How far can freedom of speech go?
By Jon Silverman
Legal Analyst
Four Islamic radicals have been jailed for their part in a protest in London against the publication of Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
But where does the case leave our right to freedom of speech?
The protesters gathered outside the Danish Embassy in London
Given the gravity of the offences of which they were convicted, the sentences on four men jailed for their part in protests against the publication of anti-Muslim cartoons are not excessive.
Three of the four received six years each for soliciting murder. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment.
The fourth man got four years for stirring up racial hatred. The maximum under the Public Order Act is seven years.
Three months ago, the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, talked of a need "to step up our game" against those who preached and advocated extremism.
Given the amount of inflammatory rhetoric, there have been very few prosecutions James Libson
Mishcon de Reya
The latest sentences, coming soon after long jail terms imposed on three men convicted of spreading extremist material through a website, can be seen as a judicial reflection of that commitment.
Comparisons with another case, in which five white supremacists were convicted of conspiracy to stir up racial hatred, show that judges appear to be fairly consistent in dealing with this crime.
In the earlier case, heard at the Old Bailey in October 2005, the men got jail terms ranging from one year to five years. But they pleaded guilty and are likely to have benefited from a discount.
Nevertheless, such trials raise issues of freedom of speech and whether juries are biased against Muslim defendants.
The language used by some of the cartoon protesters may have been ethically unacceptable but where was the evidence that it was intended to incite murder? Reza Kazim
Islamic Human Rights Commission
Those who have concerns point to the acquittal in 2006 of the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, also charged with inciting racial hatred.
James Libson, head of litigation at the firm, Mishcon de Reya, said that, paradoxically, perceptions of unfairness might be addressed if there were more prosecutions of Muslim extremists.
"Given the amount of inflammatory rhetoric, there have been very few prosecutions. They have tended to be where there have been threats to kill, so juries are more likely to convict.
"If there are more prosecutions of people, such as preachers, who incite hatred and violence, I think there will be a greater variety of verdicts."
'Double standards'
The Griffin case differed from that of the Muslim protesters in that his rhetoric was deployed in a private meeting of party activists rather than at a public gathering.
He also argued that he was attacking a religion, not a race.
Three of the Muslim protesters, Mizanur Rahman, Umran Javed and Abdul Muhid, as well as facing charges under the 1986 Public Order Act, were also charged with soliciting murder under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
Mizanur Rahman was the last of the cartoon demonstrators to be tried
Reza Kazim of the Islamic Human Rights Commission sees double standards at work.
"The language used by some of the cartoon protesters may have been ethically unacceptable but where was the evidence that it was intended to incite murder? Whereas, we know that BNP rhetoric has led directly to attacks on Muslims and others."
Islamophobia
Barrister and academic, Dr Amir Majid, said there had to be limits on freedom of speech and he was not opposed to prosecuting those who made threats to kill.
"But, in the current climate of heightened concern about terrorism, I am worried that the Attorney-General may succumb to pressure to authorise prosecutions in cases which do not warrant it. And that could provoke strong resentment."
At the demonstrations against publication of the cartoons, there was other behaviour which is likely to lead to greater use of the criminal law in future.
Flag burning and dressing as a suicide bomber is regarded by the police as highly provocative and it is likely that powers under the Terrorism Act 2006 to remove material from websites and the application of anti social behaviour orders will be used more frequently.
Reza Kazim argues that existing powers are quite strong enough and that politicians are stoking up Islamophobia.
Not for the first time, the boundary between freedom of speech and security is proving a legal and political minefield.
can you go into a few of the problems if possible please? Very briefly if you want.
As an example:
How can it not be insulting to Christians whey you say there god is a lesser prophet of your god?
But this thread is no place to discuss that topic
Naturally, I wouldn't walk up to a Christian and say 'Your God is a lesser prophet of my God'. That would most likely be hurtful to them.
But it is freedom of speech that is in question, not freedom of belief. If the situation arises, then yes a Christian and a Muslim can tell each other what they believe but in such a way so as not to offend.
It's easily done. It's been done numerous times on this board easily.
If you like, I can write such a conversation between a Muslim and a Christian. The sad person that I am.
Actually no I can't. It's too sad. I do have a life you know! Though it may not seem like it.
Regards
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
Naturally, I wouldn't walk up to a Christian and say 'Your God is a lesser prophet of my God'. That would most likely be hurtful to them.
But it is freedom of speech that is in question, not freedom of belief. If the situation arises, then yes a Christian and a Muslim can tell each other what they believe but in such a way so as not to offend.
It's easily done. It's been done numerous times on this board easily.
If you like, I can write such a conversation between a Muslim and a Christian. The sad person that I am.
Actually no I can't. It's too sad. I do have a life you know! Though it may not seem like it.
