The debate over free speech has never been noisier. Discussion over what you can say, where it can be said, how others will be affected and whether you’ll be sacked comes with every single remark outside the political mainstream thought. New terms like ‘safe spaces’, ‘no-platforming’ and ‘echo chambers’ are rife, especially in universities, supposedly the beacon of new ideas and thoughts. As a society, we have become so used to censoring and shutting down debate instead of taking on controversial ideas and explaining why they are so wrong. There needs to be a change of attitude, towards challenging a view, not censoring it.
My personal definition of free speech is very broad. Any opinion, however wrong in my view, should be heard until violence is incited. Forms of incitement of violence are illegal, for example, willingness to assist in a murder, meaning such speech shouldn’t be allowed. On twitter, there is a big difference between criticising an MP over the way they have voted and wishing to kill them. However, apart from inciting a crime, I believe people should be allowed to say what they wish. Their freedom to speech must come before any offence caused to others. There have been many cases over the last few weeks with freedom at the centre. Whether it’s freedom of speech, thought or the freedom to teach, deciding what we are allowed to do as humans is a huge part of modern society. Take Jared O’Mara, the recently suspended Labour MP. He made some horrific sexist, racist and homophobic remarks: saying a winner of Pop Idol (no, me neither) only won because she was ‘fat’, calling someone on a dating website an ‘ugly bitch’, referring to gay men as ‘poofters’ and calling Danish people ‘pig shaggers.’ Those remarks are truly despicable. Though most of the remarks were said over the decade ago, that doesn’t make them right. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. It was only right that O’Mara resigned, ironically, from the Women’s & Equalities Select Committee. I supported the removal of the Tory whip for Anne Marie-Morris when she said the n-word, so, to ensure consistency, Labour were right to remove the whip while they investigate his remarks, citing no place for such language in their party. However, I have seen some tweets stating Mr O’Mara should resign as an MP. I do not support this. Are we really going to remove everyone from public office who has made stupid remarks? There would be nobody left! Surely his time could be better spent learning why his remarks were wrong. When Labour MP Naz Shah wrongly called for the relocation of Israel to the United States, she was rightfully suspended, met people who had suffered anti-Semitism, learnt why her remarks were grotesque and was duly reinstated. Instead of censoring people from public office for saying a disagreeable remark, why don’t we educate them on the suffering that minority group experiences? On a far larger scale, I’ll always read tweets and comment pieces calling for Donald Trump to be banned from the UK for his abhorrent views. Yes, I agree with people that his views are abhorrent. However, that is no reason to ban him. He is no present danger (yet) to the United Kingdom and shouldn’t be banned for holding many Conservative views. It is important the UK has a working, effective relationship with the US, meaning a visit over the next four years is inevitable (though I hope a state visit is removed). To me, it seems far more effective for him to enter the UK and see the amount of protests against his views. Maybe he could even appear on a debate programme and have his views challenged. For changing someone’s mind, that seems far more effective that just leaving him in the US, challenged only by an echo-chamber of close associates. The freedom to learn is also somewhat threatened. Government whip, Chris Heaton-Harris, sent a letter to all UK universities asking for details on Brexit teaching and academics who taught it. Heaton-Harris is a staunch Eurosceptic, saying he believes in ‘free speech in universities’ and an ‘open and vigorous debate on Brexit. I couldn’t agree more. However, shouldn’t the freedom of universities to teach as they choose come first? Should a whip be the one leading the debate? University minister Jo Johnson himself said a letter that could be ‘misinterpreted shouldn’t have been sent,’ denying the Government’s involvement. Apparently Heaton-Harris was just writing the letter individually as part of research for a book. Well, I’ll look forward to the day that’s released. As the great Shami Chakrabarti once said, "Everybody loves human rights, including free speech. They love their own. It's other peoples that are a bit more of a problem." This couldn’t be truer. We are all happy with, and desire, complete freedom of speech for ourselves. Why should I be oppressed for saying what I believe? It is the speech of others which is a greater concern. The moment we start to restrict what you can and can’t say out loud, we lose our freedom. It may take a while, but restrictions on speech will eventually lead to everyone being prohibited from saying what they believe. Challenge and denounce the racists, the sexists and homophobes; tell them why their views are misguided and ghastly. Until they incite violence though, they must be allowed to express their view, however wicked.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|