Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is well remunerated to exercise her opinions every week in her Independent column. Her free expression keeps a roof over her head, so you’d expect her to be forgiving when others exercise their rights. Sadly not. Whilst she didn’t call the police about Cllr Compton, she says she would have done so, and has backed up the CPS position that these tweets are “menacing”.
On Thursday, comedy writer Graham Lineham wrote an excellent piece for Index on Censorship:
“The Twitter joke trial is the clearest indication yet that the world is divided into two sorts of people at the moment. The people who ‘get it’, and the people who don’t.”
Sadly, those who don’t get it include the Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the judiciary, and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.
For a single tweet, Paul Chambers now has a criminal record, is facing a £1,000 fine, plus the costs from his original conviction and after Thursday another £2,600 worth of costs. At 27, he is branded a criminal and has lost his job.
There’s no doubt that what Chambers tweeted…
“Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”
… was stupid. But the response has been absolutely disproportionate.
Originally, Chambers was arrested because the police felt compelled to investigate his “bomb threat”. After his arrest, officers felt that the threat from the tweet had not been credible.
Yet, the CPS subsequently brought charges against Chambers, not for the original arrest charge, which would have needed a high threshold for evidence of a viable bomb plot, but instead he became the first person in the UK to be charged for a tweet under section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003.
As Jack of Kent points out, the CPS regard section 127 as a “strict liability” offence, which in practice means they don’t need to provide any evidence whatsoever of intention before they prosecute. This is significant. No one would suggest that Paul Chambers intended to “menace” people from his tweet (or be grossly offensive, indecent, or obscene).
But for the CPS this is irrelevant. The tweet alone was enough for them to launch their prosecution. Just placing the tweet on a website is enough for them to prosecute.
Even free speech fundamentalists agree with US Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s point that free speech would not protect an idiot who shouted fire in a crowded theatre and caused a panic. Though as one of the most ardent free speech campaigners alive today, Aryeh Neier, points out in Index on Censorship magazine (“Radio Redux”):
“… the stress on circumstances is crucial. If the theatre were empty at the time, there would be no panic and, therefore, in Holmes’s judgement, no basis for punishing the false shout of fire.”
English law now seems to suggest that merely to shout fire is enough to initiate a prosecution – which is utterly chilling for free expression.
It isn’t just the CPS who don’t get it. Judge Jacqueline Davies said Chambers was an “an unimpressive witness”, adding:
“… the words in the message speak for themselves and they were sent at a time when the security threat to this country was substantial… Any ordinary person would have been menaced by the tweet.”
This isn’t a one-off. On Thursday, Tory councillor Gareth Compton was arrested for a “menacing tweet”. Idiotically he tweeted:
“Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan’t tell Amnesty if you don’t. It would be a blessing, really.”
Now, I find this offensive and imagine most people do – but there is a huge difference between stupidity and criminal behaviour. With the Chambers case setting the case law, it is likely he could face a huge fine. The Conservatives have suspended him from the party. Again, someone faces a criminal record (and the end of their career: Compton is a barrister) for an idiotic comment on twitter.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is well remunerated to exercise her opinions every week in her Independent column. Her free expression keeps a roof over her head, so you’d expect her to be forgiving when others exercise their rights. Sadly not. Whilst she didn’t call the police about Cllr Compton, she says she would have done so, and has backed up the CPS position that these tweets are “menacing”.
And Labour’s position? Labour backbenches found themselves suddenly exercised by the ghost of Thomas Paine this week as they defended the fundamental right of Phil Woolas to lie on election material / generally be idiotic (see my thoughts on this here), but sadly this free expression zeal doesn’t seem to extend to other political parties.
Steve McCabe, Labour MP for Birmingham Selly Oak, said:
“It is staggering that the Conservative Party allowed Gareth Compton to represent the people of Birmingham in the first place. His despicable comments on Twitter show that he has no place in public office.”
Maybe – I certainly think Cllr Compton’s comments show a lack of judgement – but, what no Labour MP has tackled is whether they think Cllr Compton should be prosecuted. That’s at the heart of this debate, not mere offence, but whether people should be prosecuted for a criminal offence over a single tweet.
34 Responses to “The CPS, judiciary and Yasmin Alibhai Brown just don’t get Twitter”
Anon E Mouse
Fantastic piece by Left Foot Forward. Too many of our hard earned civil liberties were eroded under the last government with it’s control orders, 42 day detention and thousands of control freak laws.
I wait to see what this coalition government is going to do about this because when we live in a world where a cartoon of a religious figure results in death threats something is very very wrong.
I was especially annoyed to hear this horrible woman refuse to condemn the actions of Saudi Arabia with female genital mutilation, stoning and the inequality of men and woman.
Yasmin Brown should be ashamed of herself for not just ignoring this.
Control freaks like Mr.Sensible will always want to live in a Stalinist type state but he is in the minority here and should be ignored like this disgraceful woman…
Mr. Sensible
Mr Mouse are you honestly saying it is acceptable to post that you are going to blow something up and say you want someone stoned to death?
I certainly do not think it is acceptable.
You may call it free speach, but I call it completely unacceptable.
Anon E Mouse
Mr.Sensible – It’s called a JOKE. You may or may not find it funny but it’s still a JOKE.
For some reason the left in this country has become a humourless zone of seriousness but let’s quickly test see if you think the following is fair.
I personally think that joking about the act of stoning a woman to death is less serious that the actions of a country, like Iran, to actually carry out those acts. Yet this horrible woman says she will NOT condemn Saudi Arabia for its actions yet she complains when someone jokes about stoning her claiming; “It upset my daughter”.
Well so bloody what? It upsets me when homosexuals are executed for their sexuality or little girls are sexually mutilated for religious reasons or Muslims threaten to behead people who make jokes about their prophet in this country. It upsets me when people complain to the BBC about Jerry Springer but so what?
I reserve the right to be upset and to upset people if I want. I reserve the right to be offended and to offend people if I want. That’s called freedom.
This country has taken centuries to achieve that freedom of speech. Control freaks like yourself Mr.Sensible exemplify exactly what people hate about the left at the moment and if you think Labour will ever be elected again if it’s supporters hold your views you are seriously mistaken…
Cllr Mike Harris
Anon E Mouse, do you think there’s a slight irony in attacking Labour as anti-free speech in the comments section of an article strongly defending free speech, written by a Labour Councillor?!
I know Labour have a patchy record here – but we did introduce the Human Rights Act which gives the staunchest defence of free speech we have in Article 10.
And the Conservatives have hardly rallied to Cllr Compton – instead suspending him.
Anon E Mouse
Mike Harris – I’m agreeing with free speech – Labour were the party of control orders and CCTV though, irrespective of the views of one of their councillors and being anti-Labour rather than pro-Tory I don’t care what they do but they shouldn’t have suspended that councillor either.
If you read the comments in this blog regularly you’ll realise that there are several commentators who want to rewrite history regarding the Labour Party and still support big state control freakery.
My remarks are in response to one of these apparatchiks – namely Mr.Sensible – who want to live in a Stalinist state where no individualism is allowed.
Finally I would just remind you that despite the message from the Labour councillor who I agree with (I also like Charles Clarke, Tony Benn – free thinkers regardless of their parties) it was the Labour government that introduced the very laws that caused the “offence” described here…