Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Patrick Hayes

GET UPDATES FROM Patrick Hayes
 

In a Democracy, Protesters Should be Free to Burn Poppies

Posted: 11/11/11 13:48 GMT

Do I support the Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) planned 'surprise' intended to disrupt the two minute silence on Armistice Day? No. Do I support their burning of poppies while chanting "British soldiers burn in hell"? No.

I have no sympathy for this small group of attention-seeking agitators, who lack a coherent political message and seem broadly to exist to fuel contemporary fantasies about the rise of militant Islam in the UK. Should they have undertaken the protest, I would have found it completely understandable that people wanted to argue with them, tell them they are disrespecting the war dead and encourage them to move on (politely or otherwise).

However in one fell swoop the chance for this situation to have been resolved informally has been ripped out of the hands and mouths of British citizens by home secretary Theresa May, who made the quickfire decision to ban the group Muslims Against Crusades entirely as of this morning using the Terrorism Act 2000. From now on, being a member of the group, holding meetings or demonstrating support for the political group by wearing clothing or 'other articles' means you can face up to 10 years in prison. It appears that now simply planning to protest in a fashion that the home secretary deems to be unacceptable can be deemed to be a criminal act of terrorism.

Of course, this is a particularly odious group of individuals, many of whom were members of groups which have been banned before such as Islam4UK and it's understandable why - on the face of it - there isn't much sympathy for MAC and their planned disrespectful protests.

However this is not just about MAC (much as I'm sure they'd like it to be). This is instead about the fundamental democratic freedom to speak and express oneself freely, regardless of content. As John Milton demands in his seminal work on freedom of speech Areopagitica: 'Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.'

Much as those commemorating the Glorious Dead may feel that Muslims chanting "British soldiers burn in hell" during the two-minute silence is comparable to giving them - and their loved ones - a slap round the face, there is a fundamental difference: The first is speaking your mind, the other is a physical act of violence. The first is an articulation of an idea - albeit a repulsive one - the second is a result of an individual deciding to physically act upon an idea. A blurring of the two would have grave consequences for freedom of speech.

It would also be a mistake to suggest that feeling offended is in any way equivalent to being physically attacked. Increasingly now there is a tendency to value feelings above thought and emotions above ideas. Feeling offended is often put on a par with acts of physical violence. But the old adage "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" should still hold true.

We should see ourselves as resilient enough to be able to cope with words and ideas, even if they offend us. To live in an free, open and adult society, what is far more important than feeling offended is feeling free to say what you think; without fear of criminal prosecution.

This does not, of course, mean that defending freedom of speech for all entails that views people find repulsive or disrespectful should go unchallenged - it is not to encourage the relativistic view that everyone's opinion should be respected equally. We should indeed challenge those who have opinions that offend us - engage in a battle of ideas and show those articulating them and (often more importantly) the public, why they are wrong.

In casually banning them, Theresa May has snubbed out the possibility of such a battle of ideas taking place. Anyone explicitly representing Muslims Against Crusades in future faces jail. This should be something that any campaign group - including those most vehemently opposed to them, such as the English Defence League - should oppose. Who is Theresa May to decide what views the public can or can't hear? Will the EDL be next?

Many claim the greatest achievement of the war dead over the past century was to preserve freedom and democracy in Britain against forces attempting to rid the country of them. Ironically by banning Muslims Against Crusades from speaking freely, Theresa May has done more to disrespect the idea of a free, democratic Britain than a few boneheaded Muslim extremists burning poppies.

 

Follow Patrick Hayes on Twitter: www.twitter.com/P_Hayes

Do I support the Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) planned 'surprise' intended to disrupt the two minute silence on Armistice Day? No. Do I support their burning of poppies while chanting "British soldi...
Do I support the Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) planned 'surprise' intended to disrupt the two minute silence on Armistice Day? No. Do I support their burning of poppies while chanting "British soldi...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:19 PM on 11/13/2011
If we believe in a 'liberal' democracy, this must mean that we allow those that we disagree with to voice their views. It's easy to be liberal when you agree with everyone. The real test is how we respond in facing those with the most despicable beliefs and views.
In all of our Anti Nazi League confrontations with the National Front and other bovver booted racist's, we never called for them to be banned. The point is, to show your opposition and win the war of ideas. Banning this bunch of morons, just plays to the recividism of the Tory Party's 'no dissent' agenda, and that is how it should be viewed. Such freedoms as we have had in this country were long and hard fought for. They should not be handed over without a whimper of protest. That will probably be banned next:(
06:50 PM on 11/13/2011
I love what you said Patrick but I fail to agree. This was "incitement to riot". A bunch of "boneheaded Muslims " playing on feelings. In exactly the same way that many bunches of people of every colour/religion have done so in the past. They just wanted a fight...a fight that could have serious consequences. I do actually think that under the terms of "The Riot Act"...this was very appropriately banned.
06:48 PM on 11/13/2011
These muslims against crusades are nothing but a bunch of low-lifes who hate this country and hold everything it stands for with contempt. But they love to have their free houses, benefits and the freedom this country gives them. If they hate it so much p*ss of to a muslim country where you can be happy hating the west because we do not want you here. Familiarity breeds contempt and you give these people an inch and they will take a mile and we always end up pandering to them. They tolerate no one but themselves, and they call themselves tolerant people..what a joke!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Paul Kilbey
06:43 PM on 11/13/2011
It's worth reading this as a companion piece incidentally:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/patrick-hayes/if-edl-supporters-dont-have-free-speech_b_1080836.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:32 PM on 11/11/2011
It never fails to amaze me the number of people who while defending the right to free speech when it comes to Islamic rabble rousers. Have no time for the otherside of that ugly coin (The EDL, the British Nazis party and their ilk) When it comes to these idiots then its censorship all round, But when Islam is in the spotlight, then its Free speech.

Each are as bad as the other, demanding free speech for one entails allowing the other to strut their ugly stuff. Something I (And a lot of others) don't want to see. How about we treat everybody the same either we allow the nutters of this world to spread hate, or we clamp down on them so that everybody can try and live in harmony.
11:36 AM on 11/13/2011
very true !!!
09:02 PM on 11/11/2011
I don't believe the organisation itself should have been banned, as I believe in free speech, however I do agree that they should not have been permitted to protest at this particular protest. Remembrance is supported by an overwhelming majority of the adult population who also believe that this sort of obscene political thuggery is beyond the pale and not only an emotive provocation for violence but considered to be an absolute outrage in this country. By all means let them protest, but at a respectful distance from this ceremony and in a peaceful way. They claim to be representing muslims but they are bringing shame on their community, as well as breaching the peace and creating public disorder.