Suzanne Kelly addresses the strange mixture of Donald Trump, JK Rowling, free speech, hate speech and her petition in this essay, following from her short piece in the Guardian in response to a speech Rowling delivered last week.
JK Rowling is someone I admire greatly for her writing and her legendary generosity, and here I am clashing with her over my petition against Donald Trump’s hate speech. It’s fair to say I never saw this coming.
Introduction
I have no issue with freedom of expression; it would be remarkably hypocritical if I had. ‘Old Susannah’ is a column I write for Aberdeen Voice; it’s been using satire to attack the powerful, corrupt and unfair for five years. The way it usually does this is in the form of satirical definitions. I consider satire a wonderful form of political dissent, even though it can be cruel – the cruelty is dished out to those who engage in cruelty by cutting benefits, cheating the taxpayer out of money, misleading the electorate, etc. I am well aware that freedom of speech doesn’t always have to be pleasant or acceptable.
Here is a non-satirical definition to offer some insight into the UK’s laws:-
“Hate speech is defined as an expression of hatred towards another person or group of people using various means such as writing, speech or any other form of communication. In the United Kingdom there are a number of laws set out to provide protection to citizens from hate speech.”
“What Are Typical Hate Speech Targets? Hate speech is typically directed towards another person or group on the grounds of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, colour, ethnic origin and religion. Hate speech can be shown in many forms, typically verbal abuse, written speeches, harassment or gestures. The intention of hate speech is to harass and distress the intended target. In many cases the use of hate speech can incite violence from one group towards another.”
The first I knew of Rowling’s speech which mockingly references my petition was when the Guardian contacted me. They wanted 400 words or less on the subject by way of my reply. I was grateful for the opportunity – but 400 words wasn’t nearly enough space to explain my position.
You can’t write a piece for the Guardian attempting to counter the world’s most popular author without getting criticism – that’s fine. Despite thousands of comments which came in from people who believe the contrary, I’m not against freedom of expression – I’m just against hate speech. I failed in my Guardian piece in that I assumed people knew there was a difference between hate speech and free speech, and there were principles of law involved. Judging from the numerous comments displaying a lack of knowledge on these points, I misjudged the audience.
I find it a little bewildering: JK Rowling virtually ridiculed my attempt at banning hate speech – without once referring to hate speech or UK laws. To her, it apparently seems like an eccentric call for a travel ban based on my being offended by Trump.
She likened any curtailment of free speech as tantamount to losing the ability to campaign for e.g. Feminist issues – and in doing so she makes Trump the poster boy for free speech.
Trump curtails the free expression of others with great frequency (via gagging clauses, lawsuits, mockery). He has advocated violence, torture and ex-judicial execution. One of his last pronouncements is that if we make abortion illegal (as he says we should – despite apparently asking one of his girlfriends to undergo one) ‘women should be punished for having one’. From my perspective it looks like Rowling’s asking us to tolerate without taking action hate speech from this misogynist, racist hate preacher who gags others — in order to protect our existing, free speech right to campaign for the feminism Trump attacks.
A few words on Offensiveness, Speech, freedom of expression and what my petition actually said
This isn’t my first involvement with the application of the right to freedom of expression. Just as two examples, twenty years ago I fought alongside fellow students and academics when the police sought to remove a Robert Mapplethorpe book from my university’s library; the male nude was ‘offensive’ to some people (at an art school). We won. I recently helped an artist get publicity and an exhibition when Aberdeen College banned her work. I’ve been writing Amnesty International urgent action letters since the 1980s. I’m no saint, but I’m no censor either, and for the record, I don’t devote all my time to Trump.
I bring this up because Rowling’s somehow coupled my petition together with a warning that we can’t ban things or people because they are offensive. I’m with her. However, we can, and should ban hate speech.
Despite Rowling painting freedom of expression as a black and white, all or nothing issue, there are ways to differentiate between freedom of expression and hate speech – or at least the UN, the UK, half a million petition signatories and I believe.
