The Golden Strawberry

For this weeks Redbrick I wrote a piece on free speech and the right to have a voice. I am going to expand on my points of view further here.

Last week Oxford Union allowed historian David Irving and BNP leader Nick Griffin talk about the freedom of speech. It is fair to say many were not particularly happy with such an event taking place. However, if those who had gone to protest had taken the time to listen to the debate, rather than naively try to hound people whom are not widely regarded figures, they may have learnt something. The issue is not what is being said, it seems clear that denying the Holocaust or inciting racial hatred are both deplorable actions. The issue is the right to say it. In a society that champions its own democracy and the freedom of individuals it seems odd that such an outrage could occur.
Free speech. It is what allows any critic to write what they like. It is what allows people to express views against the monarchy, or the government. It is a necessary part of British democracy and as such it is perfectly understandable as to why the debate took place. Free speech would get you jailed, or killed in many other countries across the world. In Britain we embrace it because of the positive effects it achieves.
It stimulates discussion; it provides debate and interest amongst everybody regardless of race or colour. It is a vital concept in a world where political correctness seems intent on restricting everything. Free speech, as would have surely been noted in the debate itself, is what allows opinion, and prevents Britain becoming like Orwell’s startling vision of it in 1984.
So why were there so many people demonstrating against this almost fundamental right last week? They were, it seems, protesting against the people. Irving and Griffin promote ideas that not many agree with. They express views which are distasteful and hugely controversial. However it should not be forgotten that they are both educated men and both are intelligent people. The conclusions they have reached are the result of many years of thought and study. Just because nobody really agrees with these thoughts does not mean they should receive the level of abuse that they have. Everyone should be allowed an opinion, and should not fear being chastised for it. The Church has a particularly strict view on abortion, for example, but nobody protests in such a vehement manner against that. It seems that the press have made students out to be easily manipulated by such thinkers as Irving or Griffin. Students, it seems to me, are some of the most opinionated people around, and suggesting that they blindly follow is rather a stupid thing to say. The point about students and young people is that they are more willing to listen to other views than their older counterparts. However, just because they listen does not mean they agree.
That the debate happened at all is something of a miracle. It is also hugely welcome. It served to point out continuing hypocrisies in society which apparently will allow free speech to everyone, apart from those with whom it disagrees.

To put things another way, why should I fear being publically condemned for voicing my own opinion about a topic which may be controversial? Just because society disagrees with a view that I might hold, it should not discourage me from talking about it. If I can prove that I have reached such conclusions through independent thought and reasoning then should I not be allowed to say them? I am not forcing my opinions upon anybody, and I am not saying that people have to agree with my opinions, but surely people can be open minded enough to at least let me have my say.

It seems stupid that in a society as liberal and free as ours there are still subjects, or points of view which are seen as taboo. Everyone knows these views are there, but nobody wants to discuss them. As soon as somebody does, they get criticised and savaged for having the guts to bring a subject back into public conscience. I do not agree with Griffin, or Irving for that matter, but I can respect their right to free speech and I like to think that I am educated enough to disagree with their opinions, but be willing to listen to them.

I just do not get how people can be so ignorant of the world around them. I do not understand how people can be criticised for expressing views which are contrary to that of the society around them. I fail to understand how the people who do this criticising justify the decision to criticise, without making themselves look uneducated and particularly stupid.

At this point I am going to stop for fear of boring people. If there is one thing you take from this it is the confidence to speak your own mind. Everyone has that right, and should not be shot down for exercising it.

Luke