Following on from my previous post on the blasphemy law in Ireland, and building upon the recent events in the UK of Anjem Choudary’s now banned group Islam4UK’s threatened march through Wooton Bassett. I start to wonder how important is free speech to us in actuality? Is it only when peoples free speech doesn’t our own individual boundaries, that it somehow becomes okay? It seems the more one looks around, one realises that free speech isn’t quite as free as anyone thought it was, certainly not in Europe anyway. I sometimes ask myself what really happened to that which Voltaire talked about all those centuries ago:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

I soon realise that not many of us actually believe in this sentiment any more. Freedom of speech, is not important only because it allows us to express ourselves as we will. There is also a special quality involved in it at it allows for the people to be able to challenge speech, and to hold our brethren responsible for what they say, it allows for us to challenge what people say openly rather than the police or the State restricting what people say. This makes people far more responsible, and far more accountable for what they say than if they were merely restricted  from saying it in the first place. People have to think if it is wise to say what they are going to say at all with an intelligent and discerning public ready to challenge them in a Socratic means. There is not much more important to me about the functioning of society than this common freedom without the freedom to share views as Christian figures such as Paul the Apostle did in Athens questioning the belief system of the Greeks in order to introduce them to the concept of the Judeo-Christian God in the passage below Acts 17:22-34 (ESV):

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.  The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.  And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,  for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.  The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

A typical example of Paul culturally interfacing with the views of the Greeks, and the viewpoint of the unknown God. Allowing Paul to open to suggest that God indeed can be known to a certain degree and the Israelites have engaged on this walk for centuries. The point is, Christianity as we know it would have never had the opportunity to be if it weren’t for a free speech society or at least a society that allowed for enough free speech to work in.

One of my favourite documents that ensures free speech is the US Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which ensures both the right to free speech, and freedom of assembly, something which has ensured the common rights of the people the US to speak as they will in public for centuries. The text of this amendment being as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One starts to notice on assessment how deficient the British law is if one is to argue for banning a group with views that many people find detestable (Islam4UK and Anjem Choudary), but the key question to be asked is this, is the burden on the person not to offend others, or is the burden on the hearers to control their offence in a mature fashion. I would consider it the latter. I don’t think there is any place in a society that honours free speech genuinely to regard there being a right not to be offended.

Even on assessing current Irish law, one soon starts to notice how deficient it is in enshrining the right to free speech over the rights of others not to be offended. The law I will be quoting from is the Public Order Act of 1994.  I will be looking through sections 5 to 8 of this legislation. It’s highly important to anyone who will be participating in any public demonstration or any other outdoor event to promote ones views in the Irish Republic.

Section 8 regards complying to the orders of a member of the Garda Síochána when they ask you to move along from a public place if they deem you to be in violation of sections 4,5,6,7, or 9. Section 4 deals with Intoxication in Public Places, but that isn’t the main focus of what we are discussing here. Section 5 deals with disorderly conduct, Section 6 with threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, and Section 7 with Distribution or Display in public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene.

Section 5 says it is an offence to engage in offensive conduct between 12 midnight and 7 in the morning or at any other time having being requested by a member of the Gardaí to desist. Failure to do so will result in prosecution and a fine up to £500 Irish pounds (€634). What is important about this is what is considered to be offensive. Section 5 part 3 defines offence as follows:

In this section “offensive conduct” means any unreasonable behaviour which, having regard to all the circumstances, is likely to cause serious offence or serious annoyance to any person who is, or might reasonably be expected to be, aware of such behaviour.

Offence isn’t defined by an objective third party, but it is made clear precisely by the very notion that someone has been offended by what you have said. This warrants a call to movement by the Gardaí and failure to do so is an offence punishable by law.

Section 6 goes on in a similar fashion. If anyone engages in threatening, abusive, or insulting words with intent to breach the peace or being reckless to the degree of a breach of peace, the penalty will be either imprisonment for a term of up to three months or a fine of up to £500 Irish pounds (€634) or both.

Section 7 dealing with the display, or distribution of material in public states that if anyone distributes or displays in writing any material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with the intent to breach the peace or being reckless as to whether or not a breach of the peace can be occasioned, they will be liable to imprisonment for a term up to three mounts, or a fine of up to £500 Irish points (€634) or both.

Where is our free speech do you ask? The answer is that we do not have any. Speech if it is to be permitted is subject to complaint, and if such complaint is received, and if you have received notice from a member of the Garda Síochána to do so, you must do so. Your freedom to share your view, and that of others to challenge it isn’t welcome, particularly if it can be perceived to be a “breach of the peace”. This leads me to regard the current Irish law as being ineffective. If one is to argue that something is offensive, this cannot be merely based on the word of one person, but it must be based on some other standard. If this isn’t the case, all it means is that whenever someone regards anything that anyone says in public to be offensive, that the law will automatically pander to the one who is holding such “offence”. Is this really right?

I personally don’t think so, particularly if we are going to agree with Voltaires quote about the value of free speech in our society, but perhaps that is the bias of the university student seeping in. Please let me know what you think on this one. If you are reading from Facebook, my blog is at www.gpeoples.net.