Are you really sure that democracy is for you ?

Well, it’s finally time for me to follow the herd and delve into the events of Thursday 22 October 2009. The day when Question Time’s guests included Nick Griffin, MEP for the Northwest of England.

People will remember the first BNP/QT intersection for various reasons : Hysterical players of ethnic top trumps like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, keen to join in with the manufactured outrage, will remember it as the day that National Socialism stormed to power in Britain

I can’t believe or hope the forces of good in the UK can overcome the march of the jackboots. Things can only get worse. Sleepless in Pittsburgh, I struggle with the woeful possibility that my unborn grandchildren may still have to fight to be accepted in Britain.

A man was on telly, Yasmin.

Sadly, that’s only a runner up in the hyperbole stakes, Jerry Dammers, interviewed on BBC News 24 said it was

One of the saddest days since the end of World War II

No, really, he did, here he is

A man was on telly, Jerry.

Largest Natural Disasters Since WW II (Reuters)

Date

Type

Location

Deaths

1970

Cyclone

East Pakistan (Bangladesh)

300,000

1976

Quake

China, Tangshan

255,000

2004

Tsunami

Indian Ocean

226,000

1991

Cyclone

Bangladesh

138,000

1948

Quake

Turkmenistan

110,000

2003

Quake

Iran,
Bam

31,000

Can we think of some other things that might be a bit sadder than a man being on the telly, Jerry ?

Second airliner ploughs into the World Trade Center, September 11 2001

11 September, 2001

Result of suicide bomb, London, 7 July 2005

7 July, 2005

The UAF and associated lefty types ought to remember it it as a day that that their ‘peaceful‘ attempt to enforce their ‘no platform’ policy (by the use of violence, trespass and criminal damage) failed so epically that it will be entered in the annals of fail as the very definition of an Epic Fail.

Their purpose for the day was to prevent Griffin from getting any media attention.

Below is some video of them ensuring that instead of it’s usual 2.6 million viewers, that particular episode of Question Time achieved an audience almost as large as Eastenders.

You will note that this footage is from BBC News 24 three hours before the program was even due to start filming. So in fact they managed to ensure a constant stream of media exposure pretty much throughout the day.

Epic. Epic. Fail.

I doubt that they will remember it that way however, because of comments like this from Dianne Abbot, a woman for whom I find my respect diminishing at breakneck speed.

“Everyone is talking about Nick Griffin. The programme has given him unnecessary exposure, unnecessary credibility and giving more credibility to a fascist party in the middle of a recession is a very dangerous thing.”

Well Dianne, maybe you shouldn’t have been on News 24 and Sky every five minutes from 9 AM banging on about it ? Maybe then no one would have bothered ? The fact that this comment was made with hindsight, after watching the whole sorry episode unfold with a kind of hysterical, sweaty inevitability makes me think that rather a lot of people really didn’t learn anything at all.

Particularly as the lumpen thugs of the UAF have promised to do the same thing for every media appearance that Griffin will make, thus ensuring that it will be at the top of the news agenda every time it happens. Duh! You can’t buy publicity that good.

I, on the other hand, will remember it for different reasons. Firstly because I have never, ever, seen so many people make utter twats of themselves on TV. Secondly, I will remember the sick enjoyment lighting the eyes of the mob as they burned Griffin in effigy. The joy that these people were experiencing having found a minority that they could dehumanise and persecute without the opprobriumof their peers was a disgusting sight which will haunt me for years to come.

But, getting to the point, I will mostly remember it as the day that I realised that many British people hate and distrust both democracy and the concept of freedom of speech. And they are going to get to a point before long where they are going to have to face up to this particular problem.

To illustrate, I will cherry pick a mere two quotes. The first from Twitter about freedom of speech. While this particular quote wasn’t particularly typical of Twitter – most tweets seemed to be in favour – it is typical of the type of opinion it represents.

