With quite a lot of kerfuffle going on in the UK blogosphere over the changes to the law to create an offence of “incitement to religious hatred”, I thought it might be neighbourly to help John Band out in the rather Sisyphean task of trying to ensure that the debate is conducted in a less frighteningly fact-free atmosphere. To that end, I ask the question; have you heard of Dick Warrington? If you’re having opinions about the racial hatred laws, it would probably be a good idea if you had.
Dick Warrington is a BNP supporter who in December 2001 set quite the legal precedent. (Choice of links from a google search; some of them, you visit at your peril). He was the first person to be cautioned by police for incitement to racial hatred for displaying their new “Islam Out Of Britain” posters (part of a series including such gems as “Intolerance, Slaughter, Looting, Arson and Molestation of Women”). And he was the first person to successfully tell the police to go and stick it, because the “Islam Out Of Britain” campaign material 2001 vintage was specifically designed to skirt round the law on incitement to racial hatred, by focusing its hatred on Muslims, who are not a racial group for the purposes of UK law. Subsequent cases (Norwood vs DPP if you’re interested) have suggested that the courts have been taking a more aggressive approach to the BNP’s campaign literature, however this is not at all satisfactory, as it has been carried out by means of prosecutions under the “religious harassment” offence, and has only been made to stick by a contortion of the intent of that law by the courts’ having found that it was possible to harass person or persons unknown, or even to harass purely hypothetical persons. This is hardly a great precedent to set in civil liberties terms, and it looks to me as if it would last about five minutes in a serious appeal.
So, Mr Warrington’s famous victory was a pretty isolated case, and there is some case law developing which looks like it might close this loophole, albeit in a way in which no civil liberties fans should be very keen on. However, there is a genuine issue here which it would do well to keep in consideration before launching into one’s autopilot tirade about religion. That is that there are genuine bigots in the country, and they are currently having one heck of a lot of fun with the law on racial and religious hatred.
Here’s a summary of the fun and games that these charming people get up to. Basically, an important political aim of the BNP appears to be the stirring up of racial trouble in Northern English towns with a sizeable Muslim population. Let’s be straight here; there is nothing in the material these people distribute which suggests that they have any sincerely held beliefs about the Koranic attitude to women, international salafism or the movement toward democracy in the Middle East. They just believe (probably correctly) that if they can stir up enough local dislike of the brown people in one of these towns, then sooner or later there will be a riot, and the ill will and local grievances arising as a result of this riot will probably result in more white people voting for them. Thus, the BNP in Oldham was happy to jointly author some of their propaganda with local Sikh and Hindu bigots, and to say in their leaflets that “whites should not boycott businesses owned by Chinese or Hindus, only Muslims as it’s their community we need to pressure”. This is pretty standard divide and conquer stuff and there is not an atom of reason that anyone should believe that the BNP’s desire that the British Muslim community should “mend your ways, cut your birth rate and keep yourselves to yourselves – or get out!” is motivated by anything other than their historical desire for a white United Kingdom.
So, there is an issue here. The same individuals who have been stirring up race riots in the UK for the last twenty years have found a way of wording their material so as to have the effect of inciting racial hatred while only formally inciting religious hatred, which is not a crime. It is usually possible to catch them, because the British National Party has neither a whole stable of legal masterminds to call on, nor any claim on the benefit of the doubt from the courts, but it is not very satisfactory to be relying on this contingency, any more than it was really working to regulate mobile-phone using drivers with the careless driving laws. Nor is there any real way in which to use the more serious incitement to violence laws to control this problem; under English law and for good free speech reasons, there is a blanket prohibition against “lighting a fuse” (inciting people to immediate action), but not against “piling up tinder” unless it is specifically racially motivated.
It’s this problem that the current Bill is meant to solve, and I have to say it goes badly for the credibility of arguments against the Bill when they ignore it or pretend it isn’t there; the BNP have already managed to trick up at least one race riot (in Oldham) by this means, and another hot summer in the North will give them another chance. One also damages one’s own case by pretending that comedians, leader writers etc are going to be at risk of frivolous prosecutions under this law when they aren’t – as John points out, private prosecutions would not be allowed under the new law, and all the case law on the incitement to racial harassment legislation suggests that the courts take a very high standard of what constitutes “hatred” for these purposes; this is not always the case in places like Canada or the Netherlands, but in the UK you really have to work quite hard at your bigotry before you get your collar felt. There are plenty of people making the most toxic racist statements every day in the UK, all of whom get away with it apart from three or four every year who cross the line into stirring up race hate. The addition of “or religious” into the racial hatred laws would not alter that case law, and would, on the basis of all we know about the working of the UK system, add only another three or four bodies to the jail population, none of whom would be people of innocent good intentions and all of whom would be material contributors to social instability in the UK. As someone with a long-held and passionate dislike of petrol bombs, I am really quite confident that all the people who end up going to jail under this law, belong there.
