Freedom, respect and cowardice
Oliver Kamm has produced a timely and very thorough article (which is worth reading in full) for Index on Censorship in which he denounces the trend towards censorship and self-censorship on the grounds of "respect" and avoidance of offence.
The notion that free speech, while important, needs to be held in balance with the avoidance of offence is question-begging, because it assumes that offence is something to be avoided. Free speech does indeed cause hurt - but there is nothing wrong in this. Knowledge advances through the destruction of bad ideas. Mockery and derision are among the most powerful tools in that process. consider Voltaire’s Candide, or H L Mencken’s reports - saturated in contempt for religious obscurantists who opposed the teaching of evolution in schools - on the Scopes ‘Monkey’ Trial.
It is inevitable that those who find their deepest convictions mocked will be offended, and it is possible (though not mandatory, and is incidentally not felt by me) to extend sympathy and compassion to them. But they are not entitled to protection, still less restitution, in the public sphere, even for crass and gross sentiments. A free society does not legislate in the realm of beliefs; by extension, it must not concern itself either with the state of its citizens’ sensibilities. If it did, there would in principle be no limit to the powers of the state, even into the private realm of thought and feeling. The debate has not been aided - it has indeed been severely clouded - by an imprecise use of the term ‘respect’. If this is merely a metaphor for the free exercise of religious and political liberty, then it is an unexceptionable principle, but also an unclear and redundant usage. Respect for ideas and those who hold them is a different matter altogether. Ideas have no claim on our respect; they earn respect to the extent that they are able to withstand criticism. Even some vocal defenders of liberty stumble on this point. The human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell wrote recently, of a particularly slanted television debate: ‘Even the supposed Muslim moderates on last night's programme exuded a whiff of hypocrisy. Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) claimed: ‘We do not wish to impose our way of life on anybody. All we want is to live in respect with one another.’ Fine sentiments. Shame about the reality.’ It is not, in fact, a fine sentiment to require respect. Respect is not an entitlement. It is, at most, a quality that is earned by the intellectual resilience of one’s ideas in the public square.
Indeed, in many ways the avoidance of offence is not out of respect for the views of others, but rather a capitulation to the intimidation of extremists. We have seen this particularly in recent months with regard to the failure of university authorities at Leeds and Cambridge to safeguard freedom of expression within their respective institutions. In both cases, vehement protests with the implicit threat of violence have resulted in a craven climbdown, and in the case of Clare College, Cambridge, effectively collaborating in the persecution of the student who had caused the alleged offence. Melanie Phillips reports that staff and students at Leeds University have rebelled against the outrageous cancellation of a talk on the connections between Islamist ideology and Nazism on dubious grounds of security. We applaud the stand they are taking. Respect is one thing. Cowardice in the face of intimidation is another.
|