Undercover racism?
12:41pm Friday, 16th July 2004
On one hand, for this man, the liberal line was the necessary window dressing that shielded him from breaking laws against 'inciting racial hatred' and kept him in step with accepted social norms. But limiting what he said did nothing to change his behaviour and even got rid of outward warning signals of his prejudice. It also prevented 'reasoned debate' on the issues. Score one for freedom of speech.
But on the other, what the documentary clearly illustrated to me was that if inflamatory speeches by certain BNP members lacked explicit incitement to violence, they were basically a proxy for it. There were also obvious remarks which were plain wrong and defamatory. Curtailing what we can say then is not just about disliking someone's views. Whilst there are fuzzy lines here (can a community sue for defamation? Under what circumstances do inflamatory comments become a de facto incitement to violence?) a blanket call for freedom of speech seems inappropriate.
In some ways this seems quite satisfactory - freedom of speech, except where other laws are broken. But I'm left with a grey area. Even if laws curtailing freedom of speech might provide a curtain behind which people like this BNP member can hide on occasions, don't laws against 'inciting racial hatred' do something more? This man knew what he 'should' be saying (and yes, of course, that 'should' is defined by the majority) but the law preventing incitement of racial hatred reflects, enforces and can even create a norm of distate for discriminatory comments. Changing attitudes is a battle fought on many fronts, and if laws like this contribute to combating racism (as one example) even in some small way, isn't there something to be said for it?
On one hand, for this man, the liberal line was the necessary window dressing that shielded him from breaking laws against 'inciting racial hatred' and kept him in step with accepted social norms. But limiting what he said did nothing to change his behaviour and even got rid of outward warning signals of his prejudice. It also prevented 'reasoned debate' on the issues. Score one for freedom of speech.
But on the other, what the documentary clearly illustrated to me was that if inflamatory speeches by certain BNP members lacked explicit incitement to violence, they were basically a proxy for it. There were also obvious remarks which were plain wrong and defamatory. Curtailing what we can say then is not just about disliking someone's views. Whilst there are fuzzy lines here (can a community sue for defamation? Under what circumstances do inflamatory comments become a de facto incitement to violence?) a blanket call for freedom of speech seems inappropriate.
In some ways this seems quite satisfactory - freedom of speech, except where other laws are broken. But I'm left with a grey area. Even if laws curtailing freedom of speech might provide a curtain behind which people like this BNP member can hide on occasions, don't laws against 'inciting racial hatred' do something more? This man knew what he 'should' be saying (and yes, of course, that 'should' is defined by the majority) but the law preventing incitement of racial hatred reflects, enforces and can even create a norm of distate for discriminatory comments. Changing attitudes is a battle fought on many fronts, and if laws like this contribute to combating racism (as one example) even in some small way, isn't there something to be said for it?
LOGIN to add comments
Comments