[Previous entry: ""] [Main Index] [Next entry: ""]
02/05/2006: ""
What a wonderful week for the BNP. Griffin is acquitted of race hate charges - and more importantly, gets hours of free media time to spout his crap. The religious hatred legislation is defeated (though actually, I'm not too sure whether that would have been more of a help than a hindrance to a party whose message relies on a popular perception of a society that censors assymetrically). Best of all, the 'Muslim world' 'erupts in flames' over a few stupid cartoons.
Now first things first: I very much doubt that anything more than a few, tiny corners of the 'Muslim world' did much more than express their disapproval in a sane, proportionate manner. BBC Online's underwhelming report of 'Hundreds of people rally[ing] in Afghanistan in protest at the cartoons' hardly conjures up images of he mass rallies seen during the madder moments of Khomenei's reign. Dear me, I've seen 'hundreds of people' protesting outside Scottish football matches after embarassing cup exits (ahem).
That aside, though, who emerges worst from this whole debacle? A right-wing Danish newspaper which commissions and publishes these cartoons in what looks increasingly like a blatant act of anti-Muslim (if not outright racist) provocation? The intolerant fanatics in London and elsewhere who actually believe a cartoon - however offensive - provides justification for murder threats and setting occupied buildings aflame? The pseudo-socialists of the SWP who screech 'racist' at everyone who disagrees with their take on this? (Check out Chabert on the Lenin's Tomb comments exchange.)
Let me, perhaps, surprise you. The most shameful character was most certainly not this guy. Yes, he played right into the hands of those who want to stereotype Muslims as bombers. And yes, in the present climate, he risked a bullet (or seven) in the head. But it's his head, after all, and his life; there are worse things in the world than risking one's own life for one's beliefs. While his method of protest was crass & arguably irresponsible, Khayam's statement in doing so was a valid one: 'if you want unlimited free speech, this (the statement, not actual bombing) is what that means.'
And in that, he's right. That is what unlimited free speech means, and those of us who support that (as an aspiration, not by any means a description of the status quo) must accept that some demonstrations of it will make us angry, disgusted or sometimes maybe even fearful.
Needless to say, I don't have a problem with the
Federation of Student Islamic Societies, with Islamic Forum Europe, or any of the other Muslim groups or individuals who have received negligible media attention for making reasoned, lucid appeals to newspaper owners & editors to refrain from reprinting the images, while expressing their respect for those who did in fact refrain. They haven't even, as far as I can tell, called for government action to ban the images, just restraint on the part of the media. Who could find the slightest fault with that? (Apart from those who really want to.)
The Muslim Council of Britain have done well to distance itself from the truly mad protesters, and the manner in which its members have conducted their own campaign has been calm and undignified. But I have a greater problem with what they seem to be asking for. The Council's press release of 3rd February said this:
'The MCB acknowledges the fundamental right of peoples of all faiths to freedom of speech and expression. This does not mean however that they should be free to create social unrest and instability.'
In claiming that they should not be 'free' to do so, they are , I think, taking a step further than those claiming that they should exercise restraint, and this is where they and I would part company. Galloway's bunch, however, have been even less equivocal, supporting the move to hand stronger censoring powers to Blair and Clark via the Religious Hatred Bill.
Aside from the fact that I regard the free exchange of ideas as pretty close to intrinsically valuable, we have the practical concerns that arise every time a government claims for itself the power to decide who should be allowed to say what, and who should hear them. Since 2001, we have had ample demonstration of how our government uses the power to silence. I'm fairly sure I don't trust any government anywhere to decide which political views I should be allowed to express or be exposed to. I certainly don't trust this one.
Replies: 6 Comments
Well, Ronald Dworkin remains an advocate of free speech as a fundamental requirement of democratic government!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1709372,00.html
Arkady's granny said @ 02/14/2006 12:55 PM GMT
Its still actually a simple thing. People like to overcomplicate to make themselves seem more important really. At the end of the day why should Muslims CARE if Danish people are chuckling (or in my case boggling, those cartoons were POOR) over some crappy cartoons. I would have thought they had far more pressing concerns wrt local corruption, oppression, civil liberties, women's rights, gay rights (I daren't say lesbian rights because good god, they would hunt me and my descendants down for 20 generations) and a lot of things that we in the west have concerns over. Viz poverty, globalisation, opportunity and more.
