A Golden
Opportunity
A Golden Opportunity
2008 European Union Decision on Hate Speech
and Xenophobia
and
The Amending of the Criminal Justice Act of
the United Kingdom
Beware of The Jabberwocky
“Silence”, the
queen yelled. “Off with her head!” she sentenced Alice. The freedom to say
unpopular and shocking things has been a part of Western canon and culture, and
the concept of government censorship so vilified and warned, one must ask the question of how Germany’s “nie
wieder” approach to hate-speech become an European Union demand of its
twenty-seven member countries? Can
Atlanticist states such as the United Kingdom manage to sell this continental-style
secession of freedom to its citizens? What is the cost of freedom of speech? If
hate had doomed Europe to a Clash of
Civilizations, was this their golden opportunity to change society for the
better, and stop war?
Continental
Right
From knights’ honor, and courtly behavior,
to Napoleonic Code, Europe itself is constantly refining the value of a
person’s life by what a good individual deeds. Continental law has given
empires the right to conquer the world, queens the ability to colonize new
frontiers, and with the drafting of Germany’s post-WWII Grundgesetz, the power to better itself by legislating a better
society for its citizens. Rather than the acquisition of colonies, today’s
civil laws attempt to criminalize hate speech to better Germany and repress
patterns of hate that led to the holocaust. Today, this government policy of bettering has spread to the European
Union most prominently through German Philosophy derived from Immanuel Kent’s
metaphysical “looking glass” approach to hate speech:
‘Freedom to speak or write can be taken from
us by a superior power, but never the freedom to think!’ - Immanuel Kant, Critique of
Practical Reason
Kant
argued in favor of “innocuous” speech generally, though he was always careful
to disclose the need to control and restrict this privilege for some (clergy,
officials). More importantly the Kantian “interpretation of human dignity”
(speech should not infringe upon others’ freedoms,) (Haupt* 2005)
would not only find its way into German law, but eventually spread to the
entire European Union.
E.U. Legislation on Hate Speech: Framework
Decision 2008/913/JHA
On June 12,
2008 Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA came into force by the European Union, and
by that action, it would be necessary for member states to come into compliance
with it in under two years (11/28/2010). Effectively, the decision consisted of
a series of laws that prevented racist or xenophobia behavior within the
European Union territory. The decision outlawed certain forms of speech or
action defined as hatred towards persons of a particular race, color, descent,
belief, nationality, or ethnic origin. In addition, written material such as
pamphlets or pictures, which similarly perpetuated hate, was outlawed.
Furthermore, the decision banned denying crimes against humanity, such as
holocaust denying, or stating that the Armenian Genocide did not happen. The
punishment for an individual who is in violation of this decision would be
liable to serve one-to-three years in prison as determined by the member state.
In addition a violator could lose government benefits, lose business licenses, be
given a criminal record, or even have his or her assets, or business assets
liquidated. (Union 2008) With the passing of
this decision, the question now became how to define freedom of speech, a long
held human right also held by the European Union, with this new outlook on
civility.
Yet those who opposed this decision, like Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, of the International Free Press Society,
equated such “intrusions” of liberty with the former Soviet Union: “Today, in 21st century Western Europe, our right to
free speech is being shut down quietly and systematically with an effectiveness
that the commissars in the old Soviet Union could only dream of.” (Sabaditsch-Wolff 11) What appeared as
insidious to some was seen as a misunderstanding by the Council of Europe who
created a pamphlet in 2009, entitled the Manual
on Hate Speech. It described a perspective in which thought, a component of
freedom of speech, was now separate from external expression. In essence, while each individual has the right to freedom of
thought, even in hate, this internal freedom is different than freedom of
expression of such beliefs and words. (Weber 2009) In other words, with
great freedom, comes great responsibility and the lack of it is now a crime.
Of course
it’s easy to jump to absolutisms, as Wolff attempted to. It’s difficult to ask
the question, if this decision might actually provide greater freedoms by
limiting some, when we’ve all been threatened with Orwell’s 1984 thought-crimes, and cringe in
expectation of Godwin’s law. Without jumping to the worst possible scenario, is
it possible that the rationale behind such laws can win out Europe’s cultured
love affair with freedom of speech?
