Should the multiculturalism debate have been cancelled?
The DUS were right, in the circumstances, to cancel the debate
Ed Mason for DUS
Should the Durham Union Society (DUS) have cancelled the multiculturalism debate? The real question seems to be: are we seriously asking the DUS President and Executive to continue with an event which puts students, staff and members of the public at risk from violence?
Given the heated debate, hourly meetings and unapologetic threats of violence of the last week, I think it’s helpful to take a step back and look at this from the start of this term. Critics will argue that the invitations should never have been sent, but it’s been no secret that the DUS had invited British National Party (BNP) speakers to a debate on multiculturalism: the DUS has invited them before because its members generally accept the need to hear from both sides of a debate when tackling an issue head on. The DUS President wisely opted for full disclosure on the invitation of Andrew Brons MEP and Cllr Chris Beverley.
Their names and elected positions were put in the termcard which was given to members at the start of term, members who were also emailed a notification of the invitations. The information was out there for all to see, digest and consider for some time. The decision was also on the front page of this esteemed publication in Epiphany’s first issue. There were only two responses, one of which was positive. I draw two possible conclusions from the situation that then arose: either Durham students have stopped reading their emails and their student newspaper, or that the majority of opposition emanated from outside of Durham.
I believe the latter to be the most likely, as it was not until several days after the last edition of Palatinate that Unite Against Fascism (UAF) threatened protests and violence and the National Union of Students (NUS) promised to send bus loads of students into the fray. Up to the end of last week, the DUS President and Standing Committee (the DUS Executive) had been in extensive consultation with the Police, both local and national, the University Registrar, Carolyn Fowler, who is also a DUS Trustee, the Academic Registrar, DUS officers, independent legal advisors, the University Communications office, College JCR Executives and DUS members.
Freedom of speech is a founding principle of the DUS, a policy shared by the University, but it should be clear here that the DUS President has acted sensibly and responsibly in prioritising student safety. The University statutes, highlighted by Ms. Fowler in the joint statement, mandate that “any threat to public safety supercedes the importance of freedom of expression”. Having obtained advice from all the experts and weighed up the options, the DUS and University could do nothing but cancel.
I think in order to grasp this fully it is helpful to understand that the ‘decision’ to cancel the debate really isn’t a decision at all. Decision implies that there are at least two options and that one is chosen above the other. This simply does not apply in this case: the situation became so volatile that the scheduled debate was cancelled by the protest, by the threat of violence and by the necessity to safeguard student safety. Yes, the DUS and the University cancelled the debate but they were not faced with a choice, there were no alternatives.
Granted, the cancellation of a debate which promised to be intelligent and responsible is a shame. As a member I am personnally upset that I won’t have the opportunity to cross-examine speakers on an issue which will undoubtedly be a talking point in the forthcoming General Election. No-one could be more disappointed than the President and Standing Committee who have invested so much time and emotion over recent weeks in the meetings I have already mentioned, all while receiving a near-constant barrage of inappropriate personal abuse from people both within and outside of the University.
The cancellation and focus of all disappointment felt should lead us to ask: who removed the alternative from an independent debating society, its members, the University and from Durham students at large, leaving them no choice?
Potentially violent clashes between anti-fascist and neo-Nazi groups would jeapordise safety for all concerned – including staff at the library, Castle and Cathedral, who would have no choice but to pass through the protest on their way to and from work. While I believe that the right to peaceful protest is part and parcel of freedom of speech, a common sense approach to safety must come first. Where students from outside of Durham would be brought into the middle of a potential pitched battle and intentionally put in harms’ way by UAF and the NUS, the Police could not guarantee that students, staff and the general public would not be injured in a protest.
I believe that freedom of speech should be a guiding principle of British society: it’s the most effective way to expose ignorance, idiocy and extremism and to allow people to make up their own minds on the issues. I am proud that the Union Society and the University support this and I applaud the pragmatic decision they have taken. The actions of UAF, the NUS and extremist right-wing groups have prevented freedom of speech and thorough debate. When protesters threaten violence, pledge to ‘storm the Chamber’ and go out of their way to exacerbate the situation, the ‘decision’ to cancel the debate really isn’t a decision at all.
Backed into a corner, the DUS President and University have acted to protect students, even the more gung-ho ‘I’d have gone anyway’ among us, in the hope that one day society might be able to engage ‘close-mindedness’ openly in debate and show it for what it really is.
The cancellation is a worrying challenge to our freedom of speech
Mark Harmstone
If there’s anything that the 20th century can teach us, it’s that freedom may be hard, it may be unpleasant at times, but it must be preserved – for the alternative is unspeakably worse. The British National Party (BNP) may resemble those tyrants we fought against, but that is irrelevant: the National Union of Students (NUS) and Unite Against Fascism (UAF) are wrong to try to dictate the terms of debate to anyone, let alone the Durham Union Society (DUS).
I should imagine the DUS rather regrets what they have got themselves in to. They were wrong to invite the BNP in the first place: not because of some stubborn-headed ‘no platform’ ideology, but because it would not have been productive. Anyone who has seen the infamous episode of Question Time with Nick Griffin knows what it would have turned into: a crude shouting match, with the other panellists tricking the BNP into defending the indefensible. In that particular case any proper, enlightening debate was radically muffled out by the the wish for an edgy, headline-grabbing TV show. Set-pieces like that did little to expose the BNP in all their repulsive philistinism. Instead, it used them as a tool through which to boost the show’s ratings. Such scenarios invariably end up being little more than politicized reality TV.
Fundamentally, the BNP weren’t even the best people to turn to for discussing multiculturalism: there are scores of reasonable commentators who would have done a far better job, and less controversially. Douglas Murray, for one. Anti-multiculturalism is not racism, and the DUS deserves opprobrium for simplifying the debate so. Here the chance for some kind of reasoned debate was sacrificed for the promise of a large crowd and high-volume publicity.
But, as Pembroke says in Shakespeare’s King John, the “excusing of a fault / Doth make the fault worse by the excuse”. The greatest of all the mistakes was to allow the DUS to be cowed by the mob that the NUS threatened to send. In situations such as these, it is difficult to tell who exactly is responsible: the press release announcing the cancellation was a joint statement, and Palace Green is owned by the university, after all. If they objected to a meeting taking place on their premises, they are entirely within their rights to prevent it from happening.
Evidently the DUS has been leaned-on to some extent, but they ought to have stood there ground. It was a far greater fault to cancel the debate than it was to propose it in the first place. It shows freedom of speech to be in this country not an inviolable right, but a privilege to be revoked should a violent majority disapprove. I should hope that the vast majority of Durham students disapprove of nearly every word that comes out of Andrew Brons’ mouth, but, as Voltaire didn’t say, we should defend to the death his right to say it.
The debacle helpfully poses some lingering questions that maintain a more general resonance. This particular debate might be remarkably inflamatory, but no doubt the future will bring many other controversial topics and guests. Will all be subject to such public scrutinizing and off-stage interference?
