Hate speakers are not human rights' champions
- Caitlin Ridgway
- Aug 15, 2018
- 4 min read
We need to stop providing platforms to extremists under the guise of free speech. If the alt-right believe so passionately in civil liberties they should start by changing their own hateful, bigoted ideology.
At the start of the month social media hummed with the sound of celebration. Ecstatic tweets decrying victory for freedom of speech, posts being furiously shared and liked on Facebook, and unusual trending lists. The cause? The release of hate speaker and veteran football hooligan Tommy Robinson.
Having been arrested for “breaching the peace” in May this year when live-streaming his confrontation of defendants at an ongoing grooming trial, Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) was convicted of contempt of court and breaching the terms of a previous suspended sentence.
His arrest and subsequent incarceration led to mass outcry. #FreeTommy protests took place across the UK, and the usual alt-right darlings Katie Hopkins (who called for “a final solution” in response to Manchester bombing in 2017) and Geert Wilders (leader of the Dutch right-wing populist Party for Freedom) called for his immediate release. This fanbase should tell you all you need to know about Robinson and the ideology he promotes.
But was their outrage justified?
Although Robinson’s conviction has been quashed and a retrial ordered, the details of his original sentencing show that there were clear grounds for his arrest in UK law. According to gov.uk, contempt of court - the charge brought against Robinson - can be legally defined as “an act or omission calculated to interfere with the administration of justice”. Publication contempt includes breaking reporting restrictions on ongoing cases, such as Robinson’s livestream which was viewed by over 250,000 people.
This breach had the potential to derail the entire trial by prejudicing the jury, and thus prevented achieving justice for the victims he claimed to be supporting through his actions. But he must have been aware of this fact; the additional three month sentence he received was from a previous conviction of contempt of court in May 2017, where he was given a suspended sentence on the condition that he didn’t break the law within the next eighteen months. Clearly this proved too much for him, and was sentenced after admitting the charges.
Yet what is most baffling about the case is the defence - and often celebration - of Robinson’s actions with the notion of free speech and human rights. In his first interview post-release on Fox News, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson said that Robinson’s arrest was due to him expressing “unfashionable opinions in public”. The choice of words would suggest he wants to bring back racism and islamophobia like they are some sort of forgotten trend, and are devoid of legal fact. Throughout the conversation Carlson took this further, stressing that the whole affair was an attack by the UK government on freedom of expression. Perhaps unsurprising, as he regularly condemns the “liberal elite” (which is somewhat undermined by his privileged, private school background) and laments at how they are relentlessly attacking civil liberties. Thank goodness! In this ever-darkening world, thank goodness we have the alt-right to champion our fundamental rights! It almost seemed that hope was lost and we would be crushed by the weight of liberal oppression! Except yet again, the contradiction is embarrassingly plain for all to see. Alt-right figures aggressively call for free speech and complain of violations of their human rights yet seem to know precious little about them.
They may be shocked to discover that not only are there other human rights (the UK’s Human Rights Act protects the 14 articles and separate protocols enshrined in the ECHR, for example), but that with rights come responsibilities. Article 10 of the European Convention and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) both give the right to freedom of opinion and expression - a right which is undeniably integral to a prosperous, fair, democratic society. However both documents agree that this right has restrictions if it will hinder the human rights of another individual.
Tommy Robinson has no respect for the human rights of Muslims he has repeatedly incited hatred against, implying that they are “enemies” of our country.
Geert Wilders had no respect for the right of Muslims to practice their own religion without discrimination when announcing his prophet Mohammed cartoon competition.
Katie Hopkins had no respect for the right of refugees journeying across the Mediterranean to seek asylum (that’s article 14 of the UDHR) who she compared to “cockroaches”.
Even their staunch opposition to censorship is hollow, with far-right activists damaging books at the socialist bookshop Bookmarks in London on Sunday - a staple of past totalitarian regimes and dystopian novels. The alt-right’s attitude is so riddled with hypocrisy it is bordering ridiculous, but the consequences are too bleak to be comical.
The number of white terror suspects arrested rose by 77% last year - the largest increase of all ethnic groups. Darren Osborne, who was responsible for the Finsbury Park terror attack against Muslim worshippers and killing Makram Ali, was radicalised after engaging with far-right material, including Robinson’s Facebook posts. Protesters feel emboldened to take their vitriolic opinions out onto the streets, seen in its most extreme form in the violent clashes resulting in the death of a counter-protester in Charlottesville last year.
Providing platforms for these people to preach their hate has cost, and is costing, innocent lives. Freedom of expression is deeply important to a just society, and it is legitimate to openly discuss and critique all religious and political ideologies in an educated, respectful manner. But the hatred incited by the likes of Robinson in the name of free speech is not merely an “unfashionable” viewpoint amongst healthy debate. It is divisive, self-serving, and, for the interests of national security, should not be given a hearing.
Comments