So, did anybody ever hear
about that law in Hereford that says you can shoot a Welshman, with a cross
bow, provided he’s standing on the Cathedral Green? It’s one of those stupid
laws that no one’s ever bothered to repeal and that people like to imagine
entitles them to some sort of awesome legal defence if they ever do it. Heads
up, it doesn’t actually work like that; killing someone is killing someone no
matter what some ancient law says.
I only bring this up, because
the sheer stupidity of someone saying to the Police, “I’m allowed to do this
because I used a cross bow, I was on the green on a Sunday and he’s Welsh” is
round about as stupid as someone saying “I was offended by what he said
therefore he should go to prison”…oh…wait a second.
Yes it’s this one and while I
am a little bit late to start moaning about this shiny new law, I’m going to do
it anyway.
How the hell are judges getting
away with sentencing people to prison, for saying things? This makes literally
no sense - usually with these sorts of
laws, the legal layman tends to misunderstand sentences, largely due to factors
such as newspapers misleading them and Politicians outright lying about why a
case has been decided the way it has (incidentally, the reason that guy got to stay
in this country wasn’t because he had a cat).
But anyhow, the weird thing
about this new law (section 5 of the Public Order Act) is that it isn't subject
to this misunderstanding or Political opportunism. Someone feels suitably
offended by something you say, you could end up in court. Put it on your
Facebook page, your Twitter feed or your T-Shirt and you could well be booking
a court date.
Section 5 (1)(a) of the Public
Order Act 1986 states that it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or
insulting words or behaviour.
Threatening; yes, if someone
threatens me, I think the law should be there to protect my well-being,
abusive; can shrug it off, but in certain circumstances, say someone in a
position of power like a teacher or an employer, then maybe there should be a
safeguard – Insulting…what exactly does that mean?
Having studied law for over three years now, I know that the words in the statute are never the end in
terms of meaning. The court will always clarify what they believe any important
word that’s passed through Parliament means. This is why I’m so shocked by the
recent cases. The court has taken what is referred to as a literal
interpretation of the word “insulting”. True they seemed to have given it some
meaning in the case of Matthew Woods, his comments on his Facebook page being described
as “disgusting” but that’s not a definition. I don’t see why the court would
act in this way without proper definition.
Now, onto what this means. In basic terms, you
“insult” enough people, you go to prison. That’s all you need to do; do
something insulting. I don't know about you, but I insult six people a day.
Most of the Doctor Who writing staff can probably bring charges against me for
the sheer amount of ad hominem I slip into when writing reviews.
I insult my University on a
regular basis, I insult my bank on a regular basis, I insult my friends on a
regular basis. This doesn't mean I’m a criminal, this just means I’m a person –
insulting things and people is how the majority of us vent frustration and
avoid giving into our more violent urges (something that actually would be a legitimate
reason to haul someone before the court).
This rant has taken up far too
much of my time, but I’m going to attempt to bring it back round to Sci-fi with
a quote.
“With the first link the chain
is forged, the first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first
freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably” - Star Trek, The Next Generation, Season 4
Episode 21 “The Drumhead”
Please note that if anything
in this post has offended you, you are welcome to contact your local Police Station.
