February 07, 2008

No to No Platform

It’s now forty years since 1968. It was a year that began with the Tet Offensive pinning down US imperialism in Vietnam, and went on to see the French May shake the Gaullist state and the Prague Spring chip away at the Soviet edifice. The international solidarity of that era marked the zenith of student radicalism. But the deferred victories and outright defeats that ’68 was also witness to, led some to regress to a muddle-headed pseudo-liberalism. The radical demand for absolute free speech on campus mutated into a censorious mentality that cared more for avoiding ‘offence’ than taking up the arguments and winning them. The cowardly No Platform policy, that bans speakers from racist and fascist groups such as the BNP and the National Front from appearing on campus, is a product of this historic shift.

Granting a group freedom of expression does not lead to an obligation to give them a platform. But the absolute restriction on anyone doing so is wrong in principle and counterproductive in practice. Defenders of the policy often begin by reeling off the litany of violent acts committed by racists and fascists. Well, one could hardly have failed to notice that far-right groups contain more than their fair share of ex-cons, small-time gangsters and accredited psychopaths. But the laws against violence and physical intimidation could still be applied without the No Platform policy, that’s not the issue here.

I’ve heard many defenders of the policy condescendingly argue that figures like David Irving and Nick Griffin are just too ‘articulate’ and ‘persuasive’ to be allowed access to a large audience. Yet to leave such figures to just preach unchallenged in dank Dagenham basements is to dispense with one of the most powerful tools in the anti-fascist arsenal. For when given a platform far-right speakers very often expose and embarrass themselves. I remember Nick Griffin’s 4am shaming at the hands of David Dimbleby as one of the rare highlights of the mediocre 2005 election. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier and anti-semite, provided another fitting example of this recently when he appeared at Columbia University. Rather overlooking the long tradition of homoerotic Persian literature, Iran, he claimed, doesn’t have gays. These anecdotes shouldn’t be surprising; those with ridiculous views will make fools of themselves.

‘Know your enemy’ the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu wisely encouraged. The failure to follow this became clearer to me at a debate on this subject during Rise Against Racism week. Nick Griffin, one of my opponents claimed, would turn up steaming and baldly declare that white people were better than black people. Come on, I countered, he doesn’t give the game away that easily. The caricature of the slobbering monster is as unhelpful as that of the extraordinarily persuasive debater. Only by challenging fascists and racists as they actually are, not as we imagine them to be, can we hope to shame and refute them.

But it is John Stuart Mill’s imperishable On Liberty that best distils the indispensability of unrestrained argument. It is only in conflict with opposing views, the great liberal argued, that we fully understand and refine what we ourselves believe. It keeps our principles alive and dynamic. Without this open conflict the reasoned views of one generation can ossify into the prejudice and dogma of the next. Anti-racist and anti-fascist views become held not because they have been forged in the heat of dialectical exchange, but merely because they represent the received wisdom of the age. Thus, I need not make the outlandish claim that racists and fascists will be argued out of their views for the purpose of argument to hold. A leftist supporter of the policy does not presumably expect to convert, say, their Thatcherite opponent when they argue and debate with them, but they still do just that.

Throughout human thought from the secular to the sacred, the necessity of free exchange has been recognised. When asked to name his favourite dictum, Karl Marx, a master of the dialectical method, replied ‘Doubt everything’. Even the authoritarian Catholic Church always heard from the devil’s advocate at canonization hearings, an office they are now all the poorer for abolishing. When confronted by racism today far too many liberals lapse into platitude, ‘We’re a tolerant, multicultural society now’, or tautology, ‘Why is racism bad? Because it’s racism.’ Very few can offer clinching rational or scientific arguments against it, because they haven’t have had to make the arguments often enough.

Most of the points for the No Platform policy, the claim that we can never tolerate the intolerant for instance, also apply to wider society. Do the policy’s supporters aspire to the historically disastrous strategy of banning fascist groups outright? We should be told.

The Students’ Union claims to be worried about apathy. In combating it the union might want to begin by revoking this policy; the great protest and scorn that would track any fascists would do much to override apathy. For now, we are hamstrung by an approach that does much to pander to the far-right claim of a ‘liberal conspiracy’. It’s time to replace a policy of bureaucratic motions with one of open argument.

Published in the Warwick Boar, 07/02/08


- 4 comments by 2 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. I read your articles in the Boar every week, and they are consistently superb. This, unsurprisingly, I also found to be very interesting. I think I support the no-platform policy, particularly in light of the cringeworthy posters (mis)quoting those insufferable Voltaire and Franklin clichés that have been littering campus of late. Prior to reading this, I presumed that the proponents of the “no to no platform” were the token liberal types, believers of ideology for the sake of ideology and at the expense of reason.

    “Do the policy’s supporters aspire to the historically disastrous strategy of banning fascist groups outright?” – I’m sure you know, without me having to tell you, that there is a substantial difference between not providing a platform to air right-wing propaganda and banning fascism outright.

    That said, your point that “to leave such figures to just preach unchallenged in dank Dagenham basements is to dispense with one of the most powerful tools in the anti-fascist arsenal” certainly got me questioning myself. I don’t suspect that even a quarter of those opposing the no-platform policy do so with half the awareness of the debate at hand as you, and, as I said, I have a massive problem with supporting any group whose members use extremely retarded clichés to sell an idea to me. So whilst you haven’t quite persuaded me to vote against the no-platform policy, you have perhaps dissuaded me from voting for it.

    01 Mar 2008, 15:04

  2. Dave Sparrow

    George, I thought you were in favour of banning groups like Hizbullah? Why are they so much worse than the National Front?

    02 Mar 2008, 14:49

  3. George Eaton

    Dave, as far as i know i’ve never advocated banning Hizbullah. However, i have argued that it’s disgraceful for some on the left, such as George Galloway and the Socialist Workers Party, to offer ‘solidarity’ and support to a homophobic, misogynistic group which has consistently targeted civilians. In addition, i’ve pointed out that this is particularly strange considering Galloway and the SWP are strong supporters of the No Platform policy. Presumably they don’t think that No Platform should apply to Hizbullah, as it currently does at Warwick, but if it doesn’t apply to a group as odious as Hizbullah i’m struggling to see how they can argue it should apply to anyone.

    Therefore, while i support Hizbullah’s right to exist i have no sympathy with their tactics or aims, and will argue all the way against those who do.

    02 Mar 2008, 22:12

  4. Miller 2.0

    I think there is a big moral distinction between a no-platform and a state ban.

    If companies, co-ops, unions or SUs want to decide who can speak at their events or enter their buildings, isn’t it up to them? Consequaently, as we have this choice, why allow fascists to speak? They gain more publicity by losing a debate than they do by never being invited (good no platform policies prevent invitations, rather than waiting and refusing them).

    Further, racist rhetorc endangers the function of unions as a safe space for members – fascism itself undermines the principle of member ownership in this way, without even taking into consideration the loss of the power of members to decide who they allow to speak, if no no-platforms are allowed to be implemented.

    22 Apr 2008, 19:20


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

Trackbacks

A political blog for internationalism, secularism and social justice.

February 2008

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Jan |  Today  | Mar
            1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29      

Search this blog

RichardDawkins.net

Most recent comments

  • In any case, vote YES or No to Free Europe Constitution at www.FreeEurope.info by William Humbold on this entry
  • THE PUMAS ARE TOTALLY JUSTIFIED … 1. Contrary to what Obamabots say … Obama and Hillary were in a de… by Gina on this entry
  • most recently the strapping of explosives to Down's syndrome sufferers unable to resist. I would ha… by Hamid Sirhan on this entry
  • I can actually see myself voting for them at the next election on this single issue alone if they m… by Hamid Sirhan on this entry
  • Section 28 is always one of the first points i make against any Conservatives who defend Thatcher's … by George Eaton on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…

Galleries

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIV