Blasphemy versus Free Speech

Don Milligan* argues that ‘non-crime hate incidents’ function like blasphemy laws. He was speaking at the East Midlands Salon in Derby on 30 January.

The suppression of ridicule or criticism of Islam was reinforced in 2018 by the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims [APPG], when they published their report, Islamophobia Defined. Ostensibly aimed at strengthening social cohesion, this document is in fact a blasphemy law in disguise. It says: ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’.

The characterisation of Islamophobia as ‘a type of racism’ is important. Although, Islam arose in the seventh century amongst Arabs, it has not been confined to any race for at least a thousand years. So, to define ‘Islamophobia’ ‘as a type of racism’ is meant to signify how reprehensible it is.

This move by the APPG is aimed at policing criticism of Islam across the board. As Anna Soubry and Wes Streeting explained in their foreword to the report: ‘We hope our working definition will be adopted by Government, statutory agencies, [and] civil society organisations . . .’ These hopes have been realised. Their ‘working definition’ has been broadly adopted by a plethora of political parties, and local councils. Consequently, the call late last year by, Tahir Ali MP, for a new blasphemy law came as no surprise. And, he appears to have the full support of the Prime Minister.

Now, although we not had blasphemy laws since 2008, the actions of Islamists, mosque leaders, and the activities of the College of Policing, along with the work of the APPG have had a chilling effect on freedom of speech. Taken together with the development of the concept of ‘Hate Crime’, these measures have led to the widespread suppression free of speech.

In this respect the role of The College of Policing has become increasingly important. The College says that: ‘The primary role of the police is to prevent harm’.

Now, I rather naively thought that the role of the police was to prevent crime. But no, preventing harm is their “primary role”. They explain that the police have a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to eliminate discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.

This has led to the anticipation of future-crimes, which need to be prevented. The College of Policing explains: ‘An “incident” is ‘a single distinct event or occurrence which disturbs an individual, group or community’s quality of life or causes them concern’.

This gives police sanction to those who wish to suppress criticism of religion.

Quite apart from the absurdity of attempting to ban anything that might disturb, or cause concern the sinister idea or Non-Crime incidents, which must be logged and recorded, takes us into the realm of was once science fiction. In 1956 Philip K. Dick published his novella, The Minority Report. This was made into a movie in 2002; in the story “pre-crimes” are logged and prevented before the crime occurs.

Now, these pre-crimes concern race, disability, transgenderism, sexual orientation, and religion. But the role of blasphemy in this process cannot be overstated, because for most people, ‘freedom of speech’ is a political abstraction that means very little when arguments can be dismissed as ‘rudeness’.

Most people think there is no good reason for annoying and outraging people. This is particularly the case with heartfelt religious opinions which it is often said everybody should respect.

These sentiments can appear thoroughly reasonable, even, laudable. However, since the report of The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry on racism (1999), Parliament, the police, and the great-and-the-good, have constantly argued that ‘consideration should be given to upholding the fundamental right to free expression’ while they have, step-by-step, simultaneously whittled away at our freedoms.

No doubt their concern to maintain social cohesion and prevent widespread social strife has led fearful politicians of attempting to censor a better world into existence.

This has not worked and will not work.

The British state, in ordering the police to prioritise harm over crime – merging harm with hate into pre–crimes – are moving towards the destruction of democracy.

Democracy depends upon freedom of expression – freedom of speech, publication, and assembly. There is no good alternative to arguing out our disagreements in public. The suppression of opinion will merely result in spontaneous riots, outbursts, and mounting disorder.

(A parliamentary petition against Non-Crime Hate Incidents has already received over 23,000 signatures, if you are a UK citizen, please sign.)

*Dr Don Milligan is a writer and gay rights activist. His most recent book is The Embrace of Capital. He blogs at OfftheCuff.

This is a guest post. His views are his own and not those of AFAF.

(Photo Credit. Dennis Hayes)