It’s precisely the speech that upsets people that must be protected
This strikes us as more than a bit off:
The leader of a flag campaign group has been arrested on suspicion of causing religiously and racially aggravated harassment.
Ryan Bridge is the co-founder of Raise the Colours, which has put up hundreds of union and Saint George flags across England and attracted criticism for spreading anti-immigrant rhetoric. He was arrested on Tuesday and released on police bail the following day.
Now, yes, we’re aware that we British don’t, traditionally, do this. As with not bothering to put the name of the country on the stamps, it’s every J Foreigner that has to in order to distinguish themselves from us. The proper function of the Union Jack is to point out to some place where Foreign, J, resides that the Navy - just Royal, thanks, The, no need to define further - has arrived and wishes to have a chat. To put it in the terms of 1066 and all that.
And yet:
In a video posted on Facebook after his release, Bridge said: “I’ve just been let out – 18-and-a-half hours for a public order section 5 causing people alarm and distress. The world’s gone mad.
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
Which is to very much miss the point. It’s the very speech no one wishes to hear that has to be protected:
As the academic Adam Tomkins, who is the John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow, has highlighted - there are a number of cases in the last 12 months that demonstrate how poorly drafted laws and being poorly enforced. Whilst the cases of Allison Pearson, Lucy Connolly, Graham Lineham, and Palestine Action all differ, each highlights the same problem: we have failed to uphold freedom of speech, even for those whose speech we may find offensive, repugnant, or, to us, dangerous. There should be no right to protect us from offence, yet, the law thinks otherwise.
There are many Americans who - quite righteously - find the burning of that nation’s flag to be offensive, even repugnant. Yet the Supreme Court has insisted that people are indeed free to do so. Because it’s precisely the speech which people find offensive, repugnant, that must be protected. For there’s no point in mithers about free speech if it doesn’t include what people don’t want to hear, don’t want to have said.
It’s also possible to be a bit more basic, base even, about this. It’s an offence to fly the flag of the country you’re in. Yer Wha’?
Tim Worstall