Peter Tatchell says free speech is under attack and needs defending
"The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas are capable of giving offence, and some of the most powerful ideas in human history, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, have given profound religious offence in their time. The free exchange of ideas depends on freedom of expression and this includes the right to criticise and mock. We assert and uphold the right of freedom of expression and call on our elected representatives to do the same. We abhor the fact that people throughout the world live under mortal threat simply for expressing ideas and we call on our elected representatives to protect them from attack and not to give comfort to the forces of intolerance that besiege them."
"The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas are capable of giving offence, and some of the most powerful ideas in human history, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, have given profound religious offence in their time. The free exchange of ideas depends on freedom of expression and this includes the right to criticise and mock. We assert and uphold the right of freedom of expression and call on our elected representatives to do the same. We abhor the fact that people throughout the world live under mortal threat simply for expressing ideas and we call on our elected representatives to protect them from attack and not to give comfort to the forces of intolerance that besiege them."
This is the statement of principle that Saturday's freedom of expression rally has been called to defend. How can anyone disagree with these progressive values? I can't, and that is why I will be joining the thousands in Trafalgar Square.
The rally is backed mostly by secular, humanist and libertarian groups, but with support from some left-wingers and liberal Muslims.
Some of my friends on the left are refusing to take part. Preferring to remain marginal but pure, they object to the involvement of right-wing groups like the Libertarian Alliance and the Freedom Association. I share their distaste for these groups. But my participation on Saturday is based on supporting the statement of principle, not on who else is taking part. I will not let the dubious politics of others dissuade me from supporting what are important, progressive humanitarian values.
Sections of the left moan that the rally is being supported the right. Well, if these socialists object so strongly why don't they organise their own demo in support of free speech?
The truth is that is that some of the left would rarely, if ever, rally to defend freedom of expression because they don't wholeheartedly believe in it. Mired in the immoral morass of cultural relativism, they no longer endorse Enlightenment values and universal human rights. Their support for free speech is now qualified by so many ifs and buts. When push comes to shove, it is more or less worthless.
As a left-wing Green, committed to human rights and social justice, I do not share the politics of some other speakers and rallyists. But this is the whole point of Saturdays' demo – to defend the free speech of those with whom we disagree.
While I support the right of newspapers to publish cartoons satirising any religious or atheist leader, there are bigger, more important free speech issues to fight.
When I speak in Trafalgar Square on Saturday, I will defend Muslim communities against prejudice and discrimination, attack the BNP and the war on terror, and condemn the government's erosion of civil liberties and individual freedom.
My speech will also assert the right to condemn British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, urge less state secrecy and more freedom of information, and call for the disestablishment of the Church of England and the freedom to insult the Queen, Prime Minister and Archbishop of Canterbury.
When it comes to free speech, I am an equal opportunities free speecher. I even defend the right of others to mock and ridicule me. I may not like it. It might be unfair. But that's democracy.
Some critics are mischievously portraying Saturday's protest as an anti-Muslim rally. I condemn any attempt to demonise or scapegoat my Muslim brothers and sisters. I also reject the suggestion of a clash of civilisations.
Both fundamentalists and progressives can be found in all faiths, politics, ethnicities and cultures. No society has a monopoly of enlightenment and plurality. Muslim societies like Bangladesh have produced Enlightenment icons like the feminist writer Taslima Nasreen; while supposedly cultured nations like Britain and France have spawned the Dark Ages ignorance of the British National Party and the Front National.
When considering the vexed question of the limits to free speech, perhaps we should start with first principles:
Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.'
By this standard, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right for every person on this planet. It is a right for all, not some. If we expect free speech for ourselves, then we are duty bound to ensure that it also exists for others.
Contrary to what the cultural relativists try to suggest, freedom of expression is not a western value; it is a universal humanitarian value that every member state of the United Nations has pledged to uphold. By demanding the right to free speech, we are not seeking to impose western values on non-western nations. We are merely asking the governments of the world to honour the human rights commitments they agreed when they signed up to the UN.
Free speech is one of the litmus tests of a free and democratic society. Alas, not everyone shares a commitment to democracy. To maintain their power, political and religious tyrants have always censored ideas and opinions. Some liberals and left-wingers, often with the honourable motive of tackling prejudice, have also attempted to place constraints on what can be publicly said on issues such as race and sexuality. This authoritarianism lite has its downside too. Suppressing intolerant ideas doesn't make them go away. They just go underground and fester. This is not a solution.
