'HATE SPEECH' AND THE SHADOW OF THE CENSOR


Listening on the radio the other day to someone opining about the BNP* and English Defence League [EDL].[1]  He was, he explained all in favour of free speech, “but,” he insisted “we do not have the freedom to preach hate.”
To which my response was, shouted at the radio, “Oh yes we bloody well do!”

I guess here a little throat clearing is required, though I do so wearily. Now I strongly disapprove of both the BNP and the EDL, indeed believe I can claim to have opposed fascism in all its guises all my life. Looking for a word to describe my feelings about fascism I find that I alight upon the word hate. I hate the BNP and EDL and all that they stand for, I am happy to commit this vehemence to words. It seems I have just transgressed this fellow’s boundary; I have become a preacher of hate.

Of course he did not mean me, well certainly not in relation to the BNP and EDL; I stated above though that I opposed fascism in all its guises, one of those guises I believe to be Anjem Choudry* and his crowd of Islamacist fanatics.[2] I hate Mr Choudry every bit as much as I hate Mr Nick Griffin, where does this leave me respecting our self appointed free speech vigilante?

It gets more complex still. Anyone who reads this blog will know that I am no fan of religion and have in particular attacked Islam for the misogyny, homophobia and bigotry to be found in the Islamic world.[3] I guess our vigilante is now getting an itchy trigger finger.

 A free society is a society in which people are free to hold and express opinions that you abhor. Indeed I would say that a society in which you never heard anything that offended you, or challenged your opinions, would be dead; would have about it all the consensus and unanimity of the graveyard.

Of course, at times, hearing opinions to which you take strong objection is uncomfortable; tough, one of the strengths of a free society is that it creates adults, not children constantly needing their ears protected.

The limits of free speech should be few; incitement to murder is a crime in most civilised societies. I may take objection to Mr Choudry or Mr Griffin, what I may not do is suggesting getting together a posse and beating both of then to death.

Likewise firebombing a mosque or a community centre ought to be seen as particularly heinous crimes, attacking as they do the rights of citizens to practise their beliefs and mix with those of a like mind for support and companionship-things essential to the health of community life.

And whilst I do not approve of the teachings of Islam I would vigorously fight any proposal to curtail the freedom of those who wish to practice and preach their faith.[4] I don’t like Mr Choudry but I do not wish to curtail his right to freely declare openly what he believes.[5]The same applies to Mr Griffin. The caveat being that I demand the same freedom for my self.

There is one thing you can be sure when people start talking about ‘hate speech’ and censorship, that it is not their own delicate ears they want to protect, they of course are tough and educated, they can handle lies and propaganda. No, it is the great uneducated masses they seek to protect. This profoundly patronising and elitist attitude is usually hidden amongst a lot of verbiage about culture and the delicate sensibilities of ethnic minorities. Don’t be fooled, hidden under all that verbosity lays the commissar who always knows best.

If however you are tempted by the arguments for censorship try this little thought experiment, presented by the late great Christopher Hitchens. Who would you nominate to censor what you could read or see?

Then again you may also think it self evident that the ideas of Mr Griffin should be suppressed, vile as they are; but do not imagine you are the only one whose thoughts turn to censorship. If you succeed in suppressing Mr Griffin what will you then say when someone objects to your ideas, wants them suppressed. For have no doubt there is an extraordinarily virulent bunch of religious zealots waiting in the wings who would love to characterise any criticism of religion as ‘hate speech.’

Ultimately censorship of ideas is always self defeating, since it inevitably glamorizes and gives added potency to the ideas it seeks to suppress. It is also futile since those who wish to take possession of such ideas will always find a way. Given that, with all the resources of the Tudor state, Thomas More could not keep out Tyndale’s Bible, what hope have out latter day inquisitors got?

Ultimately foul ideas are destroyed by better ideas and superior argument, not by suppression. Of course this is uncomfortable, hard work and sometimes even dangerous. The alternative is to run back to the nursery and the protection of mum. For my self I would rather live as an adult.

