Being offensive to improve communication

Claire Thompson, Freelance PR Consultant, Waves PR

The Freedom of Speech Debate

Thoughts developed from an Article 19 discussion at the House of Lords, March 25, at which they effectively launched the Camden Principles. The event was organized as part of the efforts of ARTICLE 19 to strengthen dialogue and common ground between those involved in defending free expression and the right to equality.

We expect to be able to speak, write, blog and express our views, yet in reality freedom of speech is  so complex, so fraught with the minefields of personal belief and interest, and filled with such fear of giving offence, that many shy away from it.

Freedom of speech and anti-discrimination laws are often seen as clashing rights. Throw in the complexities of ownership (copyright) and defamation,  and this was always going to be an interesting discussion.

My conclusion, by the end of it, was that we need to be offended. Regularly. And learn to challenge those who offend, fighting words with words, bigotry with reason, whilst incitement to crime, on whatever grounds, should be punished. (Brave words from someone who generally shies away from harsh debate!)

Let’s start here: freedoms of worship, of speech, of identity are established and unequivocal.

International law however, has failed to translate this into domestic legislation (not only, note, in the developing world). Global action is required if archaic, outdated laws are to be addressed. Standards may exist in Europe, but they have been poorly enshrined into laws by member states.  Despite strong anti-racism laws across Europe, it’s lip service.

The most vocal nations on human rights are quite possibly the worst when it comes for freedom of speech: the problem is not repression in developing countries but far closer to home (something also hinted at by Susan Pointer, Director of Public Policy & Government Relations, Google, at the recent Amnesty International debate). States will champion international issues to avoid addressing their own. (The UK, for example,  has apparently not enforced Article 20 of the Human Rights Act.)

Panel at Amnesty International Debate

(The irony didn’t escape me that whilst we were upstairs in the House of Lords discussing the Camden Principles, there was a debate going on in downstairs where members were trying to have caps put on legal fees in defamation  cases.  We may all have rights, but accessing them is often still a privilege limited only to the very, very rich. I digress. )

Meanwhile, back on topic… A major European survey of 23,500 people revealed that around half haven’t experienced any overt racism. The other half, sadly, have, but the majority have no idea what to do about it.

So does political correctness damages its own cause. If we try to silence voices like the BNP, voices like Geert Wilders (the Dutch politician), we cannot have the debate/expose its stupidity. Ignorance causes bigotry, but people will remain ignorant if the debate cannot be held.

Go on! Who didn’t squirm and shy away when ‘immigration’ started to become an election issue (UK) this time round? ‘Bigotgate’ probably earned Mr Brown a couple of votes (as well as losing some),  but imagine if he’d stood and fought his ground rather than crying ‘bigot’ behind someone’s back…

We should be learning to tolerate the existence of alternative views, but, as a society, taking on the challenge (in whatever field: religion, race, politics….) and/or supporting those who do. How can the tensions, for example, between homosexuality and Islam be reconciled? It’s a debate I can’t have – I don’t know enough (yet). But informed debate, calling accurately upon religious texts, can help to diffuse. (Yes, I’ve seen the Eastenders storyline!)

We should preserve the right to offend, dispute, question and debate.

(Personally I would like to see this extended to people who question the scientific wisdom of things as well – from the MMR vaccine to eco-issues, I would like to see the debates held rather than being delivered biased science. Digressing again, Thompson!)

Consider this: the BNP has no official policy of attacking particular groups. Individuals within it, however, have. It is these individuals who should be dealt with, most severely, by the law, whilst the debate should be tackled, head on.  The best remedy for ‘evil’ speech is ‘good’ speech. (It’s not easy, not comfortable, like most ‘doing the right thing’.)

A further thought: rights should belong to believers, not to religions. Blasphemy laws introduced in Ireland have proved unworkable. The Danish cartoons incident has people afraid to express themselves. Perhaps organised religion merits no protection at all?

Maajid Nawaz told an anecdote – an incident where he had written an article which highlighted weaknesses in every organised religion: Christians, Muslims, Jews all came in for a gentle ribbing. The editor came back and queried all statements as offensive or racist except the ones about the atheists.  It is an insight into how those who preach the loudest about tolerance and love  have perhaps forgotten how to do just that, whilst those with no organised religion have become the most tolerant.

In the Camden Principles, Article 19 has attempted to reconcile some fairly hefty issues.  I would like to see this debate extended and built upon. Kudos to them for having kicked off an interesting debate and attempting to reconcile the seemingly inreconcilable.

