Freedom of Speech in Britain - A Brief Legal Primer

In the United States, a written constitution gives a specific right to freedom of speech - subject to some limitations like those within the law of libel. In general, however, and to the despair of the enemies of free speech, almost anything goes. A US black academic remarked to a BNP speaker about how dear freedom of speech was to US citizens - a very different attitude to what a white British nationalist meets in our own universities.

In Britain, we enjoy no specific written constitution, although some say that the right to vote, and some other ancient legislation, goes some way to offering one. As regards freedom of speech, there is no guarantee anywhere within UK law. Britain is, however, a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, within which Article Ten says the following:-

'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. The right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions, or penalities as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, or public safety, for the prevention of disorder and crime, for the protection of health and morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for the prevention of the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary'.

It remains to be seen whether the latter will used in an attempt to restrict freedom of speech by misusing the Article 10 provisions about necessities in a democratic society. Every tinpot dictatorship claims to be defending democracy. Such attempts are likely to legally backfire, and open the way to embarrassing appeals within the European Court.

The European Convention will soon become part of UK law - possibly in January 2000, although a period of further delay is being considered by the Government on grounds that the legal system needs time to consider its effects. In the past, enforcing its provisions could only be done in the European Court on Human Rights - not much help to the impoverished person who is persecuted by the authorities and has no legal aid. The law is still the law, however, wherever enforced, and the state is sensitive to these things if they are constantly broadcast.

The Act introducing the Convention has already been passed, but since it does not yet take effect, it appeared until recently that, despite the intention of parliament to give people its protections, an unlucky defendant might be refused his rights during a window of opportunity between the passing of the law and its taking effect. Since it is clear that the last thing the state really wishes to see is freedom of speech, there exists the possibility of oppressive last minute prosecutions before the date of implementation. It appears that Labour agreed to make the Convention part of UK law in a fit of gesture politicking.

Following a decision in the Court of Appeal, the above loophole appears to have gone some way towards being blocked. The learned judges considered a case, during March 1998, in which the particular law being applied contained a presumption of guilt. Despite this being in breach of Article Six of the Convention, a case had been brought against several defendants, which was appealed in Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex parte Kebilene and Others. The appeal judges said that the prosecuting authorities should take account of the probable reversal of any conviction on appeal at a later date, by which time the Convention would be available to the defendants. In other words, cases should not be brought which fell foul of the Convention - even before its introduction.

A common confusion is often made between libel law, and the laws on racial hatred and so on. Libel is attacking an individual's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people, not making generally critical statements about a group. Example. To say: "Jones is a ratbag" is not libellous in UK law. To say: "Jones is an incompetent doctor who keeps killing his patients" is certainly libellous if untrue.

Libel may also be against a commercial reputation - eg. "Sudso may wash whiter, but it also kills the washerperson". (A delicate touch of political correctness here, which we hope was noticed) Critical statements against a group, with this exception, are not anything to do with libel, but they may be subject to criminal law covering racial hatred.

The legislation which counts, where patriotic political campaigning is concerned, is the 1986 Public Order Act. This splendid piece of legislation was passed by Margaret Thatcher's 'patriotic' party with the express intent of silencing any displays of patriotic feeling - and at the whim of the left/liberal lobbies who infest Britain.

As we shall see, the act is not quite the weapon is it often thought to be, which is why there is constant pressure, particularly from Zionists, to extend it. There were complaints from the left, at the time of its passing, that it would lead, potentially, to more effective right-wing propaganda, and this is indeed true.

Unhappily, there are still those among the nationalist ranks who have the wrong end of the stick where political campaigning is concerned. The fact of the matter is that the more politely one's case is expressed the more damning it is. Abusive language only gains support for the opposition. The act, in substance, banned the use of wild language, not polite and reasoned argument. The legislation can work entirely to our advantage, if only a tiny minority of people would just stop sending out abusive and illegal material anonymously.

Under Sections 18 and 19 of the act, it is a crime to use words which are either threatening, abusive, or insulting, and, additionally, intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. No, we are not going to give examples of illegal statements! The point is that, in general, there is nearly always a way of saying what you want to say without breaking the law.

