10 Jun 09 | Uncategorized
Now that the BNP have had two MEPs elected, those obsessively targeting the far-right group as the greatest threat to democracy are having a field day — much wailing and gnashing and egg throwing. Forget the inconvenient truth that they only won these seats by gaining a greater share of the vote in the wake of Labour’s collapse and received 3000 and 6000 fewer votes compared to the 2004 Euro Elections (in the North West and Yorkshire respectively). Forget the fact that the national increase in their vote share from 4.9 per cent to 6.2 per cent hardly merits the fear-mongering headlines, “Not in My Name” Facebook campaigns, and mainstream political angst forewarning the rise of neo-Nazism. Whatever the hyperbole, this seems a good time to respond to Andy Newman’s reply to my pre-election article for Index on Censorship about the dangers of liberals sleepwalking into censoriousness whenever the bogeyman of the BNP appears on the political landscape.
So Andy — you claim to want a climate that ecourages “vigorous, democratic disagreement”. I couldn’t agree more. But that is precisely why we need to allow those we vigorously disagree with to have a voice in the democratic debate. For the purposes of this article, I will accept that at least some of the BNP voters had sympathy with the party’s views on immigration and race (even though it is more likely that they attracted the disillusioned, anti-political elite protest vote as much as UKIP and the Greens). Surely the best way to deal with these prejudiced views is to have them out in the open and to expose their bigotry and bile for all to see?
It is laughable when you accuse me of “calling for people to self-censor [their] own sincere opposition to fascism”. Oppose away — indeed upholding free speech for those whose views we find abhorrent doesn’t mean allowing objectionable views to go unchallenged. Instead we should go on the attack against every racist speech and against attempts at scapegoating immigrants, whoever delivers those views. But to do so requires unfettered freedom of speech precisely to persuade other people in the public arena that those views are wrong, inaccurate, divisive.
You suggest I am asking immigration minister Phil Woolas to self censor his views. But Woolas’s approach to the BNP proves my point. In the article I quoted, he doesn’t argue against the BNP, he simply blusters moral outrage and fearmongers about fascism on the march. On the substantive political question about immigration, if anything he panders to the BNP’s agenda rather than argues against it. We can declare racism no-go and kick it out of polite political debate, but unless we have won hearts and minds, too often this allows reactionary sentiments to go unchallenged, merely allowing them to fester under the surface. Meanwhile mainstream immigrant-bashing by our respectable politicians is let off the hook, comparing itself favorably to its more extreme BNP manifestation.
You are right of course that no one has an obligation to provide a platform for the BNP, and you misunderstand completely if you think I’m arguing for their mandatory right to speak whenever and wherever. Elections aside, I have more important foes to take on. However, when my fellow anti-racists make a principle of denying the BNP a platform, too often it just means avoiding their arguments, surely the ultimate act of self-censorship. Now the BNP have won hundreds of thousands of votes, we despair at the gullibility of the electorate. My concern is that No Platformers don’t even show electors the courtesy of trying to convince them politically about the merits of their own agenda, refusing even to enter let alone win the battle of ideas. This exhibits a complacent and cowardly reluctance to take on the hard task of trying to win the argument against views dismissed as “beyond the pale”. Far easier to: ban the debate; refuse to deliver leaflets to appease your conscience; shout “BNP no way — Nick Griffin go away” on demos or that old stand-by, throw eggs.
You explain that censorship is not at stake here at all, but rather the changing “social construction of shared moral and political values” means it is now OK to treat the BNP’s views as beyond the pale. But in reality what has been socially constructed is a widely censorious climate in which far too many views are considered as beyond the pale. Too many people bite their tongue and walk on eggshells to accommodate the intolerance of a “you can’t say that” society. The “pariah status”, afforded to the BNP in this instance, is a constant threat to anyone who dares offend liberal orthodoxies more generally. Try challenging climate change “truths” or the panic about child protection or indeed no platform for “fascists” and behold chattering-class illiberalism in all its glory. Surely even your group, Socialist Unity has views that might be considered offensive, provocative, dangerous, inflammatory or even beyond the pale by those not yet convinced of your glorious programme. I certainly do. Anyone interested in challenging the status quo should be wary when political debate is reduced to the anodyne, thin diet of “only acceptable ideas allowed”.
