Nice people, nasty people, offensive language and free speech!

I do understand how people find it so hard to think about allowing nasty extremist Muslims to say the most vile things about serving military who have given up a lot, suffered a lot, even died for others. I can understand why over 700,000 people have signed up to a facebook group to stop ultra-nasty Anjem Choudary and his friends parading through a town where those good people are remembered. 

I sat in court for a day this week listening to the trial of 7 Muslims -- friends and followers of Choudary, accused of saying similar nasty things last year when the Royal Anglian regiment had its homecoming parade through Luton. It didn't seem right that they could get away with it. ( Muslims 'exercising free speech' during Luton protest  and   Luton soldiers parade trial latest ). While I was there there were a lot of long legal submissions from defense arguing that it was an "abuse of process" ( a bad case as far as I understand it) and that they really had no case to answer. It boiled down in the end to the issue about the fundamental -- but not unqualified -- right to free speech. The district judge (case was far too complex for magistrates!) ruled that the case should continue, but that was as much on the basis that the issues were about legal administration, which it is not in the remit of a magistrates court to rule on. She effectively opened the way to an appeal if they defendants are convicted - which is by no means certain. 

Yesterday, Friday, the defense cases involved only two of the seven giving evidence. The report in the daily Mail is perhaps the fullest: 'Our chants weren't offensive', say Muslim protesters accused of yelling abuse at soldiers' homecoming parade. The charge is of "using threatening, abusive, insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others."  that included "Words like baby killers, murderers, killers, yes, those are my words," said Sajjadar Choudhury. The defendants stated they they did not mean to harm anyone, and that the words  "were not offensive because they were true."

Can one really believe that? I know many don't. Not offensive, not intended to offend or abuse or insult nor cause harrassment, alarm or distress, but true.  It would seem that they are so confident that they are uttering the judgement of God on sinners thats only fruit will be to bring conviction, not offense.

I was reviewing some short videos earlier from the Luton Islamic Centre who have been very active opposing extremism this year. They had a motive; many people wrongly associated their mosque with the Choudary's supporters, which is believed to have led to its firebombing in may this year. Take a look at  Luton Muslims Against Extremism  part 8 (starting about 3.50) and going on into the next few short pieces ( part9, part 10 ) Abu Qadir Bache is speaking to the issues of Muslims living in a non-Muslim land, and he points out the wrong interpretation of Islam by Anjem Choudary on the issue of getting involved in the host nation. Towards the end he touches on this issue of how they will never even consider the implications of what they do if they are speaking God's words.  Bache categorically says this is wrong, but its helpful to see where they are coming from.

We await what the judge decides to think. Will she say they have no case to answer and dismiss the case? Will she find them guilty, and if so will the case go to appeal where it will likely touch deeply on freedom of speech. Which is at the heart of the Wooton Bassett decision. What is our response when we meet people on the street shouting that sort of stuff, or when Anjem Choudary says he will march with empty coffins through Wooton Bassett? Increasingly the focus is coming on the need to allow free speech as much as we can, even when it is distasteful. 

Interestingly, BBC Radio 4's Any Questions  programme Friday night (8th Jan) was from the Baitul Futuh Mosque in Morden, London, and the panel included Sadiq Khan, the UK's Transport Minister, and there were a lot of the local Muslim believers in the audience. From among them came a beautifully posed question from Dr Mujib Khan: "The prophet Mohammed stood up as a mark of respect for the passing funeral courtege of a non Muslim.  Have some Muslims misunderstood his example?"  Sadiq Khan his fellow panellists, including Polly Toynbee, were totally dismissive of Choudary's plan, yet all made it clear that our tradition and high value for free speech should only be restricted if there was a risk of a major breakdown of law and order, and that the process for that was clear -  a police assessment of the risks following actual application to march (which has not been received yet), and on the basis of that an application to the Home Secretary. (The programme is on iPlayer for  and is about 33 minutes into the programme -- though because of the venue its worth listening to the rest, where it is evident of the positive engagement of the whole audience. It says its available until 1st Jan 2099 so no rush.)

Its not easy to listen to horrible stuff said about those who should be honoured. Yet, it seems to be the case that it is sometimes the most effective way.

Comments

[Replica Hermes Handbag]

Thanks, I'm going to have nightmares tonight.