No Platform For Free Speech?

It was a surprise to find out that this term, one of the referendum motions proposed to the student body argues for a ‘No Platform’ policy to “hate speakers”. In fact, such wording might imply that the whole enclosed liberal environment on campus was all a façade and that the University of York is a ‘hotbed’ for extremism. Yes, I laughed a little too.

Of course, the proposal is not without precedent; in the past few years, much controversy has been sparked over such speakers in York, one of the most recent being Yusuf Chambers. In other universities, similar controversies erupted over engagement with BNP leader Nick Griffin, and the Respect Party leader, George Galloway MP. At the same time, attempts to ban such speakers have also brought with it debates on the nature of ‘freedom of speech’, and the boundaries in which they should operate on university campuses.

The official NUS policy is rooted in the principle that “fascism stands for the annihilation of whole groups of people, the elimination of democracy and all freedoms.” Giving people who hold such reprehensible views a platform in which to air them runs the risk of breaking down social cohesion across campuses, rendering minority groups vulnerable to both physical and verbal abuse. In practice, this means that the NUS and individual unions rightly restrict speakers they see as legitimate threats to peace within universities, or pose a direct threat to particular groups of students.

The problem with this motion instead lies in practicality. As Josh Boswell previously argued in relation to the Yusuf Chambers event last year “If we prevent ourselves access to any opinion other than the norm, we prevent ourselves access to any personal development beyond the norm”.   

This proposal advocates maintaining the norm at any cost. If passed, no society will be allowed to invite individuals who for example, “reject the principle of popular sovereignty as the sole basis of legislation, and/or the right to free speech”. Though ruling out ‘Islamists’, it also prohibits a number of religious speakers , political activists and academics. Beyond limiting the actual breadth and exposure of free speech itself, the proposal associates anyone who fails to subscribe to the status quo as a ‘hate speaker’, regardless of whether they’ve actually advocated any hate or violence. These arbitrary limits will only reduce the level of intellectual debate on campus, and in so doing tarnish this aspect of the university experience.

More important, is whether universities should provide a public platform. And while might argue that this privilege that should not be undermined’, alternative communication- whether in broadcasting online content or relocating controversial events to private venues, ultimately renders this policy  as little more than a lame duck publicity act. Though the symbolism might be welcome, we should really ask whether it’s more preferable for ‘hate speakers’ to air their views in spaces of minimal accountability, or in public universities where so long as there is an agreement that all members of the student union can attend, speakers have no choice but to be questioned- both by their supporters and opponents. In practical terms, it is clear that the latter is far more desirable.

Finally, the policy is patronizing to students themselves. You would imagine that by the age of eighteen, we would have the mental faculties and intelligence to make our own decisions and justify our opinions. Yet by attempting to ban controversial speakers, the policy subsequently assumes that students need to be sheltered from socially questionable views. Not only is this insulting, this direct form of silencing poses its own threat to social cohesion. Those with distasteful views are more likely to be strengthened and more vocal, particularly if they can portray themselves as martyrs.

Like it or not, we have to accept that in universities, a wide variety of opinions exist in direct opposition to our cherished liberal values. Though these views may be reprehensible, they also form a vital part of our democracy, and unless a direct threat is truly evident, there seems no justification for overt censorship. Instead, we should use universities to actively challenge these speakers, in an area of open, democratic and most importantly, accountable debate. After all, while  'No Platform' policies may have been effective in combating fascism and extremism in the past, these days it's far more effective to broadcast a humiliating video on Youtube. 

Philpott and the Right Wing Culture War

Over the past two weeks, the government have drawn their electoral battleground in anticipation for next month's local elections.

In embracing the politics of class division, the Government, including the once centre-progressive Liberal Democrats, have attempted to justify their cynical attacks on the unemployed poor through the guise of defending the middle class, and more importantly, blaming others for their own economic incompetence.

It therefore wasn't surprising that both the Prime Minister and others in the Cabinet saw Mick Philpott- the perpetrator of a house fire in Derby that killed his six children, as the perfect weapon to continue their cultural onslaught. In a speech last week, David Cameron, supporting similar comments made by his fellow Bullingdon Club chum turned Chancellor George Osborne, argued that the Philpott case “raised wider questions about the welfare system” and the “signals” it provided to those that claimed state assistance.

