Brits and Blasphemers

Charles Paul Freund | January 14, 2005

Thanks to a proposed law that would limit permissible speech concerning religion, the UK is is in the middle of a debate about free speech. Two recent events have exacerbated the situation: a now-cancelled play called Bezhti upset many Sikhs (the playwright has gone into hiding); a musical called Jerry Springer: The Opera was broadcast by the BBC and reportedly offended many Christians who in protest burned their TV licenses. The writers' group English PEN is worried about the law, and has written a letter asking for a meeting with the Home Secretary.

Meanwhile, Salman Rushdie has complained in a letter to The Guardian that "The continuing collapse of liberal, democratic, secular and humanist principles in the face of the increasingly strident demands of organised religions is perhaps the most worrying aspect of life in contemporary Britain."

The Home Office Minister, Fiona Mactaggart, responded with a letter of her own: "For many years the law has established that free speech rights do not licence people to stir up hatred of others on the basis of their race. Now we are seeking to offer the same protection to people targeted because of their faith. This is not religious appeasement, but a responsible reaction to the tactics of those, especially from the extreme right, who would foster community tension by stirring up hatred of members of a faith group."

Writes Timothy Garton Ash, "Future historians may look back on the last three decades of the 20th century as a high point of freedom of expression, never to be achieved again. There may be a net gain in other public goods - such as civic peace - but there'll be a net loss of liberty."

Thanks to: ArtsJournal

Comments

raymond|1.14.05 @ 4:31PM|#

I think Jerry Springer reportedly offended SOME Christians, not "many".

It is interesting, btw. A fun piece of entertainment. The tunes aren't very catchy, but the lyrics are easy to remember.

Matt|1.14.05 @ 4:50PM|#

I'm just going to savor this phrase for the rest of the evening:
"...who in protest burned their TV licenses."

Warren|1.14.05 @ 5:17PM|#

"For many years the law has established that free speech rights do not licence people to stir up hatred ..."

You're doing it wrong.

|1.14.05 @ 6:38PM|#

"...and reportedly offended many Christians who in protest burned their TV licenses."

Wait. Stop. TV licenses? What the hemhorraging fuck?

|1.14.05 @ 6:59PM|#

"Wait. Stop. TV licenses? What the hemhorraging fuck?"

Yup, just another way for the social democracy of the United Kingdom to squeeze some Pounds Sterling out of their subjects.

Peter|1.14.05 @ 7:39PM|#

This goes much deeper than the Beeb,this is about votes for NuLabor

|1.14.05 @ 7:40PM|#

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/

"A colour TV Licence costs �121.00 and a black and white licence costs �40.50."

"We have a fleet of detector vans, plus, our enforcement officers have access to hand-held detection devices capable of detecting a magnetic field when a TV is switched on. In fact, we catch an average of over 1,000 people watching TV without a licence every day."

|1.14.05 @ 7:53PM|#

So, if I understand this correctly, you guys have to be a LICENSE to watch TV over there? What if you only have cable or satellite?

|1.14.05 @ 7:54PM|#

"be a LICENSE"

should be

"buy a LICENSE"

Truesilver|1.14.05 @ 8:01PM|#

""For many years the law has established that free speech rights do not licence people to stir up hatred ..."

"You're doing it wrong.""

Yes. They are doing it wrong. Look at the US. Sure, we have the KKK, white supremacist groups, etc. But we have yet to start regulating things as hate speech. The KKK is as welcome to speak at the Capitol Building in DC as Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
This sort of regulation of speech is counter-productive. Suddenly all manner of otherwise upstanding and respected citizens will become "seditious criminals."
That's backwards. Let those who hate you speak all they like. Letting them speak will only allow them the opportunity to put their feet in their mouths and embarrass themselves. They'll show themselves for the ignorant, intolerant fools they really are. Why do you think the KKK is in such decline? They come to speak against minorities here in my own city regularly. And instead of arresting them all for speaking in a way we don't like, we let them talk.

