Free Speech and Intolerance
Background
I came of age politically in the exotic world of regional and national
politics, smoke filled committee rooms, Guinness and policy amendments.
Young socialists spending endless hours arguing out everything from
the meaning of life to feminism, urban renewal, Monty
Pythons flying circus, sales of arms to despotic dictatorships,
and the threats of imperialism and trans-national capitalism. We
argued like hell, with little experience of the world, but with
passion and conviction, as if we could really could transport all
the ills of the world to our little provincial group, fix them and
then send them happily on their way. We encompassed many diverse
opinions. However, one thing that we all seemed to agree on was
that socialism itself was an inevitability - the inevitable result
of the natural evolution of democracy and the progress of a civil
society.
In these early days I used to arrange debates with other local
political groups: the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Communists.
We wanted to test our debating skills and also to compare approaches.
Rather surprisingly we could agree that the goals of socialism were
respectable and to varying degrees, even inevitable. Of course,
the Communists wanted it all, and more, and now! The Conservatives
stated that socialism was in their view just a modernized version
of the teachings of Jesus, that revolution was not really a British
cultural thing and that gradual evolution was the best way forward.
The Liberals also agreed, because socialism was after all really
just a collection of good ideas we had stolen from them. The Socialists
took the middle ground, between the Communists and Conservatives,
not so much in terms of policy but in terms of the time-line for
progress and the aesthetics of change. Another thing that was generally
agreed on was the enormous distaste for anything that remotely resembled
fascism. Indeed, the very idea of debating anything with fascists
was anathema.
All this I recall because I was recently prompted to ask myself
why I would not engage certain people in debate. Was it because
of dogma? Was it to avoid confrontation? Were there rational reasons
for taking this position? How did I arrive at this conclusion?
Sometimes its not so easy to exteriorise the origins of long-held
positions, but I gave it a shot.
Expression
Occasionally, some Americans find some European approaches to freedom
of expression to be confusing. The United States of America
has been widely admired and occasionally admonished for its
past approaches to freedom of expression and its notions of democracy.
At the same time, the American view of freedoms of expression
in western Europe is frequently a mix of criticism of what is seen
as the relative narrowness of the criteria of freedom of political
expression, and open contempt amongst people prominent in US cultural,
political and religious life of what they perceive as Europes
free and easy permissiveness with certain subject matters. Another
thing that cannot be readily understood when viewed from the US
perspective is a tendency, in least in western Europe, to isolate
and marginalize extreme right-wing political tendencies and groups.
Different Lenses
Part of the problems with perception are derived from what the
political terms mean and how they are used. In modern times, national
elections in Europe usually result in socially aware and democratically
committed centrist-conservative governments. In western Europes
recent history, there has been a tendency to elect to government
those parties that are traditionally termed conservative, liberal
or socialist. However, governments formed by conservative majorities
are nearly always led from the centre or left wing of those parties,
whilst governments formed by socialist majorities tend to be lead
by leaders who come from the right wing of those parties, very infrequently
from the centre of those parties and almost never from the left
wing. Which means that a conservative government in Europe typically
looks like a government that would be formed by the right wing of
the Democratic party in the US, and a government in Europe that
carries the socialist label would typically be lead by leaders who
would feel at home to the left or at the centre of that very same
Democratic party.
No Room at The Democracy Inn
In the public perceived acceptable forms for European governance
there is characteristically no room made for extreme-right wing
ideology, and very little room for socialist ideology, other than
in the exceptional cases in which certain socialist and liberal
influences are seen in policies such as: universal health care:
national public education; universal social security; workers rights
and the ownership of certain utilities. Indeed, these policies are
also supported, to some degree or another, by most mainstream European
conservatives, and conservative leaders have also made key contributions
to the architecture of socially oriented programs, such as Universal
Health Care.
In general Europe does not see fascism and socialism as being two
faces of the same coin. Rather, socialism is frequently seen as
utopian, idealistic and hugely impractical, in this way, it is respected
but not accepted. In contrast, fascism is seen not so much as a
respectable political option but as a social disease, an extreme
and irrational reactionary force that feeds off alienation, fear
and ignorance. Whereas socialism is seen as being all inclusive
and plural, fascism is seen as destructive, alienating, exclusive
and discriminating.
Engaging The Extreme Right
As I have stated on numerous occasions, I would not engage the
extreme right-wing in any form of debate, in any forum and under
any circumstance. Over time, I have been asked why I would not engage
such people in debate. The assumption being that debate with people
with reprehensible opinions would lead to a better understanding
of their positions, and provide greater ammunition to go about defeating
their arguments.
My own reasons for not engaging with the extreme-right in debate
are:
- Time and Place Utility: Convinced fascists are a lost cause,
no amount of reasoned debate will change their perspectives
in any forum, at any time. Simply stated, there is no value to
democracy, to the civil society, or even to oneself, in debating
with fascists.
- Legitimacy: Engaging in political debate with fascists (extreme
right-wingers) might be perceived as lending a certain legitimacy
to their perverse ideas ideas that are more an external
manifestation of a social disease rather than any reasoned political
thought. Indeed, any legitimisation of fascism is an insult to
the many of the victims of fascism and its variants.
In this condemnation we can also include the victims of Stalinism,
aesthetically a kindred spirit of European fascism.
- Awareness: The driving forces behind fascism are already well
known, if not constantly expounded at every level of society.
- Protection: Fascism is the biggest threat to the civil society
and its institutions
Fascism and Europe
Fascism is not generally viewed as a legitimate political position,
indeed there is also a thought amongst liberals in Europe that the
only thing one should be intolerant of is intolerance itself. The
idea that we can all just get along is not something that Europe
can swallow. This isnt a selective discrimination that has
just been taken from the air, from ignorance and prejudice, its
to be found in the embodiment of reasoned morality in the very structure
and processes of the civil society.
The alienation of fascism in Europe really has it's roots in the
notion that society has a tendency towards self destruction, and
that this would be it's highest expression, so in order to protect
that very society that we aspire to, it is necessary to marginalize
the biggest potential for its destruction. I remember, that, for
example, that the Anti-Nazi League in the UK addresses the spread
of racism and fascism by addressing the issues, but not by engaging
in direct dialogue with the racists or fascists
Europeans do not generally think of democracy as just a effortless
procedural norm but as an historical conquest, which
is an understanding that it is impossible for us to be democratic
without being at the same time anti-fascist. A democracy that is
not at the same time anti-fascist is impossible to contemplate in
a Europe well acquainted with the horrendous results of Hitler,
Mussolini and Franco. These are our hard-learned lessons, the lessons
that we should never forget.
Conclusions
Modern history has taught us that one cannot expect to go through
life and retain exactly the same viewpoints and arguments come hell
or high water, but logic and heuristics also speak to us regarding
the abandonment of well reasoned and morally respectable goals,
simply on the mistaken basis that they are no longer relevant or
are now outdated. This is at best, an exercise in liberal flexibility
and intellectual sloppiness, a carelessness beyond the call of duty,
a form of woolly thinking that leads to Tony Blairs support
for the war-mongering George Bush, and for new Europes occasionally
sycophantic behaviour.
Therefore, in my opinion, we dont need to engage and debate
with extreme right-wingers and fascists to know what they are about.
We dont need to engage the KKK to know that racism is vile.
We dont need to discuss anything with nazi-revisionists to
know that the Holocaust was a horrendous criminal act. We dont
need to engage psychopaths in dialogue to know they are potentially
dangerous. We dont have to engage in debate with abusers of
children or women to understand the issues or to know what is seriously
wrong with it. We dont need to engage the war-mongers and
those who lust for blood to know that the only justification for
war is defence. We dont need to crawl into the sewers to know
that crap smells. And, we cannot realistically expect to be considered
both as credible defenders of democracy and civil society and at
the same time play footsy with the extreme right-wing.
At the end of the day we must be morally coherent and cohesive,
and protect democracy and the civil society, even if this means
sending the far-right and the fascists to hell in a handcart.
© Copyright 2004 Martyn Richard Jones
All Rights Reserved
Bibliography
Reader Response
Mail to Alllie
|