@Zhastein : Free speech does not give anyone the right to spread pure hatred filth although protester behavior isn’t helping #thebnparetwats #bbcqt

The major disconnect here is that, in fact, it does. Freedom of speech confers on a person the right to say whatever they damn well please, however abhorrent, insulting, offensive or hateful it may seem to those who hear it. Once you start to hedge it about with limits of what is ‘acceptable’ it is no longer free speech.

What we have here is an example of a person who honestly thinks they believe in free speech, but who deep down really believes in speech which is free up to some arbitrarily defined boundary. Personally, I don’t agree with this viewpoint at all, but if the whole BNP/QT shitstorm has demonstrated anything, it is that there are at least a very vocal minority of people who do.

On a similar theme, but throwing the wider issue of democracy into the mix, spEak You’re bRanes blogger ‘Nelson’ demonstrates a profound distrust of the democratic process while also throwing in racism, misogyny and child protection edge cases, with confuded rhetpric like this, he should probably stand as a Labour MP

Would you allow a platform to a party that wanted to bring back slavery? A party that wanted to take away the right of women to vote? A party that wanted to lower the age of consent to 14? What about 10? 5? 2? I’m hoping we’d all draw the line somewhere. My point is simply that we can’t pretend there’s some kind of universal accepted threshold, written on a stone tablet by an omniscient moral arbiter. We have to decide, as a society, what is and isn’t acceptable and draw the line at that point.

In case you’re wondering, my answers for the questions posed are as follows : Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. I would indeed allow people to have such beliefs, and if they chose to lobby for changes to the law via the democratic process, that is also fine.

Because that is what democracy is. Nelson, in common with rather a lot of the people who were so vociferous about the whole issue, clearly doesn’t trust democracy to laugh in these peoples faces and not let them have their way. I do, and I think that democracy is the way we “decide, as a society, what is and isn’t acceptable”.

The commonality of these types arguments is basically this : There are certain types of things that people should not be allowed to say and certain types of beliefs that people ought not to be able to lobby for. The state must enforce this.

I’m not going to lay into the proponents of such ideologies just now, more of that on this blog later, let us assume for the moment that they are basically decent and well meaning. The point is that by making such arguments, “freedom of speech, but not …”, “democracy, but not … ” they are implicitly arguing against democracy and freedom of speech.

What is being argued for here, is, in fact, a totalitarian state which will enforce a set of values which precisely match theirs.

This post is already far to long, so I am not going to spend time arguing about the desirability or otherwise of such an entity, or whether that is, in fact, exactly what we already have.

I will simply make the point that at some point soon, people are going to have to be honest about what they really want. If what a person wants really is a totalitarian state which will enforce a set of values which precisely match theirs, then they need to start saying so.

Binding up freedom and democracy with arbitrary limits turns them into something else entirely, and it’s time to start calling a spade a spade. I honestly believe that we can have a proper functioning democracy which can handle the full spectrum of opinions which would be allowed to surface given total freedom of speech, although there is quite a way to go before we get there. And I am very much in favour of it.

Are you sure you are ?

Advertisements

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown on Freedom Of Speech: A Reluctant Fisking

There are times when I feel sorry for Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. I’ll see her on some TV program or other, commenting on this or that, and for a few moments I’ll think “she seems like a reasonable lady”, and then she’ll tangle herself up in equality knots, trip over her diversity and morph before my very eyes into a nasty totalitarian. The sad thing is that I don’t think she wants to be, in fact, I think that’s exactly what she’s trying to avoid.

The article she wrote for the Indy looking at freedom of speech issues in the wake of the recent twitter/blogosphere bitch slapping of Jan Moir is a case in point.

She starts off badly muddled already, making me wonder if she’s been drinking. In this paragraph, she seems to be attempting to construct some sort of bizarre naval metaphor for freedom of speech.

The ship flying the flag for free speech is often unsteady, sometimes leaky, as it sails capricious, tempestuous seas. Sometimes even the captains jump off and struggle to keep faith with its mission. Like the supremely erudite Stephen Fry who has always, to my knowledge, been an uncompromising champion of free expression, keeping watch on deck whatever the provocations.

