Students’ referenda: in defence of free speech

By the time you read this, the as ever garbled collection of words visible before you will either serve to reinforce any prior convictions you had regarding last week’s referendum, or else represent a defeated argument wastefully consuming page space which probably should have been generously donated to a more relevant article. The usual ‘at the time of writing’ caveats therefore apply.

The referenda presented to members of Warwick University’s SU featured two distinct motions – equally significant and divisive in their own right – however, it is the question of whether Racists and Fascists should be banned from speaking at this students’ union that I would like to draw your attention to.  

If you are one of the majority (or possibly minority?) who voted against the motion, then it can be assumed you cast your ballot in defence of free speech rather than because you feel any desire, whatsoever, to witness the love-children of Hitler and Mussolini being provided with a platform to voice their tortuously ignorant views, the idiots.

We must be clear and upfront about this fact because some assume that a vote against the motion amounts to an endorsement of racist or fascist speakers.

This is simply not the case. Regardless of stance for or against the proposition, popular opinion holds that their views are, to be frank, repellent – if your appendix was allowed to govern decision making, it would still generate a more rational philosophy.
But a fundamental right in any free society is the right to free speech, limited only when there is clear evidence that such speech will lead directly to violence. And here is the issue.

The referendum motion stated “that the welfare and safety of our students is far more important than ideological commitments to allowing the promotion of racism.” Bypassing a value upon which our society depends is a necessity for the maintenance of security? The problem identified does not appear to be so much the hateful views as the potential violence they may incite. Except this debate is not about the incitement to direct violence – something these organisations craftily avoid in their ceaseless attempts to appear legitimate – but rather, whether those with offensive views should ever be allowed to speak.
So should they be allowed to speak? Well, the referendum motion argued “that the legitimisation of these groups, through the provision of a platform, would embolden them and increase the real and substantial threat to our minority groups through their actions.”
When I read that, I felt a real and substantial threat to my grip on reality. Don’t get me wrong: if the students of Warwick were to pronounce such views as acceptable, then I would be first in line to check out of the madhouse. Except that’s the thing: they wouldn’t.

I am 100 per cent convinced. If Nick Griffin was scheduled to speak on campus, the rest of the population would be banging its head against the floorboards screaming, ‘Please God, not him!’ But each individual must be entitled to make up their own mind: failure to do so will mean reaching the right result by incorrect means.

Allowing them to speak will bring the issue to the fore, where it belongs. Good, honest people will thus see beyond the misleading policies to the shocking reality lying beneath.
These groups cannot hope to gain legitimacy from having their pigeon-brained arguments repeatedly picked apart over the course of an entire debate (think Question Time).  Once this has been achieved, they can then be dismissed. Don’t believe me? Consider the example set by Sarah Palin – no one has done more to derail her presidential campaign than she.

Yes, it may well be a struggle in the beginning, but consider the significance of succeeding in spite of their challenge. The statement would certainly serve as an example for others across the nation, bursting the bubble of racists and fascists.

Remember too, that it is not merely defence of our beliefs, but an attack upon theirs – many of those who support these groups have ulterior fears that multiculturalism has failed, or socio-economic concerns.  If we expose them externally they will suffer internally.
I believe this is a wonderful university made up of inherently decent and fair-minded people. We should resist crude attempts at division in an active, rather than passive, manner, regardless of whether they come from outside or from within. Coincidently, we currently have no ‘No Platform’ policy, and I haven’t seen people goose-stepping between lectures. This makes me wonder, what is all the fuss about?