In May of last year, shortly before the elections for the European Parliament, I got into an online spat with the organizer of the Durham branch of Hope Not Hate, the group which exhorted students to vote for anyone other than the Nationalists. One of the arguments I used then – that the BNP are a very minor party who ought not to be ‘talked up’ – has now clearly been invalidated. But the other, that picking on them would give them a victimhood status, has not. They are an ‘anti-politics’ party, in a way that none of the other big six possibly can be. As I write this, one of the headlines on their website reads “The Old Parties: A Nest of Thieving Criminals”. As with the Nazis and Mussolini’s fascists, they are positioning themselves as a New Order, poised to take the place of the corrupt ancien régime. If their right to speak is then attacked, this cannot do anything but bolster their cause.
If anything, this incident has shown how colossally useless the NUS is, and how out of step with Durham opinion. Durham is fortunate in that it contains very little of the intolerant hard-left types which otherwise seem to riddle student unions. Meanwhile, Wes Streeting and his gang seem utterly unreformed, and have shown us quite how unrepresentative they are. The BNP have “no place on our campuses”, the NUS officers announced, and the use of that possessive adjective is rather telling. I don’t recall ever casting a vote for Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy, Daf Adley, or Lucy Brookes, so I am unclear what right they have to claim Durham’s campus as their own. There is no possible way that they can trump the rights of the DUS, and for them to use violence to do so is nothing short of disgraceful.
Should Durham reconsider its decision not to disaffiliate from the NUS? I voted for disaffiliation the first time around, but these recent events have reinforced my resolve. Durham may be a major university in Britain, but it is still only one of many. The NUS may be like the Augean stables, but Durham is no Heracles: the detritus of sloppy, authoritarian thinking will remain there for years to come. It is heartening to see that Durham students are such a freethinking, liberal bunch, and we ought not to be shackled by affiliation. No doubt UAF would still make threats were Durham free, but they would be not be labouring under the impression that they have the moral authority to do so.
But, before all that, the DUS must announce that the debate will be put back on: if not for the 12th, as originally planned, then for some other date this term. It will send a powerful message that Durham is independent, and will not be coerced; for we cannot possibly hope to fight fascism if in the process we become fascists ourselves.
50 Comments »
Leave a Reply
Most recently posted
Why all the fuss about Blair’s memoirs?
02-09-10 09:35AM
Hard-hitting Vogue oil spill shoot deemed ...
25-08-10 05:43PM
Stuck for something to read this Summer? Chec...
23-08-10 02:34AM
Latest Edition - Issue 719
Click images to read Palatinate online
Please remember to distinguish Durham Students from those affiliated with the DUS which is the minority. The people I have spoken to recently have almost unanimously opposed the prospect of the BNP coming to Durham in any way, shape or form. The DUS doesn’t speak for Durham Students any more than the NUS does.
Also, can we stop using this “fighting fascists makes you a fascist” argument. It doesn’t make any sense. Real world issues must be considered rather than abstract philosophical meandering. The BNP opts out of the right to be protected by free speech as they seek to deprive the rights of others. Fighting this is necessary and just.
In addition, these articles are not really representative of the deabte. They both argue that it shoudln’t have been cancelled. There is of course an argument that it should have been but that is not represented here. And to Mr. Harmstone, I say one of the most important lessons from the 20th century is that if fascism goes unchecked and prevented, then we pay a very heavy price. Let’s not forget the Nazi party was praised and supported by press and others in this country when it should have been suppressed. Freedom of speech is not a god given right. It is preserved and upheld by those who deserve to have it. Those who don’t deserve it are those who seek to deprive it from others for no good reason. Seeking to deprive those people (the oppressors) of free speech is justified in the protection of others. Why should the BNP be entitleted to say what they say? Its disgusting, hurtful, offensive, illogical and against the princples of the freedom so passionately defended by the DUS members
Mike – quis custodiet ipsos custodes? “Fascism” is a notoriously difficult term to define; Orwell, in his essay “Politics and the English Language”, argued that “Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ’something not desirable’.” Who is to say what is allowed or not? Who is to say who “deserves” to have it? You?
As for your comment that freedom of speech is not a God-given right: which ideas of the BNP are unutterable? Surely it is mainly their silly views on race, which, err, have nothing to do with depriving people of free speech anyway. And it is entirely possible that Brons and Beverley could have argued the whole debate without saying anything UAF deems unacceptable. To argue that they shouldn’t be able to speak about multiculturalism is as ludicrous as saying that Margaret Thatcher was a racist, because she had similar views on economics to Enoch Powell.
And the DUS might not be representative, but it doesn’t claim to be. They can invite who they like to a private meeting: why is that of any concern to anyone who isn’t a member? You’ll note that Durham County Council is representative of its residents, but that doesn’t mean that it can dictate who can meet within its boundaries.
See the main problem with all this is that people like yourself clearly have no idea what they BNP actualy do and you seem determined to legitimize them. Their “silly views on race” as you understate it, lead to riots, thuggish beatings, people building large cache of weaponary, synagogues and mosques being attacked, etc. It does deprive people of free speech as they don’t have a chance to speak as the BNP silences them with such measures. It isn’t a perfect world where everyone can file down to the debating chamber on Palace Green. Some aren’t as free, or rather, as equal, as others. And multi-culturalism is a highly ambigous term. I don’t know what Orwell said about it but being against different “cultures” is as ludicrous as being against different races.
I didn’t claim that the DUS claims to be representative of all students but, not only is it acting like that over this, both authors above also make this mistake. Finally, the who will guard the guards is a myopic argument pretending to be long sighted. Consider this: Group A attacks Group B unprovoked and on grounds Group B cannot control. Group C intervenes and prevents Group A from further attacking Group B. This makes Group A fascist, Group B victim and Group C and respondant to injustice, NOT FASCIST AS WELL. Your argument about it being difficult to define is rubbish. Its based on certain principles dictators and mass murderers like Hitler stood for. Thats why Brons is a member of a group that deliberately formed on Hitlers birthday. Those are the ideals of fascism; intolerance, racism, hatred, stepping ont he downtrodden, etc. Defending the downtrodden does not make you a fascist.
The BNP are a registered political party and so should have the everything that they deserve because of this: they can publish their flyers, drive their van round Durham, even have their party political broadcast if they stand enough candidates. Spouting their views at the Durham Union Society is not a right, and a closed debate is not the place for people with their views.
So we should give the BNP the platform that freedom of speech requires they have; but we should question the wisdom of those who want to hand them a microphone.
Mike, Rob
This debate would have exposed the views of the BNP to serious, intelligent scrutiny. Anyone attending the debate would have been able to hear the views of the BNP challenged: so that the reasons why we are against the BNP would have become crystal clear, rather than being the dead dogma that the crowds of Anti-Fascists would have been screaming outside.
The “No Platform” policy is sensible if it debars the BNP from giving political speeches in University buildings. But precluding it from the kind of debate that was to go ahead is a step too far.
