‘Don’t sacrifice free speech to appease the Muslim fanatics’ says McKinstry

Leo McKinstry in the Express usefully summarises all the lies and distortions promoted by opponents of the religious hatred bill. “It is a scandal that centuries of the right to free expression can be overthrown because of the craven wish to appease Islamic extremism.” You know the sort of thing.

McKinstry claims: “Our laws already provide ample protection against genuine hate crimes. In 2003, for instance, Mark Norwood, a British National party activist in Shropshire, was prosecuted under the Public Order Act for displaying a poster which read: ‘Islam out of Britain’.”

In fact, the successful prosecution of Norwood was not for inciting hatred – he was convicted (in 2002) on the relatively minor charge of causing religiously aggravated “harassment, alarm or distress”. An attempt to convict another BNP member, Dick Warrington, under racial hatred legislation for displaying a poster with the same “Islam Out of Britain” slogan failed because Islam is not a mono-ethnic religion and therefore it is held that Muslims cannot be victims of racial hatred.

It is nonsense to claim, as McKinstry does, that only Muslim organisations back the proposed new law. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Church of England, the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, the Hindu Council and the Network of Sikh Organisations are among those who support the Bill.

And so on, and so forth.


Don’t sacrifice free speech to appease the Muslim fanatics

By Leo McKinstry

Daily Express, 22 September 2005

Freedom of speech is one of the central pillars of democracy. Its vital importance is captured in the famous lines of the French eighteenth-century writer Voltaire: “I detest what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.”

Yet now the Labour Government, in the name of combating prejudice, seems determined to destroy this most cherished of liberties.

Next month ministers will try to drive through legislation to outlaw what they describe as “religious hatred”. Previous attempts failed because of lack of time and the opposition of the House of Lords. But with their substantial majority the Government may be able to succeed this autumn, unless there is a vigorous campaign against it.

Under the proposed law it will become a criminal offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting” language likely to stir up hatred against any religious group. The Government claims that this is necessary to protect religious minorities, such as Sikhs or Muslims who, it is said, do not currently fall under the race relations legislation.

This is nonsense. Our laws already provide ample protection against genuine hate crimes. In 2003, for instance, Mark Norwood, a British National party activist in Shropshire, was prosecuted under the Public Order Act for displaying a poster which read: “Islam out of Britain.”

But the reason for this new legislation is nothing to do with good race relations. It is solely based on the Government’s eagerness to pander to Muslim fundamentalists whose aggressive mentality treats even the mildest criticism as an outrage. Terrified of losing the Muslim vote as a result of the Iraq war, Labour is now trying to claw its way back into favour. No other religious group is demanding any change except the Muslims. Indeed, one of the most vociferous opponents is the Christian group, the Barnabas Fund, which fears that it will not only undermine free speech but will also prevent discussion of the persecution of religious minorities in Islamic countries.

Organisations representing the press and the arts are also concerned about the dangers of the Bill which they rightly see as a form of censorship. Under Labour’s straitjacket, playwrights, authors and editors deemed to have insulted any religious belief, no matter how bizarre or fundamentalist, could face seven years in prison.

Comedians, too, are worried that religious jokes could be banned. As Rowan Atkinson, a leading campaigner against the Bill, says: “A law which attempts to say that you can ridicule ideas, as long as they are not religious ideas, is a very peculiar law indeed.”

Home Secretary Charles Clarke revealed that Islam has been dictating the Government’s agenda when he wrote an official apology to Muslims for the failure thus far to enact the Religious Hatred Bill. It is a scandal that centuries of the right to free expression can be overthrown because of the craven wish to appease Islamic extremism.

And ministers have failed to provide any clear definition of religious belief. So misguided is the legislation that every kind of cult, from Scientologists to Satanists, will be protected.

Absurdly, it could soon be impossible to criticise any religious practice, no matter how obscene or dangerous, whether it be child abuse in voodoo rituals or brainwashing by the Moonies. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken McDonald QC, has admitted that the aim of the legislation is to “criminalise a state of mind” of hatred against religious groups. This moves into the territory of the thought police where only certain political attitudes are approved by the State.

The problem is at its most chilling in the context of Islam. Throughout the world the manifestations of this creed have been riddled with violence, misogyny and intolerance. But under Labour’s proposal it will be impossible to criticise any of these failings in the Muslim faith, even when they clash directly with our Western democratic secular traditions. Open debate about the causes of Muslim aggression will be stifled, while any semblance of truth in news coverage will disappear. The so-called moderate Muslim leader, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, stated in January this year, in reference to the Religious Hatred Bill: “There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists will be covered by this provision.”

When a fatwa was placed on the author Salman Rushdie in 1989, he was given protection by the British government. Soon, it will be the Muslim advocates of death who will be protected by the Government. Some Muslim leaders have spoken with relish of their desire to prosecute Rushdie once the law is enacted.

This is not just theory. In 2001 the Australian government enacted a religious hatred law, very similar to Labour’s proposal. Among the first prosecutions were those of two Christian pastors, Daniel Scot and Daniel Nalliah, who had raised concern about human rights abuses under Islam.

In court the judge admitted that the two men had fairly represented the teachings of the Koran but, despite this, their statements were “1ikely to incite feelings of hatred towards Muslims”. This really is descending into the madhouse, where a preacher cannot even quote from another work of scripture without fear of committing a criminal offence.

The Government should recognise that we are dealing with a brutal, often murderous ideology. In Holland the Dutch film producer Theo Van Gogh was killed by a Muslim for making a film which dared to criticise Islam. His co-producer, the brave Somalian refugee Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who renounced Islam after a lifetime of abuse, has also been threatened with death. In Labour’s brave new world Van Gogh and Ali could have never countenanced making their film. A new era of censorship and fear is beckoning, thanks to the Labour Government.