Words are tricky things sometimes, aren’t they? The same word can have different meanings in different places. Sometimes, the same word can mean the same thing but the context nuances the word so it might mean something else. This is quite clear when it comes to the word should.

There is a bit in the TV series The Thick of It where a politician has called a press conference and makes an unwelcome announcement about a “snooper force”. Here is the key section of the conversations:

Malcolm Tucker: What did the Prime Minister actually say to you?
Hugh Abbot: He actually said this is exactly the kind of thing we should be doing.
Malcolm Tucker: What did he actually say?
Hugh Abbot: He said this is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing.
Malcolm Tucker: ‘SHOULD’ be doing. ‘Should’ does not mean ‘yes’.

Later on, that same conversation gets revisited:

Malcolm Tucker: Prime Minister, obviously, he’s on the plane in Stokholm, someone hits him with The World At One. He thinks it’s the Treasury trying to stiff him one so he… he stuck with the story.
Hugh Abbot: He liked it?
Malcolm Tucker: Yeah, he’s backing the Snooper Force.
Hugh Abbot: Oh, right! We shouldn’t really then… You shouldn’t really have told us to… Should you?
Malcolm Tucker: Don’t should me, Hugh, ’cause I’ll should you right back. I’ll should you right through that window! None of this should be happening, should it? Should it?
Hugh Abbot: Is that “should” in the sense of “yes”?
Malcolm Tucker: It’s “should” in the sense “you should do as you’re… told”!

Sometimes, our shoulds get lost in translation. I think this is often at play when it comes to issues of freedom and civil liberties. There is what should be allowed and there is what we should do. Those are often not the same thing. To paraphrase Jurassic Park: just because we can doesn’t mean we should.

I was reminded of this little nuanced distinction as I saw another story of a street preacher who had been arrested. The linked article states:

A Christian street preacher who was arrested after protesting Islam in the wake of the London Bridge terrorist attack in 2017 has had his appeal rejected by the High Court.

Ian Sleeper was arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for causing “harassment, alarm, and distress” after displaying a sign that said “Love Muslims, Hate Islam, Jesus is love and hope”.

Here, I think, we have a classic case of needing to understand our shoulds.

As long time readers will know, I have a history of doing street preaching myself. I am entirely sympathetic with them. I am a strong free speech advocate. You can search my previous posts on these things, but shy of propagating damaging lies about people or actively inciting them to violence, I am largely of the view that people should be free to say whatever they want without fear of prosecution. That doesn’t mean nobody can say anything back to them; it does mean whatever they say apart from those two things should not become police matters. This extends to such things as racial and religious hate speech. So, here is one should. People should be free to say whatever they will if it is not defamatory or an evident (and provable) attempt to incite physical violence.

But just because people should be free to say whatever they want within those two not very limiting bounds, does not mean people should say whatever they want within those two not very limiting bounds. That people should be free does not mean they should exercise that freedom. The Apostle Paul gives over a whole section in 1 Corinthians to this very principle. The exercise of our freedom is not our highest goal or the greatest good; setting aside our freedom for the sake of others is a Christian value. Moreover, just because I don’t think something should be a police matter doesn’t mean I think that thing is a benevolent or excellent thing to do. There are lots of unwise, unhelpful and ungodly things that I think should be legally permissible but personally and morally should not be done.

So, how do we work these shoulds out in the specific case of this street preacher? I think he should be free to say what he said. He should be allowed to say it without it becoming a legal matter or cause for police involvement. At the same time, I think both what was said, how it was said, particularly the timing and context of what was said, it is something that should not have been said. That is to say, I think it was not a helpful or wise thing to say under the circumstances, at the time, in that context even though I think he should be free to say it nevertheless.

This is one of the awkward things about being a free speech advocate. You sometimes find yourself defending people’s right to say what they want that you, personally, think would have been better if they didn’t say it at all. Fortunately, this isn’t the kind of particularly terrible example (like this one or this one). Taken on their own – out of their context – I don’t think they are that objectionable. The message seems to be one of love for people and yet rejection of their beliefs. It certainly isn’t racist because Islam is not a race. It isn’t religious hatred even because love is expressed specifically for Muslim people who are evidently Muslims. It is rejection of specific beliefs. Though I don’t agree with the premise of racial and religious hatred laws, the point here is this doesn’t even fall foul of them. We are simply dealing with someone who has expressed a rejection of Islamic belief and clearly distinguished that rejection of a religious belief system from Muslim people themselves. The message is genuinely not objectionable because it is, as far as I’m aware, the position of most people who are not Muslims. If they aren’t Muslim, they ipso facto already reject Islam but they don’t reject Muslim people.

The problem is not whether that belief should be permitted or whether it should be allowed to be uttered publicly. I think it absolutely should. The issue was the context in which it was uttered. The timing, shortly after the London Bridge terror attack, was likely to inflame tension. The issue, and the basis of arrest, was the Public Order Act. Again, though I don’t believe it should be a police matter to state these things, people often forget the police are driven (for good or ill) by a concern for public order. If they have concerns about behaviour or actions that will lead to public disorder, they are liable to ask the person doing them to desist even if what they are doing is technically lawful. Again, I’m not commenting on the rights and wrongs of that approach here, just to note that is the approach. What that tells us is this message delivered in the way and at the time it was, was considered by police to be a likely cause of public disorder.

The question here is, as street preachers bringing the good news of the gospel to the world (which is what most at least claim they are doing), they need to think about their messaging, the content and context of what they’re saying, and whether it will actually lead to the desired outcome. Unless the desired outcome is to stir up outrage or get themselves arrested, a lot of the time – though I believe they should be absolutely free to say these things – we have to ask whether they should say these things. Is it wise to deliver the message of good news and hope in Christ by making unnecessarily provocative public statements out of context and without much nuance? Which should should prevail? The should of permissibility or the should of wisdom? Just because we should be free doesn’t mean we should say whatever we want. We need to be careful we don’t mix up our shoulds.