We don’t get many people standing on street corners in Debenham, Diss or Sudbury shouting ‘jihad, jihad’, do we?
I wonder what the reaction would be if we did?
Yet the issues raised by someone doing just that at a recent pro-Palestinian demonstration in London, does have relevance here in Suffolk and elsewhere.
I’ve touched on this topic once or twice in the past. But this particular event has persuaded me to revisit the dynamic balance between upholding freedom of speech and dealing with language that promotes hatred, or incites acts of violence against others.
It’s certainly not an easy balance to get right every time, but I do think that overall, some groups are given the benefit of the legal doubt - more so than others.
I wonder why?
In short, I think that the Police frequently turn a blind eye to actual criminal actions by individuals allied to loud ‘woke’ lobbying groups, whilst over-reaching themselves in stifling the legal freedom to express views by those without such advocacy muscle.
The key issue is, surely, one of context? Section 5 of the Public Order Act establishes that someone is guilty of an offence if they “display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening … within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.”
I suspect the issue of geographical proximity may have been enough for the Metropolitan Police not to have taken action against the ‘jihad, jihad’ person – not least as one assumes not too many Jews and Israelis were nearby during the protest in question.
Officers would have had more justification for charging the speaker at a recent Sussex University rally in support of terror group Hamas, who described the 7th October butchery of Israeli men, women and children, as ‘beautiful’ and ‘inspiring’. But they chose not to, apparently, in spite of the proximate threat to the academic institution’s Jewish students.
Universities, actually, are the worst perpetrators of these kinds of double standards. Too many have bowed the knee to small, but immensely intolerant grouplets with specific animus and agendas, to remove speaking opportunities to outside speakers, whose views these grouplets may disagree with.
Even more heinous, is the connivance of university bosses in imperilling the livelihoods of their own staff who have the temerity (or maybe naivety) to believe that such academic spaces benefit from, y’know, the actual thoughtful exchange of differing viewpoints.
Interestingly, many of these are high-profiled women who have been sanctioned at the behest of various parts of the spectrum of intolerance that is the professional trans lobbying industry.
In recent months, festival promoters and venues have joined this chorus line of prejudice. Readers of this column may recall that comedy writer Graham Linehan, of Father Ted and The IT Crowd fame, was banned from performing at a number of venues during this year’s Edinburgh Fringe, because of earlier comments criticising some of the activities of the trans lobby.
His recently released book – Tough Crowd – details the emotional and financial impact of being ‘cancelled’ more generally at the instigation of loud and intolerant voices.
And of course, social media behemoths, hungry for the advertising spend from the major companies who are bending over in all sorts of curious directions, to be seen to be supportive of such groups, have become just as unevenly-handed.
Rod Liddle recently wrote in The Spectator how Facebook’s algorithms seem to stifle posts critical of groups such as Hamas but amplify more banal posts. He calls it out for what it is: an attempt by the global elite to shift attention away from those that only wish Israel and Israelis ill.
The UK Government now has direct skin in this manipulation game with the passing of the Online Safety Bill (OSB) into law last week. In effect, the legislation requires companies like Facebook and TikTok to censor speech on behalf of the Government (or more precisely, the Secretary of State for Culture, and the regulator, Ofcom) and access previously end-to-end encrypted conversations, even when no law is thought to be being broken.
This is all doomed, ultimately, to failure of course. Suppressing certain opinions won’t make them go away. A far better approach would be to critically challenge them in the glare of public discourse.
I recall the decision taken nearly 15 years ago by the BBC to invite Nick Griffin, then leader of the British National Party, onto Question Time. There were concerns raised that it would give him unparalleled publicity.
They were right. In front of an audience of nearly 8m, Griffin proved to be unequal to the task: out of his depth, nervous and incoherent. The most devastating comments were made, not by the panel, but by members of the audience.
He and his odious little party collapsed back into irrelevance soon afterwards.
So, I look forward to us rolling back cancellation culture, defaulting to open debate on issues, and a more even-handed approach to those who go too far and deliberately incite hatred and violence.
