Two recent news stories, one from the US, another from the UK, both raise interesting questions relating to freedom of expression. This morning I read on Islamophobia Watch how the BNP’s Stoke-on-Trent leader, Michael Coleman, had been convicted on a charge of racial harassment.
If the vile comments that Coleman directs at Muslims on his blog were aimed at the Jewish community he would certainly be charged with incitement to racial hatred. Unfortunately Muslims are not covered by that legislation and the law against incitement to religious hatred is completely useless.
This observation from Bob Pitt leads on to the other story, which was reported in the Huffington Post:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — An Assembly resolution urging California colleges and universities to squelch nascent anti-Semitism also encouraged educators to crack down on demonstrations against Israel, angering advocates for Muslim students.
With no debate, lawmakers on Tuesday approved a resolution that encourages university leaders to combat a wide array of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel actions.
Unlike some of the commenters underneath the article (and over on Loonwatch where it was crossposted) I have no doubt at all that there is a significant intersection between antisemitism and hostility to Israel. But at the same time I can understand why this move might cause some unease, even though it is a non-binding resolution, particularly in a US context where freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment.
I started to look up different countries’ laws on hate speech and found myself coming round more and more to the position taken by James Bloodworth and also by the US constitution. As James said in his post this by no means equates to an approval for what might be termed ‘hate speech’. Whether or not there was a law against the words of Bongani Masuku, for example, no way should he have been invited to address a UCU meeting. Whatever the legal position, Michael Coleman is a foul bigot. Here’s a typical sample of his views – sparked by the arson attempt on Hanley’s mosque:
I have no doubt that those organisations who have conspired to insert the ‘Super-Power Mosque’ in Regent Road, Stoke-on-Trent are aware that this is a flagrant and hostile act against the culture/faith/territory interests of my people! It was inevitable that this treacherous and destructive act would have resulted in the people of Stoke-on-Trent becoming angry and frustrated….
The people of Stoke-on-Trent aren’t stupid, they know what happens when a Muslim Central Mosque is built in an area – it is the precursor to the total Muslim occupation of that area and the inevitable ‘forcing out’ of the indigenous/ancestral folk – all of this monstrous ‘population replacement’ will be aided and assisted by the Labour Council, security will be provided by the police (should any of the Stokies speak out and object)!
Although the Sentinel was a bit too languid in its condemnation of Coleman I think I agree with its overall argument. And I think I also agree that there are better ways of dealing with antisemitism than the step taken in California. But this is a complex area, and it’s important to distinguish between different publishing (in the broadest sense) contexts for hate speech. Whether you are coming out with racist comments (and some of them were unambiguously racist not ‘just’ anti-Muslim) like Coleman, or making parallels between Israel and the Nazis, it makes a great deal of difference whether, on the one hand, you are targeting an individual, or a small specific group within a closed environment (such as a workplace) or, on the other, simply spouting off on your personal blog. This caveat applies in US law, despite the first amendment.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating “hate speech” by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a “hostile or offensive working environment” for other employees
Finally, although it’s not the most important reason for supporting freedom of speech, banning things – whether it’s Holocaust denial or images of Muhammed – carries with it a danger of unintended consequences, confirming and feeding the fears and prejudices of those who have been silenced.