If you let your voice of protest be confined to a single NON-ISSUE then you effectively destroy any chance you have of effecting necessay change. Do a google on how much the average North African felaheen survives on per annum and then come back and try and argue some snotty Danish cartoons with me.
FFS.
Lusiphur said @ 02/15/2006 07:38 PM GMT
I have no particular problem with unlimited free speech, so long as the speaker doesn't mind if I respond in kind, but I am puzzled by those who want unfettered discussion but say that this cannot, of course, be permitted if it will offend. Some of us have lower offence thresholds than others and I am not clear how such a tension could be resolved.
For example, only yesterday a discussion erupted at work after one of the women here exercised her right of free speech in respect of a dress worn by another. The Muslim protests were relatively restrained by contrast to the reaction. If free speech is going to extend that far, the world will be a stormier place.
Graham Brack said @ 02/18/2006 03:28 PM GMT
Graham! Good to hear from you - & frankly astonishing to learn that you're still checking up on my infrequent & often ill-considered ramblings. How are things in the Cornish Republic?
'I have no particular problem with unlimited free speech'
I've reluctantly come to the view that there can probably be no such thing, at least at the margins.
If I'm giving a class on some controversial topic, & that class is hijacked by noisy protesters, or (infinitely more likely) just disrupted by restless, chattering students, it seems that a clash of 'free speeches' is inevitable. Is it legitimate to silence the hecklers in order that I get to finish my lecture? Only if they get a similar amount of time for their views? If the lecturer is Alasdair, that could take years.
;-)
There was a discussion on Radio 4 this morning about Intelligent Design in US schools. Interestingly, the neo-Creationists are now employing libertarian arguments to bolster their case to get ID taught alongside evolution - an interesting line for the descendants of William Jennings Bryan! But does 'free speech' guarantee them access to biology classes? Even if their views fail the generally accepted tests for a 'scientific' theory?
And what about the 'free speech' to threaten the life of someone who wants to exercise his free speech? If I threaten to kill anyone who breathes a word about how drunk I got at the last 2002 Residential Weekend, have I limited their free speech? To an extent that justifies limiting my freedom to repeat the threat?
The freedom to rant on a street corner can probably be defended to the nth degree without greatly interfering with anyone else's free speech rights, but other cases are a bit trickier I fear. Still, I agree that the principle is one worth defending. All rights can pose difficulties at the margins: the right to life isn't normally taken to preclude killing in self-defence, but it isn't rendered redundant as a consequence.
CJG said @ 02/20/2006 12:21 PM GMT
Hi Colin,
>>How are things in the Cornish Republic?
We were gearing up to invade Devon, but decided not to bother. I write this as I return from a mind-boggling meeting at which a number of earnest sandal-wearers have been setting out their proposals to convert one of the grubbiest corners of our post-industrial past, the Camborne-Redruth-Pool nexus, into a green oasis of recycling and self-sustaining low-energy consumption nirvana. This is rather like declaring Coatbridge the European capital of culture.
The most entertaining part of the evening was hearing that the vehicle for this, the Camborne Redruth And Pool Regeneration Partnership, is to be renamed the Camborne Redruth and Pool Regeneration Partnership, because they prefer the acronym "CRP Regeneration" to the one which was being used before they introduced the lower-case "and".
>> Is it legitimate to silence the hecklers in order that I get to finish my lecture? Only if they get a similar amount of time for their views? If the lecturer is Alasdair, that could take years. ;-)
Ah, yes, it may well. Dear Alasdair was too polite for his own good. There are limits to reasonableness and he was always too far inside them.
