inequality under the law
i’ve written before about my disdain for the “hate speech” laws in this country. they’re completely ineffective at protecting people, they only serve to smooth the surface by covering up the extent of racism that really exists, and they’re completely and utterly subjective in application.
take, for instance the following two examples which occured within days of each other.
BNP party leader Nick Griffin was cleared of charges of “inciting racial hatred” after being caught on tape as calling Islam a “wicked, vicious faith” and saying Muslims were turning Britain into a “multi-racial hell hole”.
Mizanur rahman, was convicted of charges of inciting racial hatred after participating in a protest march on the danish embassy (during the mohammed cartoon furor) carrying placards reading “Behead those who insult Islam” and “Annihilate those who insult Islam”.
in comparing the two instances, what appears to be the critical difference? is it the word “behead”? is it the difference between writing something down and just verbalising it? is it the fact that even though Mr. Griffin’s target audience was 90% of britain, and mr. rahman’s less than 10%, there is a perception that muslims are more easily swayed to commit violence? is it the fact that it’s more widely acceptable these days to insult the islamic faith? if you were muslim, wouldn’t you chafe at the inequity? and if you were a muslim predisposed to violence, wouldn’t you find this ample fuel for your fire?
what exactly differentiates one message from another from a legal standpoint? i can’t pinpoint it, and i doubt that your average citizen could either. in which case, how are we to know exactly what’s allowable by law, and what’s not? what good is a law that the public can’t understand? and how can it possibly be enforced in an equitable manner?
lord goldsmith calls it a “gap in the law” that needs to be looked at. i call it a hole in common sense big enough to drive a truck through. Chancellor Gordon Brown said stronger laws might be necessary to include religious as well as race-related offences. I say, let’s do away with this ineffective and unequal law, before it causes more harm than good.
Like this post
islam, bnp, , racial hatred law, hate speech 
Comment by Thomas Foolery
16.11.2006 @ 11:54 am
You glossed right over the difference. Yes, the difference is the words “behead” and “annihilate”.
One guy was criticizing and insulting. The other guy was calling for murder. One is a reasonable form of democratic discourse (whether tasteful or not) and the other was the advocacy of violence (where most democratic societies draw the line).
I don’t have any love for the BNP but I’m glad they were acquitted — nice to see that there’s still some free speech in this country. I’m sure Brown and the other politicians will soon put a stop to it.
Comment by Jen
16.11.2006 @ 12:14 pm
sorry, but i don’t buy it. what they’re trying to do is legislate based on the *potential effect* words have. which is virtually impossible to gauge, therefore there is no way to distinguish the two cases. is someone really more likely to attempt to “behead those who insult islam” simply because someone held up a placard? or is a bystander more likely to go out and beat up a muslim because someone accused them of being “wicked” and causing social ills?
i can tell you which i think is the more likely scenario, but *my* point is there is no possible way to legally determine that.