The fulcrum of freedom
'And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the
earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by
licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her
and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse,
in a free and open encounter...' [Milton - Areogapitica].
Milton's words contain perhaps more significance than he
realised, for a society only becomes wholeheartedly
tyrannical when censorship allows no effective opposition.
To take a most dramatic instance, if the Nazis had been
forced by frequently expressed contrary public opinion to
explain their policy of genocide to the German people, it is
highly improbable that the whole grisly business would have
been mooted for we know that even without any serious public
opposition, the Nazis went to considerable lengths, in the
midst of a most tremendous war, to persuade the mass of
Germans that Jews were simply being resettled or, at worst,
used as forced labour.
Free expression will not, of course, guarantee the most
humane treatment. In the case of Germany (and I suspect the
rest of pre-war Europe), the Nazis could probably have
persuaded, regardless of any public opposition, a majority of
Gentiles that the resettlement or simple expulsion of Jews
was reasonable. (It is noteworthy that Himmler toyed with
the idea). A stark solution but infinitely preferable to the
horrors of the death camps. (This perhaps is the principal
lesson which liberals invariably fail to learn, that absolute
and permanent moral goods are impossible.)
But although free expression is a golden prize, it is also
one of the hardest things for men (of all political stamps)
to practise, because there is a profound temptation for any
person to engage in the self-serving delusion that the
suppression of contrary opinion is not an abrogation of free
expression but the legitimate exclusion of dangerous ideas.
This, of course, is a literal nonsense because free
expression is indivisible. Its essence is that it is not a
negotiable quality; you either have it or a range of
permitted opinion which may be altered at any point by the
ruling class, the mass media, unelected pressure groups,
terrorists and the Mob. At present we have a very restricted
range of permitted opinion. The fact that public figures
bleat ever more frenetically of our "right to free
expression" reminds me irresistibly of the lines:
'The more he spoke of his honour,
The faster we counted our spoons'
Freedom of expression in Britain is presently circumscribed
by the laws relating to libel, slander, confidence,
blasphemy, obscenity, official secrets, equal opportunities
and race relations. Government departments and agencies,
local municipalities, private corporate bodies and private
citizens may also obtain injunctions to prevent both the
expression of views and physical demonstrations. In
addition, the police have practically unlimited powers to
prevent a man speaking if it is judged that the words uttered
are 'likely to cause a breach of the peace' and may limit
public demonstrations virtually at will.
To these barriers is added the voluntary code of practice
which is policed by the Press Complaints Commission. This
contains such widely drawn and imprecise restrictions as:
The Press should avoid prejudicial or pejorative
references to a person's race, colour, religion, sex or
sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness
or handicap.
and
It should avoid publishing details of a person's race,
colour, religion, sex or sexual orientation, unless
these are directly relevant to the story.
Nor is free expression guaranteed more securely by
international treaty. The 1951 European Convention on Human
Rights states in Article 10 that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This
right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to
receive and impart information and ideas without
interference by public authority and regardless of
frontiers....
All fine and dandy. But this is followed by:
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such
formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic
society, in the interests of national security,
territorial integrity or public safety, for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals [my emphasis], for the protection of the
reputation of the reputation or rights of others, for
preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence, or for maintaining the authority and
impartiality of the judiciary.
Which caveats allow any state to do virtually anything by way
of censorship.
But perhaps worse than such formal laws and treaties - for
they are unlimited and cannot be challenged in the courts -
are the customary restraints of which at present liberal
censorship - both willingly self-imposed and enforced on
others - and the fear of violent and disruptive action by
minority groups are by far the most comprehensive and
powerful. Such checks are particularly important in a country
such as Britain which has an immensely strong tradition of
personal freedom.
Opposition in the modern world means reasonable access to
the various mass media. Without that free expression is an
empty shell for, as wise dictators have always known, two
shepherds on a hillside defaming the government is nothing,
while a hundred thousand people demonstrating in the capital
city or a television station broadcasting criticism of
government is much. But our public life, including politics,
is currently rigidly controlled, on all matters except
perhaps the economy, by those who broadly subscribe to a
left/liberal programme - what might be termed The Liberal
Ascendency. Think, for example, of what educationalists have
done to sabotage Tory attempts to right the decline in
educational standards.
The only true democracy lies in freedom of expression, which
requires both the absence of restrictive laws and the
statutory guarantee of its exercise to be meaningful. Unless
the current embargo on views contrary to those of the
Liberal Ascendency is broken, Britain's claim to political
liberty is a sham. It is, indeed, a strange kind of freedom
which is so hemmed by law and circumstance.
The idea which is the bedrock of western morality, the
primacy of the individual, is a fragile psychological edifice
which can only be guaranteed by free expression. Moreover, it
is an idea which is constantly under threat because the
primacy of the individual is little valued by most societies
and its social corollary - a practical concern for
individual liberty - is an even rarer cultural artifact.
Indeed, it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that only in
English society, and those societies deriving from it, is the
notion of individual liberty built into the social fabric.
The English have been free not primarily because of legal
rights, but because it is their evolved social nature. They
accept liberty because it seems natural to them. But that
freedom has always rested on the willingness of the Public
Class to both behave in a reasonable fashion and to allow
criticism. Hayek, coming to England as a foreigner between
the Wars noted both the special quality of English life and
the threat to its continuance:
...it is one of the most disheartening spectacles
of our time to see to what extent some of the most
precious things which England has given to the
world are now held in contempt in England herself.
The English hardly know to what degree they differ
from most other people in that they all,
irrespective of party, hold, to a greater or less
extent, the ideas which in their most pronounced
form are known as liberalism...[Road To Serfdom
1944 chapter X1V. Hayek, of course, used liberalism
in its uncorrupted individualistic sense.]
Freedom of expression is every man's best guarantee of
freedom. We should begin its creation (for it has never truly
existed in England) with a bonfire of most of the legal
restraints as they apply to adults. Libel (including criminal
libel) and slander may be replaced by a statutory right of
reply; the equal opportunities and race relations statutes
should be repealed in toto for they not only restrict free
expression but practically abrogate the principle of equality
before the law; blasphemy and obscenity should depart on the
grounds that no group has the right to constrain another
simply on the grounds that views are offensive to one side,
Some legal restraints are necessary for the efficient and
polite functioning of society, but these should be formed,
except in the case of minors, only in a way which allows the
individual to voluntarily surrender his absolute right to
free expression. By this device of voluntary surrender the
general principle of freedom of expression is not abrogated.
However, the individual should never be allowed to agree to a
circumscribing of his right to free expression which would
force him by the terms of his voluntary surrender, through
acts of commission or omission, to become an active or
passive participant in criminal behaviour or to indulge in
culpable behaviour which could be subject to a civil suit.
Nor should the individual be constrained in the giving of
evidence before the courts, Parliament or any properly
constituted governmental or municipal body engaged in the
collection of evidence.
Legal restrictions relating to confidence and the Official
Secrets Act could be replaced by a law of contractual
confidence which clearly states any obligations placed on
the person accepting an overt (not implied) contract of
employment. No other law of confidence should exist.
A freedom of information act should be passed which allows
access to all government and municipal papers of general
interest - that is everything which is not related to a
particular individual - except papers concerned with limited
and clearly defined military matters such as battle plans,
equipment specifications and computer codes relating to such
things as the launch of nuclear missiles. The stipulation of
papers relating only to matters of a general interest would
prevent public prying into such records as individual tax
returns. The passing of such an act would also place severe
limits to the contractual limitations on free expression
placed on public servants.
The mention of freedom of information acts always brings
knowing scoffing from the self-identified political
sophisticates of politics and the mass media. Faced with such
a proposal they nudge one another and sigh with a resigned,
patronising smile before saying that all that would happen is
that politicians would decide things privately whilst
dissembling in public. I should be most interested to know
exactly how such duplicitous behaviour could be translated
into practical measures. If, for example, the cabinet is
secretly against rail privatisation it cannot fail to carry
the measure through and expect no one to notice. It is true,
of course, that legislation may be presented as something it
is not but that is a present evil without the existence of a
freedom of information act. With such an act
misrepresentation would be, in principle, subject to greater
and more informed scrutiny and consequently open to fiercer
pressure for amendment. Nor do I believe that politicians
would be able to dissemble successfully in public all of the
time.
Most of our great present ills, coloured settlement, EEC
membership, the Ulster sellout and our present dangerous
involvement in Bosnia (within the near future approximately
one third of our army could be committed to this insoluble
black comedy) can be attributed in large part to the
ability of governments to suppress and manage information.
The same could be said of most past disasters. Consequently,
the breaking or weakening of such power to mislead and act in
secret could be of inestimable benefit to the British people
if, as it should, it acted as an ever present brake on
governmental behaviour which runs the gamut from the reckless
to the treasonable.,
Minors should be subject to adult direction but should
It is reasonable to circumscribe the freedom of expression of
minors because they do not have the status, intellectual and
moral development, experience or responsibilities of an
adult, either in practice or legally.
Injunctions to prevent both the expression of views and
Physical demonstrations are a problem for they In
addition, the police have practically unlimited powers to
prevent a man speaking if it is judged that the words uttered
are 'likely to cause a breach of the peace' and may limit
public demonstrations virtually at will.
As for the customary restraints, a statutory right of reply
would probably be enough to ensure both fair play and a wide
variety of opinion throughout the press. But what of a right
of reply against those producing books and pamphlets?
Broadcasts present a different problem from printed matter
because their numbers are practically limited with current
technology, in the case of terrestial national channels
severely limited. There is also a considerable difference
between writing a letter or article for publication, which
most people should either be able to do or to find someone
who is willing to write on their behalf, and broadcasting a
reply which would be beyond most people.
If we wish to preserve our freedom, it is of the first
importance for all to realise that such liberty as we enjoy
is an ineffably hard won and fragile right. That which has
been gained in four centuries may be lost in a day. Freedom
of expression is a sine qua non for a free society. It is
the fulcrum of freedom for it is the intellectual point at
which a society may place a moral lever to lift it above
tyranny.
return to top