What happens under "hate speech" laws: UK election candidate arrested for quoting Churchill

[Nye Bevan]

A candidate in the South East European elections has been arrested after making a speech quoting from a book by Winston Churchill about Islam.

Paul Weston, chairman of Liberty GB, was making the speech on the steps of Winchester Guildhall in Hampshire on Saturday after a passer-by complained. He was detained after failing to comply with a request by police to move on under the powers of a dispersal order. He was further arrested on suspicion of religious or racial harassment.

......

"Reportedly, a woman came out of the Guildhall and asked Mr Weston if he had the authorisation to make this speech. "When he answered that he didn't, she told him: 'It's disgusting', and then called the police. "Six or seven officers arrived. They talked with the people standing nearby, asking questions about what had happened. The police had a long discussion with Mr Weston, lasting about 40 minutes. At about 3pm he was arrested. They searched him, put him in a police van and took him away.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-27186573

The "dispersal" charges were quickly dropped; the only pending charge is for "religious/racial harrassment".

I'm not defending the content of this guy's speech, but to have an election candidate arrested, bundled into a police van and driven away because someone found his speech offensive is just mind-boggling to me. But then again I am used to having a First Amendment.

[Jake Stern]

1. The Human Rights Tribunal in Canada awarded a person

thousands of dollars for, among other things, "hurt feelings".

Can't make this stuff up.

[alp227]

61. Shiv Chopra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Chopra

In September 2008, Human Rights Tribunal (HRT) adjudicator Pierre Deschamps ruled that Chopra was entitled to $4,000 in damages for "hurt feelings," lost wages, and interest after finding that Chopra was subjected to discriminatory comments, was suspended in retaliation for filing an earlier human rights complaint, and was discriminated against when passed over for a temporary promotion. Chopra's "hurt feelings" were in response to a 1998 speech by an incoming superior at Health Canada, during which the speaker stated that "he liked visible minorities.” In his complaint, Chopra claimed this was a "deeply insensitive racial remark toward visible minority employees of the bureau." Deschamps accepted Chopra's argument, writing that Lachance's remark was “discriminatory against Mr. Chopra as well as individuals … who were non-white” and that Lachance's remark showcased his insensitivity. Deschamps criticized the racist nature of Lachance's remark. Deschamps also stated that the supervisor's intent was irrelevant, as: "The test is, over and above the racial nature of the comment itself, whether or not the person alleging discrimination was offended by the comment."[19][20]

Please consider the full context.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. He was using a megaphone in the city centre on a Saturday afternoon

This was not speech people had chosen to listen to - he was forcing it on people in a public place (a normal shopping street, not Hyde Park Corner or similar). Notice the "failing to comply with a request by police to move on under the powers of a dispersal order". Not knowing the contents of The River War, I find it quite likely that it's offensive, and that his purpose was to either harrass a Muslim if one heard it, or to hope to stir up hatred among others. The opinion of a young officer from over 100 years ago having just fought a war is not that relevant to the 21st century.

[Nye Bevan]

4. He was arrested "on suspicion of racial/religious harrassment".

What is to stop the police from arresting a British person who posts offensive stuff about Christianity on the internet, under the same principle?

If this guy had been arrested purely for breaching the peace or something like that I would not have a complaint.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Perhaps people who do harrass on the internet should be arrested too

It depends on what they say, who they say it to, and where they say it - if it's a reply to someone's blog, it's more likely to be harassing than if it's on a known extremist site where you might assume people are looking for it.

FWIW, it's not clear if the harassment was about the quotes or something else he said, maybe to a passerby, maybe during the 40 minute discussion with police - from the local paper:

Mr Hayes (Hampshire Police Commissioner) added he understood that Mr Weston was not specifically arrested for reciting the Churchill quotes.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11185557._Political_arrest__of_election_candidate_slammed_by_MP/

[Nye Bevan]

7. Your post shows the enormous chasm between US and UK attitudes to free speech (nt)

[nomorenomore08]

56. I think they're arguing that he essentially *was* breaching the peace, via incitement of an

apparently unwilling audience. And while I'm normally dubious about "hate speech" laws - I can foresee all kinds of unintended consequences - freedom of speech doesn't include an absolute right to be listened to.

[snooper2]

31. sweet, so next time I see a fundie yelling shit about jesabus I'm going to call the cops

[MO_Moderate]

49. That's what it is coming to

[pampango]

3. Candidate at his party website: "The Left thinks I'm a racist. I just want to preserve my people."

I know I'm a racist because I'm told I'm a racist by a great deal of people. The hard Left think I'm a racist, the Labour Party thinks I'm a racist, Conservatives think I'm a racist, Liberal Democrats think I'm a racist, the BBC thinks I'm a racist. So I must therefore be a racist.

Why am I a racist? It's very simple: I wish to preserve the culture of my country, I wish to preserve the people of my country, and in doing so that makes me a designated racist in today's society.

Now this is something that's been moved by the Left – the goalposts have been moved by the Left a considerable distance on this. In order to be termed a racist thirty or forty years ago, you had to actively dislike foreign people. I don't dislike foreign people. What I do like, what I love, is my country, my culture and my people, and I see them under a terrible threat at the moment.

Britain is a very small country that's opened its doors to the mass immigrants of the Third World, and we are simply being overwhelmed. Our schools can't cope, our hospitals can't cope, very little can cope any more. Our welfare system is on the verge of buckling as well. So if I want to defend what I grew up in, what I was born into – my country, my British culture, my heritage and my history – I am apparently, according to absolutely everybody today, a racist.

http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/5851-my-name-is-paul-weston-and-i-am-a-racist

"My (white?) country, my culture (white?), my people (white?) ..." Pam Geller and our tea party zealots could not have said it better. I am sure that Geller is envious of the publicity that Weston has received. I wonder if she will be looking for quotes from dead American presidents that appear to support her xenophobia particularly towards Muslims.

Most European countries, including the UK, do not have First Amendment protections but do have Hate Speech restrictions. Pam Geller or a tea party congressional candidate could say the same things that Weston said in the UK and be totally protected from any government action.

[Nye Bevan]

5. Yes, he said awful things and he is a horrible person.

And if this had happened in the US, the ACLU would be defending him to the hilt. As they should.

[pampango]

8. Indeed, as they should.

The UK and many other countries balance free speech and hate speech differently. I like the way we do it. I imagine that liberals in many other countries like the way that they do it.

[HERVEPA]

27. So, would you allow Nazi hate speech and holocaust denial in Germany also.

[Nye Bevan]

28. Absolutely. Let Holocaust deniers expose themselves to public contempt and ridicule.

Laws against Holocaust denial are counterproductive.

[HERVEPA]

30. Well of course Germany has laws against this. And rightly so.

Visit the Holocaust Museum in DC. Visit a concentration camp.
A civil society needs certain rules.

[Nye Bevan]

33. If you don't see the irony

in recommending that I visit the Holocaust museum in the United States, a country that does not and never will have any laws against Holocaust denial (so not a "civil country" by your standards) then we will never see eye to eye on this issue.

[HERVEPA]

34. What kind of response is that?

Have you ever visited the museum? Can you answer that?
It dowsn't matter where the museum is located. That is not relevant to my point.

[nomorenomore08]

57. Leery as I am of restrictions on free speech, I have to admit part of me would enjoy seeing "slavery

deniers" - or whatever you would call our equivalent to Holocaust deniers - slapped with a fine for running their big mouths about how slavery wasn't so bad and some people are natural slaves etc. etc. You can't outlaw ignorance but you can certainly discourage its propagation.

[Jesus Malverde]

18. When will the monarchy show some diversity?..nt

[pampango]

22. Don't ask that of Mr. Weston. His head will explode.

If he is against diversity in the UK, the idea of 'diversity' in the royal family must keep him awake at night.

What if Harry marries someone from India or Jamaica? I suspect we would have to clean up the damage at Mr. Weston's house.

