Freedom of speech by Edward Baker

source: Edward Baker - In Defense of Reason blog - who said:-

Freedom of speech is an important concept. It means that I am free to write pretty much what I want to on here. But it also means that people can write and speak about ideas that I personally find abhorrent. These two views then enable us, and others to discuss what we have said. This is the principal of debate.

If you live in the UK I assume you have already connected this ramble with a certain event at the Oxford Union recently, where Nick Baker of the BNP and holocaust denier David Irving were invited to speak.

I have never been to the Oxford Union, but I imagine that it is a place where the views of these two men, whose thoughts and agendas I don’t agree with, can be challenged in a rigorous and intellectual way. I have no issue with the open discussion of whatever these people believe.

What is abhorrent to me is the protest against these people being allowed to speak. Would they not protest against religious, sexual, racial or any other form of discrimination in a country where this discrimination is the norm? Just because someone has a different view, however much you personally dislike it, does not mean that they do not have the same right to say it as anyone else.

By letting them speak we can find out what they have to say, and then we can make up our own minds. We may agree, or we may decide they are cretins. Freedom of speech then gives us the freedom to say, if we want to, that we totally disagree and give our reasons.

Let’s not be afraid of these people, let’s give them the rope by which they can hang themselves.

Freedom of speech by AC Grayling

reposted from: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ac_grayling/2007/12/freedom_of_speech.html
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

Liberty and the state: An assault on free speech is under way: now is the time to defend it

AC Grayling

• Latest
• Show all

December 13, 2007 3:00 PM

Liberty is not divisible; a society's members do not have it if they have only some of it in some spheres. That is why incremental reductions of aspects of civil liberty regimes are a danger; there quickly comes a point when the claim begins to ring hollow that members of a society have secure margins of freedom in their lives.

The too-true cliché says that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, which is why it is mandatory to resist, and resist vigorously, the early stages of assaults on liberty, not least those made by well-meaning politicians who earnestly, eagerly, sincerely desire to protect us from bad people and from ourselves, for these are the most insidious.

Yet though liberty is indivisible, regimes of liberties have a structure. The keystone of the arch is free speech. Without free speech one cannot claim other liberties, or defend them when they are attacked.

Without free speech one cannot have a democratic process which requires the statement and testing of policy proposals and party platforms. Without free speech one cannot have a due process at law in which one can defend oneself, accuse, collect and examine evidence, make a case or refute one. Without free speech there cannot be genuine education and research, enquiry, debate, exchange of information, challenges to falsehood, questioning of governments, proposal and examination of opinion. Without free speech there cannot be a free press, which although it always abuses its freedoms in the hunt for profit, is necessary with all its warts, as one of the two essential estates of a free society (the other being an independent judiciary). Without free speech there cannot be a flourishing literature and theatre. Without free speech there are limits to innovation and experiment in any walk of life. In short and in sum, without free speech there is no freedom worth the name in other respects where freedom matters.

All this said, it is also true that there have to be limits to free speech at times. But it is absolutely vital that this be understood scrupulously and carefully, given what has just been said. The standard example of a case where limits to free speech are justified is crying "fire!" in a crowded cinema. What is wrong with doing this, obviously, is gratuitously causing harm (to say "gratuitously" or "irresponsibly" in fact adds nothing because there is no such thing as responsibly causing harm, as such; if harm is caused in achieving a greater good, as when one shouts "fire!" in a crowded cinema when there really is a fire, it is the undesired by-product of intending to achieve good). Allowed too wide a reading, the "fire!" example can justify all manner of unjustifiable restrictions on free speech, as have occurred in our country in recent years ("glorification of terrorism", "incitement to religious hatred"). Restrictions on free speech have to be extremely narrow, extremely specific, case by case, one-off, and only very rarely, on the best justification, prior to the speech itself.

Of course, the principle of freedom of speech promiscuously allows bad free speech, ranging from the stupid to the malicious and dangerous. If it is genuinely dangerous to life, as for example in direct incitement to murder, it invites a case-specific limitation. But generally the remedy for bad free speech is better free speech in response. In the case of libel and slander there is, as an instance of this, the post facto remedy of the courts. True, malicious mud-slinging is damaging even if a libel action is won, but free speech does not come free, and in a mature society we have to recognise that benefits carry costs, and this is one of them.

So vital is free speech to the health and liberty of a society that the plea of "feeling offended" by what people say about one's choices and beliefs is not and can never be a reason for limiting free speech.

