In my day job, I am lucky enough to get involved in many interesting and exciting campaigns and last week, was no exception as I helped to launch the Reform Section 5 Campaign.
This campaign, which is
highlighting the utter lunacy of a law that criminalises unintentional insults,
is giving a voice to a growing band of groups that sees this type of
legislation as a direct assault on free speech.
The law itself was brought
in 1986 in the wake of a period of turbulent industrial relations and only two
years after the miner’s strike had ended.
Initially it was hoped
that the law would provide the police with the powers they needed to tackle
some of the worst excesses of those striking, but what perhaps was well
intentioned has evolved into a catch all law that strikes at the very
foundation of our ability to express our views. Let me explain.
Currently, Section 5 of
the Act outlaws “insulting words or behaviour”, but what exactly constitutes
“insulting” is unclear and has resulted in many controversial police arrests
and in 2009 the police used Section 5, no less than 18,000 times.
And let me give some
examples of how this law has changed into a catch-all. In 2008 a sixteen-year
old boy was arrested for peacefully holding a placard that read “Scientology is
a dangerous cult.”
And in 2005, an Oxford student was arrested for saying to a
policeman, ‘Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?’ At the time Thames
Valley Police justified the arrest on the grounds that the student had made
‘homophobic comments that were deemed offensive to people passing by’.
Other examples involved a Christian
street preacher Dale McAlpine who was arrested in Workington, Cumbria, after
telling a passer-by that he regarded homosexuality as sinful. He was charged
with using threatening, abusive or insulting words, or behaviour, likely to cause
harassment, alarm, or distress, contrary to section 5.
Even campaign supporter Peter Tatchell,
whose political views I generally disagree with, was arrested under this crazy
legislation. Mr Tatchell along with members of a LGBT campaign group were arrested and
charged under Section 5 for shouting slogans and displaying placards that
condemned the persecution of LGBT people by Islamic governments. They were
campaigning against a rally led by the fundamentalist Muslim group, Hizb
ut-Tahrir, who had called for the killing of gay people, apostates, Jews and
unchaste women. The placards were deemed by police to be insulting and likely
to cause distress.
And the police who this law was really supposed to protect and give
extra powers to are exempt from this particular section, after a judge ruled
that police were used to name calling and therefore less insulted.
So last week Human rights
campaigners, MPs, faith groups and secular organisations joined forces to have
the “insulting words or behaviour” phrase removed from Section 5 on the grounds
that it restricts free speech and penalises campaigners, protesters and even
preachers.
David Davis, the former
Shadow Home Secretary, who is leading the cross-party calls for reform,
described the campaign as “vital to protecting freedom of expression in Britain
today.”
He said, “Who should
decide who is insulted? The police? A judge? The truth is that Section 5
is having a terrible, chilling effect on democracy today.”
At the launch Mr Davis was
joined by two of the most unlikely bed fellows The Christian Institute and The
National Secular Society, who both believe the law hampering debate and free
speech.
Simon Calvert of the
Christian Institute said: “Churches around the world find themselves
in constant friction with aspects of the cultures in which they live, so
free speech is vital to us all.
“Britain’s historic civil
liberties were often hammered out amidst controversy over freedom to
preach without state interference. Christians know first-hand why free speech
is precious and this is why The Christian Institute is pleased to
join people across the political and philosophical spectrum to help bring about
this simple but important change.
“By bringing together an
unlikely alliance of groups, this campaign demonstrates that speaking out
plainly for principle, and firm, even energetic, disagreement, are not
inconsistent with civil discourse and democracy - actually they are the
lifeblood of it.”
And Keith Porteous Wood,
of the National Secular Society, added: “Freedom of expression should be used
responsibly, yet some people only regard as 'responsible' that which they don’t
regard as offensive or insulting. Freedom only to say only what others find
acceptable is no freedom at all.
“Secularists, in defending
free expression, must ensure that the law is fair to everybody and argue
equally for the right of religious and non-religious people to freely criticise
and exchange opinions without fear of the law - unless they are inciting
violence. Free speech is not free if it is available only to some and not
others.”
Mr Davis was also joined by Peter Tatchell, Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation and prominent gay rights advocate. He said: “Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is a menace to free speech and the right to protest”.
He added: “The open
exchange of ideas – including unpalatable, even offensive, ideas – is a
hallmark of a free and democratic society.”
I wish them all the very
best of luck and hope that the Government agrees to amend this ridiculous law. I
certainly agree with the campaign. Freedom of speech is a precious thing that
everyone, you and I, have a duty to fight for and we must guard against any
legislation that curtails it.
And our defence must not
be limited to those who say things we agree with, but must include those things
we think are unpalatable as it easy to defend those we agree with and much more
difficult to defend someone’s right to say thing we disagree with.
As Voltaire famously
remarked, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I
will defend to the death your right to say it.’
For information please
visit www.reformsection5.org.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment