Another defence of the right to incite religious hatred

“If it is left to the Nick Griffins among us to acknowledge what is clearly quite widespread concern about Islam, we will never be able to have the serious, substantial debate that we need about the role of Muslim practice in Britain. How is a liberal democracy to deal with an illiberal orthodoxy in its midst? How can a faith whose own laws often contravene those of its host society make its peace with the secular state? These are questions that need urgently to be addressed. They cannot be fudged by banning ‘religious hatred’, or by insisting that anyone who alludes to them (or who resents the problems that they raise for our society) is a bigot fit only to be fodder for the neo-fascist fringe.”

Janet Daley in the Daily Telegraph, 13 November 2006

Inciting hatred against Muslims is OK by Mad Mel

Melanie Phillips joins the chorus of condemnation provoked by Gordon Brown’s suggestion that the racial hatred laws need tightening up to prevent the fascist BNP inciting hatred against Muslim communities:

“… racial hatred is entirely different from being offensive about a religion. Unlike racial hatred, which targets people, religious hatred is directed at an idea. And in a free society, there should be no place for criminalising the clash of ideas, however much upset this may cause…. Mr Brown is doubtless keen to burnish his credentials as a Prime Minister-in-waiting by displaying his toughness against all extremism…. But he doesn’t seem to realise that outlawing hatred of religion would undermine this fight, by shutting down crucial debate about Islam and its role in global terror…. Mr Brown’s view plays directly into the hands of those Muslims who try to stifle debate about Islamic terrorism on the grounds of ‘Islamophobia’….

“What makes people vulnerable to the BNP is the enormous gulf between ministerial rhetoric and action. It is staggering, for example, that in deprived Newham, the Government is allowing the largest mosque in Europe to be built on the site of the Olympic village – a piece of Islamist triumphalism to be funded by the Tablighi Jamaat, a group described by intelligence sources as an ‘ante-chamber’ to al Qaeda…. The BNP is exploiting a deep weakness in our culture. Only if British society and its values are defended with the utmost vigour and their attackers given no quarter will the poisonous boil of the BNP finally be lanced, and bigotry of every kind shown the door.”

Daily Mail, 13 November 2006

If we need help in “showing bigotry the door” Melanie Phillips will of course be the first person we turn to.

Peer doubts race hate law resolve

Lord AhmedThe will of ministers to tighten laws on racial hatred has been questioned by Muslim Labour peer Lord Ahmed.

Several ministers called for a review of the legislation after the BNP’s leader was cleared of stirring up racial hatred in remarks about Islam. But Lord Ahmed said the government had not delivered on previous promises to the Muslim community on race hate laws. It was time for the government to start treating Muslims equally and not like “subjects of a colony”, he said.

Lord Ahmed told the BBC that the government had made unfulfilled promises to the Muslim community earlier this year when a new law on religious and racial hatred was watered down as a result of a Commons defeat. The peer said ministers should have shown more determination to push their measures through.

He said: “What I have seen is that the government has been treating the Muslim community like subjects of a colony rather than equal citizens in the UK.”

BBC News, 12 November 2006

Double think on incitement

In the wake of BNP leader Nick Griffin’s acquittal on a charge of inciting racial hatred against Muslims, editorials in both the Sunday Telegraph and the Observer come out against tightening the law.

Their arguments are ignorant – the Torygraph is evidently labouring under the impression that Mizanur Rahman was convicted of incitement to murder, when he was of course convicted of inciting racial hatred – and also incoherent. The Observer argues that Griffin’s case was different because his speech was made “in private” – though what that has to do with the issue of incitement is unclear. Does the Observer think it would have been OK for Griffin to incite people to go out and murder Muslims, as long as his speech was made at a BNP internal meeting?

Both the Telegraph and the Observer argue that words which fall short of actually inciting violence should not be criminalised – which is in fact an argument for abolishing most of the existing legislation against inciting racial hatred. No doubt the Telegraph would welcome such a step. We can only assume that the Observer agrees.

Race hate laws split the cabinet

The government is facing a major split over race hate laws, with cabinet colleagues divided over whether the legislation should be toughened.

Two cabinet heavyweights – the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, and the Home Secretary, John Reid – differ over how to respond to Friday’s acquittal of the British National Party leader, Nick Griffin, and a fellow BNP activist.

