The new totalitarianism

On its way to the USA

[Reprinted from Issues & Views June 17, 2002]

Writer Peter Hitchens tells us about the new "progressive" England, where there are now laws designed to guard the sensibilities of specially protected groups from all forms of upset. Those hapless souls who are caught in the snares of these laws must simply fend for themselves. In "Keep quiet or face arrest," in the Spectator (6/8/02), Hitchens describes the fate of one Harry Hammond, an Englishman "who likes to preach the Gospel in the open air of Bournemouth, whether anyone is listening to him or not." Here's an excerpt:

Mr. Hammond was prosecuted last month with the special zeal that our criminal-justice system reserves for the law-abiding types who fall into its clutches. He was fined £300, plus £395 costs, by Wimborne magistrates' court after they convicted him for breaching the Public Order Act of 1986. This made it an offence to display any writing, sign or other visible representation that is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm and distress thereby.

Mr. Hammond's crime was to display a placard--now destroyed by order of the bench--on which was written: "Stop immorality. Stop homosexuality. Stop lesbianism." Plainly this message was annoying to some. But the Tory MPs who passed this law might be surprised that such sentiments are now legally classified as threatening, abusive or insulting, or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Although most of the crowd that gathered around Hammond were no more than curious onlookers, Hitchens relates how certain hecklers assaulted the sign carrier, causing him to fall to the ground:

Yet when the police were called, it was Mr. Hammond who was arrested. There had, you see, been complaints from homosexuals about the placard. One of the objectors was Sean Tapper, an articulate and intelligent young man who saw the words as a personal attack on his way of life. . . . He is unmoved by arguments that the placard did not use inflammatory language and referred to homosexuality, which is behaviour, rather than homosexuals, who are people.

Mr. Hammond's case may well be the most bizarre arrest in the history of English policing, since the two officers involved disagreed over what to do. A more experienced male constable, Wayne Elliott, thought that Mr. Hammond should be protected. His younger female colleague, Nicola Gandy, thought that he should be taken in. Her view prevailed . . . The quarrel between the two constables neatly sums up the difference between the old law, which was concerned about what people did, and the new one, which is far too interested in what people think and say. . . .

In [Hammond's] case, the Human Rights Act proved as useless in the defence of traditional views as it is useful in advancing radical ones. It may well be the law of England that if your spoken or written beliefs might irritate a passing homosexual, it is illegal to express them. Imagine the effect that such a law would have. If condemnation of an action is deemed to be insulting to anyone who does that action, then almost all absolute morality is outlawed. . . .

It also means that a legitimate opinion about a type of behaviour is magically transmuted into so-called hate-speech, so offensive to certain persons that it is likely to provoke them to fury. The implication is that it ought not to have been said or written. . . .

Did you really think that freedom and democracy would be dismantled by people who openly declared that they wanted censorship and tyranny? The new totalitarianism comes robed in righteous outrage, but it still holds a gag in its hand.

Copyright © 2008 Issues & Views