Free speech and offence

Consider first a report in The Times:

"A leading Holocaust denier was arrested as he flew into Britain yesterday, accused of running an internet site that insisted that the Nazis had not murdered millions of Jews. Dr Fredrick Toben was held at Heathrow at the request of the German authorities for publishing “anti-Semitic and/or revisionist” material between 2000 and 2004.

"Although Holocaust denial is not an offence in Britain, it is a serious crime in Germany and Dr Toben faces up to five years in prison. The Australian citizen was arrested under a European Arrest Warrant designed to fast-track extraditions."

And now consider this letter in The Guardian yesterday from an academic at something called the Institute for Cultural Research at Lancaster University. It begins: "While in no way condoning firebombing the publisher's offices...."; and I'm confident you can write the rest of the letter yourself just from that dismal opening.

I point you to the letter not because I find it in any way commendable or significant in its own right, but because its author, one Charlie Gere, expresses unabashedly and succinctly a view that has increasingly made its way into the mainstream of public debate and ought to be derided out of it again. Gere maintains that:

"The issue with this book [the novel whose publisher has been physically attacked] and others that have offended Muslims, including The Satanic Verses, is that their publication is liable to give Muslims the possibly correct impression that a culture riddled with its own shibboleths, taboos and areas of interdiction does not consider it a problem to offend their sensitivities, not least by trivialising their religion and their culture in works of fiction. This is far worse than being anti-Muslim. It treats Muslim sensitivities as being beneath consideration. No wonder they are angry."

This is pernicious (as well as illiterate: the pronoun in the last sentence would normally refer back to the noun "sensitivities" rather than the adjective "Muslim"). Of course it's "not a problem" in public policy to offend anyone's sensitivities, because people's mental states are no business of government. If government set itself the task of alleviating mental anguish, then there would be no inherent limit to the powers that government might claim. The only proper response in public policy to those who say their deepest beliefs have been slighted and who complain of the offence they've been caused is: too bad, but you'll live; and in the meantime there is no restitution to which you're entitled, because you have suffered no injustice. (I argued this case at length in this article last year for the magazine Index on Censorship, whose estimable editor, Jo Glanville, is the target of Gere's letter.)

You can also infer the ruinous misconception under which Gere is labouring. He writes, as if he's venturing an original insight: "Would [Jo Glanville] be so ready to describe as an act of courage a decision to publish a book denying the Holocaust, or advocating paedophilia, or race hate, or antisemitism, or violence against women?"

Of course, he's got his cases hoplessly mixed up. Raping children and assaulting women are crimes, and there are rightly laws against incitement to crime. Denying the Holocaust - which is an expression of racism - is not a crime in this country, but is in Germany. And, while I admire the political culture of Germany, I strongly oppose such laws in principle. I have no hesitation in describing Fredrick Toben as an appalling man who ought to be set free immediately.

No, if I were a publisher I certainly wouldn't publish his ideas. But the reason no reputable publishing house would publish a work of Holocaust denial has nothing to do with avoiding "offence"; it's rather that Holocaust denial is demonstrably false. The only way in which you can consistently maintain that the Holocaust is a hoax concocted by international Jewry is by faking the historical evidence. A work of fiction that offends religious sensibilities is, however, no such violation of publishing ethics. Authors and publishers must be defended against an assault of free expression under the guise of sensitivity; and religion must be firmly confined to the private sphere.

Comments

[Putzi]

"This is ... illiterate: the pronoun in the last sentence would normally refer back to the noun 'sensitivities' rather than the adjective 'Muslim')."

No doubt you're right, Oliver. But isn't this what is called 'hair-splitting'?

"He writes, as if he's venturing an original insight: ..."

Well, no he doesn't. He just asks a simple rhetorical question.

(There are enough good reasons to attack this letter without inventing some extra ones!)

[Sue Rochester]

The 'they' might refer to the Muslims' sensibilities, in which case it would be grammatical. (Just being pedantic).

