Price of Freedom part II: Jedi Jamie gets it wrong
Introducing his maiden speech, Copeland's new MP Jamie Reed described himself as the first Jedi member of parliament. Not surprisingly, the response to this in the Cumbrian newspapers drowned out everything else he said - and "May the Farce be with you" pretty well summed up the general reaction.
However, this was not the most important thing about his speech. A few weeks ago, candidate Jamie Reed was asked his views about the Racial and Religous hatred bill which had been put forward in the last parliament. In one of his most intelligent contributions to the election debate, and one of very few in which he went even slightly off-message, Jamie expressed his reservations about the bil and said it was a good thing it had been dropped.
After the election the bill was brought back, zombie like from the grave and two weeks ago in my post "Local hospitals and the price of freedom", I expressed the hope that Jamie Reed would have the courage of his convictions and vote against it. No - his maiden speech which got plenty of adverse publicity for his silly Jedi joke deserved far worse criticism because it gave uncritical support for a bill which he had said during the election a few weeks before that he disagreed with.
It is worth emphasising that those like myself who oppose the bill in its present form are not advocating a policy of ignoring those who whip up hatred. Lord Lester of Herne Hill proposed am amendment which would extend the provisions of existing laws against incitement to racial hatred to catch those who use religion as a proxy for race. The Lester amendment also includes the following clause as an essential protection to ensure that the bill is not used to attack free speech:
"Nothing in Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents, or of any other belief system or its adherents, or proselytizing one's own religion or belief system or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising theirs."
This clause would ensure that the bill could only be used to prosecute those who make extreme comments of the kind which may whip up violence, but could not be used to prosecute who merely expresses a different opinion.
During the debate - which can be found in Hansard for 21st June, and which I strongly urge anyone with an interest in Civil Liberties or Race Relations to read - opponents of the bill as currently drafted repeatedly asked ministers to provide a single example of behaviour which the bill would make it possible to prosecute but which is legal under existing law. Most government speakers ducked this question, and the only example which was produced would, in my humble opinion and that of people who know far more about the law than I do, be an open and shut case for prosecution under existing law for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.
In the 18th century a system of censorship of the theatre was introduced in Britain which was intended only to affect those plays which went right over the top. It was applied in a heavy-handed manner against rubbish and masterpiece alike for two centuries. If anything like that happens to this bill, it will have a disastrous effect on free speech. If, however, the bill is applied in a moderate and reasonable manner, there will be hardly any prosecutions and members of faith communities will conclude that the law has failed to protect them.
I hope that the government sees sense and accepts the Lester amendment to this bill. If they don't I hope Jedi Jamie recovers the courage to stand up for the position he took in front of the voters of Copeland, and oppose the bill in its present form.
However, this was not the most important thing about his speech. A few weeks ago, candidate Jamie Reed was asked his views about the Racial and Religous hatred bill which had been put forward in the last parliament. In one of his most intelligent contributions to the election debate, and one of very few in which he went even slightly off-message, Jamie expressed his reservations about the bil and said it was a good thing it had been dropped.
After the election the bill was brought back, zombie like from the grave and two weeks ago in my post "Local hospitals and the price of freedom", I expressed the hope that Jamie Reed would have the courage of his convictions and vote against it. No - his maiden speech which got plenty of adverse publicity for his silly Jedi joke deserved far worse criticism because it gave uncritical support for a bill which he had said during the election a few weeks before that he disagreed with.
It is worth emphasising that those like myself who oppose the bill in its present form are not advocating a policy of ignoring those who whip up hatred. Lord Lester of Herne Hill proposed am amendment which would extend the provisions of existing laws against incitement to racial hatred to catch those who use religion as a proxy for race. The Lester amendment also includes the following clause as an essential protection to ensure that the bill is not used to attack free speech:
"Nothing in Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents, or of any other belief system or its adherents, or proselytizing one's own religion or belief system or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising theirs."
This clause would ensure that the bill could only be used to prosecute those who make extreme comments of the kind which may whip up violence, but could not be used to prosecute who merely expresses a different opinion.
During the debate - which can be found in Hansard for 21st June, and which I strongly urge anyone with an interest in Civil Liberties or Race Relations to read - opponents of the bill as currently drafted repeatedly asked ministers to provide a single example of behaviour which the bill would make it possible to prosecute but which is legal under existing law. Most government speakers ducked this question, and the only example which was produced would, in my humble opinion and that of people who know far more about the law than I do, be an open and shut case for prosecution under existing law for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.
In the 18th century a system of censorship of the theatre was introduced in Britain which was intended only to affect those plays which went right over the top. It was applied in a heavy-handed manner against rubbish and masterpiece alike for two centuries. If anything like that happens to this bill, it will have a disastrous effect on free speech. If, however, the bill is applied in a moderate and reasonable manner, there will be hardly any prosecutions and members of faith communities will conclude that the law has failed to protect them.
I hope that the government sees sense and accepts the Lester amendment to this bill. If they don't I hope Jedi Jamie recovers the courage to stand up for the position he took in front of the voters of Copeland, and oppose the bill in its present form.
Comments