The Guardian’s Michael White today used his daily column to argue that Home Secretary Alan Johnson’s decision to proscribe Islam4UK may be against his own prejudice not to ban political organizations “unless absolutely necessary, but you have to draw the line sometimes, partly to show there is a line”.
This view is plain wrong. There’s no other way to put it if you value freedom or democracy: it’s plain wrong.
The difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is not that a dictatorship has ruthless, unpleasant sorts like Stalin and Hitler who do ruthless, unpleasant things, whereas democracies has nice, good looking chaps like Jack Kennedy and Barack Obama who, whether we agree with them or not, do things with the best possible of intentions. It’s that a free democracy tolerates criticism, allows the voters to kick out the government on a whim, and enshrines the right to say whatever you want about whichever subject you want, whereas a dictatorship does not tolerate criticism and refuses to let the voters hold it to account.
The true test of a democracy isn’t its ability to protect the rights of those from the mainstream — a dictatorship does that. The true test of the strength of our rights is how they protect those from the extremes; those that the majority finds distasteful. No matter how loathsome Islam4UK may be, it’s impossible to take away it’s members’ right to free speech without weakening our own.
Besides which, even ignoring the important matters of what it says about the strength of our democracy, Islam4UK must be one of the best recruiting agents for the fight against Islamic extremism.
For once I agree with Alan Johnson for these reasons. There is a big difference between wanting to change the Governemnt of a country and potesting against it and challenging the very basis of that country’s existence as these people do.
The prime example of this was clearly seen last night on the news when they stood outside the court with people behind them holding placards saying “Freedom can go to hell.” That goes far beyond challenging the authority of a particular govt.
The danger of doing nothing is far greater in this instance than banning them. Whilst tolerance is always a good thing appeasement never is and these people cannot and should not be appeased in any way.
Freedom is part of the cultural heritage of this country. Do you think if the BNP was attacking the culture of minority groups in this way nothing would be done? There would be a stampede of Politicians to the studios to denounce them.
Their actions are dangerous in that they provoke racial hatred. Although in a minority they pose a real threat to this country spreading their vile crackpot ideas and it is time the Government got tough with them.
If I had my way I would strip them of their nationality and boot them out of the country.
[...] Islam4UK is just another bad decision by Johnson, and another blow to our civil liberties. As Think Politics have rightly argued: “There’s no other way to put it if you value freedom or democracy: [...]
FloTom, sorry for the delay in replying, but you know how it is on a Tuesday… yoga!
The Parallax Brief has to say that he understands your sentiment, and he shares your obvious disgust at Islam4UK and everything they stand for.
However, he also believes that being disgusted by something someone has to say isn’t criteria for banning them. In fact nothing that anyone says, unless it is a deliberate attempt to slander or damage someone, or threatens national security by divulging secrets, should be censured.
Why? Well, if we censure them for what they say, the Parallax Brief’s, and your, right to decide for ourselves what we want to see and hear, has been abrogated. Further, who’s to say that we aren’t going to say something that leads to censure at some stage down the road?
Let the Parallax Brief ask you one thing: who has the authority to decide what words and combination of words are dangerous to the country? Who has the right to decide what you can hear and what you can’t?
The UK already has laws that make incitement to violence illegal. If I4UK could be shown to be breaking these laws, they should have been charged.
There are several problems here that I can see. Firstly, there’s an election coming and there’s more political capital to be won by banning such a group than by not banning it. Secondly, *if* some future attack could be linked to anyone who’d even thought about attending an I4UK event, the government would be blamed for not acting.
At the same time, I4UK seems to represent a very small number of people. Fewer people than, say, the English Defence League – members of which have already been filmed taking part in violent ‘protests’ and at least appearing to espouse violence. The EDL has not been banned. If I4UK is to be banned, why not the EDL?
Maybe when The Sun runs an anti EDL campaign, the government will act. On the whole, though, I don’t like the idea of executive orders from the Home Office.
In answer to your question Freedom has always had limits and that includes Freedom of speech.
Anyone who wants to know exactly what these people are about need only to watch Islam4UK’s leader on Newsnight last night.
Unlike the kind of regime they wish to promote in this country they have the right of appeal against this decision. Do you think you would be afforded the same right in the Caliphate they want? I doubt it.
This is not about Freedom of Speech on its own this is about whether a dangerous organisation has the right to challenge Freedom in its entirety. This country has consistently done everything it can in order to stop those who pose a threat to Freedom and it should continue to do so.
I am a white working class man from a working class area. I can tell you that many of the people I speak to are sick to the back teeth of the antics of these extremists in this country. The danger is if the Muslim community cant or wont act to stop them or the Government cant or wont act then then sections of the public may take matters into their own hands.
If the UK genuinely embraces the rights to freedom of expression, what Alan Johnson is doing is totally against the principle of it. If we Europeans could overwhelmingly support and defend for our cause over the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in 2006 based on our belief in the rights to freedom of expression, I would think banning Islam4UK in order to stop the march is against the principle of freedom of expression.
