The right to ridicule is essential to free speech

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The right to ridicule is essential to free speech

matthew parris

Boris Johnson is a flawed politician but we must defend to the hilt his use of invective and insult, wherever directed

n these troubling times for free speech, two pieces of writing are worth re-reading. Both are from the 18th century. In 1729 the satirist Jonathan Swift published A Modest Proposal For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick. Swift’s proposal was that the starving Irish should eat their own babies.

Thirty years later the French satirist Voltaire published Candide ou l’Optimisme. Ostensibly a novel, Candide follows the progress of an at-first innocent young man’s journey through life and is a story of lust, war, syphilis, earthquakes and religious hypocrisy. Many telling phrases survive, most famously “All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds” and “Let’s eat a Jesuit”.

Both publications were offensive in the extreme. Both were crude and neither was “intelligent”, “constructive” or “thoughtful”. Voltaire mocked God and those who believed in Him. Swift was effectively calling the English barbarians and worse for their treatment of Ireland. Neither work contained anything you could really call an argument. Neither advanced rational debate. Neither represented a respectful attempt to start a public conversation. They were just sticking their tongues out.

Both books were deeply disapproved of, wildly successful, never forgotten, and arguably more influential than millions of words of constructive debate. Scorn, anger, mockery, even hate, are deeply woven into the way competing beliefs, ideas and practices fight it out in a free society, and you could as well remove ridicule from free speech as salt from a salt-beef sandwich.

Look: I don’t care for Boris Johnson’s politics, his behaviour or his ambitions for high office. I think his judgment erratic, his loyalty lacking, his basic competence deficient and his relationship with the truth capricious. And if he wants to lead a national political party then comparing Muslim women who wear the full veil with bank robbers and letterboxes is no way to go about it. As a serious player in serious politics he should never have written what he did in his Telegraph column.

But I’d also place him among the finest columnists of his age, knew him as one of the most inspired editors the Spectator magazine has had, and believe (often falteringly) that he does have a personal political philosophy, and that at root it is generous and liberal.

So although my side is locked in bitter battle with his about Brexit, I’m this week less bothered by Boris’s ill-judged pitch for the groundlings’ cheers than by the language of censorship his comments have provoked from people who should know better. There’s an ugly intolerance of honest expression afoot in our era, and we should notice. When entirely respectable people start saying that women who choose (or are forced) to cover their faces in public should be shielded from the knowledge that most of Britain hates this practice, then we’d better watch out. Liberals who don’t like Boris and have seen a stick with which to beat him should beware of becoming useful idiots for new-age Mother Grundys who don’t like free speech except when they agree with it. Boris may be their target today, but tomorrow they may come for us.

Invective and personal insult are part of the weaponry of challenge and reform. They always have been. Oppression by state, slave-masters, office bullies and church or any other dominant faith is heavily dependent on respect and on fear. These ogres fear nothing more than that people should start laughing at them, and the best answer to a demand for respect may be disrespect. Many great reforms have started with impertinence.

Voltaire’s purpose in Candide was not to answer the philosopher Leibniz’s argument (that ours must be the best possible world, because if God could have created a better one then He would have: a perfectly good argument if you start from a belief in a beneficent deity). Voltaire simply wanted to make the church look silly, and invite contempt for its bullying priesthood. That’s why Voltaire infected his character Dr Pangloss with syphilis.

Syphilis is not an argument. Voltaire meant it as an insult. The age of enlightenment was a time when the authority, virtue and omniscience of the Catholic church was being challenged. The need was to defy an institutional bully. In making a big, rude noise, Voltaire did just as much by obscenity as, by rational argument, our own John Locke had done, or our own David Hume would do to stir the individual conscience into defiance. Authority dislikes being farted at in its face, for it knows the power of respect to chill independent thought. So does fundamentalist Islam.

*****ing balloons may be done better with pins than arguments. Luther’s Ninety-five Theses were indeed arguments; but his book was illustrated with a cartoon by Lucas Cranach the Elder, depicting the Pope as Antichrist receiving gold in exchange for pardons. Ask yourself what The Times’s own Peter Brookes or Morten Morland have ever contributed to “reasoned debate”, or wanted to. But is their disrespect not precious?