Free speech has been defended by sterner, more adept advocates than myself. John Stuart Mill (1859) gives the best defence. It’s worth quoting at length:
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
The issue that I have with silencing those we don’t agree with is that it disenfranchises people of a basic right.
6.2% of people may have been “wrong-headed” to vote for the BNP at the European election. But curtailing the rights of thought and expression to these people is an ill, that is only warranted when there is a far more severe threat to our basic liberties than the BNP pose.
Mike – when you say “attacks” in relation to your Groups, do you mean physically or verbally? I deplore physical violence, whether from the BNP or from UAF, but I do not recognize the right of people not to be insulted.
I’m glad that you alone have been spared the philosophical ramifications over the definition of fascism which seem to have plagued everyone else who has thought about this issue. Three out of the four of your points could also apply to UAF: they are intolerant of the BNP, they seem to hate them rather than their ideas (witness the numerous ad hominem attacks, such as saying that Brons should not be allowed to speak because of something he did in his past), and the BNP are very much the downtrodden in political terms – just look how the other members of the panel ganged up on Nick Griffin on Question Time.
I feel rather downtrodden on the moment actually, as my rights of free association have been trampled on by thugs. Can you defend me please?
And I’m pretty irritated by the implication that Brons addressing a private meeting will “lead to riots, thuggish beatings, people building large cache of weaponary, synagogues and mosques being attacked, etc.”. Durham students are (for the most part) a clever bunch, and you do us all a great disservice by suggesting that we would be taken in by their nonsense.
“And I’m pretty irritated by the implication that Brons addressing a private meeting will “lead to riots, thuggish beatings, people building large cache of weaponary, synagogues and mosques being attacked, etc.”. Durham students are (for the most part) a clever bunch, and you do us all a great disservice by suggesting that we would be taken in by their nonsense”.
Mark, I agree that the debate should not have been cancelled. But I get uncomfortable reading sentences like your one above. Durham students are not an isolated, superior group compared to Newcastle students, Abertay students or any other group of non-students. My point is, even though you and I might call the BNP’s policies “nonsense”, there are people, even amongst us Durham lot, who think the opposite. Many students get taken in by religious societies at Durham, for example, and in a matter of months are suddenly willing to plunge into a bath of water and be re-born. What has their influence been? DICCU speeches, perhaps? Friendly “I used to be an atheist but…” talks before the Christmas carol service in the cathedral? The line between speech and action exists, of course it does, how can that be “drivel”? Frankly, I don’t see much difference in the level of irrationality when it comes to believing in BNP policy or believing that all non-Christians will end up in eternal agony, and there are plenty of students who believe in the latter at Durham. The fact that we believe in something influences our attitude, our behaviour towards others and may potentially lead us to take action, whatever action it may be.
You alluded to loyalty, which bothered me somewhat. I was accused of endangering students’ welfare after writing my Nightline article, and I was accused of going behind my college’s back when I wrote my St Cuthbert’s article. Why is Mike rendering us a disservice, exactly? He is not obliged to remain loyal to Durham students in any way; he is not obliged to portray us as a group of intellectuals who are superior to being taken in by fascist groups. Because we’re not: we, as Durham students, are just as likely to be taken in, we are just as vulnerable and insecure and occasionally stupid as everyone else.
Sorry Rachael, I only just noticed your post. I wasn’t actually alluding to loyalty: the “us” was an exclusive rather than inclusive “us” – if only English could express the difference – but rereading what I wrote I see why you read it the way you did.
As for your other point, I take it, but we have to treat people as being rational individuals, responsible for their actions. The point I was making is that students by definition tend to be cleverer than the average. Despite what you wrote, we’re not just as likely to be taken in: the rhetoric of the BNP plays most to the indigent and ignorant, those who feel most threatened by other cultures and races. The “drivel” is that particularly ugly train of thought which sees humans as deterministic machines, rather than thinking creatures.
And with regards to DICCU – it’s not quite the same, as religion is something unproveable, taken on faith. Nationalist ideology, on the other hand, tends to mix elements of the pseudo-scientific and the emotive. You can’t disprove the Evangelicals, though you can say that what they believe is unlikely, or self-contradictory. You can on the other hand disprove the BNP: you can demonstrate in debate that what they have said is wrong.
Nationalist ideology, on the other hand, tends to mix elements of the pseudo-scientific and the emotive…..hmm well sure Hitler used “pseudo-science” to back up the emotive, for example his family tree plan….Christians say that the Bible exists, it is there as evidence that God exists, in thatway they have their own science. i doubt most people would give the BNP enough credit to say that there is any kind of science behind what we both agree to be their racist awfulness. how can you disprove racism? just like christians in that sense they are blind to the contradictory evidence. but anyway this is getting off track so even though i disagree ill leave it there!
To Harmstone: You don’t think that people have the right not to be insulted? Wow. There is a very thin line between speech and action. Speech actually causes a lot of psychological damage to people. If someone has to permanently listen to BNP drivel about inferior races, sex preferences, etc. they are being abused. That is wrong. Also, much rhetoric of BNP has lead to physical attacks on people. Its not to do with Durham students being so clever that they won’t be taken in by it, its about Durham students givign legitimation to the BNP. The debate should have focused on the BNP and whether it should even be allowed to be a political party. By inviting them to offer their opinions, they have been legitimized. “just look how the panel ganged up on the BNP”. Firstly, Nick Griffin doesn’t deserve poltical sympathy more than any other politician. Secondly, where was the intellgient debate here? How much was learned about BNP policies? It is what would have heppened at the Union debate as well. I am appalled that so many “clever Durham” students seem to defend the rights of aggressors so adamantly.
To James: The BNP surrender their basic rights by seeking to deprive other people of theirs. If you disagree with removing rights from people at all then we shouldn’t have prisons, rehabilitation programmes and people should just be able to do whatever they want to everone else. This is a view that premised on individualism gone mad. We live in a collective society. Everyone elses actions and words have the capacity to influence everyone else. Words have consequences. I do not think that oppressing oppressors is wrong. I decide they are oppressors based on what they think and do, namely, oppressing people. Just look at evidence of what they think and do.
There are very clear principles that guide the criminal law in decided when to restrict liberty through the strong arm of the state, and they should be adhered to, or at least recognised in discussions like this.
Firstly, the harm principle (Mill, 1869) states that the only thing that should restrict my liberty of action, spech, thought or expression is “harm to others.”
Secondly, in order to be guilt of a crime you need two things:
Mens Rea (A guilty mind)
Actus Rea (A guilty act)
It is not enough to simply have racist thoughts, or, indeed, to comit racist “speech acts,” which can be thought of as mere verbalisations of thought processes: because whilst this might give you the requisite mens rea, it would not entail a guilty act, because it does not “harm others.”
In short, according to most liberals, you are developing a thoroughly authoritarian argument, the end result of which is for you to transgress on my liberty of thought, speech and action: for what benefit?
There is no harm done to others, except perhaps “offence,” but this is a flimsy argument.
To Mike (or should that be Fill?): “There is a very thin line between speech and action.”? What drivel! Talking about something is by no means the same as doing something, is it?
