» News » Blogs

The Nazi regime which began with the language of intolerance and ended in genocide is, one could argue, reason enough for curbing freedom of speech.   And both the Islamic fundamentalist cleric, Abu Hamza, and leader of the racist BNP, Nick Griffin have found themselves in the dock accused of abusing this freedom.   But there is a significant difference between intolerant fringe fanatics and an intolerant state.

 Freedom of speech ends where incitement to commit violence against a person or group begins.  And anyone caught doing so deserves to be flung behind bars.  But in the absence of violent intent we should combat intolerant views with better and more noble ideals and not with the long arm of the law.   And the defeat of the Government’s ‘hate bill’ would suggest this is not a minority view.

As both a black woman and a British citizen, I would feel safer with the influence of  those promoting hatred  curtailed.  And my gut reaction would be to lock them up and throw away the key.   Nevertheless, the Government’s obsession with passing law as a panacea for all ills leaves me very uncomfortable indeed.  It worries and saddens me that the incumbent party, of which I am a member, believes it can legislate its way to utopia.

A lawless society cannot deliver freedom and well being for its citizens, but neither can the intolerance of freedom of speech deliver a tolerant society.  Good and noble ideas promoting justice, respect, freedom, tolerance and peace must be more powerfully and forcefully communicate than those that would seek to subvert such values.  But surely, good intentions are undermined and the battle of ideas lost when coercion, state sanctioned or otherwise, is introduced.

As the former chair of an inner-city tenants association I was keen to see the government adopt a tough approach to the serious anti-social behaviour that blighted my community.   And I still challenge those that champion the right of these individuals to liberty over the rights of a community to live in peace and security.  But when a government ceases to recognise any natural boundaries for state intervention and zero-tolerance becomes its highest ideal, it’s time we were all alarmed.  

The long arm of the law now hovers menacingly at the collar of anyone cracking a joke in bad taste.  And it has become a near crime to feel sympathy for anyone who smokes, is overweight, heterosexual, male or unthinkingly departs  from the mantra of politically correct orthodoxy.  While at the same time the finger of suspicion points accusingly at those with religious views, dark skin, claiming Incapacity Benefit and/or questioning the introduction of ID cards or trial without jury.   To say there is confusion at the heart of Government and that the ‘third way’ has lost its way would be a gross understatement.  

So, as Government now lurches from one extreme to another embracing every wind of doctrine and the array of different interest groups, it has become obvious that the New Labour dream of being all things to all men really isn’t possible.  One simply cannot serve two masters.   Or, indeed, have two Prime Ministers!

This tendency towards heavy handedness and legislation on the hoof is far from the sign of a confident government comfortable with its own philosophy.  And the erosion of freedom of speech threatens one of the most fundamental freedoms of our society, no matter how repugnant another’s views may be.  

Yes, it’s true that times have moved on and we must all adapt and change.  But we must avoid changes that chip away at the cornerstone of a tolerant society for the sake of political expediency. 

Indeed, Government might do well to take heed of the ancient proverb that says; ‘A wise woman builds her house but a fool tears it down with her own hands’.

To comment on this column contact Yvonne direct at yvonne@communitychameleon.co.uk or email us at news@24dash.com