Migration and Xenophobia in the European Union
The question
is why now? We know that anti-immigration sentiment in mainland Europe served
as the primary catalyst behind the change, followed by the rising tensions
against Muslim-Europeans in the wake of September 11th. The decision served to unify diversity, and to
prevent polarization of hate. ‘In the Third
Annual Report on Migration and Integration, published 2007, the European
Union emphasized the point that the “…integration of third-country nationals is
a process of mutual accommodation by both the host societies and the immigrants
and an essential factor in realizing the full benefits of immigration.” ‘ (Thomas 2009) At the center of it
all was French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who in 2007 was keen on genetically
testing French citizens to prove their legal status. Around the same time,
several publication were questioning the European Union’s ability to address
these issues and had several people calling the Universal Declaration of Rights
a “glaring failure” (Thomas 2009) . The unity of the European
Union, and its trade partners in Africa were now in question. New quotas for
expulsion of immigrants in France evoked memories for some, of the 1942 rafle du Vel d’Hiv, in which French
citizens were deported by their own government to Nazi camps. (Thomas 2009) To make matters
worse, France was one of several countries refusing to ratify the Lisbon
treaty. France’s paranoia was not completely
without merit, as it found itself ridiculed by the United States and United
Kingdom for being the NATO member in opposition of military intervention in
Iraq. France feared that the alignment of Europe with American causes might
bring war to French soil. France viewed America’s declaration of war, without
their approval, as a breach of the European unity (and international unity). Anglo-American
dissent fell upon French President Jacques Chirac, who was the target of
“various American and British commenters.” (Jacque Chirac n.d.) Chirac fell into
unpopularity as the result of scandals in his second term, despite vindication
in refraining from war when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
However, Chirac’s nationalistic policies proved to be popular with his
successor, Nicolas Sarkozy, and perpetuated resentment towards the rest of
Europe. Validating France’s policies were the London bombings of July 2005 which
led to France having to choose between protecting itself against terrorism, or
choosing not to appear xenophobic and hateful towards Islamic immigrants.
Proof of
France’s disfavoring was written into the decision as it “directly refers to
the crimes of genocide committed against the Jews during World War II, and
mandates that speech acts which deny, minimize or trivialize the Holocaust -
crimes defined by the Tribunal of Nüremberg
article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, London
Agreement of 1945 - be criminalized and
punished.” (Burcu Gültekin Punsmann 2011) This subsequently
led to France passing a law which had no criminal implication, but stated that
they recognize the genocide of 1915, yet this was a completely unnecessary
action as the 1990 Gayssot Act had already illegalized diminishing crimes
against humanity.
Europe’s new
reaction to hate served to thwart off national identities which embraced
ethnocentrism, or even entitlement. Carefully, the decision was drafted in a
manner that would lead to its ratification, despite the objections that proved
to be problematic in previous U.N. hate speech legislations. (CERD and ICCPR) (Mchangama 2010) France (and other
countries) could do little to oppose the directive without appearing prejudiced,
and was successfully capitulated back into a willing member of the European
Union despite conservatives. Bruno Gollinisch, a far right French politician
who ran on sovereignty and tradition, threatened to vote against it and said:
“Why is such a text
relevant or appropriate at this time? At a time when Europe’s borders have
disappeared, causing an explosion of illegal immigration and cross-border
criminality, is it not more urgent to ensure the security of the European
people in their own territory than to worry about penalizing expressions that
are allegedly racist?” (Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou 2007)
The Argument Against.
Like France, several other countries (including the United Kingdom) had
objections to the decision. Most of these countries were obsessed with their
physical boundaries, immigration and even a bit of Euro-skepticism. They were inclined
to denounce hate speech but reluctant to join any regional or global effort
that would limit their sovereignty. The potential future sovereignty of a
nation is directly in conflict with its participation within the European Union.
(Bernd Baumgartl 1995) . This Union, a
community formed under the Treaty of Rome which “made no specific commitment”
on social cohesion but did, in the preamble, cryptically bind member to
“’reducing the differences’” (Bache, George and Bulmer 2011, 423) managed to
successful pass the decision despite these complications.
This decision is the sum effect of differences on immigration and
national identity, and the European Union’s attempt at maintaining unity in
response to state’s aversion to loss of some sovereignty. It sets a precedent
that human rights, protected by the European Union, are more important than
state’s citizen’s rights, and its national sovereignty. Indeed the climate
within the European Union suggests that it is these issues, “born from a strong
sense of nationalism [that] is often blamed for Europe’s infinity for war and
conflict”. (Tiersky and Jones 2011, 394) Without a
“pan-European identity”, allowing free movement where nationalities can meld,
there can be no European market only “war and conflict”.
Similar to previous unionizations of trade, monetary issues, and later
security, this latest endeavor is now expanding the social cohesion of the
Union, and its ability to create a homogenized and functional bond between the
many members and their various different cultures. The goal of which isn’t
entirely without cause, since the Lisbon European Council (March 2000) alludes
to these steps towards social cohesion, as a result of “becoming ‘the most
competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’” (Fitoussi
2005, 177)
In essence by banning hate-speech, and xenophobia, the European Union hopes to create a minimal standard of
cooperation between work and private life as to foster “secure incomes”, and
promote social integration. This “European Social Agenda – approved in December
2000 at the Nice European Council” (Fitoussi 2005, 178) ultimately reduces
poverty, improves equality, and creates a more valuable human capital which
continues to benefit not only the individual citizens involved by improving
their lives, but also by improving the economy of the union they are a part of.
