Is Great Britain likely to become the land of free speech any time soon?
I think not. But it's encouraging to note that political opportunism seems to have met the ideals of political philosophy -- at least to some extent -- as the Brits prepare for their next general election. The two won't be going to the prom together, but they may at least agree to a dance:
Controversial plans to introduce ID cards and new laws on making incitement to religious hatred a criminal offence are expected to be sacrificed to force through other key pieces of legislation before Parliament is dissolved.
"Incitement to religious hatred," of course, was widely seen throughout Britain as "don't you dare diss Islam" -- which of course it was, and was always intended to be. That's it, to use writer Ron Liddle's words: stop dissing Islam, full stop. Don't say anything against Islam, damn you. And that's what it was.
(Disclaimer: I diss Islam. Full stop. Always will. I have lived in Lebanon, in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, and I have read the Koran and many hadith, and I've no respect for it. I love Lebanese food and Egyptian desserts and Saudi dates, and Allah knows I've met plenty of worthy people in all three countries, but for Islam I have absolutely no respect, and I won't pretend to any.)
The battle for the Muslim vote is also expected to be thrust centre stage this week with a showdown over the provision to outlaw incitement to religious hatred, designed to protect Muslims from covert racist attacks on grounds of their faith.Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, signalled it was likely to be shelved in order to avoid jeopardising the Serious and Organised Crime Bill to which it is attached, in a furious round of horsetrading to get key planks of legislation on to the statute books before Parliament rises for the election. Blaming the opposition parties for torpedoing it, he added: 'We think [the bill] should include the incitement of racial hated - we can't understand the Tories and Liberal Democrats blocking it, but if they continue to block it they can obviously prevent it going in.'
Well, cheers to the Liberal Democrats and the Tories (oh, all right, Conservative and Nationalist Party, if they prefer) for opposing this. Really: I wouldn't defend anyone who violently assaulted Muslims in the US or the UK on religious or ethnic grounds, and why would I? Why would anyone? But why single them out for protection, when then they are not generally subject to such attacks in either country? And, as I think we all know, and as public records suggest, they are not. But, gentle readers, Muslims are attacking, and fomenting attacks, on those in both countries who are viewed as enemies of Islam. Twin Towers, anyone? DC sniper case?
No, I don't think we'll see Great Britain moving from an aggressive pursuit of political correctness in favor of a free speech environment such as would be sanctioned by The Anger of Compassion. Not any time soon. But just the fact that Labour had to drop this offensive provision in order to move to an advantageous position crafted to win votes...ah well, that's good enough for an early salvo in the war for free speech.
(And on this one, last December I awarded Rowan Atkinson the title of "Free Speech Hero." He earned it.)
Posted by Craig Ceely at April 3, 2005 02:41 AM