Jack Straw on Free Speech
The following comments are from our beloved ex-Home Secretary, Jack Straw: “I said at the time that the cartoons were reprinted in Europe, that doing so was needlessly insensitive and disrespectful” “The existence of such a right (free speech), does not mean that it is right, morally right, politically right, socially right, to exercise that freedom without regard to the feelings of others” “One should use free speech responsibly, and with regards to the feelings of others” “You should respect other people’s beliefs” The above views are, unfortunately widely held. Although one should never expect any better from our Foreign Secretary, who once stated as a matter of fact on the radio that the borders of Iraq were a result of British Colonialism, when they were actually agreed between the Persian and Ottoman Empires, with the help of the Russians in the Treaty of Erzrum in 1847, it is saddening fact that otherwise very intelligent people begin to come up with all sorts of nonsense when talking about the rights of free speech. I have therefore compiled a list of questions, which one might like to ask when meeting such people, who seem happy to exercise their right to free speech by telling others that they don’t have the right to exercise theirs: 1. Are all beliefs worthy of respect? If so, should Fascism be respected? 2. If only some beliefs are worthy of “respect”, who decides which ones are worthy and which ones are not? Is it you, me, the Government, the media? Who? 3. If a belief system is deemed to be worthy of “respect”, (by whoever that should decide this), does that mean that free speech is then superseded, and one can’t criticize that particular ideology? 4. Can one only criticise someone’s beliefs if they aren’t liable to take offence, and not if they are? 5. I find restrictions on free speech, with the exception of inciting violence, to be offensive. Does this mean that people may not ever suggest otherwise, out of respect for my beliefs? Do my beliefs merit “respect”? 6. What exactly is “responsible” use of free speech? Who decides what is “responsible”, and what isn’t? Isn’t “responsible” a very vague adjective, which could be interpreted in a number of sinister ways? 7. Surely, the decision of deciding what is “responsible” use of free speech involves guessing what the reaction to the words will be? Does it therefore follow that fanatics should not then be criticised, because provoking their reaction may have violent consequences? Should be only mock or criticize non violent people, as this is more “responsible”? What about acting against fanatics? Could this also be deemed to be irresponsible by the same line of argument, and therefore to be avoided? 8. If a person’s reaction to a criticism is unjustified, is it the fault of the person who used the right of free speech, because they used it “irresponsibly”? If so, aren’t we taking away the responsibility of peoples reactions away from them? How is this attitude responsible in itself, by making people not accountable for their own actions? 9. Shouldn’t the merits of a criticism of someone’s beliefs be of more worth than that person’s reaction to that criticism? Otherwise aren’t we valuing truth less than people’s reactions to that truth? Does this therefore not follow into believing that truth should sometimes be suppressed, and people stopped from finding and discussing it? Who will decide which truths must not be discovered or discussed? Doesn’t this line of argument lead on into totalitarianism? 10. What are we to make of this statement from Peter Mandelson: “One has the right to free speech, but you are not always obligated to exercise that right” Doesn’t this actually translate as “you have the right to free speech, but not always the right to exercise that right.”? Just what have I misunderstood about this statement? I hope I have misunderstood something. 11. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR 1948), in Articles 2 and 18, uphold the right to Freedom of Speech. Do they disagree with this aspect of the declaration? If so, what do they think it should be changed to? 12. Should anybody be prosecuted for publishing the Jyllands Posten cartoons? If so, how does equate this with the notion of free speech? Do they believe in free speech at all, or only in part? And the last question is to go to Jack Straw himself: 13. I find your beliefs to be against those of established European human rights, for which many people have fought and died for, and yet you said in a recent speech that the Government recently focussed on human rights work during their Presidency of the European Union. Aren’t you, sir, actually focussing on trying to take our human rights away? Indeed, there is much work to be done.
The following comments are from our beloved ex-Home Secretary, Jack Straw: “I said at the time that the cartoons were reprinted in Europe, that doing so was needlessly insensitive and disrespectful” “The existence of such a right (free speech), does not mean that it is right, morally right, politically right, socially right, to exercise that freedom without regard to the feelings of others” “One should use free speech responsibly, and with regards to the feelings of others” “You should respect other people’s beliefs” The above views are, unfortunately widely held. Although one should never expect any better from our Foreign Secretary, who once stated as a matter of fact on the radio that the borders of Iraq were a result of British Colonialism, when they were actually agreed between the Persian and Ottoman Empires, with the help of the Russians in the Treaty of Erzrum in 1847, it is saddening fact that otherwise very intelligent people begin to come up with all sorts of nonsense when talking about the rights of free speech. I have therefore compiled a list of questions, which one might like to ask when meeting such people, who seem happy to exercise their right to free speech by telling others that they don’t have the right to exercise theirs: 1. Are all beliefs worthy of respect? If so, should Fascism be respected? 2. If only some beliefs are worthy of “respect”, who decides which ones are worthy and which ones are not? Is it you, me, the Government, the media? Who? 3. If a belief system is deemed to be worthy of “respect”, (by whoever that should decide this), does that mean that free speech is then superseded, and one can’t criticize that particular ideology? 4. Can one only criticise someone’s beliefs if they aren’t liable to take offence, and not if they are? 5. I find restrictions on free speech, with the exception of inciting violence, to be offensive. Does this mean that people may not ever suggest otherwise, out of respect for my beliefs? Do my beliefs merit “respect”? 6. What exactly is “responsible” use of free speech? Who decides what is “responsible”, and what isn’t? Isn’t “responsible” a very vague adjective, which could be interpreted in a number of sinister ways? 7. Surely, the decision of deciding what is “responsible” use of free speech involves guessing what the reaction to the words will be? Does it therefore follow that fanatics should not then be criticised, because provoking their reaction may have violent consequences? Should be only mock or criticize non violent people, as this is more “responsible”? What about acting against fanatics? Could this also be deemed to be irresponsible by the same line of argument, and therefore to be avoided? 8. If a person’s reaction to a criticism is unjustified, is it the fault of the person who used the right of free speech, because they used it “irresponsibly”? If so, aren’t we taking away the responsibility of peoples reactions away from them? How is this attitude responsible in itself, by making people not accountable for their own actions? 9. Shouldn’t the merits of a criticism of someone’s beliefs be of more worth than that person’s reaction to that criticism? Otherwise aren’t we valuing truth less than people’s reactions to that truth? Does this therefore not follow into believing that truth should sometimes be suppressed, and people stopped from finding and discussing it? Who will decide which truths must not be discovered or discussed? Doesn’t this line of argument lead on into totalitarianism? 10. What are we to make of this statement from Peter Mandelson: “One has the right to free speech, but you are not always obligated to exercise that right” Doesn’t this actually translate as “you have the right to free speech, but not always the right to exercise that right.”? Just what have I misunderstood about this statement? I hope I have misunderstood something. 11. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR 1948), in Articles 2 and 18, uphold the right to Freedom of Speech. Do they disagree with this aspect of the declaration? If so, what do they think it should be changed to? 12. Should anybody be prosecuted for publishing the Jyllands Posten cartoons? If so, how does equate this with the notion of free speech? Do they believe in free speech at all, or only in part? And the last question is to go to Jack Straw himself: 13. I find your beliefs to be against those of established European human rights, for which many people have fought and died for, and yet you said in a recent speech that the Government recently focussed on human rights work during their Presidency of the European Union. Aren’t you, sir, actually focussing on trying to take our human rights away? Indeed, there is much work to be done.