What should be the limits of free speech in a plural society? It is a question
that has been asked with increasing urgency over the past few years. Ten years
ago, when I last addressed a Eurozine conference, the question had a certain
academic quality to it, the controversy over The Satanic Verses notwithstanding.
The events of the past decade - from 9/11 to the riots in France, from the
London and Madrid bombings to the fury over the publication of the Muhammed
cartoons in Jyllands-Posten - have transformed the debate about multiculturalism
and made it all too murderously real.
They have also transformed liberal opinion. Twenty years ago most liberals
defended Salman Rushdie's right to publish The Satanic Verses despite
the offence it caused many Muslims. Today, many liberals argue that whatever
may appear to be right in principle, in practice one must appease religious
and cultural sensibilities because such sensibilities are so deeply felt.
As Ian Jack, editor of Granta magazine has said of the pictorial
depiction of Muhammed, one must weigh 'the individual's right to exhibit or
publish one' with 'the immeasurable insult... that the exercise of such a
right would cause'. And for liberals such as Jack, the avoidance of cultural
pain is, in a multicultural society, more important than what they consider
to be the abstract right to freedom of expression.
Part of the problem with this whole debate is that both sides conflate two
distinct notions of multiculturalism - multiculturalism as lived experience
and multiculturalism as a political process. When most people say that multiculturalism
is a good thing what they mean is the experience of living in a society that
is less insular, less homogenous, more vibrant and cosmopolitan than before.
In other words it's a case for cultural diversity, mass immigration, open
borders and open minds.
Those who advocate multiculturalism as a political process are, however, talking
about something different. Multiculturalism, they argue, requires the public
recognition and affirmation of cultural differences. We live in a world, so
the argument runs, in which there are deep-seated conflicts between cultures
embodying different values, many of which are incommensurate but all of which
are valid in their own context. Social justice requires not just that individuals
are treated as political equals, but also that their cultural beliefs are
treated as equally valid, and indeed are institutionalised in the public sphere.
As the American scholar Iris Young puts it 'groups cannot be socially equal
unless their specific experience, culture and social contributions are publicly
affirmed and recognised'.
This conflation of lived experience and political process has proved highly
invidious. On the one hand, it has allowed many on the right - and not just
those on the right - to present the problems of social cohesion as the product
of mass immigration and turned minorities into the problem. On the other hand,
it has forced many liberals to abandon traditional notions of freedom and
liberty in the name of defending diversity.
I believe it is critical to separate these two notions of multiculturalism.
The irony of multiculturalism as a political process is that it undermines
much of what is valuable about diversity as lived experience. When we talk
about diversity, what we mean is that the world is a messy place, full of
clashes and conflicts. That is all for the good, for such clashes and conflicts
are the stuff of political and cultural engagement.
The question that liberals very rarely ask themselves is 'Why should we value
diversity?'. Diversity is important, not in and of itself, but because it
allows us to expand our horizons, to compare and contrast different values,
beliefs and lifestyles, make judgements upon them, and decide which may be
better and which may be worse. It is important, in other words, because it
allows us to engage in political dialogue and debate that can help create
a more universal language of citizenship.
But it is precisely such dialogue and debate, and the making of such judgements,
that multiculturalism as a political process attempts to suppress in the name
of 'tolerance' and 'respect'. The very thing that is valuable about diversity
- the clashes and conflicts that it brings about - is what many multiculturalists
most fear.
This is one of the reasons that so many of the recent flashpoints over multiculturalism
have been over the question of free speech. From the Danish cartoons to the
Pope's speech, the fear is that unfettered free speech generates irresolvable
conflicts and therefore needs to be constrained. Liberals have come to accept
almost as axiomatic the idea that while free speech is a good, nevertheless
speech must necessarily be less free in a plural society. For diverse societies
to function and to be fair, we need to show respect for other peoples, cultures,
and viewpoints. And we can only do so by being intolerant of people whose
views give offence or who transgress firmly entrenched moral boundaries. As
the British sociologist Tariq Modood puts it, 'If people are to occupy the
same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent
to which they subject each others' fundamental beliefs to criticism.' One
of the ironies of living in a plural society, it seems, is that the preservation
of diversity requires us to leave less room for a diversity of views.
I believe the opposite is true. It is precisely because we do live in a plural
society that we need the fullest extension possible of free speech. In a homogenous
society in which everyone thought in exactly the same way then the giving
of offence would be nothing more than gratuitous. But in the real world where
societies are plural, then it is both inevitable and important that people
offend the sensibilities of others. Inevitable, because where different beliefs
are deeply held, clashes are unavoidable. And we should deal with those clashes
rather than suppress them. Important because any kind of social change or
social progress means offending some deeply held sensibilities. The right
to 'subject each others' fundamental beliefs to criticism' is the bedrock
of an open, diverse society. 'If liberty means anything', as George Orwell
once put it, 'it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear'.
Ah, comes the response, but should we not also ensure that minorities are
not deliberately denigrated? Is it not incumbent on a civilised society to
protect the powerless and the vulnerable? Indeed it is. But ask yourself this:
who is it that benefits most from censorship? Not the powerless and the vulnerable
but rather those that possess both the power to censor and the necessity to
do so. It is often said in making the case for censorship that the capacity
for free speech is in the hands of just a few - media barons or government
ministries. Actually, the opposite is the case. The power to censor is in
the hands of the few. But the capacity for free speech is in all our mouths.
It reveals the topsy-turvy nature of the world in which we live that, on the
one hand, many liberals can view censorship as progressive and that, on the
other, defenders of free speech can view minorities as the greatest obstacle
to freedom. Recently I took part in a British television debate about Muslims
and free speech. My intention was to defend free speech as the friend, not
the enemy, of minorities, including Muslims. But it proved not be so easy
because the debate became polarised between those who wanted to defend free
speech and saw Muslims as the problem (the final question on which the audience
had to vote was 'Are Muslims a threat to free speech?'), and those who wanted
to defend Muslim rights and saw free speech as the problem.
