Home > Alex Massie

Tuesday 22 May 2012

Even Goons Have the Right to Freedom of Speech. Especially Goons, in Fact.

Tuesday, 8th March 2011

If only Britain had something comparable to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution then we'd enjoy greater freedoms than is currently the case. Three cheers, then, to Bagehot for defending liberalism and liberty from the predations of the law and, naturally, the Sun newspaper.

The case? An easy one that might have been designed as a litmus or Rorshach test designed to discover who actually really believes in the "values" we like to congratulate ourselves for holding and those for whom such values and concerns are unimportant and may be abandoned at the first sign of trouble or the dreadful prospect that someone, somewhere is doing something of which you disapprove.

So, yes, Emdamur Choudhury should not have been prosecuted, far less convicted for his Remembrance Sunday "protest" during which he burned some poppies and chanted anti-British and anti-military slogans. That the judge imposed the smallest permissable fine - £50 - is not, as the Sun would have it, an example of liberalism or "political correctness" run amok, but of a judge who failed to be liberal enough.

The Sun, never-knowingly under-jackbooted, whines:

What kind of deterrent is £50 to other Islamic fascists bent on sowing hate throughout Britain? How much longer must we tolerate their free speech over-ruling the sanctity of the Remembrance Day silence?

A lot longer I hope. Not least because the ability to tolerate (non-violent) acts you personally find distasteful is one measure of a civilised person or, as in this instance, a civilised society. Moreover, it is always entertaining to be given lessons on anti-fascism by tabloid newspapers, not least because one need have no doubt that the mentality that produces the average British tabloid would be quite at home in a totalitarian or authoritarian regime. (So too, of course, might some members of the soi-disant intelligentsia but that's a different matter.)

Choudhary is an unpleasant piece of work but even dreadful types have rights and while his protest was crude, squalid and calculated to offend that should not be enough to convict him for what is, in the end, the crime of causing offence.

For that matter, the attention lavished upon Choudhary and his goonish pals by the Sun and others is just the kind of thing that pleases them. Better, surely, to treat them with the scorn they merit but retain a dignified and withering silence in the face of their witless provocations. Their aim is publicity and a society riven along religious lines. Why assist them in any way?

The contrast with the United States Supreme Court which recently upheld the right of the equally goonish, even ghoulish, Westboro Baptist Church to picket military funerals is as instructive as it is depressing since it casts speech-liberties in Britain in such an unflattering light. Of course, our solution to the Westboro "problem" is simply to deny them entry to the United Kingdom - a policy I favor no more than I approve of past efforts to exclude the likes of Geert Wilders from this blessed isle.

Filed under: Britain (738 more articles) , Freedom of speech (49 more articles) , Liberalism (38 more articles) , Libertarians (143 more articles) , Newspapers (382 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (24)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

boulay

March 8th, 2011 3:08pm Report this comment

you are right - they should have the freedom to protest about British soldiers etc but then i believe they should protest to the faces of those British soldiers without the protection of the police who they no doubt also despise - i am sure that if they really believe then they will be brave enough to explain their points of view directly......

Wheeeeeee.............................

March 8th, 2011 3:33pm Report this comment

Agreed.A house brick carving its perfect path through the air would be a far better solution.

Austin Barry

March 8th, 2011 3:34pm Report this comment

You are absolutely correct in your analysis. With respect to the act itself, I would be more than happy to see further instances of Islamists attempting to wind-up the already seething infidel public. It may eventually lead to some catharsis.

Grassmarket

March 8th, 2011 4:32pm Report this comment

I am as happy to support Mr Choudhury's right to burn poppies as he would be to support your right to burn Korans.

Keith D

March 8th, 2011 6:02pm Report this comment

Is tolerating the intolerant not an assault on free speech though? This cockroach Choudhury is a symptom of a greater malaise that is only now being addressed.

We've tolerated these animals for long enough and if you really think "Europe your 911 is coming" "Freedom go to hell" and other intelligent gems dont encourage atrocities like the sudden and tragic curtailing of Theo Van Gogh's freedom of speech then you're sadly mistaken.
Choudhury and his ilk are entitled to free speech,but he's not entitled to offend and attack my values when I've paid for his lodgings and food bill.Let him do it in Iran or Saudi where his model society obviously exists,at their expense,not ours.

Beefeater

March 8th, 2011 6:54pm Report this comment

" Moreover, it is always entertaining to be given lessons on anti-fascism by tabloid newspapers, not least because one need have no doubt that the mentality that produces the average British tabloid would be quite at home in a totalitarian or authoritarian regime. "

This deserves to be a blog subject on its own. Would enjoy reading an elaboration...

and I'll go to bed at noon

March 8th, 2011 7:59pm Report this comment

@Grassmarket

"I am as happy to support Mr Choudhury's right to burn poppies as he would be to support your right to burn Korans."