And you fight a straw man when you mention people “permanently listen[ing] to BNP drivel”, for who is? No-one would have been forced to go to the debate had they not wanted to. Are you really alleging that in some dark corner of Britain there are some people trussed up Clockwork Orange-style, and forced to watch endless propaganda/Nick Griffin’s holiday snaps?
The whole notion of legitimation is likewise a nonsense. As Rob pointed out above, there is no question that the BNP is a legitimate political party – they even have two MEPs! I don’t think there’s any such thing as political legitimacy, just bad and good ideas. We both (hopefully) agree that the BNP’s ideas are on the whole bad; it doesn’t imply much confidence in your intellectual conviction in your own views if you seek to silence your critics.
And, with reference to what you wrote to James: if you accept collectivism over individualism, ought you not to defer to the law of the land when deciding what speech is permissible, rather than your own views?
To Mark: You completely ignored my point about pschological damage and the power of words. I’m not suggesting any type of scenario like the one you posted above. I’m saying that their is a link between fascist words and fascist action. We saw it in Hitlers Germany and we see it today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/15/hate-crime-bnp-local-council-elections
To deny a link between speech and action is very short sighted. Speech inspries action as much as action inspires speech. And Collectivism doesn’t eqaute to passivism in the face of the states judicial and legal capacities. People are able to change these and the laws on freedom of speech are ambigous and often distorted for political advantage (such as the huge curtailing of civil liberites under the Blair government). What you seem not to realise is that some people are hurt or killed as the consequences of “bad ideas”. Maybe its because you are not under direct threat from the BNP that you fail to see them for what they are, or rather, what their influence leads to. Freedom of speech must necessarily be restrained to prevent such attrocities. Shying away from setting the limtis is an easy defence that permits such attrocities. Collectively, limits can be imposed, ironically, through debate and other means. Inciting racial hatred is illegal. And rightfully so
Mike, firstly, can I say that I believe you are very much in your views at the moment, over the past few days I have heard almost universal condemnation of the actions (on the behalf of NUS and UAF) that lead to the canceling of the debate, implicitly supporting the right of the BNP to speak at the debate. This is further borne out by the petition to the DSU (with over 1000 signatures so far) and various facebook groups). Of course, as explained at length above, you are perfectly entitled to your views and to express them and, further, to have them challenged as has been happening.
For me the fundamental question here is what, if anything, gives you the right to remove someone’s freedom of speech. In my opinion, holding an opinion (however radical) can never justify the removal of fundamental rights, the crucial thing is how you act and by act, I do include verbal abuse, speaking in public etc. and actions are governed by law and the people who break those laws should be reported and dealt with by the appropriate authorities. The message of the BNP as a political party is not explicitly violent (either verbally or physically) and do not organise any violence, simply hold very radical views on race and other issues and it’s against this (and those ideas) that we must be fighting. I realise that this may not be true throughout the party, I also realise that the people at the top of the BNP presumably distance themselves from anything illegal that may be done by any of their members, but the point is the same, you probably wouldn’t be able to prosecute the big names in the BNP.
But what then if there was a similar party set up that was purely “peaceful” in it’s actions (completely legal), yet held the same views as the BNP? In the absence of them doing anything overtly illegal, what basis do YOU have for denying them their freedom of speech? Do you argue that we simply know better than the law? By all means, let those that incite or take part in violence be punished. But do you think that we can deny people the right to express their political opinions on OUR assessment of how deplorable their beliefs are? And from there, where do we go? What’s the next most extreme party in that direction, or any other direction for that matter? Where do we stop limiting their free speech and who decides this? Who can decide who get’s to express opinions and what gives you think anyone has the right to decide on another person’s basic rights?
One of the unfortunate consequences of living in a free society is that parties like the BNP are allowed to exist. I realise this quotation may seem a bit extreme, but I think it’s not inappropriate.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”
–Martin Niemöller
Ton Matthew Frye: Firstly, I am not in my own views on this. There are many who feel similarly. Secondly, if that sort of second BNP did exist it would be different. The fact that the BNP DO conduct overtly illegal activities is why they should not be defended. There are consquences of speech that YOU seem unable to grasp, presumably because you aren’t under threat from the BNP. If you were or were capable of empathizing with people who they seek to suppress, you may think differently. I think any speech or ideas that lead to the physical or psychological harm of others should not be expressed. Where does the freedom truly lie? With the oppressors? And I quoted that exact same poem at someone the other day. Your using a poem that was written in response to to people not standing up to fascists as an argument to not to stand up to fascists.
“I think any speech or ideas that lead to the physical or psychological harm of others should not be expressed.”
Really? I can’t quite believe that. The fact is, that “what” leads to the physical / psycholgical harm of others is entirely subjective, so if we were to follow this opinion of yours, we’d better not say anything.
I am not saying we don’t stand up to them, simply that we can’t just assert that they are an illegal organisation and deny them free speech which I think is at least as big a threat to our society as the BNP pose.
If they are conducting illegal activities, that must be dealt with by the police and don’t think that the leaders have done anything as I am sure that someone would have noticed by now. The bottom line is that unless they can be arrested and brought to trial, YOU have no solid basis for denying them their rights to hold and express opinions.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but we seem to be hearing two arguments:
1.) That hateful speech can be insulting and offensive and that people should be protected from this
The problem with the notion of “offense” is that people can find whole host of things to be psychologically distressing. A Christian may feel psychological distress from two men holding hands on a bus for instance, and yet it would not afford a valid reason to suppress their activity. Rights are not things to be balanced against one another in a Utilitarian calculus. The right to speak includes, absolutely, the right to offend.
2.) That hateful speech may lead to hateful acts
This argument, is again, familiar, and the issue of directness is important here.
If, for instance you are preaching to a baying mob of racists, outside a mosque, and you are preaching to them, for instance, that the Muslim faith is an evil faith, there is a legitimate reason to arrest the giver of the speech for public order reasons.
The more distance you put between the “speech act” and the violence, the more troubling it becomes.
A lecturer who teaches about German Political Thought, for instance, might well include the work of Carl Schmitt (a Nazi Philosopher who wrote books such as ‘On Dictatorship’). Is he to be curtailed from putting the book on the reading list? Should the book be in the library? It could, for instance, lead the reader to begin to believe in the ideals of dictatorship, which could result in a violent act.
The issue. As you see. Is that policing the line takes us close to an Orwellian state where our crimes are not acts of violence, or direct incitements to hatred, but something more akin to “thought crimes.”
So if we accept the point that the BNP should not be allowed to speak at public debates because they serious offend many people with their beliefs. Then do we take the same approach by banning debate about say Homosexuality or Pro Abortion campaigners rights ? I say this because I know that huge numbers of muslims and more than a few good decent fundamentalist christians find both subjects abhorent and offensive. Then what I for example thing socialism is a disease of man and its very concept offensive to self sufficiency fantatics like myself.
When Muslim clerics and followers advocate the jkilling of Jews, Gays etc because they are taught that both are evil and wrong who do we then ban from debating the issue?. Do we ban the Muslims, or the Jews or the Gays, Or do we ban them all?.
From my experience most of the BNP types I have met are not racists, though there is indeed plenty of them in the party, But they are outnumbered by Isolationists and Immigration control conerned peoples, even population control types.
How could the NUS condemn the BNP whilst having encouraged IRA terrorists to come to Campuses to speak. the NSU once made Bernadette Devlin President of the NSU and shes a convicted IRA terrorist herself.
WHo give the NSU/UAF/ANL et al the right to decide what other people can debate and explore, UNLESS they are prepared also to ban Muslim Clerics, Christian Scholars, Gay Rights activists etc at the same time.
Mike Fill says:
February 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Ton Matthew Frye: Firstly, I am not in my own views on this. There are many who feel similarly. Secondly, if that sort of second BNP did exist it would be different. The fact that the BNP DO conduct overtly illegal activities is why they should not be defended.
What like Lie to Parliament to start an illegal war, or perhaps break the data protection act by sending unsoliticed phone calls from the labour party to private homes, Or fiddle their expences ? or rig ballots as so many of the big three have been caught doing?
What overt illegal activities are more nefarious than treason, theft or corruption of the democratic process?
Steve, so instead of campaigning for the prevention of this government’s abuses of the democratic process, you would rather fight for the BNP to join in as well?
Chris I would rather see no discrimination or bias at all, BNP members denied right to join trade unions, girls denied rights to become ordained bishops etc etc. But to fight evil across the board one must first obtain the right to speak and express yourself freely and openly without fear or duress.
if the BNP are silenced by a violent left wing group of thugs, who will they target next ? UKIP because of their anti EU policies, Perhaps the English republicans because they want to stop subsidising the Welsh and Scots.
The trade unions already discriminate against ordinary workers denying them membership of trade unions simply because they vote BNP as a protest.
You cant always pick your battlefield sadly.
I won’t retread what others have said above me here, but I do have to take serious issue with this statement by Mike Fill: “I think any speech or ideas that lead to the physical or psychological harm of others should not be expressed.” This is absolutely, and I do not use the term lightly, ridiculous. If you criticise someone for, say, doing their job poorly because they are lazy this may cause them psychological harm. If you tell someone you’re breaking up with them you will cause them psychological harm. On a wider scale, as has been said, if you tell a group of people the Catholic church is wrong to oppose homosexuality you will cause some people who believe it to be a sin psychological harm. Someone extreme enough in that group might get angry and decide he had to go and kill people who oppose the church, because the human race has a minority of irrational psychopaths. Clearly, direct incitements to violence must be banned, but under your argument, as Rachael has said, no one, anywhere, ever, would be able to say anything.
A number of points:
1) I first heard about this debate through the Hope not Hate facebook group. I am not a member of DUS and I rarely read The Palantinate. So yes, these “external” groups did raise the event’s profile, but not merely among “outsiders” and I’m grateful to them for it.
2) Many within the university have been opposed to this debate, and planned on protesting. Among others, the UCU and individual departments, e.g. geography, threw their hats into the ring. The debate did not have the widespread support alluded to above.
3)Even if all the weight of disapproval did stem from “outsiders”, what of it? One doesn’t need to be a student of the university to express an opinion about events in the university (freedom of speech, innit?).
4)The BNP are welcomed to a debate in the knowledge that they may stray beyond what we legally permit (Brons has form in this regard, given his earlier convictions). The line taken here seems to be that we can prosecute the BNP speakers should they stray into hate speech, but we should not act in advance of it; to do so would be to encroach upon their freedom of speech. The protesters may also stray into illegal terrain. Yet in this scenario it is considered acceptable to pre-empt their actions. The only grounds I can see for this is that hate speech is considered less problematic than civil disobedience. But at this point, you have given up any commitment to free speech as a principle, and are committed to something like “free speech so long as I’m okay with the consequences of it”.
5)The wording of the NUS email was poor, but at best it is ambiguous that it threatened violence. It clearly threatened protests; this much is perfectly reasonable. However, it was written quickly in response to a rapidly developing situation and the NUS is more a hotbed of political careerists than violent militants. Consideration of this context should disabuse anyone of the notion that violence was genuinely being threatened.
It’s my understanding there WAS violence caused by UAF protesters in Oxford in a very similar context, so there was every reason to expect it might happen again. I’m sure it was probably just extremely poorly worded- and it being written as a fast response is absolutely no excuse for that, it’s in precisely this sort of situation you have to be very careful what you say so as not to inflame matters- as opposed to a deliberate malicious threat, but there was good cause to suspect violence might stem from it.
You say the debate didn’t have widespread support, yet thousands of Durham students have signed up to the groups supporting it/opposing the NUS, and signed the petition. That doesn’t mean, of course, that everyone else agrees, but either they must agree, not care at all or not oppose the debate sufficiently to say so.
Finally, on the question of ‘outsiders– I take your point, but if you chose to invite someone controversial into, say, your home, would you be happy for people to interfere? The DUS is a private club, so is only an extension of the home principle. (And the usual disclaimer: I would be far happier if the BNP didn’t exist at all, but sadly they do).
With regard to the Oxford protest, I found two reports of the night. One of which is critical, the other far less so. There was certainly civil disturbance, with protesters staging a sit down protest in the debating chamber, but this is not violence. Given the radically different tones of both pieces, and (presumably) the lack of arrests, I’d suggest that while things were heated, riots they were not. The reports can be found here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article2951490.ece
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23422978-oxford-students-sit-in-protest-fails-to-silence-holocaust-denier-david-irving-and-bnp-leader-nick-griffin.do
On the general point about UAF and violence, the only websites I could find that suggested the UAF were a violent organisation were either BNP sites, or sites with a clear BNP-slant. I’d suggest that anyone painting an organisation that involves Tony Benn, Diana Abbott and many others is either misinformed or has their own agenda. (And I should point out, I am not a member of UAF.)
Of course, any protest has the potential to turn violent and nasty, just as any speech has the potential to turn into hate speech. But if we are happy to take the risk with the latter in the name of freedom of speech, we ought to take the risk with the former. And in this case it appears we have far greater justification for thinking that Brons would cross this line – he has a criminal record for it.
You ask whether I’d be happy with someone “interfering” with my choice of house guest. Well, if someone felt my guest posed a threat to me, them, or anyone else in virtue of my invitation, I would be surprised if they did not voice their opinion; indeed, I would say they were remiss had they kept quiet. But even if the “interference” stemmed from malice rather than good will, anyone would be entitled to make their opinions on my house guest known. Again, this seems to be entailed in any principled commitment to freedom of speech. Once the claim that the protesters shut down the debate through violent intimidation is debunked, all that remains is that those who objected to the BNP presence wanted to voice those objections.
Hi Beth I dont know if it will help you but if you google the English Defence League Protests you will find out more about the UAFs activities.
The one that sticks in my mind (apart from them being blaimed for inciting the race riots in West Yorks) Was very recently in Manchester when the EDL were planning a protest march against Islamic extremism, the UAF said they would counter protest against the EDL.
