Free Speech – The Cost Of Talking

2011 Protests in London, UK

Image Copyright (c) Garry Knight

Home Secretary Theresa May is under pressure this week to stop a protest in London by a far-right group. No, not the English Defence League or even the British National Party, but Jobbik.

The Hungarian political party, described by some as the most powerful fascist group in Europe, is set to hold the march in April and it is believed it will also be attended by members of the Greek Golden Dawn movement and the British National Party.

Objection to the demonstration is understandable, particularly when you consider Jobbik’s foreign affairs spokesman called for a tally of the number of Jews in the Hungary on the grounds of national security, while one of the party’s MEPs was suspended after it was found he was of Jewish origin.

However, this protest is not about immigration, Islam or Judaism, but about democracy.

It was triggered when the Hungarian government decided to deny its overseas citizens postal votes.

This leads to an interesting question about the cost of free speech.

While many people find Jobbik’s particular brand of politics rather distasteful, the denial of a democratic vote is just as, or even more, disturbing.

Western governments, for want of a better collective term, praised the protesters during the Arab Spring for demanding democracy in countries long-troubled by military juntas and inherited dictatorships.

So surely, regardless of the organising party’s beliefs, we should be encouraging a group intent on delivering fair voting in a country with a history of authoritarian government?

Regulation of free speech is always a tricky issue.

Being able to say what you believe is a central pillar of a civilised, democratic society, but there will always be people who have opinions objectionable to the majority.

The BNP is a classic example of this.

There were significant objections to the appearance of party leader Nick Griffin on BBCs Question Time in 2009.

However, the protestor’s standpoint on Mr Griffin was in fact the beneficiary of his appearance, after his views were systematically taken apart by the shows panel and audience.

There is of course the fear the Jobbik march will in fact become a political rally, an attempt to garner votes in the upcoming elections, but it is hard to criticise them for this when the peoples power as voters is being denied.

So where exactly do you draw the line here.

It is hard to imagine there would be calls to ban this protest if it was being organised by a moderate Hungarian party, but just because it is an extremist group it suddenly does not matter they are standing up for democracy.

This is, unfortunately, one of those lose-lose situations where by banning the protest you oppose free and fair democracy, but if you support it you run the risk of unwittingly backing an extremist party.

Another similar issue which has arisen is the request of Chief Constables to use water cannon as Police fear an increase in street protests relating to austerity measures.

While nobody wants to see violent protests, or worse still rioting, it is still a basic right of people in a free society to protest about things they do not like.

Just because the government at the time does not agree with them should in these situations count for nothing, including suppressing protests with the use of kettling and water cannon.

The major issue here is if you support free speech, as all rational people do, you have to support it for everyone, not just the people who agree with you.

Any deviation from this results in the exact opposite of what freedom of speech is about.

Negotiating these problems is the ultimate political tight-rope-walk. On one side is the majority of normal, moderate people who understandably do not want extremist minority views voiced and on the other the extremists who have just as much right as everyone else to hold and express their opinions.

This problem is best demonstrated with the calls to ban the Jobbik march. Yes, many view them as fascists, but they are protesting about the suppression of basic democratic principles.

In the end this comes down to the famous Evelyn Beatrice-Hall quote.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”