A couple of weeks ago I compromised myself somewhat by signing an e-petition when I only agreed with half of it. The petition, titled "Create a Free Speech Act and Bring an End to 'Hate Speech' Laws" gets something of a mixed response seeing as the first half of it calls for state intervention in favour of freedom of expression. This strikes me as being something of an oxymoron, just as a 'permission to breathe Act' or a 'permission to make an honest living Act' might be. Liberty exists in the absence of legislation, not the presence of it - and once you accept that 'freedom' is something the state 'gives' you, there's an implied acceptance of that same State's right to take it away.
However, a Parliamentary debate on the subject of 'Hate Speech' laws and whether or not they should be repealed was more than worth turning a blind eye to the well-intended but misguided concept of a 'Free Speech Act', so I happily signed and pretty much forgot about the thing. To be absolutely honest I anticipated that the repealing of laws around 'Hate Crimes' was always about as likely as someone naming an old people's home 'the Harold Shipman residency for the elderly', but I was genuinely surprised when the government responded to signatories of this petition yesterday. More than anything, it was that they felt the need to respond at all that caught my eye.
Here's the government's response in full:-
The Government is committed to upholding free speech, and legislation is already in place to protect these fundamental rights. However, this freedom cannot be an excuse to cause harm or spread hatred.
Current UK legislation values free speech and enables people who wish to engage in debate to do so - regardless of whether others agree with the views which are being expressed. Everyone has a right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is a qualified right however, which means that it can be restricted for certain purposes to the extent necessary in a democratic society. This means that free speech is not absolute.
Importantly, the law ensures that people are protected against criminal activity including threatening, menacing or obscene behaviour both on and offline. The Government is clear that hate crime and hate speech are not acceptable in our society, and anyone seeking to use freedom of speech as an excuse to break the law should still face the full force of the law.
A hate crime is any criminal offence, for example assault or malicious communications, which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s actual or perceived race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity. The Government takes hate crime very seriously, which is why we published the hate crime action plan (Action Against Hate: The UK Government’s plan for tackling hate crime) in July 2016.
It is also worth noting that section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986, for example, states that the offence of inciting religious hatred, does not restrict or prohibit discussions, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions.
In this way, the Government believes the law strikes the right balance between protecting citizens and protecting their right to free expression.
Home Office
Ok, so it's pretty clear from this that 'Hate Crimes' are here to stay and won't be repealed at any point in the foreseeable future. The digestion of their response to the petition is a bit of a "where to start?" moment so perhaps the best way of approaching this is to deal with it point at a time and then present my observations/critique/rebuttal of what the Home Office is saying here (I doubt that Amber Rudd wrote this personally, probably either a junior minister or an unpaid intern). Anyway...
The Government is committed to upholding free speech, and legislation is already in place to protect these fundamental rights.
Well straight away we're on rocky ground. The best and in fact only way to protect free speech is to pass precisely zero acts of Parliament and have as little on the stature book (preferably nothing) pertaining to it as possible. Legislation assumes that this 'freedom' is actually the State's to give you and therefore something that same State can remove at any time that it deems such action necessary, for any reason or none.
However, this freedom cannot be an excuse to cause harm or spread hatred.
Didn't take us long to start 'playing God' did it? Moreover, we've rapidly headed down the 'deliberately vague' route that should make anyone with a healthy respect for individual liberty somewhat uneasy. If by 'harm' you mean inciting a riot, or slandering/defaming somebody then there were already perfectly good laws covering those situations long before 2006 when 'Hate Crimes' legislation came into effect. If by harm you are in fact referring to merely upsetting or offending someone else by expressing a personal belief or point of view, then the notion of laws to protect people from being offended is absurd. The vague use of the word 'harm' is the issue here.
As for 'spreading hatred', as nasty as that is how person A feels about person B, or tries to persuade person C to feel about person B (i.e. spreading hatred), is none of the state's business. What people then go out and do is another matter entirely.
Current UK legislation values free speech and enables people who wish to engage in debate to do so - regardless of whether others agree with the views which are being expressed
Nice words and I like the 'voltaire sentiment' that appears to underpin them. However, the presence of 'Hate Crimes' laws and those centred around 'Hate Speech' in particular would suggest that this is not the reality.
Everyone has a right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
See my earlier response about freedom of expression being yours by right and not something for the Government (or as in this case an international body like the EU or ECJ) to give and withdraw from you as it pleases.
This is a qualified right however, which means that it can be restricted for certain purposes to the extent necessary in a democratic society. This means that free speech is not absolute.
