EDL to Demonstrate in Norwich

An EDL demonstration will be taking place in Norwich today, accompanied by a customary counter-demonstration under the now well-known "We Are" franchise created by the SWP-dominated UAF: We Are Norwich. The demo has apparently been prompted by ‘a decision by the city council, banning a Christian preacher from distributing anti-Islamic“hate-motivated” leaflets from a stall on Hay Hill.’ Given the blanket use and abuse of so-called hate-crime laws when it comes to matters of belief, it is hard to adjudge whether or not the leaflets really were “hate-motivated”, but such an allegation really ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. In all likelihood, he was just proclaiming that Christianity is the true religion, as would be the position of any Christian preacher, and probably highlighting some of the bloody and intolerant aspects of Islamic doctrine.

The ‘preacher’ in question may of course have been one of those ranting types yelling about fire and brimstone and eternal damnation for those who do not follow ‘The Lord’, but such people are best ignored rather than prosecuted. From the little information available, it seems that he is one of those types, and in line with doctrinaire Islam, enjoys inveighing against the evils of homosexuality. There is often little that differentiates literalist Old Testament ‘Christians’ from their doctrinaire Muslim equivalents, with both holding exceptionally objectionable views and making for very bad company.

Norwich, it would seem, does not possess a significant Muslim population, but the city is home to a group that calls itself the ‘Norwich Muslim Community’, which possesses its own website and claims to be some 150 strong (including children). Whereas in the bulk of our towns and cities where such a presence is in evidence the representatives of this faith originate from overseas, in Norwich, the situation is different, with the website claiming that ‘The majority are British-born converts to Islam.’ Those words – ‘British-born converts to Islam’ – always sadden me, for I cannot understand why anyone would wish to freely embrace that faith in particular, when so many others (and none) are available. Why would anyone in the full possession of his or, particularly, her mental faculties who was not of a malicious bent choose to embrace such a doctrine? Perhaps asking such a question is superfluous, for there is a strong irrational urge in many people.

Thus, having ascertained that Norwich is not home to a large Muslim population and that there are no specific problems with those who describe themselves as adherents of that faith in the city, is holding a march the best way to protest against the idiotic decision by the local council to ban a fringe Christian preacher from distributing leaflets? Perhaps it is. Then again, it might be better if the EDL were to get behind the Reform Section 5 Campaign instead. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the chosen course of action, expect a lot of people under the banner of We Are Norwich to be screaming ‘fascists!’ at the EDL today. It is only a matter of time before the reports start rolling in, with the press giving a platform only to the anti-EDL protesters. A live blog of the demo is being provided by Norwich Evening News.

 'Norwich Muslim Community': mostly Converts

Reform Section 5: why is the BBC silent?

The Reform Section 5 Campaign with its slogan ‘Feel free to insult me!’ was formally launched by Rowan Atkinson last week, but for some reason did not appear to receive any coverage from the BBC, or not at least from its website. Why did it choose not to cover this story? After all, since its introduction Section 5 has placed considerable limitations upon freedom of speech and expression and has led to the prosecution of a number of people for no good reason at all. Being a public service broadcaster which, one would think, ought to be interested in championing free expression, why was it silent?

It was therefore left to other media to cover the launch. The Week quoted Atkinson as stating:

"The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such," said Atkinson. "Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult."

Section 5 is part of the Public Order Act 1986, which outlaws the use of words, behaviour or signs that are "threatening, abusive or insulting" near a person likely to be offended by them.

Indeed, the Reform Section 5 website details a number of cases illustrating the absurdity of the law. Three of these case summaries are reproduced below detailing respectively: a man convicted for growling at two Labradors; Christian hoteliers who talked to a guest about Mohammed and Islamic dress codes, and animal rights protesters who were moved on by police because their cuddly toy seals were deemed to be ‘distressing.

Kyle Little was arrested under Section 5 for what was described as a “daft little growl” and a “woof” aimed at two Labrador dogs. Although the dog owner did not want a prosecution, Mr Little was detained for five hours and prosecuted. He was convicted and fined. On appeal Newcastle Crown Court quashed his conviction. The case cost the taxpayer £8,000.

Christian hoteliers Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were charged with breaching Section 5 for engaging in a conversation with a Muslim guest about Mohammed and Islamic dress for women. After lengthy questioning by police they were charged and later tried at Liverpool magistrates’ court. They were found innocent after a judge said their accuser’s evidence was not reliable.

Animal rights protesters were threatened with arrest and seizure of property under Section 5 for objecting to seal culling by displaying toy seals coloured with red food dye. They were told by the police that the toys were deemed distressing by two members of the public. The police then ordered the protesters to move on.

