IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO DENY THE BNP A PLATFORM
First Published on Free Speech blog, in reply to Claire Fox.
We expect Claire Fox’s views to be challenging. However, she does a great disservice to the defence of free speech from censorship by her muddled and inaccurate recent article about the BNP. Indeed Claire unwittingly is actually calling for censorship of those who oppose the BNP; and she is mistaking censorship with vigorous, democratic disagreement.
Claire describes action by West Country postal workers who refused to deliver BNP leaflets as, in her own words, “overt censorship”. However, what actually happened here is that a group of manual workers personally found the BNP leaflets offensive and sought to exercise a conscience clause in their contract to opt out of delivering them. In response, according to the CWU trade union, Royal Mail management quizzed individual postal workers about why they were opposed to the BNP, and pressurised them not to use their opt out.
This was not censorship by the trade unionists, this was the exercise of an individual contractual right by each postal workers to express their own personal opposition to the BNP. The chair of their trade union branch made it clear that they were not seeking to subvert the Representation of the People Act — their collective aspiration was to get Royal Mail to sub-contract out the BNP leaflet delivery. The postal workers wanted to collectively underline the pariah status that feel the BNP deserve, and individually to express their opposition by not delivering the leaflets.
Where Claire is mistaken is in confusing the concept of censorship with the entirely different process of robust disagreement with a political view to the extent of seeking to place it outside of the socially sanctioned mainstream of debate. Refusing to handle the mail was actually a means for the postal workers to express their own political judgement on the BNP.
The social construction of shared moral and political values is a dynamic process, that has, for example, changed over the last 50 years to create far greater tolerance of diversity; however, some viewpoints are regarded as abhorrent because we judge that promoting those views will lead to social harm. In extreme cases, the criminal law is invoked to prevent advocating certain forms of criminal behaviour; which is a form of censorship, although one with widespread social approval. But many of the behaviours that society disapproves of are not criminal –– for example verbal bullying, and rudeness. Most companies and institutions have codes of practice in place to prevent bullying and to demand courtesy in order to mark out the socially sanctioned limits of behaviour. More informally, individuals who are anti-social are shunned by their workmates and neighbours and find difficulty in making friends. This is not censorship, this is the collective process by which we socially construct the shared expectations of social interaction.
So when Claire Fox quotes Phil Woolas saying in the Daily Mail: “If you are not supporting Labour then … please go out and vote for one of the main parties. If you don’t, the UK will have Euro MPs from the far-Right BNP,” he is not seeking to censor the BNP, he is in fact promoting a perfectly legitimate contribution to democratic debate himself — that the BNP are beyond the pale. By criticising a government minister from seeking to delegitimise the BNP, Claire Fox is actually calling for people to self-censor our own sincere opposition to fascism; and to inhibit society from developing a collective consensus about the shared expectations of which views are compatible with the values by which, together, we define our society.
Claire argues that “to effectively Tipp-ex out one of the options by demonising ‘extremist’ views effectively denies the electorate their free speech”. But affording someone free speech does not mean that other people have an obligation to provide a platform for that free speech, or to hide their own opposition to the views they find abhorrent.
Claire is being disingenuous, because of course the BNP are actually strenuously afforded the same legal opportunities as any other political party. What Claire is arguing against is not censorship of the BNP, she is arguing that people have an obligation to provide the BNP with an opportunity to promote themselves, and that we shouldn’t point out the threat that the BNP represent to tolerant, liberal values.
If the organisers of an election hustings decline to put the BNP on the platform, that is not censorship, rather that is the exercise of the hustings organisers’ own political freedom. Claire Fox argues that there is a principle at stake that all parties in an election should be afforded equal rights to address the electorate; but this would actually censor an opponent of a particular party to express their own political views by excluding that party.
At root, Claire is making a philosophical error. John Stuart Mill argued that each individual should have a private sphere that should be as large as is compatible with the interests of society. Affording political parties that we find abhorrent the same legal status and privileges to free speech as mainstream parties satisfies this requirement that we respect the liberty of those we disagree with. The BNP are afforded that legal equality.