Regards
well anyway, Muslims should live in peace hand in hand with christians since they have the same God. But fact is, it CAN never happen, as I see no christian wanting something else than a democracy and a muslim wanting to live under sharia law. So, I guess, for the next centuries and generations, life (and war) will go on as usual
Im Always Right,Its Like,When Im Right,Im Right,And When Im Wrong,I Could've Been Right,So Im Still Right,'Cause I Could've Been Wrong!
Freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom by any means. I don't think it should be, if some people will abuse it to make calls to violence.
I know qualifying freedom of speech sounds quite controversial, but the truth is there is no absolute freedom to say whatever the heck you want, as you can quite rightly be arrested for urging people to kill someone.
In an ideal world, people would say only nice things, and give only constructive criticism. However, we live in a flawed world, where if you tell a butthead to say more nice things than bad things and maybe people will not treat him as if he is a jerk, you're accused of censoring him.
In an ideal world, people would say only nice things, and give only constructive criticism.
ermmm, wouldn't a 'ideal' or a 'perfect' world not be boring ? And wouldn't bored people just not really seek for troubles, for the certain kick? Then again, the world would not be perfect anymore....hmmm, my head start to spin !
Offtopic, but for those who watched the movie 'Matrix' !??
Im Always Right,Its Like,When Im Right,Im Right,And When Im Wrong,I Could've Been Right,So Im Still Right,'Cause I Could've Been Wrong!
well anyway, Muslims should live in peace hand in hand with christians since they have the same God. But fact is, it CAN never happen, as I see no christian wanting something else than a democracy and a muslim wanting to live under sharia law. So, I guess, for the next centuries and generations, life (and war) will go on as usual
An Islamic state is not necessarily incompatible with democracy, though. As explained in this thread. And this thread.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
That nice. What if someone doesn't want to be nice.
Now just write an enforceable law to cover it.
I actually understand your problem with it.
Thing is, I'm speaking from an Islamic point of view and as we know, an Islamic state is based on..wait for it...Islam. And as far as I know, the Qur'an and Sunnah are a source of law so there wouldn't be much problem in implementing that.
But yes I can see it from your point of view.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
I sense the Defiant Dhimmi is at the point of bursting now?
Your sense does not deceive you.
Your concept of "successfully implemented" to the non-Muslim would surly be simular to those of the Native Americans about the successfull implementation of the United States.
Protesting is excercizing free speech and free assembly, because when you protest you make an assembly to excercize speech. Cartoons are not a part of free speech, yet rather free press.
So this is a case of free speech against free press. To be honest, the government shouldn't get involved because this isn't in their jurisdiction until certain violent acts take place.
My advice for all muslims that find any future offensive Danish Crap-Drawwings and would like to protest is to protest without physical aggression. Simply put up signs completely depicting your feelings towards the subject without acting offensive in anyways towards any group of people that way you don't look like a racist or bigot and then keep bringing up the subject of free speech as something permits you to continue or start these types of protests.
If the Europeans begin to send you to prison. Then you keep at it with bringing up Free Speech being violated, since protesting is an act of free speech.
Your concept of "successfully implemented" to the non-Muslim would surly be simular to those of the Native Americans about the successfull implementation of the United States.
What I meant by 'successfully' was that it was according to Islamic ideals. Often, when talking about an Islamic state, certain people tend to envisage a Utopian society and then tell me that it is not possible. I was just trying to say that this Islamic state is not impossible as it has been set up in the past.
Sure, not all non-Muslims think of it as the best way forward but that's quite beside the point that I was trying to make.
Peace
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
What I meant by 'successfully' was that it was according to Islamic ideals. Often, when talking about an Islamic state, certain people tend to envisage a Utopian society and then tell me that it is not possible. I was just trying to say that this Islamic state is not impossible as it has been set up in the past.
Sure, not all non-Muslims think of it as the best way forward but that's quite beside the point that I was trying to make.
Peace
I was just trying to say that this Islamic state is not impossible as it has been set up in the past.
We always need to go back to expectations. Almost always, when people talk about an Islamic State, thy talk about a situation that never existed and will never exist.
A mod, to whom I give great respect, though a bit naive at times, said that in an Islamic State, no innocent person would be executed because no one would lie in court. Now that is so far off reality it is sad.
Another said it was so peaceful, but when pushed agreed that there were wars.
So we are back to expiations. So your Islamic State would not be Utopia. There would bad people in government. Etc, Etc………. Then it is possible.
Sure, not all non-Muslims think of it as the best way forward
It would probably be more accurate to say, “Most all non-Muslims would not think of it as the best way forward”. People wish for freedom and equality not second class citizenship.
But in the mean time, I live in a Democracy with all its imperfections and I like it.
At least there are attempts for freedom and equality.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Given the amount of inflammatory rhetoric, there have been very few prosecutions
Quote
The sad person that I am.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks