8 Comments

1. vivek iyer  •  Feb 10, 2009 @6:50 am
   

   There is a good reason for this piece of legislation. It is customary for people to take objection to hate speech of this kind and, I'm afraid, resort to physical violence. Indeed, in many sub-cultures and milieus in London, not to retaliate when certain 'trigger' words are used is to lose not just face but the edge in the confrontation that must inevitably develop.
   The police arrest people for use of hate speech so as to get them of the street and remove flash points for potential mob violence.
   We are not talking about a debating club here. The fact is a gym is not a good place to mouth off against any race or religion. If this guy had not been arrested some pumped up dude with serious 'roid-rage' who would have done him damage. It is violence not incarceration that is a threat to free speech.
   In any case the police aint stupid. They don't go around arresting people muttering to themselves in the street. They acted in this instance because they had been called in by the staff at the Gym.

2. Ken  •  Feb 10, 2009 @10:43 am
   

   That sounds like a heckler's veto to me, Vivek. And, let me add, as a rationale it does not match the charges brought against him. He was not arrested for fighting words or breach of the peace or any other theory that depended on people reacting negatively to him. He was arrested for "inciting religious hatred" — that is, on the theory that his words would cause others to react negatively to Jews.

3. vivek iyer  •  Mar 4, 2009 @8:10 am
   

   Sorry, still don't get it. Judaism is a religion. He's saying 'fucking Jews"- i.e. Jews are hateful. He is calling for people to 'be wiped off the face of the earth". How is that not incitement?
   If his defence is that he was talking to himself and had no intention to be over-heard- well, let him make it in a court of law.
   Clearly being arrested for incitement aint 'heckler's veto'- which occurs when an acting party's right to freedom of speech is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party's behaviour.
   I for my part, think that since, in practice, free speech in the U.K isn't curtailed by arrest- rather the reverse- but is by being beaten to death, the police acted entirely properly.
   In any case, this is not a suitable guy to be handling the South Asia desk or anything of that sort & his arrest has brought that to light.
   Frankly, I can't see what the fuss is about.
   Do enlighten me.

4. Ken  •  Mar 4, 2009 @8:24 am
   

   Who, exactly, is he inciting? He was met with only scorn and hostility. Do you propose to arrest him because his words could incite some hypothetical audience, somewhere, at some time?

5. vivek iyer  •  Mar 4, 2009 @8:43 am
   

   But we don't know that do we? The fact is there were other people present. If British law presumes that subjects of the Queen can be incited by words of that sort, who are we to second guess the matter?
   Perhaps, at the gym was some retard who hearing the words uttered would indeed have acted upon them. Perhaps, there were bystanders who looked upon the diplomat as an oracle- or at least a man of superior understanding- and that they ought to take their line from him.
   Clearly, though we may deplore the fact that (in the British Govt's view) there are people in the U.K who can be incited to religious hatred by words of the sort uttered- and we may even think it reasonable to ask the British Govt. to seek to genetically modify their citizens so that this is no longer the case- the fact remains that a law of this sort exists. It must apply equally to all or be no law.
   If it is indeed the case, and we may agree is probable, that the diplomat had no intention to speak aloud or to incite hatred of any sort then this will come out in court. It may be, if the diplomat offered an apology or medical explanation at the time of his arrest, that the Judge may find that the police acted over-zealously in taking this matter further.
   However, given the fact that Britain contains communities vowed to absolute obedience of sectarian leaders, a statement made by one such- which certainly could trigger a blood bath- must be subject to exactly the same law as a statement made by any Tom, Dick or Harry.
   In practice, of course, the police wouldn't waste time charging the hoi polloi with this more serious crime and just do them for breach of the peace.
   I'm sorry am I being a bit thick here or is there a subtle legal point I'm missing?

6. Ken  •  Mar 4, 2009 @8:57 am
   

   But we don’t know that do we?

   Well, all available information we have is that the people present were hostile to him, not incited by him.

   If British law presumes that subjects of the Queen can be incited by words of that sort, who are we to second guess the matter?

   ….free people? Not servile followers with a canine attitude towards government?

   Perhaps, at the gym was some retard who hearing the words uttered would indeed have acted upon them. Perhaps, there were bystanders who looked upon the diplomat as an oracle- or at least a man of superior understanding- and that they ought to take their line from him.

   Your apologia for the government simply illustrates that the law may be abused to apply to any critique of a racial or ethnic group, whether or not there is any evidence whatsoever of an actual threat of imminent violence, on the grounds that through a let's-pretend game one could imagine someone being incited to violence. After all, given the current British government's fetish for surveillance, if a man sits alone in his house muttering to himself about some ethnic group, some police officer might be listening in under some new surveillance program, and the officer might be unbalanced, and might be inspired to commit violence.

   the fact remains that a law of this sort exists. It must apply equally to all or be no law.

   The fact that it exists does not make it right, and does not mean that a free people should allow the government to apply it without protest. Particularly when the excuse for it is so weak.

