Abstract
Former attorney general Dominic Grieve in Westminster, January 2015
Credit: Jonathan Goldberg/REX
“I think they do until unwelcome advice is being given to them and at that point they feel a little bit irritated. They sometimes feel that the attorney isn’t fully appreciating the political problem they’ve got [but] part of my job is to appreciate the political problem. Like any other good in-house lawyer you’ve got to be supportive of what your colleagues are trying to achieve but you’ve also got to be very firm about routes that aren’t open.”
He is confident in analysis. With his clipped speech, neat and (for a 58-year-old) slightly old-fashioned appearance, Grieve can come across as somewhat dry, occasionally orotund in a lawyerly way, and sharp to the point of pepperiness in his judgment; but he is fastidiously polite, and there is, beneath the reserve, a steely, almost campaigning streak. You don’t get thrown out of government for being a yes man. His instincts feel conservative, his conclusions almost libertarian; he’s aware of the conflict, and the conclusions often trump the instincts.
“I have to say that I find the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in very bad taste. I don’t think they are the way in which people should conduct their relations with others, gratuitously insulting people has always struck me as being a very undesirable thing to do and clearly they’re very offensive.”
Despite his distaste for the cartoons themselves, Grieve is unequivocal about whether they should – and could – be able to be published in the UK. “In a free society people do have a right to be insulting about other people’s beliefs. We just have to live with it and that’s the point I always make to individuals who come up to me and say that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons shouldn’t be published. I think that the free society requires that there should be the possibility of doing it.”
The law, though, is complex and the cartoons would stray into a grey area, brushing up against laws criminalising incitement to hatred and violence. Grieve highlights the case of a gay pride march through the city of Derby in 2010 at which pamphlets were published suggesting gay people should face the death penalty.
We clearly do have a capacity to influence the behaviour of other states. The Saudis’ attitude to freedom of expression and religion is very challenging
“That was thought to be an incitement to hatred on the grounds of belief, because remember it’s not just about religion and I think that did overstep the mark. It appeared to be a call to violence, or at least to saying we would wish to be violent if only we had the opportunity.”
While he stresses that each case would have to be dealt with on an individual basis, his general rule – he tells me in no uncertain terms – is to err on the side of freedom of speech. He links this to his political party. “I think it’s a fundamental plank of conservatism, absolutely fundamental.
“When in doubt you should always go for the free speech option. If I have doubts on an issue, and I had sometimes to apply it as attorney general, the right to freedom of speech is so important within society that I prefer to see it being abused than to see us risk a situation whereby in trying to control it in order to get a desirable outcome we in fact prevent people from expressing views which, even if we find unpalatable, are nevertheless legitimate expressions.”
But Grieve doesn’t just see this as an important mission of the British Conservative party. His work as attorney general and subsequently as a frequent speechmaker (he is in great demand) have helped him understand how Britain is viewed around the world. “… As champions of free speech. I don’t want to see that undermined, which is why I’ve spoken out … I think that people see freedom of speech as a benchmark of UK values.”
But what about the case of Raif Badawi, the Saudi blogger sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison, for speaking out against Islam and powerful Saudi religious figures. Here was an example of a British ally imposing brutal limits on freedom of speech.
“I hope we have done enough in this case. We did it sufficiently to prevent them continuing with the penalty. We clearly do have a capacity to influence the behaviour of other states. The Saudis’ attitude to freedom of expression and religion is very challenging. We do certainly accept that there are strategic benefits of partnership with the Saudis which means we’ve lived with this intolerance for a long time. Saudi Arabia is obviously of great strategic importance but that must not blind us to its human rights shortcomings.”
While he stresses that each case would have to be dealt with on an individual basis, his general rule – he tells me in no uncertain terms – is to err on the side of freedom of speech
When political expediency comes up against political principle, Grieve acknowledges the conflict. For an MP he’s unusually resistant to lurching into simplicities. It’s refreshing to talk to a senior politician who confesses to the awkwardness of this kind of decision-making. “I was instrumental in bringing about the [Labour] government’s second defeat in the whole course of [their] government over incitement to religious hatred,” he reminds me. But he has not proved irreconcilable on the issue. “If you look in a common sense way at the cases, I think we’re probably getting it about right.”
He thinks the libel law reforms in England, Scotland and Wales, restricting big corporations and others from using Britain for “libel tourism” on account of the (until now) greater ease of gagging free speech by threats to sue, have settled down well. “It’s very much to Index’s credit that they led [on this],” he said.
I ask about the sometimes ambiguous position of the journalist in investigative reporting. The law, he says, “has been quite respectful of journalists’ needs [but] we need to be just a little bit careful about exceptionalism because ultimately all people make compelling grounds why they should be treated exceptionally in terms of obtaining information illicitly for example. They’re probably entitled to protection if [the] public interest [defence] applies to them too.”
The Snowden leaks, which occurred when Grieve was attorney general, were another freedom flashpoint during his tenure. He says that as a result of his work as attorney general he has huge respect for the security services. “I firmly believe that they operate within very high ethical standards. So some of the post-Snowden fallout saying that we live in a surveillance society seems to me to be a million miles from the mark, and just doesn’t chime with anything I ever saw. What I saw were scrupulous public servants with a keen understanding that their work has the capacity to interfere with privacy and people’s rights and who go to very considerable lengths to ensure it doesn’t happen.
Dominic Grieve at the Index on Censorship winter magazine launch debate at the British Library, February 2015
Credit: Sean Gallagher
“I also appreciate that speaking as an ex-minister you’re bound to having a different view. I happen to trust the agencies. It is possible that they were pulling the wool over my eyes but I don’t think they were and what I saw was that they were entitled to a high level of trust.”
Such reassurance from someone so intimately involved is unlikely to assuage those who have lost faith in the security apparatus of the state. Yet it is important to note the centrality of Grieve’s own character in the assessments he makes. He exudes, perhaps because of his religious faith, the quiet air of a serious, principled man. His certainty on the ethics of the security services is a little surprising and can hardly be thought to clinch the issues; but it’s hard to ignore or discount.
Surveillance and the internet, however, are not going to disappear as political issues. In fact, Grieve highlights use of the internet as a key area of free speech debate in the next Westminster parliament.
His instincts here are against over-regulation and for increased education. “I personally think that just as one has to err on the side of allowing freedom of expression. One has to be very careful about over-regulating. In reality over-regulating wouldn’t work very well, ISPs [internet service providers] might be in other countries, it might be hard to get hold of people who are in fact breaking the law.”
He stresses that often people do not realise that posting on social media is a form of publication. “There is a tendency for people to be disinhibited in their comments and find that the way they broadcast it, it in fact goes everywhere and that they are responsible for it – [this] is not fully understood. Just as we teach the highway code at school, we really do need actually to provide some educational input as to people’s individual responsibility in expressing their view on the internet, especially in relation to contempt of court.”
Sitting in the leafy atrium of Portcullis House, at the heart of the UK’s parliament buildings, Grieve has given an unwavering impression of a man on top of the facts and keeping faith with his beliefs. “This man should be a minister,” you think – and then remember he already was, and was sacked, partly (it’s thought) because of his stubborn doubts about government ambitions to “repatriate” human rights legislation. He makes clear that his views on the centrality of the European Convention on Human Rights remain unchanged. Does he remain keen, then, on a swift return to government?
“Of course I would be very happy to be in government, I came into parliament to serve and I found my time in government rewarding. If I don’t go back into government I would be quite sorry, I think I have something to offer.”
© Matthew Parris