It's true that freedom of speech is not absolute. It doesn't give you the right to incite violence or disorder. Nor does it allow an individual to broadcast or vocalise what they know to be untruths about another person, or to raise a false state of emergency or alarm (crying fire, bomb etc). However, the Uk did not have a massive problem with individuals doing these things and the powers that be being unable to respond prior to 2006. All of these scenarios were covered by laws around incitement, public order offences, slander, libel, defamation etc. Taken at face value, laws around 'Hate Crimes' do not actually give anyone a single new right, or criminalise anything that was legal beforehand.
So...what's the point of them?
Importantly, the law ensures that people are protected against criminal activity including threatening, menacing or obscene behaviour both on and offline. The Government is clear that hate crime and hate speech are not acceptable in our society, and anyone seeking to use freedom of speech as an excuse to break the law should still face the full force of the law.
'Threatening, menacing or obscene behaviour' was already illegal, as was "using freedom of speech as an excuse to break the law". I mean, the clue really was in the title regarding that second one wasn't it?!! As for these things 'not being acceptable' I'm still yet to understand what the government seeks to render 'unacceptable' that was previously 'acceptable', at least legally.
A hate crime is any criminal offence, for example assault or malicious communications, which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s actual or perceived race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity.
FFS!! Assault is against common law and if by 'malicious communications' you are referring to knowingly false statements about another individual (as in a malicious accusation) then as I've already stated more than once, this was already covered by libel/slander/defamation law. Then again, by 'malicious' you could simply be referring to an everyday meaning of the word - to the effect of nasty, spiteful, expression of ill-will etc. No doubt this can frequently take forms that are unpleasant and offensive, but freedom of speech has to be especially for the unpleasant and the offensive, otherwise it is not worth having.
But then...race, religion. sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity. Is the real agenda here to set up a series of 'special groups' in society who the rest of us will then be frightened away from commenting on, let alone daring to criticise, question or ridicule? Just out of interest are anti-white racism, heterophobia and attacks on 'men who identify as men' (that's my 'transgender identity', apparently) covered? Surely either everybody is 'covered' by this stuff or nobody is if we're interested in genuine equality as opposed to setting up certain 'priveleged groups' in society? Personally I'd rather nobody was 'covered' and people were free to say pretty much what they like.
Also note the sneaky inclusion of the word 'perceived' in there - perceived by who, exactly? We all know that perception can be highly subjective and less than wholly reliable, especially when the right to 'play God' ends up in the hands of the police or somebody feeling victimised.
The Government takes hate crime very seriously, which is why we published the hate crime action plan (Action Against Hate: The UK Government’s plan for tackling hate crime) in July 2016.
Oh a Hate Crime Action Plan!! I bet the Windsor Chapel of the Ku Klux Klan are shitting themselves...
It is also worth noting that section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986, for example, states that the offence of inciting religious hatred, does not restrict or prohibit discussions, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions.
Yes, but what if someone finds the criticism, antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of their religion 'harmful' or 'malicious' under the terms of what you've outlined above? Can't you see the antagonism between these two pieces of legislation, how someone might look at both and have far less idea where they stood afterwards as opposed to far more?
You'd be forgiven for thinking that someone, somewhere was being deliberately vague and confusing just to intimidate freethinkers into silence, perish the thought.
In this way, the Government believes the law strikes the right balance between protecting citizens and protecting their right to free expression.
That there is a 'balance' to strike, be it between liberty and security or across 'competing rights issues' is one of the most pernicious activities that States participate in, allowing them as it does to get away with trampling on the personal freedom of their citizens in the name of some contrived greater good. There are no 'competing rights issues' outside of common law and every last one of us should have the right to say things that might cause offence, to be offended by views expressed by others, and to counter what we've just heard by registering that sense of offence/disagreement. The right 'not to be offended' or indeed a right 'not to be challenged' does not (or at least should not) exist.
Once we establish that legislation around 'Hate Crimes' cannot possibly exist for the reasons stated (since those reasons were already covered by the law of the land beforehand) it become valid to ask whether there might be some more sinister agenda behind them. What occurs to me regarding 'Hate Crimes' is the extent to which they have put a lot of decent, reasonable people on edge and genuinely unsure of where the 'acceptable lines' are (they even sound Orwellian and I don't think that's an accident either). The contribution that freedom of expression makes to our society is sometimes unquantifiable, but however expensive it may be, it's still more than worth it.
I just hope enough of us wake up to this reality before it's too late.
I'll leave you with the recently departed Mark E Smith - RIP and thanks for the memories.
Appreciate you dropping by once again and catch you on Sunday.
No comments:
Post a Comment