This quote is often attributed to Voltaire in 1778 but there are those historians who credit the first writing of these words to S,G Tallentyre, a pseudonym of historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in her 1906 work; The Friends of Voltaire.
Irrespective of who first said or wrote these words they are said to form the basis of the freedom of speech we enjoy today. “Freedom of speech and expression” were also one of President Franklyn D. Roosevelt’s ‘four freedoms’, the other three being “Freedom from want”, “Freedom from fear” and “Freedom of Worship”. The question is how far do we defend a person’s right to say what they wish, even if we disagree, about whom they wish and when they wish? On the surface this is a no brainer as free speech is bedrock of our freedoms in a supposed civilised society, but is it? When President Roosevelt uttered his four freedoms it was at a time of political unease particularly across Europe where free speech in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were freedoms of the past. When Voltaire supposedly said his famous quote, the world was a far different place than in these days of post-modernity and liberal democracy. So, in today’s world which is not a very nice place, how far do we defend free speech?
Do we defend the rights of the far-right to spread racial disharmony and hatreds over issues such as immigration? Do we defend the rights of offended minorities, whom the far-right aim their sickening policies, in retaliating with language which can be anti-white? These such comments, limited as they are because these minority groups are not out to spread hatred - the indigenous fascist groups do enough of that - do tend to give the green light to the far-right. The ‘how come he can call me a “piece of white trash” yet if I call him a “black bastard” I am being racist’ syndrome! Do we condemn both these negative comments or just the white racist?
Do we defend the rights of the far-right to spread racial disharmony and hatreds over issues such as immigration? Do we defend the rights of offended minorities, whom the far-right aim their sickening policies, in retaliating with language which can be anti-white? These such comments, limited as they are because these minority groups are not out to spread hatred - the indigenous fascist groups do enough of that - do tend to give the green light to the far-right. The ‘how come he can call me a “piece of white trash” yet if I call him a “black bastard” I am being racist’ syndrome! Do we condemn both these negative comments or just the white racist?
Firstly, we must look briefly who are the offended race (depending on the definition of race), which with a brief look is black people. Therefore any retaliation cannot be viewed as racist in the same light as those using discriminatory language against those whose lands have been plundered and raped by invading white peoples chiefly England (later Britain) Prussia (later incorporated into a greater Germany, the Second Reich) the Spanish, Belgium’s, Dutch and many others including most recently, the USA. As a Marxist and internationalist I see only one race and that is the ‘human race’ which has no room for disharmony and hatreds preached by fascists and racists. Yet, and it cannot be ignored, the defence of free speech is often used by these hate-filled organisations, whose ultimate aim is to abolish free speech altogether, having used the same free speech to spread their sick message. There may be an argument under such circumstances to curtail the use of free speech? Is it prudent to allow such speeches as; “send all these blacks and Asians back to where they come from”? “We have a housing problem of our own without importing more difficulties, send them back and homes for the Irish” do we allow, under free speech, such volatile narratives as these? The question is should these racists be allowed to undermine free speech to the point of abolishing the freedom enjoyed in most western countries?
The contradictions appear here in Roosevelts ‘Four Freedoms’. They are highlighted by the racists who use ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ as their platform to spread racial hatreds because while doing this they are, quite intentionally, undermining ‘Freedom from Fear’. If racially discriminating, threatening or even murderous remarks are made about ethnic and racial minorities then it follows some of these communities will live in a state of fear. Fear of physical assault, fear for their children as the racists stalk the streets, fear to go to the shops. In such cases if we defend free speech at all costs we undermine, which is what the racists want, other freedoms. Do we defend free speech even if this causes fear even terror among a section of the community? Do we trade free speech in order to defend freedom from want, freedom of fear and freedom of worship?
The same principle applies to those who spread anti-Semitism using freedom of speech to do so. How can ‘Freedom of Worship’, another of Roosevelts ‘Four Freedoms’, apply if those who attack one particular religion, Judea, many advocating the eradication of Judea and Jewish people? During the 1950s the British Nazis under Colin Jordan used the slogan, under free speech, “Perish Judea” therefore under the guise of free speech totally ignore freedom of worship and religion. See the contradictions?
The contradictions appear here in Roosevelts ‘Four Freedoms’. They are highlighted by the racists who use ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ as their platform to spread racial hatreds because while doing this they are, quite intentionally, undermining ‘Freedom from Fear’. If racially discriminating, threatening or even murderous remarks are made about ethnic and racial minorities then it follows some of these communities will live in a state of fear. Fear of physical assault, fear for their children as the racists stalk the streets, fear to go to the shops. In such cases if we defend free speech at all costs we undermine, which is what the racists want, other freedoms. Do we defend free speech even if this causes fear even terror among a section of the community? Do we trade free speech in order to defend freedom from want, freedom of fear and freedom of worship?
The same principle applies to those who spread anti-Semitism using freedom of speech to do so. How can ‘Freedom of Worship’, another of Roosevelts ‘Four Freedoms’, apply if those who attack one particular religion, Judea, many advocating the eradication of Judea and Jewish people? During the 1950s the British Nazis under Colin Jordan used the slogan, under free speech, “Perish Judea” therefore under the guise of free speech totally ignore freedom of worship and religion. See the contradictions?
Of course, abolishing free speech is exactly what the leaderships of the far-right and fascist right want. If they can force the liberal democracies to do this for them all the better from their point of view. Abolishing free speech we must never do as it would enact the policies of the far-right for them.
Legislation against the misuse of ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ might be a feasible answer but this also has potential problems. For example, how far should such laws go? Would laws such as these be a contradiction in themselves against free speech? A conundrum to say the least and one which the leaderships of these right-wing fanatics will be acutely aware of! Instead of laws against misuse of free speech, perhaps tougher laws against spreading racial disharmony and hatreds may be the answer. The same principle could apply to spreading homophobia, xenophobia and ethnocentrism in its extreme. Such legislation may be the answer while leaving the right to free speech intact. We must not enter into a maze of legislation, just simple laws defending minorities.
The point is, we already have laws in place such as ‘behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace’ and ‘incitement’ laws such as ‘incitement to riot’ which could be used against the language employed by the racists. Racism itself is a crime and such legislation should be used and perhaps extended to quell such narratives by the far-right. Perhaps a question which should be asked is; how many of those charged with enforcing the law may share sympathies with the fascist right? Throughout history this is something which has plagued many police forces across the globe when it comes to dealing with the far-right and fascist right. To believe An Garda Siochana and the PSNI/RUC are any different is naïve to say the least. Equally how many judges share the far-right and fascists views? Recently in England racial tensions reached fever pitch after the murder of three children in Southport in the north west. The police, it was claimed, were stretched as far-right groups hijacked the situation, causing mayhem across the country. The leaderships of these groups, similar to in Ireland, stir the hornet’s nest then sit back and watch the effects! The police, as far as I could see on various news clips, did not go in overtly heavy handed despite coming under ferocious attack. Compare this with the mounted policing and cavalry charges launched against pickets during the coal miner’s strike 1984/85 organised in defence of jobs, pits and communities by a left-wing trade union, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). During the race riots evolving from Southport there were no sign of mounted baton wielding policemen just foot soldiers albeit in riot gear. The heavy handed almost cavalry tactics used against miners and other workers during the eighties was in sharp contrast to those used against racist gangs! Could it be some senior police officers privately might agree with the rioters?
The racist and fascist arguments are easy to defeat if the opposition would organise themselves properly. Firstly the crap about migration causing the crisis in housing is rubbish. The 26-county state has had a housing crisis ever since its inception in 1922. Back in the 1960s ‘Housing Action Groups’ were formed to tackle the chronic situation in the housing sector and rising homelessness. This I researched many years ago, around 2002, for the IRSP, and these groups were formed for a specific reason during the 1960s; to combat the crisis in housing and the rising numbers of homeless people. This was long before any immigrant, legal or otherwise, stepped foot on Irish soil, six or twenty-six counties!