While many people of faith have been recently up-in-arms over cartoons, plays and operas they find offensive, ironically it is the free expression they oppose that is the precondition for genuine political and religious freedom. It is in the interests of people of all political and religious beliefs - and of none - to defend freedom of expression. By defending the freedom of others we are also defending our own freedom.
The right to free speech is the surest guarantor of religious freedom. Without freedom of expression, religious minorities tend to be persecuted by religious majorities. Witness, in theocratic Iran, the victimisation of Sunni Muslims by Shia Muslims.
A democratic secular state is the true protector of all religions. It guarantees religious freedom and equality, ensuring that no one faith lords it over others. That is why, among other things, I favour the disestablishment of the Church of England, to end the privileged constitutional and legal status of this increasingly diminished protestant sect.
Freedom of expression should not, of course, be abused. A harmonious, good natured society is one where people are civil and courteous to each other. Prejudice and discrimination have no place in civilised discourse. Offensive language - whether sexist, anti-gay or racist – is rude and divisive and should always be challenged.
Those who justify legal limits to free speech need to answer a number of questions:
When it comes to censorship and bans, where do you start and where do you stop? Who decides what is sufficiently offensive to merit restriction? At what point do you draw the line? Isn't this an inevitably subjective judgement? When does a well-meaning desire to protect vulnerable communities spill over into the dangerous territory of giving some communities privileged protection and immunity from criticism?
All human beings are worthy of respect, but not all ideas deserve respect. There is, for example, no obligation to respect Nazism, misogyny, white supremacism, homophobia or creationism.
I grew up in Australia in the 1960s, during a period of McCarthyite-style red-baiting. Because I opposed the US and Australian war against Vietnam, I was denounced as a communist and nearly lost my job. From firsthand experience, I know freedom of expression is a precious freedom that must be safeguarded.
That is why I argue the right to free speech can be legitimately restricted only when it involves incitement to violence or libel/defamation. The threat of violence and the spreading of untruths diminish free, honest and open debate. Otherwise, speech must remain free. The rare exceptions are instances like not being free to publish terrorist bomb-making instructions.
The price of living in a free society is that we are sometimes confronted with views we find offensive and insulting. Faced with bigoted, intolerant opinions, the most effective way to challenge them is by calm, reasoned debate to dispel ignorance and prejudice – not by bans and censorship. Physical threats and violence are unacceptable.
In January, I challenged Sir Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain when he denounced homosexuality as immoral, harmful and diseased. But I did not seek to ban him, nor did I support calls for his prosecution. I defended Sir Iqbal's right to free speech. Will he and his fellow MCB leaders now defend my right to freedom of expression? Or is Sir Iqbal another of those selective free speech proponents? Freedom of expression for me, but not for you?
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 11 comments
if it quacks and waddles, it is a duck
23.03.2006 16:35
>How can anyone disagree with these progressive values?
How can anyone disagree with Tony Blairs often stated abhorence of war and desire for peace ? Perhaps because it is an obvious and insincere lie ? This is an anti-muslim march called in direct support of the cartoons that caused so much offence worldwide and well you know it. Actions speak louder than words, or as that well known literary queer put it:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester, smell far worse than weeds
> Well, if these socialists object so strongly why don't they organise their own demo in support of free speech?
Why don't you ? Don't you feel the least embarrassed about marching with fascists ? Can you understand why you are so mistrusted by libertarians ?
>Freedom of expression should not, of course, be abused.
Do you consider the cartoons to be an abuse of freedom of expression given that the West is slaughtering so many Muslims just now ?
>Witness, in theocratic Iran, the victimisation of Sunni Muslims by Shia Muslims.
What I witness is your hatred for Iran just when it is convenient to Blair, and your hatred of Zimbabwe just when it was convenient to Blair - your 'former' leader. What I witness is an agenda that is extremely useful to the New Labour warmongers you recently claim to oppose.
Why do you more often criticise government bogeymen such as Iran rather than Saudi Arabia ? Are you aware that this one-sidedness leads to a climate of hostility that helps your former leader Blair commit genocide ? Did you not learn that from the vast number of times you were reported criticising Iraq for the introduction of the death penalty there, compared to the minimal number of times you were reported criticising the actual implementation of the death penalty elsewhere ? You helped create an atmosphere that justified the invasion of Iraq and you should reflect upon this. This is pro-government bias, whether it is deliberate or not or your part, whether you are being manipulated by the media or not, you should be aware of it.