Anyway on the day according to the papers I read at the time only a small number of EDL protesters turned up and were hugely outnumbers by the Unite Against Fascism members. the police told the EDL chaps to go home, which left the Police and UAF.
The media at the time reported that because the UAF could not get at the EDL they attacked the POLICE !!!!
See also my post below. The notion that UAF isn’t violent is ludicrous.
Also, for clarity, I suggested the debate didn’t have the widespread support alluded to in the article. The author implied that there was no internal opposition to the debate; I’m merely pointing to examples of such opposition, not denying others were in favour.
Beth – did you not see the coverage of Nick Griffin arriving at the EP election count in Manchester, back in June? Had the police not been there, the crowd would have lynched him. And there’s this, of course: Egg attack on BNP leader Griffin. Pelting someone with missiles certainly counts as violence in my book.
And if someone told me that a house guest might pose someone a danger, I’d suggest that they mind their own business. The message in question said that NUS/UAF would be bussing in protesters, and that there was a risk of violence. I don’t buy the post-hoc explanations: that’s a threat so thinly veiled as to be hardly veiled at all.
Also, regarding relative levels of support – the Facebook group “Durham University Students for Freedom of Speech” has (as of writing) 2,863 members. The largest counter-group seems to be “KEEP DURHAM UNI NAZI FREE – No platform for Brons & Beverley”, which has 530, and of those the vast majority do not seem to be part of the Durham network.
Okay, several points there.
First, references help back up your points, so give them a go. I’ve searched for information on the various incidents mentioned here. Details are vague on the whole. I suggest beginning with this as it specifies in more detail who was arrested, and they weren’t UAF members in this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/8476873.stm
Now to the specific events mentioned. The report of events in Manchester mentions arrests, but doesn’t specify which group the individuals were from. I think we can safely assume the racially-aggravated crimes were EDL members:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8300431.stm
With regards the incident that occurred during the European elections, Griffin appeared to have difficult in using the front door of the building in Manchester, had to use the back door, and had his car window smashed. None of this may be to your liking, it’s not the smartest way to make one’s point, and is certainly illegal, but a smashed window is a crime against property, not a person:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8088381.stm
As for the egg incident – again not particularly smart but it seems odd, to say the least, to find that more objectionable than providing good publicity for what is an odious and dangerous group of people. I mean, I’ve had eggs thrown at me. It’s not nice, but it washes out. Fascism and racism are in a completely different league.
The most, I think, you could hope to prove is that within a very broad umbrella group – with the support of all three main political parties – there are a number of violent thugs. So, let’s say we grant this (though I remain unconvinced), does the activity of these supposed thugs colour the rest of the group? Does that mean the rest of the group ought to have their right to protest curtailed? How does this argument sit with arguments for the BNP’s right to freedom of speech? Unlike UAF, the leaders of the BNP are themselves up to their necks in criminal activity; they aren’t merely coloured by the activity of some members. Does this history of criminality impinge on their future activities?
Let me put this another way. You can show me evidence (if you can find any) of a UAF member committing violent acts. I can show you evidence of BNP members inciting racial hatred and committing acts of violence. Why is the former enough to make a protest unacceptable, but the latter not enough to render an invite to the BNP unacceptable? It’s this asymmetry you need to justify.
In terms of the house guest example, I’m not sure you will get anywhere with the “mind your own business” line. You might feel that the NUS, UCU and UAF should mind their own business, but equally they might tell you that they have the right to protest, and you should mind your own business. Doesn’t really get us very far, does it? Indeed, it undermines this very conversation.
Finally, I would suggest that those facebook numbers are somewhat skewed towards the undergraduate population of the university. Postgraduates and staff are far less likely to use facebook, and the main voices of opposition to this debate that I have encountered have come from this latter demographic. We may speculate about the reasons why this is the case.
Did you bother to check out the UAFs previous name such as the Anti Nazi League, Or event organised by the UAF/ANL but under other banners such as Unite Against Racism. This mob of marxist thugs was clearly blaimed by the Chief Constable of West Yorks for being behind the inciting of the race riots in that area. the UAF/ANl were filmed mob handed on TV throwing stones and bottles at ANYONE trying to enter a polling station on the evening of a local election. You also appear to be very “selective” on what articles you use as reference. I’m pretty sure it was the Manchester even that the EDL only had about 12 members turn up and so the Police sent them home, then the UAF/ANL turned on the police and attacked them.
This mass violence is both orchestrated and condoned by the UAF/ANL.
If an individual member of the BNP commits an arrestable offence and get convicted hes normally thrown out of the party, but the UAF/ANL go around in huge mobs, The recently attacked a BNP Campaigner, smashing up his car, overturning his advertising trailer and hitting him in the head with a hammer, not the actions of a sick individual, but the actions of criminal thugs.
Mark Harmstone:
How many students are there in Durham in total?
–> Clue: There are more than 2, 863 students in Durham. Also, it’s worth noting that Durham Uni employs lots of staff, and that the Durham area is home to *many* people who are not students. All these people do get to care about what goes down in Durham.
How many letters were written, with how many signatures, in opposition from within Durham? Do you know?
Also, I’ll point you back to what Beth said, as apparently you missed it the first time:
“3)Even if all the weight of disapproval did stem from “outsiders”, what of it? One doesn’t need to be a student of the university to express an opinion about events in the university (freedom of speech, innit?).”
How many people do you think felt unable to publicly speak out about not believing the debate should go ahead because of vocal groups indulging in hyperbolic histrionics about their own confused notions of freedom of speech? (I certainly met and corresponded with a lot.)
Vicky, those in favour of freedom of speech seem to be more numerous, but this does not prove us right.
It’s a typical instance of “argumentum ad populum” (a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it)
Most liberals start with a bias in favour of freedom and autonomy and feel that the case made to restrict liberty needs to be better than the tenuous arguments you put forward.
Your argument (for the most part) doesn’t seem to be about freedom of speech at all, but about the alleged risk that fringe groups pose to student safety.
If all that was required to restrict freedom of speech was a mob of protesters, the concept wouldn’t have lasted as long as it has!
Another, increasingly pertinent question, which concerns the naivety of the FOS FB group members:
Given the incredibly predictable use the BNP and its supporters have been making of the FOS group and its
mass tantrumprotest, don’t you think, if we want to uphold your claims about the ‘clever’ nature of Durham students, you ought to be playing down how many of Durham’s students were foolish enough to join these?Also, I think you should perhaps have another squiz at that FOS group… I’m not so sure all of those members are from Durham Uni… In fact, it looks rather like the BNP might have learned all about entryism, doesn’t it?
N.B. If the mods of that group wake up and remove those members – but oh noes! Can they? Only if they understand the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of access, and they just spent the last few days demonstrating that they don’t! – I have screen shots.