Aren’t you at all nervous about handing over the permissible parameters of these socially constructed “moral and political values” to the authorities? I found your apologia for companies’ and institutions’ use of “Codes of practice…to prevent bullying and to demand courtesy” most chilling. Today’s workplace relations have become impossibly divisive precisely because such codes are used to silence dissent, stifle controversy, discipline “troublemakers” and victimise trade-unionists, too frequently accused of offensive bullying tactics etc. Let’s imagine what the corporate code of practice response to the “heavy-handed” “bullying” of flying pickets would be.
Isn’t it dangerous to let those in power decide who can speak in public, and who can hear all sides of the argument? (And then pretend that it’s the public’s decision). You seem happy with recourse to the criminal law “in extreme cases”, when viewpoints are “regarded as abhorrent because we judge that promoting those views will lead to social harm”. No wonder this government has got away with draconian incitement and hate-speech legislation in its supposed fight against ‘terrorism’; the ultimate ‘social harm’ in many people’s eyes.
Finally, I am really not that interested in upholding the right of free speech for Nick Griffin and his nasty bunch of anti-immigrant party goons. What is at stake here is the freedom for the rest of us — the public, the electorate — to hear ALL political views, even those as divisive as race, stupid as well as sensible, reactionary as well as progressive — precisely so that we can make our own minds up and judge for ourselves whether or not to vote for these ideas, ignore them, agree with or argue against them.
It’s worth remembering that free speech is a two-way communication, the right to speak but also the right of the audience to listen to whatever they want rather than having this dictated to us. This means taking audiences seriously, as our peers and equals, respecting their ability to make autonomous judgements on the most contentious issues, and trusting them to be open-minded enough for you, or me, or anyone to have a chance of changing their minds in a political row. That is the core principle at the heart of political change. You have to win the row. Go on Andy — a challenge — go win some rows.
Read Claire Fox’s original article, ‘Censorship is the wrong way to Beat BNP’ here
Read Andy Newman’s response, ‘It is not censorship to deny the BNP a platform’ here
01 Jun 09 | Uncategorized
Every year Reporters without Borders (RSF) issues its World Report — a league table of 173 countries in relation to freedom of press.
In the 2008 report RSF says: “The post 9/11 world is clearly drawn. Destabilised and on the defensive, the leading democracies are gradually eroding the space for freedoms.”
This statement comes from the narrative that accompanies the table that last year places UK at tenth place coming equal with Hungary and Namibia.
On its website RSF also publishes a questionnaire, comprising 49 questions, that is used to find these results. This includes the all too easily quantifiable and gruesome data — how many journalists killed, how many imprisoned, tortured and so on. There is also a section on censorship.
I was interested in these questions, formulated to gauge the depth and degree of censorship of the press in any given country, and decided to adapt them to investigate the state of artistic freedom in the UK.
How many media outlets were censored, seized or ransacked with the state involved or had their operating licence withdrawn ?
Here I substitued the word media for cultural. In September 2007, police seized Thanksgiving, a photograph by Nan Goldin, from the Baltic Contemporary Art Gallery. Before the exhibition opened to the public, the gallery management, concerned that the photograph might appear pornographic, invited the police to view the image and to advise them on its suitability. The police removed it.
In October last year nude paintings by local artists were banned from Harrow Art Centre . Councillor Chris Mote, who has responsibility for the arts centre, backed the decision taken by his staff. He said: “I don’t want to take the risk of offending some groups. It may be artists feel I’m being unfair, but I’m not. I am trying to be fair and equal to everyone.”
A director of a public art gallery told me recently that as part of what he now sees to be due diligence, he invited the police in to have a look round the exhibition that had some sexually explicit material in it, just to make sure it was all OK. The policeman had nor problem with any of the artworks.
I should have asked: “What would you have done if the policeman said –– ‘I don’t like that one’?” Would the artistic director have had a long conversation with the policeman putting forward its artistic merits?
