Who has the Right to Cause Hurt?

This semester I’m taking a class in European human rights law. It’s one of the most complex and deeply interesting classes I’ve ever taken, not least because it forces me to ask myself difficult questions that I may not want to answer. I think that’s so important as a student, that I’m challenged to push the boundaries of what I personally believe. It doesn’t mean I’m going to change my mind necessarily, but I do think if that’s the case, it strengthens my reasoning for my beliefs.

This week we were discussing freedom of expression. Free speech and our right to express ourselves is undoubtedly one of the most contentious topics at the moment. We’ve all heard of “cancel culture” and I’m sure that everyone has an opinion on it.

I have extremely complicated feelings regarding freedom of expression. There are clearly beliefs that are deeply harmful and destructive. It could quite reasonably be argued that there are certain things that should not be said, or cases where it’s quite reasonable for governments and law enforcement agencies to become involved. If someone is writing about their plans to commit a crime or incite violence, I can quite comfortably say that they should expect there to be consequences.

But what happens when a viewpoint is intolerable but not necessarily violent? Who has the right to judge what is acceptable speech? And what happens if we give the government the power to limit our speech? It’s all well and good when the government is on your side, but what happens when they aren’t? It’s very hard to write laws regarding limitations of freedom of expression that are so specific they can’t be manipulated.

But is it ok to live in a society where everyone can say exactly what they want, no matter how hurtful it is? Even if it doesn’t incite violence, are there views we should do everything we can to limit because of the harm they can cause? As you can see, I have far more questions than answers.

In the seminar I used the example of Richard Dawkins. He has certain views regarding disabled people that I find particularly disgusting. He is, for all intents and purposes, a believer in eugenics. Perhaps not to the extent that we’ve seen historically, but he is quite comfortable saying that babies with disabilities should be aborted.

Should he be banned from expressing these views? And going beyond that, even if he has the “right” to express these views, should people give him a platform on which to share them? On the one hand I want to say no. We shouldn’t reward people with book deals and prestigious academic positions when they express views that are fuelled by prejudice.

But on the other hand, I am worried that if we never confront these types of views, we’ll never be able to deal with them. We force these people underground, and they don’t actually change their mind. Perhaps they wouldn’t change their mind anyway, but those listening to them would at least get to hear contrasting perspectives. If we shut these people down, they preach to their followers, who never get to hear from anybody else.

I certainly think that in an academic context we should be able to discuss viewpoints that we don’t necessarily agree with. But I am also very aware that such discussions can be disturbing and uncomfortable. I feel that having these discussions is more important than my own comfort level, but who am I to speak for anyone else?

I am also concerned that we’re creating spaces where people are free from criticism. Either people with views I find disgusting, or those I personally agree with. If I make a sweeping statement online, should I be free from criticism purely because I’m on the morally sound side of a discussion? Am I perfect? Absolutely not. I’m a flawed human being, and being an activist doesn’t mean I’m always going to make the right choices. But more and more I see people asking other activists to clarify their views, and they’re shouted down because the activist doesn’t feel like they should have to answer those questions. And I’m not sure that I’m comfortable with that. Of course, nobody is obligated to answer questions they don’t want to. But I don’t think that someone is morally reprehensible just because they questioned what an activist said and why they said it. And I don’t think we should pat each other on the back every time we refuse to answer a question, like we’re achieving some kind of victory. We can acknowledge that we don’t have the time or the energy to answer a question, but that isn’t the same as saying we should never have to.

But then I come back to the harm that can be caused. And I know the burden of having to listen to people who don’t believe you should exist or have even the most basic of rights. It is awful and exhausting. It feels demoralising. And I can sympathise deeply with everyone who feels that they should never have to hear these things.

Every time I read another article about a brand-new cure for blindness I want to cry. I am filled with anguish because I know that many of those who celebrate these potential cures believe I would be better off if only I could see. I don’t agree. I will never try and halt scientific research, but I can’t bring myself to celebrate stepping towards a world where someone like me wouldn’t exist.

I continually have to listen to people telling me that if I don’t like things being inaccessible, I should just stay at home. I shouldn’t go to university unless I am happy to accept that I’m not going to have access to the same resources as other students. I should stop complaining and be grateful for the scraps I am given.

Hearing this day after day is terrible. It is a weight that I have to carry inside me wherever I go. Yet if I am to advocate, if I am to push for more equitable policies and for justice, surely I must be able to explain myself? Isn’t it vital that I know why the world works as it does so that I can tear it down? And how do I know, how will I ever know if I stay within the walls of my own beliefs?

I don’t have the answers. All I have is a hope that if we can find spaces where these discussions can take place, people can choose to show up and hear various perspectives. I hope that I’m always forced to challenge my own perceptions and beliefs. And I hope that people will allow me to make mistakes and develop as a human being.