THIRD WAY
35
ISBN 0954478851
Third Way Special Edition Page 2
CONTENTS P AGE 2 E DITORIAL P AGE 3 CIVIL LIBERTY THE INDIVISIBLE RIGHT P AGE 6 THE BNP - ‘BEYOND THE PALE’ ? P AGE 8 - F OR S OME
Editorial . . . . .
Defend our Civil Rights Let me nail my colours to the mast. I believe that speech (and other forms of expression) should be protected regardless of content or viewpoint. I am against any law that seeks to discriminate against any religious, racial or political group. I'm also against any law that favours one such interest or group over another. Time and time again laws or practices intended to curtail the freedom of one specific group have ultimately been more widely applied. "No Platform for racists and fascists" was extended to cover Zionism (whereby its victims included the Israeli ambassador to the UK). In Canada the victims of restrictions of free expression have included the black feminist scholar Bell Hooks, and a gay & lesbian bookshop in Toronto. The Public Order Act of 1936, which was ostensibly introduced to control the followers of British Fascist leader Oswald Mosley, had been invoked time and time again to ban demonstrations by leftists and trade unionists. Similarly, police tactics used against the National Front in the 1980s to prevent their coaches from reaching demonstrations were later employed against striking miners. Those who support the banning of BNP members from Unions, the Civil Service and the Fire Brigade (to give just a few examples) should realise that these powers might one day be directed against them or groups which they favour. Self interest as well as principle dictates that we oppose such measures. We discuss in this issue the introduction of a law outlawing "incitement to religious hatred". My view is that there are comments in the Koran which are offensive to Jews and Christians, comments in the Bible offensive to Jews and Muslims...one could go on but you get the point. This law is a minefield. In any case why should we give religions special protection from criticism? If God is truly on their side do they really need the State as well? Any religion based on Truth will be capable of defending itself. This terrible New Labour government is seeking to introduce ID Cards and suspend habeas corpus amongst other Draconian measures. The reaction to the London Underground bombings has been kneejerk, ill-considered. The excuse is 'security' but the truth is that it is their policies in the Middle East that have made us less safe. Now they want to make us less free as well. If this country turns to an ethical policy and ceases to involve itself in American colonial adventures we will have fewer enemies. That will make us safer. I hope that you enjoy reading this issue and that it strengthens your resolve to opppose attacks on our traditional rights and freedoms. I urge you to support the Learned Hand Foundation which is working toward protecting all our rights. We intend to continue to expose attacks on our rights, if you would like to write about any aspect of this please contact me direct at thirdwaycentre@aol.com. Patrick Harrington
L IBERTY
F REE -
DAM [ N ] AND
P AGE 9 D AM[ N] - FREE P AGE 17
I NCITEMENT
TO ‘ RELIGIOUS HATRED ’
“I NCITEMENT
TO RELIGIOUS HATRED ”
P AGE 19 -
A BAD LAW
P AGE 21 O AK
© Third Way Publications, September 1st, 2005. All rights reserved. Those wishing to reprint articles, artwork or photographs from this magazine must first gain the written permission of a Director of the company and must undertake to include with the reprinted matter the name and address of this magazine. Cover: Our cover artwork was drawn by Alexey Talimonov. Born 1947 in Ukraine. Graduated from Ukrainian Academy of Printing and Publishing and has spent more than 25 years in the field of printing and publishing business. While living in Russia, Alexey Talimonov was published in the leading newspapers and magazines of the country, such as Izvestiia, Pravda, Trud, Rossiia, Literaturnaia Gazeta, Economics and Living, Comersant, Abroad, Krokodil, Perec, Zdorov’e, Argumentu and Faktu and others. Many British periodicals regularly publish his work. More information on Alexey is available at: http://alexei.mysite.wanadoomembers.co.uk Third Way P.O.Box 1243 London SW7 3PB thirdwaycentre@aol.com www.thirdway.org ISBN 0954478851
Third Way Special Edition Page 3
Nick Griffin
Civil liberty - the indivisible right
Imagine a State ruled alternatively by several factions of the same governing party. Factions which work together to oppress and hamstring the opposition party. Imagine that the Powers That Be excluded members of the opposition party from many jobs, changed the electoral system to disadvantage opposition candidates, allowed government-sponsored thugs to close down its meetings and assault its campaign workers, passed laws to lock up opposition leaders for telling the truth about failures of key regime policies, and used media outlets with close links to the government to run an endless smear campaign against it, with journalists under orders never even to report on the opposition unless in such a way as to damage it in the eyes of the public. Such a State, self-evidently, would be regarded by anyone who values liberty and democracy as in urgent need of reform. Liberal pundits would appear on the BBC to urge the British government to withhold aid until things were put right. If the country in question happened to be sitting on significant oil reserves, such behaviour might become the official causus belli for a joint US/British invasion to 'restore democracy'. But since the State involved is Britain, since the regime is Tony Blair's and the out-of-power faction of the governing party is Michael Howard's, and since the oppressed opposition is the British National Party, scarcely a word is said. That the BNP suffers such harassment is a matter of simple record. That it is unique in its members being denied so many fundamental democratic and human rights may be established simply by contrasting their situation with that of members of Sinn Fein. Men and women who are known close associates of IRA bombers are allowed - in fact, encouraged, to join the police force in Northern Ireland, while police officers on the mainland are warned by their superiors that even voting BNP will lead to them being sacked. All the facts above, bar perhaps the last one, are well known to the members of every single pro-civil liberty organisation in Britain, but with the exception of a tiny handful of out-of-step individuals among them, almost everyone seems happy with the situation. It is self-evident that all fundamental liberties - such as freedom of speech and the right to participate in elections on a level playing field - must apply to everybody or, by definition, be absent for all. Except, of course, when it comes to the BNP which, as all right thinking people understand, is Beyond the Pale. Just as witches who danced with the devil were in Puritan England; medical reformers were who said that germs on unwashed doctors' hands and not 'ill humours' killed one in four new mothers in 18th century Britain; atheist MPs were in 19th century England, and suffragettes were in Britain before the First World War. In each such example - and in the case of every other dissident group which has been bullied, imprisoned, tortured or murdered by every form of authority in History - there have been 'good' reasons, widely accepted as the received wisdom of the time, why the group in question 'deserved' to be so treated. Except, of course, in hindsight. And so it is today with the British National Party. For every Guardian reader knows that the BNP is possessed of the Original Sin of Racism, that its members are all lumpen proletarian skinhead thugs (who have, unfortunately, the right to vote, but not to organise in a political party), and that its leaders seek to recreate Nazi Germany and establish a death camp on Clapham Common in which to exterminate all minorities. Now, the BNP of the 1980s and 90s clearly was in essence a fascist party, but even a casual
Third Way Special Edition Page 4
reading of the party's 2005 General Election Manifesto (available online at www.bnp.org.uk) makes it clear that there has been a massive and irreversible shift in its aims and underlying ideology. Among other things it proposes Citizens Initiative Referenda binding on government, seeks to spread the private ownership of the means of production and distribution throughout a defining proportion of the population, opposes ID cards and the surveillance state, and advocates the phased creation of a Swiss-style responsibly armed nation as the ultimate guarantee against imported or home-grown tyranny. Such a party may be all sorts of things, but it very clearly is not 'fascist'. As for 'racism', the modern BNP opposes mass immigration and multi-culturalism on the grounds that human biocultural diversity is being exterminated by global capitalism. It demands for every single people and culture on planet Earth the right to self-preservation which it seeks for its own. Such a position is clearly out of step with the extermination-through-assimilation model of multi-culturalism promoted by the dominant ideology of the USA, but it equally clearly has nothing to do with 'hate' or wishing to harm others. But such arguments, at one absolutely vital level, are in danger of missing the point: Democratic and human rights are not something which are there to be granted - either by the State or by a liberal intellectual elite, or even by you and me as individuals - only to those whose World View and detailed policies we find 'acceptable'. The true test of whether such rights are taken seriously is precisely that they are granted as well - nay, particularly - to those whose views are held 'by all right-thinking people' to be unacceptable. Quite simply, either everybody is free, or nobody is. Democracy and human and civil rights are empty and hypocritical slogans if they are qualified and rationed. We are all free, or we are all actual or potential slaves. This is not to say that incitement to violence and proposals from any group to use force to impose its will on the rest of the population are an acceptable part of democratic discourse, of course they are not. But they can be dealt with perfectly adequately by recourse to ancient Common Law provisions against such things, leaving the right to advocate the most outlandish and 'unacceptable' changes to society untrammelled, provided only that such right is