As with trade, unionization of physical and social borders juxtaposes a
certain amount of hypocrisy that is often over-shadowed by the louder declarations of human rights. The idea
that an inclusive union exists among member states, but excludes others (thus
forming a border) is questionable at best. Do these “human rights” only exist
within the realm of the European Union? Ironically a citizen residing outside
of the European Union may not only be denied freedom of movement into (or work in) the European Union, but be
the victim of xenophobia, merely because there exists a boarder to the Union.
Ultimately, xenophobia, or dislike of foreigners, is manufactured by the
Union’s own attempt to eradicate it. Indeed, Jus Soli (“right of soil”) still creates tiers of acceptable
xenophobia as states apply to memberships within the European Union (Tiersky
and Jones 2011, 392) .
Preparing for the
worse
This Union however is much more diverse than even parallel multi-state
unions (such as the United States of America). A single social reformatting, or
Social Darwinism approach would likely result in failing to meet the “needs of
citizens who live so [far]” away from each other, and “who face completely
different problems”. (Fitoussi 2005, 179) So instead, what was
created were “common agreed objectives” or targets, which each member state
would in their own way, attempt to meet. These were called National Action
Plans, and they were to be implemented against a ‘knowledge-based’ database of
statistics and information that would, through indicators, allow the individual
state to implement, and meet these desirable thresholds.
The state of Europe today, is an awareness unlike ever before in history.
While xenophobia and hate speech persist in Europe, there is now a conscience effort
to record, acknowledge and even defend against these once easily overlooked
crimes. The Fundamental Rights Agency, established in 2007 (founded under regulation
168/2007), is charged with collecting and analyzing data from racism,
xenophobia, LGBT issues, and religious hate crime. It serves as a conduit
between “key stakeholders” and “policy makers”. It’s capable of advising
European Union member states on policy implementation, as well as request of a
European Union institution in matters of grave urgency (European Union for Fundamental Rights Agency 2011,
1) .
It was shortly after the agency was manifested into service that it released
its report, called Report on Racism and
Xenophobia in Member States of the European Union, and which would
ultimately lead to the 2008 European Union decision by the same name. The
report was stark, and painted a picture that despite efforts to publicize and
educate member states, told of a continued atmosphere of under-compensation to victims,
and a lack of implementation to combat these crimes. Despite the Union’s
efforts, crimes persisted, and response to them by member states continued in
their former minimizing attitude. The following admission by interim director
Beate Winkler in her forward would be enough to send shockwaves through a
post-September 11th Europe.
“In around half of the Member
States, even with laws and procedures in place, there were no indications of
any sanctions being applied.” (Fundamental Rights Agency 2007, 4)
The findings were
devastating as curriculum vitaes were
sent out in Sweden, France, Slovakia, and Hungary to gauge the hiring response
by using stereotypically Arabic sounding names verses traditional alternatives:
“In Sweden it showed that having
an Arabic-sounding name significantly reduced an applicant’s chances of finding
work, and another study showed that changing to a Swedish name improved them.” (Fundamental Rights Agency 2007, 9)
With regards to housing
discrimination, the Fundamental Rights Agency described the situation in Roma
as a “vicious circle of exclusion and segregation (p11)”. It suggested that
member states often blame the gap between education differences of population
groups on “individual’s deficiencies” (p12) (lack of language or understanding
of national culture) rather than a failure in the education system.
It became even more maddening when it came to violent racism and crime.
The report states that as early as 2006, five member states reported no data
when it came to these crimes. Ten had “limited” data, and only two (United
Kingdom and Finland) had comprehensive data collection. It was clear that
whatever obvious injustices were occurring, very few were being taken
seriously, leaving one to wonder how far the silence may have censored the
misdeeds of the member states.
To make it worse, eleven of
the largest states in the European Union reported upward trends (including
Germany, France and the United Kingdom). This is despite the Union’s public
declaration that 2007 (named Equal Opportunities for All), and 2008
(Intercultural Dialogue) would be the years they had designated to condemn “in
the most absolute terms all manifestations of racism and xenophobia.” (p15) The conclusions of this report demanded that
the draft of the framework decision on racism and xenophobia be adopted, and
that member states take a criminal approach to those who intentionally conduct
themselves in a manner which incites:
“Violence or hate towards a group
of people, or a person belonging to a group, defined on the basis of race,
colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin, as well as the
public condoning, denial or gross trivialisation of crimes against humanity and
war crimes.” (p148)
For the first time, Europe
looked in the mirror and viewed itself for what it really was. In the weeks and
month following, it collectively chose to fight this perceived threat to its unity
by passing the decision on xenophobia and hate. The time was right in Brussels,
but could member states manage a similar collective will to seize the day?
