A barrister's call for Tony Blair to be killed is no joke

Last week a question was raised about whether it was ever right for lawyers to be bugged.  Well, the answer must be yes if the online views of a Lincoln's Inn barrister are to be taken literally. Blogging under the name of Geek Lawyer, this distinguished judicial person ended a typical anti-Blair rant with the words: 

“Why oh why oh why oh why can’t the useless rag-head pillocks in Al Queda assassinate him? It would be great PR for them: many of us would revise our low opinion of them if they could do us this one small service. Their ineptness is proof that the terrorism ‘threat’ is laughable.”

As can be imagined, this incendiary remark by a person of the law has caused quite a furore on the internet, especially amongst those who don't buy in to the idea that Tony Blair is the Devil incarnate who deserves all the abuse that can be heaped upon him (click here)

Of course, when Mr Big Mouth was confronted with the possibility of being prosecuted under the anti-terrorism laws or of being referred to the Bar Council his acolytes leaped to his defence on the basis that his words were just meant to be "humorous" or "satirical".

However, as I pointed out to them in a website debate, calling for the assassination of a public figure in these dangerous times is well beyond a joke or even just bad taste. Free speech never encompassed the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre for fun. Nor should it encompass the right to publically goad AL Qaeda into murdering an ex-Prime Minister even, if it is done in jest.

The Geek Lawyer Blog site that started all this has now mysteriously closed down although the owner is continuing his blatherings in other quarters. In a post to a pro-Blair site he wrote "I do of course very much wish that someone, somewhere, someday kills Blair. I am however not inciting it or encouraging it, nor would I assist or cooperate in it".

No doubt there will be those who will argue that what is being said by this loopy lawyer is no big deal. Comments of this sort are appearing all the time on the internet and a free society  should be strong enough to accommodate them. I beg to differ. Quite apart from the incitement to terrorism aspects even jocular demands for the death of public figures coarsens the nature of political debate and corrodes those civilised values that hold our society together.

This is something that should be stopped, now.

Comments

[Anne]

Yes. I agree with you Stan and I’ve been following the ‘debate’ at both the lawyer and the blairsupporter site. I’ve been concerned at what this lawyer has been quite forcefully saying. After the initial protests about the original article, the site mysteriously disappeared with the lawyer alleging it was targeted, yet he has consistently refused to present any evidence of this. Probably like others, I copied his first, now 'disappeared' article, and am prepared to republish it if necessary. But this itself presents a problem insofar that I’m advised it would not be legal for me to do this. Apparently it’s acceptable to publish inflaming articles that the former PM be murdered, but I must not trespass on his literary ‘blawg’. I would appreciate that someone might look into this debate and make some sort of assessment on whether this lawyer has broken the letter or spirit of the law, and whether if I so choose, I can re-publish his original post. However, I do wonder Stan if this is an appropriate forum to air your concern? After all, the Labour Party has ‘moved on’ and the lack of interest in the welfare the former PM, if this forum is anything to judge by, is overwhelming.

[Stan Rosenthal]

Thanks for the moral support, Ann.

I posted on this site because I considered these remarks to be an absolute outrage, thought other progressives would agree and wanted to open a vital debate here on the limits of free speech.

Like you, I have noticed the absence of any comeback regarding a topic on which a substantial response might have been expected.

As you say, this might well be due to a desire by progressives to put all things Blair behind them. More darkly, it might also be down to some visitors to this site secretly or subconciously agreeing with the sentiments expressed by this barrister but not wanting to commit themselves online. On the other hand those agreeing with my views may not want to go public for fear of offending the civil liberties lobby.

If there is any truth in the above it just goes to show how far the rot has gone. After all, if progressives are not prepared to stand up for decency, who is?

[BlairSupporter]

Thank you Stan for using my little inconsequential turf wars with this legal person.

I would very much appreciate it if your contributor, Anne, would get in touch with me via my blog. I monitor all comments and will not publish anything she says unless she wishes it to be published.

Quite a few of us are very concerned about this lawyer's words, as you know. Many more people read it daily than comment. But I too was disappointed, to put it mildly, at the lack of comment here at Stan's article. If there was anywhere under the Labour party's great umbrella I might have expected a raised eyebrow, it would have been here.

When I said I was apologising, a day or two before I actually revealed about what and to whom (the Archbishop NOT the lawyer), a commenter said he hoped that I could live with myself.

I believe he meant that I should not give up the fight for responsible writing on the internet.

He might have meant something more than that; I'm not sure. But there is no doubt that if this kind of goading led to some serious incident, and I had not pursued this man to the nth degreee, I would feel partly responsible.

I believe, like you Stan, that there is an issue here we ignore at our peril.

I'm not some knight in shining armour, just a British voter who feels deeply aggrieved at our evident inhumanity and carelessness towards one another.

This is epitomised by the evident lack of care shown by so many for the fate of a man they once loved dearly.

He brought tears to their eyes at the party conference in 2006 and in May 2007 at Sedgefield. And now they allow would-be assassins to get the message that some in the legal profession are standing by, hands poised ready to applaud and forgive Al Qaeda this and ALL their terrorist atrocities ... if only ...

Deeply depressing.

[willie]

Hi Stan -

question on freedom of speech

is it ok to shout 'theatre' in a crowded fire ?

[RedStar2008]

I wonder Stan if it's also ok to subject lawyers to wash boarding and to locking them up for 42 days without trial in the name of counter-terrorism, as you seem quite happy to do away with our civil liberties like they're going out of fashion! Where do you draw the line?

[BlairSupporter]

willie - you're talking absolute rubbish.

This seems to be the problem with the Left these days. They don't rush to defend the indefensible - because it's clearly indefensible, BUT they don't criticise it either.

WE HAVE NOTICED THAT.

The thinking seems to be that our civil rights are set in stone DESPITE the fact that they are always evolving and so they should be. And we are so untrusting of ourselves and our governments and political parties that we think that if we lose a bit here and there or now and then because of changing circumstances and different threats, we will go back to the stone ages.

Claptrap.

You lot need to notice that things are moving on in society and not always for the better. Governments have to move with the threats in the same way as they have to move with the opportunities.

I actually blame this government and even Blair's (though I think he was leant on by the Left) for not clamping down enough on this problem.

But the Left and the foolish press are so busy looking after their rights to protest and speak freely, that in their selfishness they fail to notice the rights of the rest of us - perhaps to continue to live. And they habitually dismiss threats as a government invention.

CRAZY people.

To suggest that any of this is to say that we are advocating torture is, frankly, pretty unbalanced.

As for civil liberties. Hasn't Blair got any of those? Can he walk the streets without bodyguards? If not, why not?

The lawyers can only work with the law as it is written by government. The trouble right now is that the courts seem to overturn decisions willy-nilly, because there is no PROOF, viz the 5 students.

Do they have to use the downloaded information and blow up dozens of people before we do anything about them? Does Blair have to be shot or suicide bombed by a British AQ member before we suggest that lawywers might be better NOT to suggest this!

My heart breaks for what we have become.

[BlairSupporter]

Quick follow up.

Apologies. My comment was intended to apply to the absolute nonsense of RedStar 2008's contribution. Although having said that it also applies to the incomprehensible nonsense from willie.

And to the Progress webmaster - if you don't mind this suggestion - why don't you put the name of each contributor ABOVE the line. The way it appears now it looks like I have said this because of the lines above and below. And yet it was willie, though because of the lines, he looks as though he has made REDSTAR 2008's comment. Just a suggestion.
_________________________

Posted by: BlairSupporter | February 20, 2008 at 08:12 PM

Hi Stan -

question on freedom of speech

is it ok to shout 'theatre' in a crowded fire ?
_____________________________