20 Sep 10 | Uncategorized
In May 2010, the government’s Freedom Bill sweetened the pill of coalition for Liberal Democrat voters and libertarian Tories with the promise of rolling back the illiberal legislation of the new Labour years. No longer would we toil under the socialist yoke. We were promised reform of the libel laws, scrapping of ID cards, greater Freedom of Information.
But perhaps one of the most insidious restrictions on freedom was left untouched. The Home Secretarys power to bar people from entering the country on the basis of what they say. The Home Office has confirmed to me that there is no intention of changing the position on excluding people for their words. The power has been used at least once by Theresa May, to ban preacher Zakir Naik.
Attention was drawn to this power in May 2009, when the Home Office released its list of non-EU nationals barred from entering the UK for what a Home Office representative described to me as ”unacceptable behaviour”.
The list was varied to the point of random. While some on it clearly had links to terror organisations, and some had criminal convictions, others were simply, well, unpleasant. What’s more, it was clear that even the ones who did have convictions were being excluded on the grounds of what they said.
Some, such as shock jock Michael Savage and Reverend Michael Phelps (of God Hates Fags) fame, are mere controversialists. Russian skinhead murderers Pavel Skachevsky and Artur Ryno, will still be in jail long after their exclusion orders (which last a maximum of three years) run out. Newly-excluded Zakir Naik may be banned, but his pamphlets, books and DVDs are available in Islamic shops across the country. It’s difficult to see what the purpose of exclusion is beyond mere gesture politics. This impression is only strengthened by the Home Office’s assertion that the list of excluded is “indicative, not exhaustive”.
A nation does have the right to decide who passes through its borders, and to protect its population from genuine criminality and harm. But exercising this right in an attempt to censor people, or to “protect” society from their ideas, is counterproductive and futile, particularly in the age of the Internet.
Jacqui Smith’s barring of Geert Wilders only served to give him greater publicity, turning a minor Dutch politician into a national talking point . Even before the ease and speed of global communication we now enjoy, censorship didn’t work. The Irish governments censorship of the Provisional IRA through Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, first introduced in 1971, did absolutely nothing to halt its rise. The UK”s aping of the tactic in the late 80s just made the government seem petty. We deal with extremism by confronting its arguments, not by pretending its not there. The coalition should confirm its commitment to freedom and end the censorious use of this power.
Padraig Reidy will be discussing exclusion, censorship and culture with the Guardian’s Sarfraz Manzoor and Douglas Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion at Two Minute Hate, Monday 20 September, as part of the Free Word Festival
www.freewordonline.com/flow/week-2
18 Jun 10 | Uncategorized
Home Secratary Theresa May has issued an exclusion order for the controversial Muslim preacher Zakir Naik.
At first glance this is similar to the ban on Dutch MP Geert WIlders imposed when he was due to show his film Fitna in the House of Lords last year. The ban on Wilders, whose film juxtaposed verses from the Koran with images of terrorist atrocities, backfired on two counts. First, it simply made him a free speech martyr and drew attention to his scare-mongering views that were freely available on the Internet. Secondly, it wasn’t sustainable — Wilders won an appeal against the ban at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. In retrospect (and as it seemed at the time too) it would have been far better to have let Wilders have his say, and to have met his arguments with counterarguments and evidence. I made a podcast about this criticising the Government action at the time (Listen here)
Does that mean that on free speech grounds we should discourage the UK Government from imposing a ban on Naik? Here’s a possible difference between the cases: Naik has reputedly expressed sympathy for Osama Bin Laden’s terrorism and seems in some of his pronouncements to be advocating actual violence against Americans and against those who change their religion.
If that is correct, then there may be good reason for a ban. The most obvious acceptable limit to free speech is the point at which a speaker incites violence. Yet, the situation gets more complicated. Naik has issued a press release in which he “unequivocally condemns acts of violence including 9/11, 7/7 and 7/11.”
So, should we take the press release as a sincere statement of his current position? If so, is it reasonable to ban him for views that he has apparently jettisoned if indeed he ever held them? This is not an easy case to decide. Perhaps allowing him to speak in Britain while monitoring closely the content of his oratory will in the end be the least worst option.
28 Apr 10 | News and features, United Kingdom
The conviction of Liverpool atheist Harry Taylor for placing “offensive” cartoons in an airport prayer room has caused controversy among secularists. Butterflies and Wheels’ Ophelia Benson and Paul Sims of New Humanist magazine go head to head
(more…)
22 Oct 09 | Uncategorized
Was this a great day for democracy, I was asked this morning as I sought for the umpteenth time on television and radio to justify the BBC’s decision to invite the BNP onto its Question Time programme. Of course it is not a great day when a party that is avowedly hostile to ethnic minorities is given a platform on the broadcaster’s most prestigious discussion programme. This is not a day that will be remembered with fondness by anyone except supporters of the far-right party.
And yet the alternative for democracy and for free speech – the most basic of civil liberties – would have been worse. The most important free expression is the right of an individual or organisation, whose views one finds most obnoxious, to have its say. One works from the assumption that Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, will be subjected to robust, passionate and forensic cross-examination. The rest is up to the good sense of the public.
The only realistic and practical criteria for curbing free speech reside in the law. If Griffin or any of his followers break the law – as they have done in the past – then they should be subjected to the full might of the law. Until or unless they do, they are entitled to be heard no matter how uncomfortable that leaves mainstream society.
It is not for governments, less still public service broadcasters, to determine the acceptability of opinion. When in February Jacqui Smith, the then Home Secretary, announced a list of 16 undesirable foreigners who would be denied access to the UK – from the Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders to radical Islamist preachers to an American shock-jock radio host – she was setting a worrying precedent. One is either a free individual or guilty of a crime. That is surely one of the most important lessons of our, imperfect, democratic system.