The point is, we already have laws in place such as ‘behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace’ and ‘incitement’ laws such as ‘incitement to riot’ which could be used against the language employed by the racists. Racism itself is a crime and such legislation should be used and perhaps extended to quell such narratives by the far-right. Perhaps a question which should be asked is; how many of those charged with enforcing the law may share sympathies with the fascist right? Throughout history this is something which has plagued many police forces across the globe when it comes to dealing with the far-right and fascist right. To believe An Garda Siochana and the PSNI/RUC are any different is naïve to say the least. Equally how many judges share the far-right and fascists views? Recently in England racial tensions reached fever pitch after the murder of three children in Southport in the north west. The police, it was claimed, were stretched as far-right groups hijacked the situation, causing mayhem across the country. The leaderships of these groups, similar to in Ireland, stir the hornet’s nest then sit back and watch the effects! The police, as far as I could see on various news clips, did not go in overtly heavy handed despite coming under ferocious attack. Compare this with the mounted policing and cavalry charges launched against pickets during the coal miner’s strike 1984/85 organised in defence of jobs, pits and communities by a left-wing trade union, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). During the race riots evolving from Southport there were no sign of mounted baton wielding policemen just foot soldiers albeit in riot gear. The heavy handed almost cavalry tactics used against miners and other workers during the eighties was in sharp contrast to those used against racist gangs! Could it be some senior police officers privately might agree with the rioters?
The racist and fascist arguments are easy to defeat if the opposition would organise themselves properly. Firstly the crap about migration causing the crisis in housing is rubbish. The 26-county state has had a housing crisis ever since its inception in 1922. Back in the 1960s ‘Housing Action Groups’ were formed to tackle the chronic situation in the housing sector and rising homelessness. This I researched many years ago, around 2002, for the IRSP, and these groups were formed for a specific reason during the 1960s; to combat the crisis in housing and the rising numbers of homeless people. This was long before any immigrant, legal or otherwise, stepped foot on Irish soil, six or twenty-six counties!
The racist claim that immigration is adding to the crisis in our health service is another baseless argument. Ask anybody who has received treatment in our hospitals what racial or ethnic origin their doctor or nurses were. Immigration has helped not retarded our health service and without migrant nurses and doctors we would be in an even worse state than we are presently. Another load of crap pedalled by the far-right and naively listened to by some is the myth these migrants “carry diseases”. Again, this is rubbish. In fact, historically speaking, it was the marauding armies of European whites, including many Irish in their ranks, which spread diseases to these people’s lands.
The fascists will always look for easy scapegoats, starting with immigrants. Who next to blame? Disabled people perhaps? People involved in road traffic accidents (RTAs), after all they do clog up the health service! The list of scapegoats is endless but the fascists don’t care about that. I would suggest those gullible folk who are listening to this shit read their own history and, I strongly recommend, the works of James Connolly. Those who fall back on the heroes of the 1916 Easter Rising against ‘international protection seekers’ or refugees should ask themselves this; why did James Connolly have his 1903 election literature translated into Yiddish and Hebrew in order the small Jewish community among the electorate could understand his political message? Hardly the actions of somebody who would oppose ethnic groups. Connolly argued against racism among the Irish working class in the USA arguing that they themselves had suffered the same discriminations now aimed at themselves, the Irish, by the US workers! He also remonstrated with the descendants of George Washington, the so-called ‘Father of Freedom’, over their treatment of slaves. Connolly also saw anti-Semitism against Jewish people and anti-Catholic sectarianism as two of the same evils. So, enough of this evoking the 1916 leaders into the racist argument, it does not hold up. It is true in our past we have had a minority of racists counted by some as being among our heroes but to evoke 1916 is wrong and misleading.
Free speech which we all enjoy today must be upheld but equally misuse of the same must be combatted. These far-right groups, just as did Adolf Hitler, use, or abuse, free speech in order to gain support. If they ever gain positions of political power and major influence they will, at the stroke of a pen, abolish this freedom: be under no illusions about that. Those who are misguided enough to follow the likes of Justin Barret, Herman Kelly and others of the far-right and fascist leanings will only have themselves to blame when their so-called friends of today come calling early in the morning for them tomorrow!