[Jesus Malverde]

24. Or dianna marries an arab?

[pampango]

26. Oh I think that would have been a 'head-exploding' event for Mr. Weston, as well, don't you?

If I recall my history, the UK royal family does not even like for white foreigners (including Americans, historically) to marry into the family. I doubt that an Arab would have been any more acceptable than an Indian or a Jamaican.

[Nye Bevan]

23. Well, at least the first female monarch came well before the first female US president.

Also, the first Catholic monarch.

Admittedly there will probably not be a monarch of color, or a Jewish monarch, anytime soon.

[nomorenomore08]

58. "I'm not prejudiced, I just think everyone who doesn't look like me is a dire threat to my nation!"

[LittleBlue]

9. Thankfully we have the constitution

Or we'd have this happening in the US.

This is one of my biggest gripes about Europe.

[Nye Bevan]

10. IMO the UK absolutely should have a written constitution.

The Nick Griffins and Nigel Farages make me nervous.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. So you support the racist's right to harrass others in public, using amplification

while reserving the US right to pepper spray protesters, drag them away, destroy Occupy camps, arrest Dan Choi for saying 'equality' in front of the White House?
Because you seem to be suggesting that the US never arrests those who protest in public. That is simply not the case. Do you post about 'free speech' when it is LGBT people being dragged to jail for demonstrating? Somehow I don't think so.

[Nye Bevan]

13. He was arrested for "racial/religious harrassment", not "amplification".

And my understanding is that Lt Choi was arrested for chaining himself to the White House fence, not for uttering the word "equality".

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Excuse me, where did I assert he was arrested for amplification?

Care to address things I actually said?

[Nye Bevan]

15. Well, you did say "using amplification" in your subject line.

And did I not address your comments about Lt Choi being arrested? Do you think that he was arrested for uttering the word "equality", or for chaining himself to the White House fence and refusing to unlock his chains? Do you think that people have the First Amendment right to chain themselves to the White House fence?

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Both Choi and the guy in London were arrested for failure to disperse

Choi chained himself to the fence to resist that order. The guy in London simply continued shouting into his megaphone to resist the order. I mentioned Choi because the charges were basically identical.
So you think that Englishman had First Amendment rights to cause a racial disturbance? They don't have that law. But we do, and we still manage to drag protesters away on other charges, like failure to disperse or lack of a permit, or just on a whim with pepper spray and handcuffs. What do you make of all those arrested US protesters, in the context of free political speech and the First Amendment, which does apply in the US?

[Nye Bevan]

19. The London guy was arrested for "racial/religious harrassment". The "dispersal" charge was dropped.

There was no "racial disturbance". A woman simply complained to the police that she found his speech (quoting Winston Churchill) offensive. There was no rioting, no violence, and no threat of violence.

Choi was arrested for chaining himself to the White House fence (contrary to your first post in this thread where you claimed that he was arrested for uttering the word "equality&quot . I actually don't have a problem with the police not allowing people to handcuff themselves to the White House fence; I don't really see this as "speech". (And I don't recall the ACLU kicking up much of a fuss over this).

As for your question "what do you make of all those arrested US protestors", that is quite a general question. I do support the First Amendment rights of people to demonstrate and protest. Having said that, I support reasonable limits; an example of this would be that I don't think an anti-abortion fanatic has the right to scream in the face of a patient who is entering or leaving an abortion clinic, but I do think these folks have the right to protest at a reasonable distance from the facility.

[msanthrope]

17. Hate speech is free speech. nt

[Nye Bevan]

20. Provided there is no incitement to riot, or "fighting words", I agree.

Which there was absolutely not in this case. No violence, no threats of violence. A woman who heard the speech found it offensive and called the police, who duly bundled the election candidate into the back of a car and drove him away to the station.

[msanthrope]

21. Agreed. nt

[nomorenomore08]

59. Generally speaking, I agree with that. But seeing such hateful people with so much power and

influence frightens me. On the other hand, though, I recognize there's no simple solution.

[nomorenomore08]

60. Excellent points. Do I think the guy in the OP belongs in jail? No.

Do I have so much as a shred of sympathy for his obnoxious, racist ass? Hell no!