As for ransacking — I am not aware of the state ransacking any venues or galleries, they reserve these tactics for journalists, but there are cases when the state failed to effectively stop others ransacking. When in 2004, the Birmingham Repertory Theatre was attacked by angry protesters forcing the closure of the play Behzti by Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, because it was offensive to their religious sensibilities, Fiona McTaggart, the then Home Office minister failed to condemn the intimidation and threats made against Bhatti’s life, saying “the free speech of the protesters is as important as the free speech of the artists.”
To some, it could be seen to be more important, given that the playright was forced into hiding, while no prosecutions were brought on public order offences against the rioters.
This is in contrast to 20 years ago when the Thatcher government supported, Salman Rushdie’s right to freedom of expression, and paid for costly police protection.
Was there an official prior censorship body systematically checking content ?
Until 1968, the Lord Chancellor was personally responsible for giving a license to each play to be performed in this country. Since this practice was stopped, we have enjoyed a great deal of freedom in the theatre. But how are theatres faring now?
Is the theatre still the safe space for “saying the things that are unsayable elsewhere” –– as David Edgar says or do other considerations prevail?
At a recent conference of Arts Council England funded organisations, one panel raised the question –– “Is there conflict between freedom of artistic expression and sensitivity towards audiences?” The answer from those attending was clear –– that for the vast majority, the audience took precedence over the artist’s freedom of expression. There were a range of reasons for this, a lot to do with funders, especially where local governments were involved, but also the audience development that theatres have built up over the last three decades, where building trust with culturally diverse audiences could not be compromised.
Was news (let’s substitute the word book here) suppressed or delayed because of political or business pressure ?
Let’s look quickly at the example of the Jewel of Mdina, the Sherry Jones’ novel about Aisha, a wife of Mohammed. Tjhe book that was suppressed because of a very particular form of censorship — as Jo Glanville , editor of Index on Censorship called it “an extraordinary instance of pre-emptive censorship”.
“It was disingenuous of Random House to suggest that the novel might incite violence. Certain members of the population might choose to commit an act of violence, but that is not the same as the book itself inciting violence. To pass responsibility in the way to the novel, was a betrayal of the author and of free speech.”
So it was left to a much smaller publisher, Gibson Square, to stand up for the principles and come under attack, because the row that ensued, once the story broke, served to escalate the very scenario that Random House was apparently seeking to avert. And this was without the book having being read by more than a handful of people.
Does the media report the negative side of government policies
Here I subsitute the word media with culture. I wanted to try gauge to what extent artistic freedom is able to speak truth to power — to authority, a cornerstone of the function of art in society.
A wonderful example of the cartoonist’s power is Martin Rowson’s cartoon “Preparing for the Big Day” from the Guardian: a worker from the Hygiene Department is hosing piles of shit formed into the grimacing faces of Cheney and Bush off the US flag. Blair’s part in the 8 year Bush administration is reduced to an obstinate smear on the stars and stripes. This seems to give a pretty clear bill of health as far as portraying the smelly underbelly of government through the arts in this country. And the government seems able to take on the chin when it is contained by cultural parameters.
Staying with cartoons, we come straight up against the massively controversial issue of the Danish Cartoons, which reverberated strongly in this country; Jerry Springer the Opera, Behzti and of course Satanic Verses. How willing is this society to support dissenting voices from inside religious communities or challenges from secularists outside? In an attempt to protect religious sensibilities, a degree of complicity has arisen amongst the cultural community that has tacitly agreed to avoid causing offence, even though, as Kenan Malik has pointed out, this is almost impossible as well as undesirable “In a plural society it is inevitable and important to cause offence.”
Does the media undertake investigative journalism ?
And here the floodgates open, as this question triggers a whole string of related questions about the role and function of art. Are the arts to be a tool of enquiry, investigation? Are they challenging to the status quo? Are they holding open the space for debate and dialogue? Do the arts say things people don’t want to hear, but do want to talk about, or shout about, or protest about? Do they help to tell us about the world we live in? Is the imagination one of the most important investigative tools we have?
This is an edited speech by Julia Farrington, Head of Arts and Events at Index on Censorship, from a panel discussion at London Book Fair