Men and women who defend and perpetuate the institution of the full facial veil need to know that society at large dislikes it in Britain and always will, and that it gravely damages their standing in the country where they live, and hurts and disadvantages them. This is as well conveyed through mockery as by textual debate about the Koran. The truth is that we (most of us) think the facial veil is ridiculous. The adjective “ridiculous” comes from the verb “ridicule”. If something is ridiculous we should not stifle ridicule or we only drive disapproval beneath the surface, where it festers.

Tomorrow, Maureen Colquhoun turns 90. Until 1979 she was Labour MP for Northampton North. A fierce firebrand of a feminist, her sometimes zany, always brave campaigns raised eyebrows, but Labour could live with individualists. Not lesbians, though. When she came out she was sunk, and deselected, and finished. Happy birthday, valiant Maureen. What changes you and I have seen since you sank and I surfaced in the 1979 election. Ah, progress!

But is progress secure? Is it irreversible? Look at the new variants of puritanism, the new threats to free speech of which this absurd row about letterboxes is an example. Will “hate-speech” become the successor to Orwell’s “thought-crime”? I begin to wonder whether our belief in freedom ever does expand or only shifts its favours’ focus. Maureen remembers when you couldn’t be gay. Is the day coming when you cannot laugh at gays or mock our sometimes-silly excesses, or tell us to stop whingeing? I do wonder.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...idicule-is-essential-to-free-speech-n2wk522nk

The above columnist is a Conservative, but being gay, is also far from being a Trump type redneck. Interesting views, I wonder what people on here think?

 

[Bewal Express]

Boris is desperate to be PM and he is hoping that like Trump he can create a them and us culture. He is tapping into fear of Muslims which even losers like Yaxley Lennon have exploited for the best part of the decade. As far as this goes, i dont find anything here as offensive but it would be interesting if those defending him so vehemently would be so easy on BJ if he made a joke about the Holocaust.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Boris is desperate to be PM and he is hoping that like Trump he can create a them and us culture. He is tapping into fear of Muslims which even losers like Yaxley Lennon have exploited for the best part of the decade. As far as this goes, i dont find anything here as offensive but it would be interesting if those defending him so vehemently would be so easy on BJ if he made a joke about the Holocaust.

Or even if he made a joke of Jewish women who cover themselves from head to toe?




Have the same rule for all otherwise it makes a joke of the nation.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You make a good point KKWC, I wonder what would be the reaction if Boris made a reference to Sikhs as bun-heads like they did when I was at school? Is it really that different?

I don't agree with wearing burkas at all, but when a potential PM of a country can use such language and get tacit support from the media, it does make you wonder where we are going.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Trolling should never be a right. Any speech which causes disharmony and problems to the general public, should be punished.

 

[barah_admi]

Boris thought he could pull a Trump...maybe he can but there needs to be strong action taken here. I urge all to write to their local MPs, local councils and start a petition. I am thinking of doing the latter as I have already done the former.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

Sarcasm should be banned. Everyone has to mean what they say, and say what they mean.

 

[Asim_khan]

I hope these same champions of free speech feel similarly about the rights of children to offend each other and not jump on the anti bullying bandwagon. Today's classroom bully will go onto #MAGA & Make Britain great again by smashing up a socialist book shop

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The PM and her allies have bungled the burqa row

When, six days ago, an article by Boris Johnson appeared suggesting that burqa-wearing Muslim women “choose to go around looking like letter boxes” and turn up “looking like a bank robber”, there was only one sensible thing for Theresa May and her allies to do. It was, purely and simply, to ignore it. Instead, the prime minister called on the former foreign secretary to apologise, as did Brandon Lewis, the party chairman. The Tory party then launched a disciplinary investigation.

What were they thinking of? By drawing attention to Mr Johnson’s not-very-good jokes — whatever the comedian Rowan Atkinson may have thought of them — the prime minister and her team made the challenge of maintaining good relations with Britain’s Muslim community harder, not easier. With one bound they brought Jeremy Corbyn relief from his battle, which he is so far losing badly, to demonstrate that Labour under his leadership does not have a serious anti-semitism problem. It is folly for the Tories to get involved in identity politics and make life easier for Labour.

The Tory leadership also provided Mr Johnson with something he rarely needs: the oxygen of publicity. In doing so it has ensured that Brexit, the issue splitting the Tory party down the middle, will not, unlike parliament, have a summer recess. Brexiteers have rallied to Mr Johnson’s support and revived his leadership ambitions, which a few weeks ago had looked forlorn. He had waited for David Davis to resign from the cabinet before making his own move and made a resignation speech that fell short of Sir Geoffrey Howe’s famous effort in 1990 when he speared Margaret Thatcher.

