According to the Global Expression Report 2019/2020, carried out by Article 19, the global state of freedom of expression is in decline.
In 2019, 51% of the global population were reported to be living in countries where freedom of expression is in a state of crisis (up from 29% in 2009). This is the highest ever figure reported. Living in so-called a ‘democratic’ country doesn’t guarantee genuine respect for freedom of expression. The report reveals that, ‘the longer-term declines tend to be in countries with democratically elected leaders who have held power over long periods and have slowly eroded democratic institutions.’
‘Democracy’, like any other word, can be used to describe something which doesn’t fit the true definition of the word. In his essay, ‘Politics and the English Language’, George Orwell argues that the attempt to define ‘democracy’ is resisted from all sides.
‘It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning.’
ACCESSED FROM THE ORWELL FOUNDATION
In the absence of a clear definition of the word, the best measure of democracy must be the degree of tolerance for freedom of expression. Tolerance must constantly be maintained and not taken for granted. We can’t assume that our progression, as a society, is always towards greater freedom and equality. The reverse is the case, when speech is restricted.
So how do we maintain our right to freedom of expression?
The GxR report states that, ‘countries with large-scale protests often leapt upwards in freedom of expression scores’ and that, ‘the right to protest is clearly linked to other expression rights, and democracy’. There’s a direct relationship between demonstration and democracy. Demonstration doesn’t have to be taking to the streets to protest. It can be any minor form of civil disobedience. The act of speaking when speech is restricted, is in and of itself, a demonstration.
The GxR advises that, ‘we must do all we can to stop these restrictions becoming permanent features of our governance systems. We must demand the space to question, and to participate. The time to act is now.’
Political Language
Analysing political language is important in determining the true meaning of legislation and policies which affect our everyday lives. Such language is often chosen to appear positive and agreeable, without honestly representing the aim of the motion.
Analysis of NUIGSU Motion
A motion was recently proposed at the NUIGSU, with the intent to suppress certain political opinions through a process of de-platforming.
It included a list of undesirable organisations, guilty of espousing such opinions. The original motion shows examples of misleading language, the purpose of which is to misrepresent opposing political groups, in order to justify suppressing speech and debate. It states that it is in opposition to fascism, far-right extremism and all forms of discrimination and conspiracy theories. Orwell speaks of the abuse of political words such as ‘fascism’, arguing that it ‘has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable”’.
In much the same way as defining ‘democracy’ decreases its political potency, defining words such as ‘fascism’ has the same effect. The appeal of these words is their vagueness. Tying them to any one meaning would hold them to that meaning. Nebulous terms are assigned to thoughts and speech, categorising them as good or bad, right or far right. Any unpopular opinion can be categorised as wrong-think, without the hassle of presenting a coherent argument.
The GxR refers to the weaponisation of certain labels, used by governments to supress speech.
‘Anti-terror legislation is routinely used against dissenters of many types, but the tag of “terrorist” is also wielded to intentionally stigmatise and discredit journalists and activists, as well as legitimate political opposition. Sometimes this takes the form of membership to a particular terrorist group; on other occasions this rhetoric plays into a more nebulous fear of “extremism”.’
This type of hyperbole is frequently used to dismiss opposing viewpoints as extremist, instead of addressing the arguments by legitimate political opposition. It’s easy to label a dissenting viewpoint as ‘extreme’, but why is it extreme, by whose judgement is it deemed extreme and why are the arguments themselves invalid? We might as well label these opinions are heretical or blasphemous, the same function applies: to stigmatise and sensationalise legitimate arguments.
There’s a strange form of cognitive dissonance present in those individuals who repeat the mantras, ‘educate yourself’ and, ‘no debate’, simultaneously. It’s a wonder that the enlightened are so unwilling to engage in discussion with the ignorant, who must surely benefit from their profound wisdom? Refusal to engage in debate is a tactic used by people who have no reasonable basis for their political standpoint. Those who are confident in the conviction of their argument, are equally confident in having it challenged, freely, openly and publicly. Those who are purely ideologically motivated will demand that, ‘God works in mysterious ways’, is a sufficient argument and that all those who disagree must be denounced as heretics.
Seeking to de-platform those who ‘suppress opposing opinions’, can only be the very act of suppressing opposing opinions. Meaningless language justifies the hypocrisy and lack of critical thinking now present in our educational institutions.
Although the motion didn’t pass in its original form, it’s important to note the attempts made by political groups to silence opposition. Only after resistance to the motion, was the wording altered in order to pass, and the list of undesirables removed. This is a clear example of the effectiveness of demonstration against suppression of speech and the need to push back against such motions.
Analysis of Proposed Hate Crime Bill
The Hate Crime Bill 2020 is currently under review in Dail Eireann.
The proposed legislation intends to deal with ‘hate crimes’, including ‘hate speech’, which is widely interpreted as a positive move to tackle prejudice and harassment of marginalised members of society. While the sentiment of the bill is certainly worthy of support, the language used is problematic and suggests that the effects of the bill, if passed, will be increased restrictions of freedom of speech.
‘Hate speech’, as a term, is already misleading. No clear definition is provided for the word, ‘hate’, or how it can be proven or disproven. Leaving the definition of the word open allows it to be used to restrict any form of speech. All a government has to do is criminalise the nebulous term, ‘hate’, and then assign this term to any opinion they wish to suppress. A clear definition would only get in the way of assuring compliance with the established agenda.
The proposed legislation defines hate crime as, ‘any offence that is perceived by a victim or any other person, to be wholly or partially motivated by prejudice against a relevant individual…’ How can the alleged victim, or ‘any other person’, reasonably prove the motivations of the alleged perpetrator? How can they prove that their subjective perception is objectively true?
It goes on to state that offences will include ‘negative and uninformed feelings towards […] individuals who are identified as, or perceived as [belonging to a marginalised group]’. Here the proposed legislation seeks to criminalise feelings, based on perception. It states that, ‘“prejudice” includes a preconceived belief about an individual…’. This proposes to criminalise preconceived beliefs.
This type of language is what Orwell describes as ‘slovenliness…[which] makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.’ The use of language, too vague to impart proper meaning, leads to the criminalisation of subjective thoughts, feelings and beliefs, all based on the perceptions of ‘any other person’ in society.
Poor Language Leads to Poor Law
Subjective law is poor law, yet this type of legislation is already in place in countries such as the UK, where police forces are now responsible for recording and investigating ‘non-crime hate incidents’.
Again this language serves to justify infringing on the civil liberties of UK citizens. An ‘incident’ can be any occurrence, ‘hate’ has no clear definition and we now have the added absurdity of the term, ‘non-crime’.
The duties of the UK police now include investigating the following: ‘crimes’ and ‘non-crimes’. Surely actions undertaken by citizens are divided into ‘crimes’ and ‘non-crimes’, by virtue of being deemed legal or illegal? If an action is a non-crime, then by definition it is legal. If so, why are the police given increased power to harass citizens for their involvement in legal ‘incidents’?
According to the West Yorkshire Police, examples of ‘non-crimes’, which can warrant investigation, include the following: ‘perhaps just the way that somebody looks at you’, ‘something that somebody says to you that might upset you’, and last but not least, ‘it literally can be anything at all…’.
The UK government have successfully granted the police the power to investigate citizens for ‘literally anything at all’. The legal system itself is essentially rendered meaningless when legal incidents are treated as ‘non-crime’ crimes.
Governments appear to legislate with the supposed intention of protecting vulnerable marginalised groups in society. The reality is that this type of policy only serves to grant greater power to the government and the police, in restricting the civil liberties of its citizens.
More Speech
It’s important, now more than ever to advocate for our right to speak, at a time when the global state of freedom of expression is most restricted. We must demonstrate our right to speak, through the very action of speaking. The act of speaking is also the act of thinking. When one speaks using the language of a political agenda, they are encouraged to think and believe the ideas represented by the language. It’s important to be conscious of the language we use, why we use it and what it really means. We all possess the fundamental human right to express our own opinions. Orwell advises that, ‘to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration’.
Our ‘progressive’ governments would have us believe that their laws and policies can promise us greater freedom, tolerance and diversity. But what is ‘progression’, truly, and what are we progressing towards? What is freedom, without freedom of speech and thought? What is tolerance and diversity, without tolerance of a diverse range of opinions?
Rowan Atkinson spoke of ‘a creeping culture of censoriousness’, in support of the UK Defend Free Speech Campaign in 2012.
Atkinson called for more speech, not less, arguing that, ‘underlying prejudices, injustices or resentments […] are addressed by being aired, argued and dealt with, preferably outside the legal process.’ He goes on to state that, ‘if we want a robust society, we need more robust dialogue, and that must include the right to insult or to offend.’
More speech, not less, is needed to ensure a free, diverse society, where everyone’s opinions and concerns are heard, and where those in power are subject to criticism from the common people. Freedom of expression includes freedom to offend and contradict.
Now is the time for us all to engage in more speech. Speak to people in your personal life, speak to your TDs, speak up on social media. Speak up in whatever way you feel comfortable with, no act of speech is too small or insignificant.
The greater the threat to suppress, the greater the need to express.
#SpeechNotSilence
