Though Cowards Flinch

Under current English law, Spectator journalist Rod Liddle might reasonably be expected to be arrested tonight and held in the cells till Monday pending a hearing in the magistrates’ courts. 

Liddle might expect to be joined by his Spectator editor, Fraser Nelson.

Here is what Rod Liddle wrote, and Fraser Nelson allowed to be published last night on the well-known Spectator website:

The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community. Of course, in return, we have rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us.  For which, many thanks.’

Charlotte Gore has already done a commendable job setting out the factual incorrectness of Liddle’s statement, including reference to the Ministry of Justice’s Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System.  There is no need to repeat that here. 

Laudably, another Spectator journalist, Alex Massie, has also taken time to speak out against Liddle, when it would have been easy to keep quiet and go with the racist crowd.  Well done to him.

I will content myself with pointing out, therefore, that both Liddle and his editor seem prima facie to be in contravention of the Public Order Act 1986 (c.64, paras 18-19), which states:

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.

…………………….

A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

…………………..

A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.

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.

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.

References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.

Of course, in decided whether to press charges, the CPS would have to take a view on the probability of being able to prove that  Liddle (and through the writing or publishing of the words, intended to stir up racial hatred, and it would be for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the intention was there; Liddle’s reference to ‘goat curry’ in what is presumably an attempt at negative stereotyping, in addition to the (presumably for a professional journalist) deliberate inaccuracies in the information, might lead the prosecution.

Further the CPS would need to consider whether racial hatred was in fact stirred up by the words used.  In taking this view, they might want to refer to this exemplar comment left on Charlotte Gore’s blog:

Rod Liddle is spot on the money about blacks being responsible for most of the crime in our cities. I’ve never met a black yet who wasn’t a thief or a drug addict, and usually both.

Here there does, prima facie, seem to be causal relationship between Liddle writing incorrectly about the proportion of certain types of crime committed in London and a more inflammatory statement about the behaviour of all black people met by the commenter.

It will be interesting to see what happens as news of Liddle and Nelson’s actions spread. 

Of course, recourse to the law is only one way in which they might be brought to task for this overt expression of racism under the header of a magazine with a longstanding reputation for decent journalism (and it is not, in fact, my preferred one).  A picket of the magazine offices until such a time as a full apology is forthcoming is another, as might be a widely organised boycott of the magazine and a campaign to keep it off newsagents’ shelves.

Perhaps in the meantime Nelson, the editor, might want to consider whether Liddle’s employment with the Spectator is any longer warranted in view of what he has written, and the disrepute into which he has brought the publication.

As a final note, I wonder if Liddle, when making his ‘calculations’ about the proportion of crime in London for which black people are responsible, decided to leave domestic violence because of his own caution for hitting a pregnant woman in a domestic situation.