It is small wonder that, as we report today, five cabinet ministers have attacked the party’s approach to Mr Johnson, with one describing it as “a cockup from start to finish” and another blaming “the complete lack of political judgment in Downing Street”. It is hard to disagree. With expectations mounting of potential leadership challenges this autumn, Mrs May has given one of her biggest opponents an unnecessary leg-up.

Mr Johnson has been close to power before. More than any other politician, he swung the EU referendum in favour of a “leave” vote. There was then a general expectation that he would succeed David Cameron as Tory leader and prime minister. But his confidence was shattered when Michael Gove, the current environment secretary, withdrew his support amid talk of a chaotic leadership campaign and Mr Johnson pulled out when he might still have won, leaving the way clear for Mrs May. Despite scepticism about his qualifications for the job, for many Tories since then he has been the party’s lost leader.

The past two years would certainly have been different with him at the helm. While Mrs May had to prove to doubters that she could deliver a good Brexit — and still does — Mr Johnson, as a Brexiteer, might have had more freedom to manoeuvre in negotiations with the EU.

Whether it is now too late for him to seize the prize is a question Tory MPs and members must ask themselves in the coming months. Dominic Grieve, the former attorney-general, has put into words what many “remain”-supporting Tory MPs think: that he could not stay in a party led by Mr Johnson. But the former foreign secretary has an appeal to Conservative and Labour voters who support Brexit that goes beyond Westminster.

Polling for this newspaper last month showed that he would put up a stronger challenge to Mr Corbyn’s Labour Party and that he would be expected to handle Brexit better. The consensus among senior Tories after last year’s failed general election gamble was that Mrs May should not be allowed to repeat the mistake and that the party will need a new leader before it goes to the country again.

Mr Johnson’s position has been strengthened by the cack-handed attempt by those around the prime minister to take him down a peg or two. The over- reaction to his article may be the first sign that culture wars are coming to the UK. The Tories will need to maintain a broad coalition if they are to prevent the parliamentary party from fracturing.

For his part, Mr Johnson has to be careful that he does not overplay his hand. The name of Steve Bannon does not yet resonate around the Tory shires, or the former industrial heartlands of the Midlands and the north where the party needs to make gains. But the endorsement of Mr Johnson by Donald Trump’s former adviser is a double-edged sword. He should beware of becoming a standard-bearer for the British equivalent of America’s alt-right.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...r-allies-have-bungled-the-burqa-row-h6bcfgdst

The follow up leading article in today's Sunday edition

 

[Madplayer]

If free speech means that you can verbally abuse each other or causal mental trauma to people who hold certain beliefs dear, i dont support such free speech and i make no mince of my words while saying this. You cannot say everything or anything that you feel like. Restrains and regulations make us human otherwise animals are also free to do whatever they want.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What I find fascinating is that it's not the dog whistle politics which The Times editor is objecting to, but that it's diverted the heat from Jeremy Corbyn's alleged anti-semitism....on which the Times has been running a campaign for the last year. The irony!

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

You make a good point KKWC, I wonder what would be the reaction if Boris made a reference to Sikhs as bun-heads like they did when I was at school? Is it really that different?

I don't agree with wearing burkas at all, but when a potential PM of a country can use such language and get tacit support from the media, it does make you wonder where we are going.

Why agree or disagree with such matters at all? Why must there be opinion on everything? What the hell has happened to having a (very personal) choice without being judged by society? The same society that won't give 2 hoots when you're broke, depressed or dead.

 

[Thomaskutty]

The US is the only country in the world that has got it right as far as freedom of expression is concerned. Legally, you can say anything as long as it isn't an explicit call for violence. That is the one reason why it will remain the leader of the free world.

 

[James]

I agree that free speech should include the right to ridicule, but there is still a choice whether to ridicule or not. Depending on the subject, manner and context of the ridicule, it can either provide welcome light relief for all parties - or it can be really mean-spirited, unnecessary and disrespectful.

 

[Bewal Express]

Boris thought he could pull a Trump...maybe he can but there needs to be strong action taken here. I urge all to write to their local MPs, local councils and start a petition. I am thinking of doing the latter as I have already done the former.

The British by nature are Conservative but not extreme. If he courts the UKIP voter along with the extreme wing of the Tories he will get a strong base but the Centrist part of the Tory party known as the Wets under Mrs Thatcher and now mostly united under the remain banner are not a busted flush either and they could easily win as they did with Cameron and May.

