TERFs, trans and Anjem Choudary - 21st century blasphemy laws

“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!”

The words of Henry II are remembered because some of his knights took his exclamation of anger and frustration as a call to arms and proceeded to murder the priest in question, Thomas Becket. These words came to my mind as I pondered where we are going with laws to control 'hate speech' and, in passing, the high profile release of Anjem Choudary from jail on completion of his sentence for terrorism. A reminder of what the judge said at the time:

“The jury were sure that you knowingly crossed the line between the legitimate expression of your own views and the criminal act of inviting support for an organisation which was at the time engaged in appalling acts of terrorism.”

The important thing here is, however, that Choudary wasn't jailed for any acts of terrorism but for saying that the cause of ISIS was a good cause - he was jailed for his words not his deeds. We consider, in the manner of these things today, that his speech was hateful and sought to promote ideas that endanger the values of our civilised nation. Surely, if you believe in free speech (and think, for example, that Jeremy Corbyn promoting the cause of Hamas is OK) then you need to ask why our civilised, free nation felt it right to lock up Choudary for what he said but lets Jeremy lead the Labour Party.

The problem with wanting to deal with the case of Islamism and its promotion of violence is that it opens up the argument for reciprocity - if supporters of Tommy Robinson attack Islam in hateful terms they become 'far right' and must receive the same mistreatment as Anjem Choudary. It's only fair. So, to execute this fairness, we must believe that the threat from the 'far right' to the values of our civilised nation is as great the treat to those values from Islamism.

So far, so good. The targets are extremists of one sort or another so (at least as the 'stop hate' theorum goes) fair game. But where's the boundary? How far into conservative Islam do we go before hate becomes the expression of religious faith? And how far leftwards from the scarier parts of the 'far right' do we go before hate changes to allowable political rhetoric? It is impossible to answer these questions satisfactorily - Boris Johnson talking about letter boxes was crass and unpleasant but hardly hate speech. Or was it? Look at the debate in the Labour Party over what constitutes antisemitism - for some that party is now an institution wedded to the idea of antisemitism whereas others say instead that all Labour leaders are doing is highlighting the cause of the Palestinians. Who is right?

The problem with using laws to try and prevent hate speech is that it requires a set of what are, in effect, commandments setting out those things which are not permissible in speech. The principal of these commandments isn't enshrined in statute but is a definition agreed by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service:

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

The caveat here, of course, is that this hate crime definition requires a criminal offence before it can be invoked. And, conveniently, various laws exist that criminalise speech (Public Order Act 1986, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 are a few examples - remember Choudary was done under anti-terrorism laws) thereby allowing for the criminalising of pretty much any speech touching on matters referred to in that hate crime definition. It's this definition that has resulted in women's groups getting investigated for 'transphobia' while conducting a campaign to keep the law unchanged.

Not only is all this - the privileging of certain groups and opinions - an assault on free speech (anyone who thought it wrong to local up Count Dankula for teaching his girlfriend's pug a Nazi salute should also be worried about to jailing of Anjem Chaudary for his unpleasant, if less humorous, speech) but it also becomes a tool for bullies and mobs. Because the police (and the agencies, often private agencies for all their charitable status, they work with) encourage reporting of 'hate crime' the opportunity arises to use this as a means of closing down debate. This is what we've seen with the campaign around the current consultation on the Gender Recognition Act - loud opposing voices result in official intervention to prevent debate:

We recently received a request for a meeting to be held at Leeds Civic Hall by Women’s Place UK. Since accepting the booking, we have been made aware of further details regarding some of the views which have been raised by this group previously, which are not in line with Leeds City Council’s values on gender and equality. We have therefore decided that Leeds Civic Hall is not an appropriate venue for this event and have informed the organisers.

"...made aware of..." views - this is what we can expect as the hate speech agenda gets embedded. Because the voice of "transgender identity or perceived transgender identity" looms large in that definition (unlike being a woman), public authorities respond immediately to accusations of 'transphobia' even when such allegations are, at best, contested and, at worst, complete fiction.

All this seems a bit like a minority sport - trans versus TERFs isn't exactly mainstream in most folks' lives - but the direction of travel here is towards the further extension of hate speech interventions. The Law Commission says that hate speech definitions should encompass misogyny, ageism and perhaps even misandry. With each extension the degree to which our speech is policed becomes more and more intolerable while the mobs and bullies extend their domination of politics to the exclusion of modest, moderate and considerate voices. We will have a scripture written down in legalese by government, police, CPS and courts with hate speech being to offend against these commandments - in effect what we'll have is a 21st century blasphemy law. And it will be a blasphemy law enforced by the unholy alliance of fanatical partisans, the Calvinists of Social Justice, and public authorities keen to be seen upholding the scriptures of political correctness. Free speech will have died.

.....