Beano Johnson on Free Speech

[Tom Paine]

http://www.boris-johnson.com/archive...ree_speech.php

I have been talking to Agnes Callamard, who leads a free speech charity called Article 19, and she tells me that wherever she now goes on her missions, she finds a shocking new phenomenon. She has just been to the Maldives, where the government is engaged in active repression of the press, shutting down radio stations and locking up journalists if they even carry quotations from the opposing MDP. When she remonstrated, she was told that any criticism was a bit rich coming from a British organisation, given that the British Government has just passed draconian new measures against incitement in the Terrorism Bill.

It was the same story in Nepal, where torture has been used regularly against opponents of the regime, and where there are similar restrictions on free speech. "A senior government official told us that they were only cracking down on terrorists, in the way that they do in the UK," said Callamard.

The same excuse is deployed in Belarus, by the totalitarian government of Alexander Lukashenko, and of course the same logic is used by the Sri Lankans in their crackdown on the Tamil Tigers. In June 2005, the Malaysian Inspector General of Police, Tun Sri Mohamed Bakri Omar, defended Malaysia's continuing to detain people indefinitely without charge. And how did he justify it? By reference to the Labour proposals to detain suspects without charge for 90 days.

From tyrant to tyrant, from Mubarak to Mugabe, the argument is the same: the UK and the US crack down on those who support terrorists; they pass detailed restrictions on free speech; they outlaw the glorification of terror - why shouldn't we?

It seems our anti-terrorism legislation is having an undesireable effect... other people in other nations are copying it, using the excuse of preventing terrorism. So far from being a bastion of human rights and civil liberties, we are the defence used by those breaching them in the most horrible ways. We are being held up by tyrants and oppressors, and still manage to call ourselves with a straight face defenders of those selfsame rights.

So where's the answer to this hypocrisy, or is there in fact no hypocrisy? Would we be held up thusly whatever we did?

[RusskiSoldat]

Good.
Maybe eventualy you can forget the whole human rights affair de jure, rather than just forgetting it de facto as you do now.

[Tom Paine]

So, what, we should forget and abandon beliefs, ideals, and so on that have kept and continue to keep this nation strong then, sir? Do we abandon it to tyranny and dictatorship by whomsoever is strong enough to rule?

[Aristophanes]

It seems our anti-terrorism legislation is having an undesireable effect... other people in other nations are copying it, using the excuse of preventing terrorism. So far from being a bastion of human rights and civil liberties, we are the defence used by those breaching them in the most horrible ways. We are being held up by tyrants and oppressors, and still manage to call ourselves with a straight face defenders of those selfsame rights.

So where's the answer to this hypocrisy, or is there in fact no hypocrisy? Would we be held up thusly whatever we did?

So, you want to abandon a law because another country twists, beyond recognition, the ideals behind it? Now, I have no idea really what the content of this bill is, but I assume it merely shores up existing laws. There were already laws against incitement to violence, treason, etc..., and though I don't disagree with laws against incitement to hate, I certainly don't see how any stretch of the imagination could lead one to think they would have a legitimate[or justifiable] use against mainstream journalists, political dissidents and reformers, etc...

I really think it's the moral ambiguity you've allowed to surround words like 'terrorist' which supports these people's efforts. It's the treasonous, to the ideals of liberalism and freedom, faux intellectual sophistry of people who compare the Bush Admin to Saddam or Hitler that aids these nations. It's the lie, so oft repeated, that values are relative, that there's no right or wrong, that has played into the hands of corrupted and malicious autocrats. You're hoist by your own petard my friend; they're turning the arguments of the so-called liberals, the do-gooders, against them, and using your flawed reasoning to exonerate their egregious conduct. I'm just sorry that other people have to suffer for the intellectual solipsism, confusion and self-indulgence of the oh-so comfortably situated academic classes.

[Tom Paine]

Umm... Beano Johnsn isn't one of these liberals by any stretch of the word, as a Tory party candidate; and the laws he is referring to prevent protest in Parliament Square, prevent anything which could be construed as glorification of terrorism (this would include the film V for Vendetta), incitement to racial or religious hatred, and so on. He specifically references the first two; abrogation of the right of protest so necessary in a free and democratic society, and serious abrogation of the right to free speech on a general and absolute level.

