Free Speech vs. Hate Speech and Tommy Robinson

If so-called “hate speech” is not purely an Orwellian notion and truly denotes a factually determinate speech act, then it means “incitement to violence” – a crime that is already on the books, and a term that has the advantage of clarity. Evidently “hate speech” can be construed any which way the authorities fancy, who if they wish to lock you away for longer can always slap you with a count of “incitement to violence” on top the count of “hate speech”; the latter automatically entailing the other while a discrete charge of incitement can fail substantiation in court.

Until recently hate had not been a crime. The purview of the law had stopped short of thought. The Enlightenment had resolved – we had hoped for the last and final time – what the wars of religion had been fought over, by conceding to the individual the liberty to not only think as he will, but to speak too. For were he to think at all, he must be able to speak, and were he to think well, he must need write well, which he could only do if he could first speak. Thus the Enlightenment reinforced the principle of freedom of speech, which was enshrined in Western Civilization since Antiquity.

Formerly it was recognized that law is a fundamentally practical institution, exclusively concerned with the mundane world of action and as such secular, whereas the individual’s spiritual life could only be the bailiwick of religion. The impracticability of policing thought is still obvious to all today. However, this has not deterred the thought police (or morality police, if you like) from trying and going after the next best thing, the capacity to think that originates in speech, – in language itself.

Euphemisms and dysphemisms and specious invented words now abound and the very definitions of many words have erroneously been altered or confused, constricting the ability to speak and think, even before the law imposes its limits. Prior to “hate speech” there was but one absolute restriction on free speech: “incitement to violence,” a speech act criminal for the violence it precipitates against the public realm or the community there residing. But is not the destruction of language, the sine qua non of the public, a mortal wound for the community? It degrades and undermines the ability to speak and to think and therefore to act.

When anybody may hate, all become potential “speech criminals” under the regime of “hate laws.” But not all hate is equal, as Tommy Robinson well knows who has felt the uneven hand of the state and media of the intellectual class censure his dissenting voice. Some hate is illegitimate and when spoken deemed “hate speech” and silenced by the law, and some apparently legitimate and excused or permitted and applauded, and supported, by the authorities.

"Exclusive: Tommy Robinson Talks to RT about Free Speech" - 29 March 2018

RT UK journalist Zoie O'Brien sat down with Tommy Robinson to discuss freedom of speech and its limits in Britain in the age of Islamist terrorism. The talk unfortunately did not touch on the origin of “hate speech” or why certain speech is deemed hateful while others not. Robinson did point out the disparity between the treatment of different sorts of “hate speech,” how anti-Islamic speech is called “hate speech” but anti-gays, anti-women, anti-West hate from the mouths of Imams is not or at least not so important as to warrant discussion.

In my view the idea of “hate speech” should not be indulged except to explode it. But Robinson did do a very good job replying to the two chief arguments made against anti-Islam "hate speech." (O'Brien also did well to let him explain himself.)

Firstly, O'Brien asked whether Robinson's freedom to criticize Islam and the Islamization of Britain verged on "hate speech."

In Robinson's answer that free speech is a "God-given" liberty and he has never incited violence, he adds that "basically the word 'hate speech' has taken over now for 'racism.'" He is perfectly correct. But this statement does not go far enough. "Hate speech" pushes "hate"/"racism" into the domain of law because speech is an act, and therefore hate and racism is now criminal, no longer simply bad mannered or unacceptable.

O'Brien also presents the claim that those who "hate" Islam and are angry about the Islamization of the country are in the main ignorant and racist.

The claim is not inaccurate; some have difficulty distinguishing Islam from muslims, but not so many. Robinson's reply is the right conclusion to make. If there is no real dialogue about Islamization and Islamism and the place of Islam in the country, and if concern over this matter continues to be ignored, deemed "hate speech," and persecuted by the law and media, then someday this "hate speech" may actually erupt in violence: "[the authorities] are going to go on to create monsters." If you think the English Defense League or the Alt-Right are Nazis, you cannot possibly imagine evil. Has the last century of history actually been forgotten?

RT should followup by investigating the phenomenon of "hate speech." What other major broadcaster in the UK will do it? None.