27th March 2006

The cafe discussion evening in Stroud on 24th March 2006 with people of all ages and backgrounds was on freedom of speech.

Brian Oostehuisen, a refugee from the apartheid regime of South Africa, brought his experiences and views to the evening. Hearing eyewitness accounts of imprisonment and torture, just for attempting to express an opinion, really brought home to everyone the importance of the topic. A representative from Amnesty International told everyone about efforts to stop suppression of free speech around the world, and Martin Whiteside talked about freedom of speech cases in the U.K.

Chris Brain, Organiser of the Cafe Discussion said: "Some of the audience were shocked by the extent freedom of speech was already curtailed in this country - one example given was the two women arrested under anti-terror legislation law for peacefully reading out the names of Iraq war casualties at the Cenotaph."

The format of the Coffee House evening is to have a short period of introductory talks, questions and comments to the speakers, small group table discussion, then large group discussion. The evenings are sponsored and supported by the local Green Party but they really attract people from all types of political background and many people with no interest in mainstream politics at all. The evenings give all kinds a people a chance to talk about issues that really are important to our lives. The Coffee House has been incredibly popular since it began in June 2005.

On the subject of freedom of speech many different aspects of the issue were explored in the discussion. There was a lot of concern about unlimited freedom of speech allowing extremist views a platform, but this was balanced with a real sense of unease at allowing the authorities the power to silence any viewpoint. A general feeling gradually emerged that freedom of speech should be limited, but not by law. People must limit their own freedom with a sense of responsibility to other people. As Brian Oostehuisen had said earlier: "I have the freedom to drive on the road, but not the freedom to drive on the wrong side, causing harm to other people. Freedom of speech is no different to any other freedom, it must be limited by responsibility."

The Coffee House Discussion evenings have been running every month since June 2005. Previous topics have included; 'Can we make poverty history?', 'Does Science have all the answers?', 'The end of oil?'

For more details click here

A right to offend? The decision by a Danish newspaper to print cartoons of the prophet Muhammad provoked protests around the world and a debate about freedom of speech. Philosopher Onora O'Neill considers the limits of liberty in The Guardian:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,,1708187,00.html

Further notes scribbled about the evening from the Cafe Organisers, Chris Brain and Sue Phillips:

Brian Oostehuisen left South Africa in 1961 to come to England at the age of 23. To be in a country where the question, ‘Should there be any limits to free speech?’ can even be asked is an incredible experience for someone who has lived in apartheid South Africa. At that time there were harsh restrictions placed on all aspects of freedom. People lived with the constant fear that at any time they could be taken away by the police and held indefinitely in terrible conditions. There were only a handful of papers that attempted to print critical stories of the establishment, but these were subjected to constant harassment.

When Brian arrived in Britain his experience of a liberal democracy reinforced his opinion that there should be an absolute right to freedom of speech, with no limitations. Over time, however, his view slowly changed as he began to realise some of the implications of expressing extreme views. He formed the view that for people to live together the individual must have a contract of responsibility with the rest of society. The individual must limit their own freedom of speech in order to avoid extreme offence to others. Whether or not society should place restrictions on free speech is a question that Brian still feels unsure of. On one side is the fear of any restrictions carrying the taint of a totalitarian regime, on the other is the problem of people irresponsibly expressing views that may cause harm to other people. In conclusion, “All freedoms carry some limitations, why should freedom of speech be any different?”

Carol Oostehuisen, a representative from Gloucestershire Amnesty International, then outlined for the group the work that Amnesty does on freedom of speech. The most high profile activities of Amnesty focus on the incarceration of people without trial or representation and the torture or other mistreatment of prisoners. Yet Amnesty was created as a response to the arrest of Portuguese students for raising their glass to freedom and the organisation has continued to campaign for freedom of expression ever since. Carol told us that Turkey was on their list of high priority countries because of concerns over freedom of expression.

Martin Whiteside then brought our focus back to this country by outlining several cases that involved freedom of speech. These cases included;

The conviction of Abu Hamza.
The cartoons of Mohammed
The Mclibel trial
Lady Chatterley’s lover
Clause 28
Life of Brian
The Satanic Verses

The outlining of these cases brought it home to the group that freedom of speech is an issue in this country that is involved in many debates, discussions and legal actions. It is not only a recent issue but one that perhaps need constant attention to either refine, protect or expand our existing freedoms.

After a short session of comments and questions, the group split up into 3 groups to discuss the issue. When we came back the groups reported back these points that had come up in discussion. 

- That although unlimited freedom of speech may mean that extremist views that may offend or even cause harm to other people are allowed, it cannot be right to suppress those views. Suppression of extremist voices may lead to an increase in that view being expressed through violence or other means.

- Concern was expressed about how the media expressed or transmitted extremist views. The feeling was that the media did not have as strong a sense of responsibility or accountability as that which we expect in an individual.
Some views on how extremist views come about; are they the product of fear or ignorance? Some measures used by schools to increase familiarity with other races and cultures were presented as possible solutions to extremist views.
The two statements were quoted: “I don’t like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” And “Do as you like as long as you cause no harm to others.”
 
- The thought was expressed that liberal society is too timid in defending its values and qualities; that perhaps it should respond more strongly to extremist views in open debate.

After a time of large group discussion that revealed many interesting aspects of the issue, Martin began to bring the evening to a close by suggesting that there seemed to be a consensus: that freedom of speech should not be limited by any further legislation and that there may be a case for repealing existing legislation on restrictions on freedom of speech.

But this freedom must be balanced by a strong sense of responsibility towards other people. That this sense of responsibility is underdeveloped in our society and efforts should be made to build awareness. This building of a sense of responsibility goes hand in hand with building familiarity and understanding of other cultures and viewpoints.

The last comment of the evening, was that although we had reached consensus in this group, it did not reflect a consensus in the country. A large effort was going on to restrict freedom of expression in many aspects of our society. We must not be complacent about our own views but make efforts to convince everyone else to share them.