The missing voices for me, in the context of the UK, were the media (which plays a huge role in passing on information/as an arbiter of what is acceptable) and the rights of individuals.  Because if you allow people to say and print anything, how do you balance that with the right not to have mistruths told (and the financial impossibility of fighting to correct  it for all but the deepest of pockets)?

As they look for a new role in a world where people don’t want to pay for what they can get free on-line, perhaps mediating these debates, in an intelligent and accessible manner could earn more respect for the paid media than the current diet of celebrity, celebrity, celebrity?

Footnote: the panel

Host and Moderator: Lord Lester of Herne Hill, QC

Lord Lester of Herne Hill, QC is a Liberal Democrat peer and a widely acclaimed human rights lawyer in the European human rights system where he has represented individuals and states. He has campaigned for a Bill of Rights and for equality legislation in the United Kingdom for some 30 years. As a barrister, he works from Blackstone Chambers. He was appointed Adjunct Professor of the Faculty of Law at University College Cork (Ireland) in 2005.

Educated at the City of London School, he  studied history and law at Trinity College, Cambridge and Harvard Law School.  In June 2007, Lord Lester was appointed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown as a special advisor on constitutional reform to the Secretary of State for Justice.  He is a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Panellists:

Anastasia Crickley

Anastasia Crickley is a Chair of the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency and a member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.  She is Head of the Department of Applied Social Studies at National University of Ireland Maynooth, and has long been involved in work with Travellers in Ireland through Pavee Point (National Travellers Centre), which she co-founded and chairs, as well as other groups including the National Traveller Women’s Forum.

Anastasia Crickley was Personal Representative of the Chair in Office of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination from 2004-2008.  She is actively involved with Council of Europe and United Nations initiatives in the fields of human rights and discrimination. She holds a Bachelor of Social Science degree from the University College Dublin, a Postgraduate Diploma in Applied Social Studies and Certificate of Qualification in Social Work from the University of Wales and an M.A. in Community Studies from the University of Bradford.

Miklós Haraszti

Miklós Haraszti is a Hungarian writer, journalist, human rights advocate and university professor.  He was appointed the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media effective from 10 March 2004.  Haraszti studied philosophy and literature at Budapest University.  In 1976 he co-founded the Hungarian Democratic Opposition Movement and in 1980 he became editor of the samizdat periodical Beszélő.  In 1989, Haraszti participated in the “roundtable” negotiations on transition to free elections. A member of the Hungarian Parliament from 1990-1994, he then moved on to lecture on democratization and media politics at numerous universities.  Haraszti’s books include “A Worker in a Worker’s State” and “The Velvet Prison”, both of which have been translated into several languages.

Githu Muigai

Githu Muigai is the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.  He is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, practicing law as a senior partner in the firm of Mohamed & Muigai Advocates. In addition to private law practice, he is an Associate Professor of Public Law in the School of Law of the University of Nairobi and a Commissioner with the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission.  He specialises in Public Law, Human Rights and trans-national legal practice.

He holds a Bachelor Degree in Law and was called to the bar in 1985. He also holds a Master’s Degree in International Law from Columbia University School of Law, New York and a PhD in Constitutional Law from the University of Nairobi. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK) and a member of the American Association of Trial Lawyers.

Maajid Nawaz

Maajid Nawaz, Co-Founder and Co-Director of Quilliam and formerly on the UK national leadership for the global Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), was involved in HT for almost 14 years. He was a founding member of HT in Denmark and Pakistan and eventually served four years in an Egyptian prison as an Amnesty International ‘prisoner of conscience’. In prison, Maajid gradually began changing his views until finally renouncing the Islamist Ideology for traditional Islam and inclusive politics. He now engages in counter-Islamist thought-generating, writing, debating and media appearances. He has spoken at various fora internationally ranging from the grassroots at City Circle London, to addressing the US Senate in Washington DC and regularly comments on national and international news and newspapers. Maajid holds a BA (Hons) from SOAS in Arabic and Law and an MSc in Political Theory from the London School of Economics (LSE), with modules in ‘Religion and Politics’ and ‘Conflict, Violence and Terrorism’.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: ,

categories Article19, communications, media | | datetime May 15, 2010 12:44 pm

3 Comments

Other Links to this Post

  1. Tweets that mention Being offensive to improve communication | Waves PR, freelance PR consultant, UK -- Topsy.com — May 15, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

  2. ClaireatWaves (Claire Thompson) — May 17, 2010 @ 8:00 am

  3. The Wilders Round-Up, June 2nd 2010 « Defend Geert Wilders — June 3, 2010 @ 12:10 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Site Map Freelance PR consultancy in the UK by © WavesPR 2010