Freedom of Speech

Omar Bakri Mohammed excluded from UK

Omar Bakri Mohammed, a controversial cleric who is reported to have described the "9/11" hijackers as the "magnificent 19", has been excluded from the UK by the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke.

Mr Mohammed, who has lived in Britain for two decades has, according to Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain, spent most of that time "vilifying this country and its values". (For example, Mr Mohammed recently said that he would not report a potential bomber to the police.)

Whilst it is difficult to have any sympathy for Mr Mohammed, whose views are so repugnant to any sensible person, we should nevertheless make the attempt. In the United Kingdom, we have much more freedom to express our views than almost anywhere else in the world, and this is a Good Thing. As long as what we say or write does not slander or libel anyone, we can say or write more or less what we like. But the exclusion of Mr Mohammed from the UK changes things considerably.

Lest you think I agree with the evil ravings of Mr Mohammed, I should point out that I most certainly do not. But there is a big difference between, on the one hand, not agreeing with someone's views and, on the other hand, hurling them out of the country.

Either Mr Mohammed has broken the law, or he hasn't. If it is thought by the Crown Prosecution Service that he has, then he should be prosecuted and, if found guilty, he should be punished proportionately to his crime. If he has not broken the law, why exclude him from the country?

The whole point of freedom of speech is that everybody has it. There is a longstanding joke about the policy statement of a college's Students Union, which apparently demanded both "free speech for all" and, later in the document, "no platform for Fascists". It's nonsense - and it seems to be current government policy. Why are we not surprised?

If you're going to have free speech, you have to be prepared for the possibility that people will say things with which you don't agree. You have to be prepared to trust listeners to make intelligent judgements about what they hear. That's what freedom is about - trust. If the Government exclude Mr Mohammed, it can surely only be because they do not trust the population of this country to reject his views for themselves. Do we really want to be ruled by a government that does not trust its own people?

Your correspondent is a Christian, and therefore not just a non-Muslim but an opponent of Islam (and indeed any other religion, sect, or cult). I disagree with every word Mr Mohammed says - but, so long as his statements do not breach UK law, I would be prepared to put up with significant inconvenience defending his right to say it.

Make no mistake - it is by such seemingly small inroads as this that our freedom of speech is eroded. If we do not make a stand against the oppression of people-not-like-us, who will stand for us when our own freedom of speech is attacked?