The right way to do this whole thing is to recognize that the Right to Free Speech, while it guarantees me the right to say anything about anyone, it does not guarantee me **an audience** for my speech. Let it be that way. Let them talk, but ignore them.
**If no one listens, they can't do any harm!!**

|1.14.05 @ 8:06PM|#

I've seen a news show about Brits and their TV licenses.

Here's the fun part: If you don't buy one then the authorities will send a radio scanner truck by your house and check if you're watching anything.

It's like something out of Hogan's Heroes when the Gestapo used to send out radio trucks to home in on the underground. Maybe that's another reason they didn't like Prince Harry wearing that Nazi costume at a party.

|1.14.05 @ 8:09PM|#

Doesn't this blur the difference between not wanting free speech to happen and not wanting to support speech which you find offensive? Don't the Brits make that distinction? Shouldn't we? I've always had sympathy for the people who don't want to subsidize abortion when they think it is murder. They shouldn't have to.

|1.14.05 @ 8:17PM|#

"targeted because of their faith" is a phrase that strikes me. Faith in many cases determines what an individual thinks, says and does.

So in essence these things cannot be criticised if they can be attributed to religion.

This is most definitely a repudiation of free speech and no less.

|1.14.05 @ 8:37PM|#

Lots of Brits don't buy a TV license. I certainly never have :)
There are ways of making sure that you cannot get caught. But I'm not letting on here how it is done.

The point of the license was to ensure that at least one channel was free from commercial influence, or something like that.

But the BBC (who collect the license fee) has turned into the most ridiculous politically correct propaganda machine in the world. If it was up to them it would have us all believe that Islam is a religion of peace and the the US is the great satan.
However, they do make excellent comedies and nature documentaries.
But if they want their license fee from me they can whistle out of their arses for it.

Augustine|1.14.05 @ 8:56PM|#

This is such a bad idea.

If this law goes into effect, I can't wait for someone to propose banning the Koran because of it's 'hateful' speech against other religions.

I think this is going to lead to a rise in tensions and ill will as opposed to a preventive measure against such things. But then again, hasn't Europe always had such laws, regulating speech. Weren't blasphemy laws part and parcel of European culture for most of it's history? Didn't high culture and art develop in spite of it?

Kevin Carson|1.14.05 @ 8:58PM|#

I didn't realize free speech rights "licensed" anybody to do anything.

|1.14.05 @ 8:58PM|#

I know some Christians have been frightened by court rulings in Canada, Sweden and elsewhere that called Bible-based preaching against homosexuality to be tantamount to a hate crime. That obviously wouldn't fly in America, but I wonder if some majority of devout Christians wouldn't accept freedom from perceived blasphemous criticism in exchange for limits on their freedom to preach hellfire and damnation.

Augustine|1.14.05 @ 9:00PM|#

Btw, Melanie Philips had a relevant post today:

"Then I asked Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the MCB,whether he thought that any public statements about Islamic terrorism, or any speculation about the number of Muslims in Britain who might support Islamic terrorism, would constitute incitement to religious hatred. He said: 'There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered by this provision'.

|1.15.05 @ 12:58AM|#

From that same post:

Interestingly, they were very much on the defensive, as they felt that the attack on the bill, mounted by the comedian Rowan Atkinson and many others on the grounds that it would criminalise legitimate speech, had already done serious damage to the government's case.

It's pretty sad when Mr Bean is defending the freedom of speech... ;-)

Drawingblood.com|1.15.05 @ 1:02AM|#

Us glee and certainty in free speech is somewhat reinforced by our never having a seditious movement worth its name. That being said...the US is absolutely right, and European weak free speech is wrong.

Britain's also got that constraining libel law that I understand actively influences editors and writers on a daily basis.

Hate is fine. Stirring up hate is fine. Specific acts of violence in any context are against the law. It's the way it should be. Mitigating how people are encouraged to parse the world into worthless asses and fine upstanding folk is not the job of the government.

|1.15.05 @ 2:03AM|#

Drawingblood.com said:
"Us glee and certainty in free speech is somewhat reinforced by our never having a seditious movement worth its name."


You must have missed that whole Civil War thing.

raymond|1.15.05 @ 6:10AM|#

Us glee and certainty in free speech is somewhat reinforced by our never having a seditious movement worth its name.