exercised through peaceful debate and unfettered constitutional means. There is, of course, nothing controversial about this argument. The only rather unusual thing is insisting that, when it comes to the idea that civil liberty is indivisible and universal, 'everybody' includes not just the Liberal Democrats, Communist Party and Sinn Fein, but also the British National Party. For genuine, far-sighted, members of groups like Liberty and Amnesty - and of other political parties - this really shouldn't be rocket science, for it is not just a matter of abstract principle, it is also increasingly a question of self-interest. Leaving aside all the niceties of ideology and principle, the plain truth is that the entire world is now being afflicted by a giant corporate assetgrab of unprecedented proportions. Many multinational companies now have more wealth and power than medium-sized nation states, and they are using that power to push through a globalist agenda which involves the conversion of vast areas of what used to be civic life and cultural and community cohesion into private profit centres. Health, the penal system, education, council services (witness the 'pilot scheme' take-over on July 1st by German media giant Bertelmann of Yorkshire's East Riding council services), the entire fabric of civil society is being looted in the West, just as debt-for-equity swaps have already seen the most valuable assets of Third World countries stolen by globalist corporations. This massive transfer of wealth to global corporatism is reflected by a parallel decline in the power of democratically elected governments, and thus in the strength of democracy itself. Nor will this remain a matter of theory or even just falling turn-outs. As popular anger against History's biggest ever smash and grab raid rises, so the political puppets of global capitalism will become ever more repressive of protests against things over which they have abdicated their power and sovereignty in favour of the corporate elite. From the police provocations launched against the demonstrators at Seattle, through to the new ban on even one-man demonstrations within a kilometre (!) of the Westminster Parliament, there is an unbroken strand: Our Masters, in order better to serve their Masters and conceal from the public knowledge of what they are doing, are taking away our rights. Not just my rights - your rights. What is done today against the Beyond the
Third Way Special Edition Page 5
Pale BNP will be done tomorrow against others. The extremist and exploitative nature of the globalist project are inevitably provoking resistance which its political puppets must suppress, but their liberal ideological origins incline them towards incremental totalitarianism rather than the overnight clampdown of the selfrighteously anti-democratic tyrannies of the last century. The problem for the left is that the only real power with which to oppose this newly rapacious post-1989 global capitalism is the power that comes from the moral high ground. Yet in seeking the moral high ground in resisting political repression and the denial of human rights, one cannot compromise on the fundamental principle of the universality of such rights. To accept that the State, or private corporations, or indignant individuals, are entitled in any way to repress an individual or a group for Politically Incorrect views, is to abandon the moral right to oppose such repression when it is directed against persons of whom one approves. Similarly, the establishment of a precedent for a certain type of denial of freedom to Group A makes it subsequently virtually impossible in practical terms to resist when the same thing is done to Group B. The left in particular should have learned this as far back as the early 1980s, when they looked on with approval when British police forces took to illegally halting cars and coaches containing National Front members on their way to perfectly legal demonstrations. Had Arthur Scargill, Tony Benn and the National Council for Civil Liberties gone immediately to the defence of the fundamental principle of the right of people of all views and standpoints to demonstrate, then the new tactics perfected against the 'unacceptable' NF might have been stopped before they were rolled out a year later against their real target - striking miners. Has this lesson been learned? It doesn't look like it. In fact, even the liberal-left seem more lukewarm or confused about the issue of civil liberty today than ever before. Labour MPs who once fought tooth and nail for women's rights are now getting ready to drive another nail into the coffin of free speech in order to reward the priests of the last great anti-female religion (which is to be protected by the threat of seven years in prison from scrutiny or criticism) for overcoming their revulsion at Blair's illegal war
and delivering a sizeable chunk of their community's block vote to Labour in the last election. Where are the liberals and the left? Demonstrating for the freedom to say that stoning the victims of rape to death for 'adultery' is medieval barbarism? No, lining up with the Mullahs who want to impose on Muslim women living in Britain a dress code which is more strict than that regarded as normal in most Islamic societies in history - a code which comes from the same mentality that insists that the stones should be larger than pebbles and big enough to cause serious injury to a woman buried up to her neck in sand, but not large enough so that the first two to smash into her head will kill her. Where are the liberals and the left? Demonstrating for the absolute right of Brian Haw to embarrass Tony Blair with his one-man peace camp outside the supine House of Commons? No, because their archaic collectivist instincts mean that the rights of individuals even those on their side - don't really strike a chord with them. Where are the liberal and the left? Demonstrating against the hounding of BNP members from their jobs? No, next in the queue to lose their own jobs and rights at the hands of the puppets of global capitalism who, despite their 'left-wing' party labels, will have no more time for those who oppose the exploitation inherent in the New World Order than the factory owners who dominated the 19th century parliament had for protesting mill hands. The persecuted Pastor was right: "… And then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak out for me."
Editorial note Most Civil Liberty organisations in the UK (including 'Liberty') discriminate against those groups the 'left' disapprove of, either for personal, ideological or 'ethical' reasons. We believe that Civil Liberty includes the freedom to propagate a point of view, that is not illegal, regardless of content. Because of this failure to stand up for universal rights certain groups have suffered difficulties from organs of the state (as well as from other private associations). The new inquisition rests safe in the knowledge that few if anyone will come to their defence. That is why we have invited groups who fall within the 'right-wing' orbit and claim to have suffered a loss of civil liberty, such as the BNP to contribute to this issue. We have differences of opinion, some quite fundamental, with the BNP and other such groups but we do try and be true to our principle of 'Civil Liberty for all' .
Third Way Special Edition Page 6
Graham Williamson asks
The BNP - 'Beyond the Pale'?
The Chairman of the British National Party (Nick Griffin) in his article in this magazine outlines his view that political freedom of expression must be universal. He argues this must include those whose viewpoint we don't share (in this case themselves). Apart from Natural Justice, he cites historical hindsight (pariahs of yesterday becoming part of modern orthodoxy), misunderstanding (of the BNP's actual beliefs) and self-interest (threat to all dissidents). It is a powerful argument. Why then does it largely fall on deaf ears? Although he hints that this is down to the manipulation of the Media and Parliament by shadowy 'global corporatists' I believe the answers are much closer to home. There are three main reasons why the BNP are treated as 'Beyond the Pale', by the Establishment and many ordinary citizens and thus not deserving of certain 'rights': Social Stability; 'Even-handedness' and the Authoritarian Personality. 1. SOCIAL STABILITY Few believe that the BNP could ever form a Government. In the short term they are hampered by a 'first-past-the post' electoral system. In the long-term demographic changes to the population, the strength of opposition and a 'ghetto' mentality (however imposed) that precludes building bridges/coalitions, set barriers to their growth. To some extent they recognise this by now claiming to represent a 'British ethnicity' within, rather than the whole, kingdom. There is a fear, however, amongst the establishment or in Nick Griffin's parlance 'The Powers that Be', that the BNP's message might damage our fragile Multi-Ethnic State. In other words if 'Ethnic Nationalists' such as the BNP were able to mobilise large numbers of people to think as they do, this could result in more overt expressions of Separatism or 'racism', thus encouraging a similar reaction from 'nonwhite' communities. This could ultimately fragment the Multi-Ethnic State and undermine social stability. This would of course make the governance of such a state even more difficult than it already is. Many establishment thinkers believe that it is simply too late to disentangle the ethnic weave of the modern British state and that any attempt to do so will lead to civil strife. Furthermore, ever since the Second World War, Racial Nationalism has become the Paedophilia of the political world and anyone preaching it or even touching upon it has become 'Beyond the Pale'. Although some may disingenuously lay the actions of 'social racists' at the door of political ones (for instance blaming the BNP alone for 'racist attacks' when the causes are manifold) there are still some genuine concerns as to where political racism might lead. The Political Establishment sees the BNP as a social threat whilst others see them as 'immoral' and/or dangerous. 