Freedom of opinion makes the UK strong
Thirty years ago this week, Ayatollah Khomeini put a fatwa on the head of Salman Rushdie. The Iranian cleric ordered that the author of The Satanic Verses, and all those involved in its publication, were “sentenced to death”. At least 22 people were killed; Rushdie went into hiding. Britain suddenly had to confront some unsettling truths. Muslim protesters who burned Mr Rushdie’s book had clearly not integrated into Britain’s tradition of free speech and religious inquiry; multiculturalism had accentuated difference and segregated communities.
What is remarkable is how many Establishment figures of the time expressed their displeasure at Mr Rushdie, even if they strongly disagreed with the death sentence. Roald Dahl suggested he’d been deliberately insulting in order to send an “indifferent book on to the top of the bestseller list”. John Le Carré argued that nobody has a right “to be impertinent to great religions with impunity”. There was an unavoidable tension between defending conservative Muslims from what they regarded as profound insult to their faith and the freedom of Mr Rushdie to speak his mind.
Britain, however, made the right choice: the Conservative government offered protection to one of its most strident literary critics. The UK stood decisively on the side of artistic liberty and should be proud of that.
Since then, the exact position of the British state on issues of free speech has become less obvious. Labour’s victory in 1997 heralded a raft of equalities and hate-crime legislation that shrouded public debate in political correctness. For example, last year Boris Johnson wrote a column for this newspaper saying that even though he defends the right to wear a burqa, he personally thinks it looks silly. The Prime Minister demanded that he apologise and the police discussed whether or not the comments could trigger criminal proceedings. The whole affair was absurd and alarming. Not only does Mr Johnson have a right to express his opinion, our readers have a right to engage with it.
Dialogue is necessary for progress and scrutiny. A terror of being accused of racism was one of the reasons why child grooming continued in Rotherham for so long. There is too much anxiety around criticising beliefs, articulating old-fashioned values or even raising commonsense objections to ideas that happen to enjoy the state’s protection. This week, lawyers on behalf of the Government concluded that “mother” is no longer a gender specific term, after a man, who was born a woman, became pregnant. Meanwhile, feminists and academics who question transgenderism have found their lives affected, or even encountered the police.
As a rule, the British would prefer to leave each other well alone. But sometimes, as in 1989, movements arise that assert their right to shut other voices down, and the Government has to take a decisive stand. The present Tory Party has done some sensible things – such as issuing guidance to ward off no-platforming at universities – but the clarity of the Eighties has been lost. Back then, Margaret Thatcher’s Methodist belief in free will provided a philosophical direction that is now sorely lacking. At the time, her politics were certainly controversial, and Mr Rushdie disagreed with them mightily. But years later, he acknowledged that she had offered protection in an hour of need. They met just once and she was “very considerate … She would tap you on the arm and say, ‘Everything OK?’ I hadn’t expected that touch of tenderness.” Mr Rushdie, thankfully, survived the fatwa and continued to publish – but across the world, thousands, if not millions, languish in jail for daring to think and speak for themselves. The Iranian theocracy – which marks the 40th anniversary of its Revolution this month – is an abhorrent example.
What dictatorships regard as weaknesses, British democracy has proved to be strengths: pluralism of belief; to argue and contest ideas; and, at the end of a jolly good row, to live and let live.
‘There is too much anxiety around criticising beliefs or even raising common-sense objections to ideas’