The recent decision by the Danish Arts Council to grant research funding to a holocaust denier has attracted criticism from commentators in Israel. This is both baffling and alarming when you consider that the subject of the student’s study is the involvement of Danes in Hitler’s SS, and not the existence or otherwise of the Final Solution. There is no need here to extrapolate from the particular abhorrence of holocaust denial, the legitimacy of the moral indignation that it provokes, and the need for it to be fought wherever it raises its ugly head. But it must be fought on the proper grounds, using the proper tools; and that is the ground of open and informed debate, using the tool of reasoned argument. What is not acceptable is the attempt to suppress unfavourable beliefs through legislation or through the refusal of funds for academic study.
The fact is that morality and moral censure, no matter how justified, have no say in the process of allocating research funding. It is worth remembering that some of the greatest advances in human history have been the product of research considered heretical or immoral at the time. In the context of fund allocation, the only relevant criterion is the academic merits of the scholar's submission. This doesn’t mean that, free from the shackles of moral oversight, any offensive crackpot theory may count on megabucks for its investigation as, clearly, part of what it means to have academic merit is not to fly in the face of extensively researched historical data. If the Danish student in question had attempted to get money for a project on holocaust denial, it would have been rejected on this basis.
But the fact is, he did not. His submission wasn’t a crackpot theory, but a legitimate area of study. It was merely his incidental belief in an offensive theory that has attracted so much controversy. Not only is this idea absurd (should hard-line but non-violent Muslims be barred from studying the ecology of the Galapagos Islands? Are anti-immigration campaigners to be denied access to Quantum Theory?), but it is hugely dangerous and self-defeating for a thriving democracy. The moment the determination of government funding for students depends on the applicant’s personal beliefs is the moment academic freedom wheezes its last breath, to be replaced by a stultifying and oppressive conformity in the academic community - supposedly the vanguard in thought and attitude - which would then suffuse society as a whole. The fact that such obvious dangers are lost on the detractors of the Danish Arts Council’s decision is worrying, and indeed hypocritical given the much-lamented boycott by British institutions that Israel’s academics are currently enduring. So it seems that denial and myopia are the order of the day.
Beau Hopkins
Friday 27 July 2007
'English, motherfucker, do you speak it?!'
Although it is not a 'free speech' story, strictly speaking, this news item from the Scotsman indicates that people who immigrate to the UK will no longer be free to learn to speak...English, that is. Or certainly not as freely as before.
The UK government has decided, in yet another authoritarian clampdown on freedom of movement, to shut down 'bogus' language colleges to dissuade immigrants from entering the country. Now, anyone who has ever walked down London's Oxford Street will have noticed a number of first floor offices advertising themselves as reputable language schools. You may even have thought to yourself, 'that might be a bit dodgy'. Or if you're 'a bit dodgy' yourself, you may even have thought them to be a front for any number of illicit activities, starting with prostitution, via forgery and money laundering, and ending with drug-smuggling. But most people don't think like that. I certainly don't.
In any case, the government seems to have found yet another way to plug those mythical 'porous borders' that allow those 'foreign hordes' looking for work to slip through. It is unclear from the report whether the schools are alleged actually to be fronts for other illegal activity (dope, cash, ho's) or whether the colleges are simply fakes that allow foreigners to pretend to be students to allow them to stay and work in the UK. It seems though that the latter is true, in which case the government doesn't even have the 'crime-fighting' justification - it's simply a brute crackdown on immigrants. Further, it seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to a couple of dodgy language schools that have popped up. Worse, many of these schools provide a service (at the cost of a few hundred pounds per student) that the state no longer adequately provides - i.e. a place for new immigrants to learn English. If the government were indeed serious about being 'able to offer international students the assurance that they are applying to trustworthy and good quality learning institutions in the UK', in the words of the higher education minister, Bill Rammell, they would fund language schools.
Regardless, Bill Rammell, felt compelled to make the point that, 'the government welcomes the many genuine international students who come to study in the UK each year.' But anyone wanting to learn to speak the language, or worse, only pretend to for something as spurious as earning a living, is NOT WELCOME. To Rammell, 'genuine' international students are probably those that are well-educated, middle-class, and who more likely than not already speak some English.
The irony of this story is that Gordon Brown told The Sun on the very same day: 'We are going to take a far tougher line. I want a message to go out - if you come here you work and learn our language.' That's right, and if you think you can sneak in to this country and work by signing up to learn our language, well buddy, you're seriously mistaken! Er...?
The insistence that immigrants learn English, integrate and take part in civil society is a desperate and populist move. It is a further irony that the ability to converse with fellow citizens, to speak freely - integral to taking part in the political process, being an active citizen as well as a good neighbour, etc - has been so seriously limited by this government in other ways. Now they are even making it difficult to learn English in the first place, or to use that avenue to covertly get in, get a job, get paid, get involved, get educated, get the vote, get a life... Get it?
It's like being stuck between a rock and a... an... er... um... er... what's that word again?
Alex Hochuli
The UK government has decided, in yet another authoritarian clampdown on freedom of movement, to shut down 'bogus' language colleges to dissuade immigrants from entering the country. Now, anyone who has ever walked down London's Oxford Street will have noticed a number of first floor offices advertising themselves as reputable language schools. You may even have thought to yourself, 'that might be a bit dodgy'. Or if you're 'a bit dodgy' yourself, you may even have thought them to be a front for any number of illicit activities, starting with prostitution, via forgery and money laundering, and ending with drug-smuggling. But most people don't think like that. I certainly don't.
In any case, the government seems to have found yet another way to plug those mythical 'porous borders' that allow those 'foreign hordes' looking for work to slip through. It is unclear from the report whether the schools are alleged actually to be fronts for other illegal activity (dope, cash, ho's) or whether the colleges are simply fakes that allow foreigners to pretend to be students to allow them to stay and work in the UK. It seems though that the latter is true, in which case the government doesn't even have the 'crime-fighting' justification - it's simply a brute crackdown on immigrants. Further, it seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to a couple of dodgy language schools that have popped up. Worse, many of these schools provide a service (at the cost of a few hundred pounds per student) that the state no longer adequately provides - i.e. a place for new immigrants to learn English. If the government were indeed serious about being 'able to offer international students the assurance that they are applying to trustworthy and good quality learning institutions in the UK', in the words of the higher education minister, Bill Rammell, they would fund language schools.
Regardless, Bill Rammell, felt compelled to make the point that, 'the government welcomes the many genuine international students who come to study in the UK each year.' But anyone wanting to learn to speak the language, or worse, only pretend to for something as spurious as earning a living, is NOT WELCOME. To Rammell, 'genuine' international students are probably those that are well-educated, middle-class, and who more likely than not already speak some English.
The irony of this story is that Gordon Brown told The Sun on the very same day: 'We are going to take a far tougher line. I want a message to go out - if you come here you work and learn our language.' That's right, and if you think you can sneak in to this country and work by signing up to learn our language, well buddy, you're seriously mistaken! Er...?
The insistence that immigrants learn English, integrate and take part in civil society is a desperate and populist move. It is a further irony that the ability to converse with fellow citizens, to speak freely - integral to taking part in the political process, being an active citizen as well as a good neighbour, etc - has been so seriously limited by this government in other ways. Now they are even making it difficult to learn English in the first place, or to use that avenue to covertly get in, get a job, get paid, get involved, get educated, get the vote, get a life... Get it?
It's like being stuck between a rock and a... an... er... um... er... what's that word again?
Alex Hochuli
Tuesday 24 July 2007
Is it cuz I iz in your mind?
Nigel Marlow, principal psychology lecturer at flagship managerialiser of universities, London Metropolitan University, has developed a programme for businesses to test for ‘implicit racist attitudes’ in job applicants. Dubbed 'violator of the subconscious' by the mainstream press, and recently bemoaned by shadow work and pensions secretary Philip Hammond ('where does it stop?'), the test has quickly gained stardom as the 'thought-police' of our times.
Its celebrity, however, is likely to be short-lived, given its utterly reductive measurement criteria: the test consists of a quick-fire flicking of black and white faces on a screen which the potential racist immediately puts into categories of ‘good/positive’ and ‘bad/negative'. It begs the question: which is worse? That all people are exhaustively either black or white or that we’re allowed only two responses to those we meet – positive or negative? As the Telegraph points out, people hold associations for all sorts of reasons. The test assumes our primary reaction to each other is based on skin colour, not, for example, on whether we are attracted to each other’s faces or are distracted by that spot under your nose. It will only ‘catch’ people who aren’t aware enough of their reactions to control them. If you’re one of those pesky racists with phenomenal mind-control however, you get to prolong your silent and harmless affront to humanity.
Throw in the language of ‘unmasking’ racists, and you have the perfect game of tag for bored office-workers. But beyond the distraction of the test's obvious absurdity lies the more worrying assumption that an instantaneous, pre-rationalised generalisation based on skin-colour counts as racism, and that civilised society is therefore being undermined by our subconscious. Apparently, for Nigel Marlow and London Met, attempting to monitor and manage attitudes I’m not even conscious of and making my knee-jerk emotional responses more important than my rationally reflected ones counts as upholding civility. If this is the thought police, they'll be no more effective than the body police who hang around London tube stations, glaring at all the brown people.
Sarah Boyes
Its celebrity, however, is likely to be short-lived, given its utterly reductive measurement criteria: the test consists of a quick-fire flicking of black and white faces on a screen which the potential racist immediately puts into categories of ‘good/positive’ and ‘bad/negative'. It begs the question: which is worse? That all people are exhaustively either black or white or that we’re allowed only two responses to those we meet – positive or negative? As the Telegraph points out, people hold associations for all sorts of reasons. The test assumes our primary reaction to each other is based on skin colour, not, for example, on whether we are attracted to each other’s faces or are distracted by that spot under your nose. It will only ‘catch’ people who aren’t aware enough of their reactions to control them. If you’re one of those pesky racists with phenomenal mind-control however, you get to prolong your silent and harmless affront to humanity.
Throw in the language of ‘unmasking’ racists, and you have the perfect game of tag for bored office-workers. But beyond the distraction of the test's obvious absurdity lies the more worrying assumption that an instantaneous, pre-rationalised generalisation based on skin-colour counts as racism, and that civilised society is therefore being undermined by our subconscious. Apparently, for Nigel Marlow and London Met, attempting to monitor and manage attitudes I’m not even conscious of and making my knee-jerk emotional responses more important than my rationally reflected ones counts as upholding civility. If this is the thought police, they'll be no more effective than the body police who hang around London tube stations, glaring at all the brown people.
Sarah Boyes
Wednesday 18 July 2007
Putting free speech behind bars
Four radical Islamists have recently been imprisoned for participating in last year's demonstrations against the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Shockingly, three have been sentenced to six years, and the fourth to four years. However objectionable these men's opinions are, and however obnoxious their means of expressing them, they have essentially been jailed for several years for taking part in a non-violent protest.
How is this possible? The three men sentenced for six years were convicted of soliciting murder. This is patently ridiculous. Whose murder did they solicit? Whom did they expect to carry it out? Their conviction might have been defensible if the men had corralled impressionable youths into carrying out suicide bombings, or hired a contract killer to take someone out. In fact, what they did was stand outside the Danish Embassy shouting stupid slogans about killing British soldiers and bombing Britain and Denmark. The fourth man was convicted of incitement to racial hatred. Incitement is a dubious enough concept, which assumes that those 'incited' have little or no moral agency of their own. But the notion of 'soliciting' is even worse: it attributes the accused with direct responsibility for crimes that never happened, where there can have been no reasonable expectation that any crime would ensue.
No doubt the sentences were meant to be shocking, to 'send a message' to other radical Islamists that their hateful ranting will not be tolerated. The rest of us should be shocked too, for the message is loud and clear: you can now be locked up for several years for nothing more than hateful ranting. It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to think of other situations in which such a liberal interpretation of criminal responsibility might condemn other non-violent protesters with very different political views. The threat to free speech is clear and present.
Dolan Cummings
The prosecution of Bo.J.
Allegedly loveable buffoon Boris Johnson has thrown his multicoloured ski-hat into the ring for the race to become London’s mayor. Boris, like the Conservative Party itself, has no actual programme, (replying to a reporter who asked him what his policies would be, “London is a great city”), but the root of his popularity lies not in his political outlook, but his frequent outspoken faux pas, which delight many who see him as an eccentric antidote to the stuffed grey suits who populate political life today.
Boris has taken a swing at many of the worst aspects of contemporary politics, expressing in a fairly bluff and blundering way a perfectly understandable wish for people to be robust and autonomous. In October 2004 he famously criticised Liverpudlians for ‘wallowing’ in their ‘victim status’ following the execution of Ken Bigley by Iraqi insurgents. At the 2006 Conservative Party conference he caused uproar for criticising Jamie Oliver and the government’s insidious regulation of lifestyles, saying ‘if I was in charge, I would get rid of Jamie Oliver and tell people to eat what they like;’ he also stood up for the reviled women who give junk food to their kids at break time: ‘I say let people eat what they like. Why shouldn’t they push pies through the railings?’ In April 2007 he called Portsmouth ‘one of the most depressed towns in southern England,’ being ‘too full of drugs, obesity, underachievement and Labour MPs.’
The reason people warm to Boris is that he dares to say things that mainstream politicians don’t. Indeed, the reactions to his various outbursts (which are invariably described as ‘gaffes’ rather than as legitimate expressions of opinion) show the extent to which free speech is curtailed even for our elected representatives. Michael Howard despatched Boris to Liverpool to do penance, he was made to revoke his comments about Jamie Oliver (while the Conference passed a resolution commending the celebrity chef), Portsmouth LibDem MP Mike Hancock called for Boris to be sacked over his Portsmouth ‘insult’, and Boris also had to apologise to the entire population of Papua New Guinea when its High Commissioner protested against a flippant remark about ‘Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing’ in the Conservative party. He was backed by his party only once, over Portsmouth.
It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that even our elected leaders feel a need to back down, self-censor and apologise for speech that sensitive individuals find insulting. Although I’m pretty sure that Boris couldn’t run a piss-up in a brewery and would be a disastrous mayor of London, he deserves commendation for the sheer (and deliberate) insincerity of his enforced apologies. Over Liverpool (where surely no more than three copies of the Spectator are read annually, in any case), he said, ‘I am a squeezed lemon on this subject’, and his comedic media blitz betrayed both a good sense of humour and his total lack of genuine remorse. Over Jamie Oliver, he recanted in ridiculously fulsome terms, saying Oliver was ‘a national saint’. And over Papua, he said, ‘I meant no insult to the people of Papua New Guinea, who I’m sure lead lives of blameless bourgeois domesticity in common with the rest of us,’ promising to ‘add Papua New Guinea to my global itinerary of apology.’
Now, if only serious politicians could take a leaf out of Boris’s book, and dare to break, rather than make, taboos.
Boris has taken a swing at many of the worst aspects of contemporary politics, expressing in a fairly bluff and blundering way a perfectly understandable wish for people to be robust and autonomous. In October 2004 he famously criticised Liverpudlians for ‘wallowing’ in their ‘victim status’ following the execution of Ken Bigley by Iraqi insurgents. At the 2006 Conservative Party conference he caused uproar for criticising Jamie Oliver and the government’s insidious regulation of lifestyles, saying ‘if I was in charge, I would get rid of Jamie Oliver and tell people to eat what they like;’ he also stood up for the reviled women who give junk food to their kids at break time: ‘I say let people eat what they like. Why shouldn’t they push pies through the railings?’ In April 2007 he called Portsmouth ‘one of the most depressed towns in southern England,’ being ‘too full of drugs, obesity, underachievement and Labour MPs.’
The reason people warm to Boris is that he dares to say things that mainstream politicians don’t. Indeed, the reactions to his various outbursts (which are invariably described as ‘gaffes’ rather than as legitimate expressions of opinion) show the extent to which free speech is curtailed even for our elected representatives. Michael Howard despatched Boris to Liverpool to do penance, he was made to revoke his comments about Jamie Oliver (while the Conference passed a resolution commending the celebrity chef), Portsmouth LibDem MP Mike Hancock called for Boris to be sacked over his Portsmouth ‘insult’, and Boris also had to apologise to the entire population of Papua New Guinea when its High Commissioner protested against a flippant remark about ‘Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing’ in the Conservative party. He was backed by his party only once, over Portsmouth.
It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that even our elected leaders feel a need to back down, self-censor and apologise for speech that sensitive individuals find insulting. Although I’m pretty sure that Boris couldn’t run a piss-up in a brewery and would be a disastrous mayor of London, he deserves commendation for the sheer (and deliberate) insincerity of his enforced apologies. Over Liverpool (where surely no more than three copies of the Spectator are read annually, in any case), he said, ‘I am a squeezed lemon on this subject’, and his comedic media blitz betrayed both a good sense of humour and his total lack of genuine remorse. Over Jamie Oliver, he recanted in ridiculously fulsome terms, saying Oliver was ‘a national saint’. And over Papua, he said, ‘I meant no insult to the people of Papua New Guinea, who I’m sure lead lives of blameless bourgeois domesticity in common with the rest of us,’ promising to ‘add Papua New Guinea to my global itinerary of apology.’
Now, if only serious politicians could take a leaf out of Boris’s book, and dare to break, rather than make, taboos.
Lee Jones
Tuesday 17 July 2007
The posture of victimhood
Unsurprisingly, Lydia Playfoot, the 16-year-old English schoolgirl who took her school to court after she was banned from wearing a 'purity ring' at school, has lost her case. The High Court ruled that Millais School in West Sussex had not violated the girl's human rights by preventing her from wearing a ring, even one symbolising her commitment to chastity until marriage. The verdict is sensible enough: school dress codes are surely best left to schools rather than fought out in the law courts. But the fact that the case did require judicial arbitration says a lot about contemporary society's confusion over both free expression and sexual morality.
It does perhaps seem odd that the school refused to tolerate such an innocuous piece of jewellery, but it is even more bizarre that rather than accepting the decision with good grace - turning the other cheek, you might say - Lydia and her family chose to turn the affair into a national media circus, even claiming that this was an example of the persecution of Christians. First of all, 'the silver ring thing' is hardly a tenet of the Christian faith, but rather a recent innovation of the American evangelical movement. Second, and more importantly, in turning this into an issue of self-expression and martyrdom, the Playfoots actually detracted from the moral purpose supposedly so close to their hearts.
Just as we hear more about the victimisation and demonisation of Muslims than we do about the virtues of Islam, we now hear more about the 'persecution' of Christians than the persecution of Christ and the moral message associated with it. We do hear a lot about the spiritual emptiness and moral decadence of contemporary secular society, but much less about what religion has to offer as an alternative. Instead, whenever things come to a head, religious groups are all too ready to adopt the all-too-secular strategies of crying victimisation and going to court. Indeed, when asked about her belief in chastity, Lydia highlighted the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy rather than invoke Biblical morality or spiritual concerns. Even this libertarian atheist can think of more profound reasons than those to be wary of sexual licence.
If Christians and other religious communities have a moral critique to make of secular society, they would do better to spit it out and let us all debate the matter, rather than hiding behind made-up religious symbols and the posture of victimhood.
Dolan Cummings
It does perhaps seem odd that the school refused to tolerate such an innocuous piece of jewellery, but it is even more bizarre that rather than accepting the decision with good grace - turning the other cheek, you might say - Lydia and her family chose to turn the affair into a national media circus, even claiming that this was an example of the persecution of Christians. First of all, 'the silver ring thing' is hardly a tenet of the Christian faith, but rather a recent innovation of the American evangelical movement. Second, and more importantly, in turning this into an issue of self-expression and martyrdom, the Playfoots actually detracted from the moral purpose supposedly so close to their hearts.
Just as we hear more about the victimisation and demonisation of Muslims than we do about the virtues of Islam, we now hear more about the 'persecution' of Christians than the persecution of Christ and the moral message associated with it. We do hear a lot about the spiritual emptiness and moral decadence of contemporary secular society, but much less about what religion has to offer as an alternative. Instead, whenever things come to a head, religious groups are all too ready to adopt the all-too-secular strategies of crying victimisation and going to court. Indeed, when asked about her belief in chastity, Lydia highlighted the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy rather than invoke Biblical morality or spiritual concerns. Even this libertarian atheist can think of more profound reasons than those to be wary of sexual licence.
If Christians and other religious communities have a moral critique to make of secular society, they would do better to spit it out and let us all debate the matter, rather than hiding behind made-up religious symbols and the posture of victimhood.
Dolan Cummings
Saturday 7 July 2007
OfCom Slams Channel 4 Reality TV Racism! … Oh… wait… no they don’t…
Anyone who’s been following the news in Britain in the past few months can’t have escaped the Big Brother racism rows. Firstly, ‘celebrity’ Jade Goody became a national hate symbol for her bullying of Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty, calling her amongst other things “Shilpa Poppadom”. Channel 4 were roundly condemned by everyone from Gordon Brown, to a Bihari mob (who burnt effigies of executives), to Ofcom, Britain’s self righteous post-hoc TV censors. Then, in the next series of BB, Emily Parr was unceremoniously cast out of the house for using the “N word” (bizarrely quite innocently) to another contestant. The chastening effect of Ofcom’s condemnation and the media furore around CBB seems to have prompted the producers’ tough action.
But almost simultaneously, on the show Shipwrecked, ex-public schoolgirl Lucy Buchanan was busy declaring that black people were “bad”, that she hoped for the restoration of slavery and the British Empire, and that she didn’t like fat and ugly people (insert uncharitable joke here). Ofcom’s recently published reaction this time defended Channel 4’s right to include unpopular views in the programme (of course with the proviso that these were “in context”).
Whilst of course it’s always good to hear anyone attacking limits on freedom of expression, frankly what the hell is going on? To me, Lucy’s views are a lot more coherently obnoxious that the rather arbitrary faux pas committed by the other two; more reminiscent of the traditional racism of the elite, rather than the ‘chavtastic’ chauvinism of someone like Goody. However in a time where xenophobia is seen as a rather proley pursuit, and often as a tool to bash the white working class, Goody makes a good punchbag.
However I think incoherence is more of a motivation than class war. Without a clear idea of what it wants to censor or why (unlike for instance with Irish Republicans in the 1980s), Ofcom has made it up on the hoof, condemning displays of pseudo-racism one day, and permitting real displays on another. But as was noted previously on this blog, the encouraging part of this story was the reaction of the other contestants who argued against Lucy’s bigotry- they had faith in talking and arguing rather than shutting people up. If only the same could be said for Ofcom.
Robin Walsh
But almost simultaneously, on the show Shipwrecked, ex-public schoolgirl Lucy Buchanan was busy declaring that black people were “bad”, that she hoped for the restoration of slavery and the British Empire, and that she didn’t like fat and ugly people (insert uncharitable joke here). Ofcom’s recently published reaction this time defended Channel 4’s right to include unpopular views in the programme (of course with the proviso that these were “in context”).
Whilst of course it’s always good to hear anyone attacking limits on freedom of expression, frankly what the hell is going on? To me, Lucy’s views are a lot more coherently obnoxious that the rather arbitrary faux pas committed by the other two; more reminiscent of the traditional racism of the elite, rather than the ‘chavtastic’ chauvinism of someone like Goody. However in a time where xenophobia is seen as a rather proley pursuit, and often as a tool to bash the white working class, Goody makes a good punchbag.
However I think incoherence is more of a motivation than class war. Without a clear idea of what it wants to censor or why (unlike for instance with Irish Republicans in the 1980s), Ofcom has made it up on the hoof, condemning displays of pseudo-racism one day, and permitting real displays on another. But as was noted previously on this blog, the encouraging part of this story was the reaction of the other contestants who argued against Lucy’s bigotry- they had faith in talking and arguing rather than shutting people up. If only the same could be said for Ofcom.
Robin Walsh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