So I would argue that there is a need for something to be done here, and that anyone campaigning against the Bill has a duty to be very clear about the facts of the matter (otherwise, they risk unwittingly providing support to some very nasty people). However, with these massive caveats in mind, it’s still not a good piece of legislation and one that ought to be opposed. Why?
First, it’s not proportionate to the end. The loophole that is meant to be closed is one whereby insincere criticism of a religion is being used as a form of code to incite race hatred. The writers and readers of the BNP “Islam out of Britain” literature both know that the real target is not the Koran. All that is needed is to clear up this matter with a bit of statute law directing the courts that they are on firm ground in finding racially inflammatory material to be such, even if it only uses religious language.
Second, it protects some groups and not others in an arbitrary fashion. The atheists get protected from diatribes against “infidels”, but the gays don’t get a look-in (in particular, as far as I can tell it would be legal for Rastafarians to say that male homosexuals should be executed, but not for Peter Tatchell to respond in kind). This sort of legislation almost always has an inflationary bias, as there is always one borderline case which looks like it has been unfairly excluded, and that is the way in which freedom of speech gets eaten away.
And finally, the Bill appears to be smuggling a quite material change in the test for what statements constitute incitement to hatred. Compared to the old Public Order Act test of “intended to incite”, the current Bill has a weaker test of “intended or likely to incite”. I don’t know what “or likely” is doing in there and nobody seems to at any point have explained why it’s needed. As far as I can see, it’s just there to make it easier to get convictions under this law, and I’m not at all sure that it should be accepted without proof that this is a desirable thing.
So that’s pretty much it. This is a bad and illiberal Bill, but most of the opposition to it is pretty ill-informed and quite ill-conceived. It’s got nothing to do with giving Abu Hamza the right to censor your every weblog post and everything to do with preserving public order in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, “Islamophobia” is not a fictitious problem in as much as there are quite clearly “critiques” of Islam which are being used as a fig leaf for outright racism and the self-styled defenders of “Enlightenment values” don’t seem to regard this as any problem at all of theirs. In fact, an awful lot of people commenting on this issue don’t appear to be able to keep a decent degree of separation in their own minds between genuine civil liberties issues and just randomly having a go at Muslims for being backward and uncivilised. And if I was a Muslim, I daresay I’d be pretty hacked off at that.
{ 44 comments }
des von bladet 12.13.04 at 6:04 pm
So, if we had a more sensible Incitement of Racial Hatred by Means of Transparent Demographic Proxy act (and I am not one to say we shouldn’t, notwithstanding that the executive doesn’t give a toss what parliament thinks, never mind the negligible proportion of the electorate that has had the excellent judgement to be me) that still wouldn’t fix the Rastaferian/Tatchell asymmetry.
So what will, or shouldn’t we?
dsquared 12.13.04 at 6:08 pm
I am, at present, not inclined to say that we should give in to the inflationary tendency and thus, somewhat unfairly, the gays end up having to live with it, because gaybashing doesn’t lead to riots with anything like the same frequency as race-baiting. But circumstances change, and since we are clearly in the realm of utilitarian social policy here, I am prepared to be disagreed with.
Dan Hardie 12.13.04 at 6:50 pm
‘I am, at present, not inclined to say that we should give in to the inflationary tendency and thus, somewhat unfairly, the gays end up having to live with it, because gaybashing doesn’t lead to riots with anything like the same frequency as race-baiting. ‘
Come on- this is indefensible. It’s taking the view that ‘the problem with acts of deliberate harm is not the unjustified suffering caused by the acts themselves but the possibility these acts may provoke public disorder among their victims, or among their victims’ associates’.
So long as persons wishing to commit intentionally harmful acts pick their targets with care, making sure they hurt only people who are unlikely to retaliate en masse, their acts may not be criminalised.