The Free Speech Union exists for that very reason, and I’d urge everyone interested in this key topic joining them at https://freespeechunion.org/
First published in the www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk on Thursday, 2nd November, 2023
I wonder what the reaction would be if we did?
Yet the issues raised by someone doing just that at a recent pro-Palestinian demonstration in London, does have relevance here in Suffolk and elsewhere.
I’ve touched on this topic once or twice in the past. But this particular event has persuaded me to revisit the dynamic balance between upholding freedom of speech and dealing with language that promotes hatred, or incites acts of violence against others.
It’s certainly not an easy balance to get right every time, but I do think that overall, some groups are given the benefit of the legal doubt - more so than others.
I wonder why?
In short, I think that the Police frequently turn a blind eye to actual criminal actions by individuals allied to loud ‘woke’ lobbying groups, whilst over-reaching themselves in stifling the legal freedom to express views by those without such advocacy muscle.
The key issue is, surely, one of context? Section 5 of the Public Order Act establishes that someone is guilty of an offence if they “display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening … within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.”
I suspect the issue of geographical proximity may have been enough for the Metropolitan Police not to have taken action against the ‘jihad, jihad’ person – not least as one assumes not too many Jews and Israelis were nearby during the protest in question.
Officers would have had more justification for charging the speaker at a recent Sussex University rally in support of terror group Hamas, who described the 7th October butchery of Israeli men, women and children, as ‘beautiful’ and ‘inspiring’. But they chose not to, apparently, in spite of the proximate threat to the academic institution’s Jewish students.
Universities, actually, are the worst perpetrators of these kinds of double standards. Too many have bowed the knee to small, but immensely intolerant grouplets with specific animus and agendas, to remove speaking opportunities to outside speakers, whose views these grouplets may disagree with.
Even more heinous, is the connivance of university bosses in imperilling the livelihoods of their own staff who have the temerity (or maybe naivety) to believe that such academic spaces benefit from, y’know, the actual thoughtful exchange of differing viewpoints.
Interestingly, many of these are high-profiled women who have been sanctioned at the behest of various parts of the spectrum of intolerance that is the professional trans lobbying industry.
In recent months, festival promoters and venues have joined this chorus line of prejudice. Readers of this column may recall that comedy writer Graham Linehan, of Father Ted and The IT Crowd fame, was banned from performing at a number of venues during this year’s Edinburgh Fringe, because of earlier comments criticising some of the activities of the trans lobby.
His recently released book – Tough Crowd – details the emotional and financial impact of being ‘cancelled’ more generally at the instigation of loud and intolerant voices.
And of course, social media behemoths, hungry for the advertising spend from the major companies who are bending over in all sorts of curious directions, to be seen to be supportive of such groups, have become just as unevenly-handed.
Rod Liddle recently wrote in The Spectator how Facebook’s algorithms seem to stifle posts critical of groups such as Hamas but amplify more banal posts. He calls it out for what it is: an attempt by the global elite to shift attention away from those that only wish Israel and Israelis ill.
The UK Government now has direct skin in this manipulation game with the passing of the Online Safety Bill (OSB) into law last week. In effect, the legislation requires companies like Facebook and TikTok to censor speech on behalf of the Government (or more precisely, the Secretary of State for Culture, and the regulator, Ofcom) and access previously end-to-end encrypted conversations, even when no law is thought to be being broken.
This is all doomed, ultimately, to failure of course. Suppressing certain opinions won’t make them go away. A far better approach would be to critically challenge them in the glare of public discourse.
I recall the decision taken nearly 15 years ago by the BBC to invite Nick Griffin, then leader of the British National Party, onto Question Time. There were concerns raised that it would give him unparalleled publicity.
They were right. In front of an audience of nearly 8m, Griffin proved to be unequal to the task: out of his depth, nervous and incoherent. The most devastating comments were made, not by the panel, but by members of the audience.
He and his odious little party collapsed back into irrelevance soon afterwards.
So, I look forward to us rolling back cancellation culture, defaulting to open debate on issues, and a more even-handed approach to those who go too far and deliberately incite hatred and violence.
The Free Speech Union exists for that very reason, and I’d urge everyone interested in this key topic joining them at https://freespeechunion.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment