Irving And Griffin At Oxford Prompt Another Freedom Of Speech Row
26 November 2007 – 7:01 am bySo, today holocaust denier David Irving and leader of the far-right British National Party Nick Griffin are to address the Oxford Union, causing the media and the blogosphere to pick up the free speech debate right where the fuss over James Watson’s remark last month left off.
According to tabloid newspaper the Daily Mail (not the most reliable source, but they don’t really have an axe to grind here, although see below),
[Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Trevor Phillips] told BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show: “I think it is an absolute disgrace. As a former president of the National Union of Students I’m ashamed that this has happened. This is not a question of freedom of speech, this is a juvenile provocation.”
Mr Phillips said people had not fought and died for the right to freedom of speech only for it to be used as a “silly parlour game”.
But this is exactly what we mean by “freedom of speech”, even if it appears to you to be exercised as a juvenile provocation.
In a similar vein, pressure group Unite Against Fascism will be mounting a protest at the event, saying:
There is a world of difference between defending free speech and choosing to provide a platform for fascists.
Far from being the champions of free speech history shows that when fascists rise to power they destroy freedom of speech, democracy, human rights and they have murdered millions of people and attempted to annihilate entire communities. Wherever fascists have a presence, violence and intimidation increases.
Let’s leave aside the very broad-brush use of the term “fascism”, and the fact that neither the BNP nor Irving, unpleasant as they may be, have either “murdered millions of people” or proposed doing so. The key point is that “defending free speech” actually does sometimes mean providing a platform for people you don’t agree with.
Very few people think that “freedom of speech” is an absolute, inviolable right. It’s not okay for certain things to be said under certain circumstances. For instance, I accept Irving’s right to believe that the holocaust didn’t happen; it’s okay for him to write books and speak at university conferences. On the other hand it absolutely wouldn’t be okay for him to speak on the subject at, say, a primary school.
Why not? Because in the former cases his work is being scrutinised by people who are qualified to test its merits, whereas in the latter there’s an asymmetry of power that makes challenging the views being expressed much harder. Irving is (or was) a professor, he’s got a tweed jacket and a posh voice, and he knows lots of facts. I couldn’t win an argument with him either, and would be pretty intimidated if I had to try.
It’s partly the presence of a power imbalance that makes me dislike a boss who tells a homophobic joke in an office much more than someone who tells it to a friend in private. Indeed, I’m beginning to think that freedom of speech is contingent mainly on symmetries of power.
But the kicker is that speech, including but not limited to what’s commonly called “hate speech”, can itself be used to create such asymmetries. Take, as an example, an office with only one non-white employee. A racist remark made from one white employee to another weakens the non-white employee’s position even if the remark itself is not overheard.
I do, though, think it’s okay for Griffin to describe homophobic policy proposals to a Guardian journalist because I think Griffin, the journalist and the readers are all capable of making their own minds up about it. I suspect the same about the members of the Oxford Union, although in general one might want to be a bit careful about introducing radical politics into the crucible of a university campus.
Union president Luke Tryl has given the assurance that
[Irving and Griffin] will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head-to-head manner.
I think that makes a very big difference. In fact, it turns out that the event is to be a debate about free speech, a matter the Daily Mail’s sensational coverage neglects to mention. If you’re going to have such a debate it would seem sensible to invite some people who had been censured for exercising their freedom of speech, and with whom the majority of the audience could be assumed to have little sympathy. That foregrounds the existence of hard cases, which are what make the debate into a debate rather than a drinks party.
Once you accept freedom of speech as the default, then any exceptions we make to it — banning certain linguistic acts under certain circumstances — have to be justified. The justification based on power is a start, although it doesn’t feel comprehensive or entirely convincing on its own.
Certainly I think “juvenile provocations” are okay, and are part of the intellectual growing-up process. And, as I said above, I also think that having a serious debate has to mean giving a platform to people you don’t agree with. Otherwise why not just invite someone you already agree with to talk to people who already agree with them?
Anyway, if you give them enough rope, they’ll do the rest. Here’s an easy example that just came readily to hand. Griffin recently wrote on his blog:
[W]hile I used to be very angry at (and rude about) the way the left-liberals use the Holocaust as a moral club to silence debate on the key issues of our time – I have never denied the fact that the Nazis murdered huge numbers of Jews in one of the great crimes of a century of terrible inhumanity.
and here’s the young Griffin doing exactly that:
I don’t see much ambiguity there, but maybe I’m missing something subtle — there are lots of weasel-words in the blog post when you re-read it. Yet without giving him the freedom to express his views, how would we know what they are, that we disagree with him, and that he’s an idiot?
[Update 20071128:
The Guardian newspaper has an account of the evening, although inevitably it focusses on drama involving protesters rather than what was actually said in the debate. Tryl is quoted as saying that “[a]t the end of [the debate] David Irving came out looking pathetic”.
I should also point out that I find myself in the unwonted position of being in complete agreement with Peter Hitchens.
