The right to speak
From Mr Peter Tatchell Sir: I am, for once, in wholehearted agreement with Peter Hitchens (`Keep quiet or face arrest', 11 May). The conviction of Harry Hammond for displaying a placard criticising homosexuality is a grotesque misuse of the Public Order Act. His placard was offensive to gay people; that is not, however, a legitimate reason to suppress his right to protest and turn him into a criminal. Freedom of speech is so precious that it must be defended, even when we disagree with the sentiments expressed. Other than direct incitements to violence, there is no justification for criminalising words and opinions.
If Mr Hammond appeals, I would gladly testify in favour of his conviction being overturned. My sympathy for his civil rights stems from first-hand experience of the way the Public Order Act is sometimes abused. In 1994, at Wembley Arena, I protested silently and peacefully outside a rally of 6,000 Islamic fundamentalists who were advocating the murder of homosexuals.
I was arrested and charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act for displaying a placard that read 'Islam Nazis behead and burn queers' — a reference to the gruesome methods by which more than 4.000 lesbians and gay men have been executed in Iran since the ayatollahs came to power. The prosecution said that my placard was 'threatening, abusive or insulting' to Muslims at the rally and was likely to cause 'harassment, alarm or distress'.
At my trial, the charge was eventually dismissed, but not before the law had been misused — as in the case of Harry Hammond — to curtail free speech and peaceful protest.
Peter Tatchell
Previous page