[Charlie Gere]

Oliver (if I may)

Firstly, possibly the easiest way to both score a cheap point and to appear intellectually superior without much effort is to suggest that your opponent has made a grammatical error. Well done for making that elementary move. It would have helped your case for such superiority if you had bothered to read properly, let alone try to understand my letter. My only point is that there are always limits about what is or is not acceptable speech in a culture, whether we like it or not. Though I can see that you are absolutely dedicated to free speech as a principle (you too must have limits; at least I sincerely hope you do, for your own sake). These limits are cultural determined and in this case simply do not take into consideration matters of considerable sensitivity to Muslims. Also, don't be so ridiculously naive. Given the number of books published, purporting to be factual, which are actually based on 'facts' as demonstrably false as those underpinning Holocaust denial it is obvious that the only reason that publishers don't publish books denying the Holocaust is in order to avoid offence and thus compromise their standing in the market.

[Oliver Kamm]

Dear Charlie,
Thank you for writing. Your first point is not technically accurate. The easiest route to scoring a cheap point is to protest that your critic has not read properly your argument or understood its profundity. I understood you with total clarity, as you've just demonstrated by repeating your observation that public policy "simply do[es] not take into consideration matters of considerable sensitivity to Muslims". Why you suppose this to be an argument as opposed to a truism is not explained in your letter to The Guardian or here.

Of course policy doesn't take account of Muslim sensitivities. I strongly support this state of affairs. Were it not the easiest route to scoring a cheap point, I'd be tempted to accuse you of not reading properly my argument or understanding its profundity. Soothing people's sensibilities is no business of public policy this side of 1984.

There are some terrible books on the market, but it is a slur on the publishing profession to suppose that it is as yet unaware of the pseudohistorical character of Holocaust denial or of its own responsibilities. Reputable publishers make such judgements all the time (look up, for example, an interesting essay by Martin Gardner on how he persuaded his publisher not to take on the memoirs of the charlatan Aleister Crowley). It's a shame that such scupulousness doesn't extend to all fields of inquiry - there's an awful lot of pseudoscientific garbage on the market - but it does extend to this particular subject.

Scrupulousness cuts both ways, incidentally. I note that you have popped up on Media Lens's site to advance your thesis further. That organisation, as my regular readers will recall, is among the most reliable conduits of antisemitism and genocide denial. (To quote one of the regulars - writing only yesterday - in the discussion forum to which you contributed: "The Jewish race is proportionally over represented in many aspects of our public life(British Jews form only 0.5% of the population) and in that of the US - politics - national and local, finance, the media especially broadcasting and law for example. These people are in position where they can exert pressure and influence opinion in the media and elsewhere and for those of them who support the state of Israel, as many do, they can be its powerful advocates unseen by the general public.")

Your own fastidiousness, then, appears to be highly selective. Unfashionable victims of bonehead bigotry can presumably look after themselves.

[Putzi]

"...it is a slur on the publishing profession to suppose that it is as yet unaware of the pseudohistorical character of Holocaust denial or of its own responsibilities."

Well, up mid 1990s (or there about) there were some very big names that still published the books from Irving, weren't there?

(Normal rule: if it will sell, they will publish.)

[Charlie Gere]

Oliver

Touché as far as your first point is concerned and I own up to a rhetorical move at least as cheap as yours.

Your other points are obviously more serious and I would like to make some serious (rather than merely antagonistic) responses. Before doing so I would like to ask what you mean by ‘Soothing people's sensibilities is no business of public policy this side of 1984’. Why 1984? What happened then?

Further to this point I looked up the history of UK Law concerning racial hatred and discovered the following; that ‘incitement to racial hatred’ was established as a criminal offence in the Public Order Act 1986, making it an arrestable offence to deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group; distributing racist material to the public; making inflammatory public speeches; creating racist websites on the Internet; inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent. It seems that the Law is precisely about people’s sensibilities in that it forbids the stirring up of ‘racial hatred’, not, you may note, ‘racial violence’. Thus it concerns only how and what somebody may think, in that hatred itself is only an emotion, a form of sensibility perhaps. It seeks in particular to control, sooth even, the emotions and sensibilities of those who, if exposed to racially inflammatory material, might have unwelcome and undesirable thoughts, rather than those who might end up victims as a result of racial hatred (though it does actually concern their sensitivities as well). What they may do about those thoughts is not part of this particular Law’s concerns. Thus, in this case, the law is absolutely concerned with ‘soothing people’s sensibilities’.

