Luton Islamist protest - Trial verdict is dangerous
Convictions violate free speech and right to protest
London – 12 January 2010
“The conviction of these five men is a dangerous infringement of free speech and the right to protest,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
He was commenting on the guilty verdicts yesterday (11 January) against five Muslim men who protested at a home-coming parade by soldiers from the Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton in March 2009.
Five defendants were convicted under the Public Order Act of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
“I abhor everything they stand for, but defend their right to freedom of expression. Even though what they said was offensive to many people, their right to speak their mind is one of the hallmarks of a democratic society,” added Mr Tatchell.
“They want to destroy our democracy and freedoms. I want to defend these values. If we silence and criminalise their views, we are little better than them.
“Judge Carolyn Mellanby was wrong to rule that the people of Luton have a right to be protected against words they find insulting. There is no right to not be offended, since almost any idea can be offensive to someone. Many of the greatest thinkers in history have caused insult and offence, including Galileo Galilei and Charles Darwin.
“The five convicted Islamists would like to censor us and put us on trial. We should not stoop to their level of intolerance.
“Democracy is superior to their proposed theocratic state and we need to prove it by demonstrating that we allow objectionable opinions and contest them by debate, not by repression and censorship.
“I strongly disagree with these men and their fundamentalist religion. They seek to establish an Islamist dictatorship in the UK.
“I reject the hatred and religious tyranny they espouse. They oppose women’s rights, gay equality, people of other faiths and Muslims who do not conform to their hard-line interpretation of Islam.
“But I defend their right to express their opinions, even though they are offensive and distressing to many people.
“Insult and offence are not sufficient grounds in a democratic society to criminalise words and actions.
“The criminalisation of insulting, abusive or offensive speech is wrong. The only words that should be criminalised are untrue defamations and threats of violence, such as falsely branding someone as a paedophile or inciting murder.
“Some sections of the Public Order Act inhibit the right to free speech and the right to protest. They should be repealed.
“Just as I defended the right to free speech of the Christian homophobe Harry Hammond, and opposed his conviction in 2002 for insulting the gay community, so I also defend the right of these Islamic fundamentalists to make their views heard, providing they don’t incite violence.
“The best way to respond to such fanatics is expose and refute their hateful, bigoted opinions.
“Rational argument is more effective and ethical than using an authoritarian law to censor and suppress them,” said Mr Tatchell.
See this BBC news report on the guilty verdicts:
Click here to return to the Civil Liberties Index