Free speech, even when grossly offensive, has to be defended

umbertino · January 6, 2016

Why it was wrong to prosecute an Islamophobic pastor and wrong for the Vatican newspaper to criticise Charlie Hebdo’s irreligious front cover

Wednesday 6 January 2016 15.28 GMT

By Roy Greenslade

Standing up for free speech often means defending people who say unacceptable things (as Voltaire never said).

So, asked by a BBC researcher to comment on the fact that Pastor James McConnell was cleared of charges for denouncing Islam, I said that although I found his statement distasteful I agreed with the judge.

But I wasn’t required to broadcast because the programme then found a much more relevant defender of McConnell: Muhammad Al-Hussaini, a senior fellow in Islamic studies at the Westminster Institute.

He had offered himself as a witness on the pastor’s behalf, having travelled to Belfast for the trial (thought he wasn’t called to give evidence).

After the verdict, he told the Belfast Telegraph that the acquittal represented a vindication of the defence team’s stance “in support of the academic freedom to debate religious ideas.”

Al-Hussaini said: “The fragile liberty to question and critique theological teachings is, I believe, of desperate importance at this troubled juncture of rising religiously-motivated violence and persecution.”

I don’t think there is much doubt that McConnell’s sermon at Belfast’s Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle in May 2014 was Islamophobic. He called the religion “heathen”, “satanic” and a “doctrine spawned in hell”.

But why was it felt necessary to prosecute him? And, more bizarrely, who thought it a good idea to do so under the Communications Act?

The exact charges, because his sermon could be found online, were an improper use of a public electronic communications network and causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network.

As the judge, Liam McNally, observed, it was wrong to use that law “to censor offensive utterances”, adding that the right to freedom of expression “includes the right to say things or express opinions that offend, shock or disturb the state or any section of the population.”

Yes it does, and by coincidence McNally’s verdict was delivered on the day that the Vatican’s daily newspaper stupidly criticised the French satire magazine, Charlie Hebdo, in somewhat similar terms.

Osservatore Romano argued that the magazine’s front cover, portraying God as a gun-toting terrorist, disrespected all faiths. It was a special edition published to mark the anniversary of the 7 January 2015 attack on the Paris magazine in which 12 people were murdered by two people claiming to act on behalf of Islam.

According to the papal paper, religious figures have repeatedly condemned violence in the name of God.

“Using God to justify hatred is a genuine blasphemy, as Pope Francis has said several times,” it said.

Sure he has. But that’s beside the point. Charlie Hebdo’s cover should be seen in both its historical context - because religion (including Catholicism of course) has been used as an excuse for violence - and, given the magazine’s own experience, also in contemporary terms .

The cartoonists were once again illustrating their distaste for all religion and seeing it as the cause of deep divisions among human beings, thus threatening civilisation.

The Vatican paper was wrong. Just as the prosecution of Pastor McConnell was wrong-headed. Free speech should provoke. It might offend; it might be unfair; and it could well engender prejudice. But it’s the penalty we must be prepared to pay for the right to freedom of expression.