United Kingdom
Continental Tradition & History Of Freedom of Speech in the United Kingdom
In 1601 the
Golden Speech, (as it would later be known,) by Queen Elizabeth-I in her final
Parliament set the standards for the value of words. The speech, so loved, that
it was later said that the “speech
ought to be set in letters of gold'. (Speech’ 2005) Elizabeth-I was also one of the key
figureheads of modern continental tradition, that government is given the power
to “change society”. (Butty and Fleiner 2005) In Elizabeth-I’s
case, she conquered the new world while simultaneously censoring Shakespeare.
In a similar manner, royal
colonizers, turned revolutionaries decided “individuals
entering into a society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.” (Washington 1787)
Britain has always been an innovator of civility.
Consider Beowulf who Thomas L Wymer and Erin F Labbie, describe as a story of
“civilized rage” (Labbie and Wymer 2004) and where we begin the
formation of civil society. As religious blasphemy laws are repealed that
banned movies such as the Life of Brian,
and outmoded norms on acceptable behavior are replaced with more encompassing
laws that not only protect the church from hate, but prevent it from being the
sole provider of it, new dilemmas arise. British philosopher John Stewart Mill “argued that free speech does not entitle us to perform
speech acts that harm others, concluding that there is no right to defame
others, or to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre (causing panic, and
perhaps deaths).” (O'Neill 2006)
Civic Republicanism, which should allow
enlightened individuals to navigate society by clearly separating “the private
and public sphere”, (Lister 2007) and with it
intellectual morality from religious values, appears to have failed to turn us
into self-governing/directed citizens, leaving us more under the category of
“slavish and dependent human beasts fit only for life under despotic
governments.” (Sleeper 2010)
United Kingdom: Amending the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act
Months
prior, and in anticipation of the European Union’s 2008 Framework Decision on
Xenophobia and Hate Speech, the United Kingdom quickly amended the Criminal
Justice Act of 2003 to come into compliance with it. This change occurred
buried in legislation which included laws against child pornography, nuclear
terrorism, and murder. With such spectacle
legislation shadowing Section 74 and Schedule 16, Parliament managed to pass
revisions to the public code that redefined freedom of speech and condemned
hate.
No doubt, it was a carefully choreographed move since most “British do not have a ‘gut instinct’ in favor of European integration, and they would likely see this law as a secession of not only national sovereignty, but personal sovereignty as well. Indeed “there can be a tendency for Britain[…] to stick to moral absolutes and points of principle”, making freedom of speech an all or nothing right without compromise.(Koutrakou
and Emerson 2000, 28) Indeed, the fallout afterwards was a
media blitz which continuously prompted members of parliament to minimize the
legislation as a “revision” of blasphemy laws, and reminded the public that
Britain has always had a “negative right” to freedom of speech. (Freedom in all
that which is not prohibited by law.) (Fernandes 2003) Indeed those blasphemy laws were repealed by
this same act.
No doubt, it was a carefully choreographed move since most “British do not have a ‘gut instinct’ in favor of European integration, and they would likely see this law as a secession of not only national sovereignty, but personal sovereignty as well. Indeed “there can be a tendency for Britain[…] to stick to moral absolutes and points of principle”, making freedom of speech an all or nothing right without compromise.
The Public Response
During the
initial implementation period in the United Kingdom you could find the constant
civilian absolutism being combated by a government seeking a compromise. By 2009, one was able to witness the
application of this law by calm and collected police constables outside of pubs
in the United Kingdom, as drunken young men and women would exit using racial
slurs towards fellow pub-crawlers. Upon advising the individuals that they were
in violation of the Criminal Justice Act, and the legal repercussions for their
civil discourse, they’d often walk over to the victim and apologize. (L. Jones 2012)
Soon however
tensions grew among followers of religion(s) who considered portions of their
beliefs in conflict with the law. These views, if publically expressed could be
in violation of the law and construed as hate speech, or xenophobia. Such was
the case about twenty-one days after the amending of the Criminal Justice Act,
when street preacher Dale McAlpine told a police officer that homosexuality was
a sin, and cited the Bible as his reasoning. Charges were eventually dropped,
however it demonstrated exactly how unclear the definition of hate is in
regards to freedom of expression. “Police commander for West Cumbria, said: ‘We
would like to reassure the public that we respect, and are committed to
upholding, the fundamental right to freedom of expression.’” (BBC 2010) Yet many would
continue to insist that such reversals of “fortune” perpetuate the former
mechanisms of xenophobia which the criminalization of such acts had hoped to
eradicate. I’m reminded of Moisés Kaufman who penned The Laramie Project and who asks of us
to consider that each time someone uses hate in verbal form, that it plants the
“seeds of violence” and by that act is violence. (Kaufman 2002)
U.K. Immigration
Things were about to get much worse than
some drunk teenagers or a Hyde Park preacher. Tensions had been building since 1989,
when the Cold War had come to an end, and coincidentally this new phobia
replaced it. Initially “over the Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie after the
publication of his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses” (Jones, et al. 2011, 200) and later the July
7, 2005 terrorist attacks on London’s public transport. These events (in
addition to 9/11 and the subsequent wars) transformed Britain’s accepted, and
integrated Islamic community, which had existed for decades, into target for
the new nationalistic identity emerging. A once (and technically still is)
diverse melting pot diverged a rift between minorities (called outsiders
[slur]) and the manufactured, traditional, secular British image. The result of
this altered British identity was a perpetuation of torment towards individuals
who were described as “burnt” or “Polish” as exemplified by the thirty-four
year old Emma West, in her now famous YouTube captured Underground declaration
called #mytramexperience:
'What has this country come to? A load of black people and
a load of ****ing Polish. A load of ****ing, yeah... you're all ****ing... do
you know what I mean?
