Huhne on freedom of speech

The Hideous Huhne has written a remarkable article in which he tries to position himself as a champion of free speech at the same time as, well, advocating the restriction of freedom of speech:

Freedom of speech is our most precious freedom of all, because all the other freedoms depend on it. The decision to stop people from exercising this fundamental right must never be taken lightly. Neither should a decision to ban people from visiting this country.

It is an audacious start – freedom of speech is crucial, yet it is ok to suspend it. It is a bit like saying the heart is essential to a human being functioning, but it is ok for it to stop working every now and again.

And I’d have thought that if freedom of speech was so important to Huhne, he would be less quick to suspend it. But there we go.

As a result, I have in the past defended people with some particularly odious views, such as the recent case of the Australian Holocaust denier Dr Frederick Toben.

Great. So Huhne has defended freedom of speech in the past. Big whoop. Shame he can’t manage a certain level of consistency with his views, though.

In a civilised society, however, there has to be a dividing line between the right to freedom of speech and when it topples over into incitement to hatred and violence.

No. In a civilised society, there should be the prevention of violence. You cannot stop people inciting that violence and you cannot stop them from hating. People can experience whatever emotions they want. And they have the choice as to whether they commit violent acts or not. People are adults – I really don’t see people as being so easily swayed by films or the opinions of others.

In my opinion, Geert Wilders' revolting film Fitna crosses this line, as its shocking images of violence and emotional appeals to anti-Islamic feeling risk causing serious harm to others.

Which is a matter of opinion. Which is not so much creating a tyranny of the majority, but is actually creating a tyranny of the Huhne. You can say what you like, as long as in the opinion of Chris Huhne is that it won’t create any risks on society.

The key liberal principle was enunciated by John Stuart Mill in his essay "On Liberty", in which he stated that the only legitimate reason for coercing someone against their will was to prevent harm to others.

Coercing Wilder not to speak and not to enter the country doesn’t prevent harm to others. Wilder didn’t come to this country to harm anyone – he came here to speak about his film. The sentiments of his film are wrong, but that doesn’t mean that it actually harms anyone. Huhne’s invocation of Mill is irrelevant.

It is precisely the prevention of harm to minorities that justifies the restrictions to Mr Wilders' freedom of speech.

Wilder – and I have no time whatsoever for his views – is expressing an opinion. He is not harming anyone else. If you start restricting his right to communicate his abhorrent views, then guess what. You give yourself the licence to shut up anyone else you think has abhorrent views. And that – right there – is the start of the slide to towards being totalitarian.

If you disagree with Wilder, make the case against him. But let his voice be heard, and argue why people shouldn’t listen to him and why people shouldn’t respond to his message with acts of violence. Anything else is totalitarian and is going to achieve nothing other than making our society a little less free at the same time as making Wilder into a martyr.

Chris Huhne, defender of free speech, has revealed his true colours with this piece. And his true colours show that he is perfect for the Liberal Democrats because – as I have said before – they are neither liberal nor democratic.

h/t Guido.