Some lines should never be crossed

Having recently consulted a lawyer over a practical issue closely related to the hot-topic of Freedom of Speech, I was extremely relieved to find that I am covered by a number of fundamental protections under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR – pictured in all its splendour) and the Human Rights Act.  Under Article 10 of the former, I have a right to freedom of expression.  This means, amongst other things, that if I wish to express what I think is wrong with the world, I can express that without fear of repercussions.  It also means, thankfully, that if I consider someone else acting in a deplorable and abhorrent way, I may express my disdain of this, providing that expression is not both untrue and defamatory.

Looking at the ECHR, its articles protect me in a number of ways, not least in a right to life, liberty, security, fair trial, private life, thought, conscience and religion and to protest.  The ECHR, amongst other things, also prohibits the death penalty, torture and slavery.  The ECHR was enshrined in UK law by Labour under the Human Rights Act 1998, which the Conservatives are currently promising to repeal, should they form a government.

The rights that are afforded me under this convention are, in my humble opinion, truly wonderful, and I find it upsetting that my fellow comrades want to cherry-pick parts of it that seem convenient to their particular cause at some particular time.  We already have controls on Freedom of Speech, prescribed by law, and these have been articulately outlined in another comment.  The most recent post on this issue says “if we let the likes of the BNP spread their views to the Oxford Union they may just appear to becoming mainstream. They are not mainstream and we shouldn’t let them be.”  I concur.  But why should we do this by eroding the fundamental principles we should be protecting.

I have seen the rhetoric of “those who died in the holocaust didn’t die because their arguments were not as good,” used twice in this short debate.  It is absolutely true, but that doesn’t make it remotely relevant.  The reason over 6 million people died in the holocaust was precisely because Hitler’s regime (and for some of the time, the German people) did not observe the fundamental principles which would have prevented it.

I’d like to conclude by going slightly Lennonist (note the spelling).  Imagine, for just a moment, that rather than expend our energy in protesting against free speech when we don’t like what’s being said, we promote to the hilt the very principles espoused by the ECHR (see above), to the extent that our citizens appreciate them and we take them for granted as easily as we do our right to breathe.  Would we need to get into a paranoid frenzy over disgusting scum like Griffin and Irving?  Would we have seen the rise to Nazism in Germany in the late 20s/early 30s?  Would we have even had the circumstances which ultimately resulted in that?

I think next time we go out to fight against something, we should spend a little bit of our time considering just what we’re fighting for.