I mean, seriously, what the fuck ? How exactly is freedom of speech like a leaky boat with an interchangeable plunging captaincy ? Who made Stephen Fry one of the captains ? And how did you manage to avoid the more obvious seaman gags ?

Luckiliy, Yasmin provokes herself into abandoning her leaky metaphor before the next few paragraphs, in which she accuses Fry of oppressing Jan Moir. Really.

Yet this Friday came the moment when Mr Fry couldn’t abide by his own credo and ferociously assailed the Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir for her freely expressed views on the young pop star Stephen Gately. His gay lifestyle, she suggested, was “more than a little sleazy” and his death was unlikely to have been from natural causes. Now Fry commands a virtual army on the web. He can make or break someone with under 140 characters.

Oh my GOD! How did he acquire such awesome power, and has anyone told the PRIME MINISTER ? Seriously, I think you overstate the rheumy old queen’s influence, but even were it so, it does not follow, as Yasmin goes on to suggest, that in motivating his “virtual army” he is necessarily causing Moir to loose out on her freedom of expression.

After all, she was free enough to publish her opinion in the Daily Mail, and many many people read it, and it is, in fact, still available on the Daily Mail’s website

Between the Mail’s comment section, twitter and the many many blogs who took issue with it, it turns out that many of those people didn’t much like what Jan had to say, and they took the opportunity to let her know in no uncertain terms.

That, to me, sounds like everyone got a pretty fair hearing. and so I’m not sure what this to do with freedom of speech issues, particularly given that I’m still trying to work out the boat/flag/captain gestalt metaphor, Yasmin feels otherwise

I can understand their rage. The column was ugly, insensitive and homophobic. However, though I passionately believe in free speech, I am not an absolutist nor a hypocrite. The only real argument is where the line is drawn. Perhaps fundamentalists like Fry will now be more honest and accept that there are limits. Even for them.

Ah, now here we are, this is where we finally get to the nub of the issue, this is the part where after seeming a bit confused, but generally sort of nice, Yasmin is about to morph before our very eyes into her very own version of the incredible hulk.

You’ll notice, dear reader, that Yasmin needs to consult a good quality dictionary and possibly a book about logic, as she has here set pen to page and committed that great logical fallacy : the supposition that their should be ‘limits’ on freedom of speech.

The most obvious thing to say is simply that if it’s got limits on it, it aint free.

To try and shake you out of this point of view, Yasmin proposes that we have a little quiz. Yes lets.

Seven events this month reveal the increasing tension between freedom and responsibility. Each case is testing and spawns its own, particular dilemmas. Only libertarian fools and fanatics would give set-piece answers. Test yourself.

I’m pretty sure I know where you’re going to go with this, and I’m pretty sure what my answers will be. Let’s see, shall we ?

First came the national furore over “Pakigate” and Strictly Come Dancing.

What ? That’s not actually a question you know ? I don’t what you’re asking me here. As such, I’m going to declare that one invalid.

Then a picture of Brooke Shields, aged 10, nude, was withdrawn from view by the Tate Modern. The photographer had paid her mum $450 for the image. Shields herself has tried to have this object of exploitation removed from the public eye. So a good call, I think, by the Tate.

Ah, I’m on firmer ground here, but you aren’t. This has sweet fuck all to do with freedom of speech.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to figure out why the Tate decided to (very briefly) use an image that almost certainly breaches the UKs very strict child protection laws in the opening of an exhibition, knowing that it would certainly attract a lot of comment from the press.

Frankly, I think the only ‘dilemma’ raised here is why Yasmin thinks it’s OK to heap child protection issues in with what purports to be an article about freedom of speech. It’s become as of cliché as Godwin’s law that people engaging in public hand wringing about practically anything will eventually use child protection issues as a battering ram for their agenda, and it is really not very cool at all.

The BNP’s bulldoggish Nick Griffin, a white supremacist, admired by the Ku Klux Klan, opponent of Jews, Muslims and mixed-race families, is invited on to the nation’s most prestigious TV programme.

Ah! Now we get to the actual meat of the issue, like so many other people, Yasmin is worked up about the BNP. Let’s take this one, since it actually is about freedom of speech. Firstly, let’s deal with “the nation’s most prestigious TV programme”, which I think is something of an overstatement, to say the least. certainly if we measure by viewing figures, QT is not even in BBC1’s top 30 most watched programs. According to the same source, BBC1 itself accounts for a mere 20.7% of audience.

According to this article in the Telegraph, QT’s biggest ever audience was about 4 million – is the number of people who thought it would be fun to see Margaret Becket destroy her career – which still wouldn’t put in in last weeks top 20. Average audience is 2.6 million, which wouldn’t even put it on the top 30 BBC1 programmes.

I suspect Thursday’s viewing figures will be even higher. That’s what “No Platform” gets you, so well done Retards Against Fascism and associated subsidiaries of the BNPs PR wing.

Moving swiftly on

He, who would deny millions of us the vote, is an emblem of democracy and his violent thugs who try to silence so many of us black and Asian Britons become beneficiaries of free-speech doctrine.

That’s not the question, the question comes later, but this is where Yasmin, like so many other seemingly well meaning folk, is starting to trip her self. Yes, the odious little prick that is Nick Griffin is indeed the beneficiary of ‘free speech doctrine’. And that is as it should be. We can’t just go around making exclusions to the ‘doctrine’ (or law, in fact) just because we don’t like what people are going to say. Yasmin is about to argue otherwise – or at least insinuate heavy handedly that other people ought to – of course, but the simple fact is this : The BNP represent a significant minority viewpoint. If you remove any of their rights, you are persecuting that minority.

The fact that you (and indeed I) may find them a hateful, despicable, minority is really central to the point. Indeed, Yasmin made this argument herself, although clearly not on purpose He, who would deny millions of us the vote, is an emblem of democracy and his violent thugs who try to silence so many of us black and Asian Britons

He wants to silence and disempower those (and plenty of other) groups, and that is bad. You want to silence and disempower the group he represents, and that is also bad.

Free speech simply ceases to exist when you deny it to groups of people that you detest. There are no ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’, no matter how many times people twist themselves around this argument, speech is either free, or it is not. It is an absolute. There really are no grey areas to be found.

Cue the Hitler comparison. Griffin is nothing like Hitler, I don’t understand why people keep making it. He probably sits in front of his PC all day with his tiny flaccid cock in hand searching Google News for “griffin hitler”.

Hitler won the votes of the majority. Would the BBC have done him the honour, too? I say the BNP should be interrogated on news programmes but an appearance on Question Time is a privilege which the BBC now bestows on racists. It sickens those of us who expect better of the corporation.

Oh. OK, that’s new. Unlike the thuggish boot boys of the new left, Yasmin is only concerned about Question Time. Listen, Yasmin, the beeb has to be impartial, it has to be representative. Those are in the charter. If the BBC denies the BNP a platform it is neither. This is quite simple. Thus, it isn’t, in fact, a ‘privilege’ to be bestowed but a duty undertaken by a political program. When you say you “expect better”, what you are actually saying is that you expect them to enforce your personal prejudices. One of the common whinges levelled against the BBC by the various odious practitioners of race politics is that the BBC is “pandering to political correctness” by selecting non white members for it’s programs, and we don’t expect the BBC to enforce their prejudices, do we ?

Let’s move on to the next of your seven, because it’s a doozy.

Then comes the ghastly Dutch MP Geert Wilder who overturned the order banning him from entering Britain imposed by the former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. He curses the Koran, damns and insults European Muslims, is a fearless xenophobe and seems to enjoy the hurt he churns up. … I agree that he should be allowed into Britain and I was proud Muslims responded with good sense.

A British youngster politely explains why Geert Wilders must die

But to see him fêted as a hero in parliament was an affront. This must mean free passage for proscribed hate-makers – rabid imams, anti-Semites, homophobic black rappers. If not, it only confirms outrageous double standards.

Ah, see now, you’re almost there. Proscribed hate-makers – rabid imams, anti-Semites, homophobic black rappers – must indeed be treated in exactly the same way that is entirely the point.

