More tellingly perhaps was the
acquittal of Nick Griffin, [7] chairman
of the fascist British Nationalist Party over allegations
of intent to incite racial hatred. Griffin was secretly recorded
while describing Islam as "...a wicked and vicious faith",
but walked free. As Griffin left the court, he addressed a
crowd of reporters and smugly proclaimed “…they can take our
taxes but they cannot take our hearts, they cannot take our
tongues and they cannot take our freedom.” Unsurprisingly,
the only time Nick Griffin has been convicted was when his
writing was deemed anti-Semitic. This resulted in a suspended
sentence and a fine. Evidently Islamaphobia is cheaply used
by the press to support the government’s hidden agenda to
criminalise Islam whilst anti-Semitism is avoided. Amr Mousa,
the Arab League Secretary General once stated: “What about
freedom of expression when anti-Semitism is involved? Then
it is not freedom of expression. Then it is a crime. Yet when
Islam is insulted, certain powers raise the issue of freedom
of expression.”
Wikipedia demonstrated this point by ignoring
a
petition with over 180,000 signatures [8]
protesting their displaying of the offensive cartoon images.
Wikipedia did compromise though under pressure from the German
government to remove 1930's era photographs of the Hitler
Youth. To paraphrase Orwell, it is evident that where freedom
of expression is concerned: all are equal, but some are more
equal than others!
Abu Hamza al-Masri was not as fortunate
as Nick Griffin as regards his charges for “intent to stir
up racial hatred” and was subsequently convicted. The tabloids
find making cheap
jibes at his disability [9] (“Sling
yer hook”, “Captain Hook” etc) irresistible. These slogans
are quite inconsistent with section 12 i) of the press
Code of Practice [10] which asserts:
“The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference
to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual
orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.”
Nonetheless it is practically impossible to find an article
that does not refer to Abu Hamza’s disability in a derisory
tone. Is this another display of ‘freedom of speech’ at its
finest?
Footnotes
[7] BNP
leader cleared of race hate (BBC)
[8] Wikipedia
defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet (The
Guardian)
[9] Abu
Hamza: hooked by the press (BBC)
[10] Press
Code of Practice
|