]
4 Responses to “Irving And Griffin At Oxford Prompt Another Freedom Of Speech Row”
Here’s the biggest problem with your logic:
“In fact, it turns out that the event is to be a debate about free speech, a matter the Daily Mail’s sensational coverage neglects to mention. If you’re going to have such a debate it would seem sensible to invite some people who had been censured for exercising their freedom of speech, and with whom the majority of the audience could be assumed to have little sympathy. That foregrounds the existence of hard cases, which are what make the debate into a debate rather than a drinks party.”
Wrong. In fact, to invite these individuals to ‘inform’ a debate on free speech is logically incoherent as i argue here: http://oxodising.wordpress.com
To discuss ‘hard cases’ and use them as a benchmark is indeed useful. But getting the individuals involved is something very different. As with so many other commentators on this issue you make the mistake of flippantly conflating the two.
By Oxodising on Dec 7, 2007
Hi Oxidising,
You know, there’s really no such thing as “logical incoherence”. I think what you mean is that my conclusions can’t be reached from your premises. I imagine you can see where I’m going with that.
In fact I do think your post is interesting and lively and in many places clever, and of course I agree (and say, in the post you’re commenting on) that one should balance the potential positive effects of having a debate against the negative effects of inviting unpleasant people to it.
But your key point, that the Union had no business inviting Griffin and Irving because their views on (inter alia) race aren’t relevant to a debate on free speech is quite odd.
Both men do in fact have strong, relevant and oft-referred-to perspectives on free speech. At least in Griffin’s case those views are also badly flawed and self-serving. Might it not be worthwhile to argue with them rather than letting nonsense go unchallenged?
What’s more, their very presence probably gave the debate a lot more spice than would a pair of friendly liberals, and debates like this are showbusiness, not real thinking. They’re supposed to be fun and provocative, as I bet that one was.
Based on the comments thread on your post, though, I’m not inclined to get into this in a lot more detail. Your approach is too adversarial to cope with the complexity of the issues you raise. Defending a position is all well and good but this stuff requires collaborative, interactive discussion rather than attempts to refute point-by-point anyone who engages with you.
Cheers,
Rich
By Rich on Dec 9, 2007
Let’s assume that Nick Griffin is a proper fascist (I’m not quite so sure about Irving, though he certainly keeps the company of fascists). He’s certainly the leader of the largest far-right organisation in the UK, which evolved directly out of the British fascist movement as a split from the National Front (of which Griffin was previously a member).
Then, let’s not assume that liberals are either the natural or most effective enemy of fascists. When the National Front were a real and present danger in this country, it wasn’t liberals who were on the streets physically confronting them (see http://lewisham77.blogspot.com) and delivering a morale-crushing blow to their ability to organise in London. It was the radical, anti-racist and revolutionary left who did it.
The left’s traditional opposition to the presence of fascists in British Universities has been the ‘no platform’ policy: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Platform), based on the principle of “no freedom of speech for the enemies of freedom”, a pragmatic position which creates the most freedom possible for everyone, and not relying on any patronising assumptions about who it’s ‘appropriate’ for fascists to be allowed to talk to. It concentrates on denying fascists the right to organise rather than merely speak. See http://www.wsm.ie/news_viewer/841 for a more well-elaborated explanation of the Workers Solidarity Movement’s “No Platform for Fascists”.
A common confusion arises in interpretations of ‘no platform’ when the ownership of the platform isn’t considered. There’s a world of difference between an organisation you collectively and democratically control (your student union) and one you don’t (the University). In the former case, it’s absolutely your right (and the right thing to do) to make the decision to deny a platform to fascists. In the latter case, making a call for the organisation to deny a platform, even to fascists, is dangerously close to offering your acquiescence to greater powers of censorship over the public sphere in general, which should be avoided.
In the case of the Oxford Union, which is certainly under the control of nobody but a bunch of hoorays who could hardly be expected to know better or care more about the rights of ordinary people to live free from racist and fascist abuse (and who were mostly quite blatantly doing this to advance their own ‘intellectual’ careers), the appropriate response is not to call for the organisation to censor the enemies of freedom, but to physically intervene to disrupt and destroy the event. Which is pretty much what the anti-fascists on the night did anyway, and well done to all concerned.
By Danny on Dec 14, 2007
Thanks Danny, I think that’s a very important distinction.
I remember being at a conference, long ago, when a speaker was talking about the idea that two consistent but contradictory worldviews can, under certain circumstances, just be irreconcilable and have to coexist.
A question came from the audience along the lines of: “What about fascists? If you take your view, it may not be possible to say conclusively that fascists are wrong”.
“No, that’s right,” the speaker said, “But I don’t need to say they’re wrong. I just need to say they’re bastards.”
There are problems with this, of course, but it’s a fair point. We don’t primarily dislike the BNP because they’re mistaken about certain facts, but for other reasons. That might suggest that thoughtful intellectual debate isn’t necessarily the appropriate response at all.
Rich
By Rich on Dec 17, 2007