Freedom of speech: denied

Two weeks ago Geert Wilders rose to national prominence when his ban from entering the UK to air his provocative anti-Islamic film caused widespread debate about freedom of expression and its limitations. This ban is not unprecedented, but rather marks the culmination of the gradual detraction of the right to criticise religion, which manifests itself in the recent change in the job description of the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Human Rights. The task of investigating governments who deny freedom of speech has now changed to include reporting ‘abuse of free expression’ and ‘defamation of religions and prophets.’ In December, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution that condemns ‘defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred.’

These events all stem from the same fear of creating division along religious lines, but to suggest that freedom of expression holds with the provision that it does not cause offence, is both paradoxical and ludicrous. Every opinion causes offence to someone; every opinion is capable of inciting violence. In our so-called progressive society, discussion about religion has drawn to a halt on the grounds that it is too offensive to challenge such core values. The implication of the UN’s resolution is that nothing ‘religious’ may be discussed, including the more brutal aspects of Sharia Law, such as stoning for adultery, as these ideas are considered indoctrinated in the Islamic faith. Johann Hari points out that religious ideas do not have a different status to other ideas, saying, ‘you can’t demand respect for your religion and claim to uphold free speech’. People deserve respect for their beliefs, but religious ideas do not deserve respect simply by virtue of being religious. Instead, they need to be questioned at their very core; a person is at perfect liberty to declare that Christianity and Islam are fanatical nonsense, just as a Christian or Muslim is free to declare that the Bible or the Koran should dictate the way they live their lives. And when the ideologies of the world’s most prominent religions contradict each other, how can it be otherwise?

Geert Wilders’ ban from the UK is a breach of his right to freedom of expression. Pragmatically, it was a ludicrous move by Jacqui Smith, as the film has now received unprecedented publicity, whilst Wilders himself has become an undeserving martyr of free speech. I disagree utterly with Wilders’ views, but I believe that he has the right to be bigoted and despicable. The Home Secretary suggested that Wilders’ presence could cause outbreaks of violence, but if an expression of opinion causes such violence in society, then there is something fundamentally wrong with that society, and it is the violence that should be restrained. No one has the right to not be offended, and debate cannot be suppressed in favour of minimising offence. If Jacqui Smith had let Wilders into the UK, the film would have played before a group of British peers with little media attention. If there was potential for violence, then the Home Secretary could have made moves to control this violence. She should have taken this as an opportunity to discuss a religion which plays a crucial part in international affairs, and a chance for Wilders’ critics to ridicule his film’s crude provocation. Instead Smith created a media storm, damaged the UK’s relations with the Netherlands, and created the provocation she sought to avoid.

Wilders himself is not a supporter of free speech, so should we give free speech to those who would deny us that same right? Of course we should, just as we should give a fair trial to a criminal who would deny us that same fairness. A robust democracy shows its strength by giving human rights to those who would withhold them, and displaying tolerance to the intolerant. The right to freedom of expression extends to everyone; it extends to both anti-Islamists and to radical fundamentalist Islamists, to Holocaust deniers and to lunatics. Sometimes, however, we have a propensity to infer breaches of free speech where there are none, such as in the case of Carol Thatcher, who was recently sacked by the BBC for supposedly racist comments. Carol Thatcher has a right to be as racist and offensive as she likes, but when representing a prominent organisation, there are certain rules of propriety which are expected to be upheld. It is also worth making the distinction between free speech, and providing a platform for free speech. The idea of freedom of expression must not be confused; everyone has a right to express their opinion, but no one has a right to a public platform. That is at the discretion of those with the power to provide this platform.

At the heart of the debate lies a paradox. Most societies recognise freedom of speech has its limits, precisely when it conflicts with other human rights. Even the most determined libertarians would not defend chanting racist slurs on the street, or shouting ‘bomb’ in an airport, as acceptable freedom of expression. And yet freedom of expression must be absolute for it to constitute true freedom. No one has the right to decry some opinions too offensive to express, or some individual too incendiary to be allowed to speak. If you do not advocate free expression for the most bigoted, offensive, moronic person you know, then you do not advocate it at all. Even so, with a touch of pedantry, we may come closer to reaching a resolution. Shouting ‘bomb’ in an airport is not a crime if you truly believe that there is a bomb.

Freedom of expression remains the most fundamental human right, and must be defended even when the costs are significant. Free expression will provoke violence and disruption, but the alternative is more dangerous still. Once those in power decide to restrict speech because of the threat of violence and intimidation, we are heading towards a totalitarian society. Every restriction on free speech threatens our democracy, and if this seems melodramatic, it is only because our generation has never needed to fight for the right to hold opinions. Two thirds of the world population does not have this right, and when we use our right to free expression, we also make a stand for the millions who are denied it. The strength of a democracy is evident in its capacity to tolerate debate, and therefore debate must always be encouraged, or else we risk losing this right which past generations fought so hard to gain.