My answer to your question is that it is your lecture and you can do as you like. If I have a microphone and you wish to speak, I may be obliged under free speech to stop talking, but I do not consider myself bound to give you the microphone. I will, of course, to paraphrase Voltaire, defend to the death your right to buy your own microphone.
>>There was a discussion on Radio 4 this morning about Intelligent Design in US schools.
What a novelty, the words "intelligent" and "US" in the same sentence.
>>Interestingly, the neo-Creationists are now employing libertarian arguments to bolster their case to get ID taught alongside evolution - an interesting line for the descendants of William Jennings Bryan!
At Paddington recently I picked up a copy of "New Yorker" with an excellent article about the case of Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District on this very matter. The article itself doesn't appear to be available online, though a Q&A summary is.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/051205on_onlineonly01
As you know, I'm a believer, but I'm also something approaching a scientist (at least Aberdeen thought so when they gave me a BSc) and I can see no merit (and considerable arrogance) in the intelligent design argument, or its cousin, the anthropic principle.
The anthropic principle holds that since only a very specific set of circumstances will lead to the evolution of mankind, with a very small probability, this hints that a designing power formed the world in order to produce such a result. The snag is, that whatever set of environmental conditions you propose, some kind of animal comes out on top and eventually evolves into something better. Would it matter to God's purpose if the pinnacle of creation turned out to be an eight-toed amphibian? I think not.
The fact is that evolution involves random change (some of it for the worse) and natural selection, but natural selection is always trumped by climatic catastrophe. The creatures in the Burgess Shale may have been supremely adapted to their habitat, swimming contently in its shallow waters, but they all died out when the ponds dried up, however well adapted they were. How does intelligent design explain that? That God decided to create an evolutionary dead end, let them prosper for a few million years then wiped them all out on a Friday afternoon?
>>But does 'free speech' guarantee them access to biology classes? Even if their views fail the generally accepted tests for a 'scientific' theory?
Having tried to understand Popper's arguments for the falsifiability of science, I have to confess that proving it's not a scientific theory is not easy, and some of our most useful scientific insights have been pooh-poohed at the outset. It may be my private opinion that Elvis is dead, that nobody has ever been abducted by aliens and that if there is intelligent life out there it's too damn intelligent to waste its time coming here anyway, but proving people wrong who say the opposite would be very difficult if Popper is right. You might argue that the difficulty of such an effort would prove to Popper that these opinions are not science, but I doubt if the proponents would agree.
>>And what about the 'free speech' to threaten the life of someone who wants to exercise his free speech? If I threaten to kill anyone who breathes a word about how drunk I got at the last 2002 Residential Weekend, have I limited their free speech? To an extent that justifies limiting my freedom to repeat the threat?
The example fails, because all those who can prove it were too drunk to be credible witnesses. But I understand the argument. Sadly, normal human intercourse depends upon the relative equality of the participants. If you and I have a debate, and I tell you to say whatever you want about me, but then put a loaded pistol on my desk when you have none, how free will you feel? I may genuinely have no intention of using it, but the fact that I can interferes with your free speech.
>>The freedom to rant on a street corner can probably be defended to the nth degree without greatly interfering with anyone else's free speech rights,
A freedom widely exercised in Glasgow around midnight on Saturday nights, as I recall.
>> but other cases are a bit trickier I fear. Still, I agree that the principle is one worth defending. All rights can pose difficulties at the margins: the right to life isn't normally taken to preclude killing in self-defence, but it isn't rendered redundant as a consequence.
I would much prefer that we forgot about rights and concentrated more upon responsibilities.
Changing the subject, enlighten me, O Oracle. I've been reading the HFEA comments on saviour siblings, and I'm puzzled. If I create little Johnny to provide stem cells to save little Frankie, how can I justify operating on little Johnny to get the cells out? It isn't obviously in his interests, nor will the argument of Re Y wash, because little Johnny has no reason at his age to concern himself about his mother's distress at losing Frankie. I read the HFEA's paper at
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/AboutHFEA/Committees/EthicsandLawCommittee/2004June/2004-06-17%20Committee%20ELC%20%20paper%20(06-04)%2004%20-%20Annex%20E%20-%20Consent%20and%20the%20law.pdf but I'm unconvinced by their bald assertion that the procedure may be justifiable. Am I being pernickety? No doubt others have considered this point, but I haven't heard it argued in the non-legal press.
