We have been hearing a lot lately about section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 and with good reason. When the law gets involved in the application of this Act and imposes sentences of imprisonment over petty, juvenile, online postings and with accused railroaded into pleading guilty, then it is time to wake up and think hard about what is being done by the State allegedly in our name.
Our agitation is exclusively with Section 19(1) of the Act which is about publishing and distributing written material, the sort of thing people write online many millions of times a day like we're doing here. It is nothing at all to do with yobbos throwing stones and flares at Police during riots such as happened at Southport. Sentences in such cases of rioting must always be severe, 10 years and upwards with no quarter given in our view.
Scction 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 states that 'a person who publishes and distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if (a) he intends to stir up racial hatred or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby'. The operative words are, of course, 'if he intends to stir up racial hatred' and 'racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby'.
'Racial hatred' under the Act is defined as 'hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins'. What on earth does that mean? What is hatred? What's the difference between hatred, aversion, detestation, loathing, dislike and disapproval? Is there anyone in this world who can tell us? Why does it have to be hatred in law? Would two people form a 'group of persons'?
So, if we, for whatever reason, suddenly take strongly against, say, the Italian football team and post online rantings venting our view, could we expect seven years in the slammer? Or what if we railed against the present-day remnants of what was once Nazi Germany? And what if we ranted and railed what some might consider to be home truths against both the current Russian Government and the Israeli Government? And what do the terms 'abusive' and 'insulting' mean anyway? And what if the content of such material is true, could that be abusive or insulting?
And how in this world can anyone, including the most erudite of judges, adjudicate rationally, sanely and sensibly on the words 'likely to be stirred up'? He simply cannot. He's speculating - the one thing a judge must never do - and he doesn't have a crystal ball either. It's pie in the sky stuff. And what, by the way, is 'stir up'? Is it like stirring a pot of soup? And, while we're at it, what is this crazy word called 'colour'? Does it include mixed race, a sort of half-colour, a quarter-colour, or what?
Does anyone in this country, the Government and Crown Prosecutors apart, think this is good law?
Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 is a headbanger piece of legislation that must be repealed and replaced with legislation that makes sense and looks at every situation objectively, rationally, calmly and through the lenses of ordinary, everyday people with no axe to grind - a jury, in other words. It must never be left to be carved up between Crown Prosecutors and the Judiciary alone. No wonder Americans, with their innate sense of freedom of speech, are taking a keen interest in what is happening in this country.
The Police have infinitely more important things they should be getting on with - such as patrolling the streets and investigating crime - than trawling the internet for infantile postings. But, with the dreadful calibre of senior officer we have nowadays - where facial stubble is an almost-statutory requirement for the job - don't hold your breath for any improvement.
Maybe George Orwell's 1984 is not so far away after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment