thinking mission

what price free speech?

The world would be a better place if those who place such value on freedom of speech were to realise that, once gained, its highest expression can be the discipline to stay silent.  

To expend something of such value on a few bawdy cartoons, solely aimed at inflaming feelings, is to pour scorn on that which has been won at such high cost.

Just because you “can” doesn’t mean you “should”.

The high cost of freedom of speech was paid by Aung San Suu Kyi who dared to speak of the repression of her people by military dictators, accepting that for this freedom she must suffer house arrest for fifteen of the last twenty years of her life. 

The price of freedom of speech was paid by Nelson Mandela spending 18 years as he struggled on behalf of black people to claim the right to walk on the same footpaths as white people, swim on the same beaches, urinate in the same toilet block and sit on the same park bench.

Freedom of Speech was a prize of such value that it led millions of men and women to give their lives to overcome the tyranny of the Nazi party, heroes all of them, so often drawing their last breath in their teens and twenties. If that war had been lost any notion of free speech would have been gone for decades.

And, with particular reference to the current controversy, amongst them were heroes of the French Resistance such as Jean Moulin, arrested in 1940 and tortured mercilessly by Gestapo chief Klaus Barbie and others before dying in 1943 without disclosing a single thing they wanted to hear.

So let there be no doubt, freedom of speech is one of the most basic, most foundational and therefore most important human rights.  It says we are all created of equal worth, and any ordering of society, be it democracy or theocracy, republic or monarchy should not deny that right to express myself.  It’s a freedom that we so often take for granted. But it is truly a priceless treasure.

So, like Voltaire we should be willing to die for the right of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo to print their cartoons of Mohammad, whether they be offensive, vulgar, bawdy or just plain tedious.  Artistry is not the point here.

But I tell you what is the point. Men like Stephane Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdo who thinks he knows what freedom of speech is about, has lost sight of how valuable this freedom is. 

They have cheapened it in a way that deserves no plaudits, but only the condemnation that will surely come when innocent people find themselves facing murderous crowds in the days to come.  How tragic that there are innocent, talented French men and women serving as diplomats, teachers or cultural ambassadors somewhere in the world tonight who may be dead within a week because of his crass stupidity.

But let’s tackle the other side of the issue.  It will be said that it isn't the cartoons that will kill, if that is what happens. It will be people whose rage allows them to justify the destruction of those they define as a legitimate target. Strictly speaking this is so, it isn't the cartoons that directly kill and if such murders happen they are also indefensible.

In law, its clear that freedom of speech isn't an absolute.  You can’t racially abuse someone, or incite violence.  Even in the United States, that bastion of free speech, the famous remark of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr in a 1919 US Supreme Court ruling is pertinent here:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic… The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”

In those terms, Charlie Hebdo could be prosecuted, for only someone without a brain would argue that they didn’t realise that violence would follow publication of these cartoons.

But this doesn’t help us in the impasse.  Finding fault with one side or the other, declaring a victor and a victim, only perpetuates the problem. The answer, if one is to be found, lies elsewhere. And it’s going to revolve around restraint and respect.

The restraint not to publish what you know you can publish out of respect for those who do not value what you deem important.   

The restraint not to turn to violence even though you know that violence is an option out of respect for people who clearly do not value your faith.

In that sense, when the French publishers point the finger at Muslims turning to violence in the coming days, they themselves stand guilty of the same charge. A fundamental lack of restraint and respect.

Just because you “can” doesn’t mean you “should”.

David Kerrigan 

faith and the law

In recent years a number of cases have gone to court involving Christians who claim they have been victims of discrimination.  Often the decisions against these Christians have been upheld, the cumulative effect of which has been to give rise to the suspicion that Christians are being treated unfairly under the law.  

Four such people have now appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.  You can read the BBC report here, and for sure the outcomes will be important.  

