Correspondence
| Author | Ashley Bramali |
| Date | 01 July 1963 |
| Published date | 01 July 1963 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1963.tb00725.x |
490
THE MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOL.
“ti
unless justice demanded it. Surprisingly, the weakest link in
our
law in this
field, and the one which exposes
our
journalists to the greatest risk, the
Otficial Secrets Acts, is not discussed at all, whereas the parallel provisions
on Australia are exaniiiied in the section devoted to that country.
The thoroughness, depth and objectivity
of
the Survey are in striking
contrast with the comnients of most of the British Press on the cases of
Clough and Mulholland.
HABRY
STREET.
CORRESPONDENCE
THE
EDITOR,
The
Modern
Law
Reziew.
Sir,
As the mover of the original motion in the London County Council calling
for legislation to make incitement to violence by the advocacy of racial
discrimination and hatred an offence (although not responsible for the final
wording, which was arrived at by amendment) may
I
be permitted to comment
on the letter in
your
January issue
(26
M.L.R.
119)
from
Mr.
E.
B. Simmons.
My
first comment is that
Mr.
Simmons fails to distinguish between the
resolution of
a
deliberative body and legislation. Of. course it would be
necessary in a Bill to define certain key words, but one would hardly expect
to find the definitions in a resolution calling for legislation.
Nor
is definition of “race”
as
difficult in this context as
Mr.
Simmons
suggests.
He
raises questions about the position of Jews (who are after all
only
one of the groups a5ected) and asks “what is the position of ex-Jews
who
have become adherents of another religion?
’’
This is to misconceive the
problem. We are not proposing legislation to deal with individual cases, like
the Nazi Nuremberg laws
or
current South African legislation; we are seeking
to deal with people who incite to violence against a group which they refer to
as
“the Jews”-
or
more probably
“
the Yids.” It appears to me that all
that is required by way
of
definition for this purpose is a provision to secure
that the term “race”
or
“racial” shall be taken to include the group of
persons generally known
as
“Jews
”
or
‘‘
Jewish.” Since the problem
to
be
dealt with is incitement against
a
group and not against individuals (except
as
members of the group) it
is
quite unnecessary to lay down exactly which
individuals constitute the group.
Similarly it is rather beside the point to demonstrate,
as
Mr.
Simmons
does, that “discrimination” is
a
common and, in certain respects, perfectly
respectable phenomenon. All we are seeking to prevent is incitement to
violence by means of appeals for discrimination.
Mr.
Simmons himself has
made it abundantly clear that the meaning
of
that word is well understood.
Mr.
Simmons
is
quite wrong in assuming that the resolution was intended
to go further and to call for legislation against any publication advocating
racial discrimination. It was made abundantly clear in the debate that we
were not aiming at the propagation of views, however distasteful, but at the
use of these views
as
a
vehicle for incitement to violence.
I
can
only say that the failure of the authorities to proceed in many cases of
gross
incitement and the result of the only prosecution undertaken only allow of two
possible conclusions-either that the authorities are tolerant of this conduct
or
that the law does not permit of effective action. We preferred the latter
hypothesis.
ASHLEY
BEAMALL.
3
Dr.
Johnson’s Buildings,
Finally, to the suggestion that no alteration in the law is needed.
Temple, E.C.4.
To continue reading
Request your trial