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.
Trans women would be much more respected if they simply admitted the obvious: that they are men who want to be women or feel they are women and want to live as if they are women but aren’t actually women.
Sorry to harp on about this but “trans women” is a made up nonsense phrase invented by the enemy to attempt to normalise the lie/delusion that men can become women – and you yourself point out that the concept is a big lie. I think we should strenuously avoid using the phrase, and we should refuse to recognise it as a meaningful phrase in the English language so that whenever we are discussing this subject, the idea is not reinforced and cannot take hold.
Instead of ‘trans women’, how about ‘fake women’?
And then it’s very clear that ‘fake women are women’ doesn’t make sense.
Fake is preferable to trans. In some ways though I would prefer that the word “woman” doesn’t appear at all. But it’s tricky to come up with something pithy. Trans men actually makes more sense to me – men who think they can “transition” to being women.
Some people get mixed up about that. It wouldn’t surprise me if in polls, in the past at least, the question, to women might be something like, “Do you agree that trans women should be allowed to use women’s changing rooms?” and some women probably think ‘trans women’ are women who are ’transitioning to being men’, and they say they agree with that, not realising the reality of what it means.
I’m sure that this is true and I am also sure that this is very much part of the intention in corrupting the language – to confuse, to obfuscate, to present distortions as reality.
Yes, totally.
And have you noticed how all of the stories we ever read about around this trans nonsense are men pretending to be women? Across all scenarios, be it male convicts identifying as women so they can go to female prisons, men wanting to enter female sports events ( professional or amateur ), enter private spaces such as loos, have a melt down if they get referred to by the wrong pronouns, being caught abusing kids or with sex abuse material, inciting violence like that nutter who wanted to punch ‘TERFs’….
The list goes on and on, but seldom do i hear anything about FtM trans people being royal pains in the arse, wanting to infiltrate mens changing rooms, prisons and sports events etc.
One obvious reason is that there is now a huge loophole in the law and opportunity which predatory men and misogynists just cannot let go to waste. The biggest disappointment and betrayal of all though is that it’s oftentimes actual women who are enabling this madness!
Yes indeed
What on God’s f***in earth means “to live as if they are women”? Women don’t “live” differently from men because woman is a state and not an activity. To restate (or rather, requote) this: Men trying to fool others into believing they aren’t men are seeking and having a decidedly male experience no woman will ever share with them.
Indeed, and conversely the only experiences unique to women such as menstruation and childbirth, breastfeeding can never be experienced by men. I’ve never had the pleasure of debating with someone who thinks men can become women, and I am glad because I think I would just burst out laughing – the whole thing is so preposterous.
They could start with getting angry about things, but never actually telling their partner what the problem is, and then go on to be terrible at reverse parking.
A jog in the park on Sunday should never be taken this seriously, surely?
It sounds a bit like a pub quiz ….. meant to be a bit of fun and socialising over a drink or two – until the highly competitive “must win” team turns up!
You can have friendly and enjoyable competition without having a “must win at all costs” attitude.
I disagree. The most interesting aspect of sports and games at any level is the competitive aspect. Without that, for many of us, it becomes dull.
Fair play, I’m neither for or against it I just think trans poeple in professional sport is a major prohibitive to female athletes, not so much in park runs
It’s on Saturdays, but I take your point.
From the article:
In that picture above the article: Can you imagine trying to walk a dog (or a child) in that park at that time?
My brother’s just started wearing dresses and stillettos…I think he’s a transistor
A Spanish matador has declared that he is gay, and pansexual (which appears to mean bisexual – what else could it mean?), apparently the first matador to come out and be open about it.
Here’s how the BBC report it:
“Spain’s LGBT matador: ‘More will come out because of me'”
“Spain’s first openly LGBT matador believes more bullfighters will come out, after revealing he is pansexual.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68226508
He’s not “openly LGBT”. That’s typical BBC manipulative ridiculous use of language. He’s openly G and/or B, he’s not L or T.
Gay bullfighting! Does this mean he fights gay bulls? or is he gay and fights bulls? Wow, whatever next?
No, this obviously means he wants to be conquered by bulls. As profession, that’s probably pretty self-limiting. But why shouldn’t the bulls have some fun, too?
Parkrun… until today never heard of it.
Parkrun had been a huge success. Each year more people took part, and more Parkruns around the world started up. Its success was down to its simplicity. What could possibly go wrong?
Well men pretending to be women and claiming their records was happening which was blatantly unfair. Parkrun HQ were well aware of these individuals but didn’t want to act because they wanted to #bekind or something. So instead they decided on mass punishment wiping out 20 years hard earnt records and data without even a day’s consultation.
Effectively the CEO (Russ Jefferies) picked up the football and ran (pun intended) off, collecting his white feather on the way. He’s now tying himself in knots trying to explain his cowardice. An early favourite for cuck of the year?
The issue in a nutshell (from one of the linked-to articles):
the campaign group Fair Play For Women said: “Parkrun have been letting men hold female course records. Women complained saying it was unfair. Rather than resolve the issue Parkrun has removed everyone’s records from its website.”
In the light of this, Parkrun desiring to be less off-putting to newcomers simply means less off-putting to women who don’t stand a chance of ever holding a women’s record when men are allowed to compete in the women category. IOW, their team of international experts was specifically tasked with finding a legal way to discriminate against women and their ‘solution’ is obviously “complete the destruction of Parkrun by eliminating Parkrun for men as well”. As most people on this planet aren’t already involved with it, there’s obviously a huge potential for New Parkrun and people who liked Parktun are just yesterday’s ballast.
Typical woketurds in action: Destroy what they didn’t create because they’re jealous that someone else created something.
Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint! Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was entsteht, Ist wert, daß es zugrundegeht; Drum besser wär’s, daß nichts entstünde.
to let Satan speak the words Goethe put in his mouth.
In every sport or situation where men who have decided they are now women have an unfair physical advantage over women, there is only one way that this absurdity can be stopped, and that is by the disadvantaged women refusing to participate. —–There can be no sport when 99% of the participants are not present. The disadvantaged might not want to abandon the sport that they have worked so hard in but their non participation will only be temporary as the authorities and body’s who have facilitated this situation will capitulate immediately——–I recall Serena Williams being asked on TV how she thought she would do against the men. “She replied “if I were to play Andy Murray I would lose 6-0 6-0. ——-This is simply the reality in physical sports where men are more powerful than women. That situation will NEVER change.
So-called American progressives like to fool themselves into believing that that’s just due to ‘discrimination’. Reality is such that I can hold woman who’s a head taller than me and at least 1½ my weight away from me with one hand and without serious effort. As fat ‘ladies’ oftentimes mistakenly believe they’re also strong and thus, like to get violent towards smaller man, I had the mispleasure to discover this on numerous occasions.
Just call them fat and you will have won the argument because they will start to cry.
That’s a tactic reserved for dealing with people they don’t really dare to tackle.
:->