2. 'EVEN-HANDEDNESS' The great debate about and amongst the 'Muslim' community as to what it means to be 'Muslim/Asian British' and how far they have or have not integrated is of great importance to the Political Elites. The social stability they require to facilitate their governance (and I believe for many their 'mission' is merely just that rather than some conspiratorial goal) is presently threatened by the political and social alienation many young Muslims express. The impact of radical Islam and especially terrorist activity may polarise communities in much the same way the Establishment fear a growing BNP would. This is why there is much scrutiny of inter-community statistics, such as Hate crimes, tolerance surveys and the like. Whilst we are told that our tolerance is holding, the Authorities fear this may not last. All societies under threat seem to turn to authoritarian measures. Curbing civil liberties, with the introduction of ID cards, stop and search, communication censorship and the suspension of habeas corpus, may make the job of those responsible for the 'nations security' easier. Of course it also results in the innocent suffering
Third Way Special Edition Page 7
along with the guilty. The shooting of an innocent Brazilian citizen on the Underground is the price we pay for this so-called 'Greater Security'. The Establishment also runs the risk that the implementation of these draconian measures might be seen as 'discriminatory' and deepen alienation whilst in the process of dealing with its consequences. To show 'even-handedness', the Authorities are likely to use their newfound powers against groups perceived to be 'anti-Islamic'. The Religious Hatred laws are a gesture towards those in the Muslim 'Leadership' who say the activities of the BNP help alienate members of their community. To make repression more palatable for their community they seek reassurance with a 'sacrificial lamb'. 3. THE 'AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY' Nick Griffin claims that the BNP are no longer a fascist party and cites a 'cleaned-up' manifesto. Many have yet to be convinced. It is very hard to change an established and deeply rooted perception. If they were fascist a decade ago what has happened to the membership? Has the ‘old guard’ sought out an alternative party closer to their opinions? If they have largely stayed put is this a result of a genuine change of opinion or because they believe that the manifesto is for 'outside consumption' and only cosmetic? The 'persecution' of the BNP and even individual members has understandably provoked cries of anguish and victimisation from their ranks. Underneath it however has been talk of revenge when the 'boot is on the other foot'. If given the power would the persecuted become the persecutor? Whilst the language has become more polished sentiments die hard. In a letter published in the English Community magazine Steadfast (no.32 Spring 05) Nick Griffin states "I personally would much prefer to use paedophiles and murderers for testing essential medical developments, rather than innocent animals…” Whilst he might believe that view will go down well amongst his own supporters it sends shivers down the spines of others. If he can express such an attitude in public what, some opponents might ask, might he believe in private? It is this fear that the BNP is an organisation that appeals to a base temperament or an Authoritarian Personality that puts doubts and concerns into the minds of many, regardless of
any number of policy pronouncements and is I believe the most contentious for Civil Libertarians. In other words, since one wouldn't put a loaded gun or a sharpened scalpel into the hands of a madman, why would you give the BNP the reins of (or the opportunity to take) Government? Can we allow freedom for those who might take away our freedom and civil liberties? Nick Griffin himself accepts some limitations of expression, such as that of incitement to violence or the use of force, so why not on the issue of those who seek to deny the rights of others? POLITICAL DEBATE RATHER THAN REPRESSION I would not wish to see a BNP Government (or any other) that would remove Civil Rights from the people and in particular its political opponents (including us!). I am not as convinced as some however that this would definitely be the case with the BNP although I am naturally wary. The jury is still out. Ironically if one believed that the BNP would not allow freedom of expression to its opponents the introduction of the proposed authoritarian measures and laws recently announced by our current Government would make that unlikely event all the more dangerous. We would have already given a future 'Hitler' his 'emergency powers' or 'Enabling Act'. These measures and controls are not just a threat to our Civil Liberties today, therefore, as they could be used tomorrow by other more Authoritarian or unscrupulous Administrations without having to 'move any goalposts'. Although an extreme example, much of Hitler's repressive powers were based on previous laws enacted by the liberal Weimar Republic. Even the infamous Enabling Act, which allowed the Nazis to rule without recourse to the Reichstag (Parliament), was enshrined in their Constitution and Hitler ended up turning the very same weapon against its architects. In other words an Authoritarian Regime could only implement such a system if all the levers of government were in its hands. On balance however, I believe that the best way to combat authoritarian ideas is through challenging them in political debate rather than repression. The reasons cited as to why the BNP is treated as 'Beyond the Pale' do not in my mind justify the denial of civil liberties to them, as such 'rights' are not (or should not be) tied to political expediency i.e. so-called even-handedness or
Third Way Special Edition Page 8
opposition to the political orthodoxy. CIVIL FREEDOM NOT A LUXURY BUT AT THE CORE OF OUR CIVILSATION The down grading of the 'second chamber', the growing rule by Cabinet, the various examples of PC legislation and moves towards a surveillance society are laying down the foundations for a more authoritarian regime. There are no 'benevolent' dictators only more repressive ones waiting in the wings. If Civil Liberties are worth fighting for it must be from a universal approach - that is for all without exception. It is the 'hard cases' such as whether
we will defend the rights of unpopular political or social minorities that test our resolve. Anything less creates precedents dangerous to us all. Anything less allows Civil Freedom to be portrayed only as a luxury in times of stability rather than a fundamental tenet of our civilisation. Graham Williamson is a Member of the Third Way's National Executive. He is also co-author of a recent book entitled 'A Declaration and Philosophy of Progressive Nationalism'. Copies can be obtained for £5 including postage from PO Box 4217, Hornchurch RM12 4PJ (cheques made out to G. Williamson).
Liberty - For Some!
Henry Falconer attacks the record of Liberty
The organisation calling itself 'Liberty', formerly the National Council For Civil Liberties (NCCL) purports to champion the rights of minorities and individuals against the overweening power of governments, interest groups and intolerant majorities alike. Indeed its name suggests that it is an organisation with which John Stuart Mill himself, the acknowledged guru of libertarians everywhere, would be proud to be associated. However, almost from the date of its inception, it has been an ideologically driven front for a narrow political philosophy, using civil liberty as a political instrument and not as a desirable objective in itself. Founded in 1934, the NCCL was quickly infiltrated by elements of the far left, for whom it was simply one aspect of a wider political programme. It was once described as "the National Council for the Promotion of Some Liberties and the Elimination of Others". In one year it nominated 10 M.P.s as the most effective champions of civil liberty in Parliament, 9 of whom were prominent and outspoken supporters of the 'closed shop'. So, according to the NCCL, any individual who chose not to be a member of a Trade Union deserved to be sacked and denied employment. An individual expelled by his Union, for whatever reason, would automatically lose his job at the same time. Some "liberty"! The above example is typical of the hypocrisy and double-standards employed by the NCCL and its successor. Free Speech? Yes - as long as the sympathies of the speaker are in line with those of the Liberty leadership. Freedom of choice? Yes- as long as the choices are limited to those areas of which Liberty approves. Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of hunting with dogs, it is an activity which has been the right of the freeborn Englishman for centuries. When threats are made to ban it, thereby curtailing the liberty of individuals, "Liberty" is conspicuous only by its silence. The time has come to replace this discredited and phoney organisation. We need a body which will champion ALL civil liberties, regardless of their political, religious, sexual or philosophical orientation, as long as (as John Stuart Mill argued) they do not infringe the rights or liberties of others. The American Civil Liberties Union does this effectively in the U.S.A. What are we in the United Kingdom waiting for?
