|
Parliament’s failed us, so let’s challenge Blair’s police state
ourselves
Freedom of speech and the new law against glorifying terrorism
By Iain Macwhirter
02/19/06 "Sunday
Herald" -- -- MENACHEM Begin was a magnificent
defender of Israel whose spirit lives on in the settlement
movement in Gaza. The heroic Palestinians have a just cause for
their intifada on the West Bank. The courageous cadres of
Chechnya have no alternative but to fight. Down with Robert
Mugabe.
The Easter Rising in Dublin is a beacon for Irish liberation
from direct rule. Nelson Mandela was a glorious man whose
example should be emulated by freedom fighters across the world.
Hurrah for the Peshmerga guerrillas and their battle for freedom
in Kurdistan!
OK, I’ll come quietly. For I have just broken seven times the
new law against glorifying terrorism. Each of these statements
are actionable under laws passed by Westminster last week
because they glorify contemporary terrorism. They indirectly
advocate violent action against presently elected governments.
For example, the Israeli terrorist-turned-premier, Begin, may be
long dead, but linking his Irgun guerrilla activities in the
1940s to Israeli settlers indirectly advocates the use of
violence against the elected Palestinian authorities
Similarly, applauding the intifada could be interpreted as
advocating violence against the Israeli government. The Kurds
may be “on our side” in Iraq, but they also fight for
independence against Turkey.
And it goes on. Such is the absurdity of the new laws that it
may be impossible for Madonna to use the iconography of Che
Guevara in her pop videos. Jenny Tonge, who was sacked from the
Liberal Democrats for expressing support for the Palestinians,
could find herself in jail.
Even Cherie Blair will have to think carefully in future before
saying – as she did three years ago – that “as long as young
people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you
are never going to make progress in the middle East”. Of course,
the PM’s wife is most unlikely to be banged up under her
husband’s law. But that’s not the point.
Self-censorship will have a chilling effect on freedom of
speech. Whenever any person speaks on any liberation struggle ,
hanging above them will be the threat of prosecution for
glorifying terrorism. This is thought crime.
The argument that we need these laws to prevent people carrying
banners around calling for the beheading of Danish cartoonists
is utterly specious. The laws against incitement to murder are
already in existence and should have been used against these
individuals, just as they were used against Abu Hamza and the
British National Party.
Yes, I know that Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, managed to
get off scot free a few weeks ago for his remarks against Islam.
But that is precisely the point. Griffin is a clever man, been
to Cambridge, knows how to express his racial hatred obliquely.
The jury in his trial could not decide whether he had actually
broken the law and they will be even more puzzled if he is
prosecuted under the new laws on glorifying terrorism. How is
accusing blacks of being sex offenders glorifying terrorism?
I suspect that very few juries will ever convict people of this
new offence because the concept is subjective and defies legal
definition. One man’s glorification is another’s moral
evaluation.
Take an opera I saw at the Edinburgh Festival last year,
Manifest Destiny by Keith Burstein. This compares a Palestinian
suicide bomber to Jesus Christ and features her singing a hymn
to the death of Israel. Now, the message of this work was meant
to be anti-war. But sections of it undoubtedly glorify violence
against the state.
The government insists that it is not against freedom of
expression, merely incitement to terrorism, and that it is
absurd to say that it will lead to censorship. But what else can
you call it? Blair said that failing to pass the glorifying
terrorism measure would “send entirely the wrong message to the
world that we were soft on terrorism”. But it isn’t the role of
the law to send messages. To do that you can publish a press
release or make a speech.
The real message is that we are constructing a police state.
This was only too apparent when an 82-year-old man was bundled
out of the Labour Party conference for heckling the Foreign
Secretary, Jack Straw, over Iraq. When Walter Wolfgang tried to
re-enter the conference he was detained under the 2000
Prevention of Terrorism Act. According to the legal watchdog
Liberty, this legislation is frequently used against peaceful
protesters outside military bases, against animal rights
activists and even squatters.
Now we are to have identity cards and detention without charge
or trial. The security minister Hazel Blears told us last week
that the war on terror was now permanent, and I think we know
what she means. The government has decided to abolish habeas
corpus, freedom of speech, freedom from arrest, freedom from
surveillance.
H ow could such a fundamental erosion of civil liberties be
tolerated by the party which has historically defended them?
What happened to the Labour backbenches which rebelled so
momentously against the 90-day detention provisions last year?
It seems they lost heart after the intervention of Gordon Brown,
who spoke in favour of identity cards, detention and the
glorification statute. Labour’s defeat in the Dunfermline and
West Fife by-election may also have something to do with it.
Brown apologists argue that the Prime Minister in waiting has
been refraining from criticising Blair’s policies on Iraq and
terror as he cannot be seen to breach collective Cabinet
responsibility.
However, last week, Brown crossed his own Rubicon. He has
unwisely staked his own future on the success of these laws and
will now find it very hard indeed to repeal them when he comes
to office. The Chancellor has lost a great deal of moral capital
by so conspicuously endorsing Blair. As questions are raised
about Brown’s electoral popularity following the Dunfermline
by-election, we could soon be seeing the start of a reassessment
of his fitness to govern among radical supporters in the press
and parliament.
But for now, the fight must begin against the glorification
laws. At this year’s Edinburgh Festival it should be the duty of
all writers and producers to test the limits of this law. If the
government is sincere, and doesn’t wish to abolish freedom of
speech, then let’s test it out.
Perhaps someone should compile a list of “beastly beatitudes”,
glorifying freedom struggles across the world, and read them out
at the Cenotaph in Whitehall. Except, of course, that the last
person to do that, Maya Ann Evans, who read out the names of
Iraq war dead, was arrested for demonstrating within half a mile
of parliament.
19 February 2006
©2006 newsquest (sunday herald)
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