[Aristophanes]

Umm... Beano Johnsn isn't one of these liberals by any stretch of the word, as a Tory party candidate; and the laws he is referring to prevent protest in Parliament Square, prevent anything which could be construed as glorification of terrorism (this would include the film V for Vendetta), incitement to racial or religious hatred, and so on. He specifically references the first two; abrogation of the right of protest so necessary in a free and democratic society, and serious abrogation of the right to free speech on a general and absolute level.

V for Vendetta is a case in point, and clearly demonstrates my earlier post's main thesis: that the ambiguity certain people have made to surround terrorism- evidenced by movie directors creating a film about a character who is labelled a 'terrorist'[a character, who btw is anything but a terrorist] only so they can trot out the old canard about 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'- aids people who are the REAL thing. Not people who blow up old buildings that nobody uses anymore, not people who attack the agents of, and perpetrators of crimes against their people, not people who sacrifice themselves for the good of others and expose lies, but people who murder innocent civilians in democratic nations in order to achieve political goals which are contrary to the interests of the people. Terrorists TERRORIZE common people, forcing them to do things they would not otherwise do.[at least, that's the intent] V, as you may have noticed, did anything BUT that. And yet, there they are trying to salvage their pathetic ploy that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', true only so far as SOME PEOPLE ARE WRONG ON SOME QUESTIONS, AND SOME PEOPLE ARE RIGHT. Which happens to be no excuse for being WRONG.

You can either abrogate a right, or not. There's no middle ground. I have a feeling, however, that a person's rights to protest are in no way abrogated[annulled]. I'm sure that there are certain things a person is no longer allowed to do while protesting, such as hold signs that say "kill the infidel", or "slaughter those who befoul Islam"; but you're hitting me with rhetoric, not with actual clauses that would give me a chance to evaluate the bill on its merits.[or demerits]

BTW how did you feel about the Muhammed cartoons? Does this mean that you see nothing wrong with them being reprinted?

[Erik]

Well, this was bound to happen.

You can't openly support the torture of your own prisoners and at the same time tell other countries that torture is always bad.
You can't lock your prisoners up for years without trial and at the same time tell other countries that their prisoners deserve a fair trial.
And you can't make laws banning the expression of certain opinions and at the same time tell other countries to always respect freedom of expression.

Of course those other countries are doing these things on a much larger scale, but that doesn't take away the hypocracy of the US and UK when they tell them not to do the things they do themselves.

[Tom Paine]

The Act itself
First section is on glorification or encouragement of terrorism.

1 Encouragement of terrorism
(1) This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.

The basic preamble, but even here, we have "some or all"; we have "likely". So basically its couched in very general terms, and very wide ones.

(2) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and
(b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he-
(i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or
(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.

So again intent does not matter, only interpretation; you are not guilty by omission if you allow to be published something that can be seen as incitement to terrorism, even if it is indirect incitement.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which-
(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and
(b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.

And of course the bolded parts are my own; however, this means things like celebrations of the actions of such as Guy Fawkes, or of course, V for Vendetta (generally) can be construed as glorifying it; and as the film and similar materials show success and popular suport tat suggests emultion is a good thing.

(4) For the purposes of this section the questions how a statement is likely to be understood and what members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer from it must be determined having regard both-
(a) to the contents of the statement as a whole; and
(b) to the circumstances and manner of its publication.

So if either context or the material itself could be construed as directly or indirectly supporting it, its illegal.

(5) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3)-
(a) whether anything mentioned in those subsections relates to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism or Convention offences, of acts of terrorism or Convention offences of a particular description or of acts of terrorism or Convention offences generally; and,
(b) whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate any such act or offence.

So whether or not anything comes of such incitement is irrelevant for the purposes of the Act, just whether it could be construed as glorification of terrorism.

(6) In proceedings for an offence under this section against a person in whose case it is not proved that he intended the statement directly or indirectly to encourage or otherwise induce the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences, it is a defence for him to show-
(a) that the statement neither expressed his views nor had his endorsement (whether by virtue of section 3 or otherwise); and
(b) that it was clear, in all the circumstances of the statement's publication, that it did not express his views and (apart from the possibility of his having been given and failed to comply with a notice under subsection (3) of that section) did not have his endorsement.

Meaning you have to show you weren't expressing your views (is that possible) and it did not have your endorsement.

Ohh, and under Subsection 2, Clause 2 of the Act;

(d) provides a service to others that enables them to obtain, read, listen to or look at such a publication, or to acquire it by means of a gift, sale or loan;

relating to publication and dissemination of terrorist material; the internetis illegal and all those providing it are breaking the law.

[Aristophanes]

The main reason I agree with you that this goes too far is that I don't see the need for a new law. I'm sure England already has laws against incitement to violence and making threats, and, perhaps, the wisest thing to do would be to alter these laws where required, whether in view of harsher punishments or make specific exceptions, etc...
So, yes, I agree that this new law is too broad, but I don't disagree with the intent, and I do disagree with Beano Johnson.

[Tom Paine]

The intent is covered, really. Incitement to racial or religious hatred is covered in acts devoted to those, and so on. Basically its all covered, but this widens the coverage to an incredible and unbelievable degree.

[the Black Prince]

some points to note

first of all, prosecutions under this act may only be commenced with the consent of the DPP, or, if committed abroud, by the A-G (s19(1))

so we're unlikely to see a flurry of prosecutions...


second, the act is coached in broad terms for a reason. its unknown what form terrorism is likely to take, if we define it specifically, then chances are, an act could be committed, that is an act of terror, that cannot be prosecuted. thats defeating ourselves from the word go...

instead, you create a broad based act, whereby any number of perfectly innocent acts, as well as true terrorist ones may be included, and then leave it up to the prosecuting bodies, and the judges to prosecute within the bounds of common sense.

the CPS already has 2 filters they use to decide on prosecuting
is there enough evidence?
is it in the public interest?

the 2nd filter is their best friend. its what allows them to NOT prosecute a 15yr old boy for "raping" a 15 yr old girl, when both consent. because despite being technically illegal, its not generally speakling considered wrong. however, because its illegal, if circumstances suggest a prosecution is in order, they can still prosecute.

likewise with this... perhaps Guy Forkes Celebrations, or films such as V for Vendetta are technically illegal... but in those cases, its left once again to the CPS to use their discretion, and in this case there is an added third filter of requiring the DPPs consent to the prosecution.
in the unlikely event that some Chief Crown Prosecutor got it into his head to go ahead and prosecute a town council for organisaing a bonfire night event, and in the unlikely event that the DPP agreed to the prosecution, its STILL got to get past the courts...

with acts written in such broad terms, and with the current liberal bench we have in the High Court, and the House of Lords, they won't take the act literally, they'll use the mischief approach to interpretation and rule that a guy forkes display isn't within the scope of the act, or find some other way around it...

[carl-the-conqueror]

laws are very complex in britain, free speech should meen saying ANYTHING you want not with hundreds of rules and regulations.

people shouldnt be detained for no reason for more than 30 minutes. there should be somthing to give the police a reason to detain any longer.

[Tom Paine]

I can see a few days (questioning etc) but 90 days?
And you can't have absolute freeodm of speech, I'm with Aristophanes all the way on that; we can't allow people to incite hatred and violence, can we? Or do we want that sort of country?

[the Black Prince]

qualified free speech has nothing to do with britain - thats european

ECHR Article 10

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

people shouldnt be detained for no reason for more than 30 minutes. there should be somthing to give the police a reason to detain any longer.

Police must have reasonable grounds to even stop a person, let alone detain them, and the person has a right to be informed of what those grounds are when they are stopped
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as amended)

[Tom Paine]

Specific qualifications have everythng to do with Britain however, as in the Public Order Act 1986; which included the following:

Section 18 Offence of using racially inflammatory words or behaviour or displaying racially inflammatory written material.
Section 19 Offence of publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material.
Section 20 Offence of giving a public performance of a racially inflammatory play.
Section 21 Offence of distributing, showing or playing a racially inflammatory recording.
Section 22 Offence of broadcasting a racially inflammatory programme or including such a programme in a cable programme service.

Isn't the 1984 Act now out of place, given the stop-and-search powers from the new government and the powers of detention without charge now afforded to the police, again by the present government, and both in aid of couterterrorism measures?

[the Black Prince]

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has not been repealed, only amended, and specifically the Codes of Practise are still in use



the PACE was amended specifically by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2000 to incorporate into the older act some provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 (S71-86 of CJaPA) these amendments did not modify the need to always give reasonable grounds and in fact only related to police powers of arrest and taking of samples.
PACE is still the governing act of all police forces in england and wales