Third Way Special Edition Page 9
Tim Bragg speaks of
None of us are free. But many of us strive to be as free as possible. Much of our time we seem to accept limits upon our freedom for both the sake of social cohesion and the common good. We have both rights (though these are given) and responsibilities. There can be no limit on absolute freedom. One is either free or enslaved. In total we are not free but aspects of our existence can, perhaps, be (however paradoxical). We are not free to clobber someone over the head with a baseball bat – or rather that “freedom” would be heavily penalised. Given that a jail sentence would result most people harbouring such desires would not feel free to behave so in the first place. Such behaviour is prevented or curtailed by a sense of (an inculcated?) right and wrong and/or fear of the consequences. Artistically we may ask: what motivates an artist; is there an inescapable moral sense to their work; might an artist censor work before it has even begun for fear of possible consequences? Are we free to think and speak? Can we imagine a society where our thoughts are censored? The Soviets called this the Censor in the Head. Repress, threaten or punish people enough and they will - themselves - not simply censor their speech but censor their own thoughts. What, in practice, this might mean is debateable. Would an unbidden thought rush across the horizon of one's mind hotly pursued by its very own thought police? Another way at looking at this is certainly practical - by limiting language perhaps we limit thought. George Orwell investigated this idea in his novel 1984.[1] It certainly seems a logical, though terrifying argument. By reducing the concrete expressions of thought - especially language - that in turn leads to the reduction of thought potential which leads to further reduction in actual expression. In other words we would have constantly to squeeze thoughts into the language available to us. The range and nature of that language - being artificially constructed would not only reduce thought but also direct its very nature. This restriction can be imposed both overtly and subtlely - it has been and is being done in this country and across the globe to a greater or lesser extent. Further - there can be "freedom" in one sense - that anything can be said or written but a limited or non-existent outlet for this expression. Have (mainly) mainstream publishers imposed a form of censorship either by not publishing certain work or by publishing work that expresses or is critical only of certain ideas and ideology? Why is freedom of speech/expression considered threatening? We can certainly be hurt by slanderous and libellous remarks and name-calling might be very unpleasant. What about the idea that either free speech or writing can lead to civil unrest or distort a society's morals? Might writing lead to incitement to kill - rebellion even? Thought precedes action. Well even this is debated, with epiphenomenalists believing that thoughts are the product of action rather than its instigators. It is normally presumed that we "decide" to do something (even subconsciously) and then the action takes place - rather than the action takes place and thought activity "happens" in reaction. It might also be argued that through "conditioning" we have no freedom of thought or action. Have we chosen the language we speak or write in have we chosen the morality and culture that infuses it? For the purpose of this article I am arguing that we (at least some of us) have enough clarity of
Third Way Special Edition Page 10
thought and objectivity to think without constraint - though, as stated, in a learnt language and through an imbibed culture. I am also going to concentrate on artistic "freedom" and the relationship between this and the greater society - especially where the interface is political and/or religious or a matter of "taste". As an artist I am a musician, writer and painter. We hear music and can listen to and read lyrics. We read what is written in books, plays and magazines (or on the computer) and there is an existence of the words both written (that can be read/acted out loud) and within the mind. Paintings, drawings, photographs, sculptures and anything that is visual and concrete impress us in an immediate way. A picture is worth a thousand words so they say. Question - Is an artist entitled to greater or lesser freedom than anybody else, or should they be treated equally? Has an artist a particular duty towards the society they inhabit in terms of what they say or write (or whatever their artistic expression)? Are artists, in fact, societies true leaders? It needs to be stated that freedom of speech and its expressions are not distributed equally throughout society. Though it might be argued that everyone could/should have this freedom, in effect, those with most power will have most influence and possibly the ability to dictate what the very nature of this freedom constitutes. With this in mind it has often been the case that artists have assumed and been given (though at times had censored) a position to articulate views in a much freer way than the common man or woman in the street. Artists have pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable in writing, music, cinema, photography and all such expressions. The consequence of this "pushing" has been a "resisting" - a wish either to conserve the status quo or to quell artistic freedom in order to impose a system based on more authoritarian ideals. This resistance has come from the "right" the "left" and from religious and "moral-based" organisations (sometimes political). Rather than "fudge" the issue at this point and take a soft neo "politically-correct" line I am going to address the relationship between freedom of the artist and social and/or religious and political taboos. I am addressing these issues as an artist and specifically as a fiction writer rather than as a journalist or political writer. What's the difference in practice? Firstly, the approach and techniques of a novelist (say) to a subject are different and secondly the reaction of the media/society/institutions/public in general is also different. I believe this is the case because of the way we (any democratic nation-state based on Judaeo-Christian principles) currently view the status of "artist". The status of the artist in a highly authoritarian society is far more precarious and the artist subject to far more censorship and punishment (think of examples of those artists who suffered under Soviet Russia like Solzhenitsyn and Shalamov or within its satellite states like the playwright Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia).[2] If "culture" is the defining grace of humankind, marking us out from all other species, then we must acknowledge the role of the artist in the creation of civilisation. Those artists that push the boundaries of expression can be thought of as the seers of humankind; the bridge-builders to a near-spiritual manifestation of earthly man and woman. But there are other immature and self-seeking artists that explode rules as a small boy would smash a pane of glass. A work of art should stand on its own in terms of an internal logic and - if you will - existing outside day-to-day life. A work of art is so because it is accepted as such - it is seen to be something special - beyond the mundane. There are problems here when art becomes entangled with fashion. It is argued that a work of art can only be defined in retrospect having stood the test of time. There are problems with this too - William Blake has come in and out of fashion; were his works nonworks of art when he first produced them (plainly not so despite their relative unpopularity) then not so because they "dropped out" of contemporary culture and now so because they have been "re-discovered"?
Third Way Special Edition Page 11
For the purpose of this article I will define "art" through its content, style and approach and leave judgement of its merit aside. In terms of the written word (setting apart "faction" and the notion that some contemporary journalism is art) its expressions will be the novel, the short story, plays, poetry and lyrics. There is - potentially (and in fact?) - a further division of art into that which sets out to "say something" and that which "simply" entertains. The two are not mutually exclusive; that which purports to entertain might say more than a very dull book that vainly attempts to say something! What seems to be undeniable is that a work of art can express something that journalism or explicit political writing cannot and also it will be received and read in a different spirit. A character in a novel is not necessarily the mouthpiece of its creator - the two are often poles apart. But a character in a novel (or play or short story) is able to voice opinions that would otherwise be intolerable or censored. A character whose concrete existence is questionable but who certainly resides in the imagination has power. We can "know" characters and can be affected by them and their "existence" - this is more powerful for their construct is a combination of the author's words perceived in the reader's mind and how the reader mentally interprets these words. What is and what is not acceptable for a writer to write? Contemporary and recently historical subjects that have caused most controversy and still do are:
Where there's a will there should be a way!
The Third Way is a small but committed group of people dedicated to changing our world. All those involved with the Third Way Movement have made sacrifices in their personal and professional lives in order that the values we uphold continue and re-assert themselves. The Rohirrim rode to the aid of the Men of Gondor when the fortified city of Minas Tirith was besieged by Sauron. They charged straight into the enemy no matter what the personal cost. After the apparent death of Gandalf Aragorn offers to accompany and guard Frodo on his quest to Mordor. This would mean that he would be unable to defend the capital of Gondor and the throne that belongs to him and that he might lose the hand of the Elven princess Arwen. He is prepared to accept this and do his duty for the common good. We don't expect everyone to sacrifice their personal interests in this way. What we ask is that if you like what we are trying to do and want to see us do more you give us what support you can. One way of doing this is by leaving a legacy. The promise of a legacy gives us a good idea of money which will be available for our work in the future. It is a very special way of giving; many people cannot afford large sums in their lifetime but can make a significant and far-reaching contribution through their Will. Bequests to organisations can be made in just the same way as gifts to individuals. They can take the form of specific gifts of money or possessions. Alternatively, you can leave the residue, or part of it, to the Third Way Movement. If you would like to help Third Way in this way, please ask whoever is advising you to use the words set out below. They will ensure that your wishes are followed as you intend. "I give the sum of ....... pounds free of duty to the Third Way Movement Limited (Company No. 2905980) for the general purposes of the Third Way Movement Limited of 47d Roland Gardens, London SW7 3PG and I direct that the receipt of the Company Secretary or other proper officer of the Company shall be a sufficient discharge for the same or I give the residue of my real and personal estate which I can dispose of by Will in any manner I think proper to the Third Way Movement Limited (Company No. 2905980) of 47d Roland Gardens, London SW7 3PG and the receipt of the Company Secretary or other proper officer shall be a complete discharge to my Executors therefore." That is a simple way of adding a gift to us if you have already made a Will. If you have already made a Will, it should be regularly reviewed and updated if necessary. It is easy to make simple changes, such as adding a legacy. Your Solicitor will draw up an amendment form called a 'codicil' and this will be placed in your Will. If you marry, remarry, separate, divorce or are widowed you will usually need to draw up a new Will. If you require further advice or information please E-mail: thirdwaycentre@aol.com and a Senior officer will contact you.
