Debate at the Tate

On Friday 1st June the Tate Britain hosted a debate on the limits of freedom of speech. The event was advertised as an inquiry into the principles of free expression and what could constitute the moral imperative to transgress the law and exercise the right to speak out. The assembled speakers promised an engaging discussion. They included Lisa Appignanesi, Deputy President of the English branch of PEN, a worldwide association for the protection of writers’ rights to free expression; novelist Hari Kunzru; Claire Fox, director of the think tank the Institute of Ideas; and Maya Sikand, a criminal defence barrister. So it was unfortunate that free speech was not discussed more than it was. Instead, much of the argument centred on the current exhibition by Mark Wallinger, which displays the assembled placards, banners, flags and posters of Parliament Square protestor Brian Haw.

Nonetheless, the event provided a brief but compelling insight into the health of contemporary free speech debate. The chair, Lisa Appignanesi, opened the discussion by highlighting what she saw as the two principle restrictions on freedom of speech: security and the need for social harmony. She also stressed the need for free speech advocates to address the conflict between the right of the individual, usually an artist, to free expression and the right of a larger group to express itself in opposition to it. She added that in such cases the government usually sides with the majority, citing the example of Gurpreet Bhatti’s play ‘Beshti’, which enraged parts of the Sikh community, whose protests forced the play to close. However, she did not explore the issue further.

The second speaker, Claire Fox, offered a far more comprehensive analysis of the need for limitless free speech and the role it plays in shaping contemporary attitudes. She argued that one of the effects of multiculturalism was to encourage various groups to identify themselves as victims in need of protection. She went on to say that although legislation enacted to protect such groups may not directly affect the praxis of free speech for ordinary people every day, it still creates an atmosphere whereby people are entitled to feel offended by certain statements or viewpoints, with this entitlement leading to the proscription of the offending views. The consequence of such an atmosphere was a cultural conformity, with a dominant orthodoxy holding sway on the majority of current issues, from the environment to immigration.

Maya Sikand seemed slightly overawed by the discussion. When she was asked by the chair whether or not there should be limits to free expression, she replied that there should be, but seemed unable to explain why. Hari Kunzru was similarly evasive, and instead focussed on the current exhibition and the legitimacy of artistic protest, a topic that was to dominate the rest of the debate.

What made the debate so disappointing, but ultimately instructive, was not so much the lack of attention that the keynote issue received, but the conspicuous absence of coherence and intellectual rigour in the arguments employed by the panel. With the exception of Claire Fox, none of the speakers attempted to contextualise and explore the intellectual basis of the free speech debate. It is all very well saying that free speech is a good thing, and that we should have more of it, but this does not amount to a defence, or even a debate. As part of a coherent argument in favour of free speech, it must be shown why here and now, in this particular place, at this particular time, an unqualified right to free speech is necessary. Free speech is not a fringe issue that only touches a select group of extremists and artists. A suffocating discursive atmosphere that encourages people not to speak their mind for fear of offending others or saying the wrong thing or getting sacked is something that affects us all. Nor is free speech independent of contemporary social and political issues. It is absolutely fundamental in shaping our response to those issues: when certain views are excluded for being offensive or contrary to mainstream opinion, the spectrum of debate of a particular topic is narrowed, which can lead to artificial consensus. So the notion of a robust discursive culture is not a luxurious ornament: it is necessary to the critical exploration of politics and society, and thence to the political and social health of the nation. As such, it must remain at the forefront of public discussion. The poverty of argument on show on Friday suggests that there isn’t enough debate on this issue. Greater discussion of free speech will develop a more rigorous and coherent intellectual arsenal for its defence, and, if the debate at the Tate is anything to go by, free expression currently stands in dire need of stronger arguments and stronger arguers.

Beau Hopkins