You're right, he probably wouldn't be very pleased about that. One thing that may have escaped your notice, though - Endamur Choudhury is a fundamentalist nutjob. Wouldn't it be nice to aspire to do better than people we hate?

grassmarket

March 8th, 2011 8:27pm Report this comment

Very well, then, where are all Mr Massie's articles in support of the Rev Terry Jones' right to burn Korans and indeed to freedom of movement and assembly? I can't find any in the archives, yet there must be dozens, surely, because he has suffered far more for his beliefs than Choudry did.

Edward McLaughlin

March 8th, 2011 9:40pm Report this comment

If we have to put up with behaviour like this on our streets, then let's just hope it all happens very quickly and that the puppies don't suffer unduly.

Austin Barry

March 8th, 2011 9:56pm Report this comment

Come on Alex - what is your view on Koran burning? OK or not?

Craig Strachan

March 8th, 2011 11:25pm Report this comment

I agree, but with the proviso that those who utter "fighting words" should be ready to fight. So if, say, a relative of a fallen soldier were to be so offended by these "protests" that he felt moved to give Choudhary a boot in the balls, that would be AOK by me and no prosecution should ensue.

Remittance Man

March 9th, 2011 6:14am Report this comment

If only Britain had something comparable to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution ...

If only Britain had something comparable to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution ... Oh, wait! We did. It was called te Bill of Rights and our American cousins copied it almost word for word when they wrote their own Bill of Rights. Sadly, thanks to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, British politicians have managed to chip away at our BOR until most of its provisions have been negated.

cuffleyburgers

March 9th, 2011 7:43am Report this comment

I have not read the Bagehot piece but if he was saying that this loathsome individual should not have been punished at all then I think he was wrong. The judge quite rightly found him guilty of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace and fined him,there was no point in fining him any more as he is on benefits.

The right to free speech extends even to people whose views you disagree with. That is the whole point.

I would observe also that this was an act likely to incite racial hatred (against himself and muslims in general) and so perhaps he could have been punished under some of Labour's more horrendous laws...

cuffleyburgers

March 9th, 2011 7:45am Report this comment

By the way - why "especially goons"? Why do they have any more rights than I do?

I thought the whole point was that we all have the same.

Get a grip.

And your position on koran burning?

Richard Thomas

March 9th, 2011 9:21am Report this comment

It might be that the best answer to Mr Choudhary and his ilk is to resort to two fine British traditions: first, public ridicule - laugh at the stupid man and his followers; second, if rotten fruit, eggs and vegetables were to be available then throw them at him. My bet will be that he would run for the protection of the courts.

Ian Brown

March 9th, 2011 9:24am Report this comment

Just so.

Baron

March 9th, 2011 10:02am Report this comment

in the days of barbaric Britain when people talking about lesbians would ask ‘but what do they do together?’ the Choudhury’s case wouldn’t have made it beyond a request from a police officer directing the fruitcake to ensure his burning protest didn’t cause damage or injury. A Koran burning would have received the same treatment. Today, it’s the corrosive heinousness of Labour’s laws in this domain that contracts the scope of the centuries honoured freedoms producing laughable outcomes such as this one.

Craig Strachan’s @ 11.25: interpretation of justice: “if, say, a relative of a fallen soldier were to be so offended by these "protests" that he felt moved to give Choudhary a boot in the balls, that would be AOK by me and no prosecution should ensue”.

Nope, sir, this ain’t the way it was done, should be done now. If a relative of a soldier could furnish evidence of an injury, physical or emotional, suffered as a direct result of the poppy burning, argue the case in cross examination before a jury or a judge, win it, then he would be entitled to damages that would unlikely include a kick at the nutter’s balls. Not even the freedom loving predecessors of ours went that far, I reckon.

Noa

March 9th, 2011 10:15am Report this comment

Yes. Good ole freedom of speech.

He's entitled to his right to speak the contents of what passes for his mind.

Prior to political correctness and such journalistic agonising on the head of a pin as Mr Massie loves to evince such matters would have been dealt with in a common sense, practical manner.

If he decides to to it in a manner which causes public disorder he should of course be subject to arrest for incitement to riot and conspiracy, or an offence against public decency.

Alternatively the police could withdraw to enable a majority view to be expressed.

Or just stop his benefits and invite him to live in a more distant Islamic society.

Hugh

March 9th, 2011 2:57pm Report this comment

I'm not sure you're right. Free speech has long had restrictions in a public setting. In Scotland you can be charged with a breach of the peace. Here we have section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act. If you can be charged for shouting obscenities at passers-by, pestering people at a bus stop or waking up a quiet neighbourhood at night (to use a few of the law books’ examples) why shouldn’t Chowdry be charged for this? If you have a problem it’s with the law as it has stood for a good few decades.

Craig Strachan

March 9th, 2011 3:08pm Report this comment

@Baron - You're quite right of course. Any boot in the balls for the likes of Choudary should be metaphorical, and delivered via the legal system.

Unfortunately.

DavidDP

March 9th, 2011 4:27pm Report this comment

"he has suffered far more for his beliefs than Choudry did"

He was fined more than £50?

Roger Angove

March 10th, 2011 1:18pm Report this comment

Presumably, then, I would be free to organise a torchlight parade of men in black shirts and swastika brassards. And if not why not?
There are limits to free speech; without them we descend to barbarism.