   However, given the fact that Britain contains communities vowed to absolute obedience of sectarian leaders, a statement made by one such- which certainly could trigger a blood bath- must be subject to exactly the same law as a statement made by any Tom, Dick or Harry.

   You are arguing against a strawman. No one has suggested that this dope should get preferential treatment because he is a bureaucrat. By the way, which British community requires absolute obedience to government diplomats?

7. vivek iyer  •  Mar 4, 2009 @9:16 am
   

   I just looked up the wikipedia article on the law re. incitement to religious hatred in the U.K. Apparently, Judaism was already covered by the Law relating to incitement to racial violence. It seems that the primary test in this regard is intention to incite religious hatred. Intention is difficult to judge. Did the diplomat have that intention- whether or not people in the gym were likely to give him a hearing- or did he have no intention at all to be over-heard or for his words to be acted upon?
   The fact that he continued to repeat the words even after being asked to stop by Gym staff means that
   1) either he was temporarily off his head
   OR
   2) he was ranting with the intention of getting others to share his feeling of outrage and focus that outrage upon the Jewish people.
   Whether or not he had any likelihood of success in inciting hatred is irrelevant except in the context of (1). Clearly, if he believed everyone else present was a pro-Zionist Jew then he was only being abusive and insulting and not actually intending incitement. However being abusive is not covered under the act. Thus, it would seem, heckler's veto does not arise. The sole test is intention to incite. Since this gentleman is a diplomat he may believe that he has extraordinary moral authority and powers of persuasion. In that case perhaps he really was inciting those present to religious hatred. The fact that there is no proof that anyone was incited is irrelevant from the legal point of view.
   As a public servant, the diplomat would be thoroughly familiar with the provisions of this act- which was brought in to extend to Islam the same protection already enjoyed by supposedly racially de-limited religions like Sikhism and Judaism. If he mentioned, in his defence, at the time of his arrest that he had not intention to speak out aloud or to influence people in any way then, it may be, the prosecution case fails. However, failure of the police to prosecute a senior Govt. Servant would look bad if the law is to be used at all.
   The question, I suppose, for you is about how this law affects free speech. Is it a bad law? Well, it seems to me, if a country is to include people who belong to sects which involve obedience to certain preachers who, given impunity, would certainly call for blood-shed, then it follows that some such law is necessary until and unless current case law relating to Criminal conspiracy plugs the gap.

8. vivek iyer  •  Mar 4, 2009 @9:50 am
   

   Ken,
   You raise several interesting points. However, the fact remains that the diplomat knew the details of this law- which was widely debated-in particular the vital importance of intention to determine if incitement occurred. If he considered the Law a bad law he could have resigned. If the police failed to prosecute a public servant acting in defiance of a law he had full knowledge of then, clearly, it would have been a miscarriage of justice discreditable to themselves as impartial enforcers of the law.
   Is the law a bad law? The stress on 'intention to incite hatred' and the striking down of the proposed clauses relating to 'offence' and 'insult' was clearly designed to placate critics of the Government. Still, to an ordinary bloke, it seems kind of counter-intuitive. It's a bit like Regina v. Shivpuri where a bloke got done for drug smuggling though he wasn't actually smuggling drugs but the court decided he had the intention to so do even if, ultimately, he just ended up bringing in some harmless vegetable dye instead.
   Regina Vs. Shivpuri is considered good law because the feeling is that intention accompanied by all the proper actions for bringing in drugs shows that the guy is a drug smuggler and should be put away coz drugs are so awful.
   Does the same apply to 'intention to incite religious hatred'?
   To an ordinary bloke like me- yes, absolutely, otherwise blood might flow in the streets of Tooting and the marbled domes of Tower Hamlets echo to grisly shrieks of human slaughter.
   Should 'incitemet' cover senior British diplomats, given that they have no binding authority in themselves but (properly speaking) must act as mere mouth-pieces of Her Majesty's Ministers? I dunno for sure but I'm guessing yes… coz, they do have authority don't they. I mean, if they have an intention to incite they sure could do a better job of it that an ordinary Joe.
   Is the excuse for this law really very weak? We saw in Regina vs. Shivpuri that intention alone sufficed to get a guy a long stretch of porridge though no harm of any sort had been done. The fact is, at least this is the claim made by the Intelligence Agencies, there are people inciting religious hatred and the direct result of this is several ongoing plots to wreak mass destruction on Britain.
   I really don't get it. Let's suppose I'd phoned Shivpuri back in 1985 and incited him to smuggle drugs- well I'd have been done for conspiracy along with him- (assuming his phone was tapped) even though no drugs were brought in. If I incite you religious hatred you might deal drugs to get W.M.D to use on us. Surely something like that has already happened and is continuing to happen. Surely, we as a nation, have paid a high enough price.
   Of course, there must be better ways to do things. I'm no lawyer and there probably are a lot of nuances I'm missing. They say 'hard cases make bad laws' so, sure, once the current threat is over, by all means make whatever changes are needed to ensure this law does not in time become a source of abuse.

1 Trackback

• Feb 15, 2009: Defending People » Blawg Review #199