Taking offence, followed by infantile demonstrations and infinitely more offensive threats of mayhem and death, has become a stock-in-trade of Muslim activists. This is unacceptable anywhere, but in western liberal democracies especially so, for it strikes at the heart of what makes them both liberal and democracies.

Censorship by coercion and special pleading is as big a threat to liberty in the west today as the actions by our own governments in diminishing our freedoms in the supposed interests of security.

All who choose to come to live in a western liberal democracy should be told that discrimination or insult directed at their age, ethnicity, disability if they have one, and sexuality - the things they cannot choose but to have or be - will not be tolerated; but their opinions and beliefs, the matters over which they have choice, are open season for cartoonists, satirists, and all those who disagree: and they must like it or lump it, or if they are too immature or insecure, or both, to do neither, they are free to leave.

All the above is directed mainly at the restrictions imposed on freedom of speech by our own government in the last few years, in security measures and anti-terrorism laws. That stupid and disgusting girl misnamed the "lyrical terrorist" is an unfortunate example of the wrong-headedness of restrictions on speech; how it sticks in the craw to defend someone who glorifies murderers in a "poem", and yet consistency and principle demands it.

How far we have come from a time, worse in many ways than our own, when one of our judges could resoundingly say, as the 18th-century Lord Mansfield did, "so long as an act remains in bare intention alone it is not punishable by our law". That has changed, for example with conspiracy and allied laws (some introduced in another period of panic, the late 18th and early 19th century scare caused by the French revolution), and now with the proscription of "glorification" of such inglorious things as terrorism; and

our government has even sought to criminalise criticism of religion. The assault on free speech is well under way: it is the time for defence of it to get well under way too.

For more blogs in the Liberty and the state series, click here.

URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I, Chris Street, have made a small one off donation today towards Ayaan Hirsi Ali's protection fund.

Read the abstract & comments at RichardDawkins; the background articles by Christoper Caldwell and Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris & Salman Rushdie.

"There is no one in a better position to remind us that tolerance of intolerance is cowardice." by Sam Harris & Salman Rushdie.

"There is not a person alive more deserving of the freedoms of speech and conscience we take for granted in the West, nor is there anyone making a more courageous effort to defend them." by Sam Harris & Salman Rushdie.

reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1891,URGENT-APPEAL-Please-Help-Protect-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali,Sam-Harris,page1#88743

Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

by Sam Harris

See:
http://www.samharris.org/site/security_trust/

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the most prominent advocate of free speech and women's rights in the Muslim world, and for this she must live under perpetual armed guard, even in the West. Unfortunately, on October 1st of this year, the Dutch government officially rescinded its promise to protect her. Now, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's friends, colleagues and admirers must come to her aid.

I have created a page on my website that links directly to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust. The money raised by this trust will pay Ayaan Hirsi Ali's security expenses. In the event that money remains after these costs have been met, it will be used to encourage and protect other dissidents in the Muslim world.

The ongoing protection of Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a moral obligation. It is also a strategic one: for here is a woman doing work that most of us cannot do--indeed, would be terrified to do if given the chance--and yet this work is essential for preserving the freedoms we take for granted in the West.

If every reader of this email simply pledged ten dollars a month to protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the costs of her security would be covered for as long as the threat to her life remains.

Thanks in advance for your support.

Sincerely,

Sam Harris

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
In 2005, TIME included Ayaan Hirsi Ali in its list of the World's 100 Most Influential People. If you would like to know more about her, please read Christopher Caldwell's fine profile in the New York Times Magazine. You can also read the essay that Salman Rushdie and I recently published in the Los Angeles Times, or the one that Christopher Hitchens wrote for Slate.

Council of Europe backs the Secular State

Council of Europe backs the Secular State

Following discussions in which IHEU
representatives played an important role,

the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (wiki)
has strongly supported the separation of religion
and state

1. In a wide-ranging formal
Recommendation, the Assembly insisted that

religious leaders must acknowledge the precedence
of human rights over any religious principle and
called for Humanist leaders to be included in political
consultations with religious representatives.

In a second landmark Recommendation on Blasphemy,
religious insults and hate speech, the Council firmly concludes

that blasphemy, as an insult to a religion, should not be deemed
a criminal offence.

The full text of both recommendations can be found on the
IHEU website.2
State, religion, secularity and human rights
Highlights of recommendation 1804:
“The Assembly reaffirms that

one of Europe’s shared
values, transcending national differences, is the
separation of church and state.

In Recommendation
1720 (2005) on education and religion, the Assembly
noted that

“each person’s religion, including the option
of having no religion, is a strictly personal matter”.

“Over the last twenty years, religious worship has
declined markedly in Europe. Fewer than one European
in five attends a religious service at least once a week,
whereas twenty years ago the figure was more than twice
that.

At the same time, we are witnessing the growing
strength of the Muslim communities in virtually all the
Council of Europe member states.

“What is undeniable, is that religion has, in recent
years, again become a central issue of debate in our
societies. Roman Catholics, members of the Orthodox
Church, Evangeli[cals] and Muslims seem to be the most
active here.

“A knowledge of religions is an integral part of
knowledge of human history and civilisations. It is
different from belief in, and worship of, a particular
religion. Even countries where one religion prevails have
a duty to teach the origins of all religions.

“Various situations coexist in Europe. In some
countries, one religion still predominates. The legislation
of several Council of Europe member states still contains
anachronisms dating from times when religion played a
more important part in our societies.

“Freedom of religion is protected by Article 9 of the
European Convention on Human Rights and Article 18
of the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights.

Such freedom is not unlimited,
however: a religion whose doctrine or
practice ran counter to other fundamental
rights would be unacceptable. Nor may
states allow the dissemination of religious
principles which, if put into practice, would
violate human rights.

If doubts exist in this
respect, states must require religious
leaders to take an unambiguous stand in
favour of the precedence of human rights,
as set forth in the European Convention on
Human Rights, over any religious
principle.

“Freedom of expression is one of the most important
human rights. The recommendation reaffirms that
‘Freedom of expression … should not be further
restricted to meet increasing sensitivities of certain
religious groups’.

“While we have an acknowledged duty to respect
others and must discourage gratuitous insults, freedom
of expression cannot, needless to say, be restricted out of
deference to certain dogmas or the beliefs of a particular
religious community.

“The Assembly therefore recommends that the
Committee of Ministers (inter alia) reaffirm the principle
of the independence of politics and law from religion;
continue to give thought to the religious dimension of
intercultural dialogue, particularly by organising
meetings with religious leaders and representatives of
humanist and philosophical circles; and exclude from
the consultation any grouping that does not clearly
support the Council of Europe’s fundamental values,
namely human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
Blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against
persons on grounds of their religion
Highlights of Recommendation 1805
“The Parliamentary Assembly reiterates its commitment
to the freedom of expression and the freedom of
thought, conscience and religion which are fundamental
cornerstones of democracy.

Freedom of expression is not
only applicable to expressions that are favourably
received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that
may shock, offend or disturb

[…]

Any democratic society
must permit open debate on matters relating to religion
and beliefs.

“The Assembly acknowledges the importance of
respect for, and understanding of, cultural and religious
diversity in Europe and throughout the world and
recognises the need for ongoing dialogue. Respect and
understanding can help avoid frictions within society and
between individuals.

Every human being should be
respected, independently of religious beliefs.

“In multicultural societies it is often necessary to
reconcile freedom of expression and
freedom of thought, conscience and
religion. In some instances, it may also be
necessary to place restrictions on these
freedoms.

Under the European Convention
on Human Rights, any such restrictions
must be prescribed by law, necessary in a
democratic society and proportionate to the
aims pursued. In so doing, States enjoy a
margin of appreciation as national
authorities may need to adopt different
solutions taking account of the specific
features of each society; the use of this margin is subject
to the supervision of the European Court of Human
Rights.

“With regard to blasphemy, religious insults and hate
speech against persons on the grounds of their
religion… the Assembly considers that blasphemy, as an
insult to a religion, should not be deemed a criminal
offence.

Even though today prosecutions in this respect
are rare in member states, they are legion in other
countries of the world.
“The Assembly agrees with the preliminary report
adopted on 16-17 March 2007 by the Venice
Commission that

in a democratic society, religious
groups must tolerate, as must other groups, critical
public statements and debate about their activities,
teachings and beliefs, provided that such criticism does
not amount to intentional and gratuitous insult or hate
speech and does not constitute incitement to disturb the
public peace or to violence and discrimination against
adherents of a particular religion.

“… the Assembly

emphasises the need for greater
understanding and tolerance among individuals of
different religions. Where people with different religions
know more about the religion and religious sensitivities
of each other, religious insults are less likely to occur out
of ignorance.

In this context, the Assembly welcomes the
initiative of the United Nations to set up a new body
under the theme “Alliance of Civilisations” to study and
support contacts between Muslim and so-called Western
societies, but feels that such an initiative should be
enlarged to other religions and non-religious groups.
“The Assembly stresses that …

any restrictions on the
freedom of expression must comply with the case-law of
the European Court of Human Rights. Freedom of
expression – guaranteed under Article 10 of the
European Convention on Human Rights – is of vital
importance for any democratic society.

“The Assembly is aware that,

in the past, national law
and practice concerning blasphemy and other religious
offences often reflected the dominant position of
particular religions in individual states. In view of the
greater diversity of religious beliefs in Europe and the
democratic principle of the separation of state and
religion, blasphemy laws should be reviewed by member
states and parliaments.

“The Assembly notes that under the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, signatory parties are

obliged to condemn discrimination and
take effective measures against it. All
member states … must ensure that
members of a particular religion are
neither privileged nor disadvantaged under
blasphemy laws and related offences.

“National law should penalise statements
that call for a person or a group of persons
to be subjected to hatred, discrimination or
violence on grounds of their religion.

13. The Assembly emphasises that
freedom of religion as protected by Article
9 of the European Convention on Human Rights also
protects religions in their establishing values for their
followers.

While religions are free to penalise in a
religious sense any religious offences, such penalties
must not threaten the life, physical integrity, liberty or
property of an individual or women’s civil and human
rights.

In this context, the Assembly

recalls its Resolution
1535 (2007) on threats to the lives and freedom of
expression of journalists and strongly condemns the
death threats issued by Muslim leaders against
journalists and writers. Member states have the
obligation to protect individuals against religious
penalties which threaten the right to life and the right to
liberty and security of a person…

No state has the right
to impose itself such penalties for religious offences,
either.
“The Assembly considers that ...

national law should
only penalise expressions about religious matters which
intentionally and severely disturb public order and call
for public violence.

It calls on national parliaments to
initiate legislative action and scrutiny regarding the
national implementation of this Recommendation.
“The Assembly recommends that the Committee of
Ministers to (inter alia) ensure that national law and
practice:

permit open debate on matters relating to
religion and beliefs and do not privilege a particular
religion in this respect; penalise statements that call for a
person or a group of persons to be subjected to hatred,
discrimination or violence on grounds of their religion as
on any other grounds; prohibit acts which intentionally
and severely disturb the public order and call for public
violence by references to religious matters, as far as it is
necessary in a democratic society

in accordance with
Article 10, paragraph 2 of the European Convention on
Human Rights; and are reviewed in order to
decriminalise blasphemy as an insult to a religion;
“The Assembly also recommends that the Committee
of Ministers initiate … work at the level of the United
Nations in order to ensure that:

• national law and practice … do not privilege persons
with a particular religion;
• the work of the Alliance of Civilizations avoids the
stereotype of a so-called “Western” culture, widens its
scope to other world religions and promotes more
open debates between different religious groups and
with non-religious groups;

The Assembly also

asks the Committee of Ministers to
condemn on behalf of their governments
any death threats and incitements to
violence by religious leaders and groups
issued against persons for having
exercised their right to freedom of
expression about religious matters”.

1 Texts adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly on 29 June 2007 (27th Sitting).
2 http://www.iheu.org/node/2750

We must be free to criticise without being called racist

Liberals appease Muslims for fear of association with anti-immigrant thugs.

Polly Toynbee
Wednesday August 18, 2004
reposted from The Guardian


What is the rationalist to do? Atheists, feminists and anti-racists are paralysed by Islam. Whichever way they turn, they find themselves at risk of alliances with undesirables of every nasty hue.

Last month, the website of an organisation called the Islamic Human Rights Commission made me the "winner" of their "Most Islamophobic media personality" award. It has caused me a bombardment of emails of both extreme pro- and anti-Islamic poison, each one more luridly threatening than the last. The occasional note of reason from moderate Islamic groups is so weak it hardly makes itself heard. I had challenged the legitimacy of the idea of Islamophobia and warned of the danger to free speech of trying to make criticism of a religion a crime akin to racism. I pointed out yet again that theocracy is lethal. Wherever religion controls politics it drives out tolerance and basic human rights. The history of Christianity has been the perfect exemplar, a force for repression whenever it holds any political sway. It only turns peace-loving when it is powerless.

People led by some unalterable revealed voice of God cannot be tolerant of the godless. At present it is Islamic states that head the danger list - though the dread power of southern Baptists in US politics endangers world peace, as do extreme Jewish sects holding power in Israel. Women are always the main victims, since extreme religions express their identities through male priestly supremacy and disgust of women.

To give a flavour of the Islamic Human Rights Commission awards, Nick Griffin of the BNP won the most Islamophobic British politician award, Jacques Chirac and Ariel Sharon shared the international Islamophobic politician award and Islamophobe of the year was George Bush. That's the company I found myself in.

When Griffin was interviewed on Newsnight after he was filmed saying disgusting things about Muslims, bizarrely accusing Islam of encouraging the rape of non-Muslim girls, he quoted my name in general support. So these days criticising any aspect of Islam risks landing you down among the worst racists.

Other voices claim you for their cause. There is a particularly virulent swirl of extreme Hindu emails spreading fear and loathing of Muslims. But it's not all one-sided. A dangerous stream of Muslim anti-semitic venom also billows out on to the airways, inciting maximum hatred against Jews and sometimes Christians.

The government wants to make incitement to religious hatred a crime, caving in to a vociferous Muslim campaign, although it is unlikely to make a spit of difference to these rabid religious enmities. (If the government really wants to foster religious harmony, it should abolish all religious schools, not build more.) To reassure outraged rationalists, ministers say that only a couple of people a year are expected to be prosecuted under it. So, why bother? That will inflame the religious even more as they refer case after case, expecting the law to protect their right not to be offended by mockery or criticism. They want religion placed in a realm beyond ordinary argument - and it is beginning to happen.

Fear of offending the religious is gathering ground on all sides. It is getting harder to argue against the hijab and the Koran's edict that a woman's place is one step behind. It is beginning to be racist for teachers or social workers to object to autocratic patriarchy and submission of women within many Muslim communities. Islamic ideas that find the very notion of democracy incompatible with faith are beginning to be taken seriously by those who should defend liberal democracy.

Of course most Muslims are not extremists. They speak of the peacefulness of their faith - as most religious people do. But they still too rarely speak out against terror when they should be combating their own extremists and being seen to do it. Moderate groups protest often against arrests of Muslim terror suspects, while the Muslim Council of Britain has sent out just one tepid call to mosques to cooperate with the police. Moderates excuse, rather than refute, the many ferocious verses calling for the blood of infidels in their holy book, verses that justify terror. Both the Koran and the Bible ought to be banned under the new law, since both are full of God's incitements to smite unbelievers.

It is bizarre how the left has espoused the extreme Islamist cause: as "my enemy's enemy", Muslims are the best America-haters around. The hard left relishes terrorism: a fondness for explosions and the smell of martyrs' blood excites their revolutionary zeal, without sharing a jot of religious belief.

More alarming is the softening of the brain of liberals and progressives. They increasingly find it easier to go with the flow that wants to mollify Muslim sentiment, for fear of joining the anti-immigration thugs who want to drive them from the land.

The liberal dilemma over Islam is not unlike the prevarications of some over communism in the cold war. To attack the atrocities of the reds put you in bed with the anti-socialist Thatcher/Reagan red-baiters. What would George Orwell write about Islam now? He would probably ignore what others said about the company he kept, shrug off those claiming him for their own ends and plough his own furrow, speaking out against both the danger of religious fanaticism and the Muslim-hating racists - the polite ones in Times immigration panic articles or those with steel-toed boots on the streets of northern towns.

There is a coherent non-Islamophobic position and Turkey holds the key. Here is a democratic Islamic society, where the radical secularising reforms of Kemal Ataturk make it a model for states needing to escape a theocratic past. It is progressing fast to meet human rights and economic criteria for joining the EU and should be welcomed with open arms, as a symbolic embrace for moderate secular Islam. Giscard d'Estaing's claim that the EU is "Christendom" was sheer racism, the same deranged clash-of-civilisations thinking that led to the disastrous Iraq war.

Expecting a terrorist attack on Britain soon, this week the Muslim Council of Britain and chief police officers are preparing a booklet for Muslim households, warning them to prepare for a backlash. If these grim events happen, it will be more important than ever to keep a rational perspective on both the Muslim community and its back-lashers. Fellow-travelling with terrorism, either within the Muslim community, or by the left and woolly minded progressives, will not serve.

It will be more important than ever to stand like Voltaire, ready to defend Muslims, their right to be here and to practise their beliefs against the growing swamped-by-aliens talk that Anas Altikriti warned against on these pages last week. But if he wants to stop the right "smearing and demonising" Islam, it would be wise to be more outspoken against its deformed branch that fosters terror. Muslims must also accept the right of others to criticise religions without smearing any critic as a racist.

polly.toynbee@guardian.co.uk