[struggle4progress]

25. According to his party website, Weston was ultimately charged with violation of

section 4 of the Public Order Act:

Fear or provocation of violence

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he —

(a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling ...

This resembles somewhat the "clear and present danger" standard under which speech in the US may be curtailed, though it's not exactly the same. The crime alleged he is not that he said something offensive but that he did so either (1) with intent to provoke immediate unlawful violence against another or (2) with intent to cause another to believe that unlawful violence would be used.

[Nye Bevan]

29. No, that in no way resembles the US standard.

Reading a paragraph from a book by Winston Churchill could never imaginably be ruled as "fighting words" or as an immediate incitement to violence, which is the US standard.

[jberryhill]

32. "Reading a paragraph from a book by Winston Churchill"

I was once arrested for displaying a copy of the preamble of the Constitution.

Granted, it is tattooed on my penis, and it was a crowded subway train.

But, "reading a paragraph from a book by Winston Churchill" is not a complete description of what this guy was doing.

Time. Place. Manner.

[Nye Bevan]

35. And you're comfortable with the Government determining

whether the "time, place and manner" is appropriate or not? And if they find some fault in this regard the guy gets taken away by the police?

[jberryhill]

36. Do I gather correctly....

That he was on the sidewalk with a megaphone?

Yeah, if I stand outside of your house at 3AM using amplification to read the First Amendment over and over, I'm pretty sure the police are going to take me away. I will not have a First Amendment defense because of well known US law on the subject of time, place and manner.

I'm not familiar with UK law on the subject, and frankly don't care.

Yes or no: You are okay with my public display of the Constitution preamble as written on my penis?

Because if you are going to say I cannot display the Constitution in that manner, then we are simply engaging in a line-drawing exercise.

[Nye Bevan]

37. Well first of all we both know the "penis" thing is stupid, so let's just forget that.

This guy was not arrested fot disturbing the peace or yelling outside someone's house. The charges are "racial/ religious harrassment", based upon the content of the excerpt that he read from Churchill's book.

[jberryhill]

38. No we do not "both know the 'penis' thing is stupid"

As I told you, I'm not a UK lawyer, so I don't give a rat's ass what form of public nuisance with which he was charged.

Do I or do I not, in the US, have the First Amendment right to communicate whatever I want, whenever I want, and wherever I want.

Your ignorance of the case law of First Amendment protection of nudity as a form of Constitutionally protected expression is appalling for someone who wants to lecture others on the subject of freedom of speech.

BARNES v. GLEN THEATRE, INC., 501 U.S. 560 (1991):

(D)ancing as a performance directed to an actual or hypothetical audience gives expression at least to generalized emotion or feeling, and where the dancer is nude or nearly so, the feeling expressed, in the absence of some contrary clue, is eroticism, carrying an endorsement of erotic experience. Such is the expressive content of the dances described in the record.

Mine carries more than that message, because I sing the words of the Constitution while swinging around my imprinted penis in time to the music, to the tune of Yankee Doodle Dandy.

And you are going to tell me that is not an expressive activity?

[Nye Bevan]

39. OK, since you're going to persist with the "constitution on my penis" nonsense,

we're done.

Have a good day.

[jberryhill]

40. Just the preamble

I'm not endowed by my Creator with enough space for the whole thing.

However, you really don't want to discuss scenarios in which, in your opinion, an expressive activity can be limited, because it doesn't let you sit on the high horse of "defender of rights", when in reality we have been drawing lines between forms of "conduct" and "speech" for a long time.

And getting into that discussion doesn't let you draw the moral bright lines that people who believe themselves to be morally superior enjoy so much.

[nomorenomore08]

62. Exactly. The Churchill quote isn't the problem, it's the inappropriate and socially unacceptable

application of said quote - like here, in the context of arguable racial incitement.

We can debate the merits of hate speech law - and I certainly have qualms myself - but claiming that this guy is being persecuted for a mere speech-act is a tad disingenuous.