“The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966 prohibits ‘any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’ and the landmark UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CEFRD) requires State Parties to outlaw hate speech and criminalise membership in racist organisations. For example, Article 4 provides that dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons or another colour or ethnic origin must be declared an offence punishable by law.”
Someone will have to explain to me how some US states allow the Klu Klux Klan not only to exist and publicly operate – but to allow KKK members to enter police forces (often with tragic consequences) – but that’s another article. The mindset of some of those supporting Trump for his intolerant views is not a pleasant or rational one, and can be a violent one.
Stopping violence emanating from hate speech should be a unifying goal, but somehow we have Trump using hatred to unite the bigoted behind him in huge numbers.
And people are getting hurt.
If we were all highly educated, tolerant people who didn’t feel a grudge (imagined or not) against other groups of people, then it might not be necessary to worry about the damage words can cause. I think it might be hard for the people in sequined gowns and white tie to imagine the less fortunate and less educated hearing the words of a TV star like Trump and wanting to act them out. But it is happening:-
“As for racist discourses, we know they are not just words. They have devastating effects on the groups targeted and can very often lead to acts of violence. If such discourses are propagated by public figures, politicians or the media, their impact is all the more damaging. Indeed, politicians have a significant influence as opinion shapers. They are, however, not always aware of the fine line between freedom of expression and the use of language inciting hatred and/or violence.”
If further food for thought is needed, here is a paragraph from a New Yorker article:-
“In November, on a weekend in which he said that a black protester, at a rally in Alabama, deserved to be “roughed up,” Trump retweeted a graphic composed of false racist statistics on crime; the graphic, it was discovered, originated from a neo-Nazi account that used as its profile image a variation on the swastika. In January, he retweeted the account “@WhiteGenocideTM,” which identified its location as “Jewmerica.”
My petition
If someone skimmed the headlines or watched Rowling refer to it as a request merely for a travel ban, then they can be forgiven for thinking it was some kind of affronted angry thing written in a fit of personal pique. It isn’t.
The petition reads:-
“The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK. If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the ‘unacceptable behaviour’ criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.”
I don’t intend to apologise for it. It was an idea brewing for some time, and then I watched Trump mocking a journalist from the New York Times who has a physical disability. That was my last straw.
One misconception is that the petition was a response to his call for a ban on Muslims entering the US. If Trump’s words, which treated all Muslims as people to be shunned and barred, aren’t designed to breed anti-Muslim sentiment and whip up suspicion into hatred, then both would-be bomber William Celli and I misunderstood Trump’s intent. No one should be able to fly under the flag of ‘free speech’ when their true intent is to cause injury. Still, this hateful call for a ban (which is a call for segregation, discrimination and mistrust if you break it down) came after my petition. I was not surprised by it, and looking at Trump’s increasing attacks on minority groups, it can only get worse – if people don’t stand up to it.
I got a slew of supporting emails; I got some choice insults too. Here’s one of the more charged ones:-
“…Suzanne Kelly would be well-advised to never set foot outside the UK again, at least not where we can get our hands on her. … We have vast cotton fields where the likes of Ms. Kelly can turn their hands to profitable labor.”
If you apply the ‘all speech is to be allowed or you suppress dissent’ argument, then there is a presumption that you are dealing with logical people who are willing to entertain positions other than their own and who are willing to change their opinions. I’d like to see Rowling arguing the toss with this guy, or with some of the fanatics who accost her in stores and write to her, and win a reasoned debate with them.
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavouring to convert an atheist by scripture.” (Thomas Paine)
Back to JK Rowling’s speech. She brings up the petition, pauses for a laugh after mentioning the ‘travel ban’, and continues. She went on to talk about The Donald’s words being obnoxious and bigoted – which they are. She never once alluded to why I wanted to have a debate on banning Trump – which is of course for his unrepentant, continuing hate speech and the fact hate speech is a crime in the UK for which people have already been banned. I waited for the part where she would condemn Trump’s stance on immigrants, his desire to build a wall to keep Mexicans out, his words on a protestor who he thought should have been ‘roughed up.’ It never came.
