 |
| The New Yorker |
I honestly don’t know the answer to the above question. But having seen many of Charlie Hebdo’s anti-Islam cartoons – particularly the ones featuring The Prophet Mohammed, as the BBC always slavishly refers to him – on Twitter following today’s massacre by Islamist barbarians, I somehow doubt that a British magazine would have got away with publishing them, given the this country’s draconian anti-free speech legislation. I say draconian, but I’ve read a summary about hate speech laws on Wikipedia, and I’m really none the wiser. For all I know, I could regularly have committed hate crime on this very blog: various court cases would suggest our current laws are open to a variety of interpretations.
As I say, I honestly don’t know if Charlie Hebdo would be acceptable in Britain. But I really doubt it. So, when we (rightly) ringingly endorse the concept of free speech and the right to make fun of religious fanatics and proudly declare that we in the West must defend the principle of liberty in the face of threats of violence, we should probably admit to ourselves that – here in Britain, at least – we’ve already betrayed that principle by enshrining in law the right of certain sections of society (e.g. Muslims, homosexuals, the disabled, blacks, fatties – you name it) not to ever hear or read anything that might possibly offend them.
When tens of thousands of Brits understandably – and touchingly – show their supports for those who died in Paris today by tweeting #JeSuisCharlie, maybe they should consider the possibility that #ImNotAllowedToBeCharlie. Because, let’s face it, if any British magazine had published the cartoons featured in Charlie Hebdo, the police would have been round in a flash – not for the purpose of offering employees protection from enraged fundamentalist Muslims, but in order to punish those who had dared to offend the followers of Islam.
The cartoon at the top of this post is part of a truly brilliant response from cartoonists around the world:
What really got me, though, was the change the US Embassy in Paris made to its Twitter avatar:
Left-wing Charlie Hebdo takes a very dim view of religion, but I doubt they'd be too offended if this right-wing Christian ex-journalist said - God bless.
I think the answer to your question is not so much about what the law says but how it is implemented. The police will invariably push the boundaries beyond what Parliament intended, for example by using laws designed for criminalising terrorist activity for wider purposes. So while in theory, you could argue that the law won't punish the publication of offensive material like the cartoons you refer to, any editor and journalist and indeed your blog knows that the police will zealously pursue any complaint that it does way past the point of common sense. Against that background, most editors lose their nerve. Charly Hebdo didn't, uniquely in Europe it would seem. It is inconceivable that today's Private Eye would run any risk other than the occasional minor libel.
ReplyDeleteAs the chap from the Spectator said on the news just now, terrorism has won the battle against free speech.
Fascinating answer. But why (oh why) do the police behave this way if their bosses aren't demanding it of them? Is it because this sort of bullshit non-crime is easier to prosecute and has a higher publicity value than boring old robbery and burglary and rape? After all, there's absolutely no detection involved - and when they say they're "looking into" what someone wrote on a blog or Twitter I always wonder what the act of "looking into" it actually consists of, apart from following a link - which face it, doesn't take a lot of effort. Or is it because they get to monster mainly law-abiding middle class people who donlt give them the same sort of grief as the criminal classes? Or is it a point of principle because they all read the Guardian and do sociology degrees these days? Why the lack of interest in catching villains these days???
DeleteI suspect the '60s version of Private Eye would often have got into trouble nowadays - but the current version is just "an old bitch gone in the teeth".
The 'why' is because the upper echelons of the old bill have been infested with Common Purpose brainwashed sociology graduates.
DeleteFor PC Plod (ho ho) nicking someone on Twitter for using the word 'wog' or daring to 'diss' Stephen Fry is probably a better career move than nabbing a bank robber.
Laziness? Easy pickings? As you say, it's a lot easier to get your stats up that way than by putting your resources into a serious investigation iof household burglaries, and in any case those middle class homes are insured, aren't they Sarge? They'll be happy with the Victim Support Leaflet and a crime number.
ReplyDeleteI think another explanation is that from Scarman to MacPherson, there has been a cultural shift, with the trust and respect in the forces of law and order once accepted as a given subsequently undermined, rightly or wrongly. The police responded to this by choosing to become more involved in the social and community welfare agenda than in catching villains. They now see themselves as the referees of consensus within communities (your socioligy point), giving far too much weight to the keepers of the peace element of Peel's original vision for the police force than to crime fighting.
Sorry, I should have said "police service". And if you want the cultural shift summed up in a word, or more accurately, a word change, then that is it.
In the matter of UK hate speech prosecution, the cynical dictum of the Scottish judge , Lord Braxfield, comes to mind, viz., " Let them bring me prisoners, and I will find them law."
ReplyDeleteThis short video extract from an Islamic Peace Conference provides an interesting view of non - extremist Muslims :
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61KsT5YixF0
Genuinely scary video. There was a nice-sounding chap in suit purporting to represent mainstream Islamic Britons on TV after the Charlie Hebdo murders, who said that he would have sought to ban their cartoons through the courts rather than through violence - evidently unaware that there was another alternative, i.e.not to deliberately seek out publications which print material which doesn't accord with your political or religious views, but that if you do happen across them, post a blog or write an angry email and then just get on with your life. After all, if you want to live in a society in which criticism of Islam is banned, yiou can always move to an Islamic country.
DeleteFirst Orwell prophesied the advent of "thoughtcrime". Then Lord Leveson raised acceptability above legality, without defining "acceptability" or bounding it in any way.
ReplyDeleteMost of the British press accepted Leveson's findings and one member even recommended respectful humility towards him.
There's your answer. No. They wouldn't have to.
Well, I think everything's worked out splendidly, given that nobody who ever comments about anything even vaguely contentious has the slightest clue whether what they're saying is "acceptable" (or "appropriate" or "helpful") or not. So we all cravenly practice self-censorship, thus ensuring that there will be no honest debate about the issues that actually exercise the public, because that debate mustn't offend the people who don;t want the debate to take place. At least our left-liberal elite get to sleep soundly in their beds - bless them.
DeleteFunny how The Guardian - which despises the Monarchy, the Military, the House of Lords, the Security Services and the Church of Egland - thinks we should show humility to one rather befuddled judge.
Sadly, if Peter Hitchens, writing in today's Mail, is to believed, three of the key players in the Charlie Hebdo organisation had been behind a petition to have Marine le Pen's National Front party banned.
ReplyDeleteLeft-wing hypocrisy? You astonish me!
Delete