Are we then to take it that the BBC’s silence on Reform Section 5 indicates its opposition to the campaign? This would not, given the tightly controlled and stiflingly politically correct broadcasting of the corporation come as any surprise, for genuine freedom of speech and expression is not something that the BBC favours; it prefers, to borrow an ugly term from the New Labour era, for its presenters and editors to be consistently ‘on-message’, which means not upsetting its pet minority groups such as, most notably, Muslims.

Nonetheless, Reform Section 5 does seem to enjoy a broad spectrum of support, with a number of pressure groups, think tanks and politicians lending their backing to the campaign, as well as a number of celebrities, including Stephen Fry. Organisations as different in their orientation as the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society have united in their wholehearted backing of the project, but despite their vociferousness and willingness to demonstrate over a number of issues relating to freedom of speech and expression (or, more accurately, in favour of their curtailment), no Muslim organisations have declared their backing for the campaign.

The breadth of likely support in the House of Commons is illustrated by an amendment to Section 5 of the Public Order Act tabled by MP Edward Leigh in May 2011, which proposed that the word “insulting” be deleted. Although he managed to garner the support of 65 MPs (31 Conservative, 14 Labour, 11 Liberal Democrat, 6 DUP, 1 Alliance, 1 Green and 1 SDLP), it was not successful. Evidently, a little more pressure needs to be applied to MPs for this campaign to achieve its goals, but there do appear to be grounds for optimism that Section 5 will be dropped, but without of course, any help from the BBC.

The video below shows Rowan Atkinson giving his speech at the parliamentary reception launching the Reform Section 5 Campaign. 

Reform Section 5 Campaign

After many years of increasing restrictions having been placed upon freedom of thought and expression in the UK, it seems that at long last there are perhaps some indications that not only the public, but that also some prominent figures in the political and media worlds, are beginning to rail against this anti-rational stifling orthodoxy. It may be overly optimistic to state this, but there does seem to be a mood of change in the air with respect to these matters, which holds out hope for the overdue return of our right to think, write and debate unhindered by politically correct diktat.  

The recent disturbing Rochdale paedophile grooming case, in which nine men from a Pakistani Muslim background were sentenced for the systematic abuse of indigenous English girls, appears to have forced some individuals to wake up to reality, and to acknowledge that there is a genuine problem pertaining to this type of crime within this particular subset of the population. That it has hitherto been ignored because of fears relating to accusations of ‘racism’ or its so-called ‘institutional’ variant, demonstrates amply just how corrosive this enforced system of putatively ‘anti-racist’ thought and legislation has become. To have turned a blind eye to such crimes, for there have been many others of this type, is rather worse than negligent. At a bare minimum, the victims of these sadistic sexual assaults deserve to see the law changed, so that never again will concerns relating to the ostensible sensitivities of certain minorities permit crimes to go uninvestigated. It is time to show the concept of ‘institutional racism’ the red card, and to allow the forces of law and order to go about their daily work unconstrained by ideology.

Against this backdrop, it was encouraging to see a new campaign emerge this week aimed at reforming Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act. Moreover, it made a refreshing change to see a number of unnatural bedfellows combining to demand that this restriction upon free speech be ditched, for it cannot be said that The National Secular Society (NSS) and The Christian Institute are natural allies. Alongside them are ranged Conservative MP David Davis, Big Brother Watch, The Freedom Association and The Peter Tatchell Foundation. Little of course unites this disparate range of individuals and organisations, but it is heartening to see such a widespread support for free speech. The question is though, will Home Secretary Theresa May listen?

The offending element, if I may be forgiven the pun, of Section 5 outlaws “insulting words or behaviour”, the snag being of course that this is such a nebulous concept that it is wide open to abuse, and abused it has been, and very badly at that. For example, the NSS reports that ‘In 2008 a sixteen-year-old boy was arrested for peacefully holding a placard that read “Scientology is a dangerous cult”.’ David Davis has cited the example of an Oxford student arrested in 2005 for saying to a policeman “Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?” Peter Tatchell was arrested too whilst campaigning against Islamist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir for holding a placard reading ‘Hizb ut-Tahrir = clerical fascism’ which police deemed to be “insulting”. Evidently, the police on this occasion displayed more sensitivity towards a group that calls for the killing of ‘unchaste women’, Jews and homosexuals than for somebody highlighting the obscenity of this stance. Whilst not agreeing with Tatchell on a number of issues, he has made the right choice here. All of these cases highlight the absurdity and danger of Section 5 in its current form.

Insults should not be criminalized, and what is acceptable or even positive to one person is unacceptable and anathema to another. Section 5 must be reformed so that its stifling impact upon free speech is removed. I wish the campaigners well. Its site can be accessed here. David Davis gives his thoughts on Section 5 in the video below.