*Head of the BNP, The British National Party A fascist outfit.

**Islamacist fanatic and self promoter.

[1] A right wing nationalist group.
[2] Many majority of the left have deliberately downplayed the fascist quality of Islamism or pretended that it is just a misrepresentation put about by the ruling elite; Islamists being allies against ‘imperialism’ I have said enough about this poisonous line elsewhere, Peyvand Khorsandi in the Evening Standard has written well on this.
[3] I could argue that I have also attacked Christianity and Judaism on the same lines, though somehow I suspect this attracts less opprobrium. 
[4] Though I do not believe that anyone should be at liberty to force feed their children on an exclusive diet of religious dogma. Similarly, although I loathe the full face veil and all that it represents in terms of the subjugation of women, if women freely choose to wear it I would again fiercely defend their right to so do.
[5] Though I have wondered how wise it is to continually invite him into the TV studios. I noticed incidentally that none of those who clamoured to keep Nick Griffin off Question Time, were equally exercised by Mr Choudry, even though the things he preaches are just as vile, objectionable and inimical to a free and open society. I wonder why?





Having visited this page I would be grateful for your feedback, either tick one of the boxes below or make a comment via the comments button.

Popular posts from this blog

NESRINE MALIK AND THE UNSUNG VIRTUES OF HYPOCRISY

Image
As I write this a 27 year old woman, Mariam Ibrahim, has just had a baby in a Sudanese prison, ‘the condition of the mother and baby is not known as Ibrahim's lawyer and her husband, a US citizen, had been denied access to her. Omdurman women's prison has a basic clinic, where the child is thought to have been born. Ibrahim has been shackled since being imprisoned.’ [1]   Mariam also has an 18 month old child who is also being held in prison with her. The ‘crime’ for which she is imprisoned is apostasy, for which she has received the death sentence. She has also been sentenced to 100 lashes, for the additional crime of having sex with her Christian husband. Although she has been a lifelong Christian her father was a Muslim, Sudanese sharia law forbids women to marry outside the Muslim faith, men needless to say can do as they please in these matters. Mariam Ibrahim and her husband.  Nineteen countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 12 of those countries...
Read more

INTERVIEW WITH TOM VAGUE

Image
Tom Vague At the top end of All Saints Road there is a refuge, an enclave in which a local Bohemian culture retains a foothold, this is the Book & kitchen , a café/bookshop with adjoining terrace. Here the bustle of the nearby market gives way to conversation, conversation in the presence of images of the recent, and not so recent, past. The past of an area that has contributed so much to the life and culture of the city. I was there to meet local historian Mr Tom Vague a man intimately familiar with so much of this history. What Tom doesn’t know about the recent history of the area probably is not worth knowing. With Tom’s energy and effort Colville Community Forum, supported by City Living Local Life, recently held a gathering at The Book and Kitchen to celebrate this rich history. February 16 6-9 Pm, with Film Screening and Readings Exhibition February 16-26 2016. Featuring 30 Classic Westway Photographs and Posters. This represents one of a number of initiatives of t...
Read more

VOLINE AND TROTSKY

Волин и Троцкого A Footnote in Russian History In April 1917 the Russian anarchist revolutionary Voline* and Leon Trotsky were both stranded in New York as the Russian revolution broke out in Petrograd , inevitably coming into contact with one another. Voline stated that he felt that the Bolsheviks, given their ruthlessness and single minded determination, would ultimately come to power. They would then begin eliminating their opponents, amongst whom of course were the anarchists; this persecution would end with the Bolsheviks shooting the anarchists “like partridges.” Trotsky was dismissive, they might have their differences but they were comrades in arms, they had different interpretations of the revolutionary process but shared the same goals. It was nonsense to speak of Bolsheviks shooting revolutionary comrades, “we are socialists, comrade Voline! So we are not your enemies….” [1] In December of 1919, whilst gravely wounded Voline was captured by the Bolshe...
Read more