You must have missed that whole GWB-Republican Party thing.

|1.15.05 @ 6:27AM|#

I stopped paying my TV licence after the BBC was caught telling such gross lies over Blair and the Iraq War. Dyke and fat Gilligan made it clear to me that they were on the other side in the War on Terror.

And all the threatening billboards on the streets, buses and underground ('Pay your TV licence or a 1000 pound fine') did not dissuade me.

|1.15.05 @ 8:01AM|#

The TV licence in the UK is the main source of income for the BBC. When the licence was introduced the BBC was the only TV network. There are no commercial breaks on the BBC channels. There are now hundreds of TV channels and the BBC has an increasingly smaller share of the viewing audience (I think the total for all BBC channels is 30%). A very large proportion of UK citizens want to get rid of the licence but the government of the day always comes up with some ridiculous excuse to keep it. The BBC would probably sink without it.

DaveVH|1.15.05 @ 8:19AM|#

An extract from the letter you get every fortnight, even if you don't own a TV in Britain:

"OFFICIAL WARNING

Our Enforcement Division has identified that there is no record of a TV licence at your address, and that you may therefor be watching or recording television programme services [note the pompous language] without a valid licence.

Enforcement officers have been authorised by us to visit your address in W**** Road to interview you under caution in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984."

OK.

An extract from a telephone call I make to TV Licensing every fortnight:

"If you send your %*&@ing drones round here, I'll have the �$%*s arrested."

|1.15.05 @ 10:51AM|#

"... to interview you under caution in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984."

"Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984?

1984?

Hm-m-mm

raymond|1.15.05 @ 11:00AM|#

I stopped paying my TV licence after the BBC was caught telling such gross lies over Blair and the Iraq War. Dyke and fat Gilligan made it clear to me that they were on the other side in the War on Terror.

You mean the lie about the government having "sexed up" the danger from Iraq's WMD? The criticism of Blair's "forty-five minutes till total destruction" speech? THAT lie?

Or do you mean the lying report about the US decision to send all their weapons searchers home because THERE WEREN'T ANY WMDs?

Or the one about the CIA report warning that Iraq has now become "terrorist central", and so the BBC actually WAS on "the other side in the war on terror" because they didn't publish pro-war propaganda?

Couldn't be the last two, though, since Dyke and Gilligan were already out.

|1.15.05 @ 12:21PM|#

Is it just me, or is Salman Rushdie conflating a perfectly good act of civil disobedience (buring TV licenses) with threats of violence and mayhem (the Sikh threats against those involved in the play).

Lets be clear here. It is not "organized religions" in general that are making "strident demands," not to mention issuing threats. I don't see Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, or animists involved in this kerfuffle at all, and the only Christians I hear about are engaging in perfectly civil discourse/disobedience. No, there is one organized religion in particular that seems to be going to unacceptable lengths to shut down free speech, but somehow no one dare speak its name.

|1.15.05 @ 12:48PM|#

I'll speak its name. In this particular kerfuffle, it is the Sikhs who are threatening violins. When do I get my medal ?

|1.15.05 @ 2:41PM|#

The idea that there should be a group of individuals with the power to restrict the speech of other individuals is outrageous and primitive.

|1.15.05 @ 3:18PM|#

"I stopped paying my TV licence after the BBC was caught telling such gross lies over Blair and the Iraq War."

Do you mean the lie that Iraq could deploy WMD's within 45 minutes? Or that Iraq was buying Uranium from Niger? Is Saint Blair still standing by those claims? If any one lied with respect to the Iraq war, it certainly was not the BBC.

|1.15.05 @ 3:25PM|#

RC Dean:

"I don't see Jews"

Didn't French-Jewish organizations pressure the French governement to shut down Al-Manar TV in France? I guess it is only free speech when it is not attacking certain religious groups.

|1.15.05 @ 6:28PM|#

"For many years the law has established that free speech rights do not licence people to stir up hatred ..."

The purpose of freedom of speech and our 1st Amendment is to protect speech that we don't like, not just speech that we approve of. The fact that some speech can engender hatred is, of course, no reason to restrict those who speak it or the right of others to hear it.

