It is a sad day indeed when a writer wishes that his own work were not necessary. Unfortunately such days have been common over the past century - many inspired by this very topic. Much of the sorrow I have at feeling compelled to write this article is, I hope, expressed in its plagiarised title.
Sad too, is that I must first preface my remarks with something of a disclaimer: I could not possibly have a lower opinion of the English Defence League. They are as contemptible and vile a band of men as one is ever likely to meet, and nothing that I write here should be taken as an endorsement of any of their incoherent 'views' (itself an ironic word to use, as it should not apply to those who are obviously blind).
The call has rung out over the past month from Tower Hamlets Council, London Citizens, and The Guardian's Dave Hill, for the EDL's planned march through Tower Hamlets on September 3rd to be banned. That is to say: the government is asked to prevent a political movement from demonstrating in London. Worse still, the call is likely to be answered positively. One year ago today the EDL were banned from marching through Bradford.
Those calling for the march to be banned do not, alas, have the courage to make their own position clear. They will not say openly what is evidently true: that they do not believe in freedom of speech or assembly. The EDL march should not be banned for many obvious reasons, but underpinning them all is the belief in the right of the individual to express anything without state censorship; in short, freedom of expression.
There are only two positions that one can hold on freedom of expression. The first is that freedom of expression is a human right, enshrined in the nature of man, and should therefore be afforded all possible protection. Any opinion or view may be expressed, however awful it may be, and is protected by law.
The second position is that freedom of expression is not a human right. This position submits that abstract collectivist entities, like states or communities, have rights that exceed those of people. Its adherents will contend that certain people don't 'deserve' freedom of expression (as if it were a privilege). They will also speak of freedom of speech 'within limits', which is clearly an oxymoron (Stalin, I have no doubt, was in favour of freedom of speech for those he agreed with).
Between these two positions, you must make your choice. The first, it seems to me, is not only preferable but a pre-condition for civilized society. Granted, we will all occasionally hear from those we despise. Holocaust deniers, racists, and bigots like the EDL, will not be thrown in prison, but must instead be met with superior argument. Even worse, intellectuals will be allowed to freely advocate war and the murder of millions of people (a far more dangerous use of freedom, that you'll notice is rarely met with the same call for censorship). More dangerous than allowing hateful fools to speak, though, is allowing the state the right to determine what it is acceptable to say, and what historical truth is. The story of that is known to all.
It might be contended that in Britain we have transcended this debate. It might be said that our state is so enlightened that we can trust it to tell us what we are allowed to say and think. Were this true, the argument would still refute itself. Ignoring the fact that Britain only abolished seditious libel (assaulting the state by speech) in 2009, or that our existing libel laws are some of the most repressive in the developed world, how would we ensure the continuation of our apparent Utopia without legal protection of our rights?
Defeating the EDL, and the scourge of fascism which they undoubtedly represent, cannot be achieved by appropriating one of their central doctrines any more than putting out a house fire can be achieved by dowsing yourself in petrol. The response to their hateful message, should not be a ban, which only strengthens them and their appeal, but an opposing march and opposing message. We should drown out their weak and feeble rambling with reason, brotherhood and liberty.
I look forward to a day when such elementary remarks are accepted as too obvious to require enunciation.