'You ain't English. No, you ain't English either. You ain't
English. None of you's ****ing English. Get back to your own ****ing... do you
know what sort out your own countries, don't come and do mine.
Go back to where you come from, go back to ****ing
Nicaragua or where ever you come from. Just ****ing go back.
'I work, I work, I work, this is my British country until
we let you lot come over.
'So what. It is my British country, you ain't British. Are
you British? You ain't ****ing British. **** off.
'You ain't British, you're black. Where do you come from?
'No, someone's got to talk up for these lot. Look the whole
****ing tram, look at them. Who is black and who is white.
'There is all black and ****ing burnt people.' (Allen 2011)
West was
charged, and remanded into custody ‘for her own safety’, and now awaits trial
in June of 2012. She joins an ever growing list of court cases setting legal
precedents not only in the United Kingdom, but around the Europe.
West might have a reason to be concerned, as the first
successful prosecution under the country’s hate-speech legislation occurred just
this past February (2012) when three Muslim taxi drivers were sent to jail for
distributing pamphlets during a gay pride parade which suggested that the only way to prevent the corrupting of society is
through the death penalty (stoning) for homosexuals. (BBC 2012)
“Two
other leaflets called Gay - an acronym for "God Abhors You" – and
Turn or Burn were distributed around the same time.” (Brown 2012)
They now face up to seven years in jail.
The Outcome.
The Outcome.
What’s interesting about the publicity
around the legislation, and subsequent application of the law is the increased
dialogue not only of those convicted by it, but of their victims who are now
free to explain, without retaliation, the terror of hate speech, because the
perpetrators are now incarcerated. In the case of the Muslim taxi drivers,
several recipients of the printed material were gay:
“During the trial, gay residents told of
the impact the leaflet campaign had on their lives. They gave their evidence
from behind screens because they said they were terrified of the group knowing
they were gay.
One gay resident summed up the atmosphere in the area.
‘It used to be lovely round here,’ he said.
Now, because of these people, you don’t
feel safe. I don’t have any problems with Muslims. But these lot need to
realise we live in England, not some Islamic state.’
‘Sometimes I wondered
whether I would be getting a burning rag through the letterbox or if I would be
attacked in the street” -witness” (BBC 2012)
As the
U.K. attempts to balance unity against sovereignty, a clearer picture emerges
on the effectiveness of criminalizing hate. In 2009, there were 52,028 reported
hate crimes. (Association of Chief Police Officers n.d.) By 2010 that number
had dwindled to 48,127 (UK Home Office 2012) . But this doesn’t
necessarily paint a clear picture, as the 2009 numbers was the first time an
annual inter-U.K. data collection had been polled. Previous years as estimates indicate a 12% increase between 2008-2009
at 46,300 (Hughes 2010) .
Yet advocates of the law state these numbers still “mask” the problems
associated with hate-crime, and under-reporting of the crimes by victims and/or
police continue to persist, though it may explain the increase in data numbers.
