07 January 2016
Mounting the Soapbox
Free speech in the 21st century.
by Lynda Goetz
“Sir, I detest your views, but would defend to the death your right to continue to express them.” These words (or various similar translations of them), generally attributed to the 18th century French writer and philosopher, Voltaire, may or may not be his; what matters is the sentiment behind them, one which has fuelled democracy since Socrates’ day. The right to freedom of expression is one of the main things which differentiate democracies from most other forms of government. In the West most of us believe, or at least used to believe, that freedom of speech was sacrosanct, that it formed one of the cornerstones of our way of life. This belief has increasingly been challenged over the last few decades with the rise and rise of political correctness. Two items which have appeared in the news recently have once more highlighted the tensions in our society between freedom of speech and what constitutes acceptable thought, or to use Orwell’s term, ‘thoughtcrime’.
Barry Humphries, the Australian-born creator of Dame Edna Everage, the celebrated, outrageous and outspoken ‘gigastar’, played by Humphries himself, has caused something of a storm by confirming in an interview that he agreed with Germaine Greer’s statements made in October last year about transgenders. Greer upset the students of Cardiff University, and of course later many others, by expressing the view that people like Caitlyn Jenner, formerly the US athlete known as Bruce Jenner, were not women, but simply men “who believe that they are women and have had themselves castrated.” Humphries, a friend of Greer, when asked about this comment, said that he agreed with her. He went on, “You’re a mutilated man, that’s all, what’s all this carry on? Caitlyn Jenner – what a publicity seeking ratbag. It’s all given the stamp – not of respectability, but authenticity or something. If you criticise anything you’re racist or sexist or homophobic.” Now, unsurprisingly, Humphries has come in for attack himself. There are calls that he be sacked from his new series, Barry’s Forgotten Musical Masterpieces, due to start on BBC Radio 2 on 13th of this month. So far, the BBC has resisted, pointing out that Humphries is a freelance presenter and that these are personal views not reflected in his programme. Rebecca Root, a transgender actress is one of those who have called for Humphries to apologise for his ‘retrograde’ views or be sacked. Apart from the fact that she clearly has a personal axe to grind in this argument, why should he not be allowed to express his sincerely held views without calls for apologies or worse still, demands that his work be taken away from him because of his ‘unacceptable’ views? To whom are they unacceptable? To those who do not agree with him?
The original Speakers’ Corner was set up in the northeast corner of Hyde Park (near Marble Arch) largely as a result of the park’s use in the 1830s, 40s and 50s as a venue for workers’ protests and gatherings, culminating in 1866 and ‘67 in large demonstrations organised by the Reform League which resulted in the 1867 Reform Act extending the franchise to most working men not women, of course, as we all know that came much later). The Parks Regulation Act 1872 delegated to the park authorities the issue of permitting public meetings, and the open-air debates, speeches and meetings have become a tradition. The expression ‘to get on one’s soap box’ originates from the old wooden packing boxes or crates used as makeshift platforms by speakers on these occasions. In 1999, Lord Justice Sedley in his decision in Redmond-Bate v DPP described Speakers Corner as demonstrating “the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear.” Basically, this was the ruling that established that freedom of speech under English law could not be limited to the inoffensive.
Yesterday, a born-again Christian pastor, James McConnell, 78, charged with improper use of a public electronic communications network and causing a ‘grossly offensive’ message about Muslims to be streamed online in May 2014, was cleared by a court. Amongst his rantings were the words “Islam is heathen. Islam is satanic. Islam is a doctrine born in hell.” District Judge Liam McNally said that the words did not reach the high threshold of being ‘grossly offensive’ and added, “The courts need to be very careful not to criminalise speech, which, however contemptible is no more than offensive. It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances. Accordingly, I find Pastor McConnell not guilty.” This is surely a decision in line with Lord Justice Sedley’s ruling and one of which many people both inside and outside the justice system should take note. If the criminal law is not there to censor offensive utterances, then why on earth do actresses (transgender or otherwise), the media or any other individuals who have the right to get up on their own soap boxes and give utterance to their views, contemptible or otherwise, consider that they have the added right to censor the views and opinions, honestly expressed of anyone else? We now live in an era when anybody at all can get up on their own personal soapbox without even leaving the comfort of their own home or desk and by the use of a blog or website publish their beliefs and standpoints. That must surely be a Good Thing (to crib from 1066 and All That) and one we should not be in any hurry to relinquish. As a society we have, in so many ways, come a long way in our understanding and tolerance of others, both in our own culture and in others, but to take the stance that those current views should now be set in stone and people punished for not sharing them is not progress at all; quite the contrary.
Well, I suppose that now I’ve had my say and got that off my chest, I’ll get down off my soap box and get on with something else.
