We have been discussion how England has seen the rise of calls for speech prosecutions. The trend appears to be accelerating under David Cameron. While seen across Europe, this trend has been especially pronounced free speech rights in the Westin England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). In one of the most vivid examples of the decline of free speech in England, an evangelical preacher named James McConnell, 78, from Northern Ireland has been charged criminally for calling Islam “satanic.” The preacher is charged with spreading a “grossly offensive” message for what should be considered (and protected) as religious and political speech.
In a May 2014 sermon, James McConnell told worshippers at the Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle that “Islam is heathen. Islam is satanic.” The sermon attracted attention online and led to a charge based on transmitting an offensive message over an electronic communications network. Such statements can and should be denounced as sweeping and offensive. However, the prosecution of such views represents a far greater danger for a free nation.
Nevertheless Prosecutor David Russell told Belfast Magistrates’ Court that the case had “nothing to do with religion or freedom of expression.” I am not sure what is more chilling, the prosecution or the prosecutor’s utter lack of recognition of free speech implications of the case. Russell insisted that criminal charges are warranted because McConnell “characterizes the followers of an entire religion in a stereotypical way. And that’s grossly offensive and that’s not protected from saying it from a pulpit.”
So that is what has become of free speech in England. A preacher can be arrested for declaring other religious practices or beliefs as evil. Indeed, it is apparently enough to “characterize the followers of an entire religion in a stereotypical way.”
England remains one of two greatest concentrations of readers for our blog. There is a sizable civil liberties community in England but they are under attack by a rising number of citizens who want to regulate and punish unpopular speech. It is precisely what religious extremists like ISIS have long demanded from the West. For many years, I have been writing about the threat of an international blasphemy standard and the continuing rollback on free speech in the West. For recent columns, click here and here and here.
Much of this writing has focused on the effort of the Obama Administration to reach an accommodation with allies like Egypt and Pakistan to develop a standard for criminalizing anti-religious speech. We have been following the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard.
These cases reflect the true purpose of blasphemy laws: to silence minority sects and religious critics in the name of a “true faith.” Fortunately the effort of Hillary Clinton and others in the Administration to reach a compromise on blasphemy failed, though there continue to be efforts to create an international standard.
However, even after declaring themselves “friends of Charlie” in the aftermath of the Hebdo killings, Western leaders are rounding up those who might infuriate religious extremists or trigger another spate of violence. Free speech was once the very touchstone of Western civilization and civil liberties. A person cannot really defame a religion or religious figures (indeed, you cannot defame the dead in the United States). The effort to redefine criticism of religion as hate speech or defamation is precisely what editors and writers at Charlie Hebdo fought to resist (and died defending). The West has simply fallen out of love with free speech, which is now treated inconvenient and destabilizing for society. However, those currently curtailing the free speech of others may find themselves silenced by the shifting definitions and whims of speech regulation.
issacbasonkavichi
1, December 15, 2015 at 10:14 am
I suppose a shorter way of expressing my opinion is, where does freedom of speech meet incitement to commit harm to others?
——————————————-
That’s the key question.
Is it ok to say that Judaism is obsolete and that the Jews killed Christ, in England, or will that get you into prison too? I doubt there are many preachers saying that one anymore.
I suppose a shorter way of expressing my opinion is, where does freedom of speech meet incitement to commit harm to others?
issacbasonkavichi wrote: “… where does freedom of speech meet incitement to commit harm to others?”
The difference between free speech and incitement to commit harm is easy to distinguish. With incitement to commit harm, the speaker is telling people to arm themselves and go hurt somebody. For example, when a Muslim Imam tells people to get their swords and let’s go behead some infidels, that would be an incitement to violence. However, if the Muslim Imam is simply saying that America is the Great Satan and is the mother of immorality, then he is explaining his viewpoint and that should be allowed. We answer those charges with good speech, not with violence or governmental force.
Justice Holmes
Most of the time in calm waters, free speech is a luxurious freedom that appears garbed in the cloaks of rights, inalienable or other. It goes without saying that freedom of speech is a necessary element of all free societies. It also goes without saying that as it is a flag that a free society waves it is also a goal that, in some societies, cannot be yet waved. It is a goal for most of the world. Ultimately our freedoms and rights are given to us by ourselves, through our representatives, and most importantly depending on the societal conditions of the moment, however, long and arduous that moment can be.
It is necessary to defend freedom of speech. It is also necessary to recognize when nut cases wear the garb of free speech and whose primary interest is to create havoc for personal reasons. This christian would lead others to elevate their beliefs to the level resulting in innocents dying. The Florida nut case christian threatened to burn a koran and several UN aid workers were slaughtered. Luckily he returned to selling fast food before he could cause any more harm.
It is necessary for the society that gives itself freedoms to recognize when they do more harm than good. The conviction that one’s beliefs are incapable of doing harm are the same convictions of those who are the recipients du jour of the christian nut cases in question. Religious extremism, regardless of the religion, ends up indistinguishable one fairy tale from the other.
We will see how this sits with a court.
Part of the “blandization” of western society – eliminate anything that requires thought/analysis/judgement.
Let the “elites” think for you.
Free speech is such a simple concept, but some people just cannot grasp it. Let people speak their ideas, and let others counter that speech with better speech. If a man says Islam is of Satan, then let others counter that with reasonable arguments why it is not. Whenever government uses force, or a listener takes it upon themselves to use force, they have crossed the line. We are not free if we cannot express what we are thinking without fear of retribution. In order for the mind to be free to think and decide rationally upon truth, we must allow speech to be free. Government should punish ACTIONS only and never punish speech.
So Issac, I’m offended by your speech. Should you be banned and prosecuted. I suggest to you that free speech is critical. Once you give one group the right to shut it down and prosecute offenders based on their standards, we are all at risk.
What you have here is a tinder box of religious and social turmoil that has gone on for hundreds of years and only recently been subdued. The animosities and tensions still exist. However, the solution to the strife was for the leaders of the separate factions to put a lid on the expressions that ignited the killings. This may be where the government gets its reasoning. It worked between the prods and the mackerel snappers so perhaps it will work between the christians and the followers of the pedophile flying horseman. The same accusations were flung from prod to snapper and from snapper to prod for centuries, resulting in, well read your history.
It is obvious that the extreme of anything leads to problems and extreme free speech can lead to problems. The common denominator of censorship and free speech is common sense. Turley is an extremist when it comes to free speech. Perhaps he should spend some time perusing the history of those that he criticizes with so much religious empty mindedness.
Sometimes free speech is not worth the trouble it can cause. Or, after a few dozen innocents have been slaughtered because of the maniac preacher’s words, get back to us. Oh yeah, you dozens of dead innocent gave your lives so Turley and others could maintain their position on mindless free speech. Or, when will society get a brain?
This form of censorship is alive and thriving already in the USA. U.S. Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch has already made it clear she will prosecute any verbal attacks on islam. She said this at the same time they are investigating the bloodbath by islamic jihadist terrorists in San Bernadino, Calif.
Recently we had the lesbian Mayor Of Houston, Texas attempt to force the Clergy of the city to submit their prepared sermons prior to delivering said sermon to their congregations for her approval to make sure it did not deal with the sin of homosexuality. Her ignorance was that she is in Texas, and rebellion was quick and swift. She quickly realized she will not be reelected next election and is now a lame duck.
Of all places, Belfast, Northern Ireland. Catholics and Protestants conflict in Northern Ireland?
The Republic of Ireland is historically a Catholic country and a large majority of the Irish are Catholics. Many people in Northern Ireland are descendants of the
original population of this region and are also Catholics. However, the majority of the Northern Irish have forefathers who emigrated from England and Scotland
and these two countries have been Protestant for almost 500 years. Therefore, we end up with a rather confusing situation with a split population from two different cultural and religious backgrounds.
If verbally criticizing an entire group of people, like “the Taliban”, “Al Qaeda”, “The Islamic State”, or demonizing a national leader like Mossadegh, Allende, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi, Putin, Assad, leads to bombing cities where some of those people may live, or droning wedding parties and funerals, and bombing hospitals, and shooting down planes, well then verbal criticism should probably be constrained, but citizens have been unable to constrain such verbal attacks uttered by government officials and broadcast journalists.
One point of view spoken here by JT is that The West is somehow a united set of territories as opposed to The East. One old phrase which this dog (me not JT) occasionally states on here is that East of Corfu The Ten Commandments Don’t Apply or that something is Beyond The Pale or Beyond The Paletinate.
Free speech discussion should focus on pirate territories and so called nation states which claim be be civilized and then analyze those which have implemented a Constitution which trumps (not the Donald) other laws or regulations. I point out that Great Britain is not all the Great in this regard and has no Constitution and no formal Bill of Rights containing a First Amendment set of provisions such as we have here in America. The Friggin Redcoats are the reason why we have a Constitution.
For the Brits on the blog here I mean no offense. But you Brits have no defense. Pass a Constitution and tell Cameron to go East of Corfu himself. This prosecution is a joke. It is Beyond The Pale (no reference to Sarah Palin).
Europe, and Obama, are trying to appease Islam. Sound familiar???
Reblogged this on L'horreur islamique à l'âge des ténèbres ن.
Time to move south for this minister.
I wonder how selectively enforced these laws are.
This is truly insane. ISIS now has the Northern Irish police doing their bidding.
Praise that preacher to the highest. He is right. Muslims obey satan who would never say fear not. That is who Muhammad saw shining like an angel of light. Muslims are Baal worshipers denying that Jesus was God with blood in him. A human could not teach us about God. Muslims denying Jesus as lord do not have Jesus ruling over them not being a good servant. You know what to do.
Praise that ptrie3qcrer to the highest. He is right. Muslims obey satan who would never say fear not. That is who Muhammad saw shining like an angel of light. Muslims are Baal worshipers denying that Jesus was God with blood in him. A human could not teach us about God. Muslims denying Jesus as lord do not have Jesus ruling over them not being a good servant. You know what to do.