Third Way Special Edition Page 12
racism; extreme forms of pornography; extreme horror and "strong" language. I use the word "extreme" to highlight a shift in public opinion (changing views of what is "mainstream" and "extreme") and the extent to which many writers have really pushed boundaries.[3] I am also adding "religion" - the manner in which a novelist or writer deals with religion can have the gravest of consequences. Let's take these taboos in reverse order - excluding religion. Firstly, the use of "strong" language: The idea goes that art imitates life - and the counter argument that - life imitates art. Somewhere exists the truth. The Booker Prize winning novel by James Kelman How Late it was How Late uses the word Fuck many, many times. This caused some controversy. It wasn't banned and it did win the Booker Prize and in fact the use of Fuck set in motion a kind of poetic incantation. So there is freedom isn't there? No one says you can't use "Fuck" although "Cunt" is a word that many publishers would find "difficult" (Lady Chatterley's Lover by DH Lawrence, took till the 1960s before being published though many contemporary "literary" works carry this word). If as a writer you change your original words for less offensive words that is a form of internal censorship, however pragmatic. Also, there are many outlets for fictional work that certainly wouldn't allow the use of Fuck let alone Cunt. Is that a form of censorship or simply a matter of taste; and who does the "tasting" so to speak? Does the continued use of Fuck lead to a greater usage of the word in society? Some say yes - some writers say they are simply "imitating real life". And so the debate rambles on. The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck has been banned in the US and one of the reasons was its "obscene language" a similar charge being made against his Of Mice and Men. The latter is now a standard examination text for GCSE and A Level. Should a writer be at liberty to use any word he/she (you see I have been got at by a form of grammatical censor) wishes? In writing there is no prohibition other than the writer may not be published - and if published might be banned or withdrawn from libraries, schools, colleges etc. Is that a fact of life or simply a bum deal? On the one hand why should a section of the community - its writers/artists - have undue influence over its morality? On the other hand what are those who would censor or prevent publication really objecting to? Fuck and Cunt have a very abrasive sound; sharp and curt - is it what these words signify that causes distress and alarm (!) or is it that they simply do not fit in with a society's particular mores and codes? Is it important for a society to have language codes based on perceived and shared morality - is it important for a society to have artists to challenge these codes? What would a society without artists be like? The next taboo is the writing of horror - especially in a way that is very graphic. The power of books is that anyone who can read - can read them. They may carry warnings - but so what? A warning is often an incitement to read! Extreme horror can do two things - it can add a lexicon of new words and phrases and it can create images and thus ideas in the mind (as all words). Images can seriously disturb some people, especially children. Some horror is therefore banned from public libraries. Religious organisations often hate horror stories because they create an alternative world that is frequently dark, demonic, deathly, debased - destructive to the soul. The ideas and descriptions in horror are constantly analysed; the author's intent and state-of-mind is questioned. Some see horror writing and its reading as cathartic others as dangerous - the extreme stuff being extremely dangerous. If we are what we eat - we are also what we read. What we think comes from somewhere (epiphenomenalists aside) and language and literature is pure food for the mind. Horror is largely ghettoised (Stephen King breaking out of this ghetto but also getting his books banned, withdrawn and put on special shelves in the US)[4] and is written and read by people who accept its mores and who do not wish it to be censored. There are writers of horror and there are publishers of horror and there are readers of horror. But even in a "liberal" society (like that of the UK) horror books can be banned. Recently a novel Lord Horror (and its spin-off comics) was banned though this ban was eventually lifted on appeal. Not content with this verdict Manchester Metropolitan Police seized more comics (from the same publishing house) that they deemed to flout the laws on obscenity. What might be the consequence of reading a graphic piece of horror? Are there people amongst
Third Way Special Edition Page 13
us that cannot distinguish between reality and fiction? Are the images and ideas so powerful and the characters so convincing that someone's mind could be fooled into identifying so strongly that certain thoughts, then actions would necessarily follow? Where does violence stem from? Does a horrific act in fiction somehow give permission for that act to be played out in real life? In a world of bowdlerised fairy-tales and Mills and Boon romances would horrific acts diminish or increase? If we are to develop as people and societies then oughtn't we to uncover both the darkness and light within us. The artist is the hunter within the mind and soul - and must show courage and stubbornness in revealing our dark spirit and constantly holding it before us. The poet, the shaman, the mystic need to be in touch with both the natural and the supernatural - the articulators of human potential and discoverers of hidden horizons. Pornography is a form of writing that has broken out of its ghetto and has become a part of mainstream writing and publishing. We need to ask of course what is meant by pornography and how that might be distinguished from "eroticism". Suffice to say that with extreme pornography there is no need to define it beyond its content - it doesn't hide itself (dress itself up!). Perhaps pornography is the explicit misuse of sexual power. Pornography can be and is sometimes linked with horror writing and there is a strange relationship between the two. Where pornography might use violence to excite sexual practice this can be reversed in horror writing and sex be used to excite and exaggerate the horror. Pain and pleasure are close cousins though - it can be said. In 100 Days of Sodom by the Marquis de Sade (a pen name) just about every "offensive" sexual practice is written about and explored on the page (and thus in the mind). I doubt whether any modern publisher would touch it were it written now. It does still court controversy - but you can order it from most bookshops and buy it online. The author paid for his writings with long spells in prison. Feminists particularly seem to take offence at de Sade and religious groups would be appalled by his "apparent" immoral words. (Can a word be immoral?) The argument is again bipolar - pornography leads to violence against women or it prevents violence against women by offering a "virtual" fictional/visual form and thus outlet for violent (sexual) feelings. Does the mind of one "warped" artist infect the rest of society or is the artist's mind "free" to think and express things the rest of society represses? The internet has set free every form of sexual "deviance" known. Is this progressive or dangerous?[5] And the internet is a means to circumvent all national laws. Racism or racist language is the modern taboo of taboos. You will not get work published (in the mainstream) if the work is interpreted as being racist. If a publisher were to publish a racist novel the publisher him(her) self would probably be prosecuted. There seems to be no freedom of expression here. But a writer can put racist words into the mouths of his/her characters. By putting ideas once removed from the author (or seemingly so) the reader can respond in a more objective way. Huckleberry Fin by Mark Twain uses the word "nigger" and certainly not (in my opinion) in a racist fashion - but that hasn't stopped the novel being challenged across the US for its "objectionable language and racist terms and content". In a novel about the struggle for freedom say by Blacks in the 1960s South I doubt whether any intelligent reader would object to a racist character using the word "nigger". But who knows - a library might still ban it. Black "rap" groups often use the word "nigga" in their lyrics - perhaps this form of the word both takes out its sting and nulls its exclusive use (as "nigger") by racists. The issues of race and racism in children's literature not only precludes any publisher of children's books to publish such work but also acts as a definer of the type of material often required/published. A novel for children or young adults is more likely to be published if it carries characters of different races or tackles the issue of racism in a "positive" manner. Coupled with the requirements of school inspectors - there is a definite market for stories that actively seek to portray culturally and racially diverse characters and tackle "awkward" or "difficult" subjects. Try getting a children's novel published where girls are "sugar and spice" and "white as white". Many would argue - would that be a suitable novel to be published today? But is it a form of censorship? It is dependent on the prevailing political culture and the mores transmitted through teaching colleges and universities
Third Way Special Edition Page 14
etc. Perhaps at this stage one could ask - is censorship a positive thing? If, as an artist, I argue that art means something and has the power to influence then surely the society from which it springs from or out of has a duty to its members to control what is produced? But wouldn't that mean a suppression of ideas and opinions that could or might have created a new type of society? Wouldn't a society that censors be narrowing the scope of expression and thought and therefore perhaps all sorts of innovative and inventive ideas? Would such a society be on the slippery slope towards a world as discussed earlier re 1984? In the past couple of decades followers of some of the major world religions have taken exception to certain works of fiction - and not just exception...also lives. Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses was deemed to insult Mohammed and the author has been in "hiding" ever since. One of his publishers paid with his life. Following the Iranian Fatwa (recently reconfirmed) Keith Vaz observed, "There is no such thing as absolute free speech" . More recently it was the Sikh community that strongly objected to a play (Behtzi) being performed in Birmingham; it seems it was the fact that much of the action took place inside a Sikh Temple (Gurdwara) that caused the real offence. Crowds, threats, and vandalism brought the play to a premature end. The author, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, apart from an article in the Guardian has kept a very low profile. The producers of the play had spoken with Sikh community leaders before it was staged but they have since stated that it was not to seek approval. The Sikh community leaders have effectively succeeded in enforcing their own particular censorship. Was the offence so great and so hurtful? Were the Sikhs who protested acting on behalf of their own morality and thus - at least within their community - doing something good? Would the play's continuance have been the thin end of a very large wedge? Fiona MacTaggart's response to the protests (which caused injury to some police officers) was to suggest that the play itself moved people (and protestors) to engage in and debate free speech - thus upholding the longstanding British liberal tradition of tolerance and freedom of expression. This was said (21.12.04) despite the play being withdrawn through fear of further intimidation and violence. Earlier this year the BBC received a record number of emails (approximately 47,000) complaining of the proposed transmission of Jerry Springer - The Opera. Christian Voice posted the names and addresses of senior BBC executives including Roly Keating (the play's director). He said that for a brief period he had security guards patrolling outside his house. The opera contains the repeated use of Fuck and Cunt and at one point the chorus sings (of Mary) "raped by an angel/raped by God". One of its conceits is to deify humans and humanise God. Many Christians felt the opera to be blasphemous and at a later demonstration outside Chelmsford Cathedral (where singers from the opera were performing other work in aid of the Asian Tsunami) a Reverend stated: “Does an artist have no moral duty for what they produce, particularly if what they produce hurts other people?" The Bishop of Chelmsford said in an interview: "Freedom of speech is fundamental to Christian faith." [6] Does literature in all its forms give succour to those who are racist, anti-religious, pro-pornography etc? Do words encourage acts? Certainly there is a link between words in the head (thought), words spoken and actions undertaken. That is the case for us all. But is it a necessary progression? I might have an idea, I might tell someone, I might write it down but it doesn't have to come to fruition unless others or I carry out the action. Isn't it the action that counts? Or is it really too tenuous an argument to sustain. Without thoughts what actions could take place? (It might be argued that pure emotion is irrational and without thought; in which case thought is a civilising procedure. Without thought and language how civilised would we be?)