Vicky, I do not have time to go through each group and find out how many members of each are from Durham, but I picked ten at random from each list. Of the FOS group, nine were from Durham. Of the anti-FOS group, only one was. Plus, the clue is in the name of the former (”Durham University Students for Freedom of Speech”)…
But I don’t think it’s anyone’s business what goes on in the DUS other than DUS members. I can’t get any more incensed about what goes on in, say, the Cambridge Union, just like I don’t really care about the politics of Belarus. What business is it of mine, if it doesn’t affect me? That applies not only to students at other universities, but also to Durham residents – keep your nose out.
Regarding what you said about the apparent hordes of people in favour of the cancellation – prove it. You might notice that Palatinate is a newspaper: if there really was a large petition going round, why wouldn’t somebody have written about it by now? It rather defeats the point of a petition if you keep it a secret.
I’ve yet to meet a single person in the flesh who agrees with the cancellation.
I’ve just looked through the wall of the FOS group, and I can’t find a single BNP comment. The article “Say YES to the BNP” has a facetious title, and ends by exhorting the reader not to vote for them – is that what you were thinking of?
Your last paragraph is a disgustingly overt straw man, and you should be ashamed for it.
“But I don’t think it’s anyone’s business what goes on in the DUS other than DUS members. I can’t get any more incensed about what goes on in, say, the Cambridge Union, just like I don’t really care about the politics of Belarus. What business is it of mine, if it doesn’t affect me? That applies not only to students at other universities, but also to Durham residents – keep your nose out.”
Gee Mark. I’d have though that it would be the business of the university, for one. Seeing as they own the buildings the debate was due to take place in, and seeing as the DUS is a student society and has at least the potential to damage the reputation of the university as a whole?
And I’m sure a zealous campiagner for free speech such as yourself can’t mean that no one who is not a member of the DUS is entitled to an opinion on what goes on in said august institution? Or indeed, that they are not entitled to express this opinion by turning up and protesting?
None of which is to condone the NUS letter. But saying it’s none of their business goes well beyond condemning the extraodrinarily maladroit nature of their intervention.
“But I don’t think it’s anyone’s business what goes on in the DUS other than DUS members. I can’t get any more incensed about what goes on in, say, the Cambridge Union, just like I don’t really care about the politics of Belarus. What business is it of mine, if it doesn’t affect me? That applies not only to students at other universities, but also to Durham residents – keep your nose out.”
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. In your opinion, people who are strangers to you shouldn’t have opinions about things that are not their business? Multi-level irony. Do explain how this fits with a commitment to freedom of speech. How does this commitment sit with acting as a journalist for a newspaper?
I also await a justification for the asymmetry in how the BNP and the protesters are being discussed here. Giving the BNP a platform clearly poses a risk; I don’t think anyone denies this much, right? They have form for hate speech and violence. But you are unwilling to condemn anyone for giving them this platform. If they break the law when handed this platform, then you are content for them to be prosecuted, but you disagree with any attempt to pre-empt law breaking. The protesters, drawn from the NUS, UCU and UAF, and individuals with no affiliation, also pose a risk (though how substantial a risk remains unclear). Here you are willing to act pre-emptively and curtail their freedom to protest. This needs to be explained.
(And, indeed, do feel free to investigate whether or not I’m a UAF member. I’m not, and it’ll be a waste of your time, but clearly that’s none of my business.)
The mere “risk” of something happening is not enough grounds to justify throttling liberties that we have prized in this country since at least 1688, if not from Magna Carta in 1215, or before.
Rights are not things to be weighed against one another in some kind of cost/benefit, utilitarian calculus. Only a definite and serious threat to some other right or liberty would justify a restriction of speech, something which you have failed absolutely to demonstrate.
“Rights are not things to be weighed against one another in some kind of cost/benefit, utilitarian calculus. Only a definite and serious threat to some other right or liberty would justify a restriction of speech, something which you have failed absolutely to demonstrate.”
You’ll note, of course, that I have not been arguing that the BNP should not have had this platform. (I believe they shouldn’t have been invited, but that has not been part of any argument I have made here.) Rather, I am asking you to consider the dissimilarity in how you apply your concept of freedom of speech. If “Rights are not things to be weighed against one another in some kind of cost/benefit, utilitarian calculus”, then this must cover the rights of the protesters too. You may respond that the protesters, unlike the BNP, posed a threat because of the alleged violence of UAF, but this link between violence and UAF is “something which you have failed absolutely to demonstrate”.
UAF have an inviolable right to peacfully protest. This much is absolutely clear. You are right in thinknig that the principle of free speech and expression applies to all and does not discriminate: We seem to agree.
I intend for this to be my last post on the topic, mostly because from the discussion here and on the related pieces, it seems that many of us are going to have to agree to disagree. I stand by what I’ve said and it’s important to me that I address where the debate seems rather one-sided in light of what I have seen and heard, and of course where I feel I have been misrepresented. For the record, I’m not ‘working for’ any organisation in posting here, rather I have been posting in a bid to highlight that there are other voices singing entirely different tunes on this whole affair.
James, I asked some questions about what is missing from the account(s) above in the article – gaps Mark claims not to have time to look at, but I think the one-sided research leads to poorer journalism all the same. I agree with you: a greater number of people arguing/believing X than people arguing ‘not X’ does not automatically make the people claiming X to be correct. This is obvious, and relevant. Putting aside the less than nuanced characterisation of the UAF/NUS for a moment, I asked Mark about numbers because he presents the situation as if opposition to the debate from any source other than the UAF and NUS was not worth dealing with, and/or next to non-existent, and he has pressed this idea further in subsequent comments. His claims would be more convincing if they were negotiated against some attempt at a nuanced exploration of who opposed the event going ahead and why. That the omissions were accompanied by such snobbery over who he thinks gets to care is just unpleasant to see.
Incidentally, opposition (in addition to the NUS and UAF) that I know about includes: letters written by myself and several other friends; a letter sent from a department with 45 signatures; a letter sent on behalf of the Durham branch of UCU (represents academic and teaching staff); a planned peaceful protest rally by Durham UCU; attendance at the protest planned by ordinary students (not necessarily affiliated with UAF etc) – including friends of mine, and friends of theirs (including people at the uni and people living in the area). From my own circle of acquaintance, I know that some people were still drafting their letters when the protest was cancelled, and that a follow up letter to the first from the Geog department was in progress. I somehow doubt that this list is exhaustive. Interestingly, I also spoke to quite a few who disagreed with the debate going ahead but who predicted it would be cancelled anyway on security grounds, given the precedents elsewhere. There was also the Hope Not Hate petition going around by email, which I signed. After reading comments here I emailed the contact address for HnH to ask how many had signed it. According to their response, over 1000 people signed it from the Durham area alone, and they were still amassing new signatures.
