Philip Johnston
Last Updated: 8:21PM GMT 12 Feb 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html
The refusal to admit the oddball Dutch MP Geert Wilders to
Britain yesterday marks a further retreat from this country's
traditions of free speech. It stands in stark contrast to what
happened exactly 20 years ago tomorrow, when Ayatollah Khomeini of
Iran issued a fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie for
insulting the Prophet Mohammed in his book The Satanic
Verses.
In retrospect, that was a turning point in the country's history
of free speech, an event that appeared to demonstrate
indomitability, yet turned out to be a defeat. An unambiguous stand was taken on Rushdie's
behalf by the government of the day, which denounced the threat to
his life and broke off diplomatic relations with Iran. Sir Geoffrey
Howe, then foreign secretary, told the Commons: "This action is
taken in plain defence of the right within the law of freedom of
speech and the right within the law of freedom of
protest."
Despite mass book burnings, protests around the world, including
in Bolton and Bradford, and threats of violence, the work continued
to be published and sold. How could it be otherwise? This was
Britain, after all, the citadel of free speech. We would not be
brow beaten into denying the rights of one of our citizens, or
anyone else for that matter, from having their say, however
controversial or offensive their opinion might be.
Sadly, the past two decades have seen a pusillanimous flight
into cowering capitulation. We seem to have forgotten what free
speech entails, how hard it was fought for and how important it is
to defend. It is the value with which this country is most
associated throughout the world. It is why Britain has been home,
over the centuries, to so many political dissidents who would have
been persecuted elsewhere, and why those who live in autocracies
that brook no criticism tune into the BBC World Service.
They see this as a place able to accommodate opinions that are
obviously crazy, offensive or even seditious, a country where a
view can be held and expressed, provided – and this has always been
true – that it does not foment violence.
Geert Wilders is an anti-Islamist who regards the Koran as
inherently inflammatory and believes he is justified in saying so.
He has made a 17-minute film, Fitna – an Arabic word
meaning test of faith – setting out this thesis and was invited to
show it at a private screening in the House of Lords. The film can
be seen on the internet, so there is no question of stopping its
dissemination. It contains some unpleasant images of bomb
explosions, of captured hostages facing death and of chanting mobs
interlaced with passages from the Koran.
Wilders claims that these verses from the holy book of Islam are
being used today to incite modern Muslims to behave violently and
anti-democratically. You may think he is wrong to say this; you may
agree with him; you might, like the lords who invited him to
Britain, think it is something worthy of discussion, given the
obvious problems caused around the world by radical Islamism and
the violence perpetrated in the name of the religion. It is hard,
in a free country, to understand why it is a view that must be
suppressed.
What, then, possessed the
Home Office to ban Wilders – an unprecedented action against a
democratically-elected politician from a European state, who is
entitled to free movement within the EU? By any measure, it was an
extraordinary decision; yet it was not even raised in parliament,
the supposed guardian of our freedoms, though some MPs have
commented on the ban, largely to support it.
Were Wilders a terrorist
preaching violence against particular groups, it could be
understood on public order grounds. The order issued by Jacqui
Smith, the Home Secretary, read: "The Secretary of State is of the
view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and
sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of
society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements
about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film
Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and
therefore public security in the UK."
Yet what possible threat
to public security is posed by a Dutch MP showing a film, in
private, to a smattering of peers on a Thursday afternoon in
February? Of itself, the film does not call for violence against
Muslims; indeed, it suggests that Islam is a cause of violence, a
view with which you are entitled to agree or feel strongly about,
but not to prohibit.
The reason for the ban
appears to have been the possibility of protests by some Muslim
organisations against Wilders's visit. In other words, his freedom
to express a view and the liberty of peers to hear it in an
institution supposedly devoted to free speech, were set aside in
the face of intimidation – the opposite of what happened in the
Rushdie case, even if that author was forced into
hiding.
What is particularly
insidious is the application of double standards. One of those most
opposed to Wilders's visit is the Muslim peer Lord Ahmed, though he
denies allegations that he warned parliamentary authorities that
10,000 demonstrators would take to the streets. Yet two years ago,
Lord Ahmed invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh, a Palestinian previously
detained on suspicion of fundraising for groups linked to al-Qaeda,
to Westminster to meet him. When he was criticised for doing so, he
said it was his parliamentary duty to hear Rideh's complaints. He
does not appear to see any contradiction with the position he now
adopts against his fellow peers.
Had a foreign parliamentarian who disliked Christians and
considered the Bible to be inflammatory planned a visit to Britain,
does anyone imagine he would have been prevented from doing so? No,
and neither should he have been. This must work for everyone.
The arrest and possible prosecution of Rowan Laxton, a Foreign
Office diplomat, for railing at the Israeli invasion of Gaza from
his exercise bike in the gym, is the latest example of an equally
sinister development – the denunciation of opinions expressed in
private, as with Carol Thatcher's "golliwog" comments.
Free speech is about
understanding that some people hold a different view from you,
whether you like it or not. When we start to alert the
"authorities" to thought crimes we really are one step away from
the dystopian world that Orwell invented as a warning, not a
prophecy.
The Government that has treated our liberties in such a cavalier
way is having none of this, of course. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said the
film made by Wilders was "full of hate" and therefore fell foul of
British laws, though he admitted that he had not seen it and
therefore could not judge. But, in any case, is he right? Is it
against the law?
People have always been
free under the criminal law to speak their minds, provided they did
not, in doing so, incite others to commit violence or infringe
public order. Rabble-rousers trying to whip up the mob have never
been the beneficiaries of this latitude: there is, in other words,
a difference between license and liberty. However, it is necessary
to demonstrate that the words complained of are likely to stir up
hatred and public disorder, not merely to complain that they are
unpleasant or objectionable to some. Imams have been allowed to
continue preaching in mosques when it could be argued that they
have overstepped this mark, as when they have called for the death
of homosexuals or Jews.
Wilders is no advertisement for free speech. After all, he wants
the Koran to be banned. But that is not the point. It is what this
affair says about us, not him, that matters. Is Britain now
adopting a position where people who support suicide bombers and
jihad are able to make known their opinions without legal
challenge, whereas those who oppose them cannot?
The very people who in
1989 were demanding the murder of Salman Rushdie for writing a book
are today leading the charge against a Dutch MP for making a film.
The fundamental difference is that 20 years ago, the government
supported free speech; today, it has cravenly surrendered. It is
simply not good enough to say that Wilders should not be heard
because he might provoke a backlash from those who do not like him
or his views. That is not upholding the law. That is
appeasement.