Hating Hate Speech Not Humour

Issue 9 Jan / Feb 2005

The Queen’s Speech unveiled on 23rd November 2004 included plans by the Home Offi ce to outlaw incitement of religious hatred. Almost immediately comedians, unelected Peers, Liberal and Conservative MPs and various others mobilised their campaign against the Government “clamping down on the long cherished right of freedom of speech.” What is so remarkable is the ability of the objectors to mount a campaign based on misconceptions of the Government’s plans at the same time as misleading the public of the real issues involved.

The European Convention of Human Rights became fully part of English law in 2000. Article 10 of the Convention deals with free speech. Although people often refer to this “right” very few refer to the “duties and responsibilities” that need to be exercised with this freedom. Examples of limitations on this freedom of speech can routinely be found in our laws on defamation, national security, intellectual property, pornography, and incitement against racial hatred.

The laws against inciting racial hatred have, thankfully, led to incitement against blacks being almost non existent now. The courts have held that mono ethnic faiths such as Sikhism and Judaism can get the protection of the race relations laws (whereas multi ethnic faiths such as Islam, Hinduism and Christianity cannot). This has meant that there is now a lot less incitement against, eg. Jews, which is surely a good thing. No one is arguing the protection for Sikhs and Jews should be withdrawn, but the objectors do not want the same protection extended to Muslims.

The far right has become a little sophisticated. Groups such as the BNP know there is a loophole in the law and have sought viciously to exploit it. We have seen over the last few years more and more examples of incitement against Muslims. This is because it is not against the law to incite hatred against the followers of multi ethnic faiths, like Islam. This was best demonstrated with the BBC expose of the BNP earlier last year. The programme confi rmed that there was a link between the BNP’s use of language and acts of criminal violence.

The new law will not stop comedians going about their normal business and poke fun at religion; the Life of Brian will not be banned. The Serious Organised Crime Squad (a new British FBI) will not be patrolling Comedy Clubs and the BBC to try and catch out comics. There is a false and offensive assumption that Muslims cannot appreciate humour. Similarly, the new offence will not stop theological debates between people of different beliefs. However, the way these objectors are carrying on, one would think there will be a “speech police” patrolling our streets.

The new law is about outlawing hatred incited towards the followers of a religion, and not towards the religion itself (one can carry on hating a religion as much as one wants). It is aimed at threatening, abusive, insulting words used with the specifi c intent or likely effect of inciting hatred.

The history of incitement against racial hatred laws has shown us that the fl oodgates will not open up. There have been very few prosecutions under this law as the far right have self censored the language they previously spouted. However, because they are aware of the loophole, it has made British Muslims fair game.

This law is about closing that loop hole. This law is about giving the victims of hatred some remedy. It is about giving protection to the most vulnerable community in the UK today. It is one step in reducing the hierarchy of rights (where Muslims are at the bottom) that has existed in the UK for too long. We must not allow the “civil liberties” of the far right to trump the human rights of vulnerable communities in the UK.

back