Free speech is the capitalism of the mind.

Matt Frost|1.15.05 @ 7:38PM|#

"Free speech is the capitalism of the mind."

Then free love must be the...

|1.16.05 @ 11:56AM|#

Matt,

That reminds me of the old cyberpunk slogan:

"Free your mind and your ass will follow"

|1.17.05 @ 10:34AM|#

Augustine,

They are part and parcel of American culture too. What Europe (and the U.S.) has uniformily are virtual bans on "prior restraint" laws.

See Chaplinsky v. NH [the "Live Free or Die State" of all places] 315 U.S. 568 (1942), where the SCOTUS upheld the conviction of a man who violated a state statute forbidding anyone to address "any offensive, derisivee or annoying word who is lawfully in any [public space] [or] call[ing] him by any offensive or derisive name."

Note that the fellow was denouncing "organized religion" on a street (he was a Seventh Day Adventist) and a disturbance occurred in the wake of his statements. When the cops took him in the direct of the police station, he called the City Marshal (who had urged him to "go slow" during his speech) a "damned fascist" and a "God damned racketeer."

Note that the court in 1949 (in a 5-4 decision) struck down a conviction under a similar set of circumstances (though the disturbance was much more significant) in Terminiello v. Chicago 337 U.S. 1 (1949), though the court stated that Chaplinsky was still good law. Specifically it argued that while speech must be protected against censorship or punishment, such could apply to speech where it "produce[s] a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

Yet the conviction of a man for disorderly conduct was upheld in Feiner v. NY 340 U.S. 315 (1951) where the court reasoned that the defendant was appropriately arrested for attempting to start a riot. Yet the dissent argues that the "facts" in the case didn't merit the arrest (from what the majority presented they appear to be right) and that it was against the threats of a hostile audience that the speaker needs protection and not vice versa.

For similar back and forth concerning issues like "group libel," "offensive words," unconventional forms of communication, etc., see: Beauharnais v. Illinois 343 U.S. 250 (1952);Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971); U.S. v. O'Brien 391 U.S. 367 (1968); etc.

We regulate speech a lot in this country; we just don't realize it, that's all.

|1.17.05 @ 10:36AM|#

BTW, I note that I didn't even touch on the notion of commercial speech, near obscene speech, etc.

|1.17.05 @ 10:43AM|#

R.C. Dean,

If your are trying to put the smack down on Rushdie, then realize that he has been more than critical of radical Islamic figures and movements over the years.

Now, with regard to your ignorance of British ethnic relations note that Britain has indeed had a lot of problems with Hindus and Sihks rioting in the streets over the past a decade or so.

|1.17.05 @ 12:42PM|#

Bono & Gavin Friday

In The Name Of The Father

Come to me
Come lie beside me
Oh don't deny me
Your love


Make sense of me
Walk through my doorway
Don't hide in the hallway
Oh love...step over


I'll follow you down
I'll follow you down


In the name of whiskey
In the name of song
You didn't look back
You didn't belong


In the name of reason
In the name of hope
In the name of religion
In the name of dope


In the name of freedom
You drifted away
To see the sun shining
On someone else's day


In the name of United and the BBC
In the name of Georgie Best and LSD


In the name of a father
And his wife the spirit
You said you did not
They said you did it


In the name of justice
In the name of fun
In the name of the father
In the name of the son


Call to me
No one is listening
I'm waiting to hear from you love


Stay with me
It's cold in the ground
But there's peace in the sound
Of the white and the black
Spilling over


I'll follow you down
I'll follow you down
I'll follow you down

|1.17.05 @ 3:16PM|#

Gary Gunnels,

"that Britain has indeed had a lot of problems with Hindus and Sihks rioting in the streets over the past a decade or so."

When was this ? All the brit rioters I've read about have been soccer hooligans expressing diappointment over the poor performance of their cricket team or bangladeshi muslims unhappy over all kinds of s**t.

|1.17.05 @ 3:45PM|#

SM,

In the 1990s and most recently 2001. The riots have included a mish-mash of South Asians, including Muslims, Hindus and Sihks.