However, this liberty for a private sphere does not imply that it is virtuous for individuals to always exercise that liberty. The fallacy deriving from Hayek is that individuals not only have a right to a private sphere, but that they are morally obliged to remain private and not participate in the collective construction of civic morality. As Margaret Thatcher pithily expressed it, “there is no such thing as society”. This is effectively what Claire Fox is advocating by saying that we should not collectively construct a set of social values by which we judge whether the views of a political party make it a threat to our society.
In terms of political debate, the fact that we consider it virtuous that political parties can put forward whatever policies and social programmes they choose does not imply that there is a moral obligation to treat all political parties as equally worthy of a platform to espouse those views.
Andy Newman is editor of Socialist Unity
A church is a private institution: when holding a hustings it can invite who it likes.
A trade union is a private institution: its members can decide who to admit.
Postal workers are public servants: they cannot pick and choose which election leaflets to deliver.
Comment by Peyton Place — 5 June, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
“Postal workers are public servants: they cannot pick and choose which election leaflets to deliver.”
Yes they can in fact, they have a conscience clause specifically allowing just that in their contract.
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 June, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Yes it is - and I don’t like your party and what they stand for - but I cannot deny you the right to have your election material delivered by people who are paid to do so.
If their conscience is so tender they should find themselves another job.
This is censorship at its very worst, and all the attempts at self-justification will not make it any different.
Comment by Francis — 5 June, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
So postal workers can refuse to deliver Labour leaflets if they are hacked off about the expenses scandal, can they? And climate change-denying posties can object to Green literature, presumably?
Do your job or face the sack.
Comment by Peyton Place — 5 June, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
#4
I know you find it hard to believe, but there are some people who find it offensive that the Nazis turned human beings into soap, and made lampshades out of human skin; and find the vermin who inhabit the Nazi loving BNP simply disgusting.
Whatever the elelction results, the campaign against facsism continues, and you will never triumph.
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 June, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
I have always believed in free speech, to the extent that I argued against the No Platform policy my student union had for the BNP. ahh, back in the day.
It’s hardly liberal or free speech if those you detest are banned. I hate the BNP but they have as right to free speech as us lefties.
Everyone shoud have the right to opt out of doing something they feel goes against their conscience
Comment by Bearded Socialist — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
And climate change-denying posties can object to Green literature, presumably?
As they will be more exposed than most to an increase in extreme weather events, I suspect there aren’t that many. Though what seems most universal among postal workers at the moment is a dislike of Alan Johnson.
Comment by skidmarx — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
The BNP aren’t an example of democracy in action but represent an attack on it.
Racism is censorship - providing a fascist organisation/movement with the opportunity to carry forward its plans to cleanse and hygenically purify the general public isn’t a legitimate political exercise. It’s an exercise in mass-suicide.
Learn from history.
The German Nazis and the Italian Fascists needed a liberal and open democracy first in order to gain power. After that, there was no democracy and nothing to stop their barbarising their own communities.
The only way these radical violent movements, as represented by the BNP, have ever been stopped is by all out war, or by another authoritarian regime already in power throttling the life out of them before they got out of hand.
all the best SU.
Comment by joe90kane — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
#4 “So postal workers can refuse to deliver Labour leaflets if they are hacked off about the expenses scandal, can they? And climate change-denying posties can object to Green literature, presumably?”
This is the “conscience clause” that the CWU agreed with Royal Mail in 2005:
As you can see, the agreement contains no specific reference to the BNP.
So the answer to Peyton Place’s question is: yes, in principle postal workers could indeed refuse to deliver Labour or Green election material if they were able to make a case that that this was contrary to their “personal circumstances or beliefs” and/or that they would “incur personal risk” as a result of delivering such material.
So far, however, no postal workers have exercised their right not to deliver election leaflets from the Labour Party or the Greens, as far as I’m aware. But a lot of them have exercised their right not to deliver the BNP’s election material.
And I’m frankly shocked that Claire Fox and the ex-RCP, those principled defenders of individual liberty, should wish to deny postal workers the right to follow their individual consciences on this issue.
Comment by Anon — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
“If their conscience is so tender they should find themselves another job.”
Why? They have a conscience clause. They don’t need to.