Of course, the right-wing press were more than happy to comply. And while the Sun were at least dignified enough to pose a question relating to a 'benefits culture' and its contribution to Philpott's actions, splashed on the cover of the brazen Daily Mail read the headline “Vile Product of Welfare UK”. Far from the post-war security net created by Prime Minister Atlee in the bleak aftermath of the Second World War, today's politicians, cheered on by the agenda of a vindictive press, have transformed the idea into something to be ashamed of. And if such claimants were to forget about their obligatory shame, it would be up to such media outlets- comprised mostly of privileged 'strivers' to remind them of it.

What is troubling is the sheer hypocrisy espoused by the Mail. For while they caricature Philpott's motivations to an almost bloodthirsty desire for benefits, such character reduction were not attributed to a similar attack carried out by Christopher Foster just a few years ago.
In 2009, Mr. Foster killed both his wife and 15 year old daughter before setting his house ablaze and committing suicide after. As the story unfolded, it was revealed that Mr. Foster was a multi-millionaire who had accumulated a large amount of debt and was accused of tax fraud in an attempt to maintain his lavish lifestyle. Yet, Foster was not accused of being a 'vile product of greed' who put ego before his family. In fact, while the Daily Mail continues to vilify welfare claimants, it simultaneously idolises the lavish celebrity which formed much of Foster's insecurity.

More depressing, is that the Left- once champions of the welfare state and the social contract that bound it, are now capitulating to the Right's culture war. Ed Miliband, seen at first as a refreshing departure from Blair's New Labour, has also argued for cuts to welfare allowances, as well as initially supporting the atrocious 'Workfare' scheme- a system where job seekers were forced to work for benefits, at a rate significantly below the existing minimum wage. Beyond a small, marginalised section of the left, there exists no group powerful enough to defend the principles of state welfare, or even represent its brutal realities.

For as long as this ideological void widens, the Right will have no qualms in using more Philpotts to characterise the welfare state. And with media output like The Jeremy Kyle Show or the Daily Mail continuing to ritually humiliate a voiceless “undeserving poor”, they will certainly have enough ammunition to give a feeble Left a run for their money.

Thatcher's Death and the Rise of Moral Hypocrisy

Few figures have ever remained politically divisive than Lady Thatcher- and if you've got a Facebook or Twitter account, that's probably evident in the mix of comments you might see on your feed. In any case, I've seen a mixture of "Hurray, the witch is dead" to "Farewell, the greatest PM the UK has ever seen". And sure, everyone (though there's an irony of 90's kids praising a PM they didn't even live under) has a right to their opinions, regardless of the political divide.
A controversy has come out of this, which The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald has summarised pretty well.  In basic terms the argument made by the Right is simple : Regardless of what you thought of the Iron Lady, you should respect the dead, and certainly not celebrate death.

In a personal capacity, I agree. Death is humbling, assuring the living of the limits and realities of existence. It also assures us that regardless of our social positions, occupations and wealth, all humanity ends in the same place. Regardless of opinions toward individuals, death as a private matter should be respected.

Yet there is a particular irony espoused by the Right. Take David Pryce Jone's article in the Spectator, referring to those westerners who mourned Hugo Chavez's death as 'useful idiots', or the US asassination of Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, whose 'terrorist' label by US intelligence agencies were used to justify drone bombing without trial- despite that both he and his son were American citizens. And of course, lets not forget the jubilant celebrations of Osama Bin Laden's death in the States- something understandable, but not necessarily respectful.  This isn't even limited to notable figures either. Numerous military video games like Call of Duty reduce war into games of good and evil, where enemy combatants are otherised and considered inhuman- basically, reducing their "death" into  trivial proceedure. And for those Tories who believe that unlike their socialist counterparts, they are incapable of using death to score cheap political points, look no further than the ConHome's reporting on former Labour leader Michael Foot's death a few years ago, where far from respecting Thatcher's once opponent, many users take enjoyment in espousing their hatred for his communist principles- and using language not too dissimilar than those speaking ill of Thatcher at present.

