The Conservatives’ decision to repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act – which is based on the European Convention on Human Rights – and to replace it with our own British ‘Bill of Rights’, means that recently it feels that our democratic freedoms have been hotly contested. Nobody can deny that freedom of speech is a deserving and hard-won right (and fortunately one that doesn’t appear to be threatened under the new constitution), yet recently it appears that the concept of free speech has been somewhat warped to fit an agenda that cannot be labelled wholly democratic.
In The Sun on the 17th of June, author Mick Hume published an article entitled: ‘How Twitter liberal Taliban have stolen our free speech‘ , where he shunned online political correctness and accused those acting in this manner of repressing the right of others to freedom of speech. The author is obviously passionate with regards to the debate of free speech vs. political correctness – having just written a book on it – yet it would only be fair therefore for me to use my ‘democratic freedoms’ in questioning the bigoted nature of his so-called patriotism.
Hume went on to outline the punishments that one can incur for saying certain things. Paradoxically, all freedoms have their limits and freedom of speech is no exception. Yet for Hume to imply that discriminating against homosexuals or ‘calling Islam an evil religion’ is a right that we should possess without any judicial consequences is ridiculous. Just as we possess the right to speak as we feel, those also living in Britain possess the right to feel secure in their society in being free from discrimination. Therefore to imply that the exercise of hatred and bigotry is a democratic right is – frankly – ridiculous.
Nobel prize-winning scientist Tim Hunt is cited as an example, Hume appeared incensed that Hunt should have to resign over his sexist remarks made in reference to women in the STEM fields. Yet it has been notoriously difficult for women to establish themselves in fields, with accusations of women’s achievements being erased from the history books (Margaret Hamilton, the lead software engineer on the Apollo 11 mission, is a prime example). Therefore surely to aid women’s advancement in these fields after decades of being held back, it was necessary to show Hunt that these irreverent generalisations will not be tolerated. When freedom of speech is used as something to oppress a certain group of people, it can no longer be construed as a democratic freedom.
It feels as though ‘hate speech’ and ‘free speech’ have become confused in Mick Hume’s mind. We are privileged in Britain to be able to speak out against malpractice by big corporations, protest against governmental policies and generally voice our opinions on the current state of affairs. However when blatant discrimination against race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexuality is hidden behind the guise of ‘freedom of speech’, the concept has been manipulated – one person’s freedom shouldn’t indicate another’s oppression. Freedom of speech is intrinsically linked to tolerance of one another’s viewpoints therefore to preach tolerance whilst being discriminatory undermines the idea of democracy.
It’s vital that we appreciate our privilege in possessing this right, yet it’s also vital that Hume checks his own privilege – predictably fitting the trope of the angry rich white man, he is perhaps ignorant of the incendiary nature of his rhetoric. His own privilege perhaps makes him ignorant of the fact that the right to be a bigot is not in any constitution past or present.
Words by Beth Chaplow