I did not suggest at any point that publishers would be unaware of the nonsensical nature of Holocaust denial. I made no such slur and cannot be accused of doing so. All I said was that it is naïve to suggest that, in general, publishers avoid publishing supposedly factual books just because the facts they contain are demonstrably false. That they do not publish books denying the Holocaust may well show a deep awareness of the ethical issues or just sensitivity to the feelings of customers. Since I am not privy in publishers at which such questions are discussed I do not know what motivates them in this regard. This does make your argument about publishers and facts generally applicable or go anyway to answering my point.

Finally in relation to Media Lens, if what you say is true, then I will immediately cease to have any dealings with them. But, in the interests of, yes, free speech and fair play, I will post a link to this comments page and ask them for a response.

Charlie

[Charlie Gere]

And also, come on, what are libel laws other than precisely laws concerning people's sensibilities about their lives and privacy over and against the demand for free speech? Whether, for example, Jason Donovan is gay or not is of no real concern to anybody else but him and frankly has no bearing on his career, so that he can sue a magazine for suggesting he is indicates that this entirely about soothing his own sensibilities

[Dom]

There is nothing in this book that can possibly offend Muslim sensibilities to the point that attempted murder can be justified. Certainly you know what is going on. People are playing victims because they want to impose their will on others.

The same must be said about the MoToons. They weren't offensive. The Danish Imams had to add three of their own (one showing a Muslim woman being raped by a dog) in order to stir up trouble.

Gere's point that western society has toboos of its own is clearly wrong-headed. The violation of these taboos generally does not lead to mass murder (the MoToons) or to bombs (the Medina book).

[Snorri Godhi]

Charlie (if I may...)
Oliver can argue his point much better than I can, but I'd like to defend his position from a different angle: that of somebody who happened to be in Denmark during the cartoon riots, and in Estonia during the bronze soldier riots.

My argument is pragmatic: any State action designed to protect "sensitivities" will inevitably lead to widespread xenophobia; and if such actions were prolonged, they would lead to the rise to power of parties advocating a complete stop to immigration, if not worse. So, the EU and member states face a trilemma:
actively defend free speech (and that includes offensive speech and, incidentally, anti-EU speech);
accept eventual government by xenophobes;
or set up a politically-correct dictatorship.

Speaking for myself, the cartoon riots did not much affect my opinion of Muslims: what outraged me were the reactions of the British and American press and governments, and later of the Canadian "human rights" commissions. If those reactions were a consequence of immigration to Britain, the US, and Canada, then you should have stopped immigration a long time ago -- and I say that as an immigrant myself.

[Snorri Godhi]

PS: as a reviewer for scientific journals (though not, I admit, for books), I find this claim by Charlie Gere to be bizarre:

"it is naïve to suggest that, in general, publishers avoid publishing supposedly factual books just because the facts they contain are demonstrably false."

[Charlie Gere]

Oh please! Why is it wrong headed to say that the West has taboos? It so obviously does. How could it not. I did not, have never actually said that such taboos led to mass murders, though come to think of it the biggest, most highly organised mass murder of entirely innocent people in recent history took place in the West, within living memory, committed by members of a 'civilised' Western nation. What strange forces and repressions were at play then I wonder?

[Charlie Gere]

And here is the reply from Medialens to my request for responses to your accusation of antisemitism and holocaust denial

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1223054625.html

I would be extremely interested in your response

[Joe]

"These limits (free speech) are cultural determined and in this case simply do not take into consideration matters of considerable sensitivity to Muslims"

Indeed. And why the hell should they? The UK is secular, Islam is ideologically alien and if people object to its ideas (which is their right) they are entitled to assert that.

Islam "insults" my values, and I suggest that as a secular Brit that has precedence. I am sick and tired of religious types, Muslims being by far the worst on this (cartoons, novels, teddy bears) feeling entitlted to impose their values on others. No, you are not entitled to that and Muslims in particular will have to learn that if, for example, we have a film like Life Of Brian no other religion has the right to similar satire aimed at them. And the novel is not even satire - its just exposing a taboo subject Muslims have been denying and hiding for centuries, protecting it in a bubble of mythos.

Well, tough. It is historic FACT Mohammed had sexual relations with Aisha at 9 years old, and there's more where that came from: its also historic FACT he once massacred an entire Jewish village for not submitting to Islam. If these facts make the false mystique of Islam evaporate, well that's just tough: crititicsm and deconstruction is what we do in the modern world.