This isn’t ‘utilitarianism’; it’s some sort of weird ‘put up with first-order harmful consequences so long as the suffering caused is ‘limited’ but criminalise undesirable second-order proxy consequences, and ignore third-order effects on things like the rule of law’ consequentialism.
On this view, it’s wrong for me and my mates to pick a fight with a few hale and healthy young men, since the consequence will be a disorderly street fight, but okay for me to go out and mug a few old people, so long as they have no younger relatives who might retaliate. Or, getting back to the ‘Hate Muslims’ leaflets, it’s bad to distribute such leaflets in, say, Bradford, where the deliberate attempt to stir up white non-Muslims against the numerous local Asian Muslims will quite probably lead to some of the Asian Muslims retaliating against their neigbours; but it would be perfectly okay to distribute such a leaflet in an area with only a few Muslim Asian residents, since they would be harmed by the leaflets’ content but would not be numerous enough to foment street violence.
Dan Hardie 12.13.04 at 6:55 pm
Sorry: shd read ‘criminalise acts likely to lead to undesirable second-order proxy consequences’. Still weird reasoning.
dsquared 12.13.04 at 7:18 pm
Dan, by “second order effects”, do you mean race riots? Because I do.
dsquared 12.13.04 at 7:23 pm
More seriously, picking fights is a criminal offence and putting leaflets through Asians’ doors is racial harassment, a different offence. (Gays have the right to be protected from harassment under the existing public order legislation). What we’re talking about here is “incitement to hatred” rather than harassment. The incitement to hatred laws are directly a restriction on free speech, so there is a big interest in minimising their scope.
Dan Hardie 12.13.04 at 7:30 pm
‘Dan, by “second order effectsâ€, do you mean race riots? Because I do.’
Yes, by ‘second order effects’ I mean race riots, as you do, and by ‘first order effects’ I mean ‘gaybashing’, in your word, which includes people being humilitated, beaten and even killed because of their sexuality. I’m saying that the first consequence is bad in and of itself even if it doesn’t lead to riots, you’re keeping an admirably open mind on the topic.
Dan Hardie 12.13.04 at 7:45 pm
More seriously: ‘The incitement to hatred laws are directly a restriction on free speech, so there is a big interest in minimising their scope.’ I agree, which is why I think I’m against this law.
‘putting leaflets through Asians’ doors is racial harassment, a different offence.’ I didn’t say leaflets would be put through Asians’ doors; just through everyone’s doors in areas containing different proportions of (Asian) Muslims. You seem to be defending the idea that a speech act (which is what incitement is) should not be criminal for its content or intent(inciting hatred towards a particular non-racial group), but for the actions then taken by the targets of the incitement.
If I say nasty things about a group who as a result will feel hurt, who may as a result suffer increased physical violence or other acts as a result, and whose reaction may be to burn down half Bradford, I should go to jail.
If I say nasty things about a group who as a result will feel hurt, who may as a result suffer increased physical violence or other acts as a result, but who are not in a position to organise a riot, my act should be legal.
I think this law is probably wrong. I’m certain that your reasoning, on this point at least, is entirely wrong. If you really do want to assess things in strictly consequentialist terms, please note firstly that the damage of a riot may, or may not, outweigh the damage caused by continual violence against a particular group over a long period of time. Please note secondly that if you let a certain type of act- in this case, incitement of hatred against a non-racially defined group- be legal if the victims are unlikely to organise riots, but illegal if they are likely to organise riots, you are a) creating the entirely justified impression that there is no equality before the law, but rather preferential treatment for some but not all victims of certain types of behaviour, which will in turn create contempt for the law, which seems like something of a negative externality;
and b) if your sole or main criterion for banning act x against group a but not group b is ‘group a will riot, group b won’t’, then *you have created an incentive for group b, and all other groups, to riot* in response to anything they dislike.
sorry, I think you lose this one.
dsquared 12.13.04 at 7:46 pm
As I say, we’re talking here about incitement to hatred. Gaybashing, or any other kind of bashing, is a criminal offence and not in any way a free speech issue. My position would be that gaybashing should be illegal and indeed should be considered an aggravated form of assault, but that incitement to general hatred of gays (as opposed to incitement to specific acts of violence to gays) should probably still be legal because (as it doesn’t lead to riots) the balance of public interests falls on the side of free speech.
dsquared 12.13.04 at 7:51 pm
twenty years of reasonably successful race relations in the UK since the Brixton riots suggests that I don’t lose.