I read Andrew Solomon’s Guardian opinion piece ‘JK Rowling was right: free speech is for everyone, not just your friends.’ It’s got a patronising, admonishing title, and has the noble caption ‘We need to welcome dissent, because we grow from it. If you have to silence the other side, your own arguments can’t be very strong.’ Maybe Solomon and Rowling think that in Trump they are dealing with a rational balanced person who is willing to see the other side of the coin and who respects the free speech and rights of other people; someone who is willing or going to grow. Perhaps they think that the people who are influenced by Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric are a minority and that fairness and logic will win the day. Either way, Solomon and Rowling don’t seem bothered by the legal ins and outs of the UK’s hate speech laws or the erupting violence.
Maybe this whole thing will blow over, and the ill-feeling stirred will just disperse if we welcome dissent, if we ignore it, or engage in debate. That’s pretty much what many Muslims felt just before Bosnia melted down into civil war (more on how propaganda and hate speech helped shape this war here).
The law, JK Rowling’s words and some choice Trumpisms examined
“His freedom to speak protects my right to call him a bigot.” JK Rowling 16 May 2016.
“Maybe he should have been roughed up” – Trump on a Black Lives Matter peaceful protestor.
“You have to ban it. [abortion]” If and when you do ban abortion, “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who get illegal abortions.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kicker/why-everyone-hates-what-d_b_9585158.html
“… with the terrorists, you have to take out their families… they care about their lives. … You have to take out their families.” http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/trump-kill-isil-families-216343
(and if you want to find dozens more of Trump’s quotes re. black people, Jewish people, Muslims, women, etc. etc. – just Google and you will find.)
Speech is generally defined as using words to inform, cause action, entertain or to inspire. It seems a simple matter to me to take a Trumpism and figure out the speaker’s intent. For instance The Donald wants the US to stop Muslims entering the country. He is informing us that is his will; he is trying to inspire us to let him implement this desire. It’s hardly a speech made for entertainment. The unspoken message; the unstated premise is that all Muslims are dangerous – not only a minority who are terrorists – all Muslims need to be stopped from coming into the USA. As such, Trump’s quote surely must meet the criteria for hate speech. A presidential candidate should know that millions of Muslims live in the US, and not every Muslim is a terrorist, so is Trump ignorant of American diversity – or does he want to add the Muslim community to the 11 million people he’d throw out of the country? (more on that later). Are Muslims and other people being harmed by Trump’s words? Celli wanted to ‘follow Trump to the end of the world’ and apparently planned to bomb Muslims. Are Muslim communities experiencing increased hate crime – the evidence shows they are. If there’s some way to interpret Trump’s call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” other than as hate speech, I’m all ears.
Back to the Solomon article. Solomon pulled the mean feat of defending the supposed right to say anything you like without once mentioning a few details – the dozens of lies Trump’ been caught in (should the Solomon/Rowling model for free speech include the freedom to lie?), Trump’s defence of torture, the KKK endorsement of his candidacy, the lengths Trump goes to silence his own opponents, and the new Trump tome, blaming illegal immigrants to the US for all its current ills (the Native American population might have something to say about that). I find Solomon’s a selective essay.
Then there’s the small elephant in the room that Solomon missed – where hate speech has taken us in the not too distant past. Would Solomon and Rowling have wanted to curb the speech of Hitler before his rise to power?
Is Trump going to prove to be another Hitler? I’m far from alone in wondering whether that’s possible. The comparisons are being made, and Adam Gopnik wrote in the New Yorker:-
“He’s not Hitler, as his wife recently said? Well, of course he isn’t. But then Hitler wasn’t Hitler—until he was. At each step of the way, the shock was tempered by acceptance. It depended on conservatives pretending he wasn’t so bad, compared with the Communists, while at the same time the militant left decided that their real enemies were the moderate leftists, who were really indistinguishable from the Nazis. The radical progressives decided that there was no difference between the democratic left and the totalitarian right and that an explosion of institutions was exactly the most thrilling thing imaginable.”
Perhaps neo-Nazis should be allowed to preach race hatred openly; what they have to say is apparently just as valid as anyone else’s viewpoint. I’m sure all it will take is a bit of debate and they’ll change their minds.
