Skip to main content

Freedom vs Censorship

The condemnation of the controversial, so-called historian, David Irving, to three years of prison by an Austrian tribunal for denying the Holocaust, raises some interesting questions about freedom of speech.

The concept has already been put to the test in the past weeks with the controversy surrounding those cartoons and periodically, a case arises, highlighting the difficulty of striking the right balance in those matters.

In the case of Irving, for example, it seems fair to say that the instinctive response of most people to the condemnation (including mine) is that he deserved to be sentenced and that justice has been done. Indeed, eleven countries in Europe have laws against denying the Holocaust. Likewise, last year when I heard of the condemnation of a Swedish priest who had compared homosexuality to a cancer for society, a subject obviously close to my heart, I was quite happy with the judge’s decision (it looks like the judgement has now been quashed).

Having thought a little more on the subject and read a few interesting posts on the subject in the blogosphere, I am now not so sure that this is the right approach. The temptation, difficult to refrain from, is, of course, to use laws to silence opinions that we don’t agree with or think contradictory to our values. But history, even recent history or current events, teaches us that dominant values, upheld by laws, are not always the most progressive one or the ones we support; or a shift in perspective can happen very easily.

It is also very easy to become extremist in our support of what we see as liberal values and actually undermine the very idea we want to support. By trying to muzzle opinions we feel don't fit the liberal mould, there is a danger of turning liberal ideals into a totalitarian ideology: "Our liberal way of thinking is the only way of thinking."

Recently, the lower house of Parliament voted in favour of a law criminalizing the glorification of terrorism. While the intention is probably right, it seems that currently laws are perfectly adequate to attain the goals of this new law (this is demonstrated by the recent condemnation of Abu Hamza, which happened without the help of the potential new law). More importantly, the concept of glorification is so vague that interpretation is required from the judge to come to a judgement. I don't think that subjectivity should be given that much space in the law. It is probably not such a problem at the moment but what would happen if the social and political climate suddenly turned to something more threatening than what it is now. Such pieces of legislation could become very dangerous tools indeed for a non-liberal government.

At the end of the day, such laws limiting freedom of speech, rather than changing outlooks, will only drive people underground. They will see themselves as victims of the majority view or even martyrs to their cause and will simply feel justified in their opinions. By definition, there can be no institutional limits to freedom of speech, except when someone is calling for violence to be perpetrated on someone else, in which case they forfeit their rights to freedom. As I said, the easy response is to shut people up but a solution more consistent with liberal ideals and probably more effective is to engage people with opposing views to ours and to argue for our values. This is what freedom of speech and democracy are all about.

Of course problems will arise when the other side does not recognise those values and is therefore is not ready to come to the same ground to discuss things but rather uses violence and threats to try and impose their view as happened in the case of the cartoons.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Short History of the Elephant and Castle and Its Name

Last night I attended a lecture by local historian Stephen Humphrey who discussed the general history of the Elephant & Castle, focussing more particularly on what he called its heyday (between 1850 and 1940). This is part of a week-long art project ( The Elephant Project ) hosted in an empty unit on the first floor of the infamous shopping centre, aiming to chart some of the changes currently happening to the area. When an historian starts talking about the Elephant and Castle, there is one subject he can not possibly avoid, even if he wanted to. Indeed my unsuspecting announcement on Facebook that I was attending such talk prompted a few people to ask the dreaded question: Where does the name of the area come from, for realz? Panoramic view of the Elephant and Castle around 1960/61. Those of us less badly informed than the rest have long discarded the theory that the name comes from the linguistic deformation of "Infanta de Castille", a name which would have become at

Rev. Peter Mullen's Blog

Rev. Peter Mullen is the chaplain to the London Stock Exchange and the rector of St Michael's Cornhill and St Sepulchre without Newgate in the City. Rev. Peter Mullen was also until recently a blogger. Sadly the result of his cyber labour seem to have been deleted but Google has thankfully cached some of it and I have saved a copy for posterity, just in case. The deletion of Rev. Mullen's writings might just have something to do with the fact that last week, the Evening Standard and then the Daily Mail published an article (the same article actually) about some of those very writings (even though the elements of said writings being quoted had been published in June this year, at the time of the blessing ceremony which took place between two members of the Church of England in St Bartholomew the Great - picture ). In the article, we learned what the Rev. thinks about gay people and what should be done to them: We ["Religious believers"] disapprove of homosexuality

Liam Messam and Tamati Ellison Swap Jerseys

I am having a bit of a vacuous evening looking at images of pretty rugby players. Addidas, with its latest viral campaign, Jersey Swap , seems to be squarely aiming at the gay market with a selection of five antipodean rugby players, visitor to the website can select and see take their tops off and... well... swap jersey (those interested can create posters too). My favorites of the bunch are Liam Messam and Tamati Ellison . The pictures of their pretty faces and bulging naked torsos (excuse me while I sit down for a second!) included to this post should tell you why. A job well done for Addidas. This will go round the Internet for a while, I think.