The numbers become even more interesting when you consider
who has benefited the most from this law. White men (“75% White British
Category”, “68% men”) statistically are the majority of the victims of reported
hate crime, and interesting it’s men who are typically the defendants
(suspected perpetrators) in hate-crime cases. (Natale 2010, 3)
Considering who is really benefitting from the law, one has to ask of the skeptics, what personal sovereignty have you seceded? Indeed, Sigrid Rausing calls such behavior “paranoia” and finds this new “scare” a frightening response to a non-existence threat. While she makes her case against identity cards for immigrants, there is very little proof that immigrants or Brussels’s British-sized xenophobia laws are any cause for loss of sovereignty or personal freedoms. But the phobia that first occurred in 1989 is still prevalent among the British public. Referring to detained Russian women immigrants she states:
“Seeing the young Russian women in that room, I was struck
by how ironic it was that one of our criticisms of the Soviet Union was that it
refused to allow its citizens to emigrate.” (Rausing 2009)
Most of Europe traded the Cold War for xenophobia
of immigrants at some point in the last twenty years, and the subsequent
legislation both in the European Union directive and the amending of United
Kingdom’s Criminal Justice Act serve as preventative measures to what could
lead to ethnic wars from the inside out. While the United Kingdom has been an
island unto itself in past wars, this one breaches all borders and states,
including the English Channel. Those who argue that their freedom of speech is
at risk are likely those same individuals who would have owned a fall-out shelter
or food-storeroom, thirty-to-forty years ago. The Iron Curtain is no longer
some set of bordering countries to communism, but the cultural differences that
divide us.
It’s the words and
actions of the individual that perpetuates this divide, and ultimately it’s the
will of the larger civilization to dictate what is acceptable and what will
ultimately define society. The fear of evaporating rights is simply another
mechanism to aid anarchy, and the laws against it designed to maintain control
of a very small amount of people who would risk the welfare of nations on their
extreme personal beliefs.
Interestingly it’s not
English pride, but prejudice towards immigrants which has invoked this climate
of fear in the United Kingdom. This has led to the aforementioned
discrimination, and results in hate and violence. It makes sense then, that
only those who would be directly affected by laws which limit a person’s right
to express prejudice, be the same individuals who perpetuate the phobia of
sovereignty loss.
The poster child in
Britain against the Criminal Justice Act, and who coincidentally is guilty of
violating it several times over, is chairman of the British National Party, and
member of the European Parliament, Nick Griffin. In addition to denying that
Jews were ever gassed in Holocaust Germany, he has praised the concept of black
separatism, and called Islam a “wicked faith.” When asked how to handle
immigration, Nick Griffin stated boats en-route should be sunk into the ocean
in order to prevent their crossing:
"I didn't say anyone should be murdered at
sea — I say boats should be sunk” (Griffin 2012)
It’s this mentality that Darcus
Howe, a recent citizen of the United Kingdom and by birth Trinidad, and Tobago,
would argue is the fraternizing xenophobia that immigrants are forced to endure
for years to reach citizenship. Yet he reminds us of the fact that most native
Brits, such as Griffin, would likely fail the citizenship test proposed for new
migrants. He narrows down his observations of the climate within the United
Kingdom to what I suspect would be a good description of what the Criminal
Justice Act hopes to accomplish: “being a good neighbor”
It’s
these anti-hate laws which are integral in “maintaining public order… for the
interest of minorities” who cannot compete in the “marketplace of ideas”[1] and
provides equality to all citizens. (Fernandes 2003) The absence of such
laws, prior to the Criminal Justice Act created a vacuum in which some had
greater levels of freedom of speech than minorities or immigrants. This
imbalance, much like in the scales of justice, invokes the idea of fairness.
For the
Criminal Justice Act to be legitimate it must be applied uniformly and provide
equitable fairness for citizens to express themselves without infringing on
others’ rights. Fairness is often a difficult thing to measure, as a balance of
freedom surely requires one of the invested parties to lose something to
balance the other party’s gain. Historically speaking such behavior resulted
from a dwindling public commons in reference to cramped geographical borders. (Snell 2003) This, an ironic revelation
considering Britain is an island. We can clearly see human behavior at work, by
recalling The Tragedy of The Commons. In essence, it’s greed which causes us to
demand inequality in our benefit. In freedom of speech, the former system of
xenophobia and hate benefited some British citizens who saw an eroding (spoken)
commons by incoming immigrants. When their advantage, their “freedom of speech”,
was leveraged in a more balanced and fair manner, the end result was to claim
the law is unjust.
Who’s ‘im, Bill?
A Stranger!
As the
United Kingdom reaches towards civility, a balancing act is underway not only
in the freedom of speech, but also in the application of the laws like the Criminal
Justice Act, to promote respect and tolerance while still allowing political
dissent. There’s a fine line between hate speech and the more common words of
speech. Hate speech while not always resulting in action, always has the
capability of inciting violence, while common speech does not. Though Sunny
Handal of The Guardian attempts to downplay the Emma West tram experience,
stating that only words were exchanged, he admits to the possibility of violence
occurring, and even references a later, less publicized video in which a series
of attacks on Pakistani Tube riders was filmed and uploaded to the internet.
Hate speech becomes violence, traditional expression of thought and speech do
not.
