Excellent piece in yesterday's Observer by Nick Cohen, who has been fighting a courageous battle against the moral bankruptcy of his comrades on the left who he rightly perceives are on the wrong side in the onslaught against freedom that is now under way. Cohen was appalled by the views expressed by Index on Censorship over the murder of the radical Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh. As is well known, van Gogh's own views on Islam, Judaism, Christianity and other matters were deeply offensive. But a free society permits the giving of offence; indeed, it is one of the hallmarks of just such freedom. He was murdered in an attempt to shut that freedom down. Index reacted to his murder by ridiculing the dead man for his views and, as Cohen observes, effectively blamed him for his own death:

'Rohan Jayasekera, the associate editor, invited readers of its website to see van Gogh's murder as a smart business move - "Applaud Theo van Gogh's death as the marvellous piece of street theatre it was", he cried. "What timing! Just as his long-awaited film of Pim Fortuyn's life is ready to screen. Bravo, Theo! Bravo!" Jayasekera slyly suggested the film maker was suffering from an inherited strain of insanity because he was "a descendant of the mad genius Dutch painter", before going on to say that you couldn't be surprised that his film had provoked a furious response because it was "furiously provocative".'

Cohen had assumed that Index on Censorship was for freedom of speech and against censorship. Silly him; Index, it turns out, is for censorship and against freedom:

'When I asked Jayasekera if he had any regrets, he said he had none. He told me that, like many other readers, I shouldn't have made the mistake of believing that Index on Censorship was against censorship, even murderous censorship, on principle - in the same way as Amnesty International is opposed to torture, including murderous torture, on principle. It may have been so its radical youth, but was now as concerned with fighting 'hate speech' as protecting free speech.'

This is, of course, precisely why the hateful proposal to criminalise incitement to religious hatred is so very wrong and dangerous. It will deliver victory to all those who want to silence the van Goghs of this world. Cohen makes a good point about this dreadful measure:

'...when society decides that people's religion, rather than their class or gender, is the cultural fact that matters, power inevitably passes to the priests and the devout for whom religion does indeed matter most.'

That is why a law against religious hatred is much more likely to be used, and freedom thus abused, than the law against racial hatred. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, also writing in the (admirably balanced) Observer on this subject, totally failed to get this point (not the only issue on which his judgment is now in shreds, to put it mildly). More than that, his argument imploded on its own contradictions. He said, for example, that preventing incitement to religious hatred was designed to plug a loophole on behalf of Muslims and Christians, since Jews and Sikhs were 'protected' by the law against incitement to racial hatred. But in practice, this law offers next to no protection because of the extreme reluctance of the authorities to bring any prosecutions under it. Moreover, the Christian religion is already protected by the blasphemy law. In addition, Blunkett wrote this:

'The offence only covers hatred stirred up against people deliberately targeted because of religious beliefs or lack of them. It is not simple dislike or hatred of their beliefs; it's not a new blasphemy law by the back door. Nor is it an assault on people's right to disapprove of beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion. It's about tackling people who set out to whip up hatred, not about stopping people telling jokes - however offensive.'

But this distinction is absurdly disingenuous. The incitement that the law is designed to stop is to stir up religious hatred. So hatred of people's beliefs is being targeted. It is a blasphemy law by the back door. And as Randhir Singh Bains wrote in a letter to the Telegraph, this new law is likely to stir up rather more religious hatred:

'However, freedom of speech and expression is not merely tantamount to delivering encomiums on Islam or other religions; it also includes the right to offend. It is this right that has so far prevented Hindus from making a hue and cry over a verse in the Koran (Verse 39, Chapter 8) that urges "Muslims to make war on idol-worshippers (Hindus) until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme". Once there was a law against incitement to religious hatred, however, Hindus would be free from such constraints, and would be perfectly within their moral right to insist that such offensive verses, which could be construed as illegal under the new law, ought to be expunged from the Koran. A law against incitement to religious hatred might help the Government to win the next election, but it is likely to do tremendous damage to inter-communal harmony in Britain.'

Exactly.

Posted by melanie at December 13, 2004