As the debate about the British Government’s refusal to allow Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, into the UK to attend a showing of his controversial film ‘Fitna’ has raged, I have wanted to write, but found myself unable to do so. It has taken time for the dust to settle in my head. Part of my delay has been caused by self-censorship and a desire to avoid offence.
Ironically, I came to the conclusion that the substance of what I wanted to say was that the likelihood of causing offence is no justification per se for not speaking. And so I write, confident that some (even many) will disagree, that I may be misunderstood, and that even if I am understood, I may offend. I only plead that my intention is merely to examine the arguments for silencing an individual and the absurdity of the present judgement.
When the controversial historian, David Irving, and BNP leader, Nick Griffin were invited to debate free speech at the Oxford Union last year, I argued that they should be allowed to attend and make their case in the face of considerable opposition to that invitation (See Big Storm in a Little Tea Cup and Liberal Fascism). Broadly speaking, the arguments against their speaking were: 1) they are objectionable people; 2) they will say things that will cause offence; 3) there will be trouble.
Arguments directed at the character of the people themselves may have use in a court of law, but should have no place in a serious intellectual debate. But it is the latter two arguments that worry me the most. All three similar arguments are being made against Geert Wilder’s visit.
Before considering the weakness of the ‘offence’ and ‘trouble’ arguments, I would make the following observations:
- There is little new that is being said by the showing of the film. The film is already widely available on the internet for those who wish to view it.
- While a member of a democratically elected European parliament who had no criminal record was prevented from entering the country to attend a film show, nothing was done to stop the showing of the so-called outrageously offensive film.
- This same man had been allowed into the country months earlier.
If what Geert Wilders has tried to say in his film is inciting to religious and racial hatred, we have laws against that, and he could have been arrested for breaking the law. To effectively impose a punishment of banishment on the basis that he might have committed a crime is an absurdity.
If what Geert Wilders has tried to say in his film is wrong, then let there be a debate and let evidence be presented and let people make up their minds. It was interesting that at least one voice from the liberal establishment that would normally be expected to support an anti-extreme religious position (the writer of the New Humanist Blog) was saying that while he supported the right to free speech, what Wilders was saying was seriously flawed. But the point is that he wanted to take part in a debate about representations of truth and reality. What I find very disturbing and frustrating is that the debate is being silenced on the grounds of “You can’t speak because I will be offended by what you say.” In this case, of course, another deadly layer has been added to the offence argument - that of religious offence.
The argument that you must be silent because I will be offended (and because you will offend my god) is a killer to civilized society. It stifles communication. It fixes ideas and stops development (just think of Europe in the dark times of intellectual control of the Christian Church before the enlightenment, and parts of the Arab world today under the modern manifestation of extreme Islam). In my view, such an argument needs to be challenged rather than appeased. If bullies are never challenged they just grow stronger. Such an argument is intellectual bullying of a covert kind.
I am responsible for what I do and think and say. I am not responsible for how others think or what they do or what they say. They are responsible for that. If I maintain that I have that responsibility I demean and infantalize others. I can say one thing, and they can choose how they respond to that. I can say; “I think a form of Christianity has been responsible for countless deaths in Northern Ireland,” and others are free to be responsible for how they respond to that. They can agree with me or disagree, they can choose to be offended or not offended, and if offended they can choose to riot or not, or try to kill me or not. The point is that the power and choices remain with them. To say I caused offence by my remarks is rubbish. I stated something that I believed to be true and they chose to be offended by it.
Stopping Geert Wilders because of what others might do is placing the responsibility in the wrong place. If he is guilty of a criminal act, arrest him. If he is wrong, have a debate. But do not stop him speaking just because of what others might do.
At this point people usually say: “But what about the harm that might be caused? What about the people that might get hurt?” It is sad, but true, that sometimes there are risks involved and that some things are so important or so useful that it is worthwhile taking those risks because the alternative would be too costly.
At present we judge easy transport to be important to our society though we are aware that there are costs and the sometimes lives are tragically destroyed. We judge the greater good to be more important than the high individual costs. Nobody would seriously suggest that an unusual car designer with a unique style should be banned from talking about his ideas for cars just because he differed from the norm, or because people in his cars might get killed or kill others, or because opponents of his design might have plans to attack his cars and the car factory, or because they and their god would be offended.
Freedom of speech has been costly to win over the centuries. Many parts of the world still do not have it. We should be very careful about appeasing those who oppose it simply on the grounds of offence and trouble.
The argument “I am offended, therefore you must be silent!” is specious and is killing debate.
The argument,”My god is offended by this,therefore you must shut up!” shows the weakness of god and is becoming a justification for murder.
Very good post. It is interesting though, because we dont really have freedom of speech, at least not completely. Afterall you can potentially lose your job if you ask someone if you can pray for them.
TitforTat
Interesting point. You do have the freedom in this country to ask strange things during your professional work life. However, if those comments were professionally inappropriate you might suffer appropriate professional consequences. And presumably, you could still have a reasonable debate about that. I agree that freedom can be, and is curtailed in certain circumstances because it is judged unprofessional - but that is a separate issue (in my mind, at least) from being curtailed just because it might cause offence.
TM
In my mind the big problem is that of Political Correctness. If people were more able to say yes or no and not be intimidated then many of our concerns would be taken care of. If you dont like the movie, dont watch it. If you dont want someone to pray for you then say no thanks. Pretty simple, amazing how difficult we make it.
Wow! What a great piece of writing. I have no idea what the main issue is, but I understand that you ended up talking of free speech.
Many people, including me, are disliked for what they say. The truer what we say, the more disliked we are. This has troubled me for years, as I try to brainwash myself to shut up so others will be pleased.
I still have to work on being careful with my speech. But, I’ve come to understand, recently, as you so clearly write, what people do with what I say reflects who they are and not who I am.
I can see why it took guts to express what you wrote in this post, because I am too familiar with the British culture, where silence is always chosen over discomforting truth.
The problem with silence is that it never changed anything. It preserves the status quo. Only those who speak out bring about change, and usually the cost is high.
But, I believe that we should pick our battles carefully. Not all truths are worth saying or are conducive to anything good.
[...] A Thinking Man - Costly Silencing [...]
Yes, I do agree with you. I do think that people should be allowed to do or say anything as long as it falls within the law (and sometimes there are grounds for challenging the law but that is a separate thing). As you say it is down to others how they choose to respond and it does seem in this case that it might have been a good opportunity for the issues to have been discussed in a sensible way.
You cannot ban people from saying things just because others may misbehave or be upset. That would never been seen as a good strategy in dealing with a toddler. The more you pander in this way to their needs, the more unreasonably demanding they will become and the less anyone will be able to do or say without something kicking up a fuss. It feels harder to confront something and put up with the resultant fallout but it is actually the only way to treat people equally. Otherwise where do we draw the line. Either we stick to the law or we risk something very unsatisfactory and arbitary altogether. Scary in fact.
I often put off writing about some things because I am apprehensive about the reactions of others. I have phases of it - it is rather comforting to know that others suffer similar insecurities. Well done, on going for it. It was definitely worth doing - excellent piece!
TitforTat
I agree with your sentiment. However, in referring back to the case of the praying nurse, the issue, in my mind, is slightly different. If an friend asks me if I want prayer, I agree, I can say just no. If a professional asks me in the context of health care, I want to say no and make sure that steps are taken to avoid the situation again for other people. The context is crucial, as I argued in a previous posting.
Lorena
We are in agreement. The pen is mightier than the sword, but we should pick our battles carefully. And when we do speak, we need to choose our words carefully. If truth is likely to offend, there is no point in causing an unnecessary distraction by phrasing our truth in an unnecessarily offensive way.
Reluctant Blogger.
Thanks for your encouragement. Despite your confessed insecurities, your blogs are always compelling in their honesty.
ATM
I work in Health care and I dont necessarily agree with you. I loathe it when people want it all or nothing. Context is crucial. Its interesting, but I never “ask” my clients, I usually state ” I will say a prayer for you” That way nothing is required from them. Now its important to realize that I am not religious, so my definition of prayer will be different than someone of a specific faith or someone who has a beef with a specific faith. I do agree that people shouldnt be made to feel uncomfortable. I am pretty sure the praying nurse wasnt doing it to make them feel better.
TitforTat
But words have public meanings, not ones an individual can decide on at whim. If you say: “I’ll pray for you,” and mean something else other than prayer, that is a nonsensical statement.
“I will pray for your health”
“To make a fervent request or entreaty”
“To make a devout or earnest request for”
ATM
Its like saying I wish you well, or heres praying you get better.
TitforTat
If you wish someone well, why not just say “I wish you well”? Why try and create your private language and use words to mean something they do not, and risk not only being misunderstood but also causing offence?
ATM
I guess we can agree to disagree. It sounds like it must take a lot of energy when you talk, making sure you always use the “proper” words. I myself try to pay more attention to the person and how they respond to my intention rather than my choice of words. For the most part, I know when I have insulted someone, and then do my best to apologise, unless I intended that.
Very good post. I agree with you and was disappointed by the government’s actions in this matter.