An article by Melanie Phillips on the recent 'muddled' free speech debate over the Danish Cartoons, the Irving trial and Livingston's suspension. As someone who has found himself quite muddled and confused by this whole debate I admire her clarity and conviction on this issue.
Muddled thinking over freedom of speech
"In every case, the controversy has been defined as over where the line should be drawn between protecting freedom of speech and preventing the giving of offence. But other issues are at play here too. And it is the assumption that treating these cases differently means double standards which has caused the confusion.
If we think it was wrong to have tried to censor the Danish cartoons, then we must think it was wrong to jail Irving. Right? Wrong. If we think it was right to jail Irving, then we should have supported the law against incitement to religious hatred before it was all but neutered by a Commons revolt. Right? Wrong.
If we were against the law against incitement to religious hatred because it threatened to shut down democratic debate, then we must be against the ‘undemocratic’ suspension of Ken Livingstone. Right? Wrong."
7 comments:
This article is a model of clarity indeed. Wonder what Wembley, rarely a Phillips fan, thinks about this one?
Personlly, I'm not convinced. I think she sidesteps the freedom of speech question when it comes to Irving.
MP says:
Freedom of speech is not sacrosanct because speech can be abused to threaten life and liberty by whipping up racial hatred. That’s why it was right to jail Irving.
She then immediately follows this with:
I actually dislike the concept of ‘Holocaust denial’ precisely because it suggests the issue is merely a dispute over historical interpretation.
So what she's in favour of is a) laws against inciting racial hatred and b) Irving being in jail. However, Irving is not in jail for inciting racial hatred. He is in jail for holocaust denial (which MP says she doesn't like as a concept.) So to make her argument work she then goes on to say that holocaust denial is de facto incitement to racial hatred:
The reason it is such a toxic form of prejudice, however, is that it necessarily implies a global conspiracy by the Jews to fabricate the Holocaust for their own allegedly nefarious ends.
It is therefore an incitement to hatred against the Jews.
Her conclusion seems to be that the ends (putting Irving in jail) justify the means (trying him under holocaust denial laws - which she says she doesn't like):
He [Irving] was fomenting neo-Nazi hatred. That’s why his treatment was appropriate.
I think she starts from the premise that Irving being in jail is good and then works backward, which involves a bit of fancy footwork round the concept of holocaust denial. More truthfully her position should be either a) I don't think holocaust denial should be a crime in and of itself. Therefore Irving should not have been put on trial for that particular offence. (Indeed I believe she has argued elsewhere that holocaust deniers should be charged with incitement to racial hatred.) Or b) Because holocaust denial is so nefarious it is right to criminalise it.
But at the moment she's using the concept of 'incitement to racial hatred' to justify a conviction she supports under a charge she disagrees with.
Also, I mention in passing that her assertion that the cartoons were not intended to insult either Islam or the Prophet Mohammed is very similar to Ken's statements regarding his intentions when he made his 'offensive' remarks to Oliver Finegold:
"I wish to say to Londoners my words were not intended to cause such offence and that my view remains that the Holocaust against the Jews is the greatest racial crime of the 20th century.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4746016.stm
I'm not sure if MP is applying consistent principles. I suspect she is using a variety of arguments to support the opinions she held before she even entered into the discussion.
Wembley71 said...
Far be it from me to defend Melanie Phillips, but I took her comments to mean that she did not like the 'term' or 'notion' of "holocaust denial", in the same way that one might object to the concept of 'friendly fire'.
But that's the thing - 'holocaust denial' is not simply a 'term', or 'notion' or 'concept' (like 'friendly fire.) It's a criminal charge. It shifts the question from being 'did he incite racial hatred?' to 'did he say X'. MP herself argues that 'incitement to racial hatred' would be a better charge.
JP reads MP as saying that Irving's jailing was indeed "appropriate", inasmuch as he got his just desserts. But she doesn't say his jailing was appropriate. She says his treatment was appropriate. But surely his 'treatment' includes what he was charged with. I can absolutely sympathise with the 'just desserts' argument, but that still dodges the question of whether or not holocaust denial should or should not, of itself, be a crime.
