Nick Griffin, the Leader of the BNP, was acquitted yesterday of charges of inciting racial hatred. In 2004 Griffin made a speech to BNP activists in which he described Islam as a “wicked, vicious faith” and said that Muslims were turning Britain into a “multi-racial hell hole”.
Griffin is a racist, he espouses an ugly creed based on fear and ignorance, almost every word he says is offensive. But being offensive shouldn’t be enough to land you in jail.
Yesterday, Mizanur Rahman, a young radical Islamist was jailed for his part in the protest earlier this year over the Danish newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Rahman waved banners and chanted into a megaphone shouting “Annihilate those who insult Islam” and “Behead those who insult Islam.”
Although he apologises now, Rahman’s remarks were full of hate, they were grotesque, offensive and shocking. But being shocking shouldn’t be enough to get you convicted.
I’m a black gay man and much of the anti-hatred legislation that Griffin and Rahman were prosecuted under was designed to protect people like me. But freedom is a delicate thing, and I believe that our current raft of hate crime laws in danger of undermining the very freedom they aim to protect.
These laws are meant to stop people inciting others to acts of hatred, but how can you do that? Where do you draw the line? Hatred, however repugnant is a legitimate view. You might deplore it but you cannot abolish it by Act of Parliament.
Certainly the law can and should criminalise the planning and instruction of acts of violence, but is describing Islam as ‘wicked and vicious’ or saying that those who insult it should be ‘annihilated’ really the same thing?
I believe that there is a right to be offensive, to say things that scandalize and outrage opinion. Far more important though is the right to be offended. I would rather hear things that hurt me than be stopped from hearing them for my own good.
Being hateful is wrong but I don’t want to live in a society where it is illegal.
Charles Anglin has been a member of the Federal Policy Committee, and blogs at http://bullseye-liberaldissenter.blogspot.com/
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"Ahaarrrr!" A voiceover session from hell
Day 9319: Mr Froggy's Vanity Election
Government should block Nigel Farage's resignation - Ed Davey
Let's be honest. Regeneration of some areas will take decades
Why Plaid should not repeat their badger cull policy
Jana
paul barker
Peter Martin
Paul Walter
Nonconformistradical
5 Comments
“Behead those who insult Islam.”
Although he apologises now, Rahman’s remarks were full of hate, they were grotesque, offensive and shocking. But being shocking shouldn’t be enough to get you convicted”
But I think the problem is that such a slogan isn’t just offensive, shocking and grotesque, but a direct incitement to commit violence against some people (behead them).
So I think that making offensive remarks from making remarks that directly incitate violence should be somehow distinguished.
The point (as implied from the main piece) is that a law of that type is problably unworkbale because it’s difficult to draw the line.
Agree with you Charles. Obviously we don’t know all the details which each jury heard. But I do wonder whether anyone was in any danger of being beheaded as a result of a bloke wandering around with such an exhortation on a placard.
It does expose some shocking cynicism by the Home Office again this week who were spinning that (a) new laws were needed and (b) the new laws to criminalise provoking racial hatred recently came into force (as reported on the BBC – now corrected)
In fact the Racial & Religious Hatred Act got Royal Assent in Feb but is still awaiting it’s commencement order. At 3 sections and one schedule it’s hardly a massive piece of law that’s complicated to commence!
If you say new laws are needed – try getting the laws you’ve got into force first!
Well said Charles.
Well said Charles.
The most worrying aspect of this debate is hearing Government Ministers state that the law should protect people from being ‘offended’.
I find quite a lot of what Blair, Reid, Straw and co. say offensive. I don’t for a moment expect the law to be changed so that I can go to court to stop them saying it.