During my time working for English PEN I’ve often used the phrase ‘literary campaigning’ to describe our particular style of activism. Its a term that probably seems self evident: we use literature to draw attention to the situation of writers at risk. For example, we might read the writing of an imprisoned poet outside an embassy, or stage a world-wide reading at multiple locations around the world.
Its an approach that has value for several reasons. Not only is it non-violent, but it is also not particularly hostile or antagonistic to those who have imprisoned the writer or who are responsible for their persecution. So it has a diplomatic quality.
It also a fantastic act of solidarity for the embattled writer. Where they have been entirely censored through imprisonment (or even death) it is a way to give them a voice and restore to them some sort of expression. Continue reading
Tag: freedom of expression (Page 19 of 31)
In an Atlantic article about the prohibition of anti-Zionist views at American Universities, this:
One letter signed by more than 130 UC faculty members supported naming anti-Zionism as an expression of anti-Semitism, saying students need guidance on “when healthy political debate crosses the line into anti-Jewish hatred, bigotry and discrimination, and when legitimate criticism of Israel devolves into denying Israel’s right to exist.”
The phrase “Israel’s right to exist” is a common one in debates about Zionism and the hideous disputes between Israel and the Palestinians. It’s often used as a line in the sand: critics of Israel are often asked whether they support its “right to exist”. Continue reading
I’ve written quite a lot recently on the topic of No Platform and the wider issue of free speech at universities. And I am not done yet. If the reader feels as if I am repeating myself, that’s because I am: blogging is an iterative form of discourse where each evolution towards some kind of opinion is published for all to see.
And I have been thinking about iteration in the context of the campus free speech wars.
After reading Emey’s amusing-but-actually-serious Open Letter to People Who Write Open Letters to People Who Write Open Letters, my mind wanders back to the debate of the past few days. Consider, once more, the the Tatchell pile-on from last week: an internicine debate between left leaning social liberals. Continue reading
Yesterday evening I left a comment1 on a post by Chris Jarvis on the Bright Green blog. Discussing Peter Tatchell and No Platform, Chris wrote:
Tatchell tacitly endorses the idea that people should not be able to collectively decide the people that they chose to invite to speak at events that they are organising in their own spaces.
No, I replied. In signing the letter, Tatchell is saying that when people chose not to debate people with whom they are disagree, they are making a mistake and harming their own cause. Continue reading
In my earlier post, I wrote:
And perhaps students, at the cutting edge of culture and knowledge, have a greater and particular duty than the rest of us? …No Platform is the political equivalent of fly-tipping. Rather than dealing once and for all with the unpleasant rubbish, the policy causes the mess to be dumped elsewhere.
There is a coda to this which I think is important to acknowledge.
If we compare No Platform to fly-tipping, then it follows that that the task of debating reactionaries is an unpleasant experience.
If we ask trans* activists (or feminists, or members of a marginalised group) to debate those who have disparaged them, we should at least acknowledge the unpleasantness of the task. Continue reading