Dan Hardie 12.13.04 at 7:57 pm
‘My position would be that gaybashing should be illegal and indeed should be considered an aggravated form of assault, but that incitement to general hatred of gays (as opposed to incitement to specific acts of violence to gays) should probably still be legal because (as it doesn’t lead to riots) the balance of public interests falls on the side of free speech.’
Yes, I agree that the ‘gaybashing’ thing is a red herring because all types of assault are already criminalised. (But, Miss, he said it first.)
So to restrict the conversation to ‘incitement to hatred’, of which some forms are currently criminal, of which one more form will be criminalised under this law, and of which other forms won’t be criminalised:
You are definitely choosing the wrong criterion for which type of incitement to hatred should be criminalised. As I said above:
if your sole or main criterion for banning act x against group a but not group b is ‘group a will riot, group b won’t’, *then you have created an incentive for group b, and all other groups, to riot* in response to anything they dislike.
I still think that you haven’t tried to answer that argument, and that it is actually a clinching argument. I don’t think my other argument is a bad one either: that if people respond to incitement by attacking or harassing victims (who don’t riot, for whatever reason, in response) the suffering thereby caused may well exceed that of incitement leading to attacks leading to counterattacks and riots; and the suffering thereby caused, since it is intentional and not justifiable in such terms as self-defence, is anyway of the sort that a good Millian liberal should see fit to criminalise.
Sebastian Holsclaw 12.13.04 at 8:12 pm
I think there utilitarian effect of explictely incentivicing violent backlashes in order to get government attention to a problem might not be great.
dsquared 12.13.04 at 8:15 pm
But my argument would be on Coasian grounds rather than Millian ones; in principle, the incentive is there. However, blackboard theorems don’t trump empirical facts and the facts outstanding today is that the only kind of incitment to hatred which is a threat to public order is the racial kind, stirred up on purpose by organised political parties of racial bigots of various kinds. My guess is that this empirical observation reflects a big fact about human relations; that it actually takes a lot of effort and organisation to sustain a hate-incitement effort of any scale large enough to be a threat to civil society.
If all sorts of other groups were to start rioting in response to the slightest confrontation then we would have to consider very carefully whether it wasn’t just about time to give up on the idea of any kind of civil society, in which case the question of incitement laws would be more or less moot.
Giles 12.13.04 at 8:47 pm
I think you need also to address the mutuality issue.
This is legislation a fundamentally different situation from the past racial hatred legislation which was meant to address where the hate was generally one way – from the majority to a racial minority and hence there was a clear need for protection. At the moment the problem is mutual in that there are a number of Muslims with hatred towards the Europeans and a number of Europeans with a hatred towards the Europeans. In this instance I think restricting the right to abuse would be counter productive since a) it may encourage grievances to fester b) allowing people to be abusive allows them to be identified within their own communities and well, just put in the same room as the rest of them.
dsquared 12.13.04 at 9:02 pm
Giles, about fifty years of race relations policy experience in the UK suggests that in fact you get much better results from preventing the organised racists from spreading their message and that in fact, if you stop people from fuelling the fire, racial tensions die down rather than “festering”.
Tom Doyle 12.13.04 at 9:16 pm
“At the moment the problem is mutual in that there are a number of Muslims with hatred towards the Europeans and a number of Europeans with a hatred towards the Europeans. ”
Self-hating Europeans?
Tom Doyle 12.13.04 at 9:30 pm
“In fact, an awful lot of people commenting on this issue don’t appear to be able to keep a decent degree of separation in their own minds between genuine civil liberties issues and just randomly having a go at Muslims for being backward and uncivilised. And if I was a Muslim, I daresay I’d be pretty hacked off at that.”
Absolutely. And even though I’m not a Muslim, I’m hacked off about it because I’m a human being. An injury to one is an injury to all!
Giles 12.13.04 at 9:57 pm
“fifty years of race relations ”
well the best analogy is Northern Ireland – since that was a “religous” struggle and a mutual one at that the prots didnt just pick on the catholics – the animosity was mutual.
No legislation banning “religious hatred” was ever enacted and this probably helped not hindered the peace since, as long a people felt free to say, for instance that the pope was the devil, people within that community could identify the irrational “religious†freaks and isolate them.