Comment by Miller 2.0 — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Oops. I didn’t code the italics correctly and it doesn’t make sense. This is the “conscience clause:
Comment by Anon — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
The BNP are ignorant white-power socialists who think the historical murder of millions of Jews is a lie and even it wasn’t true it’s not that bad. Meanwhile their most vehement critics are apologists for Maoists, Trotskyites and Stalinists, who’s historical murder of millions of people in the name of socialism, is something to be quietly ignored because their ideology is pure and on the side of angels don’t you know.
I’m not sure who is worse, the BNP for thier odious views on race and political oppression, or their hypocritical critics who fail to condemn with equal vigour the murder of millions in the name of their equally warped political ideologies.
Comment by ericthepurple — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
#9 Are you shocked the way Captain Renault was that gambling was taking place in Casablanca?
Comment by skidmarx — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
#13
That was actually pretty amusing
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 June, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Haven’t the RCP got more important stuff to do than defend the “rights” of fascists?
Karadzic’s defence campaign for instance?
Comment by AndyB — 5 June, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
It’s an eloquent argument, Andy, but I find flaws in it.
Firstly, while the conscience clause does not specifically mention the BNP, the unstated implications of such a clause, negotiated by a Labour party supporting organisation, is as clear as the thought processes behind the articles on the BNP website. Neither side need overtly state their intent, all already know it.
You are also only behaving as though this clause is acceptable as it works in your favour. You would be amongst the first to cry foul if religious members of the medical community used such a clause to refuse, say, access to abortion, I would hazard, based on your affiliations. The medical professionals in question would, of course be wrong for inflicting their personal beliefs on others and denying them the choice to determine for themselves if that is a right proper thing in a society where such things are allowed. These postal workers have behaved no differently.
It is not the job of the socialist movement to dictate what the people may or may not say and think, something we have seen New Labour ignore time and again during it’s time in office. For you to defend such Stalinist views is aborrent, the rising tide of civil liberties movements across europe should be clear the the populace are tired of such attitudes.
Comment by mudkipz — 5 June, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
#16 “You would be amongst the first to cry foul if religious members of the medical community used such a clause to refuse, say, access to abortion, I would hazard, based on your affiliations. “
No. I am a strong supporter of the right for medical professionals to exercise their conscience clause. provided that the patients also have a choice to find another, different doctor.
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 June, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
16 & 17 Not sure about this but dont medical professionals actually have a conscience clause in relation to abortion?
If they dont they should and if they do then I agree with Andy.
I also agree that Postal Workers (and anyone else) should have the right not to deliver BNP leaflets.
Why do we have to hold to the idea that freedom of speech etc is an absolute principle?
There is an old saying, “I fundamentally disagree with what you are saying, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it.”…and it’s complete bollocks.
Comment by Armchair — 5 June, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
The choice to find a different doctor is all well and good, Andy. Sadly, it is of little use when should your intestines be hanging out of your abdomen, you are exsanguinating rapidly and your attending physician has decided to
object to treating you for some reason.
You also miss the point that there is no ‘other doctor’ to request when dealing with residential mail delivery in the UK. Royal Mail are the only business offering this service.
If the staff had such ethical troubles with delivering such leaflets, what was stopping them from delivering leaflets offering a contrasting viewpoint along with them? I’m sure that the many anti-facist groups out there would have been delighted to recieve their support.
The whole issue stinks of the CWU ( I expect, their paper was full of Royal Mail news while I was a member ) defining something as thoughtcrime, then acting to silence it.
As I said before, it is not the place of the socialist movement to tell the people what to think and say. That’s exactly what I ( and watching events on twitter over the part few days, I’m not alone in this ) see happening. This implies that the socialist movement thinks it knows better than the people. That is both condescending and offensive in the extreme.
Comment by mudkipz — 5 June, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
#19 “what was stopping them from delivering leaflets offering a contrasting viewpoint along with them?”
That would actually be serious misconduct, and a breech of their contract of employment - they are only allowed to deliver stuff on behalf of Royal Mail.
As explained above at #11 the conscience clause in their contract recognises that Royal mail will find other ways of delivery for the material
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 June, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
The CWU ( again, I assume ) where able to negotiate a clause that allows workers to refuse to work ( astounding to those who work in the private sector, I’m sure ). Why would it be an issue to change that clause from ‘refuse to work’ to ‘offer an opposing view’? Also, does the contract cover their time away from work? Would not people of high ethics be willing to donate their time to a cause they considered noble?
