BELFAST used to be one of the great industrial cities of the British Empire, sending ships, machinery and textiles to every corner of the globe. These days one of the city's main offerings to the world consists of legal test cases in which the freedom of one person or community is pitted against the sensibilities of other parties. Only a few months ago, in an internationally-watched saga, a bakery in Belfast wasobliged to pay compensation after it refused, citing religious objections, to bake a cake with the words "Support Gay Marriage".
This week a test of the definition of "hate speech" moved a step forward when Pastor James McConnell, a fiery evangelical preacher, appeared briefly in court to hear charges that he was guilty of using electronic communications to disseminate a "grossly offensive" message. The accusations arose from a sermon, also broadcast by internet, in which he described Islam as a "satanic" belief which had been "spawned in hell". Speaking on behalf of the 78-year-old evangelist, a solicitor said "we are declaring...a very candid not-guilty" and strongly defended his client's entitlement to air his opinions. The lawyer added that Mr McConnell "did not incite hatred or encourage violence against Muslims. He simply expressed his views about another religion, not in a personalised manner but in an entirely generalised way."
At an earlier stage, the prosecution service offered Mr McConnell a way out of further proceedings by suggesting that he accept an "informed warning"—but as his lawyer argued, this would have implied an acceptance of guilt, and it would have been mentioned on his criminal record for at least 12 months. If he is found guilty, the evangelist could go to jail for six months.
However he may not be alone. A London-based imam, Muhammad Al-Hussaini, has voiced strong objection to the prosecution on free-speech grounds and declared: "If Pastor McConnell is convicted and imprisoned I will go to prison with him." The imam said it was a matter of "deep dismay" that a "fellow citizen is being subjected to criminal proceedings, when at no time have any of the statements he made incited physical harm to anyone."
Britain's National Secular Society, whose declared aim is to fight religious privilege of all kinds, has also defended the pastor's right to lay out his sharp-edged doctrinal positions as long as he stops short of inciting violence. Yet another secularist voice in defence of the preacher's right to speak colourfully has been raised by Jacob Mchangama, the Danish lawyer and free-expression advocate (he prefers not to be called libertarian) whom I quoted in myprevious posting. He sees hope in the fact that an imam has spoken out in Mr McConnell's defence: "When those who are supposed to be shielded from offence defend the free speech of the "offenders", there is hope for a virtuous cycle which realigns tolerance and free speech."
Here is another bizarre feature of the pastor's case: the Belfast-based Muslim businessman who first denounced the sermon, and is expected to appear as one of the main witnesses for the prosecution is an Iraqi from Mosul who caused a furore by praising the state of affairs in his home city after its takeover by Islamic State. Raied al-Wazzan said his birthplace "had become the most peaceful city in the world" where "you can walk from east to west without fear". He later apologised and acknowledged having used "the wrong words".
Of course, anybody can use "wrong words" when discussing matters about which people feel passionately. But in what circumstances, if any, should that be a matter for prosecution? How high should the bar be set? Quite a lot of people, including the Northern Irish prosecution service, seem happy with the bar as it is: they insist that it is "in the public interest" to press charges against the fiery preacher. A disturbing number of people think the bar should be lower. But it's encouraging to find an odd coalition of people, from imams to secularists, who think it should be higher.
No comments:
Post a Comment