Simply
understanding how speech can lead to action, or understanding the responsibility
of ownership of those freedoms, is not always enough to curb public opinion
away from melancholy. For instance, Reverend Peter Mullen of the Church of
England, and who writes for The Telegraph has stated:
The
thing is, in Britain today we have complete freedom of speech: it’s just that
we’re not allowed to say anything.
That’s
the sort of lunatic asylum – oops, sorry! – we’re living in. (Mullen 2012)
What Reverend Mullen
alludes to is self-censorship. Self-censorship is a component of freedom of
speech that often, through fear of consequence, prevents individuals from
engaging in what are typically political or taboo subjects. The willingness of
an individual to participate in self-censorship, when it comes to these modern
issues on religion, sexuality, or race creates more questions about xenophobia
than can be answered here. The value of retaining the ability to use verbal
speech to incite harm against another group of people is a paradox against most
individual’s personal religious and/or moral codes. Yet continuously, even
those who claim they’re unlikely to engage in such behavior, are oft un-willing
to sacrifice their right to use it in order to eradicate it. Ironically we
self-censor all the time, we electively infringe on our freedom of speech, every
day. Take for instance, Dr. Olivia Robinson of The University of Greenwich who
recently researched authentic self-expression through a study of 533
volunteers, and who concluded that “being yourself” and “expressing your true
feelings” often produced less happiness, and led to being less financially
prosperous.
"So in some
circumstances, it may be that a polite smile or tactfully keeping quiet may be
more conducive to your well-being than saying what you actually think and
feel.” (Wardrop 2012)
Conclusion: Seizing the opportunity
The value
of speech versus silence is not a novel innovation, the value of words and
speech has always been, in British culture, an instrument of mankind to which
there was attributed a monetary attachment. Shakespeare once said in Romeo and
Juliet, "How silver-sweet sound”, relating the
value of silver coins to words. But it’s Scotsman Thomas Carlyle who first
infused in to British culture, (and later the world) a phrase mindlessly
repeated, echoing a precedent for
banning hate speech and xenophobia all the way from the Victorian era: “Speech
is silver. Silence is golden.” (ESC 2001)
But it took hundreds of years of civil law, and a golden opportunity in time
when twenty seven countries of a traditionally war-torn world, could choose to
come together and say “never again”. Europe’s answer to the cost of their freedom
of speech is the countless lives saved from the wars never fought over hate. By
that action, Europe chooses its destiny, rather than be a victim of
coincidence. Yes, this decision was Europe’s golden
opportunity to change themselves, and by it the world- for the better. As humanity awakes to history’s reflection of its deeds,
somewhere in Europe exists a looking glass with a litter girl staring through
from a world without hate, and asking us “Perhaps, if we all managed to live by
the Golden Rule, then there would be no reason to criminalize the antithesis of
it?”
Works Cited
Allen, Emily. "'You're not British because
you're black': Woman charged with racially aggravated harassment after vile
rant aboard tram." Daily Mail Online. 11 29, 2011.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067557/Youre-British-youre-black-Woman-charged-racially-aggravated-harassment-vile-rant-aboard-tram.html
(accessed 4 14, 2012).
Association of Chief Police Officers.
"Total Recorded Hate Crime from Regional Forces in England, Wales, and
Northern Ireland during the calendar year 2009." Association of Chief
Police Officers. n.d.
http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/084a_Recorded_Hate_Crime_-_January_to_December_2009.pdf
(accessed 4 14, 2012).
Bache, Ian, Stephen George, and Simon
Bulmer. Politics in the European Union. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2011.
BBC. "Charge against 'gay sin'
preacher dropped." BBC. May 17, 2010.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/8687395.stm (accessed 4 14,
2012).
—. "Derby men guilty over gay hate
leaflets." BBC. 1 20, 2012.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-16656679 (accessed 4 14,
2012).
Bernd Baumgartl, Adrian Favell.
"New xenophobia in Europe." Cambridge: Kluwer Law International, 1995.
Brown, Jonathan. "Three Derby men
jailed for anti-gay leaflets." The Independent. 2 11, 2012.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/three-derby-men-jailed-for-antigay-leaflets-6720010.html
(accessed 4 2012, 14).
Burcu Gültekin Punsmann, PhD. "Is
the French Bill Hate Speech Regulation? ." TEPAV - Evaluation Note
2011. December 2011.
Butty, Violaine, and Thomas Fleiner. Common
Law and Continental Law. Fact Sheet, Swiss Agency for Development, 2005,
5.
ESC. "Silence is golden/Part
2." The Phrase Finder. 4 3, 2001.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/8/messages/573.html (accessed 4 22,
2012).
European Union for Fundamental Rights
Agency. FRA Research: Providing Robust, comparible data analysis.
Research and Analysis, Vienna: Fundamental Rights Agency, 2011.
Fernandes, Deepali Ann.
