So why isn't Prince Charles in jail?
That's the obvious facetious question, sure to be asked over and over in connection with the case of Robin Page, the Telegraph writer who was arrested and jailed for saying that "the rural minority should have the same rights as blacks, Muslims and gays."
The Prince of Wales said much the same thing in a letter to Tony Blair back in September. It's a common enough formulation amongst the pro-hunting lobby in Britain; indeed, it's something of a cliche.
Mr. Page and Prince Charles are irrefutably correct when they maintain that "rural folk" ought to have the same rights as any other minority group, though it's certainly possible to question the implication that they, in fact, do not. At worst, it may be hyperbole or balderdash to compare the plight of British country people with that of government-certified victims of racism, religious persecution, or sex discrimination. A strongly-worded letter to the editor of the local paper, denouncing such intemperate rhetoric, might be called for. Such a letter might even suggest, as such letters often do, that the likes of Mr. Page and the Prince of Wales are a menace to society and ought to be locked up. Yet even those with extreme anti-toff sympathies might well wonder whether it's a good idea to allow The Authorities unlimited power to take it upon themselves actually to do so.
How, exactly, is this statement "hate speech?" How does uttering it "stir up racial hatred?" No one can say, because "hate speech" is a contentless category. To ban it is to criminalize the expression of unspecified opinions or "attitudes," which are to be determined as the need arises. My guess is that the mere utterance of the words "blacks, Muslims, and gays" in a context that was not sufficiently deferential, by a speaker who (one assumes) fits none of these pigeonholes himself, is what triggered the inquiries by the Sensitivity Police. (nb: if Jews are ever added to this "endangered species" roster of officially protected minorities, those on the editorial staff of the Guardian had better watch their step-- not that that's likely to occur.)
If the Telegraph's account of the affair is to be believed, Page was brought in for questioning because the chief constable had received "a number of complaints." They put him in a jail cell until he agreed not to insist on consulting a lawyer. "Are you a racist?" they asked. "No," he replied. He was released on bail and ordered to report to the police again in January, for some unspecified further procedure.
In America, such idiocy might be noted ironically under the rubric "your tax dollars at work" (outrage optional.) But then, we have a First Amendment. The citizens (read "subjects") of Great Britain don't. And, as Iain Murray says, they really need one. God help 'em.
(See also Natalie Solent and Steven Chapman.)
Posted by Dr. Frank at November 21, 2002 02:21 PM | TrackBack