Backword on freedom of speech.
When I hear about the proposed law on incitement to religious hatred, I wonder if it’s the direction we really should be going in?
Sure, hardly anyone would be arrested because of it, and far fewer still would be prosecuted. What it does, though, is creates a sense that we’re not quite allowed to say what we want to say. That’s the sort of thing that makes Rowan Atkinson upset, although I wouldn’t imagine that any religious hatred law would stop people from making jokes about religion. What it would do, though, is make people think twice before telling a joke. “Will I be inciting racial hatred if I put that video of Father Ted on?” (Don’t laugh. Catholics were apoplectic when BBC Three commissioned Popetown, and they hadn’t even seen it. It seems as though nobody will now. And that’s without a law against incitement to religious hatred.)
Now that Nick Griffin has been arrested for allegedly commiting incitement to racial hatred (gee, the leader of the BNP a racist? Never!), it will only serve to make him a martyr. Says Dave:
If there’s one outcome I don’t want, it’s Mr Griffin, having washed his neck and donned a suit for his day in court, punching the air and giving jubilant interviews. With the prosecution record under the present law, that seems all too likely.
We don’t need a law against incitement to racial hatred, or a law against incitement to religious hatred – they create an illusion that our right to freedom of speech will be eroded. Surely a blanket law against incitement to violence is far more sensible?
Freedom of speech means that people have the right to offend others. In return, they can offend back. And we should all be able to defend ourselves if we have to.
(In short, what Backword said.)
Comments closed