SamChevre 12.13.04 at 10:02 pm
I’m coming out of left field here as an American–but why have laws against “inciting hatred of x” (regardless of what x is)? Isn’t the better solution (both morally and practically) Mill’s solution–let everyone speak freely, so that those who are wrong can be identified? That is the basic principle of American law, and it seems to work well.
Dave 12.13.04 at 10:11 pm
Brilliant write-up Daniel and as a Muslim I am grateful that there are still people in my country who can -and do- rise above petty politics and say it as it is.
Others would disagree with you, but that’s the beauty of “free” society.
As you pointed out ever so brilliantly in your piece, most of those being so vociferously up in arms against this poorly thought-out legislation aren’t sincere in their objections and I guess you get the slant of what I am trying to say. I don’t talk in riddles but on the other hand I’ve never been the most brilliant at communicating:-)
dsquared 12.13.04 at 10:38 pm
Giles, the Prevention of Incitement to Religious Hatred Act (Northern Ireland) was passed in 1970. Not sure what that implies either way, but it was.
Samchevre; As an American, you’re lucky enough to live in a country without a currently active fascist movement. Back in the days when the Klan was active, it took quite a lot of state action to sort them out.
Omnes: By the way, I hope that if the Islamists ever do become a genuine threat to British civil society, I’ll have the intellectual honesty to apply the same principles to them.
Jake McGuire 12.13.04 at 11:30 pm
It make have taken state action to straighten the Klan out, but did that action consist of speech restrictions (i.e. forbidding the distribution of “blacks are bad” pamphlets) or conduct restrictions (i.e. prosecuting lynchings / vandalism)?
It’s not like the US has a particular shortage of shit-stirrers and opportunists, or a particularly uneventful history of racial relations, but it seems like the incidence of race riots is way lower over here than in Europe. Not enough of a sample size to tell, of course.
And would the hysteria over “Jesusland” fall under incitement to religious hatred? In the literal sense that’s exactly what it is…
Giles 12.14.04 at 12:09 am
Giles, the Prevention of Incitement to Religious Hatred Act (Northern Ireland) was passed in 1970. Not sure what that implies either way, but it was.
Exactly! 3 years later and it was war on the streets. Funnily though I’ve heard Ian Paisely go on a bit and would have thought that there were some grounds for prosecution if this law was meant to be enforced. So dont know what it means either.
dsquared 12.14.04 at 12:13 am
Giles, when you’ve said “no religious incitement legislation was ever passed”, and someone’s told you “yes there was in 1970”, a small gesture of apology might be in order before you start off with “Exactly!”.
Tom Doyle 12.14.04 at 2:04 am
Daniel Davies,
Good man, yourself!
All the best,
Giles 12.14.04 at 3:07 am
sorry, that was what the exclamation mark was meant to imply -I’d never heard of the 70 legislation before.
Tom Doyle 12.14.04 at 7:08 am
“sorry, that was what the exclamation mark was meant to imply”
” ! ” implies an apology? That isn’t the case in the US. Is it a European expression?
dsquared 12.14.04 at 8:04 am
It’s hard to stay cross at someone with that kind of chutzpah :-)
Tom Doyle 12.14.04 at 10:31 am
It’s hard to stay cross at someone with that kind of chutzpah :-)
Aye, an ‘twould be a sin to do so, morebetoken.
*{:8^)>+
jasper emmering 12.14.04 at 10:44 am
We’ve got incitement to religious hatred on the books in Holland. The problem with it is that you cannot apply it to those who incite from the pulpit because they enjoy the freedom of religion.
This Rastafarian vs. Tatchell-problem is very much real. Fundamentalist mullahs (and Calvinist pastors) say the darndest things. And because of this, the law is (at least in the Netherlands) counterproductive.
With the law in place, it will be easier for the BNP to create an uproar. Whenever some mullah says something nasty about infidels, they can press charges, and constantly having fundamentalist mullahs in the news is not going to help ordinary muslims.
Recipe for right-wing idiots to further their cause:
Read some muslim websites. Find a translation of some abject sermon by some robed mullah who does not even speak English. File charges and hope he gets aquitted.
The Dutch swing to the right with Pim Fortuyn was boosted by the continuing media attention to mr El Moumni, who was aquitted because although in principle his statements had been discriminatory against homosexuals, they were permitted on grounds of freedom of religious expressionsince they were based on the Koran and other holy documents.