The split comes as Brown, Reid and the Tory leader David Cameron all made moves yesterday to boost their credentials over anti-terror measures and law and order ahead of the Queen’s Speech on Wednesday. The speech will include sweeping new measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, immigration, reoffending and terrorism.

Brown responded to the BNP verdict by saying Griffin’s description of Islam as a “wicked, vicious faith” would offend “mainstream opinion in this country”. He said: “If there is something that needs to be done to look at the law, then I think we will have to do that.”

But Home Office sources said Reid was taking a more cautious line, ruling out new legislation until well into next year. They said he wanted to see how a new race and religious hatred law – watered down by amendments in the House of Lords – “bedded in” when it came into force in February.

The Brown-Reid divide was seen as particularly significant because the Home Secretary is being mentioned by some Blair loyalists as a potential successor to the Prime Minister.

The Chancellor’s suggestion that the law might have to be tightened also prompted a strong reaction from the Liberal Democrat peer who helped lead the Lords’ opposition to last year’s bill.

Lord Lester, a leading human rights lawyer, said he and others would strongly oppose tougher legislation, and criticised the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, for bringing a prosecution against the BNP leader. “What we need is not new laws but a more sensible attorney-general,” he said.

Goldsmith is planning a meeting tomorrow with the Crown Prosecution Service lawyers who prosecuted Griffin and the other BNP member, Mark Collett. “He will examine whether prosecutors have sufficient powers to take the necessary action,” a spokeswoman in the Attorney General’s office said yesterday.

Last year’s bill, before it was diluted by the Lords amendments, would have allowed people to be prosecuted for using “threatening, insulting or abusive behaviour”. Under the final version only “threatening” behaviour is covered. The prosecution will also have to show intention to foment hatred rather than just recklessness.

Observer, 12 November 2006

Cabinet rethinks race hate laws after jury frees BNP leaders

Race hatred laws may have to be revised following the acquittal of the British National party’s leader, Nick Griffin, for the second time on incitement charges, senior government figures said last night. Gordon Brown, the chancellor, and Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, said the laws may have to be looked at, while a spokesman for John Reid, the home secretary, said he would be “taking soundings” from cabinet colleagues about changing the laws.

“Mainstream opinion in this country will be offended by some of the statements that they have heard made,” said Mr Brown. “If there is something that needs to be done to look at the law then I think we will have to do that,” he told BBC News 24. Lord Falconer told the BBC that it was time to rethink the race hate laws. “What is being said to young Muslim people in this country is that we as a country are anti-Islam, and we have got to demonstrate without compromising freedom that we are not,” he said.

Guardian, 11 November 2006

See also the Independent, 11 November 2006

And BBC News, 11 November 2006

‘Islamo-fascists threaten British freedom of speech’

Thus the headline to the latest BNP news release. The fascists’ indignation is directed against the Muslim Action Committee’s statement, as reported in Eastern Eye, that they want legal action to be taken against the BNP over its latest anti-Muslim leaflet. The Eastern Eye report claims: “Under the government’s new race and religion law, the BNP can be prosecuted if its leaflets stir up hatred and pose a direct threat to Muslim people.”

Unfortunately, this is not true. The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill was wrecked by the “Lester amendment”, formulated by Lib Dem peer Lord Lester, which rejected the government’s proposal to illegalise material that has the effect of stirring up hatred against Muslims. For a successful prosecution, it would be necessary to prove that the BNP intended to incite hatred through their leaflet, and proof of subjective intent is notoriously difficult to establish. Nor does the law, as neutered by Lester and his friends, criminalise material that poses an objective threat to Muslims. Rather, it would be necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate that the words contained in the BNP pamphlet are themselves “threatening”. And the fascists have taken care to ensure that they are not.

Sucking up to Islam will never appease the zealots, Wheen warns

Francis WheenSucking up to Islam will never appease the zealots

By Francis Wheen

Evening Standard, 21 February 2006

I toddled down to Trafalgar Square last Saturday to observe the latest mass rally against Danish cartoonists.

The protesters were on their best behaviour, unlike the demagogues who addressed them. Certain placards – “Don’t they teach you manners in Denmark?”, “Learn to apologise properly” – suggested this whole crisis could have been avoided had the Danes studied Lady Troubridge’s Book of Etiquette more attentively.

The most common placard, however, was a simple equation: “War on terror = War on Islam”. What could be more moderate and well-mannered than that? It’s an article of faith for many secular British liberals, too.

