anyone interested in free expression in England and beyond. In fact, it has been an amazing week for libel reform campaigners: as the main political parties rolled out their manifestos, all three made commitments to libel reform. Meanwhile, the petition for reform passed 50,000 signatures.

What we should not imagine for one moment is that the BCA climbdown suggests that our libel laws work. The case has taken up masses of time and energy for all concerned. Meanwhile, NMT’s case against Peter Wilmshurt, another clear demonstration of the law meddling with medical science, rumbles on. And the solicitors’ letters keep turning up in the mailboxes of writers, bloggers and activists without the nerve or resources of Simon Singh.

Free expression in the UK remains threatened. Next week, the Libel Reform Coalition hosts a hustings at the Free Word Centre in London, where all three parties will be grilled on their commitment to free speech. Manifesto pledges are one thing; but we must continue to push for a genuine rethinking of UK citizens’ ability under the law to debate, argue and learn.

"You Can't Say That"

18 May 2009 | Uncategorized

Last Saturday, as at least one half of Manchester had its eyes on Old Trafford, Index on Censorship co-hosted a debate with local gay arts festival Queer Up North at Manchester Central Library. Called ‘You Can’t Say That’, the debate promised to be a wide-ranging discussion on the nature of ‘offence’ and instances where offence is used to justify censorship.

Local councillor and gay activist Paul Fairweather kicked off the discussion. He pointed out that many gay young people suffer day to day abuse, not just in the playground, but on the airwaves, where radio DJs such as Chris Moyles use the word ‘gay’ as a term of abuse. Young gay people, he said, needed to be protected, by law if necessary.

Writer, broadcaster and Index on Censorship trustee Kenan Malik picked up on the idea that legislation is the best way to tackle hatred. The ten years after the introduction of the Race Relations Act, he said, were among the most overtly racist in the nation’s recent history, with the National Front marching on the streets and comedians such as Bernard Manning on television.

Feminist writer Julie Bindel explored the notion of who is to decide what is ‘offensive’. Telling the audience about a Hassidic Jewish wedding she attended with her gay partner, she pointed out that while the religious people present may have found her sexuality offensive, she found the arranged marriage and segregated wedding party offensive. So, if we are to legislate against offence, whose offence tops the scale?

Index on Censorship news editor Padraig Reidy focused on the damage done when we limit free expression. While the UK may seek to ban “hate preachers” from preaching that gay men should be executed, it is in places where there is more censorship, rather than less, that these views tend to gain most influence, as counter argument is not allowed. A progressing society is based on dialogue, not the closing down of opposing views.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK