So there we have it: the collision of the two great British characteristics of decency and freedom of speech. On the one hand there is politeness, the wish not to hurt anyone’s feelings or cause offence; on the other hand there is the inviolable right to say almost anything. Generally the two act as checks on each other, encouraging us not to be, on the one hand, wimps, while preventing us, on the other hand, from being thugs. While many felt that the decision of the British newspapers not to publish the Danish cartoons represented an abandonment of their responsibility to exercise free speech, a majority felt that printing them months after their first appearance would've been gratuitous. Offence is good - and it's good to be free to offend - if offence is necessary. The worry, if it's not, is that acts of provocation end up being used to provoke more provocation. Then we're back in the playground again.
Despite 9/11, Madrid and July 7, as well as myriad other instances, it seems that we have constantly to be reminded that there are rogue elements in western society that seek to destroy both the tolerance of others and the right to speak out. The pandemonium surrounding the Danish cartoons - the savage vandalism and killing around the globe and the incitements to it in our own country - are only the latest instance. The government and its police force to whom, under the terms of the Hobbesian contract, we look to protect our safety, are going to have to get a whole lot better at protecting legitimate free speech - few things make people want to be rude as much as being told they’re not allowed to be rude - and punishing those who refuse to live by the laws of the land.
Let’s be clear that we aren’t talking here about your average ranter. The brouhaha surrounding the religious hatred bill precisely concerned this distinction. You’re allowed to say nasty things about each other. You’re allowed to say your god is the only god and my god is a fairy cake. You’re allowed to draw obscene cartoons. A further aspect is the line between ideas and people. You can, if you want, say Buddhism promotes panhandling and buggery. Likewise, Nick Griffin can say that Islam’s a wicked religion. These are attacks on ideas. You are not, though, or not seriously, allowed to say I should be killed and suggest ways of doing it.
Freedom of speech is circumscribed by laws against incitement to murder and violence. So you can say that Judaism is a moronic religion, but, especially given historical precedent, you can't call for all Jews to be exterminated. Nor can you, as the cartoon protesters did, walk the streets of London with placards declaring that anyone that insults Islam should be beheaded and massacred. And Abu Hamza a-Masri just isn’t allowed to say that the infidels should be executed. This is not double standards: it was acceptable for him to say that Britain is a toilet – though he was free to leave – but you cannot attack a person, or incite an attack on a person, within British law. Why it took so long to put him away is another debate for another day, but yesterday the jury showed that, as generous and tolerant as we are, we will not be taken for mugs.
Since we’re on the subject of great British principles, fairness is another one that turned out to be relevant this last weekend. Newsnight reported a couple of nights ago how a man got out of his van to shout at the cartoon protesters and one of the policemen who was walking benevolently beside them shouted at him for being rude. Another man, the Today programme reporting this morning, was arrested for handing out leaflets promoting free speech. Add these to the arrest of a woman for reading out the names of dead soldiers at the cenotaph, or the image of poliecemen clobbering tweedy foxhunting rural types, and it starts to look like the police aren’t exactly playing fair with different groups in our population.
Now public order being their priority, the police could be forgiven for not making any arrests on Friday or Saturday for fear of fomenting more trouble than already was apparent. But we want to see fairness upheld in the aftermath. Absolutely, categorically we do. If not, we will want to know why an intolerant belief protects someone from the law. We will want to know why our safety is being risked for the sake of the sensibilities of a dangerous minority. On Friday Jack Straw egregiously criticised the publication of the cartoons but not the horrific protesters – see Matthew d’Ancona’s piece in the Daily Telegraph today; more strident comments have now been made by ministers and if the police fail to act against this lunatic fringe there will be trouble.
There are further reasons to make sure that the protesters are punished. For a start, Muslims should be offended if arrests are not made. Shahid Malik, the Labour MP, has condemned the protesters, and even Iqbal Sacranie, not particularly known for his moderation, has said that he wants to see people prosecuted. Why? Because the fanatical suicide club brings the rest of the community into disrepute and leaves people confused about what is Islam and what is not. Such extremists fan the flames of right-wing extremism. The battle lines get drawn. The clash of civilisations looms more threateningly than ever. One extreme must be dealt with – through incarceration or deportation – in order to smother the incendiary other.
Clear identification of the fanatics makes it possible to mark out the moderates. By standing firm for freedom of speech and decency and fairness all Brits of whatever ethnic background can get on with the business of living together and having a robust debate in the true tradition of enlightenment reason. The point about free speech is that Muslims will have to get used to their faith being treated like the Jews’ and Christians’. The way to oppose that which is offensive is to lobby, write articles, march and shout, but not to call for murder. Those who, in taking offence, break the law, should realise that in a pluralistic democracy they will be punished. If you don’t like it, perhaps you shouldn’t be living in one.
The following articles are worth a glance:
Tariq Ramadan writing in the Guardian.
Mark Steyn writing in the Chicago Sun-Times.
Trevor Kavanagh writing in the Sun.