Approaching
the consideration of offensive utterances as a matter of rights
leaves us with major problems. An editorial in The
Irish Times (Saturday, 9.1.2016)
exposes them.
In
the week Paris
marked the anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo massacre Belfast also saw
a small, welcome, not entirely unrelated, blow struck for free
speech. In both cases the casus
belli
was the disputed right to grievously offend, specifically Muslims.
Whenever
assertions of rights are made, there is often a counter assertion of
responsibilities. This appears to be absent in this case and that's a
problem.
Pastor
James McConnell (78) was acquitted on charges under the 2003
Communications Act of sending “a grossly offensive message” on
the internet in May last year, a sermon from his Pentecostal church,
the Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle, describing Islam as “satanic”
and “spawned in hell”.
The
utterances of the Pastor are regarded by his supporters as the words
of a conviction preacher. It is his conviction which impels him to
use this language. In the quotations from his remarks, replace the
word 'Islam' with 'Christianity', the word 'Muslim' with 'Christian'
and they remain offensive. Other words may be inserted to the same
effect. It might be said that the Pastor's words are, at best,
ill-considered and problematic.
….
what the pastor was being prosecuted for was his comment damning all
Muslims as untrustworthy: “People say there are good Muslims in
Britain – that may be so – but I don’t trust them”.
Unpleasant, and clearly a manifestation of prejudice, if not bigotry,
such words are akin to those of Marine Le Pen who was also cleared in
December of charges of incitement to hatred after comparing Muslim
street prayers to the Nazi occupation of France.
Human
history has many instances of people of religious and secular beliefs
speaking trenchantly and publicly, out of their convictions. A
reflection on those people will readily throw up considerations of
who benefits from such words. The Pastor is reported to have said, in
the aftermath of his acquittal that he would reconsider such words
again, not because he feels he does not have the right – the courts
have legally vindicated him – but because he might find a better
way to express his convictions. Better in the sense of being more
useful, beneficial and helpful to us all. And, from in his own
perspective, more in keeping with the divine edict to 'love they
neighbour as thyself'.
Sometimes,
necessarily, we pay for such largesse by allowing the regrettable
fanning of sectarian fires, or the right to cry fire in a crowded
room. Or speech verging on defamation.
The
assertion that sectarian strife may be a reasonable price to pay for
the right to be offensive in this manner is dangerous. The question
is begged as to who is being referred to with the word 'we' in the
quotation above. Are the sectarian fires to be 'their' problem?
But
if we are not to ban offensive speech, we are not required to offer
it a platform. Newspapers and broadcasters in a free society remain
free not to publish, and their discretion in this matter …....
readers/consumers. (It
is rightly the latter, in buying or tuning in to media outlets, who)
must make the choices which will determine how civilised debate will
be conducted. Not the courts, regulators, overzealous prosecutors,
politically-correct civil society groups, or even over-prescriptive
press councils.
The
appeal to the concept of a free society, while genuine, must be
considered in circumstances where great difference exists between
peoples, where the violence of poverty and war is an integral part of
human commerce and where inequalities cause huge problems.
Is
there a responsibility on people of conviction, in particular those
who have significant public platforms such as the Pastor, to bring a
measure of sensitivity and compassion to all utterances?
Or are we as knavish as
Hamlet says?
I am very proud,
revengeful, ambitious; with more offences at my
beck than I have
thoughts to put them in, imagination to give
them shape, or time
to act them in. What should such fellows as I
do, crawling between
earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves all;
believe none of us.
Such
fellows as I, in the throes of our arrant knavery, could usefully
consider, with sensitivity and compassion, as well as conviction, our
responsibilities in all the public utterances we make.