When these stories first hit the headlines in 2009/10, I went to interview Shami Chakrabarti, Diretor of Liberty, who had played a role in most of these cases.  You can read my reflections on that meeting, and watch the interview by clicking on No Blacks. No Dogs. No Irish.

The question is, how will these cases go in the European Court? 

The case of Nadia Eweida, who was suspended by British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross was then, and is now, ridiculous.  Especially so when one considers that Muslims and Sikh members of BA staff could, at that same time, openly wear religious dress and symbols as part of their clothing.  (BA argued that a cross was not a normal expression of being a Christian!)  Interestingly, though some Christians think of Shami Chakrabarti as being anti-Christian, Liberty actively supported Nadia Eweida.

As a result BA changed its uniform policy to allow for the open wearing of all religious symbols, including crosses, but it would not admit that the original policy was unlawful and therefore refused to pay Ms Eweida for the three months she was suspended from work. The issue for the court therefore is not whether she can now wear a cross (she can) but whether BA’s initial refusal was illegal. If the courts decide BA did not act illegally, it leaves open to BA or any other employer to make arbitrary rules prohibiting religious symbols.

I doubt if the court will support the legality of BA’s initial decision, but we’ll see.  In the meantime Christina Patterson in a brilliant article in The Independent points out the delicious irony that the lawyers defending this case come from a Government led by a Prime Minister who declared “we are a Christian country and should not be afraid to say so.”

Shirley Chaplin’s case is equally as ridiculous as it is indefensible.  Ms Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital because she too wanted to wear a cross. The Trust wanted her to wear it so it wasn’t visible, on Health and Safety grounds. Surely, one might think, they would be better focusing on hand-washing to eradicate MRSA rather than argue somewhat improbably that one day a patient might be killed by… what?  A cross falling off a chain?  I don’t think so.

Gary McFarlane, the third member of the group is a relationship counselor who was sacked by Relate after saying that he might have a conscientious objection to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples.  This takes us into more difficult territory.   Irrespective of one’s views about homosexuality, the fact is that gay people have long fought for equal rights under the law.  Having won those rights, they are entitled to be treated equally.

In reality however there was no practical reason to sack Mr McFarlane. No gay couple would have been deprived of advice as other counselors were available but Relate chose not to make any accommodation for Mr McFarlane’s views.  This is a common theme – one of an unwillingness to seek an accommodation. Mr McFarlane was in effect being told ‘your conscience has no place here’.  (Read here for an example of a company that did reach an accommodation in a similar case)

So whilst I wholly support the view that gay people should not be discriminated against, it seems a pity that no effort to reach an ‘accommodation’ or a compromise was explored.  Some will ask, quite rightly, where is the evidence Christians are willing to ‘accommodate’ gay people?  That’s a strong argument and in the court of public opinion, Christians as a group would be found guilty as charged.

But a position that says conscience has no part to play in the public space is worrying.    For example, such a ‘no conscience’ ruling could have implications for nurses and doctors who have been able to say for some time that they wish to have no role in abortions.

So this case is harder to call.  My hunch is that Relate will win.

And finally there is the case of Registrar Lilian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused, on grounds of conscience, to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in Islington.  The initial objection was lodged by gay members of Islington staff who felt victimised by her stance. Liberty would argue that to follow one’s conscience in a situation like this demands that you give up your job and fight for a change in the law, not that your employer needs to make special arrangements for you.

And, as I indicate above, I have some sympathy for this view, and believe these examples are not primarily a case of religious discrimination but rather a case of a democratic society passing laws that reflect its values.  If Christians have a problem with those laws then our task is to work towards their change. I believe Islington Council’s position will be upheld.

Whilst these four cases have gone to the European Court of Human Rights together, I think the main focus will be on the latter two cases. And here my main concern is not that the decision will go one way or the other, but that Christians will again be portrayed as anti-gay. 

Not for the first time the focus will be on the ethics of the bedroom.  Jesus had far more to say about the ethics of the boardroom.

David Kerrigan