Changing tack

In early August, I watched in Parliament Square as police hauled away – or, sometimes, wheeled away – one unresisting protester after another. It was not the first time I had seen peaceful protesters arrested, but it was the first time I had seen them arrested as terrorists.

Since the proscription of Palestine Action, more than 1,300 people have been arrested under terrorism legislation. The UK has been condemned by the UN’s human rights chief, and Labour backbenchers from across the party, many of whom originally voted in favour of proscription, have denounced the ban in the Commons. The government claims that Palestine Action is not a non-violent organisation, and that many protesting in support of the organisation do not know its full nature due to restrictions on reporting ongoing cases. However, according to a declassified intelligence report recently obtained by the New York Times, Palestine Action did not advocate violence against people and was unlikely to do so in the future.

The government should reverse the ban. If it does not, it may well be overturned by the courts anyway. It should then set out to ensure that its response to Palestine Action is remembered as a mere blip, set against the backdrop of a concerted government drive to reinvigorate free expression and public debate.

Reflexive liberal critics of Labour should remember that one of the biggest expansions in free speech rights since the Human Rights Act will be provided by the government’s employment rights bill. In daily life, being able to freely criticise your manager is at least as important as being able to criticise the government. Currently, however, a worker who is dismissed after less than two year’s continuous employment can bring an unfair dismissal case only in very limited, and difficult-to-prove, circumstances. This gives employers a great deal of arbitrary power to sack employees, including for perceived criticism or slights. Labour’s legislation, which is set to give workers day-one employment rights, will help to rebalance this power dynamic.

To go further, Labour must start from first principles, and ask: why does free speech matter? JS Mill, perhaps the most important liberal thinker, justified extensive free speech rights on a number of grounds. Perhaps the most famous was the argument that open debate tends towards truth and understanding. His reasoning was that, under the scrutiny of the public gaze, partial truths are refined and conventional wisdom tested. Mill’s reasoning had its weaknesses – most notably, he gave scant attention the impact of dehumanising rhetoric on the ability of people to participate in such a ‘marketplace of ideas’ – but for the most part, it remains compelling. Mill’s vision is also very much a part of the Fabian tradition, which arose, in part, out of the liberal Radical movement, and which has long championed the importance of open debate and discussion on the left.

Note that Mill’s argument, as befitting a utilitarian, is instrumental. It is about the kind of society that will result from protecting free speech – i.e., one in which betters ideas are adopted because of lively, informed debate. In 2025, achieving such a society will depend on more than just our civil rights.

First, our information environment is polluted by an unaccountable press and poorly-regulated social media behemoths – with one of the most influential platforms controlled by someone actively calling for the overthrow of our democratically elected government. As discussed in a recent Fabian pamphlet, Pressing Issues, there area variety of policies that Labour could adopt to tackle the concentration of power in our media landscape, including stricter antitrust rules and public funding for smaller outlets. Second, healthy public debate requires a mainstream left that is prepared to stand up for its principles. There is currently a social democracy-shaped hole in our national conversation. If we do not defend left-wing values, we should not be surprised that Britain’s Overton window continues to slide rightwards. Does the public know how much better public services could be with continental levels of taxation? Shouldn’t we tell them?

Labour must remember that, as the party of government, it has a preeminent role in shaping public discourse. While much of the media may be hostile, it remains true that if the prime minister makes a speech, or unveils a flagship policy, journalists will report on it. Facilitating free and fair debate in this country, then, is not just about refraining from knee-jerk attempts to stifle dissent. It is about being having faith in the public to make an informed choice – and faith in ourselves that that choice will be the left.

Image credit: Graham S. Paton via flickr