Whose Free Speech? – politicalbetting.com

Now, if the legal dispute between Ms Cherry and The Stand has been resolved with the latter accepting that they have been unlawfully discriminated against and restoring the event, it is worth considering what this issue says about free speech and the rights of the Equality Act.

First of all – and most importantly – it should not be said that there is a place that discriminates against people who have opposing views to Ms Cherry (transgender writer, say) because some staff disagree with “trust“or thought he was anti-woman or felt”insecure“, this will also be illegal and wrong and should not happen. Saying this does not – and does not – depend on agreeing with the opinion of the person who is discriminated against.

If only! It’s pretty much a racing certainty that those applauding The Stand for early cancellation and deploring its climb-down will be angry at the same thing that happened to people whose views they agree with. People’s views on freedom of speech, it seems, do not emerge from clear and consistent principles. They also have no regard for the law. For the most part, speech should only be allowed if it is consent speech.

This is a problem that has been around for centuries. We saw with Rushdie’s fatwa when, surprisingly, many people might have hoped to speak for writers in Western countries who were threatened with death by religious order by clerics in foreign countries, a threat supported by many people. from fellow writers, seeks to justify or explain the threat by claiming that “violate“has been caused, the one who is offended comes from another”culture” and culture and religion should be respected. It was a grim sight. It might have the virtue of honesty if the people who make these outrageous claims admit that they are scared and don’t want to be threatened with death.

All bad episodes also introduce us to the suffix “phobia”, which can easily be associated with any belief or category that needs to be followed. A new holy caste can be created and those who object become “phobia“, the 21st century version of “astray“. How wonderfully convenient! This pusillanimous reaction surfaced again and again in the following decades. The latest iteration won’t be the last.

There was a general reaction: an acknowledgment (often embarrassed) that what happened was censorship but that the safety of staff, viewers and others was more important. Lately, some have refused to acknowledge censorship. Instead, focus only on “affliction“Held by the complaining group, he”safety“and the most important obligation not to give”violate“. Those who object or point out what the law requires are called “phobia“or”fool“ thus making, at least in the minds of those who do it, wholly unnecessary to participate with their arguments, listen to people or pay attention to the requirements of the law.

What are all the different arguments over the years – but explained (“blasphemy“, “pain“,”violate“, “feeling insecure“or”fanatic“) – no more than “I don’t want to hear any dissenting opinions“. Sometimes, it’s unacceptable that people are allowed to believe that, but they certainly aren’t allowed to express it publicly. It is said that no one has the rights to the platform. Correct. But it is convenient to miss the point of the platform exercise have a duty to comply with UK anti-discrimination and equality laws. It also ignores the fact that it is not only freedom trust which is protected but freedom from expression also.

What is also apparent is the almost complete disregard for what the law says, despite the endless focus”human rights“. The European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v England clearly defined what the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression are.

“The Court’s supervisory function must pay maximum attention to the principles that characterize a “democratic society”. Freedom of expression is one of the important foundations of the society, one of the basic requirements for the progress and development of everyone. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it applies not only to “information” or “ideas that are well-received or considered not disturbing or a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock. or disturb Country or any sector of the population. That is the demand for pluralism, tolerance and openness without it there is no such thing as a “democratic society”. [Emphasis added]

This latest incident shows that these principles – and the laws passed to make them a reality – are not really valued, most worryingly, by politicians. No wonder others don’t care either.

There are two immediate consequences:

(1) People go to the law to enforce their rights. (Note that there have been at least 5 previous cases of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of belief, 3 in Scotland.) But (2) even if they win, the legal decisions are often ignored or misinterpreted, intentionally or unintentionally. .

What we now also accept is the claim that using the law to enforce rights or to prevent unlawful discrimination is a form of bullying. It’s as if those who do it don’t want some people to have the right – or the right – to everything. Universal human rights are not, apparently, meant to be universal. Another complaint is that requiring staff not to engage in or facilitate unlawful acts of discrimination is a form of slavery that cannot be tolerated. What can also be expected is an attempt to prevent legitimate events from taking place – not just protests about them – “veto heckler“- which can be unlawful discrimination.

There are more fundamental consequences. If politicians do not support the law in situations where it is specifically applied to the law, this will lead to disrespect for the law as a way to balance rights and enable different groups in society to live together in peace. In addition, it makes politicians increasingly irrelevant since the enactment and administration of the law are the same. What we risk is an arms race of people screaming loudly about the pain and evil/bigotry of others, in the hope that if they shout loud enough or act dangerously enough, they will too”win“- the narcissistic Tower of Babel”victims“. Emotions rather than critical and legal thinking. Is that really what you want?

Human rights – if they mean anything – should apply to all human beings, not just your friends. Legal rights – if there is any intention – should apply to all people who fall into the category to which the rights are granted. Legal rights – to be useful – must be enforced. Implement them not bullying. Politicians should not be afraid to speak up.

Above all, what is the objection [insert villain of choice] want is one of the approved opinions, which they agree with. Feel free to speak for me but not for you. But soon this will be free speech for anyone, even me. Because what they don’t understand is that if you do that, you’re not denying freedom. You oppose the totalitarianism of thought and you do it because you think you are on the winning side. But, one day, you won’t win and you’ll be shut down. And what will you say, the laws and conventions to protect you have been cut by you in your eagerness to impose your views on others?

Cycle free