Free speech which we all enjoy today must be upheld but equally misuse of the same must be combatted. These far-right groups, just as did Adolf Hitler, use, or abuse, free speech in order to gain support. If they ever gain positions of political power and major influence they will, at the stroke of a pen, abolish this freedom: be under no illusions about that. Those who are misguided enough to follow the likes of Justin Barret, Herman Kelly and others of the far-right and fascist leanings will only have themselves to blame when their so-called friends of today come calling early in the morning for them tomorrow!
When, or if, these people ever get their way and clear all immigrants out of the 26 counties and the health service does not improve but, on the contrary, deteriorates, because migrant doctors and nurses will have been forced to leave, who are they going to blame then for the state of the health service? Will all the social problems become the fault of communists, republicans, socialists, Gay people, Alcoholics, Drug Addicts, people with long hair - where would it stop? When the numbers of homeless people continue to rise and all scapegoats have been expelled from the land who then will the fascists blame for social problems? The very people who today are rallying to their sick call, the ordinary people in the street, in other words you and me!
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
"These far-right groups, just as did Adolf Hitler, use, or abuse, free speech in order to gain support."
ReplyDeleteAu contraire. Weimar Germany had laws against hate speech, closed down Nazi papers, jailed Goebbels for antisemitism, and even banned Hitler from speaking for a period of time. However, Nazi ideology still spread, and the Nazis still rose to power.
https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/would-censorship-have-stopped-rise-nazis-part-16-answers
The Judges at Hitler's trial also gave him a nine month prison sentence, when he could have got life for treason, after his failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. The Judges were clearly sympathetic towards Hitler and released General Erich Ludendorff who also took part in the Putsch because of his WW1 war record. The Judges and many in the police hierarchy were clearly in sympathy with Hitler;s anti-Semitism. The "laws against hate speech" were clearly not applied by the Weimar Republic, certainly not in full, perhaps they wished to court the impression do nothing and the Nazis will go away? Just Like Hitler Goebbels got a minimum, make it look good, sentence.
ReplyDeleteCaoimhin O'Muraile
I stand corrected; Hitler was sentenced to five years in prison but was released after nine months. Further evidence of sympathies shown towards him and his policies by the Weimar Republic Judicial and legal systems.
ReplyDeleteCaoimhin O'Muraile
The right of people to feel offended must be protected, protected, and defended!
ReplyDelete"The right of people to feel offended must be protected, protected and defended!". Considering this article is about the 'misuse' of free speech by fascists and racists it follows by your comments, that the right of fascists and racists to offend must be "protected and defended", is that what you are saying? Or, am I missing something, is it a cryptic comment? I am referring to specific areas of life like racist verbal and physical assaults using free speech as a pretext for such attacks. Homophobic attacks using same, Misogynous and sexist comments (in their true sense) and Misandry comments (again in their true sense). Attacks on the sick and disabled, is it their "right to feel offended" therefore justifying the offender? Am I missing something here? Are you trying to justify such 'offending' under the guise that the offenders right to "feel offended" makes it alright to offend? Can you please clarify as I am confused as to what you mean. Are you trying to justify the fascists and racists under the guise of defending the "offended"? Maybe I'm reading your reply wrong?
ReplyDeleteCaoimhin O'Muraile
The comment by HJ reads as a witty putdown to those who feel they have a right not to be offended and use that right to suppress opinion not their own. He flips it in an entertaining way.
DeleteA society that censors risks clogging up the democratic pores through which ideas and free inquiry flow.
Brandon and Christopher between them on TPQ have teased out some of the issues around free speech including the field of comedy.
My problem with denying the fascists the freedom to express an opinion is that it becomes all too easy to label the next idea we don't like as fascist and to then put the holder of that idea on the cancel list. Society then moves ever closer to the South African banned person regime.
