lord of the blog

« Dunfermline and West Fife byelection | Main | Responses »

Friday, February 10, 2006

Baroness Jill Knight introduced the attached debate on freedom of speech. I knew her when she was an MP and only she could get underage sex and teachers being able to cuddle kids into a speech on freedom of speech - her ingenuity knows no bounds!

The link is to my contribution where I failed to mention sex. Sorry!

Lord Soley: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing the debate, although I suspect that the agenda might have moved on a little from what she had in mind when she originally tabled the Motion.

I do not share her rather dismal view of the present situation or that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, not least because freedom of expression flows deep in all types of British veins—we ought to be proud of that—and also because I have seen many arguments over individual issues come and go. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, will recall that when she was a Member of the then government party in the House of Commons and I was on the Opposition Benches, she strongly defended the banning of Sinn Fein from appearing on any radio or TV station anywhere. That was the first time that we had banned the elected representatives of a political party from appearing in the press.

I remember the miners being summoned and arrested for selling copies of the Miner for precisely the same reason, incidentally, as the lady in Downing Street—because there were rules about getting police permission before doing so. I have reservations about that, but that was done for that reason. I simply say—I shall give way to the noble Baroness, if she wishes me to—that such issues come and go, and we can and do deal with them in both Houses of Parliament. That is not the fundamental problem that is challenging us today. That is what I should like to move on to, but I happily give way.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, were the noble Baroness to intervene now, there would be no time for her to say anything at the end of the debate.

Lord Soley: I thought I was going to get injury time, my Lords.

Religious leaders are leaning over backwards to try to build bridges, but something very important has happened over the past 10 or 15 years. I do not accept the idea of a change of climate so much as a radical shift from a clash between political ideologies—communism on one side, led by China and the USSR, as it was, and on the other western Europe and the United States—to a clash between religious belief systems. These ideologies—they are both forms of ideology to me as a non-religious person—produce an intense belief that people are prepared to fight for and die for. Religious wars are no better than political wars if you get into that ideological struggle. It has been one of my arguments for some time that, when a political ideology declines, a religious ideology often emerges to replace it, and vice versa. There is a lot of evidence for that in various parts of the world at various times.

In the present climate—my noble friend Lord Dubs was right about this—we have to defend freedom of speech very powerfully. That does not mean that you exercise it without thought and consideration for other

9 Feb 2006 : Column 856

people. I have the freedom to make faces at my neighbour; I do not do it—it would not be sensible to do it. Similarly, if you are going to exercise freedom of speech, you have to ask yourself about the way in which it will impact on the people who may suffer from its consequences.

I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said. He is absolutely right: there were many examples of slight erosions, as they were regarded, of freedom of speech many years ago. That is why I say that it is not new, aside from the ideological clash. In the 1940s particularly, a real problem with freedom of speech was that, if you were from an ethnic minority, you had to suffer abuse—real abuse. The noble Lord talked about being politically correct, but the laws were introduced to protect a minority. Of course, you can define a democracy as the majority will, but if you ignore the rights of the minority, you have a very poor democracy, and I think that that is part of the equation.

If I am right about the clash of religions, it is important that we in the West understand that the argument is largely within Islam. It has to be within Islam. We can talk about what we would like, but in a real sense there is a struggle within Islam, a struggle over modernisation. My strong belief is that the modernisers will win. The vast bulk of Muslim opinion is strongly in favour of freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of belief, democracy and the rest. If we recognise that, we recognise something important.

The other part of the problem has to do with two events in the past week or so that have made the noble Baroness's debate so important. On one hand, there was the provocation by a group of extremist Islamists carrying placards urging the killing of other people and so on. On the other hand, Nick Griffin of the BNP walked out of court saying that Britain was like Bosnia. Britain will be like Bosnia only if the extremists of that Islamic group or of the BNP actually win. It is our job—our duty—to make sure that they do not.

The police probably did the right thing in not arresting the people carrying placards last week, but I very much hope that they follow this up. There is profound danger if we allow things like that, which provoke the rest of the population and open up the divide on race and religion again. That is what produces real danger for all of us and poses a real danger to freedom of speech, not some of the lesser issues that we can deal with in the normal course of events.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60209-24.htm

Lord Giddens seems to be defending the absurd, but somewhat understandable holocaust denial laws in cerain European countries as a kind of modern blasphemy law.

Denying that the holocaust occured as a historical event is a sure sign that one has the intellectual capacity of a rather prejudiced roast potato, but I continue to find the fact that it is illegal to express certain opinions offensive.

I think Baroness Knight is profoundly wrong. The struggle within Islam is not about "modernisation". The Islamic world was more "modern" and enlightened than Europe when it was in its Dark Ages. While the British and French were chucking spears at each other, the Islamic world was building libraries and advancing mathematics. In fact, early forms of Islam were more flexible and tolerant than the forms advocated by fundamentalists. Knight's claim that this struggle is about modernity betrays extreme ignorance and prejudice about Islam and its history - as if older forms of Islam or Islamic tradition was incompatible with modern society.

One can say that the politicisation of Islam - whether radical or liberal - is a response to the challenges of modernity. But even then, it is not a debate within Islamic society for many Muslims are not politicised - British Muslims have only recently become aware of their political importance and largely in response to the events following 9/11. Apart from the Rushdie affair, Islam was a matter of private worship for British Muslims and it was only the fringe radicals that bothered with debates about Islam's role in the world. Now all Muslims are being challenged to respond and the debate has broadened out. And most Muslims in the West appear to have chosen to work within secular institutions to assert their voices. But I hope that their engagement with democratic processes also prompts some introspection among Muslims about Islamic values and democracy, the prejudices within the Muslim community and the ability to tolerate criticism. I also hope that non-Muslims welcome Muslims as part of their communities instead of continually forcing them to be continually on the defensive, which will no doubt fuel fanaticism that so far has a minority following.

Muslims should consider the fact that while events get forgotten, the effects of the furore surrounding them can linger. They should perhaps be reassured that the prejudiced opinions voiced by Robert Killjoy-Smooth ("Arabs are limb amputators and women oppressors") are now secondary to the man's demise. His words now look foolish to everyone because the man is evidently a fool.