 

[TM Riddle]

If free speech means that you can verbally abuse each other or causal mental trauma to people who hold certain beliefs dear, i dont support such free speech and i make no mince of my words while saying this. You cannot say everything or anything that you feel like. Restrains and regulations make us human otherwise animals are also free to do whatever they want.

How do you define the boundaries of this said mental trauma?
Is it the same for everybody?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why agree or disagree with such matters at all? Why must there be opinion on everything? What the hell has happened to having a (very personal) choice without being judged by society? The same society that won't give 2 hoots when you're broke, depressed or dead.

I gave my personal opinion, everyone can have one of those, I'm not saying it should become law, or that everyone else has to agree with it.

I agree that free speech should include the right to ridicule, but there is still a choice whether to ridicule or not. Depending on the subject, manner and context of the ridicule, it can either provide welcome light relief for all parties - or it can be really mean-spirited, unnecessary and disrespectful.

I think the real problem is that it's becoming okay to use ridicule for Muslims, whereas it would be seen as offensive if similar expressions were used for Sikhs or Jews.

 

[barah_admi]

The British by nature are Conservative but not extreme. If he courts the UKIP voter along with the extreme wing of the Tories he will get a strong base but the Centrist part of the Tory party known as the Wets under Mrs Thatcher and now mostly united under the remain banner are not a busted flush either and they could easily win as they did with Cameron and May.

The Conservatives lost a lot of core, hard right voters to UKIP but with Farage gone, many of them have gone back to the Tories, problem is, they may not be large enough in number to give Boris the push he needs.

 

[Madplayer]

How do you define the boundaries of this said mental trauma?
Is it the same for everybody?

In retrospect, trauma was a strong word to use and is generally associated with individuals rather than groups. I meant that its wrong to ridicule to ignite passions or evoke reactions whilst knowing that ridiculing (explict definition) something can cause emotions to come out.

Obviously the reactions would be different from different people depending upon their own personalities. But a general feeling of hurt would be there.

 

[TM Riddle]

In retrospect, trauma was a strong word to use and is generally associated with individuals rather than groups. I meant that its wrong to ridicule to ignite passions or evoke reactions whilst knowing that ridiculing (explict definition) something can cause emotions to come out.

Obviously the reactions would be different from different people depending upon their own personalities. But a general feeling of hurt would be there.

Makes sense.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You make a good point KKWC, I wonder what would be the reaction if Boris made a reference to Sikhs as bun-heads like they did when I was at school? Is it really that different?

I don't agree with wearing burkas at all, but when a potential PM of a country can use such language and get tacit support from the media, it does make you wonder where we are going.

There are less than 50 million Jews and Sikhs combined the world. There are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Yet Jews & Sikhs are a no go area because in the UK they are classed as a race, therefore any 'free speech' or 'ridicule' against them will be seen as racism.

I love the UK but this nation has some pathetic and outright idiotic laws. In fact I would call them stone age and backward more than the burka.

 

[90MPH]

But the real question is how many Muslim women in the UK wear the veil ??

It’s a very very tiny minorty at least here in London - can confidently say 99% of Muslim women do not wear them.

Now I suspect it’s a bit more prevalent up north like Birmingham and Bradford but would still say it’s a very small minority.

I remember after 9/11 attacks for some reason I did see a sudden spike of Muslim women wearing them for a few years (still a minority) but really now died down considerably in the last few years.

Honestly just think it’s a red herring by Boris - if he wants to address real problems in the communities then he can say it but as a politician he knows these sort of labels targeting one community is only going to have a negative and defensive effect on them.

These comments seemed like just playing to a base as he has well known leadership aspirations. Cheap shots he seemed to have learnt front trump. Not the first nor the last gaffe.

 

[princeuk]

If you are deliberately creating hate towards a certain community then it is wrong, if he said soemthign like he doesnt agree that woman should wear the burka in the UK then that is perfectly acceptable in my view because he is opening up a debate, but then the language he used afterwards was compeltely unnaceptable and a man of his standing is not right to say what he did.

 

[James]

I hardly see the niqab or burqa anywhere in West Yorkshire - and a lot of Muslims live in Leeds, Bradford and Halifax. (I see quite a few hijab-wearing ladies every day, but that is not the veil.) Verges on a non-issue in my opinion. I am proud that the UK (unlike numerous more racist EU countries) allows these garments to be worn freely.