The arrest and continued detention of Dee Stitt in the North seems to be a very draconian measure. The legislation been used to remove him will quickly be used to remove people who oppose him. The PSNI and government would love to start targeting those who call for protests against Israeli genocide. It reminds me so much of the Kitsonian concept of the law as a device for removing unwanted members of the public.
Caomhin, what I like about your pieces is your tendency to stand with the underdog, and on the other hand, you can't help but wonder when the Left goes too far.
DeleteWhen we were kids, our Ma's would tell us "Sticks and stones will break our bones, but names will never hurt us". It now seems we've reared a generation that believes differently, a generation that lacks resilience.
I believe we have adequate laws available to prosecute those who incite violence against others. Free speech is the bedrock upon which democratic societies stand. Interfere with that at your peril!
That's the point, Henry, Free Speech is the bedrock certainly of liberal democracies, not to be confused with full democracy, a point I think I made. Anthony, I was referring to the hard line racist remarks along with other blatantly belittling remarks against women, foreign people (other than black) Gays and Lesbians and so on. Not quips in the corner shop with the girls there, as you said Henry "when we were kids our Ma's would tell us Sticks and Stones". I am referring to the abuse of free speech to attack in a vicious way minorities.
ReplyDeleteThe belittling language can apply to women attacking men as well. Something often overlooked!
Caoimhin O'Muraile
Logically, it cannot avoid being the bed rock of any democracy. The less free speech a society has the less democratic it is likely to be.
DeleteCaoimhin, I respect your concerns. There's no doubt that plenty of vitriolic language is used against those who differ from the herd. However, despite a plethora of interventions already in place, incitement laws, equality legislation, and DEI pieces of training it continues. The answer to these challenges may lie in greater enforcement of existing laws. Greater enforcement is preferable to me than any further legislation that might curtail free speech.
DeleteMany people, younger Westerners particularly so, have become cosseted from existential truths. They are far removed from the Buddha's first and central truth that 'all life is suffering'. He also confronted his followers with the idea that we're all living on a dung-hill.
I agree, Henry, further legislation along with those laws which already exist my curtail free speech. Greater enforcement of existing laws may well be part of the answer.
ReplyDeletePart of the problem enforcing present legislation is perhaps some of the law enforcers are sympathetic towards the fascists and racists. Some judges also may share these sentiments which presents a problem when enforcing anti racist laws against the racists. I can remember back in the eighties London, laws were seldomly enforced against the NF but the police were quick to use the public order laws against anti-fascists! This I have seen with my own eyes while the NF (as they were then) stood opposite watching their allies in the Metropolitan police deal with anti-fascist and anti-racist groups. This is a problem enforcing the laws, which if used properly, are adequate dealing with the far-right. Sure, did Drew Harris not confuse one bunch of rioters, all from the far-right with the far left! He said the trouble was caused by "left wing" groups which was not true, it was the far right.
Secondly, though equally as important, is education. As the horrors of the Holocaust during the Nazi years fades and WW11 veterans die of old age such horrors should by taught in schools at secondary levels of education history. The treatment of Irish people as 'indentured servants' should be also part of the history curriculum. The teaching of the colonial and imperialist eras and the taking of black people from their native lands to be used as slaves in the West Indies and Americas is essential teaching. The difference between 'indentured servants' and slaves were minimal. White people used as 'indentured servants' were in all but name slaves but the rules were whites could not be described as slaves, only blacks could be described this way. Many poor Irish and some English paupers were shipped off as 'indentured servants' to the colonies to serve rich Englishmen and some rich Irishmen usually of the 'ascendancy.' Schools rarely touch on this subject which they should. Then again anything in history which is distasteful to the ruling classes is seldom taught. As one of my lecturers said to me; "to understand what happens today must be viewed through the lens of history".
Caoimhin O'Muraile
Though I admire your enthusiasm (en theos: possessed by a god) Caoimhin I am quite not fully with you. Yes, the past informs our present, and yet does not necessarily need to shape our future.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what's won, and regardless of what's gone before democratic stability rests upon the maintenance of free speech.