This law will do nothing to protect ordinary muslims. It will do nothing to protect anyone else, either. It is, on the contrary, the perfect tool for the BNP with which to further stigmatize the entire muslim community.
Dave 12.14.04 at 2:16 pm
I think a correction is in order here; there are no schisms between Rastafarians and Gays in Jamaica per se. It’s true that there are some Rastas –more correctly a few [albeit big-name] Dreadlocked singers/artistes- who sing homophobic lyrics and incite violence against Gays in their ignorance but that’s not the same things as the blanket statement that Rastas are homophobes.
It’s important to understand that the whole Jamaican way of life is against Homosexuals. That doesn’t make it right, but in the same token it tantamount to libel to accuse Rastafarians of homophobia. Read the Guardian’s Alexis Petridis travels to JA and what he discovered about that island’s culture to homophobia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/fridayreview/story/0,,1369875,00.html
It amazes me how people in our part of the world could latch unto bits of info without even making the slightest effort to get their facts straight. As an example, I read somewhere that Bobbo Ashantis are the Rastafarian equivalents of Islamic Jihadists/fundamentalist.And how did these folks –Johan Harri et al- reach that erroneous conclusion? Simply because Sizzla is a bobbo Ashanti and Sizzla sings homophobic lyrics.
I think its incumbent on us all to educate ourselves on issues before commenting on them. Perhaps we should ask Benji Zephaniah to come give us a crash course in Rastafarianism.
JO'N 12.14.04 at 2:42 pm
jake mcguire writes:
…it seems like the incidence of race riots is way lower over here than in Europe.
Unless you include Miami and Los Angeles in the US.
And would the hysteria over “Jesusland†fall under incitement to religious hatred? In the literal sense that’s exactly what it is…
I think that it falls under “incitement to post-election humor”. Seriously, though, is there a single person in whom you can realistically argue hatred was incited by that?
In reality, IMHO, the hatred goes in the other direction — speaking as someone whose state of residence, political affiliation, (non-)religious preference and profession have been used by the GOP as curse words and terms of abuse in the last several election cycles.
dsquared 12.14.04 at 3:26 pm
Whenever some mullah says something nasty about infidels, they can press charges
Private prosecutions are not allowed under the draft bill.
jasper emmering 12.14.04 at 4:22 pm
dsquared – then the BNP can complain that the government prosecution doesn’t press charges. If the government refuses to prosecute they can claim double standards.
Because that’s what you’ll have: one standard for secular expression, and one for religious expression.
dsquared 12.14.04 at 4:33 pm
The BNP could indeed complain, but if they did, they might be reminded of the old British colloquialism “ah fucking diddums”.
Dan Hardie 12.14.04 at 4:35 pm
‘However, blackboard theorems don’t trump empirical facts and the facts outstanding today is that the only kind of incitment to hatred which is a threat to public order is the racial kind, stirred up on purpose by organised political parties of racial bigots of various kinds. ‘
The empirical facts are actually that in the last ten days a homosexual has been kicked to death in London by a crowd of teenagers, apparently for the sole crime of his sexuality, and empirical facts also lead one to note that the fascist nutter who tried and failed to murder Asians and Blacks with homemade bombs then got lucky when he bombed a gay bar in Soho. The BNP may be full of black-hating, Muslim-hating bigots who will die in the last ditch for the sacred cause of homosexual rights, but I doubt it.
Similarly, the Brixton riots are a silly subject to bring up in this context: the context being that of extension of the incitement to hatred laws, to protect the religious but not, say, people of a certain sexual orientation. Brixton led to more intelligent policing in the inner cities and some (but not, as far as the stats can show us, too much)added government investment in the inner cities to improve the quality of life. It also led, as per Scarman’s recommendations, to the equipping of the Police with more up-to-date riot equipment. It did not lead to any Act being passed which extended the criminalisation of incitement to hatred. And it did not lead- contrary to Scarman’s call for a huge programme of ‘positive discrimination’ in employment- to the passing of any legislation which violated the principle of equality before the law. The Brixton riots led some civil servants and senior coppers to reconsider their operating practices. They didn’t lead to any amendment of the laws along the lines of this Act. Dsquared is hopelessly out on the facts of the case, which makes an appeal to empiricism something of a doomed gesture.
Slightly more philosophically, are we just worried about the threats to public order that are caused by the victims of incitement to hatred? You do seem rather to discount the possibility that the act of stirring up hatred against homosexuals might have the effect of, er, stirring up hatred against homosexuals, leading to acts of violence and the like.
