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”

The Balance Between Security And Protest

Security around world leaders has always been a major issue and in the age of global terrorism it is even more important.

America claims the Secret Service who protect the President are the best trained armed guards in the world.

Hardly surprising when you consider there have been assassination attempts, of varying degrees of success and common sense, on every president since Richard Nixon.

So it must have come as a shock to a major European nation when its Prime Minister was hospitalised after being struck by a model of a cathedral.

Silvio Berlusconi is far from popular in Italy and has been the butt of more than the occasional joke abroad.

But when you resort to propelling tourist souvenirs do you not relinquish the high ground?

At both the G20 in London and in Copenhagen there were reports of vandalism by young people dressed in black wearing gas masks.

Anyone who was in London in April this year will tell you of the stark contrast between those there trying to make a genuine point and those clearly there to make trouble.

Of cause these are not the only events this year which have got us thinking about what means we use to attain our ends.

When two British soldiers were killed outside Massareene barracks in Northern Ireland in March it did more to cement anti-nationalist sentiment than the Good Friday Agreement.

The people of Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic, united for the first time in nearly a century determined not to go back to the days of road blocks, peace walls and car bombs.

But what about world leaders?

Recently at a state dinner in honour of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the White House two people gatecrashed, and despite not even being invited met President Obama.

When Obama was running for President there were fears he would become a target for assassination attempts from white supremacists.

In fact a plot to kill him at the Democratic National Convention in Denver was foiled before he even accepted the nomination.

This in turn has let him open to political satirists.
One comedian pointed out one of the reasons people were so behind a black president is because you knew someone would try and kill him.

Then of cause there is the now legendary joke of the problems the Secret Service were having protecting Obama because every time they shouted ‘get down’ he started dancing.

Of cause the gatecrashers, like the man who dressed up as bin Laden for Prince William’s 21st birthday, meant no harm, and it seems in most cases the attacker was mentally unstable.

The man who threw the porcelain model at Berlusconi had apparently suffered from a mental unbalance, and Chester Plummer attempted to kill President Ford by walking across the White House lawn and hitting him with a three foot length of metal piping is clearly lacking some creative cunning.

And now allegedly mentally unbalanced women are jumping the barriers at midnight mass to attack the Holy Father. Admittedly the Pope wields less power than in the days of Machiavelli but several of the substantial security presence looked stunned and casually made their way back to attend to this global religious figurehead.

It is true the public need to be given their chance to voice personal displeasures with our leaders. But surely in this era of global threats and Patriot Actesque laws this should not be happening, and why do we still so often resort to violence.

Maybe this is the time which will produce the next Dr King or Ghandi?