[NB]

Charlie, could you please explain how laws dealing with incitement to racial hatred have anything to do with religion?

Religion is a choice - race is not.

[Tony Francis]

Defamation, consisting of the twin torts of libel and slander, has nothing to do with the "sensibilities" of a person. They are based on the legal theory that an individual has the right to a "good name" in the community. Traditionally, strict liability lay with untrue claims of loathsome disease, calling a person a liar, accusation of a crime absent a conviction, among others. In a free society, with free speech, we have the right to "hurt other's feelings". Terrorist threats ("I am coming over to your house when you aren't looking in order to kill you.") and intentional infliction of mental anguish (eg. mailing a doll with a knife in it) are somewhat related torts (and even crimes in some jurisdictions). But they are not defamation. Inciting or soliciting terrorism or criminal activities are inchoate crimes (eg. "I will pay $1000 to anyone who blows up an airliner."). Laws based on "sensibilities of others" are the product of liberal ideology run amok. They are totally subjective and reliably inconsistent. Rue the day a society decides to limit free speech because it may ruffle feathers.

The tort of defamation is difficult to prove in court. Where is the line between sharp business competition and outright defamation? Saying bad things about competitors is probably not defamation. Damages are difficult to establish. Speaking the truth, even if it is hurtful, is an absolute defense against all claims of defamation.

In the US, there is a distinction between public figures and private persons. Once a person assumes a public persona, it is almost impossible to defame them, since even the most scurrilous accusations can be considered parody. Not so with private persons.

Defamation is the product of liberal medieval Catholic theology and arose in the Church courts. It was grafted onto the English Common Law at a much later date. If we were serious about separating Church and State, we would abolish all defamation laws. It is a most Roman Catholic tort.

[PJD]

NB, for most people what religion they choose or become, if any, is more to do with cultural conditioning rather than a genuine free choice.

[Ken W]

Well, Mr Kamm, you quote 'Mary' as an apparent example of Medialens antisemitism.

As you will also be aware, the same Mary was in fact criticised on the same Medialens Message Board concerning the contents of her post - a matter you did not deem to mention.

Mary’s views as expressed on the Medialens message board are in fact a consequence of the tolerance you espouse concerning such matters and you cannot have it both ways.

Either we as humans accept that the person in question has merely made a faux pas and help them to become better informed person, or we use censorship and the rigours of the law to condemn and imprison them.

You in fact condemn Medialens for supporting you own principle as outlined above.

[Charlie Gere]

NB, the answer is quite simple. Only in the modern West in the last 100+ years, ie for a very short time in historical terms, has religion either been no more than a choice or indeed a fundamental inextricable part of culture. In fact to consider it is possible to choose a religion shows how far we are from almost any other culture in history for better or worse. The presumptions that secularisation is either inevitable, necessarily desirable or will endure are by no means certain to be confirmed by events. Indeed it may the failure of our secular culture precisely to deal with the questions of relations with others that might lead to its demise. And where on earth does Joe, whose manner of commenting is verging on the hysterical, and is simply offensive, imagine that this country is in any real sense secular. What I imagine he means by the secular is the set of determine beliefs that most people adhere to knowingly or otherwise in this country, which may dispense with a God, but which are no less faith-based and fundamentally irrational than any other belief system, including a faith in something non-existent called 'free speech'

[Mark]

Toben is undoubtedly an appalling man as Oliver states, but his detention under a European Arrest Warrant is clearly absurd and counterproductive.What a pity it's taken 48 hours before a single member of the UK political class (Chris Huhne) acknowledges this blindingly obvious fact.
Oliver is also spot-on when he charges Mr Gere with 'selective fastidiousness'. Why however does the latter indulge in such unseemly contortions ? Snorri's comment, vis a vis the reactions to the Danish cartoons controversy (that such fastidiousness is a likely consequence of muslim immigration to the west) is very pertinent in this regard.

