'Why I voted yes...'

An older article published last year in Sussex student paper The Badger, written in support of the principles of free speech on campus. Click here and scroll down to page 7 to see it in its published context and amuse yourself at how superior it is to the 'Why I voted no..' article below it (although I'm sure you'll agree, Olly Laughland is a marvellous name).

As anyone who takes enough interest in campus life to pick up a copy of The Badger, and perhaps even read some of the fantastically well written articles concealed within, will no doubt
be aware there was a vote a couple of weeks back - a referendum in which every student at the university was able to cast a ballot. The purpose of this poll, was to answer the question: “This union should allow anyone to be invited to speak at Sussex University, within UK law.” (Not actually a question of course, as those of you who are as pernickety about syntax as I am will have spotted. We’ll call it a proposal from now on, or something similar.)

Now, clearly, the answer that was going to be returned by the student population of Sussex, or by virtually any student population in the UK for that matter, was a resounding ‘no.’ As my dad would say, with one of his characteristically less -than-politically-correct catchphrases, ‘it was so obvious a blind man could see it.’ This is because the proposal means that any old radical speaker or group could potentially be invited and given a platform to air their views at our University and in particular the groups that really concern the run-ofthe- mill left-leaning student, far right organisations, of which the biggestand most infamous is the British National Party (BNP). However I, in what you might call a token gesture given the inevitability of the result (I might be tempted to call it a matter of principle), ticked the ‘yes’ box,for reasons I wish to explain in this article.

So I suppose the essence of my reason for voting against type, being something of a lefty student myself,was that grand-sounding concept of free speech - itself something of a traditional lefty notion. Essentially, it is impossible to get away from the fact that the only reason people would not want the BNP and their ilk to come and speak at the university is that they disagree with their views. An anonymous author writing against the proposal in The Badger attempts to paint the issue as not being a matter of freedom of speech, but as one of preventing propagation of violent views. However, one should notice the all-important final three words of the proposal – ‘within UK law.’ Now, I’m no lawyer admittedly, but as I understand it UK law explicitly forbids incitement of violence, and this is indeed the only restriction on free speech in our country. Whether the BNP do promote violence is another matter, but if they did they would be flouting UK law and the proviso tagged on the end of the proposal would come into play, allowing the refusal of the right to speak on these grounds. Hence the argument against allowing anyone to speak on concerns of violence doesn’t carry any weight with me. Without wishing to cite an over used-to-the-point-of-cliché Voltaire quotation, freedom of speech must apply to all views, however detestable ‘reasonable’ people find then, otherwise it is simply not free.

Likewise all the other arguments I have heard from the ‘no’ camp seem weak to me. One which at first appeared to me as most potent was put forward by a friend of mine, who made the case that a blanket notion of freedom of speech assumes a level playing field which is not there in reality. The minorities spoken against by far-right organisations may not have the means or opportunities to respond and defend themselves. On these grounds he claimed, groups such as the BNP should be prohibited from talking on campus. However, this seems to me a very pessimistic way to approach the issue. If the situation is indeed as described above, then surely the way forward is to ensure that the minorities in question, or anyone else who feels strongly about the matter, are given sufficient platform and every opportunity to express their views in response – to offer the power of freedom of speech to all parties, not to level down and deny the freedom to everybody. If one truly does believe in democracy, one has to believe that the ‘correct’ view will win come through at the end of the debate.

‘No’ campaigners worry that allowing the BNP to speak would only serve to give them added publicity. However, what gives controversial groups real publicity is not permitting them to express their views, but in fact it is the very debate we are have had over the last few weeks, and the over-the-top protests against them. One only has to look at what happened when BNP leader Nick Griffin was invited to speak at the prestigious Oxford Union last year. The reason this became headline news was not the invitation itself, but the rabble of protestors who clamoured outside the debating chamber, chanting antifascist slogans. It was their actions that caused the furore, and meant that Griffin’s face and opinions found their way onto the evening news, a bonus not usually afforded to speakers at the Oxford Union. Banning such people only gives them more perceived injustices to shout about, and heightens their persecution complex further, giving them more ammunition as they attempt to drum up support for their extreme views. Nick Griffin will no doubt now claim something to the effect that: ‘the University of Sussex wouldn’t let us speak, because they know we have valid points.’ Francis Bacon said that “the punishing of wits enhances their authority and a forbidden writing is thought to be a certain spark of truth that flies up in the faces of them that seek to tread it out.” Gagging the BNP could well have such an effect on many people in our society.

However, one thing that seems to have been overlooked in this entire debate is that the people most likely to be susceptible to the insidious yet transparent bile spouted by the BNP are not the educated and (on the whole) middle-class student population, who (hopefully) have the ability to think for themselves. Campuses throughout the country have always been and will always be for the most part left-leaning, and even if the BNP were permitted to stage a full-on recruitment drive on the library steps they would not find a great deal of success. Where the BNP’s message does find support is in deprived and neglected areas of the country, the Barkings and Bradfords, places where people are all too often under-educated, under-valued and under-represented. The rush to the centre ground by all the major political parties in pursuit of votes and their
refusal to take seriously the concerns of people in these areas have created a vacuum which groups such as the BNP are attempting to exploit. It is the desperation of people in such locations that causes them to be taken in by radicalism and is the issue that needs to be tackled if the recent rise in popularity for the BNP is to stop. If we are serious about preventing a popularity surge, we should be putting our effort into understanding the frustrations of those in areas of the country which turn to the BNP, and educating and improving their quality of life and prospects, not wasting energy blustering about whether Griffin and his cronies should be allowed on to leafy, sedate university campuses.

If the University of Sussex really wants to make a difference in the battle against fascism, its students need to address the issues raised by the BNP and their popularity and work out the best way to combat them, not bury our heads in the sand and hope the problem will go away. Listening to such people speak and remaining detached and analytical whilst doing so is in fact the best way to understand the appeal of radicalism to others, and thus to finding a way to defeat themin the long run.