"Protection of Religious Communities by Blasphemy and Religious Hatred
Laws: A Comparison of English and Indian Laws." Journal of Church
& State, Autumn 2003: 669-697.
Fitoussi, Jean-Paul. Report on the
STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Hounmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2005.
Fundamental Rights Agency. Report on
Racism and Xenophobia in Member States of the EU. Research and analysis,
Vienna: Fundamental Rights Agency, 2007.
Griffin, Nick. "Nick
Griffin." Wikipedia. 4 3, 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin (accessed 4 13, 2012).
Haupt*, Claudia E. "REGULATING
HATE SPEECH—DAMNED IF YOU DO AND DAMNED IF YOU DON'T." Boston
University Law Journal, 2005: 314.
Howe, Darcus. "Millions of Britons
would fail the citizenship tests being proposed for new immigrants." New
Statesman, 9 5, 2003: 13.
Hughes, Mark. "Hate crime figures
paint a grim portrait of life in Britain." The Independent. 12 1,
2010. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hate-crime-figures-paint-a-grim-portrait-of-life-in-britain-2148025.html
(accessed 4 14, 2012).
"Jacque
Chirac." Wikipedia. n.d.
Jones, Erik, Paul Heywood, Martin
Rhodes, and Ulrich Sedelmeier. Developments in European Politcis. New
York: MacMillan, 2011.
Jones, Liv. 2012.
Kaufman, Moisés. The Laramie
Project. Performed by Father Roger Schmit. Tectonic Theater Project,
Laramie Wyoming. 11 2002.
Koutrakou, Vassiliki N., and Lucie A.
Emerson. The European Union and Britain. London: MacMillan Press, LTD.,
2000.
Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou.
"Explanations of vote." European Parliament. Strasburg, 2007.
Labbie, Erin, and Thomas L Wymer.
"Civilized Rage in 'Beowulf'." The Heroic Age. no. 7. Bowling
Green Ohio, 2004.
Lister, Williams, Anttonen, Bussemaker,
Gerhard, Heinen, Johansson, Leira, Siim, Tobio, Gavanas. Gendering
Citizenship in Western Europe. Bristol: Policy Press, 2007.
Mchangama, Jacob. "Censorship as
'Tolerance'." National Review. 2010.
Mullen, Peter. "We have free
speech in Britain, but just be very careful what you choose to say." The
Telegraph. 1 9, 2012.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100128380/we-have-free-speech-in-britain-but-just-be-very-careful-what-you-choose-to-say/
(accessed 4 2012, 22).
Natale, Lara. "FACT SHEET - Hate
Crime." Civitas. 2010. http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/factsheet-HateCrime.pdf
(accessed 4 14, 2012).
O'Neill, Onora. "A right to
offend?" The Guardian. 2 6, 2006.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/13/mondaymediasection7 (accessed 4
28, 2012).
Rausing, Sigrid. "A Dangerous Paranoia."
New Statesman, 3 9, 2009: 12.
Sabaditsch-Wolff, Elisabeth, interview
by David Pottinger. EU States Curb Freedom of Speech? (27 2010, 11).
Sleeper, Jim. What is
Civic-Republicanism. 03 2010.
http://www.jimsleeper.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/acivicrepublicanprimer.pdf
(accessed 04 13, 2012).
Snell, K.D.M. "The Culture of
Local Xenophobia." Social History Vol 28 No 1, 1 1, 2003: 1-30.
Speech’, Elizabeth’s ‘Golden.
"Elizabeth’s ‘Golden Speech’." The Literary Encyclopedia. 6
7, 2005. http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=323
(accessed 4 28, 2012).
Thomas, Dominic. "Sarkozy's Law:
The Institutionalization of Xenophobia in The New Europe." Salon. 2 2009.
http://www.jwtc.org.za/resources/docs/salon-volume-2/dominicthomas_sarkozyslaw.pdf.
Tiersky, Ronald, and Erik Jones. Europe
Today. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2011.
UK Home Office. "Challenge it,
Report it, Stop it: The government's plan to tackle hate crime." U.K.
Home Office. 3 2012.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/hate-crime-action-plan/action-plan?view=Binary
(accessed 4 14, 2012).
Union, European. "Council
Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms
and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law." Europa. 6 12, 2008.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008F0913:EN:NOT.
Wardrop, Murray. "Independent
IE." Being yourself at work is not good for your career, study claims.
4 19, 2012.
http://www.independent.ie/health/health-news/being-yourself-at-work-is-not-good-for-your-career-study-claims-3085679.html
(accessed 4 20, 2012).
Washington, George. A principle of
the traditional American Philosophy (9 17, 1787).
Weber, Anne. "Manual on Hate
Speech." Strasburg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2009.
“But
it's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.”
- Alice, [Lewis Carroll]
- Alice, [Lewis Carroll]