Third Way Special Edition Page 15
Isn't the question of free speech and expression versus censorship and the sensibilities of others a matter of balance - like most things? We are not free. We have never been free. But we can be as free as possible. We are communal beings that have to live in some degree of harmony. Therefore we need rules and regulations. We live in relatively stable times - in times of civil unrest and war you can bet a whole extra raft of books to be "withdrawn". Conversely in war there can be a healthy "samizdat" press.[7] During war and under oppressive regimes artists (even poets!) can be imprisoned and shot. Why? Because they are perceived to be dangerous. Why? Because people listen, read and sometimes act according to what the artist has written. Writing can inspire a people to revolution. Abraham Lincoln remarked on meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe (Uncle Tom's Cabin): "[you're] the little lady who made this big war." Ironically Uncle Tom's Cabin has had its subsequent share of criticism and censorship. I think that any doctrine, philosophy or political manifesto should be questioned and debated and that none of these ideologies ought to suppress the views of others whether they be in fictional work or non-fiction. Authoritarian regimes hate to be laughed at (read Milan Kundera's The Joke). All ideas are the product of men's minds. A limit on freedom might simply be a question of access. It is generally accepted that children should not have access to pornography or graphic horror - but how does one police that? And at what age? Slander and libel (deliberate and malicious falsehoods) have recourse in law. But a child that has read a horror story or a pornographic tract (if either is likely) will be permanently affected. What about a young man or women who is inspired by a piece of fiction to murder, rape (in a man's case), lead a racist uprising? Overthrow the government!? It's back to the circular argument - are people that way anyway or are they made that way by writing etc. Does what is written give some people permission to behave in a certain way? Should an artist/writer have to take responsibility for another's act?[8] Perhaps it's all a matter of good taste as reflected in a mature and sensible nation and democracy. If I were to edit a magazine of Taboo stories I would choose each of these based on the following criteria: Firstly - Has it something special/new/unique to say? Does it add something to the human
Read the alternative patriotism that balances a love for nation, its people and the environment. 'A Declaration of Progressive Nationalism' puts into words what many political thinkers have been searching for and lacking in orthodox Green or patriotic circles. Read how Nationalism, Social Justice and Environmentalism can be fused in an holistic ideology. "You will find youself drawn to its pages as if they were familar texts" . Copies of this book are available for the price of £5 (inc P & P) made out to G. Williamson, c/o PO Box 4217, Hornchurch, Essex RM12 4PJ.
Third Way advocates a shift to Citizens’ Income for all, instead of the present complex, often anomalous and expensive to administer mess of benifits. Citizens’ Income (sometimes called “Basic Income”) is a sum, the same for all, payable through the State as an inalienable right to all citizens of the country, throughout their lives and sufficient to at least meet the cost of their basic needs. It is true “stakeholding” in the society and its economy. There would of course be some additional provision to cover exceptional needs or contingencies. Above is an extract from the Third Way manifesto. We also advocate the debt-free financing of public and social infrastructure. For more 3W policy plus articles on a diverse range of subjects, visit our website
www.thirdway.org
Third Way Special Edition Page 16
condition? Secondly - Is it well written and structured? Thirdly - Is it likely to disturb or warp the mind of a reasonable person? (And even then who can be said to be reasonable and why should a collection of Taboo stories - of all stories - be censored!?) Fourthly - Is it entertaining? Perhaps this should come first! If it complies with all these but strays occasionally into obscene, graphic horror, "strong" language or a racist diatribe I could live with it - the sum being superior to the parts. Lastly - I would encourage a broad range of other stories to be published by lots of other magazines or publishers so that there would be at the very least plenty of choice - plenty of variety. There would always be many other editors and publishers that might well make their decision on: Would it make money? (Only worrying about giving offence for legal, and thus monetary, reasons.) A society with lots of "good" people counteracts a minority of "bad". A healthy, wide-ranging and independent group of writers expressing themselves in many styles and genres must be preferable to either a narrow selection of styles and tastes or government picked themes within state control spewing out relentless socio-realism. The price to pay is a little loosening of the moral leash. When I'm feeling sad I might well listen to the Blues - and I feel better as a result not sadder! Literature that at first seems negative might not necessarily lead to negative reactions but might offset such reactions. "Bad" content might lead to "good" action. The push-me-pull-you of freedom versus censorship will continue as long as people produce art and others read/watch/listen to it. I believe art does affect society and a society would be a desolate place without its artists. Tastes change for the better and worse. If we don't want freedom of expression then we must accept censorship - if we accept censorship then let that be based on wisdom. If writers push the boundaries it isn't necessary to execute them - they are often compelled to write what they write. Can anything be crueller than a writer who has no audience? This is what censorship does - it takes away the voice and it takes away the eyes and ears that would read and listen. As long as we have children and impressionable people then we need to be careful. For those who are offended by what is written because it contrasts with their man-made (or God given) ideology - I would say - tough. Let us remember that in a tyrannical society it might well be writers who are first to be put up against the wall. What does this tell us?
Notes 1] 1984 will always pose a threat to totalitarian regimes and one wonders how various nations have reacted to it. It might seem surprising that in the US, at least one objection has been made to its "pro-communist" and "sexually explicit" material. Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley has often been "challenged" throughout the US. 2] Vaclav Havel was later, famously, to become president of Czechoslovakia and subsequently the Czech Republic. 3] At university "gender" and "sexism" were keen topics for discussion. Jack Kerouac's On the Road was dropped as a key novel (at the university I attended) for its perceived "sexism". Male students were also highly discouraged from attending "feminist" or "women's" literary courses. 4] Carrie has been considered "trash" that is especially harmful to "younger girls". In Union High School Library, Vergennes, Vermont (1978) it was placed on a special, closed shelf. 5] Pictures taken of prisoners at Abu Ghraib seem to indicate a strong influence of pornographic material on the soldiers involved - especially sadomasochistic sex. The posing of the prisoners in this way seems to be new. War and conflict allow soldiers to rape and carry out gross acts of violence - but probably the result of pornography on the web has directed the nature of the soldiers' abuse. 6] Recently Christian groups have spoken out against JK Rowling's Harry Potter stories. Books dealing (even in a lighthearted way) with the occult, witchcraft etc have been challenged and banned in the USA. In the Netherlands, Theo van Gogh was murdered for writing words from the Koran on the back of a semi-nude female. Opinion only can decide if these words are fictional or not. For a Muslim they are sacred. Further back in time Dante's Divine Comedy was burnt for its "vanities". 7] In the Soviet Union the samizdat press printed and distributed banned works of literature. 8] Did the suicide bombers who attacked London (07/07/05) feel that the Koran or possibly certain interpretations give them permission to carry out their crime?
Third Way Special Edition Page 17
Incitement to 'religious hatred'
Is the ‘incitement to religious hatred offence’ contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill a threat to Christians? Timothy Webb of the Christian Peoples Alliance has drawn our attention to the following information from the Christian Institute which deserves the widest possible circulation. We in Third Way oppose the proposed new offence which we feel is both legally and philosophically flawed and in conflict with civil and religious liberty. From the Christian Institute: You may have read in the news about two Australian pastors who were found guilty of 'religious vilification' for criticising Islam. One of the pastors, Daniel Scot, is to speak at [the proposed] meeting. He is visiting the UK to help us campaign against the UK Government's proposals which go much further than the Australian law. In the UK the Government is proposing a maximum 7-year prison sentence for breaking its 'hate speech' law. Government guidance about the proposed UK law states “Christians claiming ‘Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, the life and the only way to God’ could be a crime if their words were considered 'insulting' and it was a ‘likely effect that hatred would be stirred up’ ”. See: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace /faith/crime/faq.html Sharing the gospel - even very sensitively and thoughtfully - can lead to offence. Under the new law someone might allege that this was ‘stirring up hatred’. In a democracy there has to be freedom to say things with which others can disagree. We believe that there is a very real danger that the new law could be used to stop evangelism. Both Houses of Parliament will soon be voting on the proposed ‘incitement to religious hatred offence’ contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. As you may have heard, the proposals are widely opposed by lawyers, journalists, actors, and religious and human rights groups. They fear that it will become illegal to criticise a religion. So do we. In Australia, a court ruled that Daniel Scot's criticism of Islam was illegal under the State of Victoria's ‘Vilification Law’. The case has attracted international concern. Daniel Scot was a maths lecturer at Karachi University in Pakistan, but had to flee for his life when he refused to convert to Islam. He settled in Australia and eventually became the minister of a church. A Muslim group took legal action against him under the vilification
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6
law for criticising Islam at a church seminar in March 2002. Last December, after a long and expensive legal case, he was found to have broken the law. Colin Hart Director FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION: A link to the Home Office website is included so that people can check governmental quotes are accurate. The Home Office website’s ‘answer 5’
Third Way Special Edition Page 18
asserts that Christians claiming the truth of John 14:6 and similar activities “of themselves” will not be caught by the offence. This statement is then immediately qualified to point out that there are circumstances when such words being uttered could fall foul of the new law. The Home Office Website states: “Of
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, [ye] blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Matthew: 23: 13-16
themselves these activities do not meet the criteria of the offences. However if a person were to use threatening, abusive or insulting words, actions or material with the intent or likely effect that hatred would be stirred up whilst undertaking the actions listed above, then by definition, they could rightly fall into the scope of the offence”. In other words, a Christian’s ability to say Jesus is the only way to God could be limited by the new offence, in certain circumstances such as where the use of the words was held to be “insulting”. Take the following scenario (should the incitement to religious hatred law be passed). An evangelical minister preaches a sermon on Christ being the only way to salvation, with his text as John 14:6. (All activities
within a church building must comply with the new law as the Government has refused to give an exemption). In the congregation is a Muslim who has been asked to the service by a friend. The Muslim is offended by the sermon and he contacts the police claiming the minister’s words were insulting and likely to stir up hatred against Muslims. The police pass the case to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Attorney-General may or may not decide to prosecute. If he agrees that the minister’s presentation was insulting and likely to stir up hatred against Muslims, under the terms of the law then a trial will follow. If found guilty, a minister could even face a prison sentence. In extreme cases there could be a jail sentence of up to 7 years. The wording of the law makes this sort of scenario a possibility. As the example shows, in certain circumstances it is quite conceivable that an evangelistic sermon based on John 14:6 could be deemed illegal under the Government’s proposals. Never before has the law threatened to circumscribe the proclamation of John 14:6. This shows the seriousness of the situation. Although no Christian would want to ‘stir up hatred’ of other people, the definition of this is subjective. The Lord Jesus Christ himself used very strong words to condemn error (see, for example, Matthew 23). Yet he is perfectly loving and without sin. The incitement to Religious Hatred Offence clearly has profound implications for the proclamation of the Gospel. We appreciate that there are many well intentioned people who support the proposals. Our considered view is that it is vitally important that Christians continue to oppose the plans. Sharing the gospel - even very sensitively and thoughtfully - can lead to offence. Under the new law someone might allege that this was “stirring up hatred”. The concerns about the law centre on the possibility that it could be interpreted to catch normal Christian evangelism. Some say this will not happen; we disagree.
