Arab Spring or Islamist Winter

On Monday 7th October, the Warwick Debating Union hosted a public debate on the motion THB that the Arab Spring has caused more harm than good. Whilst I was not organising this specific debate, I was particularly excited by its motion as it was the one that most chimed with my interests. Clearly the student body agreed, with the room packed to capacity and the live stream being watched by many, when it decided to work. Just for reference, Barak Seneer and Maria Holt proposed the motion, with Noel Brehony and Meg Munn MP in opposition and the motion did not carry, in fact it failed by quite a large majority.

The obvious points, as you would expect, came up - violence against women, the question of Political Islam and Democracy, Syria, whether the West is arrogant to assume imposition of its view of morality and system of government as right/good amongst others.

The panel, in the main, actually seemed to agree with each other on some of the major points - the failures of the governments that came in to replace the dictators; that there was a long way to go; and that women's rights were a serious issue, yet were consistent to their opposing sides of the debate. Ultimately, the debate seemed to come down to optimism beating pessimism. Seneer spoke about the lack of any indication that Liberal and Democratic forces "winning" in the region, whilst Brehony spoke of the (relative) successes in Yemen. Similarly, both Holt and Munn spoke of the awful assaults, sexual harassment and violence that women in the region were victim of and their lack of political and social rights. However, Holt stressed these facts, whilst Munn also made the point that the Arab Spring had large woman involvement in protests and calling for social and Political change and also noted the example of Tunisia whose parliament's make up is 27% woman - 5% higher than our own, according to her stats.

Perhaps we do have reason to be optimistic. No one denied the awful situation in Syria, no one denied that Political vacuums had been filled, often, with Muslim Brotherhood Islamists and extremists and no one tried to make it seem like women suddenly lived in some utopia. There was an acceptance of the cold hard facts on the ground, which ultimately made for much more credible opposition side than I initially anticipated. I, however, disagree with the majority of the students watching. I share Barack Seneer's pessimism, perhaps summed up when he answered a question by stating, "I hope you're right and I am wrong, I really do," and went on to further analyse his point about looking at the Arab Spring from a 2013 perspective and not seeing the signs that it could be a success, referencing the 'lack of seeds being planted' in the first place in reply to the generic point that you need to plant seeds for anything to grow and that takes time. Maybe in 100 years time, Barak and I will both be proven wrong. Let's hope so.

As George Will once said: "The nice thing about being a pessimist is that you are constantly either being proven right or pleasantly surprised."

It's the Thought that Counts

There is a fantastic quote by everyone's second favourite Danish Philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (second to, obviously, my Philosophy teacher Dr Jonas Green) which goes as follows:

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought they seldom use"

It rings true when thinking about people who appeal to their freedom of speech to justify saying some truly hateful and horrible things that any decent human being would not dream of thinking, let alone saying. There are countless people like this, people who benefit from living in a democracy where we have to put up with views that not only we fundamentally disagree with but also that we find abhorrant. As much as there is a bit of me that believes freedom of speech should only be a right for those who also exercise freedom of thought before they speak, I would not change that. 

That quotation seems to fit nicely when thinking about Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (and the EDL and, of course, radical Islamic clerics and so on) - all people who say things that, perhaps, are only justifiable by appealing to freedom of speech but who choose to abstain from thinking (or at least, are unable to think what I would term 'properly'). You may think I am now going to proceed with an article broadly along the lines of defending freedom of speech and, yeah-we-may-not-like-what-they-say-but-that-does-not-mean-they-don't-have-a-right-to-say-it and all the rest of it. If you were hoping for that sort of article there are plenty to be found on the web (like here) but I will not be indulging in one here. It is a relatively easy point to make, one that I think has been made to death on social media and, indeed, in articles like the one I have linked. In addition, when you see tweets suggesting David Cameron is a Nazi sympathiser because of this decision, you wonder to what extent you really can defend freedom of speech. If you were, however, looking for a different take on the decision then read on.

This post is simply about what an awful decision I think May has made. Not because of freedom of speech. Not because there are plenty of other people that we are forced to put up with in this country that we disagree with (isn't it slightly telling that the only examples all these bastians of free speech and democracy can think of, however, are Islamic radicals? It is almost like they have some sort of agenda...) No, rather, it is simply because being banned from speaking in the country is almost better for Geller and Spencer (and their supporters) than being allowed to speak in the country. It has turned what is a relatively routine occurrence - people whose views other people do not agree with or even find hateful etc, flying to other countries to spout the very views that those other people did not agree with or found hateful, into news. In fact, it has almost turned Geller and Spencer into the victims of oppression, namely the oppression of their free speech. What an absurd turn of events! You will have read all the articles on freedom of speech, double standards and all the rest of it. Those articles, those arguments are only made possible because of Vaz's proposal and May's decision to ban them from entering the country. No one would have even known about Geller and Spencer had they simply been allowed to spew their hatred and been done with it.

Freedom of speech is wonderful because it allows us to see what people really believe, to see what people say when they are free to say whatever they want. Freedom of thought allows the rest of us to make up our own minds about whether we agree.