It's good to see you haven't allowed academic fame and fortune to trim your views. Worth reading what you have to say.
Graham Brack said @ 02/21/2006 09:21 PM GMT
>>We were gearing up to invade Devon, but decided not to bother.
Kind of how we've been feeling about England for 300 years.
>>Dear Alasdair was too polite for his own good. There are limits to reasonableness and he was always too far inside them.
Clearly you never sought to engage him on the subject of Arsenal defenders.
>>The anthropic principle holds that since only a very specific set of circumstances will lead to the evolution of mankind, with a very small probability, this hints that a designing power formed the world in order to produce such a result. The snag is, that whatever set of environmental conditions you propose, some kind of animal comes out on top and eventually evolves into something better.
Yep, good point, well expressed. It's a bit like looking at the lottery results and proclaiming our amazement at such an incredibly unlikely sequence emerging. But it's only remarkable if we assume the emergence of these numbers, as opposed to the other 14 million odd possible combinations, is somehow significant.
As you say, the odds against h.sapiens evolving are high, but the odds against something crawling out of the primordial sludge, somewhere in the universe, are a good deal lower.
>>Having tried to understand Popper's arguments for the falsifiability of science, I have to confess that proving it's not a scientific theory is not easy
Arguably, it's nigh-on impossible. As Philip Kitcher says, it's always possible to argue around falsifiability by claiming that it was actually one of the other assumptions involved in any given experiment that has actually been undermined.
If I drop Shanti from my office window, and she rises instead of falling, does this disprove gravity? Or does it show that our understanding of thermal updrafts is deficient? Or that there's some sort of invisible vortex above the clouds? Or just that she's used her study & maternity leave to master the art of levitation?
The existence of these alternative explanations make it impossible for me to state authoratatively that I've disproved (falsified) gravity. The only way to test the theory, therefore, is to test it in lots of different 'bundles of claims'. If Theory X holds up in them all, with one exception, then it's probably likely that I've made a mistake about one of the other assumptions (or that my methodology sucked), rather than shown theory X to be wrong.
But this doesn't mean that Popper ewas entirely wrong. Just because one single experiment wouldn't succeed in falsifying a theory, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep testing it in lots of different circumstances.
When asking whether a theory is 'scientific', Kitcher thinks we should ask ourselves the following:
'Do the doctrine's problem-solving strategies encounter recurrent difficulties in a significant range of cases? Are the problem-solving strategies an opportunistic collection of unmotivated and unrelated methods? Does the doctrine have too cosy a relationship with auxilliary hypotheses, applying its strategies with claims that can be "tested" only in their applications? Does the doctrine refuse to follow up on unresolved problems, airily dismissing them as "exceptional cases"? Does the doctrine restrict the domain of its methods, forswearing excursions into new areas of investigation where embarassing questions might arise?'
His conclusion is that 'If all, or many, of these tests are positive, then the doctrine is not a poor scientific theory. It is not a scientific theory at all.'
>>The example fails, because all those who can prove it were too drunk to be credible witnesses.
Most assuredly true.
>>Changing the subject, enlighten me, O Oracle. I've been reading the HFEA comments on saviour siblings, and I'm puzzled.
You're not alone! I've written a couple of things about this, and there's a link to one of them somewhere on this site.
>>If I create little Johnny to provide stem cells to save little Frankie, how can I justify operating on little Johnny to get the cells out?
Well, the procedure the Hashmis & Whitakers wanted to pursue involved harvesting stem cells from the umbilicus, so no invasive surgery would be required. Whether something like bone marrow harvesting would be allowed is another question, and it would fall to a court rather than the HFEA to decide that. In any event, the decision should be taken independently of the kid's unusual origins.
CJG said @ 02/23/2006 02:46 PM GMT