Third Way Special Edition Page 19
"Incitement to religious hatred" - a bad law
“We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe…”
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court
Most of us are used to seeing the clergy, the church and sometimes even religion itself held up to ridicule in print, in film, on radio and on the television. Just think of Father Ted, The Vicar of Dibley and in an earlier time, All Gas and Gaiters and the sketch shows of the late Dave Allen. Although there was at times a furore over films like The Life of Brian it was generally accepted that the churches - just like other sections of society - were fair game for satire and humour, even if occasionally the humorists and satirists did cause genuine offence to some people. Nobody really took the line that they were motivated by hatred of religious believers, or that they intended to provoke such a reaction in their readers, listeners or viewers. This is likely to change if the Religious and Racial Hatred Bill manages to become law. The government claims that the proposed law is designed to protect people rather than specific religious doctrines but it isn't quite so simple. Even David Blunkett, the original architect of the Bill, showed a worrying lack of precision in an Observer article where he posed the question, “Can it be right that hatred based on deliberate and provocative untruths about a person’s religion remains unchallenged?” (my emphasis). If David Blunkett himself believes that the offences are designed to protect beliefs rather than groups of people against what he claims are “untruths”, what are the chances that free expression will survive? It is certainly a matter of concern to the comedian Rowan Atkinson who fears becoming a target for every religious zealot in the country who can find a solicitor to take his case. Speaking in a widely reported meeting in the House of Commons, the Mr Bean and Blackadder star claimed that 'quite a few sketches' he has performed would be likely to fall foul of the proposed law. "To criticise
a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. A law which attempts to say you can criticise and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed." Suffering for one's art is one thing but the prospect of seven years in prison for an 'offensive' sketch is quite another. We can understand Rowan Atkinson's concern. Why, though, should we worry, if a few overpaid professional comedians go to prison for offending the sensibilities of some iman or pastor? Quite simply, because the law is framed so vaguely and in such an allembracing manner that we could literally be next! There is no precise definition of the offence. The Home Office claims that the Bill would not make it unlawful to criticise the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers by claiming that they are false or harmful, or to express antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their leaders and followers. It leaves everything up to the Attorney General. He decides whether or not to prosecute and a judge will hand down any sentence. This could place the Attorney General under immense political pressure to prosecute a high-profile individual in what would amount to a Stalinist-style show trial, notwithstanding the claims of Home Office spindoctors that Rowan Atkinson and other comedians have nothing to fear. To be fair, Mr Atkinson recognises this point. At the same meeting He went on to say that the government, 'can come to someone like me and say: "Really, you've nothing to worry about, you arty people...you'll be fine, we're not after you, we're after those nasty people in the North, the BNP etc." But why should anybody trust the Attorney General to do
Third Way Special Edition Page 20
the right thing? Huge latent power will be lying dormant, just waiting to be abused for political ends. This point is fully appreciated by such disparate groups such as the Evangelical Alliance, the British Humanist Association, the African Caribbean Evangelical Alliance which represents Black churches in Great Britain, the National Secular Society, the Evangelical Protestant Society, the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship and the Orange Order. These groups fear that their legitimate aims and methods may be criminalised by the new Bill, however well-intentioned it may be. According to the avowedly atheistic National Secular Society, the Home Office Minister Paul Goggins told them in a private meeting that part of the intention of the Bill is to make people think twice before they speak, in other words to make them censor themselves. This is surely an impediment to freedom of speech. The NSS believes that all religion is superstition and is not shy about telling the world about it. One of its bestselling Christmas cards for year was one with Mary and Joseph in the stable in Bethlehem with the motto, 'It's a girl!' Highly offensive to Christian believers but perfectly legal, so far… We wonder if the NSS will take the risk of republishing this card for the Christmas after the Bill becomes law. Christians too, could easily fall foul of the proposed law. Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, recognises this : 'The Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill will in fact and in law, curb freedom of speech about which every Christian should care passionately. Every member and minister of the Church of England should fight for this great freedom. With the proposed new offence we will see a chilling effect on how people talk about their faith in the public square and our opportunities to share the Gospel will suffer.' Many religious denominations, sects and organisations owe their origins to disputes, arguments and schisms from other older or larger bodies. While obscure to most of us, some of these points of theology are very important to the true believers. One major Christian schism, the Protestant Reformation,
began with a fundamental criticism of the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. The Evangelical Protestant Society fears that documents like the 17th century Westminster Confession of Faith, which condemns the Pope as the Antichrist, will be classed as hate literature. The Orange Order, already unpopular in government circles, also fears that it will targeted by the proposed law. The NuLab controlled Scottish Executive has already admitted that now legislation there on marches and public demonstrations are designed deliberately to tie the Orange Order up in red tape and thus reduce the annual number of parades in Scotland. How could they resist the temptation to make an example of a few Orange diehards by banging them up for seven years on an incitement to religious hatred rap? The Barnabas Fund, which works to defend the rights of persecuted Christians in Muslim countries who are often denied the right to worship at all and where apostasy from Islam carries a death sentence will find it harder to speak up for its overseas brethren. A complaint from an offended Muslim in this country could land them in court! The Religious and Racial Hatred Bill is unnecessary and may even be counterproductive. It could become a nightmare to enforce if every religious sect with an axe to grind announced that it is 'offended' by the words of another sect and demands action from the Attorney General Such a law could only increase religious tensions if one 'faith community' perceives that another is officially beyond any criticism, gaining special privileges over all the rest. Given NuLab's track record, it seems inevitable that this law is likely to be enforced in an entirely partisan manner. We should oppose this tyrannical Bill at every stage. Genuine incitement to hatred is wrong and it's already illegal. Existing legislation banning incitement to violence and other criminal acts already provides protection if enforced properly. We need to hammer this point home at every opportunity in order to retain our traditional rights and liberties.