[struggle4progress]

44. You're free to post the entire content of his speech if you have access to it

I have no idea exactly what he said. The website, of the party he founded, has posted that he was charged with violation of , which is styled "Fear or provocation of violence." The alleged Churchill quote, as reported, is quite offensive to modern ears, I think, but it would not suffice alone for a conviction under section 4 of the Public Order Act, as quoted above. Since I expect the UK courts are entirely competent to determine whether he is guilty as charged, I see no particular need to take a stand on that question myself

[Nye Bevan]

50. See posts 42 and 48 (nt)

[struggle4progress]

51. So you're only going to provide the Churchill quote and not the rest of Weston's remarks

[Nye Bevan]

53. The rest of his remarks are in post 48 (nt)

[struggle4progress]

54. Nope: #48 just provides a link to more of the Churchill quote

[nomorenomore08]

63. An important distinction, but apparently too fine for some people.

I'm not so hot on restricting freedom of speech myself, but I can understand why a country suffering from ongoing racially charged unrest would wish to discourage the propagation of racist rhetoric. Keep in mind I'm not endorsing the British approach to this issue, only trying to put it in context.

[Prophet 451]

41. Liberty GB are extreme-right racists

They're no different to the BNP or, in US terms, the Klan.

Now, our hate speech laws are pretty complicated. But simply reading from a book by someone does not give you a defence against hate speech laws, especially when you shout that part is isolation. Standing in the street with a megaphone repeating the "they shall both be put to death" anti-gay verses from the OT would get you arrested as well. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a publicity stunt and the guy deliberately intended to get arrested as part of Liberty GB's "pity teh white man" platform.

We do actually have a guarantee of free speech under the ECHR but that doesn't extend to hate speech.

[Nye Bevan]

42. He didn't say anything about anyone being put to death.

Here is the excerpt:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

Awful stuff, but nowhere near "fighting words" or incitement to violence.

[Prophet 451]

43. Hmm, seems like police overreaching then

The passage is pretty reprehensible but, absent anything else, it doesn't seem like it rises to the level of either hate speech or sufficient to satisfy the religious hatred laws. That said, teh religious hatred laws are so vague in their wording that even comedians find them stifling.

[jberryhill]

47. The "absent anything else" is always the catch in these sorts of things

It's why Nye doesn't want to discuss my recitation of the Constitution imprinted on my penis for public display.

Clearly, she thinks that is ridiculous, and facially illegal.

What she doesn't want to discuss, however, is that the line between "conduct" and "speech" exists on a continuum.

Can I follow you down the street shouting the Pledge of Allegiance?

There are contexts in which "what the person said" is entirely secondary to the impact of the CONDUCT accompanying their speech, and what their INTENT is toward others for engaging in that conduct.

But, and I certainly wasn't on that street, so I don't know what specifically he was doing, the notion that this guy was engaging in public lectures in Great Quotes is all we are supposed to know.

There is unlawful conduct which can accompany what would otherwise be protected speech absent that conduct, and there are people who like to push that boundary of "how much was speech and how much was conduct". It's really nothing new but always rhetorically fun.

I was, in fact, once detained by police for reciting poetry. No shit.

[struggle4progress]

45. Do you have the full text of his comments, or are you merely reproducing the Churchill quote

he pasted at his website?

[jberryhill]

46. There is "text" and there is "context"

The text of the Churchill quote will provide no insight into what his conduct while reading it was.

[struggle4progress]

52. muriel's #48 seems to show Weston on location reciting the Churchill bit, but it's obviously not

his whole speech, so I have no basis at this time for forming any opinion regarding the charges, though I agree with you that context matters.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. He went on beyond that

Video here:

The rest of it is:

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/component/content/article/33-datelines/622-datelines-fh-113

[Niceguy1]

55. sadly there are people in the US even on this board

that would love to have a lot like that here in the US.which is kind of short sighted because they're entirely subjective and not objective which means it could be twisted against the people who supported it when they are are no longer in power

[nomorenomore08]

64. I don't really agree with the British laws on "incitement" but I understand why they exist.

Mind you, I have no wish to see such legislation enacted in the U.S., especially knowing how right-wing fundies would abuse it to try and silence their critics.