The reason the three issues (Irving, cartoons & Ken) were linked was because they are all to do with freedom of speech, the limits we wish to put on private and public speech and the appropriate sanctions for transgression.
But MP says that with regard to the Danish cartoons the core issue was not freedom of speech but the defence of life and liberty against a potentially lethal threat. But that sounds as if she doesn’t care whether or not people have the right to publish offensive material, she’s only interested in people’s right to ‘life and liberty’. Never mind freedom of speech, the real issue is the threat of violence. But this is palpably nonsense. Freedom of speech is very much at the heart of the issue. Otherwise she’d be lining up with the ‘moderate’ muslims who say ‘don’t burn any embassies’ but please could we have some laws that outlaw pictures of the prophet. ‘ But earlier MP said the cartoons were ‘a political protest’ (and by implication one that she supports). She is also rather disingenuous about the paper’s motivation– if the protest was purely against the religious intimidation which had caused artists to turn down a commission to illustrate a wholly innocent book about Islam , then why not commission similarly innocent portraits? I’m not saying that’s what the Jyllands-Posten should have done, but then I’m not the one saying it’s not an issue of free speech and that the cartoons weren’t intended as an insult. My support for free speech is not dependant on the cartoons being innocent. Even if they were intended as an insult, I feel they should be free from legislative interference. And this is why holocaust denial laws are problematic – because they are a limitation on free speech and one has to decide whether or not they are an acceptable one. And by saying that Irving is guilty of incitement to racial hatred (which is not what he was charged with) she is, in my view, avoiding that question. Just become the outcome is desirable doesn’t mean that the process is no longer an issue.
Where I agree with MP is in her opening point that it is possible to support both the danish cartoons and the jailing of Irving. It is correct that freedom of speech is not absolute and that each case must be looked at on its own merits. But it still makes a difference where you draw the line. There may be a certain poetic justice in a murderer going to jail for tax evasion (Al Capone) but such a conviction does not absolve prosecutors and legislators from the task of pursuing murderers and legislating against murder. Being convicted of ‘something’ is not enough to satisfy justice. We tend to also feel that people should be charged with the ‘right’ offence. That is why the concept of 'glorification of terrorism' is so troubling. I wouldn't weep for Abu Hamza if he was banged up under such a law, but that doesn't mean I should stop thinking about whether or not it is a good law and an acceptable limitation on freedom of speech.
I have more to say on this, but it will have to wait. For me, even ‘incitement to racial hatred’ is not an unproblematic term but discussion must be postponed for the time being.
More on holocaust denial and a new link to an article on denial of the Srebrenica massacre here.
I might disagree with Oliver Kamm on many many issues, but he is absolutely right to oppose the trail of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands for 'inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments made by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs' (mainly Fitna):
""Wilders’s populist and nativist politics are exactly opposed to my own views, and entirely beside the point. In a constitutional state, with liberal political rights and the rule of law, a man is being prosecuted for causing offence by expressing his views. Wilders’s protest that the judgement is ‘an attack of freedom of expression’ is scarcely adequate to the infringement on liberty. These proceedings are a monstrous abuse of power. Wilders must be supported."
By the way, very interesting to look back on earlier comments in this thread. Dan's points on Melanie Phillips' piece on Irving are very astute, I think. It will be difficult for Melanie Phillips to oppose this trail on principle, since if she believed Irving was guilty of incitement to racial hatred and that it was right for him to be in jail, I really don't see how she can argue against Wilders being on trail.
Melanie Phillips on Gert Wilder's trial*. I agree with her that this is serious and worrying, but stand by my opinion that she is guilty of double-standards on this subject:
"So the inevitable has now come about in the teetering civilisation of Europe, and it has happened first in the Netherlands. One of the supposedly most liberal societies on the planet wants to criminalise someone for telling the truth. The BBC reports that Dutch Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders is to be put on trial
‘...for for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs’...In March 2008, Mr Wilders posted a film about the Koran on the internet, prompting angry protests across the Muslim World.
*sorry for the typos on my previous post)
Post a Comment