The point I'm trying to make is that there have been occasions where those who currently argue to 'speak no ill' over Thatcher's death are more than happy to either celebrate, justify or be complicit in the celebration of other deaths. And while we are  willing to respect and symapthise with Thatcher for both her prominence as PM, and her personal struggles later on, we are less concerned with the death of other mere mortals- those caught in the middle of war in the Middle East, or even those struggling to eat in Britain. In fact many of us are more than happy to dismiss the latter as those 'not willing to work hard enough', as Boris Johnson's column today suggested.

And here's the final kicker. The moral vanguards of the Right argue that regardless of one's opinions of Thatcher's politics, both left and right, socialist and libertarian, should acknowledge her as a human being. I'll agree to that, but it's quite rich coming from people who refer to urban, unemployed poor, many of whom were at the blunt end of Thatcherite policies, as undeserving 'shirkers'.

Could Politicians Live On £53.00 a Week?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk

I've never been a big fan of reality television, but Iain Duncan Smith (IDS)'s latest claims on his welfare reforms have given me a great new idea.

Interviewed on Radio 4's 'Today' Programme, the work and pensions secretary was challenged as to whether he could realistically live on the basic daily benefit allowance, amounting to around £53.00 per week- the lowest rate of Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) given to an adult under 25. In response, IDS argued that 'he could if he had to'.

That's a pretty bold statement,coming from a wealthy career politician who these days seems more out of touch than Norman Tebbitt. In fact, the Mirror's very own Fleet Street Fox says it best when she notes just how much IDS has cost the state even before he entered Parliament.

But wait a second- IDS claimed benefits for a brief time , so surely he must have a good insider's knowledge, as some sympathetic to him argue. Perhaps the grudge against people 'claiming benefits out of choice' might be justified after all. Future biographers may note that his time in the dole queue those many decades ago may have also been the time needed to sew the seeds of his coming cultural revolution. Mao Tse Tung, eat your heart out.

Most commentators on both Fleet Street and Twitter have responded to the claims in much the same way. Asserting that the senior minister is still talking hot air, recalling his paltry justifications on previous welfare reforms, they propose a challenge: “Prove It!”. In fact, there's even a petition for it (I encourage you all to sign). But why not make this challenge even more interesting?

I propose that some clever television producers draft plans for a new reality show. Originally, I wanted to call it 'the welfare challenge', but in the twitter age that's not particularly catchy. Instead, it could be called 'Shirkers', or '#Shirkers', if you want to be pedantic about it.

The premise is simple- much like the Big Brother House, Politicians across parties are given a month inside a council house, where they are provided the basic requirements needed to survive. Much like many job seekers from poor families, they’ll have an old bed, a tattered room with inadequate heating facilities, and around £53.00 per week to spend as they wish. They'll have to ration that money when paying for food, heat, electricity, and other necessities- and by that, I don't mean exotic fruits or nights out at the theatre. Of course, all of this will be filmed and broadcast to the general public, who I imagine will be more than happy to partake in the programme. Moreover, I'm sure Owen Jones would be a great presenter of its supplementary analysis programme : “#Shirkers- The Striver's Say”.

And while I hope this hasn't got any budding TV producers too excited, an idea like this might actually be what's needed to repair UK politics. The problem with our current debate on welfare benefits and social security is not that the method of distributions are grossly extortionate, bur rather that it is currently framed either through mundane statistics, or over-emotional hyperbole. Not only has this paralysed the Left in their avocation of a better welfare system, but it has also allowed right-wing zealots cheered by an insidious press to label those out of work as scroungers off the state. Both of these approaches ultimately do little to objectively explore the lives of those living off benefits, and in turn, has done little to affect policy making.

Examining the effectiveness of the welfare system from this approach- whereby those in the driving seat first experience the lives they are responsible for, may produce a more reasoned understanding of benefit claimants, beyond the caricatures used to score political points. It might also give politicians more legitimacy in enacting reforms, with their proposals based on  their own experiences, rather than an abstract set of figures. Reality TV producers just might be able to radically transform the welfare state more effectively than any policy think tank or parliamentary adviser. Even if I'm wrong, I imagine the sight of George Osborne waiting for a cold pasty at Greggs would be priceless.