And what’s a Coasian analysis of ‘equality before the law’ going to come up with? Good thing, bad thing, depends? Personally I rather like the idea that the protection I receive from the law and the limits the law puts on my behaviour stem from the fact that the law treats my actions like anyone else’s, considering them in the light of how they may or may not harm the lives of others, rather than from the fact that I belong to one or more groups who may go out and riot if they don’t get their own way.
From my experience, although white Britons tending towards racism might not use the phrase ‘equality of the law’ very much, if you do talk to a collection of Daily Mail or Sun readers on this matter, you will hear phrases like ‘They don’t get treated the same as we do.. Should be that everyone gets the same deal, but they get special treatment’ etc- ‘they’ being darker-skinned people. I think, and have said, that this isn’t true and everyone does get the same treatment under the law, but if you’re taking an entirely pragmatic line, there is no gain in proving the racists right by sacrificing equality before the law to ‘enhanced group rights for any group who might chuck bricks around’. You might even find yourself agreeing with those of us who say that there are good, principled reasons for equality before the law.
Jake McGuire 12.14.04 at 5:37 pm
When was the last time we had a race riot in the US? Cincinnati three years ago, and Rodney King in ’92. Crown Heights in ’91, I guess. Miami in ’89? Fifteen years ago? And furthermore, those riots were of the “oppressed minority finally gets done wrong one too many times” instead of “fascists go out looking to bash darkies” kind, which still happen in Europe every so often.
And yeah, at least in my neck of the woods (San Francisco), there was some incitement to religious hatred. Certainly not so much anymore, but in the couple of weeks after the elections, no doubt. The GOP probably does stir the religious fires much more, but “he did it too” is not usually a legal defense.
Antoni Jaume 12.14.04 at 7:31 pm
//
[…] those riots were of the “oppressed minority finally gets done wrong one too many times†instead of “fascists go out looking to bash darkies†kind, which still happen in Europe every so often.
//
Every so often? Not very aware of that. And I think it is worse when the situation is that the minority is oppressed by the whole of society (the US case as you seem to imply) than when it is some individuals who are restrained from effectively defining racist policies and then riot.
DSW
Giles 12.14.04 at 9:44 pm
Aye, an ‘twould be a sin to do so, morebetoken.
Indeed I think Keynes defined the exception not the rule:-
“When the Facts change, my mind doesn’t”
Giles 12.14.04 at 10:04 pm
my theory does!
Giles 12.14.04 at 10:05 pm
just my theory!
Steve 12.14.04 at 10:40 pm
As another distantly interested American, it seems to me that you guys are investing far too much time in protecting the people from themselves. Speech laws, laws against self-defense in the home (another frightening tendency we hear about over here)-you’re turning into a continent of hobbits. As I just read this week, “The lights are going out again all over Europe.” Oh well-I guess in the ’30’s and ’40’s, the right had its chance to destroy the continent-now its the left’s turn.
Steve
rob 12.15.04 at 12:36 am
Two things.
First, probably apocryphal story about the American right to self-defence. A man from my mother’s part of Scotland is on a business trip/holiday to Florida. He gets drunk, and accidentally tries to get into the wrong house. Realizing his mistake, and leaving, he is chased down the street and shot in the back whilst running away by the owner of the house, who is not charged with any crime. If the American right to defence of property is anything like this, I do not think that any American ought to be criticizing the British laws, which give the right to use reasonable force in self-defence, as determined by a jury, from the standpoint of the greatness of the American laws.
I can’t remember what the second thing was now. It’s late.
Jake McGuire 12.15.04 at 4:51 pm
rob, you’re probably thinking of Yoshi Hattori. Japanese exchange student, trying to find a Halloween party, knocks on wrong door, woman answers and is freaked out, slams door and tells husband to “get the gun”. Husband does so, opens door, tells Yoshi “Freeze!”. Yoshi does not understand, continues walking forward speaking in broken English, gets shot, dies.
Husband got charged with manslaughter, said he felt threatened and thought he had to defend his family; Yoshi’s friend said it was dark and maybe the camera he was holding looked like a gun, husband was acquitted. Civil suit was later brought resulting in $650k award for wrongful death.
Retell the story a few times, mix in some preconceptions about America, and I’d say this is probably what you heard about.
Comments on this entry are closed.