While neither Solomon’s article nor Rowling’s speech allude to any of the relevant legalities, UN, UK and EU law all reflect the fact that the effects of hate speech are very real, even if largely experienced outside of the cerebral debates held by Manhattan’s and Great Britain’s literary elite. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states
“…all human beings are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law against any discrimination and against any incitement to discrimination…”
Perhaps those who think all speech is valid and should never be stifled need to take aim not just at me and my petition, but at these principles. If you disagree with me that Trump is inciting discrimination, please explain where I am wrong. I disagree with Rowling when she told her audience:
“If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed the line to stand alongside tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.” – Rowling
My answer to this is that you don’t cross the line between tyranny and freedom because you make a distinction between hate speech and free speech. It looks like she can’t or won’t differentiate between Trump’s various verbal assaults on freedom and people who are speaking against those who want to curtail freedom. I can. I don’t know of any feminist campaigners who are calling for relatives of terrorists to be ex-judiciously executed. I don’t know of any transgender rights activists who are saying that most Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers. I do know Mexican American teenagers in white majority schools who now feel less safe and secure because of hate speech.
The reality is that a Klu Klux Klan endorsed racist/nationalistic/sexist is spewing hate speech that is not just intimidating people, it’s getting people beaten up and nearly got some blown up — and this is possibly just the start. If rational debate, fairness and logic worked on people like Trump and those he use his base prejudice to appeal to, why hasn’t he changed his way by now? In a perfect world, reasoned debate would work, but we can see that it doesn’t. Racism, sexism, nationalism and religious hatred are unsupportable and unreasonable. Why is there a need to legitimise these forms of hatred by giving them the same protection as fact and logic?
I don’t know who was seeking to ban Trump from the UK for offending their personal values – I was trying to stop someone from getting hurt (too late) or killed (a very real eventuality now). For all I know, Rowling works to get other banned hate preachers’ allowed into the Great Britain. I’ve never heard of her objecting to those previously banned though, not until the Donald was the subject of this petition – I’m not understanding her motivation now in singling him out for undeserved support.
I wish that a bit more research had gone into Rowling’s speech. I am going to assume it didn’t. If she knew the petition’s wording, then she knew that the petition was about hate speech; she would have known people were being beaten by trump supporters, she would have known the legal difference between free speech and hate speech — but then still decided to deride the petition and defend Trump’s hate speech anyway. I’m wholly sympathetic to her regarding censorship– there are all kinds of ultra right wing, pseudo-religious groups who want her books banned and burned, and for children to never know anything of magic or fairytales. I detest their closed mindset with a passion. I was writing on that very issue and on Rowling specifically, when the Guardian got in touch about her video. (I will get that piece out soon).
There is no conflict between my wanting to stop Trump’s words inflaming hatred, fear and violence and wanting people to be free to write or read any book, or see any artwork they choose. The recent farcical situation of the weather girl handed a sweater to ‘cover up’ because a few offended puritans didn’t like her dress is a small example of censorship we need to be fighting. That kind of censorship must not be allowed to prevail.
For me (and thankfully many others) the difference between hate speech and free speech – and what Trump is doing – is perfectly clear. What is Trump doing? Playing with a huge box of matches that might burn the whole house down. Does that sound far-fetched? Perhaps you should read the Adam Gopnik piece in full.
Freedom of speech must be upheld; I wish I could do more to promote it. Masquerading the promotion of physical violence as Free Speech is going to get someone killed.
Shape Of Things To Come? The Menie Estate
Imagine a place ruled by Trump, who has in effect influenced the local police force. He insisted on and was granted special policing powers for the area. This is a place where there is no press opposition to Trump, because he has an influence over the local paper’s content – he even has his own opinion column in it. News of any wrongdoing on Trump’s part or of the injustices he visits on others does not get reported.
The Press barely mentioned the existence of Anthony Baxter’s award-winning documentary on the subject, ‘You’ve Been Trumped.’ Elected officials who voted against the first Trump planning application were put on the cover of the Evening Express and branded ‘Traitors.’ Their objections were based on the existing environmental law.