[Charlie Gere]

Thanks to Snorri for actually making things reasonable clear. Taking two of the choices in his trilemma I think that in the end what I want is something that is probably impossible, that is neither a PC dictatorship nor a situation in which the support of free speech risks alienating whole sections of the community. In the end this comes down to a question of, for want of a better word, civility. If I am being absolutely honest what I didn't like about the Aisha publication furore was that it simply such bad manners, a fundamental lack of courtesy and hospitality. My letter, to be frank, was in part at least, an emotional response to what I saw, and still see, as a kind of graceless arrogance on the part of the publishers and those defending the decision to publish, or what someone called the 'fuck you theory of censorship and free speech', in which the principle of free speech seems to give people the right to say whatever they want without other opposing social constraints. I know that the blogosphere in particular is notorious for the kind of no-holds barred discourse that is often very offensive, and that journalists are used to receiving very nasty communications, nevertheless I was shocked by the pointlessly unpleasant kind of responses I got or read, mostly anonymous, including an email calling me a 'posturing cunt' (thanks, Andrew Kinsman) and a blog calling me 'ball-less'. I am yet to understand how such aggression can be seen as part of a JS Millite conception of effective debate and free speech. We live in a culture in which, apparently, there are some parts of the community where people have lost the ability to pass each other in the street without regarding any passing glance as a provocation or a threat. So, rather than see the choice as starkly as Snorri, is there some alternative that would preserve free speech while also enabling respectful behaviour towards others (rather than an automatic respect for other's culture)? Or is that just stupid?

[David Sketchley]

Ha! This is rich coming from Kamm, holocaust-denier and genocide-encourager par excellence.

Bill Blum posed the question well: "when is a holocaust not a holocaust? When the perpetrators call it a victory."

And of course, Kamm is part of that criminal section of society that encouraged the illegal war on Iraq, thanks to which, as Blum reminds us "more than half the population of Iraq is either dead, crippled, traumatized, confined in overflowing American and Iraqi prisons, internally displaced, or in foreign exile. Thus, the number of people available for being killers or victims is markedly reduced."

There has been a continuous Iraqi genocide since 1991, aided and abetted by people like Kamm.

He has no shame.

[Mike]

"Only in the modern West in the last 100+ years, ie for a very short time in historical terms, has religion either been no more than a choice or indeed a fundamental inextricable part of culture."

That's true. The Enlightenment destroyed the Ancien Regime and dragged Europe out of tyranny and into something resembling freedom. Speech was much freer in the second half of the 20th century than at any time before.

"The presumptions that secularisation is either inevitable, necessarily desirable or will endure are by no means certain to be confirmed by events."

OK, but virtually all of human history was utterly miserable, typified by obscurantism, the control of superstition, poverty and ignorance. That's a BAD thing. Yet religion played a large role in keeping people dirty, stupid and sick. We must smash the hold of religion over people's lives as payback for the evils that were, and are, done by it (not "in its name" or some other cop-out). It is precisely by ignoring illogical and factually wrong claptrap, and indeed mocking it, that we are able to make progress. There is no moral reason to take any notice of a bunch of genocidal Abrahamic fairytales (i.e. all of them), and certainly no moral case for forcing people to pay "respect" to them via the legal system.

[Mike]

"Oh please! Why is it wrong headed to say that the West has taboos? It so obviously does."

Indeed, it does. And the law should neither take notice of these taboos, nor replace them with someone else's taboos (i.e. Muslims) as you'd apparently like, by making it illegal to annihilate the character of a lying charlatan, who had sex with a 9 nine old.

[NB]

It is not simple Charlie. Religious faith is a matter of choice regardless of how difficult that choice may be. If a Muslim is offended by criticism of their religion they can deal with it in a number of ways - by choosing to ignore it; by engaging with it or by choosing to cease being a Muslim. If people are trapped in a belief system we do them a disservice by sparing them the burden of criticism.

Even difficult choices are still choices. Religion, unlike race, is a choice. It should not be equated with race as you have done.

[Mike]

"Religion, unlike race, is a choice."

Actually, for many Muslims it is not a choice, because if they try to leave their faith there's a good chance that they'll be murdered.

However, this only INCREASES the importance of free speech, and accords ADDITIONAL moral justification to allowing people to mercilessly assault Islam, well past the point of giving offence. All coercive theisms must have their essence and their symbols demonised, until they finally get it through their thick heads that people are not going to defer to their bullying and death threats.

Ridiculously, the hate speech censors are saying that we SHOULDN'T be allowed to stand up to a gang of aggressive thugs, because to do so would upset social harmony! No, social harmony was already upset a long time ago - there is no moral justification for shielding religion and religious believers from the same treatment that they are ritually deal out to others.