Widespread assertions that anyone who mentions opposition to the debate must have been anti-FOS and/or in possession of violent tendencies, and/or just ‘unimportant’ are examples of lazy misinformation. I opposed the debate going ahead but my reasons are not exactly the same as everyone else who also opposed it. Broad brushstrokes, by their nature, aren’t very accurate. The assumptions made about those who were opposed to the debate undermine the case for their ‘dismissal’ from the outset. A particular interpretation of certain groups’ communications and actions has been cherry-picked, ably fed by the astroturfing going on at the FOS group, on the threads here and at other papers with coverage. Yet, as has been noted, the UAF is a large umbrella group – this makes it difficult to talk meaningfully about the predilections (e.g. for violence/nonviolence) their membership might be said to have as a whole.
I am not a UAF member. I do not belong / have major loyalty to any political party. I am an NUS member (for now) via DSU’s affiliation, but I am not involved in NUS politics. I thought the letter from Ribeiro-Addy and Adley was not especially well written, but I did not interpret the mention of protests as tantamount to threats of violence on their behalf. Perhaps they should have used more precise language, but still, the only real threat I can see is that the actions of the DUS and VC would make them answerable to serious real-world liabilities. Furthermore, wouldn’t the only place where no-one is allowed to take an active legal and moral interest in actions of others and where no-one can protest against them be some kind of totalitarian regime?
I am confused about how you think you know my exact position on freedom of speech. All I have indicated so far is that I think the term ‘FOS’ has been bandied about by a lot of people without any real exploration of what they mean when they use it. I do believe in freedom of speech, but I don’t believe it is possible to enact what is an essentially abstract concept ‘on the ground’ in pure form. In other words, there will always need to be auxiliary considerations – ‘free speech’ is meaningless for our actual lives if deployed in debates like these in abstracto because it just isn’t practical or possible for everyone, every group, with something to say to blare it out at will without paying some attention to what the consequences might be. The Human Rights Act (1998) recognises this issue, and attempts to legislate for it, noting the ‘duties and responsibilities’ that come with freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these freedoms comes with necessary attendant conditions, restrictions, etc. Freedom of speech does not mean universal rights to freedom of access. I do not believe choosing not to invite the BNP (or even choosing to disinvite them, whatever the grounds) to an event like the one planned would involve any issue of curtailing their FOS. The BNP have freedom of speech, but they, like everyone else, do not have ‘rights to freedom of access’ – I like to be able to shut the door on cold callers who come to my home, that kind of thing, and I think that’s justified.
The DUS did not have a duty to invite the BNP in, and I think it unwise of them to have gone ahead with planning the event on several counts, all of which relate to the way the BNP would inevitably have traded off the ‘marker of esteem’ that the invite represented (i.e. being worth engagement/possible to hold proper debate with) and the attendant risks in terms of not only safety ‘on the day’ but also in terms of safety from discrimination of both physically violent and non-physically violent kinds. As DUS recognised by virtue of having had to ask for the VC’s approval of the event, their event had the potential to impact on more than just the DUS members.
By the way, none of this means I automatically advocate allowing the BNP ‘no platform’ under any circumstances (I suspect this is where I differ from the UAF perspective). After the BNP complies with court rulings against it and becomes a legal party** I think there will be particular circumstances where it will be fair and a good idea to allow them a platform, but only if it was in the context of political hustings for an election where the candidates standing in a particular area are all present (or all invited at least), where proper thought is given to the security arrangements (including who will cover those security costs), and where all candidates are taken to task over all of their policies.
(** The BNP currently is not legal because they overran their 28th Jan deadline to sort out their discriminatory membership criteria and have til mid-Feb to sort it – meaning they were not technically legal at the time of invite or at the time of the planned debate.)
Vicky,
You talk about the preconditions that need to be placed on freedom of speech, and you do not go further and attempt to define these preconditions, or limits. Which is incredibly problematic.
The idea that we can “agree to disagree” about the very principle which enables free and equal discussion is close to being a tautology.
I’ve read through your posts, and you have utterly failed to consider what harm the BNP would cause by putting forward their view, or what principle underlines the duties you allude to… Indeed, it could well be argued that we have a positive duty to expose people to opinions that they do not share, to strengthen the conviction they have in their truth, by exposing them to error and wrong-headedness.
You’re entitled to a point of view on the matter, you’re entitled to protest but you need to back it up with a solid argument… What principle defines the limit of freedom of speech?
There are two prime candidates:
Offense and Harm.
Instead, you seem to believe that whatever is prescribed by the law, is, by virtue of this fact, just. Which, given the mutability and variability of legal codes, seems to me, absurd.
What glares through all of this debate is the idea of a “we know your own good” liberalism, which seeks to protect people from dangerous exhortations, in case we are all “taken in” by racists.
This notion is patronising, brazenly elitist nonsense.
James,
one of the points Vicky seems to be making is that a lot of this discussion has focused on FoS, and ignored other important elements, such as how organisations such as DUS ought to exercise their rights. You can believe that they have the right to invite the BNP, and you can condemn the actions of the NUS officials, and you can still believe that the DUS were wrong to issue the invite in the first place.
In terms of preconditions and/or limits on FoS, you’re on pretty shaky ground yourself. In an earlier post, you claimed that “The mere “risk” of something happening is not enough grounds to justify throttling liberties that we have prized in this country since at least 1688, if not from Magna Carta in 1215, or before.” Two sentences later, you claim that “Only a definite and serious threat to some other right or liberty would justify a restriction of speech”. What is the difference between ‘risk’ in the first quotation and ‘threat’ in the second? Is it just a matter of degrees of ‘definiteness’ or ’seriousness’? If so, who decides which risks/threats are more serious or definite than others?
“The idea that we can “agree to disagree” about the very principle which enables free and equal discussion is close to being a tautology.”
I think you mean paradox or contradiction.
The distinction between “risk” and “definite and serious threat” seems pretty obvious. The general point is that as the threat to other liberties gets stronger, more direct and more likely to occur; the argument against freedom of speech gets stronger.
I don’t think I’m shaky ground here, at all. The presumption must alway be in favour of liberty – in order to remove rights, you need to make a strong, robust case that some other liberty is extremely likely to be curtailed.
James,
thanks for the reply. Note that you’re accepting it’s a matter of degree. So whatever principle you think underlies the restrictions which can legitimately be placed on free speech (and I wouldn’t be surprised if you, Vicky and myself all agreed on what those principles were), this still leaves the messy business of deciding when these principles apply and when they don’t. This requires, presumably, a case-by-case study, and soem good old-fashioned practical wisdom on the part of The Powers That Be. All of which goes a good way to supporting Vicky’s claim that too many of the contributions to this discussion, here and elsewhere, simply wheel out a principle of FoS as though that on its own could decide matters.
Incidentally, for a group like the DUS to voluntarily not offer a platform to the BNP does not count as a restriction of the latter’s FoS, except in the trivial way in which, for example, one’s FoS is ‘restricted’ by a newspaper editor choosing not to publish an article one submits to them. (I say ‘volunatrily’ referring to the initial decision to invite the BNP, not to the decision to cancel the debate, which is a very different kettle of fish.)
For the DUS or NUS or Government to be in a position to give you the right to Freedom of Speech it must have first taken away that right from you. No one has that right to take away what is a basic human right to express ones self openly without fear of harm or duress.