A very important aspect of the act is that words must be insulting in the normal meaning of the words - ie from the point of view of an independent unbiased observer - the famous 'Man on the Clapham Omnibus' in English legal parlance. The fact that someone with an axe to grind claims to find words abusive etc. is irrelevant. Otherwise every political party would be in like Flynn having all other parties prosecuted! Screeching from the loony-left about 'racism' in the media does not mean that an offence has been committed. An interesting feature, however, is that it is no defence to protest that what was said was true. The truth can viewed as insulting by British courts - albeit if expressed in inclement language!

An over-zealous constabulary, anxious to please local lefties, may, of course, still make life difficult for patriots, and this must be countered by pointing out the realities of the legal position. Having one's home raided, and even children's toys prodded and searched, is most unpleasant harrassment for anyone, however polite officers are.

Possession of material which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, with a view to its publication, and if it is intended or likely to stir up racial hatred, is an offence under Section 23 of the act. In theory, therefore, possession of a single copy of something could be illegal, but the practice appears to be only to prosecute for multiple copies, where an intention to distribute is easy to prove.

A claim of 'having found racist material' is commonly made after the event, in order to justify raids on homes, even if the material amounts to something like perfectly legal BNP newspapers, or a book on Hitler's regime of the entirely legal kind sold in most large mainstream bookshops.

A recent case involving the potential application of the Public Order Act, concerned leaflets sent out which criticised Zionist influence over the British police. The leaflets included very plainly worded statements, which the man in the street would probably believe to be illegal. Homes were raided, but Government solicitors found that no offence had been committed.

After the election of Derek Beackon as a BNP councillor in 1993, the Prime Minister was faced with demands in the House of Commons that BNP premises should be raided as the reward for winning a democratic election. Naturally this was done (it only happens in Third World dictatorships you thought did you), but none of the material was found to be illegal. The local council then got round the difficulty by using town planning law to close the BNP's bookshop - political persecution was never the intention of this legislation, of course, and even the left-wing Guardian newspaper gagged at it in an editorial.

A further aspect of the Public Order Act is that prosecutions can only be brought with the consent of the Attorney General, obviating a malicious dragging throught the courts of nationalists by local lefty legal types.

As a result of constant media racial harassment of white people, the public in Britain now mostly believes that it may be properly arrested simply for saying that they dislike immigration. The public is, of course, intended to gain this false impression! In the last year or two, the UK press has taken to offering often quite strongly worded criticisms of some immigrants, and of immigration in general. The fact that this is being done as an establishment safety valve procedure in no way makes it less helpful. Prosecution is unlikely for statements no stronger than those appearing in the national media.

Demands are now being made for a new law to block so-called Holocaust denial. It will prove very difficult to frame such a law which does not bar academic debate. Even a leading supporter of the recent bill recently admitted on the radio that the question of the number who died might be open to debate. Since the issue is not really one of Holocaust denial, but of revision, because everyone agrees that many inmates of Concentration Camps died, it is difficult to see that debate can be stopped.

The historian David Irving was fined by a German court for repeating the statements of Dr. Piper, director of the Auschwitz museum, that the number dying there was 1.1 million, not the previously claimed 4 million. He was refused leave to bring evidence of Dr. Piper's statements! One doubts whether British judges will be willing to be party to such Kafkaesque absurdities.

As a good general rule to evade the dank dungeon - although nothing is guaranteed - 'if in doubt leave it out'. Isaac Deutscher once said that Stalin never underestimated his subjects. He knew that, even if they obtained half the story, they would work out the rest. Thus, they must not be given even half the story! It is not necessary to spell everything out in graphic detail to be understood.

Where, despite all necessary care being taken, politicians order an often reluctant police force to take action against nationalists - most of whose officers joined up to fight real crime - the judgement in the leading Handyside v United Kingdom case of 1976 must be graven on our memories, and quoted. The judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, in this case, went to the heart of defining our rights to freedom of speech. The court said that freedom of expression was one of the essential foundations for a democratic society. Excepting the need to prevent disorder and crime, and protect public morals, there is a right to express ideas, even if they 'offend, shock, or disturb the state, or any sector of the population'. Democracy required 'broadmindedness'.