‘Extremism disruption orders’: it’s the IRA broadcasting ban all over again
|
Version 0 of 1. Theresa May, backed by a casually enthusiastic prime minister on the Today programme, has suggested that a ban on some nonviolent extremist groups and speakers appearing on television and social media should be introduced. It seems a shame neither politician seems to have spoken to that wily, principled Conservative former home secretary Douglas Hurd before they proposed something as unworkable, ineffective and dangerous. Hurd, pushed by Margaret Thatcher but also perhaps by a bomb in Belfast, introduced a “broadcasting ban” in 1988 against the IRA and other “extremist” organisations’ spokespeople. This was put in place because the alternative – proscribing organisationsthat held seats in the Commons – would have been worse. It would have damaged the constitution and parliament, so the broadcasters were sacrificed instead. Hurd defended it as a necessary shot across the bows of the IRA, but not as a successful ploy for influencing public opinion – although it did temporarily assuage the indignation of the press. Hurd would, I suspect, have warned the home secretary and indeed Cameron of all this, had they asked. In 1988, it looked like an unprecedented government attack on the independence of the media – especially the BBC – which was the prime target. It did immense damage to the BBC’s worldwide reputation. This was not just punitive to the corporation but damaging to the national interest at home and abroad. BBC World Service staff, sensitive to censorship all over the world, went on strike. It had absolutely no effect on the “extremists” of the moment. What were the arguments for it? They looked simple, seemed plausible, and were much the same as those advanced now. It was argued that access to the media enhanced the reputation and authority of enemies of the state, that extreme views were given wider reach by the media, and that the impressionable would be persuaded by such propaganda. Indeed, in many ways the IRA was a formidable propagandist and British governments, for all their mishandling of the crisis, had been desperately trying to control a volatile conflict. It was also suggested that it was offensive to see such opponents spoken to as if they were reasonable. They were men of violence who merely exploited freedom of speech and ought to be denied it. The worry was that they used the media to legitimate their politics and recruit public opinion and volunteers, and that they used statements in the media to threaten and launch action. What were the arguments against it? The most important one was that it was a self-pleasuring ban. In other words, it did more to make those imposing it feel happy than it did to stop IRA propaganda. But perhaps it is more powerful when ill-intentioned people are interrogated, explored and tested. Their views may be abhorrent but precisely because they are dangerous they need to be understood, investigated and held to account. Back then, the long-term conflict with governments about exposing such people was also a dispute about who defined power. Broadcasters argued that the IRA and other groups held power on the ground and that the public needed this reality to be identified. Sweeping it under the carpet because it was unpleasant was not an option. Expose, interrogate, explain, question, understand: these were the things the media had to do. Who, then, argued against the ban? The BBC and ITV recognised a threat to their integrity. They defended the public’s right to understand, and sought to undermine the ban in the public interest. More surprisingly, for a decade before the ban, battle-hardened officials in the Home Office and Northern Ireland office, and senior mandarins in the Cabinet Office struggled to stop a ban. Pragmatically, they believed it would be ineffective. But as one weary legal officer reviewing the case in early 1987 wrote, it would cause more problems than it solved: “Many people want to ban many things. Many people want to ban things they do not like. But there is no evidence that any such ban is effective. It is not the British way. The British way is to hold up vile people to account and scrutiny.” I suspect Hurd would have agreed. It was imposed for short-term political reasons, and was ineffective. Posturing, which is what the proposed ban is based on, does not make a policy when the threats are real. |