Sorry, Andy, but.. No. What you’re proposing is, to use the internet as an metaphor ( the postal system is a comms network, after all ), an argument against network neutrality. Data deemed ‘undesirable’ would be routed differently, with a possible ( perhaps even probable ) lower quality of service.
The only reason Royal Mail has agreed to effectively route around the nodes deeming data ‘undesirable’, is the worry that replacing them may cause the network to fail.
So, again, I return to the point the CWU is pushing an agenda.
Comment by mudkipz — 6 June, 2009 @ 12:53 am
#18
That old saying originates from the eighteenth century french philosopher, Voltaire. Personally, I agree with him, as I feel only those who cannot state their case in debate need resort to silencing dissenters.
Your need to use a vulgarity to express your disagreement with him is curious, though. I’m just going to assume you like to use crude language.
As far as a ‘conscience clause’ goes in medical circles, I’ll check this in the morning and let you know from someone with greater inside knowledge.
I’d doubt it, however. We have many muslim GP’s in the uk, and such a clause could allow them to refuse to treat gay people, if so inclined, would it not?
Holding freedom of speech as an absolute is important because it helps us examine ideas critically as a society and better evaluate them. Look at what happened to Galileo for expounding a heliocentric solar system, something we have now seen as fact, but once violently denied by the catholic church.
Comment by mudkipz — 6 June, 2009 @ 2:20 am
Actually, your nazi poster, “no 2 censorship” is wrong. There wasn’t a systematic use of human fat for soap but there are witness accounts of experiments by the nazis on Polish prisoners where fat was converted for cleaning and other by-products. To deny the brutality of the nazis is to excuse their behaviour. Something the nazis and their sympathisers are always seeking to achieve as in the post #23.
Jews who survived the Holocaust and emigrated to Israel were referred to in a pejorative way as “sabon” by some Zionists. The reference to soap indicated the contempt certain Zionists had for Holocaust survivors who they believed were cowards who went willingly to the camps.
Comment by Ray — 6 June, 2009 @ 6:28 am
Mudkipz- I apologise if you objected to my vulgarity. The word I used was itself the subject of a debate about censorship in 1977 or 8 funnily enough. Btw do you believe Voltaire would have acted to the letter of what he said in all circumstances?
Comment by Armchair — 6 June, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Btw to clarify I don’t take freedom of expression lightly, just don’t see how it can be an absolute. Would or should I ‘fight to the death’ for freedom for the BNP to express
themselves? Don’t think so!
Comment by Armchair — 6 June, 2009 @ 10:53 am
26. I agree we should and do condemn the mass murders of both the Nazis and under Stalin, Mao, Tony Blair or any other mass murder.
The difference is the BNP are proposing to stop black and minority people working in the UK and want to deport them. There is no Stalinist or Maoist organisation proposing anything similar.
That creates a problem for me.
You want to give us a blood test to prove our racial purity and then round up and deport my friends and neighbours if they do not leave voluntarily. Is that correct ? If not how ?
That means taking away the democratic rights of minority people in the UK. The left do not want to take anyone’s democratic rights away. We want everyone to have the same rights.
Then there is your attack on Trade Unionists, Gypsies, Gays
even the disabled!
So why should I support your “democratic right” to take that right away from others ?
I am not Marxist theoretician but a socialist building worker and you lot scare the shit out of both me and my South London neighbours and workmates.
Comment by unionworker — 6 June, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Armchair, thank you for your apology, though I was less offended than concerned that the passions this topic inflames in many might boil over. I regret that some distractions have presented themselves over the past few days, hence my delay in responding.
Presumably, you are refering to the appearance of a musical act on a popular talk show of the time in regards to that word? In both cases, would you not agree that people have every right to choose to be offensive?
Which would lead me on to address the question of voltaire. I believe he would. If you examine many of the views of some of other movements towards the fringes of our society, animal rights stands out as good as example, they also contain ideas that are downright offensive to many others. Do you also propose silencing those who espouse those views?
As an American blogger I chanced upon once stated of the first amendment : The answer to free speech is more free speech.
Comment by mudkipz — 10 June, 2009 @ 12:00 am