Tristan, you’re absolutely right.
The other side of freedom of expression that often gets missed is that we have a right to HEAR what we want. Who has the right to decide what is acceptable for an adult to hear?
So you think we should run our society by the same rules as a Caliphate would, FloTom? Two tier class system, no freedoms or liberty? Because that’s kind of what you’re saying “they’d do it to us, so we should do it first”.
The problem with your argument regarding freedom having its limits is the question of where the line should be drawn. These things are cut and dry. The decision to proscribe has to be based on a plethora for metrics, all of which may give subtly contrasting signals on whether to ban or not. The difference between Islam4UK and other groups which have not, and will not be, banned is probably hair thin. Given as there are no real automation to this matter, and given that it all comes down to human judgment on incredible nebulous matters, the Parallax Brief puts it that there is noone alive, nor human that can be conceived that has the wisdom, intelligence, knowledge and authority to make such a decision.
Who can decide which extremist interpretation of Islam we can hear and which we cannot?
Anyway, this is immaterial, because the right to speak freely is sacrosanct, whereas the right not to be offended doesn’t exist.
You are wrong on all counts my friend.
1) The right to Freedom of Speech means Freedom in the first instance. In other words you can say what you want but if it breaks the law then you will suffer the full penalty of the law.
2)This is not the first occasion that an organisation in England has been proscribed. Catholics in this country were proscribed for a long time and in some ways still are. For instance a Catholic cannot sit on the throne.
3) You are wrong also the right to be offended does exist. For instance I couldnt even if I wanted to go out making offensive statements about gays religious groups etc precisely because they may offend.
4) As to Freedom not having any limits would you really argue that a murder could go about his buisness killing people becuase he has the right to “Freedom of Expression” or for that matter should paedophiles, rapists etc etc etc. Indeed should these people be allowed to propogate these ideas because they have the right to “Freedom of speech.”
Freedom has limits and it is for the law to decide what those limits are which is why if this group thinks it has been unfairly treated it has the right to appeal.
1.
“The right to Freedom of Speech means Freedom in the first instance. In other words you can say what you want but if it breaks the law then you will suffer the full penalty of the law.”
Wait, so you’re basically saying freedom of speech means you can say anything that isn’t against the law? Well then, what if it was against the law for you to speak? That would be freedom of speech, in your eyes??
2.
“This is not the first occasion that an organisation in England has been proscribed. Catholics in this country were proscribed for a long time and in some ways still are. For instance a Catholic cannot sit on the throne.”
Yes, and that’s wrong too. How is that an argument in favour of banning Islam4UK?
3.
“You are wrong also the right to be offended does exist. For instance I couldnt even if I wanted to go out making offensive statements about gays religious groups etc precisely because they may offend.”
Yes you can. Observe: “gays are cunts”. (I don’t really believe that, but I’m free to say it (unless it breaks any rules on this blog))
4.
“As to Freedom not having any limits would you really argue that a murder could go about his buisness killing people becuase he has the right to “Freedom of Expression” or for that matter should paedophiles, rapists etc etc etc. Indeed should these people be allowed to propogate these ideas because they have the right to “Freedom of speech.”"
How exactly is killing people anything like free speech?
If you want to understand properly – if no-one is being harmed, why should it be banned? Killing is rightfully illegal, because, erm, people get hurt and die because of it. Saying things you or I don’t like however, doesn’t harm anyone. Why should this group be banned because of it?
(Moreover, even if you don’t by the argument against banning their speech, why ban the group? Why not just allow the group to exist and arrest individuals if they say things you don’t like)
I don’t like what your saying. I find it offensive. Do you think your speech should be banned?
Alex
1) It may be easier if I give you and example of Freedom in the first instance. You are free to say or to publish anything you like in this country about an individual. However if it is proven to be slanderous or libellous then there are legal consequences to it. You have not now nor have you ever had the unlimited right to Freedom of Speech. In fact the only place in this country where this comes anywhere near to existing is in Parliament itself because MPs are protected by Parliamentary Privilege.
2) The reason that Catholics were proscribed was that they were seen as a threat to the country because they saw the Pope as a superior authority to the Monarchy. Proscribing them in the way our ancestors did, and I say this as someone christened though never practising Roman Catholic, therefore protected the country from a dangerous menace. Indeed one might think that our history shows that it proved to be very effective.
3) You are right you are free to say or observe what you said. However if it could be considered that it provoked violence against this group then you could be prosecuted for it. That too is freedom in the first instance.
4) This is a case of a group, admittedly small, espousing a hatred of the freedom you are now defending. Indeed further than this they wish to impose on this country a Caliphate that would indeed allow adulterers, apostates and gays etc to be put to death. As I said earlier their actions engender racial hatred and therefore they are a danger to the stability and social cohesion of this country and quite rightly Johnson banned them in my view.