Just out of interest, how many people do you think have died as a result of the Iraq invasion ?
For millenia, gays have been abused and persecuted in the west. Now, very recently, gays have almost equal rights here. I would suggest you concentrate on achieving true parity at home before criticising the rest of the world for failing to instantly leap to our level of development. You know what I think would make a bigger difference than any of your campaigns ? Paying for gay-friendly TV programmes like 'Will & Grace' to be made freely available to homophobic countries, or even better paying for similar local programmes. I know that sounds simplistic but I think it has merit.
pink,red,green
A Celebrity Campaigner?
23.03.2006 16:38
Yes there appears to be a problem at the moment with Indymedia UK's policy of preventing certain posts and I agree that the views of the Anti-Crossrail campaign should be aired.
It is of current interest, the rail link is a major concern for some people in the East End of London, the whole scheme appears to be dogged with dirty tricks and lies from the likes of government ministers. So why not publish info from this particular campaign.
I imagine BG & B Constituent has asked Indymedia what the problem is and if so what did they say please?
Quite rightly, BG & B constituent believes that free speech should include the Anti-Crossrail campaign. If Indymedia do not want to uphold the right to free speech of this particular campaign, in the interests of fairness, they should say why.
Well done to Peter Tatchell, your piece on the Freedom of Speech was very good!
Peter Supporter of Tatchell
You are not Voltaire
23.03.2006 17:04
Voltaire and the Englightenment philosophes fought against the most powerfull institutions in Europe - the Christian church which was at the centre of feudal absolutist monarchy.
Today's wannabe petite-voltaires are fighting against the most powerless groups in Europe - Muslim immigrants who are by and large poor, exploited and racially abused.
Peter Tatchell may go on about his 'universalism' - but this masks the real power differences in society. But then who would expect a petite-bourgeoise radical liberal to have a grasp of these matters?
Barry Kade
ad hominem attacks degrade debate
23.03.2006 18:29
I liked his article myself, particularly its emphasis on Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights.
As for which religion to "fight" the answer is.. none. Study them, learn from them, recognise the limitations, move on.
Dougie
e-mail:
dougie@navarino.org.uk
Homepage:
http://navarino.org.uk:8080/blog
For those wondering...
23.03.2006 19:13
So, now you have somebody posting comments under this article complaing about the editorial policy of the IMC collective. As it says on the page that lists the guidelines, posts on the topic of editorial policy do not belong in the newswire and will be hidden. Dicisions and discussion about moderation should be directed to the imc-uk-features mailing list which is publically archived for transparency.
The Khoodeelaar campaign was emailed and reminded that the indymedia newswire is not intended
to be a place for the promotion of political parties and that repreatedly ticking inappropriate topics is considered spamming. It was pointed out that regular distruptive behavior deemed to be in breech of the indymedia editorial guidelines might result in their posts being hidden. The Khoodeelaar poster did not reply and has not attempted to resolved the problems people have raised about the posts.
If you are interested in the campaign you could always follow the links from one of the Khoodeelaar campaigns 540 mentions on the indymedia UK site (
hl=en&lr=&q=Khoodeelaar+site%3Aindymedia.org.uk&btnG=Search) or read them in the view all post section of the site.
Just as a reminder, here are the guidelines for posts considered inappropriate fo IMC UK...
* Repeated : content that is reposted or text that was originally a comment posted as a report.
* Non-news : posts which are clearly purely comment, opinion or rants unrelated to a recent event or action etc.
* Discrimination : posts using language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination.
* Inaccurate : posts that are inaccurate or misleading.
* Advertising : posts with personal or product promotions.
* Hierarchy : The newswire is designed to generate a news resource, not a notice-board for political parties or any other hierarchically structured organizations.
* Disruptive : Contributions by individuals who habitually publish above mentioned discouraged content. Posts where topical or regional selections disrupts the utility of the sub pages (ie spamming regional and topic selections).
* Reposts : Articles that are simply pasted from corporate news sites. Please write something original, by all means link to articles elsewhere and quote from them but don't just copy them.
Charles
Guilt By Association, Or Not?
24.03.2006 11:26
In this article he says it doesn't matter who he associates with as long as the cause is right. Yet isn't associating with reactionaries precisely the charge he levels at 'the Left'?
I just can't fathom, how it can be an awful betrayal of 'our values' to march against war and racism alongside the Muslim Association of Britain, yet marching for the right to attack Islam alongside quasi-fascists like the Freedom Association is somehow fine and dandy?
I don't want to believe it's just because the FA are mostly white and don't have foreign accents. But it's getting increasingly hard to see it any other way.
Also on the Crossrail campaign thing.. it's obvious to me, they foolishly mentioned R*sp*ct and G**rg* G*ll*w*y - and here on IndyMedia that's the one thing that's always banned!
Mr Spoon
Tatchell - one of the great moral failures of our era
24.03.2006 13:03
Labour Friends of Iraq
The first guest columnist on the LFIQ [ Labour Friends of Iraq ] web site is the human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell. We feel that he makes some very powerful points on how parts of the left have sold the pass on universal values.
We strongly share his opinions on how parts of the left have behaved shamefully on Iraq. In this important assessment he writes that “Motivated more by hatred of the US and British governments than by love for the Iraqi people, many so-called leftists support a "resistance" that, if victorious, would bring to power Baathists, Islamic fundamentalists and pro-al-Qaeda militants. Is that what the left now stands for? Neo-fascism, so long as it is anti-western?”
...
The same curious morality applies to Iraq. The Stop The War Coalition was right to oppose the US – UK led invasion, but utterly wrong to ignore Sadaam’s terrorization of the Kurds and Shias, and of socialists, democrats and trade unionists. The STWC’s failure to support the democratic and left opposition to Saddam ranks as one of the great moral failures of our era. It’s “do nothing” and “take no sides” policy failed to challenge Sadaam’s tyranny.
"
This is an important charge from Tatchell, that the STWC never criticised Saddam. That would indeed be 'one of the great moral failures of our era' - if it were true.
Fortunately it is a bald lie, as is easily shown by even a cursory look at the STWC website (I personally have nothing to do with stwc). I'll include a small selection of quotes at the end of this post from their website to prove Tatchell lied.
Why would Tatchell lie about this ? I can think of several reasons. Firstly, it is self-promotion. If he claims that the entire anti-war movement except him failed to criticise Saddam, Tatchell must be a great man, someone whose opinions matter. Secondly, it is distraction, from the fact he ( and the other Labour Friends of Iraq ) helped create the moral case that allowed Blair to lie his way to war. Thirdly, and most importantly, it helps him justify his continual unbalanced attacks on Blairs current enemies (Iraq/Iran rather than Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe rather than Mauritania). It helps him portray himself as a liberal while promoting a white, middle-class, right-wing, Islamophobic political agenda while hundreds of thousands die. Yes, he criticises Saudi Arabia too, but quietly, less often, and deliberately so. Of course he proclaims himself against war - much like Tony Blair does. It allows him access to publicity, it allows him access to Indymedia for example where Tony Blair presumaby fears to tread.
"The icon of horror of Saddam Hussein's rule is a 1988 film of petrified bodies in the Kurdish town of Halabja, killed in a chemical weapons attack. The attack has been referred to a great deal by Bush and Blair and the film shown a great deal by the BBC. At the time, as I know from personal experience, the Foreign Office tried to cover up the crime at Halabja. The Americans tried to blame it on Iran. Today, in an age of images, there are no images of the chemical weapons attack on Fallujah in November 2004. This allowed the Americans to deny it until they were caught out recently by investigators using the Internet. For the BBC, American atrocities simply do not happen."
"During the first phase of the War on Terror, Rumsfeld was Reagan's special representative to the Middle East. There, his main task was to establish close relations with Saddam Hussein so that the US could provide him with large-scale aid, including means to develop WMD, continuing long after the huge atrocities against the Kurds and the end of the war with Iran."
"residents George Bush Sr and Ronald Reagan secretly supplied Saddam Hussein with arms and intelligence and allowed US companies to sell him components for chemical and biological weapons, according to secret government documents declassified at the end of December.
The Times of 31 December reported that successive US administrations went to “extraordinary lengths” to befriend Saddam Hussein, and that “the US policy of courting the Iraqi dictator as an ally through the 1980s was pursued so obsessively that Washington stepped up arms supplies and diplomatic activity even after the Iraqis had gassed northern Iraqi Kurds in March 1988.” Released records also reveal how central present defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld was. As a private citizen acting as Reagan's special envoy, US policy “was given life” when Rumsfeld visited Baghdad at the end of 1983. On meeting Saddam Hussein, he assured him that “Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations”, according to a State Department report."
"Before the invasion, Clwyd travelled through Iraq to investigate Saddam's crimes against his people. She told the Commons that what she found moved her to tears. After the invasion, she took the minister's word at face value, when a 30-second search on the internet could have told her it was bunkum. It makes you wonder whether she really gave a damn about the people for whom she claimed to be campaigning. Saddam, facing a possible death sentence, is accused of mass murder, torture, false imprisonment and the use of chemical weapons. He is certainly guilty on all counts. So, it now seems, are those who overthrew him."
Outrageous
MAB condone murder
26.03.2006 02:35
Well the Muslim Association of Britian is one of the reasons (the SWP being another) why I avoid all Stop the War Coalition events like the plague. MAB consists of people who glorify "martyrdom", one of their spokesmen, Dr Azzam Tamimi, said on the BBC's Panorama programme last August about how "...for the sake of defending your homeland, for the sake of defending your community, then that has to be glorified of course", and wrote in the Jakarta Post that "They [the suicide bombers in Israel] are aspirant to what they alone seem to have known with certainty to be the truth. To them, the eventual destiny of their short trip to Tel Aviv, Natanya or other Zionist-infested Palestinian town is eternal life in a world of divine bliss." (oh and NO, I am not a Zionist, just someone who thinks all human life is equal and that people shouldn't turn a blind eye to atrocites just because the perpetrator is Muslim).
With people like that within their realm the MAB are hardly champions of world peace, are they? I am sure a lot of people on StWC marches would be horrified if they were to be made aware of the above.
Whatever you think of him, Tachell has a point, and credit where credit is due for him highlighting the opression of gays which occur under countries where Islamic law reigns supreme.
Mr. Humph
condoning mass-murder
27.03.2006 12:34
At Abu Sifa near the Iraqi town of Balad, the U.S. occupying Army was reported to have executed 11 Iraqi civilians, among which were four children and a six-month-old baby.
The accusations made in a report prepared by the Iraqi policed and published by the Knight Ridder news agency, coincided with the launch of investigations by the U.S. navy into similar crimes, including one that took place in November last year, in which U.S. marines killed 15 Iraqi civilians in Haditha.
But the Abu Sifa incident appears to be the most serious of all, as the accusations were included in an official police report signed by Iraqi officers.
The report for March 15 stated that "American forces used helicopters to drop troops on the house of Faiz Harat Khalaf situated in the Abu Sifa village of the Ishaqi district. The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 people, including five children, four women and two men, then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed their animals."
A British soldier was charged yesterday with the murder of an Iraqi civilian, the first to appear before a criminal court since the invasion of the country.
Kevin Lee Williams, 21, a trooper with the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, appeared at Bow Street magistrates court in London, charged with the murder of Hassan Said on August 3 last year in Ad Dayr, southern Iraq.
It is rare for a soldier to be sent to trial in a civilian court - as opposed to facing a court martial - over allegations involving incidents on active duty.
A UNITED States army captain has been charged with murder over the shooting of an Iraqi civilian.
The case stems from an incident last month in which US soldiers chased a vehicle they believed was carrying members of Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia, which had been fighting US forces.
During their pursuit, soldiers fired at the vehicle, wounding the driver and passenger. Shortly afterwards, the driver was shot again at close range and died.
The accused captain, from the 1st Armoured Division, whose name has not been released, could face court martial.
And US soldiers who murder get their pay docked or their rank cut - at the very worst.
The time to demonise an entire religion is not when we are effectively genociding the followers of that religion. Judaism undoubtedly has its faults but to have been criticising those faults during the holocaust doesn't make you a progressive human rights/ freedom of speech activist, it makes you a nazi.
context
So, it's Nazi of me to denounce murdrers?
27.03.2006 18:49
Mr. Humph
differentiating violence
29.03.2006 00:15
You however condemn each suicide bomber as much as you condemn our war-mongering leaders. In a similar fashion you would need to condemn the French resistance as strongly as you condemn the Nazis. I cannot, I will not, and I cannot see how you can unless you are an ultra-pacifist - or in the case of Tatchell imo , a willing nazi. Bear in mind even President Bush indicated 'if they were occupying my land I would resist violently' or words to that effect.
And take even the most extreme extremists, have you seen their basic demands ? They amount to 'leave our lands and stop killing us and we'll give up our arms'. I see those are reasonable demands. I just know our leaders would suffer personal finacial loss if they agreed, and so that will never happen.
Danny