FREE SPEECH IS NOW CLEARLY A CLASS ISSUE

There was a an eminent barrister (George Thomas) discussing the Riot trials, in the Free Speech Union webinar mentioned in my previous piece (FREE SPEECH AFTER THE RIOTS). He’s an expert on police law and especially experienced in public order policing.

As ever with lawyers, he got into technicalities very quickly. That’s not a criticism. He’s a legal professional and wasn’t there to emote. Thomas stressed that context was vital in understanding the harsh sentences, which were at the upper end of what’s usual. To my ears, he was saying that the courts were sentencing people for taking part in a working-class uprising that was seen - and feared - to be spreading quickly. There was a background terror of 'the mob' - a frequent worry throughout English history - an unstated but common dread within the middle classes. Not in itself without reason, given how the madness of crowds can become deadly if violent.

He alluded to how some European countries would have used lethal force and NOT been in breach of any human rights conventions. He wasn't approving of this, but he firmly reminded us that the first sworn duty of the police is to uphold the King’s peace. Nevertheless, I felt uneasy with the broad approach he was explaining and not really criticising, especially as the King’s peace wasn’t upheld in the Leeds or Birmingham riots nor on numerous pro-Hamas marches in London, nor were there courts sitting 24/7 to send a message.

Perhaps that’s unfair: he was giving an expert opinion. But Thomas’s explanation for any incorrect perception of two-tier policing around Islamic protesters was decidedly odd. He said that, if there was a difference (which he rejected), it was likely due to the history of right-wing thuggery from earlier years. I assume he was referencing skinhead yobbery, down the years. But isn’t that accepting that there is two-tier policing, by providing a justification?

There was, to me, a sense that being anywhere near these ‘white riots’ (ref The Clash) was especially beyond the pale, period. And that speech should be criminal, if it could in any way be seen to contribute to them, wherever done and however vaguely. There was also the sense that, under direct government instruction, legal niceties were swept aside, in the interests of quelling things. Of course, no one at the Free Speech Union would approve of this. But I’d worry that, from the overwhelmingly middle-class atmosphere and approach, it seems less remarkable than ‘easier’ attacks on free speech, say at a university or in the media.

Spiked's Tom Slater clearly saw this; the free-speech rights of 'thugs' or 'racists' are just as important, regardless of how distasteful such people seem. I'd argue that their rights to free speech may be more vital. After all, 'thugs' are being called this because they're inherently violent. The only way to address that, long term, is through free speech replacing violence. Yes, some people will still need locking up - but it can't be done by tarring through association nor to make an example. It has to be for actions not words. It’s understandable that the FSU takes extreme care about being tinged by association with genuine racists and right wing thugs, but that inevitably means it isn’t fully reflecting the free speech crisis. Possibly that’s an unfortunate but necessary compromise, because the FSU has done brilliantly to make this issue so prominent in public discussion - and I personally have a lot to thank them for.

And maybe it’s my take alone. Still, I can’t help seeing the splits in the free speech 'community'. As ever in this country, they're class based…