The argument that mob censorship is what stopped Tony Blair from going ahead with his London book signing and subsequent private shindig at Tate Modern holds no water. A much larger mob of millions marched against the invasion of Iraq in 800 cities around the world. But in those days Blair ran Britain. And his mate George ran the United States.
These days Tony Blair cuts a tragicomic figure who embodies the oxymoron. He’s charged with bringing about Middle East peace when his actions fuelled fires in those deserts. He’s pulled out of public events due to “threats of protest” from a gaggle of anti-war activists yet was cloth-eared to the millions shouting against an Iraq invasion before a single shock had been awed.
The demonstrations in Dublin set a precedent but would you have expected anything less? Hundreds of thousands of war dead may have been wiped off this earth but the violence that brought those deaths have scarred the skin of our humanity. The world was screaming “stop” but the men who held the guns still shot. We’ll never forgive Blair or Bush for that.
By publishing his book, he’s exercised his right to speak. He’s sated his ego by ensuring he won’t be forgotten. The people who planned to demonstrate at Waterstone’s and Tate Modern would’ve been exercising their right to protest. Both are freedoms of expression we should fight to protect. Both are freedoms the dead do not have.
Blair is having a crisis of conscience. He’s not having second thoughts about causing the deaths of soldiers and civilians and upsetting the balance of the Middle East for generations. Ever the considerate host, he feared a thousand people with placards calling him a war criminal would “hassle” his guests. Perhaps cancelling his events is muzzling him. But it’s not censorship that stopped him. It’s cowardice.
A while back, representatives of Index and other organisations and individuals signed a letter in response to what was seen as a censorious attempt to stop bookshops hosting signings of former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s new autobiography, A Journey.
The letter said:
When it comes to literature, drama, journalism, artistic expression and scientific publication we must be consistent in our support for free speech. How can we defend the right of the Birmingham Repertory to put on and advertise a play like Behzti, despite it being deemed offensive to some Sikhs, and then call on a bookseller not to promote one of its books – or a library not to stock it — on the grounds of offence? The answer, in a liberal society, is to not read the book if it offends you, and to not buy a copy if you don’t wish royalties to go to the author.
Since then, things have changed. On Saturday, Blair’s signing in Dublin was the subject of a rowdy protest by members of the anti-Iraq war Socialist Workers Party and Republican group Eirigi, who objected to Blair’s role in the Northern Ireland peace process.
The signing went ahead, but under a massive security operation.
Today, it’s been announced that Blair will not be signing books in London. Blair said:
I have decided not to go ahead with the signing as I don’t want the public to be inconvenienced by the inevitable hassle caused by protestors
This seems practical, but hardly ideal. Clearly the violent scenes in Dublin have made Mr Blair think again. But would things in London inevitably have turned out the same? I’m not sure. An equivalent group to Eirigi does not exist, and the groups that have previously protested against Blair have not, to be fair, turned violent.
Then again, they might have decided to follow the example of the Dublin crowds.
In which case, a literary event has been closed down due to fear of violence.
Which, to me, sounds like mob censorship.
(And no, I am not for a moment questioning the right to peaceful protest.)
The Home Secretary has banned the English Defence League from marching through Bradford.
The Home Office has said:
“Having carefully balanced rights to protest against the need to ensure local communities and property are protected, the Home Secretary today gave her consent to a Bradford Council order banning any marches in the city over the bank holiday weekend.
“West Yorkshire Police are committed to using their powers to ensure communities and property are protected and we encourage all local people to work with the police to ensure community cohesion is not undermined by public disorder.”
The letter from the Home Office confirming the ban is interesting, saying:
The application from the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police is clear that the activities of some who attend English Defence League protests — and indeed counter protests — has little to do with freedom of expression. So while the Government has set out its commitment to restore rights to non-violent protest, we are equally clear that such rights do not extend to intimidation, harassment, and criminality, and that rights to protest need to be balanced against the wider rights of local communities.
It’s nice that the notion of free expression is even acknowledged here.
But we must wonder: can we be free in a society that places public order above all other concerns?
Again, (see previous post)I’ll ask why offensive, potentially confrontational marches are allowed take place throughout Northern Ireland, but not in England?
Index on Censorship’s Mike Harris took part in a discussion on the use of social media and protest at the Frontline Club on Tuesday night with Sina Motalebi of BBC Persian TV, Sunny Hundal of Liberal Conspiracy, Benjamin Chesterton of Duckrabbit, and Mexico Reporter founder Deborah Bonello. Watch it below
