Speaking Out

I'd like to reproduce an article that I read this morning in Amnesty Magazine about the nature of free speech. The author of this argument is Tariq Modood. He writes:

'Let us distinguish between freedom of expression and freedom of enquiry. The search for truth should never be supressed or restricted. We need a maximum degree of freedom of enquiry. But it should be possible to express a view without being offensive or vilifying others.

One has to be very careful, of course, in distinguishing defamation from legitimate criticism; for while freedom of expression is too gross a right and has to be seriously qualified by the protection of minorities and other civilised values, freedom of enquiry is too precious to lose.

I would also make a distinction between vulnerable groups and the powerful. If we want to say that Tony Blair is a liar or a hypocrite, we should be able to say it. But that freedom should not be used to demonise a vulnerable group.

As professor Susan Mendus of the University of York has put it: "Where free speech is employed in such a way as to destroy the possibility of communication, and of mutual understanding, then its raison d'etre us destroyed."

One relies on the sensitivity and responsibility of individuals and institutions to refrain from what is legal but unacceptable. Where these qualities are missing, one relies on public debate and censure to provide standards and restraints. So where matters are not or cannot easily be regulated by law, one relies on protest as well as empathy. This is how most racist speech and images and other free expressions (like the use of golliwogs as commercial brands, or television's Black and White Minstrel Show) have been censured - rather than censored - away.

Sometimes legal intervention is also necessary. For example, when there is a serious risk of incitement to hatred; or when the "fighting talk" is likely to inflame passions and risk public order; or when it is likely to reinforce prejudice and lead to acts of discrimination or victimisation.

Civic integration and international interdependence - let alone anything as amitious as a dialogue of civilisations - means that there has to be mutual learning and movement on both or all sides, not just the hurling of absolutes at each other. This is not just a matter of compromise but of multicultural inclusion.

As Lord (Bikhu) Parekh has written: "Space is not often given - it has to be taken. You have to create it, and when a group of people appears to be intolerant, to be demanding that the established norms be opened up a little, it is also a demand to create a space in which a dialogue is possible.'

Tariq Modood, 'The Amnesty Debate: Speaking Out', in Amnesty Magazine, 137 (May/June 2006), p. 12