Many of the recent clashes over free speech have certainly been fuelled by
Muslim anger. But the idea that Muslims provide the principal threat to free
speech is preposterous - especially in a country like Britain whose libel
laws have an almost medieval flavour about them and where liberties are being
continually eroded in the name of the so-called war on terror.
Muslims have certainly taken advantage of the culture of censorship - and
the aversion to giving offence - that is now deeply rooted in most Western
societies. But it is absurd to imagine that they have created this culture.
Equally absurd is the claim that such a culture benefits Muslims. Insofar
as the culture of censorship benefits Muslims, it benefits not Muslims in
general, but those within Muslim communities who possess power and do not
wish to see it challenged. The real impact of censorship is to undermine progressive
movements within minority communities.
Take the controversy over the Danish cartoons. There has been a general assumption
that all Muslims were offended by the cartoons and that all Muslims wished
to ban them. That is not true. Bünyamin Simsek is a Muslim councillor
in the Danish city of Aarhus who helped organize a counter-demonstration to
the cartoon protests. 'There is', he says, 'a large group of Muslims in this
city who want to live in a secular society and adhere to the principle that
religion is an issue between them and God and not something that should involve
society'. He is not alone. But such voices get silenced in the rush to censor
that which is deemed to cause offence.
Multiculturalist censors are helping to strengthen the hand of the most conservative
elements and to undermine those who want to challenge tradition and authority.
That is why groups such as Southall Black Sisters - an organisation of Asian
women activists that for more than 20 years has been combating both racism
and discrimination against women - strenuously oppose the idea that the giving
of offence should be forbidden. As Rahila Gupta of Southall Black Sisters
put it in response to British government plans to make it an offence to incite
'religious hatred', such censorship 'will strengthen the voices of religious
intolerance and choke off women's right to dissent'. And this, she observed
'is too high a price to pay to appease an alienated community'.
The notion of giving offence suggests that certain beliefs are so important
or valuable to certain people that they should be put beyond the possibility
of being insulted, or caricatured or even questioned. The importance of the
principle of free speech is precisely that it provides a permanent challenge
to the idea that some questions are beyond contention, and hence acts as a
permanent challenge to authority. This is why free speech is essential not
simply to the practice of democracy, but to the aspirations of those groups
who may have been failed by the formal democratic processes. The real value
of free speech, in other words, is not to those who possess power, but to
those who want to challenge them. And the real value of censorship is to those
who do not wish their authority to be challenged.
Of course, many of those who give offence are not progressive at all, but
bigots - racists or homophobes. But people must be as free to offend against
liberal orthodoxies as against reactionary ones. Free speech for everyone
except bigots is not free speech at all. The right to free speech only has
political bite when we are forced to defend the rights of people whose views
we despise.
In any case, you cannot challenge bigoted ideas by banning them. You simply
let the sentiments fester underground. As Milton once memorably put it, 'To
keep out evil doctrine by licensing is like the exploit of that gallant man
who sought to keep out crows by shutting his park gate.' Censoring ugly ideas
will not make them go away. It is simply a means of abrogating our responsibility
for dealing with them. It is only through freedom of expression that we can
articulate our disagreements with such people and challenge their ideas.
Free speech does not mean accepting all views. It means having all views in
the open so we can challenge the ones we find unconscionable. Today, though,
we do the exact opposite: there are certain views we ban because they are
deemed too unpalatable. But there are other views we are too frightened of
challenging because we don't want to give offence to diverse cultures.
But you've got us all wrong, say the censors. We're not out to censor. All
we want is to do is ensure respect for all beliefs and cultures. It is an
argument that turns the notion of respect on its head.
In its traditional Kantian sense, respect requires us to treat every human
being equally as a moral, autonomous being. Every individual possesses the
capacity to express political and moral views and to act upon them. And every
individual is responsible for their views and actions and is capable of being
judged by them. The importance of free speech is that it is an expression
of individual moral autonomy, the capacity of people to engage in a robust
debate about their beliefs and their actions - and to bear the consequences.
The multiculturalist censor demands respect not just for the person but for
also his or her beliefs. And in so doing they undermine individual autonomy,
both by constraining the right of people to criticise others' beliefs and
by insisting that individuals who hold those beliefs are too weak or vulnerable
to stand up to criticism, satire or abuse.
Far from according respect, the multiculturalist censor treats people not
as autonomous beings but as incapable victims needing special protection.
The result is an auction of victimhood as every group attempts to outbid all
others as the one feeling most offended. What we end up with is a pick 'n'
mix attitude to what is tolerable. Earlier this year British Muslim leader
Iqbal Sacranie's made some derogatory comments about homosexuals. Ludicrously
it led to a police investigation. In response 22 Muslim leaders wrote to the
Times nespaper demanding the right to be able to 'freely express
their views in an atmosphere free of intimidation or bullying'. Those same
leaders deny such a right to newspapers publishing cartoons about Mohammed.
Many of those happy to see cartoons lampooning Mohammed draw the line at anything
mocking the Holocaust. Gay rights groups want Muslims (and black raga artists)
to be prosecuted for homophobia but want the right to criticise Muslims as
they see fit. It is fast becoming a case of 'My speech should be free, but
yours is too costly'.
We can see here that the argument against free speech is really an argument
in defence of particular sectional interests. And that is the best reason
for rejecting restraints on speech. We can build a plural society in which
free speech provides the means of engagement and dialogue between different
parts of society. Or a sectional society in which restrictions on free speech
help police the fragments. The choice is ours.