If the recent jailing of a prominent member of a far-Right group in the U.K. has taught us anything, it is that some free speech absolutists are content to throw caution to the wind and permit speech specifically designed to create enmity between different racial or religious groups.
Last month, Sam Melia, of Patriotic Alternative, was found guilty of “[p]ublishing or distributing material intending to stir up racial hatred”. As many readers will no doubt know, Melia distributed stickers – for use in public places – which flaunted his and his colleagues’ racist bigotry in all its twisted glory. At the end of last week he was jailed for two years.
Among those who think Melia should not have been sanctioned by the state was Fraser Myers, Deputy Editor of online magazine, Spiked. He criticised the conviction and objected to the sentence. Shortly afterwards, Brendan O’Neill, also of Spiked, added his support in an article, written in his usual punchy and often entertaining style.
I have a great deal of respect for everyone at Spiked. I look forward to its excellent podcast each week (and, of course, to Based’s Weekly Sceptic podcast with Toby and Nick), and I read many of Spiked’s articles. As with the Daily Sceptic, Spiked is vitally important because it publishes the political and cultural views held by much of the public, views which are rarely if ever heard in the dominant liberal and supposedly progressive media.
But in this case, O’Neill’s views are wide of the mark. His article is an unfair and sometimes inaccurate assessment of the Melia case. Worse still, the stance the article takes runs the risk of being counterproductive in the fight for free speech. If that wasn’t enough, he may also have unintentionally provided support for the very people he opposes – the far-Right, while emboldening those on social media who provide such bigots with moral support. If the replies to Spiked’s post on X, which promoted the article, are anything to go by, this is exactly what happened.
The article gives the strong impression that the author was determined to try to make the facts support his convictions – that he worked back from his conclusion to try to make the case fit with his beliefs. Melia would – it was hoped – provide a great example of how our liberty is being undermined by an increasingly authoritarian state. In fact, the case is a very poor fit for such views.
The former editor of Spiked expresses outrage that Melia got two years for “producing offensive stickers”. He then says the case shows that you can now be condemned for making “stickers that express your deeply held beliefs”. He adds: “That really is what happened here: a man was jailed for his beliefs.” None of these things are strictly true. As O’Neill knows, as well as being accused of racially aggravated criminal damage, Melia was charged with and found guilty of infringing the Public Order Act 1986 (6). The Act, among other things, explicitly prohibits displays of any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and which the person intends thereby to stir up racial hatred. And it is not unreasonable to expect that such an offence would result in a custodial sentence.
The evidence showed unequivocally that the defendant had broken the law, and the verdict was therefore a just one. Melia was not charged with causing offence. And he was not charged with holding any particular belief, but for expressing his beliefs publicly in a way which was intended to create hostility between different racial groups. We all know that is a very different thing from being prosecuted for your beliefs and for being offensive.
The author also takes umbrage at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for stating that the stickers expressed “views of a nationalist nature”, and rails against them for doing so. It will be obvious to most people however, that in its statement the CPS is simply describing the general nature of the messages on the stickers, and is not claiming nationalism per se is unacceptable.
It was pointed out in Melia’s trial that at home he has a poster of Hitler and a book by the interwar British fascist, Oswald Mosley. The article concludes from this that, effectively, Melia was, at least in part, being punished for thoughtcrimes, for having the wrong ideological beliefs. This is also untrue. Melia’s possessions were in fact relevant, in relation to the stickers, as evidence to show an intent to stir up racial hatred. They were not presented in isolation as a way to accuse the defendant of thinking the wrong thoughts and believing the wrong things. In a similar way, the CPS points out that Melia was using a VPN internet connection, to hide what he was doing. And he encouraged others who downloaded the stickers to do the same thing. He therefore likely knew that distributing the stickers, for use in public places, was illegal.
O’Neill rightly says there is a double standard at play and that we have a two-tier justice system: the police rarely arrest and charge those pro-Palestine marchers who carry antisemitic placards, while they did charge and imprison Melia. It is a fair and important point. Yet, perhaps to make it appear even more unfair to Melia, when comparing his stickers with marchers’ slogans, symbols and chants, the author doesn’t directly quote the most extreme and inflammatory examples of Melia’s stickers, such as: “They have to go back,” “Blood and Soil,” “They seek conquest, not asylum,” and for his U.S. counterparts, “Make America White Again.” These examples are only linked to. Instead, while the author condemns all the messages on the stickers, only some are explicitly mentioned.
Regardless of the double standard, the plain fact is Melia demonstrably broke the law laid out in the decades-old Act, and was rightfully found guilty for doing so. This is not to say the law itself is beyond reproach. One can argue, for example, that it may be unjust to punish someone for acting with the intent to stir up racial hatred if, subsequently, none was stirred up. But, on the other hand, how could it be determined whether racial hatred had or had not resulted from a person’s actions? Yet, as it stands, the law may be vulnerable to abuse in a political climate in which the criticism and debate essential to democracy is increasingly under attack.
In light of the two tier justice system, it is also fair to question the custodial sentence, especially its length. O’Neill does indeed criticise the sentence and this is the approach taken in most of the article, which is also reflected in its title. But towards the end the author makes it clear – as Fraser Myers did in his comments to GB News – that he does not believe Melia should have been charged.
That is quite something. For many, including many on the Right, such free speech absolutism and hardline libertarianism will understandably appear reckless and quite unnecessary. There is little to lose and much to gain in punishing actual racists who seek to divide. It is not a sign of overreach by the state. Not unless you are only able to view most or all restrictions on speech as inherently wrong.
To say the stickers are racist but not ask whether permitting them could be inflammatory and detrimental to community cohesion, seems especially rash. Instead, any concerns are summarily dismissed as allowing authoritarian censorship and that censorship infantilises us all. Rather than have a law to punish those who try to incite hatred, on the contrary, it appears we must take the risk and “confront hateful thinking”, after removing the stickers. In practice, how would this work? Are bigots, in particular those eager to sow discord, open to reason? The suggestion seems quixotic, rooted more in abstract principles than in reality.
Deterring and punishing those bent on spreading intolerance, rather than infantilising us, is rightly accepted by most people as a sensible and fair constraint on speech. We should have a right to offend, but not to try to stir up racial hatred. Allowing out-and-out racists free rein and keeping our fingers crossed that we can successfully challenge them, rather being a case of treating people like children is more likely to embolden narrow-minded fanatics whose aim is to create disunity.
Those opposing the progressive elite and radical left’s increasingly authoritarian views should guard against overcompensating by making demands for untrammelled freedoms, regardless of the costs and the wishes of most people. It only serves to provide the perfect ammunition for those who are attacking free speech.
David Hansard has written for Quillette, TCW and Cumbria Magazine. You can read his blog here.
Stop Press: For an alternative view, see this clip with Leo Kearse on GB News.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.