Third Way Special Edition Page 21
Oak 1 August 23rd Rowan woke startled from sleep. Her blood petrified. It was - the still small hours; it was - the rap on the door they had, deep down perhaps, been long expecting. Oliver pushed his chair away from the dead-screened computer and bending his head through the low doorframe stepped into the kitchen. He'd been working very late and tried to brush tiredness from his eyes. Stone flagging carried his footfall to the farm's main entrance. Taking a deep breath and holding the handle of the door, asked, 'Who is it?' (As if he didn't know.) 'Open up,' came the dark reply, 'or we'll batter the door down.' 'Who is it?' Oliver repeated, with some courage. 'Police. Open Mr Holmes. Immediately. This is your last chance.' Oliver tentatively undid the catch, slowly turning the handle. The "castle gates" gave very easily. Almost as soon as he'd begun to open the door, a clutch of armoured policemen (possibly also policewomen) barged in. Oliver was pushed aside and slammed against the white plaster of the lobby's cob wall. Rowan began to descend the stairs. 'Stay back,' a lighter voice instructed. 'Stay where you are.' 'What is this, what's going on?' Rowan called. More police entered. Lights blazed outside the farm. A petite, armour clad officer, was motioned in Rowan's direction. Sprightly this officer climbed the lower stairs. A truncheon shaft exploded from its handle and was thrust towards Rowan's face. Oliver though he couldn't see, sensed what was happening. The policeman who held a truncheon at Oliver's neck kept silent - Oliver could not see the man's eyes through his dark tinted visor. Could only hear the shouting of the other officers as they barked orders through the baying pack. Rowan continued to protest but in subdued tones. 'Are you arresting me?' Oliver spat towards the alien shaped helmet. The alien did not reply. Oliver could only see his own dark reflection in the visor - the officer's body was eyeless - not of this world. The tips of Oliver's fingers tingled, and his hands shook - his tongue felt dry and as he swallowed he did so with difficulty. A few moments later Oliver witnessed his computer being carried past. Magazines, folders, office debris following. 'What are you looking for? You can't do this. I have rights…' Did the Helmet snigger? 'What is it I'm supposed to have done?' An officer carrying a pile of cardboard backed folders paused in the entrance hall. 'You and your fucking lot,' his voice began, 'are trouble-fucking-making scum. You understand? You'll be charged soon enough. We'll be taking you to the station in due course. We
Third Way Special Edition Page 22
know all about you and the kind of filth you write. Your type breeds hatred. If you know what's best - keep it buttoned.' 'Charging me? What with?' 'Public Order,' came the half reply. The officer had his visor pushed open. Oliver looked into his eyes. Their blue was metallic and cold. How was it, he thought, that this man, this stranger could hold such views upon him? How did "they" know about him? His fame had long since dried up, been wafted into the billowing clouds passing over the southwest and deposited far out to sea. He was a no-body, a family man, an animal rescuer and small-time organic farmer. And… Yet part of him relished this vitriol he was receiving - if he had been younger - if he hadn't had a wife and children…well then…Thank God Jenny was not at home. For her to see this. In their house. In their village far removed from it all. He had tried to keep her and Ben safe. But "they" had come to his house - sniffed him out. They were hunting down every dissident, it seemed. But Oliver also carried a smirk on his face - the kind of smirk teachers hate. And the officer would have liked to wipe it right off. The visor came down and Oliver's sight was blocked - his tentative bravado evaporating. 'Keys,' a voice called. Somewhere else there was the noise of glass smashing. Rowan called out but it sounded to Oliver as if she had been physically shut up. 'What are you doing to my wife?' The officer ignored him, taking the keys from another visor-clad accomplice. 'What are these for?' Oliver faltered. 'Come on,' the blank-faced officer shouted. Oliver felt confused, was thinking about his wife…He bent his head to study them and the officer whisked them away. 'Well?' 'One of the sheds outside…we keep animals, you'll disturb…please don't…' 'Outside,' the helmet shouted. The "alien" that had forced him back against the cold cob relaxed its pressure. Oliver sank down the wall glad that he was not being pinned by the truncheon. There were sounds of doors slamming and shouts from around the house. What had he actually done? What were they looking for? Perhaps they had nothing. Perhaps it was bluff and intimidation. The loose Green Alliance he was in contact with (still) - had they had trouble? There had been the recent raids on farms not so far away (but far enough) and those opposed to the Union. Thoughts raced across Oliver's mind. The officer had said something about what he wrote…was that it? And all the time he worried about Rowan but each time he called out he was quickly silenced. Thankfully the eyeless, cold, visor wearer did not force its truncheon against Oliver's throat. There was no escape. There was no peace. The mythographers were wiping out the national memory - it would only be a matter of time before England's resistance collapsed. Perhaps he was too dangerous as someone who witnessed. Recalled. Wrote things down. But that was all he was doing wasn't it? Perhaps society could and would not bear to support writers who wrote freely and against the system. But it was stories he wrote - fiction for Christ's sake. Were they now entering an age of book burning? What kind of joke was this? Oliver stood by helplessly as his office was emptied. There was his life. Diaries, notes - there was his unfinished novel, in first draft. Four years of work. Four years of snatched time from his family and farm. And there were his published
Third Way Special Edition Page 23
articles and Fables. Thinking quickly, palms sweating and head throbbing he could only imagine that his Fables were what they were after - fiction being more dangerous. But they couldn't be. Was it an offence to read alternative Green or radical political magazines? Had things got that bad? The alien kept him held back. The officer who had insulted him stepped inside again from the cold morning light. Was fact imitating fiction? Oliver thought of his Fables… 'Have you a warrant?' Oliver heard himself ask. It took all his courage to force out the question. The officer's presence almost choked the words in his throat - almost kept them lodged in his brain. The question sounded limp and pathetic. The officer nodded. 'Under the Public Order Act 2006, Section 23.' It came as a lifeless drone. 'What's that?' Oliver asked involuntarily. The officer eyed Oliver suspiciously. 'If you're charged you'll find out. Got something to hide? You want to tell us something? Or do you want the rest of your house gone through?' 'Hide?' Oliver said. Had he got something to hide? Were his Fables dangerous? Was he guilty - did he deserve what was happening? 'But has someone complained about me, something I've written?' 'You'll find out.' To the "alien" holding Oliver against the wall the officer said, 'Let him go. We've got everything we need.' The "alien" stood back a pace. Oliver crumpled forwards. At the same moment Rowan was escorted through from the kitchen. Oliver went towards her but he was stopped. Police officers came from various parts of the farm. 'Checked outside? Good.' Rowan looked at Oliver, managed to say, 'What have you done?' 'Nothing,' he said softly, 'I don't think. Nothing. Except, I wrote. I wrote…' OAK is the latest political/cultural novel by Tim Bragg (The English Dragon was published in 2001 by Athelney); it is set in the near future at a time of renewed fundamentalism and conflict. The nature of OAK the ideas contained within most likely preclude it from mainstream publishing. If you have either enjoyed The English Dragon and/or the opening chapter in this magazine and you would like to see OAK published (independently) then please send a cheque for £10 (or greater) to: TP Bragg c/o PO Box 4217, Hornchurch, Essex RM12 4PJ. For every £10 donated a copy of OAK will be sent – once published (£20 will secure two copies etc – free p&p). If the required amount of money is not reached within a year of this magazine’s publication date all money will be refunded (it is strongly hoped that this will not be the case). All those who donate will be kept informed of publication date and relevant developments. OAK as The English Dragon is a challenging and thought-provoking full length novel. (Comments on Bragg’s works can be found at www.amazon.co.uk) Tim Bragg has had many short stories published - some literary prize winners.
Judge Learned Hand Foundation
5 Gallows Place, DROMORE, Co Down BT25 1GA
“WHAT seems fair enough against a squalid huckster of bad liquor may take on a different face, if used by a government determined to suppress political opposition under the guise of sedition”. - Judge Learned Hand
THE JUDGE Learned Hand Foundation is a new educational charity. It is recognised by the Inland Revenue. It was formed to honour the famous American jurist Billings Learned Hand (the product of several family surnames) and promote civil liberties. Born in Albany, N.Y. in 1872, he received his law degree from Harvard in 1896. Hand was a judge of the U.S. District Court for New York's Southern District (1909-24) and of the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals (1924-51). He is regarded as one of the finest jurists in American history. He was noted especially as a defender of free speech. He is the author of The Spirit of Liberty, a collection of papers and addresses (1952), and of The Bill of Rights, a series of lectures (1958). Judge Learned Hand died in 1961. The objectives of the Judge Learned Hand Foundation are: The advancement of education of the public. The provision of education and training of members of the public and in particular children and young people in relation to principles of Northern Ireland, English and Scottish law, international human rights laws and issues surrounding the liberty of the individual and civil liberties. The research into issues of law and civil liberties. The Judge Learned Hand Foundation supports equal opportunities. It aims to provide a service to all people and that no one is discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, colour, nationality, disability, sexuality, age, trade union activity, religious or political beliefs. The Judge Learned Hand Foundation would be pleased to hear from those who would be able to fund our work. We would be particularly interested to hear from those who would be able to donate via Gift Aid. (Gift Aid is one of the simplest and most effective ways of giving to charity. Using Gift Aid means that for every pound you give, the charity you are supporting will receive an extra 28 pence from the Inland Revenue. This means that a £10 Gift Aid donation, is worth £12.80 to the charity - imagine what a difference that could make to the charity you support, and it doesn't cost you a thing. On top of this, higher rate taxpayers are eligible to reclaim as much as £23 from the taxman for every £100 donated to charity, by including details of their Gift Aid donations on their Self Assessment form). DONATION FORM Please fill in your name, address and contact details Title Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Other Initial(s) Surname Address Postcode Tel. no. Mobile no. E-mail address Please accept my gift of: 15 30 Other £ Postal Order
I enclose cheque OR
please charge my: Master Card
Visa
Amex
Diners Club
CAF
Switch (last 3 boxes Switch only)
Credit Card Number/Switch Number Switch Issue No. Card Start Date
(Amex and Diners only) Card Expiry Date
I am a UK tax payer and I would like the Judge Learned Hand Foundation to claim back the tax on all my donations from 6th April 2000 until further notice Signature Date