Racial hatred
Prosecutions urged after Glastonbury broadcast
BBC staff were given new guidelines on broadcasting hate speech last week, The Times reports today. The updated guidelines state: “Material that contains hate speech should not be included in output unless it is justified by the context.”
The guidelines added that broadcasting hate speech could constitute a criminal offence “if it is intended or likely to stir up hatred relating to race, or intended to stir up hatred relating to religious belief”.
This appears to refer to section 22 of the Public Order Act 1986.
The campaign group UK Lawyers for Israel reported the BBC to Avon and Somerset Police yesterday, alleging that the BBC was guilty of just such an offence. They referred specifically to section 22 of the Public Order Act 1986.
This says, in part:
(1) If a programme involving threatening, abusive or insulting visual images or sounds is included in a programme service, each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
(2) The persons are—
(a) the person providing the programme service,
(b) any person by whom the programme is produced or directed, and
(c) any person by whom offending words or behaviour are used.
(3) If the person providing the service, or a person by whom the programme was produced or directed, is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred, it is a defence for him to prove that—
(a) he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the programme would involve the offending material, and
(b) having regard to the circumstances in which the programme was included in a programme service, it was not reasonably practicable for him to secure the removal of the material.
The section continues with other defences.
UK Lawyers for Israel said yesterday:
Pascal Robinson-Foster, whose stage name is Bobby Vylan, was allowed to chant “Death Death to the IDF”, live at Glastonbury yesterday afternoon, to encourage thousands of people in the audience to follow with the same chant. He also engaged in an antisemitic rant about being employed by a Zionist…
The chants led by the band Bob Vylan included “Free, Free Palestine, Death, Death to the IDF” and “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free”. These chants stirred up hatred against Israelis and Jews, endorsing the idea that they deserve death.
The BBC could easily have stopped broadcasting this performance and switched to a different stage. However, it failed to do so, allowing the broadcast of this hate speech to continue.
[We] had already reported Bob Vylan to the Avon and Somerset Police. The police have responded, saying: “Video evidence will be assessed by officers to determine whether any offences may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation.”
A UK Lawyers for Israel spokesperson said: “The BBC should be prosecuted for this criminal offence. Promoting hatred must be firmly deterred.”
The maximum sentence for an individual convicted under section 2 is seven years. Sentencing guidelines indicate a range from a community order to six years’ custody unless there are aggravating circumstances.
If a corporation such as the BBC is convicted, it would face an unlimited fine. But section 28 of the act says:
Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this part and it is shown that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
The attorney general’s consent is needed for any racial hatred prosecution.
Today’s Telegraph reports Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, as saying of Pascal Robinson-Foster:
It seems very clear that this man was directly inciting violence. He should receive the same treatment under the law as others, such as Lucy Connolly.
He should be arrested and prosecuted immediately. A failure to do so would be a clear example of two-tier justice under Sir Keir Starmer and his attorney general, Lord Hermer.
Connolly was convicted under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986. This says, in part:
(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
(2) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred to prove that he was not aware of the content of the material and did not suspect, and had no reason to suspect, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting.
Robinson-Foster could face prosecution under section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986. This says, in part:
(1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.
The seven-year maximum penalty, attorney general’s consent and sentencing guidelines apply to these offences too.
Bob Vylan clearly need to be investigated by the police, and it is difficult to see how they will not be charged, although there is a very different test between the Public Order Act and the communications offences. However, the politicisation of these matters is deeply unhelpful. The Shadow Home Secretary should know (and if he does not, should not be in his job) that these matters rarely lead to an 'immediate arrest', and that did not happen in the Connelly case. The way that the Conservative Party is portraying Connelly as some sort of freedom fighter is disturbing. Both Bob Vylan and Connelly deserve the attention of the criminal law, but pretending there is somehow a different timeline or process is as dangerous as it is unhelpful. The party seems determined to undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system which, at least in my view, is inappropriate irrespective of party.
The BBC clearly have answers, although I expect OFCOM will be the more likely adjudicator than the courts. The BBC will have more defences in law than Bob Vylan. There was discussion before the festival about a delay of a few seconds in broadcasting for Kneecap, so it is surprising the same delay was not used here, and that will no doubt be a pertinent factor for OFCOM.
Yawn yawn. Being anti the actions of the Israeli government is NOT antisemitic.