Peter Tatchell, champion of free speech

It seems that charges against Dale McAlpine, the street preacher who was arrested under the Public Order Act 1986 after telling a PCSO that homosexuality was a sin, have been dropped.

I would be very interested to know why the charges were dropped. A spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service is quoted as having said "We keep cases under constant review and following a further review of all the evidence in this case we were no longer satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and we have therefore discontinued the proceedings against Mr Mcalpine," but this doesn't tell me much. The crucial words appear to be "no longer satisfied." Why did they initially believe that there was sufficient evidence? What changed their minds? I'd really like to know, but I doubt that we will ever be told.

Peter Tatchell believes that his own intervention might have been a significant factor. Despite the fact that Mr Tatchell strongly (to put it mildly) disagrees with Mr McAlpine's opinion, he offered to testify in defence of his right to free speech. “Although I disagree with Dale McAlpine and support protests against his homophobic views, he should not have been arrested and charged. Criminalisation is a step too far. Despite my opposition to his opinions, I defend his right to freedom of expression. Soon after I offered to appear as a defence witness and to argue in court for Mr McAlpine’s acquittal, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case. The sudden withdrawal of charges may have been mere coincidence but perhaps not.”

To which I say "Well done, Mr. Tatchell." It's not often these days that we hear of people defending the freedom to express opinions they disagree with. The spirit of the age seems to be much more enthusiastic about banning people from expressing offensive opinions. And this is not the first time that Mr. Tatchell has spoken up for freedom of speech. He recently criticised the fine of £1000 imposed on Shawn Holes, an American street preacher who was convicted of "uttering homophobic remarks" in Glasgow.

There is, however, something else that fascinates me. Mr. McAlpine was charged under the Public Order Act with “using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.” Many people will recall an incident in which Mr. Tatchell could conceivably have been charged himself under those terms. In 1998, On Easter Sunday, 12th. April 1998, Peter Tatchell entered the pulpit in Canterbury Cathedral during the Archbishop’s sermon, and started addressing the congregation. He was charged with "indecent behaviour in a church", contrary to section 2 of the 1860 Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act, but was aquitted.

Why Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act and the not the Public Order Act? I don't know. I suspect that it is because Mr Tatchell's behaviour undoubtedly caused some distress, he was, careful to ensure that while his words were not "threatening, abusive or insulting."

Which, I guess, means the legal question is "Were Mr McAlpine's words threatening, abusive or insulting?"

The political question, however, is this: Why do we have a law on our statute book which means that someone can be guilty of a crime simply for using "insulting" words within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused "distress"?

One for Nick Clegg, I think.

Edit: Thank you to Albert for pointing me toward this fascinating video of Dale McAlpine's arrest.



Note the quote from the constable making the arrest: "It is against the law. Listen mate, we're pretty sure. You're under arrest for a racially aggravated Section 5 Public Order offence."

Wow. Not just a Section 5 Public Order offence, but a racially aggravated Section 5 Public Order offence." Oh dear.

Notice, by the way, that Dale McAlpine was aware of Lord Waddington's amendment (attributing it, in the pressure of the moment, to Lord Carey), and of the meaning of the word 'homophobia'. The constables involved don't seem to have been quite as clued up.

An opportunity to make freedom of speech an election issue?

I've been reading the accounts (Telegraph and Mail) of the arrest of Dale McAlpine, a street preacher, in Workington. Mr McAlpine is just the latest in a string of street preachers in Britain to be approached by police for questioning about alleged homophobic remarks. If the story is as reported is is pretty worrying.

Tim Worstall comments

"I have a very strong feeling that the actual crime here is pissing off a policemen. And that might be an even greater problem than the restriction of free speech one. That we’re hiring people into the police force who have such thin skins, are not able to understand that what is illegal and what might hurt a policemen’s fragile ego are not the same thing, that’s a problem."

He may have a point. There has always been a problem of people with an agenda who like a police uniform because it gives them an opportunity to bully people who annoy them. And seven hours in police cells is not minor bullying - it's pretty serious.

But the real issue is freedom of speech, and the blatant abuse of the 1986 Public Order Act. In the context of the latest arrest, the remarks of Lord Dear, former Chief Constable of the West Midlands, speaking on the debate on the Waddington amendment last year, are very interesting.

“ . . . prior to the Waddington amendment, the police regularly received complaints from homosexual groups that exception was taken to remarks that homosexuality was deplored on religious grounds. The police were forced to act. They operated, as we have already heard alluded to, against a background of the Home Office’s guidance notes on how to handle hate crime under the Public Order Act 1986, to which the issue of sexual orientation was added by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

"The so-called guidance notes in fact required rigid adherence. Any complaint of hate crime, by whomsoever made, even a bystander, had to be recorded as such and fully investigated. No exercise of discretion was countenanced. Accordingly, the police, and later the CPS, when faced with a complaint concerning remarks about sexual orientation, would follow the Home Office’s guidance notes, go through the whole procedure of interview, sometimes following arrest—fingerprinting, taking DNA samples, police bail, sometimes charge—even though pretty well everyone in the official process knew that there was little or no chance of a prosecution, much less a conviction, following.”

". . . With the Waddington amendment in place, the police are released from the virtual straitjacket imposed on them previously; they can exercise common sense and good judgment on the day; and they can police with the light touch which is so often sought and required by society.”

Hmmm. Common sense? Good judgment? Light touch? I don't think so.

There is, of course, another issue. The Conservative Party manifesto has sections (p79) entitled "Restore our civil liberties" and "Protect our freedoms". The Liberal Democrat manifesto says (p93) "Liberal Democrats will protect and restore your freedoms." Yet the leadership of both parties have, as far as I am aware, been totally silent on the police harassment of street preachers over the past 13 years.

I realise that they cannot comment specifically on this case, since Mr. McAlpine has been charged, and his case has not yet come to court. However, they have just been handed an opportunity to speak out about the erosion of freedom of speech under successive Labour governments. Somehow, I can't see them taking it. I suspect that they are scared that they'd be accused of being libertarians. Or something like that.

Even authoritarians are entitled to freedom

Geert Wilders is not a friend of freedom. He apparently believes that Mein Kampf should be banned. And he believes that the Quran should be banned as well. Banning books seems to be an enthusiasm of his.

And now, ironically, the banner has been banned. Ironic, but not appropriate. Those who wish to deny freedom of speech (and of religion) are entitled to freedom of speech as much as anyone else, and to deny it to them goes against basic libertarian principles.

It seems to be a Christian principle too! After all, Scripture says "See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone." I Thessalonians 5:15)

Mainstream British politicians have been slow to speak up for freedom here. Shamefully, the only comment to have come from the LibDems so far (from Chris Huhne) has shown that their belief is freedom of speech is so restricted as to be useless. Michael Portillo is to be congratulated on speaking out for free speech, but the silence of David Cameron is deafening.