I have been pondering the question of whether there should be limits or boundaries to free speech. The thing that bothers me about an absolute right to free speech is the possibility of using free speech to abuse the rights and freedoms of a minority. Free speech can only exist in a free and open society, and I believe a free and open society has to be a society that believes in pluralism.
A pluralistic society agrees that everyone has the right to be different, and to express different opinions, and to do so without fear of reprisal against their person, their life or their liberty. Speech which tends to foment prejudice or incite violence against others is not free speech, but hate speech.
In a pluralistic society, people can insult and offend me as much as they like, and I can insult and offend them in return, or I can ignore them. But individuals and groups that tend to a non-pluralistic outlook on the world believe that they and they alone know the absolute truth, and that they and they alone have the right to speak, and to control everyone else. Wherever they come from on the political or religious spectrum, it's totalitarianism, and that is (or should be) alien to what is known as the "western democratic" model. Some of these groups claim that "free speech" gives them the right to promulgate their "hate speech". I would disagree.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Ken comes a cropper at last
London Mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from office for four weeks by an independent standards watchdog tribunal, following his refusal to apologise for offensive remarks to a journalist. This is widely reported with a transcript of the exchange between Livingstone and the journalist on The Independent website, and an audio clip on the Daily Mail website.
This has sparked a major debate about a range of issues: why is there a panel with the powers to suspend elected officials?; is Ken a victim of a hate campaign by the Daily Mail group of newspapers?; shouldn't journalists accept that getting insulted is part of the game?; and above all, were the remarks evidence of Ken's underlying anti-semitism, or was the Jewish community's response a case of over-sensitivity?
If you listen to the clip or read the transcript you'll note that Livingstone compares any journalist working for the Mail group to a Nazi concentration camp guard because both journalists and camp guards only do what they are paid to do. This is an incredibly weak argument based on a totally inappropriate analogy.
It would indeed be pathetic for a concentration camp guard to claim innocence because they were "only doing their job", when the content of their job was totally immoral and indefensible. For a journalist to attempt to ask a politician a few questions as he is leaving a high-profile social event is neither immoral nor indefensible. It is perfectly reasonable. It would also have been perfectly reasonable for Livingstone to reply "No comment".
Furthermore, Oliver Finegold did not make the claim that he was "only doing his job". Ken Livingstone inferred that all by himself, based on his existing opinion of the newspaper the journalist represented. Even if Ken's opinion of the newspaper was justifiable, the Nazi slurs were not. For Ken to continue with his insulting remarks after Finegold told him he was Jewish and was offended by them was an unacceptable way for the Mayor of London to behave, even when he was off-duty. (By the way, Ken has conveniently forgotten that he himself worked as the restaurant critic for the "scumbag" newspaper with a "history of supporting fascism" for several years.)
There are plenty of things that "Red Ken" has done over his long career for which I have some grudging admiration. Back in the 80's he championed gay and gender issues long before it became fashionable to do so, he consistently campaigned against apartheid in South Africa, and above all he defiantly stood up to Mrs. Thatcher.
But on this issue, he has behaved like a moron and deserves his punishment. He had no justification for insulting the reporter, and by not apologising he has behaved with unbelievable arrogance. In fact, his refusal to apologise, even more than the insenstive remarks, has definitely "brought his office into disrepute".
This has sparked a major debate about a range of issues: why is there a panel with the powers to suspend elected officials?; is Ken a victim of a hate campaign by the Daily Mail group of newspapers?; shouldn't journalists accept that getting insulted is part of the game?; and above all, were the remarks evidence of Ken's underlying anti-semitism, or was the Jewish community's response a case of over-sensitivity?
If you listen to the clip or read the transcript you'll note that Livingstone compares any journalist working for the Mail group to a Nazi concentration camp guard because both journalists and camp guards only do what they are paid to do. This is an incredibly weak argument based on a totally inappropriate analogy.
It would indeed be pathetic for a concentration camp guard to claim innocence because they were "only doing their job", when the content of their job was totally immoral and indefensible. For a journalist to attempt to ask a politician a few questions as he is leaving a high-profile social event is neither immoral nor indefensible. It is perfectly reasonable. It would also have been perfectly reasonable for Livingstone to reply "No comment".
Furthermore, Oliver Finegold did not make the claim that he was "only doing his job". Ken Livingstone inferred that all by himself, based on his existing opinion of the newspaper the journalist represented. Even if Ken's opinion of the newspaper was justifiable, the Nazi slurs were not. For Ken to continue with his insulting remarks after Finegold told him he was Jewish and was offended by them was an unacceptable way for the Mayor of London to behave, even when he was off-duty. (By the way, Ken has conveniently forgotten that he himself worked as the restaurant critic for the "scumbag" newspaper with a "history of supporting fascism" for several years.)
There are plenty of things that "Red Ken" has done over his long career for which I have some grudging admiration. Back in the 80's he championed gay and gender issues long before it became fashionable to do so, he consistently campaigned against apartheid in South Africa, and above all he defiantly stood up to Mrs. Thatcher.
But on this issue, he has behaved like a moron and deserves his punishment. He had no justification for insulting the reporter, and by not apologising he has behaved with unbelievable arrogance. In fact, his refusal to apologise, even more than the insenstive remarks, has definitely "brought his office into disrepute".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)