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”
New Labour Boy
It appears that YAB did not complain to the Police, but a concerned member of the public lodged the complaint.I am a retired LGO who had a long career in regulatory and legal advice services. We got complaints from stakeholders, some of whom knew which alleged offence had allegedly been committed,others gave us a statement,left it up to us what action to take eg might tip us off that counterfeit cigs were being sold at X (no pun intended) others might have been victims of some scam or fraud, in all cases we looked at relevant statutes, regs and case law before taking action.Would average copper be aware of CA2003 s127, as opposed to say Fraud Act 2006, difficult to say, so perhaps advice of CPS sought. Arrest sounds dramatic, but GC, a barrister, should know how best to deal with iview under caution.According to Birmingham Mail YAB does not want GC to be charged, but as it is a strict liability alleged offence that may not sway cops and CPS. Apparently GC may have some previous,but non criminal, as regards ill advised tweets. Con Home Local Govt site has some interesting and well written tweets concerning the legal aspects of GCs predicament, 167 posted in all, but not all of them relevant or coherent so be prepared for a lengthy scrolling session.
Yusuf
The anonymousness of the Internet, makes people feels even safer then in car ranting and leads to statements that one would not make face to face. Many people may have muttered to themselves the comments the MP made, but his stupidity was to post, to him what was a joke, but to the others was outrageous statement.
Yet people like YAB only amplify their hypocrisy if they hold certain beliefs but stay quiet when a selected religion/ideology/race/country/culture does wrong. Can we take YAB seriously she admits to racism against White Middle Class Men yet happy to take a cheque for writing articles for the Daily Mail?
YAB argued Britain’s cruel Empire means Britain today has no right to past judgement on other countries. When Nick Griffin was on Question Time, Jack Straw criticized the BNP use of images of WW2 in their campaigns, and Griffin responded that whilst his dad was in the RAF in WW2, Straw’s was in prison for refusing to fight. Does what your ancestor did reflect who you are now? Do states have to hold their current ideology on what happened generations ago? Is YAB who was born in Uganda, a victim of the British Empire or a tyrannical leader who forced Asians to leave?
If her belief is that British Politicians should not give advice on human rights because of the British Empires wrong doings then does she criticise German and Japanese politicians who advocate peace, should today’s American Politicians be held in account for crimes to native Americans, Italians for the ills of the Roman Empire, Egyptians for the slavery of the Jews? Has she forgotten about British White Middle Class Men like William Wilberforce? Of course its more convenient to lump everyone into the same box.
After September 11th many young Muslims I knew were fully in support of Osama Bin Laden, some Imams were teaching very extreme views especially on Israel, and during the Iraq War people’s anger grew. It wasn’t much of a surprise that we saw young British born and bred, well-educated men kill and maim in their distorted view of Islam on 7/7. This brought about the full wave of Islamiphobia in the UK led by tabloid knee jerk reaction and countered by certain media criticising reactionaries more then looking at the root cause.
The extremist views should have been diffused within the Muslim community but quietly left to grow to the levels of extreme hatred.
People in influential positions like YAB should have a bit more backbone in staying true to their values, instead by refusing to criticise China, Saudi Arabia and Iran can only make her look weak and hypocritical.
Here in Britain we scream bloody murder over the rights of gay people to marry, or become priests or rights to free speech. Yet China only as recently as 2001 removed homosexuality as an mental illness and still in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Nigeria, Mauritania being gay is still punished with the death penalty. In Pakistan people like Asia Bibi are being sentenced to death for blasphemy. In Britain some people can’t see the wood for the trees when it comes to issues of freedom.
In terms of free speech I find it interesting how certain people are happy to go along with the idea until something effects them. If anyone remembers Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti who had to go into hiding for her play Behzti – Dishonour. The violent protest against her play by certain members of the Sikh community got her play banned from a Birmingham theatre. Likewise Isaac Hayes who played Chef on South Park was only too happy to take the p. out of almost every religion and culture until he left over an episode featuring his own belief- Scientology.
In the case of people protesting the BBC’s airing of Jerry Springer Opera it was not the play itself they were unhappy about, most did not protest against the play being held in public theatres where people paid to see it. They were protesting against as BBC licence payers, and that a public licensed organisation showing something, which they deemed offensive to their beliefs. I do not think they would have protested had it been shown by another network where programming was paid for by advertisers. Just like some Muslims disagreed with Salman Rushdies Satanic Verses, some did not protest at the publishing of the book. But if the BBC were to broadcast the Satanic Verses series on TV they might have a change of heart.
New Labour Boy
Problem is that internet does not appear to be so anonymous, if used for defamatory or potentially criminal comments, opinions etc. Wish that it was used more by bloggers like Yusuf, balanced, intelligent, analytical. Wonder what areas of law GC specialises in; anyone know?
Anon E Mouse
Yusuf – Good comments fella…