The reasoning behind it is that Britain set out to topple Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim. Yet the victims of Saddam’s regime – Kurds and Shias – were themselves Muslims. Did anyone at the rally claim that Saddam also made war on Islam? Of course not.

Nor would they make the accusation against Iran – even though Iranian police arrested 1,200 Sufi Muslims in Qom last week and destroyed their prayer hall. This was an act of straightforward religious persecution, but only Amnesty International has made the slightest fuss.

If Tony Blair really is waging war on Islam, it must be the first struggle in history in which the belligerent continually prostrates himself before the foe he is supposedly attacking. Only last month the Government tried to push through a law criminalising people who criticise religion, a measure introduced purely to placate leading Muslims.

Now we learn from the New Statesman that the Foreign Office wants to establish “working-level contacts” with supporters of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, an extreme Islamist group. In a leaked memo to ministers, an FO official explains that “interacting with ‘political Islam’ is an important element of our Engaging With the Islamic World strategy”.

Our ambassador in Cairo seems unconvinced. In another memo leaked to the New Statesman, he complains of “a tendency for us to be drawn towards engagement for its own sake” and a reluctance to notice “the very real downsides for us in terms of the Islamists’ likely foreign and social policies”.

Just so. Since 9/11 earnest progressives have argued that we must work with militant Islam rather than challenge it. Hence the grotesque pantomime horse known as the Respect Coalition.

Meanwhile Tony Blair has been engaging away like billy-o with the famous “Muslim moderates”, awarding them knighthoods and seats on quangos. He insists religion is the solution rather than the problem, since “Jews, Muslims and Christians are all children of Abraham” – overlooking the fact that Abraham’s example was cited by one of the 9/11 hijackers as his chief inspiration.

So far, however, this ardent wooing seems to be unreciprocated. An ICM poll has found that 40 per cent of British Muslims want sharia law in parts of the country, and one in five sympathises with the “feelings and motives” of bombers who killed 52 people in London last July. Alarming news: but will it prompt a demo in Trafalgar Square? No chance.

Muslims fly flag for peaceful protest against cartoons

Trafalgar Square rallyThousands of British Muslims flocked into Trafalgar Square yesterday to express their anger at the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.

But they also voiced their rejection of the wave of violent protest that has swept the Muslim world during the past two weeks over the cartoons, first published in a small Danish newspaper.

“This is the Muslim community,” said the rally chairman, Anas Altikriti, of the Muslim Association of Britain. “Not a handful of people claiming vile things like those last Friday.” He was referring to protesters who took to the streets of London with placards embracing al-Qaeda and calling for the beheading of non-believers.

Five thousand men, women and children gathered in the square to listen to an array of speakers. Many shouted “Allah Akbar” (God is great) as people from many faiths addressed the crowd.

The organisers had carefully chosen calm, co-ordinated banners that were lifted in the air to create a sea of white and blue. The messages simply read: “United against Islamophobia, united against incitement, mercy to mankind and Muhammad, symbol of freedom and honour.”

Observer, 12 February 2006


The same issue of the paper features a letter pointing out that “Islamophobia is the new anti-semitism“, though this is more than offset by an article from the appalling Andrew Anthony entitled “The end of freedom?“. Anthony completely ignores the issue of anti-Muslim bigotry as a manifestation of racism, criticises British newspapers for their responsible decision not to re-publish the offensive cartoons, opposes yesterday’s Trafalgar Square demonstration, takes a swipe at multiculturalism, and offers yet another ignorant attack on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. Predictably, it’s backed up with the usual favourable references to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Kenan Malik.

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill – roll of shame

In the decisive vote last night, the government’s proposal to reject the Lords amendment to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill was lost by 282 votes to 283. According to the Times, these are the Labour MPs who voted against the government:

Joe Benton (Bootle)
Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)
Colin Challen (Morley & Rothwell)
Frank Cook (Stockton North)
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
Bill Etherington (Sunderland North)
Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central)
Paul Flynn (Newport West)
Ian Gibson (Norwich North)
John Grogan (Selby)
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North)
John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington)
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway)
Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
Geraldine Smith (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
David Taylor (Leicestershire North West)
Rudi Vis (Finchley & Golders Green)
Robert Wareing (Liverpool West Derby)
Tony Wright (Cannock Chase)