Aside from influencing the policing of the estate, Trump’s own special security forces used a stop and question policy not found elsewhere in Scotland. Residents were stopped and their ID demanded by private security.
A walker was stopped by security who insisted he come to their HQ to explain where he was going – so much for basic rights in Scotland. Security threatened photographers (“I’ll smash your camera”), journalists were arrested and locked up for peacefully asking questions. Those residents who oppose Trump found their water, electric or telephone lines accidentally cut. Those who refused to sell out to Trump are intimidated – for instance security forces shine headlights into their homes late at night. A bund of earth was built near a cottage blocking light and views. Dirt from it blew into the homeowner’s home, ruining the garden and damaging car engines – this mound of earth has no purpose other than to block the cottage’s light and views. Planning regulations are routinely disregarded to please Trump. Former councillor Debra Storr said she was assaulted on her own doorstep by a pro-Trump protestor. Pre-existing environmental protection law was done away with because that’s what Donald wanted. And what he wants, he seems to get.
This is the Menie Estate under Donald Trump with Police Scotland, the Press & Journal newspaper (his spokesperson is married to the editor; the paper gave him a column, and advertorials appear with frequency not known by other regional golf clubs or restaurants), local government and private security kowtowing to Donald and his money. He faced some opposition here, and still got his way where other people would not have. When I imagine what he’ll be like in the US if swept to power, I think of how he rules this mini-kingdom and wonder what will happen in the US.
Ms Rowling – you are invited to visit the residents at Menie any time you like; they would love to share their stories with you directly. You won’t meet the former Trump chef though – he was fired because he had a photo on his personal Facebook page that Trump’s minions found objectionable. It was a shortbread that someone said looked obscene. Sarah Malone-Bates, Trump’s spokesperson was offended by it, so the chef was fired. Perhaps you should direct a speech towards her. If you want to fight for this chef’s right to freedom of expression, I’ll put you in touch; I’ll also send you a copy of ‘You’ve Been Trumped’ if you’ve not seen it.
Do I have grounds for these ‘as above so below’ worries? He wants every natural born citizen cleared out of the country – that’s throwing millions of US Citizens and their families out (or incarcerating them prior to deportation) just for openers . I can’t claim any direct support for my hate speech petition from George Takei, but as this man who spent part of his childhood in a US internment camp said:-
“When we were incarcerated it was fear, ignorance, and lack of political leadership,” he said. “And it’s the same thing today. They’re playing on the fear, and racism, and political leadership failing the ideals of our democracy.”
Maybe Trump’s promising to throw 11 million American born citizens out of the USA with their families is just a bit of harmless self-expression we can just debate with him about. Maybe it has echoes in last century’s wars; maybe it echoes Bosnia. Maybe it’s all just going to blow over harmlessly. Maybe anyone with a bit of political or celebrity clout could take a leaf from Takei’s book and speak out against this idea sooner rather than later. Maybe this Trump plan is the shape of things to come.
What Trump doesn’t talk about
What Trump doesn’t say is also very informative. He’s coy about any potential Klu Klux Klan links his family might have had / might still have. Asked to denounce the KKK, he changes the subject. In the same way that he didn’t express revulsion at being the KKK’s poster boy presidential choice, JK chose to write off his hate speech as merely being objectionable and bigoted guff. I think a huge opportunity was lost for scoring points about respecting the rights of others not to be the subject of hate speech, rather than to defend the non-existent right of anyone to say anything they please.
Closing
The very real problems minorities are facing are increasing because of hate speech; this is proven. Presidential candidate Trump’s speech fits the criteria of hate speech to me, and his words have been condemned by world figures. There are only so many ways someone like me can fight against what I see happening with Trump, and if the petition was a bad idea, please tell me how to legally fight the rise of this man while on a shoestring budget.
If I’m wrong about Donald Trump and his potential presidency becomes a halcyon age for peace and tolerance, I’ll be far happier than if I did nothing than if a Trump presidency proves the Pentagon, the current president, the Pope and a slew of world leaders (and I) were right about the man. Let’s hope we never have to find out what a Trump presidency would mean.