« Are you being served? | Main | Need Cheering Up on a Bad News Day? Try the Middle East Media … »
February 15, 2006
They are terrorising our freedoms
One of the most persuasive arguments for taking up smoking again seems to me to be the news that it has now been banned across England. It’s a civil liberty thing – pubs should be allowed to choose. As for ID cards – civil liberties are relevant counterargument, but the imbecility of the measures owes more to the government’s inability to make such an ambitious scheme work, the exorbitant costs, and the imminent failure to achieve any of the stated objectives for national safety. Now, the anti-terror legislation being debated in the Commons tempts me to start attending libertarian rallies or hollering about the glories of Fascist freedom fighters and Marxist revolutions.
Let’s be clear that the terror bill has got nothing to do with being firm on terrorism. The offence of glorification owes more to Downing Street's obsession with being seen to do something than a wish to tackle terrorism in a meaningful way. The Conservative shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve has said his party will back the plans to ban indirect encouragement of terrorism, but has rightly accused the government of trying to manufacture a ‘dust up’ so that Mr Blair can claim other politicians aren’t protecting the public. ‘This is a bogus spat,’ he said this morning on the Today programme, ‘generated by No 10 Downing Street for the purpose of the prime minister looking tough.
There are, I think, two points which show that this is the case.
Firstly, the wording of the bill. After the incitement to religious hatred bill you’d expect the government to be more conscientious about its legal language. You’d expect them to tidy and tighten things up a bit. Yet ‘glorification’ – which is not a clause but a subclause within the ‘indirect encouragement clause’ – was originally removed by the Lords because it is so poorly defined. Unless ‘glorification’ is properly defined, as Dominic Grieve has pointed out, the Irish taoiseach could face prosecution in the UK for celebrating the Easter Rising. Far better, and entirely adequately stringent, is the definition of ‘indirect encouragement clause’ itself: ‘making of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it.’
Secondly, the government’s own lassitude in dealing with terrorists undermines its claims. Abu Hamza – ‘Captain Hook’ – who the Home Affairs Select Committee has today said is very far from an isolated case in Britain - was on the loose for far too long before finally being arrested. Likewise, the likes of Jack Straw and Peter Hain were incredibly loathe to condemn the placard carriers when their messages constituted the serious criminal offences of incitement to violence and murder. It came down to the Tories to make the first public calls for arrests. While the government drags its feet about acting on more serious incitements to murder, Charles Clarke pleads for a ‘glorification’ clause to cover mincing abuses like ‘we glorify terrorism’.
The lowering of the bar will only have the negative impact of limiting the freedom of speech acts that should not be criminalized. There is and always has been a trade-off in which the citizens of Britain permit the limiting of their freedoms in return for greater national security. This will have no such effect. It totally fails to strike a balance between national interests and individuals’ freedom of speech.
Posted by Nick Seddon at February 15, 2006 11:46 AM
Comments
This Government needs to learn that legislating against everything will only stir up resentment. There needs to be greater acknowledgement of the right to hold a particular view as long as it isn't hurting anybody else, and to partake in peaceful, non-inciting protests, whether they be against Government plans, globalisation, or a particular religion.
The only thing that needs to qualify that is that everybody is treated the same. That means that whether you are a BNP activist promoting allegedly xenophobic immigration policies or a radical Moslem cleric defending your religion, you are entitled to the same respect. The reason that such respect is lost is because the person espousing the views practices no tolerance of others, too.
Freedom of speech within the UK has been qualified for so many years now (for security, and through the libel laws, for example) that it is only a few small steps to eliminate it entirely, and it is legislation as ambiguous as the current terror bill that allows for such an unnecessary clampdown.
It hasn't been a glorious week for civil liberties: ID cards, smoking bans, counter-terrorism measures and the suggestion that Microsoft's new operating system should be allowed to contain elements that allow anti-terrorism forces to access parts that even the users can't, to collate evidence. It's time that social liberals fought back and defended their freedoms instead of allowing the Government to run roughshod over us!
Posted by: Dave Harris at February 15, 2006 04:09 PM
I see the HoC bar escapes the ban becuase the HoC is a 'Royal Palace'. Does this mean that if they open a bar or restaurant in say Hampton Court, the Tower or Windsor Castle they also will be exempted from the ban. Could be a nice little earner.
What if you opened a bar/restaurant in the visitors area of one of HM prisons as I understand they too escape nasty nanny Bliar's authoritarian hissy-fit.
Posted by: Berenger at February 15, 2006 09:26 PM
Given the Irish Government's sheltering of IRA terrorists for decades, maybe the glorification clause MIGHT end up with some merit after all! Accidentally, of course.
Posted by: David Vance at February 15, 2006 11:45 PM
As you will know Dr.Frank Ellis is being persecuted by Leeds university for some outspoken comments on the racial basis of IQ and his disavowal of our responsibility for Africa. But is it for his university to suspend him? This is probably preliminary to his sacking. If any want copies of his interview in "Leeds Student" and the article he wrote for them I will send them to you.
I have begun an online petition with colleagues to support his rights against the University and the left-wing UAF to defend his academic rights. Would you be so kind as to circulate the web link amongst your friends and contacts to sign and support him in this persecution?
http://petitionthem.com/default.asp?ect=detail&pet=2626
David Hamilton
Posted by: David Hamilton at April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(Because we are bombarded by huge amounts of spam, if you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site moderator before your comment will appear. Thank you very much for waiting.)