The most serious threat to free speech has come from David Miliband, now a skilled double-dealer. He talks the talk on good British values and yet rejects the judgement of two senior judges who demand disclosure of information that could prove our intelligence services colluded with the US and others to torture captured Muslims in the “War on Terror”, in particular Binyam Mohamed who was held in Guantanamo Bay for many years.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and the revolting Milliband did not ‘reject’ the judgement, he appealed against it, which he is perfectly entitled to do. You are here conflating the issue of freedom of information, important in itself, with freedom of speech. We will mark this as another invalid point in an article about freedom of speech.

Next the drama over a scientific study on toxic dumping in West Africa by the company Trafigura, whose lawyers obtained an injunction to keep the information secret, including debates on the scandal in Parliament. The gaggers were duly defeated but commercial confidentiality remains an effective weapon used by big business to keep us in the dark.

Yes, and that was wrong. The libel laws need to be reformed, and the judge responsible for granting the injuction should be taken into the street and beaten. Quite so. Was that right ?

You’ve (again) wrongly conflated two issues though. Commercial confidentiality is what the current government uses to keep us in the dark about how crap they are at administering large projects because they wrote an exemption into the Freedom Of Information Act, so that’s an FOI issue, not a speech issue. Trafigura via Carter Ruck used our overly repressive libel laws to try and silence parliament. Both of these are disgraceful, but they are not related.

And of course, no columnists woolly rant about freedom of speech would be complete without it. It’s the question on everyone’s lips. What to do about the bloggers ?

Lastly, the scientist Simon Singh (a good friend) is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association which objects to his attacks on the profession. He, who is supported by Fry and others, got leave to appeal against an earlier ruling that went against him. Many of us are silenced by the might of libel law. Money, as Orwell wrote, “controls opinion”. Singh wants more “freedom to criticise fairly and strongly” on the blogs and scientific writing. I agree but too many bloggers are mad or malicious.
So what to do about them? Not easy.

Actually, it is very, very easy indeed. Nothing. The mere fact that you raise the question puts you firmly in dribbling totalitarian oppressor mode. Again. Seriously, we’ve already agreed that the libel laws are harsh enough to be open to misuse, and we have seen high court injunctions issued via twitter. What do you want that’s extra ? Regulation ? Because some people say things that you think are mad or malicious ? Do you think those people believe themselves to be mad or malicious ? Perhaps they just have very different points of view to you ?

That’s your seven, and in every case where they actually to freedom of speech, my answer is : Let their be freedom, which is not to be limited only to things that do not displease you. I’m sure that this wasn’t the stance that you wished to take, but it is where you have ended up, as we will see shortly.

Let us move swiftly to conclude, because the rest of the piece is seriously confused.

Libertarian ideologues such as journalist Brendan O’Neill have no such moral conundrums:

Because there are none. Free speech is for all, or it is for none.

“Offensiveness is part of life; the politics of inoffensiveness is a threat to free speech and open debate.” Yes, until people’s deep feelings are roused as were Fry’s by Moir.

No. No. A thousand times no.

The Roman inquisition burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in 1600 for the heresy of heliocentrism. Certainly their deep feelings were roused.

Should Giordano have shut the fuck up just because the Inquisition were a little bit touchy about their doctrine ? Perhaps from self interest, yes, but he was convinced he was correct, and so it turned out to be.

Words do violence to humans, more sometimes than sticks and stones

Really ?

Only Sometimes

More and more freedom is what we must strive for, but a complete lack of restraint leads to anarchy and dehumanisation.

What kind of restraints ? A whole article and you haven’t managed to define any.

Because logically, it is not possible to do so and still believe in the right to freedom of speech. Whatever the consequences.

There was a time not so long ago when the military powers of western Europe were prepared to risk turning most of the Northern Hemisphere into little more than a faintly glowing glass wasteland in preference to their citizens losing the freedom to think and opine as they pleased. By contrast, having some tosser from the BNP on a programme with an audience smaller than the Antiques Roadshow doesn’t seem like such a big fucking deal to me.

Just sayin.

%d bloggers like this: