Those intent on removing offence of blasphemy don’t see irony in campaigning to restrict free speech
IRISH writer Graham Linehan is a comic genius. His hit television series ‘Father Ted’ and ‘The IT Crowd’ are classics that show no sign of growing old. He’s also a pugnacious and sometimes belligerent user of social media platform Twitter. He has almost 700,000 followers and can usually be relied on for leading so-called ‘twitch-hunts’ online critical of people perceived not to be progressive in their views. In a deeply ironic twist, he has now fallen foul of some of his erstwhile cheerleaders after British police called to his house to issue him with a formal legal warning over what they claimed was harassment of a person who was born a man and now identifies as a woman and has had this identity legally recognised in the UK. Linehan and Stephanie Hayden had been involved in a Twitter spat over the writer’s views on transgender issues. “There’s this unquestioning reverence for anyone who says they are transgender, but this unquestioning loyalty is really dangerous,” he insisted. He claims that Hayden – who medically transitioned to a woman in 2007 – released details of his home address on Twitter and alleges that this led him to use her pre-transition names ‘Tony’ and ‘Steven’ online in retaliation. Hayden immediately denounced him to the authorities and the police began their earnest investigation, concluding that he was indeed guilty of harassment and punishable by a formal warning. Hayden claims to have suffered severe distress due to the row and, as a result, Linehan now finds himself on the wrong side of the thought police both online and in the real world. I don’t doubt for one moment that Hayden felt upset by the exchange. One could certainly argue with some justification that Linehan’s behaviour was at the very least ungallant. But, the crux of the matter is whether or not we believe it is really the job of the police to monitor whether or not people are being nice to one another online. UK lawmakers certainly appear to. And, if so, it might be one reason that some 95pc of burglaries and robberies go unsolved in the UK as officers are busy trawling the internet in search of real and perceived slights. Anyone who ventures an opinion online knows that it can be a nasty world. During the recent visit of Pope Francis, I turned off Twitter notifications for the entire weekend, such was the level of vitriol I got for even the mildest of observations about the trip. I don’t particularly like people calling me a ‘paedophile lover’ simply because I edit a Catholic newspaper, but nor do I expect that it is the job of the law to protect my feelings from people who want to be an ass to me. Britain now has some of the most draconian laws in the world when it comes to protecting people’s feelings online. A few years ago during the Olympics, an obnoxious creep tweeted diver Tom Daley to say his father, who had died of brain cancer when Tom was a teenager, would’ve been disappointed by the athlete’s performance. It was a particularly nasty comment, to which the police responded to with a formal investigation. Tom himself – undoubtedly hurt by the comment – simply replied describing the user as an idiot. The point is there is a huge difference between being a prat and a dangerous hate-monger – and people should be able to tell that difference. When one is too quick to allege hate when someone sends them a nasty message, the word gets stripped of meaning. Like the boy who cries wolf, it can stop us being able to see things that are truly hateful. Some politicians and commentators would like Ireland to adopt the more robust approach to online unkindness now commonplace in Britain. Left-leaning politicians, in particular, have warned that laws against so-called ‘hate crimes’ perpetrated online need to be toughened up. They effectively want it to be illegal to say hurtful things to people online. The irony, of course, is that many who support such restrictions are also vocal supporters of the repeal of the meaningless reference to blasphemy in the Constitution. They are anxious that someone might be prosecuted for saying something mocking about the Five Pillars of Islam of the Catholic belief in the Eucharist. Most people acknowledge it has no force, but they claim it has a chilling effect on free speech. It’s extraordinary how those so intent on removing the offence of blasphemy don’t see the irony in campaigning at the same time to double-down on free speech. Minorities deserve legal protection from incitement to hatred and discrimination. But, just as religious people don’t have a right to have their identity preserved from ridicule, no one has a right to be free from people saying unkind things about them. Anything that constitutes xenophobia, racism or sectarianism must be – and is – punishable by the law. But, no one should expect to employ the law to ensure that their feelings are not hurt. Debate is, and should be, robust. Sometimes – particularly online – this can tend towards the uncivilised. But, this is not dangerous – what is dangerous is building a culture where the right to be offensive is trumped by the right of another not to be offended. In as much as I care about a dead letter in the Constitution, I’ve no problem with the repeal of the offence of blasphemy. But, I’m also increasingly exacerbated by those advocating liberty when it comes to religion, but restrictions on almost every other aspect of free speech. As Stephen Sondheim might put it: “Send in the clowns. Don’t bother, they’re already here.”
The crux of the matter is whether we believe it is really the job of the police to monitor whether or not people are being nice to one another online