I am not Charlie Hebdo Most people marching around Europe today in response to the appalling killings in Paris are naturally outraged by these recent murders. Again, most people will be marching in response to what they understand to be an attack on what they understand to be free speech, while others will use this cynically to fuel racism and islamophobia. Politicians on the other hand will be marching for a combination of reasons, however, free speech will not be one of them, as those in power know that there is no such thing and that our freedoms of expression are completely dependent on what the state deems to be in its own interest and the requirements of the rich and powerful. Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights - Freedom of Expression, states that Freedom of expression includes: • political expression; • artistic expression; and • commercial expression. However, Article 10 allows for the limiting of the rights when in; • the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety; • the prevention of disorder or crime; • the protection of health or morals; • the protection of the reputation or rights of others; • preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; or • maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. It is clear then that the state is the arbiter of what is free speech with restriction after restriction being placed on it, often in the recognition that one person’s free speech is another’s oppression, while at other times in the pursuit of the destruction of what we perceive as our civil liberties. In addition to this, the rich and powerful have access to ‘Super Injunctions’, which as well as silencing all public media regarding the content of the injunction, they also suppress all knowledge of the very existence of the injunction itself. Not only are limitation to freedom of speech enshrined in law, but they are also subject to arbitrary attacks by the state in the form of the ‘D-Notice’. Using these, the state can stop the compliant UK press from reporting on any issue. Recently, it has come to light that the state is deleting the D-Notice archive to ensure that we never know what ones have been issued. No doubt many journalists will be crying pious words about this ‘attack’ on freedom of speech while making a living by playing in the grey zone of what is deemed be the state to be acceptable and what is not. Indeed some so called warriors for freedom of speech have used ‘Super Injunctions’ themselves, stand up Andrew Marr! Why am I not Charlie Hebdo? Because the form of the debate is simplistic and completely misses the point. I do not believe in an absolute free speech and I doubt that many people do. If the BMP wanted to put up posters saying ‘N...ERS GO HOME!’ Who would be matching the street to protect their so called rights of free speech? Not many. We do however allow casual misogyny and disablism to go almost unchallenged. I also see little value in some of the work of this French satirical weekly newspaper and I believe that some of the cartoons involved do pander and encourage racist misogynist stereotypes and have no satirical value, and in no way shine a journalistic light on complex important issues. Why this debate completely misses the point is that important concept of what is free speech cannot be limited to the ability to be free to offend people, it is much more important than that. In the hands of the state, free speech and its suppression, is a weapon turned on and off in different areas at different times to influence the values and ideas that shape our society. Attacks on free speech are not simply in the form of laws and the clumsy issuing of D-Notices, as the biggest attack on ‘free speech’ is the limiting of or our ability to know and understand the important issues that are happening in this world today. This suppression of knowledge is delivered by the mainstream media and its crew of subservient journalist hacks. Most people’s view of the world is shaped through TV media, media that is in no way independent or impartial. Just by way of experiment, watch the same news item on the BBC, RT, France 24, CNN, Voice of America, Al Jazeera, CCTV News, and Press TV, all available on satellite, and see how the economic and political needs of those states shape the way the news is reported and therefore the values and ideas of those who watch. Freedom of speech should not a fetish for it is connected to the rights of people not to be abused and the need not to incite hatred. This is not where the debate needs to be, this should be a given, although where the line should be drawn will change with the values of society. And that’s where the danger lies. France declares it’s at war, but who are the enemy? Honest open political discourse with full access to the facts is the only way forward, or the answer to this by some will be 10% of its population.
Posted on: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 18:30:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015