A cautionary tale of worshipping false freedoms
From my schooldays I have been a keen football supporter. For many years I stood on the North Bank at Highbury, graduating to the Clock End as I became an away fan. I took out all the frustrations of the week via my vocal chords. I still do it today, except I sit in a comfortable seat at the Emirates and on Saturday I took Everton-supporting Tim Prater with me. The game itself gave me more reason that usual to shout, but for Tim’s sake I tried to be on my best behaviour!
Over the years at various grounds I’ve heard some good chants, some funny ones and some downright vile rubbish. I was always embarrassed to hear the antisemitic abuse aimed at Spurs fans, whilst the various chants aimed at Manchester United and Liverpool about the Munich air crash and Bill Shankley respectively are revolting. Mind you, the supporters of those two clubs, give almost as good as they get.
The whole point of football chants is not just to encourage you own side, but to discourage the opposition. And so it has been over the years, from the far-Left and the far-Right. The language of the street has morphed into the type of the blog, but the hate and spite remain, even down to the hatred for the wives of the leading players. Who would have thought that Iris Robinson would once be treated in a similar manner to Victoria Beckham?
Yesterday’s conviction of five Luton men for using threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment and distress, raises an interesting issue regarding free speech. Of course those of us who wish to live in a liberal democracy saw the irony of those claiming a right to free speech holding up banners stating ‘Freedom can go to Hell’. But should we restrict the freedom of people to be abusive? I was surprised that the protesters were allowed to stay and demonstrate at the ‘homecoming parade’ – if anything was ever likely to cause a breach of the peace, that was it. But once they had been allowed to demonstrate, did anyone have any belief that they were going to be polite and supportive to the marching servicemen?
Once the men were charged, the state lost control of the moral high ground. ‘You do not like what the State does and the State does not like what you say. But we are more powerful that you and we write the laws. The protesters had been condemned to play paper a game of ‘Rock, Paper Scissors’, where rock sits out every turn.
Campaigner Peter Tatchell has more reason that most to dislike fundamentalist Muslims. His sexuality and his conscience soon see him locked up and worse in some countries. But his belief in free speech is absolute. Commenting on the convictions, he said:
“Insult and offence are not sufficient grounds in a democratic society to criminalise words and actions. Just as I defended the right to free speech of the Christian homophobe Harry Hammond, and opposed his conviction in 2002 for insulting the gay community, so I also defend the right of these objectionable Muslim extremists to make their views heard.
“The best way to respond to these fanatics is expose and refute their hateful, bigoted opinions. Rational argument is more effective and ethical than using an authoritarian law to censor and suppress them.”
Over the years, citizens of this country have been arrested, imprisoned and put to death for speaking up against the monarch, the church or the state. Today it seems that the crime is t speak out against public opinion. The truth is that these men voiced unpleasant opinions,calculated to cause hurt and distress. As such, they are guilty as charged. But that does not make their treatment right. Over 150 years ago in ‘On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote:
“We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.”
For Mill, to silence an opinion was to claim infallibility- just as the church and state had previously. If we are not infallible, then we have no right to silence dissenting voices, only to ensure that the effect of those voices is direct harm to others. If we are to extend the law from the ‘harm principle’ to the ‘offense principle’, where we can be prosecuted for commenting on the actions of others in a manner which some may not like, then that law should be brought in clearly and implemented across the board. I dare say it would not prove so popular then.
The readers of our tabloids often seem keen to preserve their rights to drive dangerously, to throw away as much rubbish as they want and to be racist and homophobic. How strange therefore that they do not want to preserve one of our hardest on and greatest rights- that of the right to free speech.
Related posts:
Comments
Leave a Reply:
