It’s nice that we have so many readers so suddenly
Posted by Owen Sanderson on February 14th, 2007
Ok, I’ll lay something out in the open. I didn’t mean to imply that the debate about freedom of speech was over, merely that I’d discussed the cartoons many times with my peers, and it always goes in a circle around the ideas of freedom of speech, offensive material, and the practical safety of individuals involved. It makes no massive difference whether we call the protagonists [Mr X] and [Group X], or [Mr X’s real name] and Muslims, and no difference to the intellectual bones of the debate exactly what is happening to who and when.
The statement from the President of the Union of Clare Students was spot on- ‘This does not reflect the views of Clare students’. The statement from the College, calling it ‘abhorrent’ is fine. The Master and Fellows can think what they wish. It would be fair to say that most students I’ve spoken to do not find it ‘abhorrent’, but nor do they entirely agree with the opinions expressed. Personally, I thought a lot of it was quite funny, but then I quite like offensive humour.
While there are journalists like those of the Cambridge Evening News out there (the editorial was worse, but I can’t find it on their site), fuelling the fires of tabloid idiocy by scanning in copies wouldn’t be particularly helpful. Whilst I’m sure the blogosphere will be ‘fair and balanced’, the print media may be less reasonable. If you want a brief taste, have a look here. For what it is worth, I didn’t feel it was racist, and religions other than Islam were mocked. But I’m not going to give anyone a copy.
Also, for those of you seeing this as a freedom of speech issue, I genuinely do not think it is yet. The college has cut funding to the publication- but all that means is it won’t spring a few quid for photocopying. There hasn’t been a ban on student publication, or a requirement to vet all student media, or anything of the sort. The idea of Oxbridge colleges closing ranks, protecting their own and getting on with the Milkround is obviously an appealing one, but that really isn’t the case here. A Court of Discipline is just that, a Court. We could protest if [Mr X] is punished for his involvement, but not merely because he has been accused. The Court is comprised of students and Fellows, and I think there is every chance [Mr X] will be dealt with fairly. As for this blog, I’m not sure the college even knows this exists. I don’t think it is hosted on University webspace (confirm Matt??) and certainly nobody has told me what to write so far.
Filed under: clareification, freespeech, religion on February 14th, 2007
Owen is quite right - the blog is hosted on a private server.
Good work, Owen. From the outside, it looked like Clare - fellows, officials and students - were speaking with one voice. There was no reason to believe that the CEN article - which was truly appalling - was doing anything other than echoing the views of just about everyone except the guest editor. It was certainly echoing the views of Badger and Fara. Indeed, it contains unattributable quotes which, assuming they are not made up, can only mean that the college was briefing against the student. I think this is why those of us on the outside were anxious to know what students genuinely thought. It was starting to look like a lynching.
Anyway, thanks for your efforts here. Although I still think you should publish.
Best regards,
Brownie.
I’d second what Brownie says.
I think you should publish too but at the same time, I can understand why you don’t.
I’ll third what Brownie said. From the awful reporting in the CEN, and the closed opinions of Fara and Badger, it was very difficult to glean much. I’ve seen elsewhere that your intranet has been abuzz with chatter. Good work!
Yes, it is unfair to expect you to scan a copy of the mag, but can you confirm a few things?
… was the picture in question that of a figure assumed to be the Islamic prophet with a bomb in his turban?
… was it juxtaposed with a picture of the Clare Union president in which one was called a “violent paedophile” and the other a messenger of G-d?
… I understand the president has a similar name to mine. Is he therefore not from an ethnic group immediately identifiable with Muslims? If so, it strikes as very, very tasteless but less likely in my mind that the aim was to imply a certain ethnic group was inclined to paedophiles.
… can you give a description of the pieces on other religions? Better or worse than the piss Christ?
… can you scan a copy of the CEN’s editorial?
(On the subject of whether the Islamic prophet was a paedophile, I don’t think it’s relevant. If he did exist as a man, he lived in an age and culture where such mores were commonplace. I do, however, have problems with it being transposed to the 21 century, but that’s another discussion.)
Also, Owen, d’you realize that your link to the origial Danish cartoons includes some which were actually forged by the gladly departed Danish iman, Ahmad Abu Laban, for the delactation of an outraged ME public?
Owen,
This is a good, helpful and sensible post. I have one quibble. You say:
“I didn’t mean to imply that the debate about freedom of speech is over”
&
“Also for those seeing this as a freedom of speech issue, I genuinely do not think it is yet”
I’m not so sure: there is enormous currency in the rebuttal predominantly used against these cartoons that “freedom of speech does not include the freedom to offend”.
The VP of the CU Islamic Society used this very line in the Varsity report on this issue. (see here and my report here)
This is a fundamental error that we appear to have accepted. The bogus “freedom from offense” is the EXACT antithesis of freedom of speech. They are directly contradictory. EVERY time this line is used it must be challenged in the most strenuous terms. It is deeply, deeply disturbing that a Cambridge undergraduate could hold, let alone be content to be quoted, such a ludicrous proposition.
I completely agree that freedom to offend must exist for freedom of speech to have any meaning. But I’m not sure challenging the VP of Isoc on the consistency of his views would be particularly productive. Anyone that thinks for a few moments about his statement will realize that it is nonsensical, and I am confident that the sector of society interested in freedom of speech will ignore his opinion. Rather than wounding freedom of speech at the University or anywhere else, he simply looks stupid.
Other responses…
Yes Alec, you are broadly correct about the content of the back page. The President of the Student’s Union is called Calum Davey, so yes, he has a Scottish name, and hails from Scotland, and is not from an ethnic group often associated with Islam, though I believe he was reading the Qu’ran at some stage this term, though for general interest rather than devotion to Islam. Christianity is often mocked in Clareification- I cannot say whether it was ‘worse’ than the treatment of Islam- offence is of course entirely subjective (which is the whole problem with ‘does not mean freedom to offend’). The Christian population at Clare is considerably larger than the Muslim population- whether this has relevance to offence I do not know, but it could contribute to a feeling of persecution.
I’ll try and dig out the Evening News editorial, but I don’t have a scanner, so it might take a while. You could try emailing them politely, without mentioning the abysmal quality of their journalism.
Owen,
Thanks for the reply.
However…
This proposition “the sector of society interested in freedom of speech will ignore his opinion” is trivially true at best, in that it is circular.
This chump got away with this statement without being torn to shreds in the same Varsity article. It appears - and it is quite possible - that the Varsity author/journalist/hack actually accepts his argument. This is dangerous.
I very much doubt that such a statement would be challenged if presented on the BBC.
C4 actively promotes such wooliness.
This ground is being lost in the MSM, if it is not already lost. Keep an eye out for this - I challenge you to see if this view is ever challenged when presented.
If nothing else, the UK was almost the only European country NOT to print the cartoons when the fuss broke last year. Since then, every time something like this happens, the reaction is the same. This suggests to me that the prevailing view is that causing offence is seen as a valid objection to the use of free speech.
True, it is essentially a circular statement…but what I meant was, there is a broad status quo in favour of free speech. Isoc speaks from a position of weakness, not of imminent control over the UK media. Nobody in Cambridge thinks Varsity is much beyond a platform for wanna-be journos to find their feet- expecting incisive reporting and Paxman-style grillings is like expecting a bunsen burner to roast an ox.
It may be that for many people (and for broadcasters) free speech is not so absolute that they are willing to take a stand on issues of this kind, but attempts to limit freedom of speech on say, Panorama, are more likely to be taken seriously. Also, there is a genuine, pragmatic safety issue, particularly in the case of the Channel 4 link you point out.
Whilst freedom of speech may be an individual right, what right does Channel 4 have to potentially endanger the lives of its employees? How many TV employee contracts include the words ‘willing to risk life for freedom of speech if station wants me to’?
I’d agree that a position of such moral fibre would be admirable, but is it really reasonable to impose that on everybody?
Hi, Owen.
I’ll cogitate on your post, but have a couple of things to say. Can you give a run-down on the most egregiously offensive article satirizing Christianity in edition causing the bruhaha?
Also, concerning the issue of “freedom from offence”, consider the words of an alumnus (or alumnum? My Latin is behind me) of your university, Stephen Fry. You’ve been offended? So the f*ck what?
I want to make it clear that in essence, I agree with Stephen Fry. I do believe in freedom of speech as a principle, and am personally quite happy to take and dish out ‘offensive humour’.
I can’t really give you a rundown- for one thing, I’m not nearly as funny as [Mr X], but more generally, mocking Christianity can take the form of witty asides, extended satire, and even laboriously pointing out the inconsistencies in the Bible. These were featured in the Clareification in question. There was even visual satire using Christian imagery on the front page. [Mr X] is a committed atheist who delights in exposing the flaws of religion. But I won’t be drawn into discussing the contents of Clareification in public detail.
Can I use this opportunity to clear up a few other things that have been annoying me?
Clareification was not renamed ‘Crucification’ particularly for the purpose of a ’special edition on religious satire’. It is renamed every week, as a kind of running joke. ‘Darren Dayification’ was one example, but virtually no edition will see ‘Clareification’ spelt out on the front. It wasn’t a special edition, it was a normal edition which contained some religious satire. Atheists often find religion funny.
I’m not sure how important this is, but it was pissing me off.
Thanks for clearing a few things up Owen.
And give my best wishes to Mr X.
Owen,
I think we are cross-purposes in several ways. I’m afraid I can’t seem to select text to be able to copy and paste, which is a bore, so forgive me if I paraphrase some of your text.
“There is a broad status quo in favour of freedom of speech”
That is perhaps also trivial: I would agree, but I think we are losing the broad status quo that recognises that freedom of speech MUST include the freedom to offend.
[Varsity is a playground for wannabe journos]
I quite agree. But it is indicative of the kind of tosh that the wannabe journos of 5-10 years ago are writing NOW in the broadsheets.
[Expecting Paxman style grillings]
I’m not. At least possibly not in Varsity. However, I DO expect this to be vigorously challenged by the likes of Paxman et al. Which is why I offered the C4 dispatches debate example. I do hope you are not suggesting that it is fine if Jon Snow signs up to freedom from offense?
[What right does C4 have to endanger the lives of their employees?]
I assume by this that you mean by publishing the cartoons, they are likely to bring death threats etc upon the organisation. I have two comments:
1) Did you read my post on the C4 dispatches debate? Jon Snow - unprompted - finished that debate with the words “The freedom not to be offended should be enjoyed by all.” This guy is not a student hack on a student newspaper. He is the anchor for one of the most heavyweight news programmes in the UK.
2) Either that is their reasoning [that it would bring in death threats] - in which case it would only be fair to their audiences to fess up - or it is not and we have a real problem.
The moral fibre I am asking of people is not that they should publish the cartoons: I am asking that the assertion that there is a “freedom from offense” must be challenged wherever and whenever it is raised. I am arguing that it is the general principle that must be defended.
Sorry, by my first point there, I mean that “people being in favour of free speech” is in the same mould as people being in favour of motherhood and apple pie. If you were to ask “are you in favour of speech that offends your passionately held beliefs?” you may find that your status quo is distinctly shakier.