There is a
quote that circulates around the Internet attributed to Einstein, usually
phrased something like “Only two things are infinite, the
universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.” I think this
is a real quote, but the good gamble for internet quotation is to assume
misattribution – either way, it strikes a triumphalist note appealing to the
various self-styled paragons of discernment that drag their troglodytic
knuckles about the ethereal byways of the web (mirror, mirror on the wall…).
What it leaves out is the cannier observation that the depth of human
stupidity is not as interesting or devious than the power of the same. Human ingenuity and ambition (Weep! Weep!)
may build empires, but only stupidity hath the power to turn those empires
rotten within. And in this case human
stupidity has the power to give life to the dead – specifically, my blog.
For those not aware of, or who have in their commendable brilliance
decided to ignore, the recent scandal involving the Oxford Students for Life
(OSFL) and their cancelled debate, a full account is available here. In short, the pro-life organization invited
two journalists, both known for holding strong views on the subject (one on
each side of the divide) to debate the motion ‘This House Believes that
Britain’s abortion culture harms us all.’ The response from both the Oxford
Women’s Campaign and from various ad hoc groups with impolite names averred
that it was inappropriate for two men to debate abortion (why that is I will never understand, though they may someday try to force me), and proceeded to hem
and haw and kick up a royal fuss in the various halls of the mighty and weak
willed, to the point that the JCR of Christ Church asked the college to cancel
the event, which it did (though reasons given vary).
All of that has been not so interesting as the response. Both men invited to debate wrote responses
condemning the censorious approach of those who disagreed with OSFL’s
organizationally inherent stance (after all, one of the debaters is proudly
pro-choice – someone who might otherwise be labelled an ‘ally’ by the Women’s
Campaign), and there has been an on-going ‘discussion’ (blech!) on the matter
continuing thus, including commentary from the blithering but well-credentialed
idiot who runs the Cambridge Union (I hope that didn't hurt his feelings). While the various responses from the self-unaware
were all objectionable, it was dear Mr. Squirrell whose nutty (get it?) bullroar
stuck in my craw.
Mr. O'Neill addressed well the strange notion put forth by the bionic hordes
that a ‘right to comfort’ exists. This is a strange notion to anyone who has
ever ridden the London tube, and is all the more absurd in its lack of
applicability to public enforcement. There are those who would argue that there
is only a flavoursome, rather than substantive, difference between positive and
negative rights. I would disagree, but that is not why we are here. The trouble
is that a right to comfort is so blisteringly positive a right as to demand
totalitarianism. Most rights that cannot at least be rephrased in negative
format and make sense (‘Government shall make no law infringing the comfort of
citizens’ – ha, I’d like to see any bureaucracy survive that scrutiny) suffer
that effect. This should be accessible to the roaring righteous but evidently
it was beyond their grasp – EVERYTHING makes someone uncomfortable – and I
don’t mean physically, I mean in the
objectionable/upsetting/’triggering’(blechhh!) way to which the protesters
refer. I guarantee I could find some jaded misanthrope online ready to object
to the emotional manipulation inherent in those delightful multi-racial,multi-gender, multi-abled photos they use in school textbooks. There but for
the grace of God go I…
The bigger issue I have is with the very conception of free speech put
forth by the Cambridge Union’s President and his squirrelly followers. I’ll
dress him down in detail directly but first, my main response to them: Free
speech (or expression, or more completely, free thought and expression) is the
single right that inheres in us our humanity; it is NOT a tool – of the
oppressed, of the masses, of the enlightened, or otherwise. It has one, and
precisely one, limit, which isn’t a limit on the right itself per-se, but on
action. But I’ll get to that.
My first retch at the inciting of Mr. Squirrell (I’m very uncomfortable
– save me) came from his now oft linked twitter argument. That link is a
veritable goldmine of one-liners to stir dread in ones duodenum, but the one
that sent me occurred early – after averring that people have a right to feel
safe in their home (‘home’ fallaciously construed to include one’s entire
residential college, rather than the ten square meters behind their dormitory
door) he was asked “Safe from the verbal expression of ideas?” To this snark he
gave the following reply: “Safe from the expression of ideas which have
historically been used to oppress them in very real ways.”
In the words of the brilliant Edward Izzard – Quod the fuck? So that is
the standard of free speech he would like us to employ? No no no no no no no.
Thought and the free expression thereof have absolutely nothing to do with
history. Those permissions which are inherent upon individual condition or
background are not rights, they are entitlements, privileges, call them what
you will, but they are the opposite of rights. The whole idea of a right is
that it applies regardless of background. History is an especially tenuous
condition to attach. Disability, poverty, abandonment, citizenship are all the
sorts of conditions that one might attach to conceptions of rights broadly
applied, in that they are circumstances which may come to befall any person,
and so a right construed as ‘those people of condition X shall have the right
to Y’ applies to all people, as they can come to meet the condition. To yolk
our most important right to the historical nature of ideas or people is to
forever exclude those ideas or people therefrom and is indefensible.
But that could be the arrogance of youth – or more likely the
blatherings of an entirely cowed and opportunistic beta male – you decide, you
have that right, for now at least. It
wasn’t until Mr. Squirrell elaborated on his blog that he rendered himself unelectable.
I’ll let this one stand alone:
“What students do best is to challenge the firmly held beliefs of the
generation above them, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are
challenging the notion that debates happening in formal contexts have no
ramifications past the end of the evening. We are challenging the claims of
privileged men to have the right to speak wherever they want, whenever they
want, on whatever topic they want.”
I tried to laugh at this, but reading it feels more like staring into
Tartarus. This is the Sauron, the Anakin, the King Lear of arguments. This is
the quote that the revolution leader in the overblown dystopia film intones at
the end of act one to presage the bloodbath with which is to baptize the earth.
I could go on… so I will. This is the abusive father saying ‘you want something
to cry about, I’ll give you something to cry about!’ This is the plantation
foreman yolked and yolking. This is Kurtz ruling the Congo. This is the end of
enlightenment, of humanity. This is evil.
Whew… glad that’s out of my system. I think the point is made. The whole
point of free thought and speech (and they must go together – talk is cheap but
thought is cheaper, and cannot be shared, advocated, spread, engaged) is to
render humans who work for others and are governed by others discernable from
zombies. It is the animus by which we are not cogs. It is the only thing that
insulates us from cognitive oblivion. This is why it such a vital right, why it
is sacrosanct, and why it must be utterly preserved. It is why everyone should
be allowed to say whatever, wherever, whenever they want.
I mentioned earlier that there is one limit on speech – and you all know
what it is: fire in a theatre and all that. But as I said earlier, this isn’t
even a limit on speech, but on action. The only limit to speech is to prevent
the inciting of immediate and unavoidable harm or violence. This is why
advocating war is still protected. Why arguing for violent revolution is
acceptable. Why running into a gun show and accusing someone of being a suicide
bomber is not.
We have the privilege in the West of living in not terribly dangerous
times. Let us not let the malignant movement of malcontents that has flourished
in the vacuum turn our prosperity into the greatest catastrophe of
civilization. Give all platform.
