On ‘inflammatory’ speech, it’s time for Britain to follow the lead of the US

Bobby Vylan’s remarks are not worthy of jail time – but neither were Lucy Connolly’s

Paul Embery is one of the most interesting, insightful and original voices to have emerged in British journalism for some time — Douglas Murray

Bobby Vylan (photo: Stefan Bollmann via Wikimedia Commons)

I loathe political opportunism. In particular, I dislike it when individuals who can usually be found campaigning passionately on one side of a specific issue or cause suddenly adopt a contrary stance simply because they have sensed a chance to sock it to the other side.

I have noticed the phenomenon occurring especially in debates over free speech, where some who generally rail in the fiercest terms against cancel culture will cynically set aside their ‘principles’ and demand that a political opponent who happens to have caused offence in some way suffer the most punitive sanction.

Such double standards have been on display in recent days amid the furore over the performance of poet and rapper Bobby Vylan – he who said something derogatory about his ‘Zionist’ former boss and chanted ‘Death to the IDF!’ – at the Glastonbury festival. Don’t misunderstand me: I think Vylan is an oaf, and I wouldn’t cross the road to see his brand of ‘art’ if you paid me. Neither do I agree with his stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict. But I found utterly dispiriting the calls for Vylan’s prosecution by some who in other circumstances would see themselves as the ultimate ‘free speech warriors’. Prosecuted? For using the term ‘Zionist’ and calling for the destruction of a foreign army? If these utterances, unpleasant as they might be, are now the standard for ‘hate crime’ or ‘incitement’, we are on a very slippery slope.

In fact, I think we all ought to take a step back and calm down a bit. Vile and obnoxious language or views should, of course, be challenged. No idea or opinion is worthy of being ringfenced from criticism or scrutiny. But we should reserve demands for cancellation or prosecution for only the most egregious cases.

If you have argued – as I have – that Lucy Connolly does not belong in jail, then consistency demands you argue the same for Bobby Vylan. By no measure were his words more hate-filled or provocative than hers. Don’t be tempted into insisting upon exemplary punishment for him simply on the grounds that she got rough justice. Two wrongs do not make a right. On matters of law and justice, principle should always come before what is politically expedient.

An unintended consequence, in fact, of the harsh sentence meted out to Connolly is that her case has become a sort of cause célèbre. When, last October, Judge Melbourne Inman KC jailed her for 31 months, he couldn’t possibly have imagined the eventual blowback, which has even included an expression of concern by the White House. The danger now is that, as we have seen with the Vylan affair, every other case alleging inflammatory speech will be measured against it, and to avoid claims of two-tier justice the authorities will dish out harsher and harsher punishments for transgressions which, in a sane world, would not come before the courts at all.

It is obvious, for example, from chatter on social media that many are eagerly awaiting the trial of Ricky Jones, the Labour councillor who was captured on video apparently calling for political opponents to have their throats cut. If they perceive that Jones is held to a different standard than Connolly, they will erupt. That’s always the risk when the justice system makes an example of someone.