I disagree with many of the things which the main speakers at the recent Unite the Kingdom event in central London have said or stand for, but do not at all accept that every one of the 150,000 plus participants in the event is therefore a ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ as several high profile commentators on the Left have suggested. The accusation and thus fear of ‘guilt by association’ is, in my opinion, one of the main things which not only maintains but actually increases the polarisation of society by discouraging the sort of good faith dialogue - or even just open-minded listening/reading - which could, potentially, lead to at least some greater level of mutual understanding and respect.
I think you're overlooking one of the important features of "While I disagree with XYZ, I respect their right to express those ideas." In addition to affirming the principled liberal value of free speech, the point is strengthened by referencing the underlying disagreement. It's easy, and common on all points in the political spectrum, to defend free speech you agree with, but more challenging to defend the free speech rights of your ideological opponents. Doing so stands out starkly as a genuine commitment rather than a rhetorical gloss. You do this as a matter of course, which is one of the reasons I value your writing.
I agree. I think it is perfectly fine and even right to say, “Even though I disagree with this person on a lot of things, I support his right to say what he wants and repudiate those who would act in violence or support people who act in violence.”
What I’m seeing a lot of is this: “I agree that murder is bad, but if you are going to be a fascist, racist, and (insert other slur here) and going to say things that people don’t like, then you should expect it.” Insert out-of-context quotes here.
I never heard of Charlie Kirk until the day he died. But I feel utterly devastated by how far we have come from even understanding the meaning of freedom of speech let alone the vital importance of it.
Yes, that’s a different argument entirely. It doesn’t work in any situation. We may well be able to expect violent responses to anything - holding political or religious views other people disapprove of, being gay, being scantily-clad, being in a mixed-race marriage - but the violent actors remain entirely responsible for this. I might write more about this tendency to act as though ‘consequences’ are not decisions made by the person inflicting them and they have responsibility for them.
To me, it feels like a distinction without a difference, maybe because I feel inclined to assumed good intentions of you, Graham and Stella? I would read your comments and understand that:
You all believe in free speech for everyone
You may or may not agree with things Charlie Kirk said
No one agrees with everything another person says or believes
I want to live somewhere people can have diverse opinions and share them safely. Because of that I’ve found myself sharing my opinion more (hence starting commenting on here), so have been defending free speech and also saying whether or not I agree with Charlie Kirk or whoever else.
In that context, I don’t have a problem with anyone saying “I disagreed with Charlie Kirk but supported his right to free speech”, we need to say what we think in the way we want to say it, isn’t that the point?
Oh yes! Do assume good intentions. Did it not read like I was agreeing with their reluctance to use that framing within the contexts in which they spoke, but defending the use of it in the one within which I did?
The argument that it is bad to mention disagreement because it dilutes support for freedom and speech and the argument that it is good to mention disagreement because it upholds freedom of speech? No, I'm not really following.
It shouldn’t be necessary to say you don’t agree with everything someone says (because no one ever agrees with everything), but if you’re talking about free speech then it is good to mention the disagreement because otherwise people will assume you only support their right to speak because you agree with them and not because of the principle that free speech is for everyone.
Ah, I see. There isn't really a conflict here on the level of principles, because the context in which someone says this and the motivations for doing so make the difference? Yes, I think so too and I think that was Abhishek's point. We shouldn't need to specify this, but sometimes we do and it can be useful in those contexts.
"Nevertheless, I am going to defend the use of the phrase." I too defend the use of the phrase - after the funeral. Yes, people can but and counter but from the outset. I just feel everyone should have waited until he is buried. There was a time in my lifetime when most would have waited. Of course, manners and deceny are all but gone.
But this is another objection altogether. An entirely different framing. No-one has yet suggested that mentioning disagreement is disrespectful.
Do you not think leftists should have condemned the violence in the immediate aftermath of it? If not, why not? If so, how can they indicate that they disagree politically without saying so?
There's an argument for why I think it is important to say that we support the freedom of speech of people we disagree with and condemn political violence immediately and unambiguously in that piece. Did you read it? Would you like to engage with it?
I agree Kirk's political opponents should have universally condemned violence. Some didn't, but they did not get simple moral correction; they got debate. The only reply they should have got is to have pointed out the lack of any morality and decency in celebrating (perhaps pointing out they are saying it implies they too are legitimate targets) and to say one would return to debate after the funeral. Too many, in my view, on both sides, seized an opportunity to grandstand.
Spell out how I could have indicated that I am someone who disagrees politically with Mr. Kirk while defending his right to speak and condemning political violence without saying that I disagree with him politically?
And you are ignoring my point of view. Why the need to tell everyone you disagree with him? His murder was wrong irrespective of whether one agrees with him or not. You could have said free speech means tolerating viewpoints antithetical to one's own and his murder was wholly unjustified. But, you want to insert your seemingly proud self into this. Where did you debate or write about Kirk before his murder?
Most excellent essay 👍
That sounds like a great idea for an article.
I disagree with many of the things which the main speakers at the recent Unite the Kingdom event in central London have said or stand for, but do not at all accept that every one of the 150,000 plus participants in the event is therefore a ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ as several high profile commentators on the Left have suggested. The accusation and thus fear of ‘guilt by association’ is, in my opinion, one of the main things which not only maintains but actually increases the polarisation of society by discouraging the sort of good faith dialogue - or even just open-minded listening/reading - which could, potentially, lead to at least some greater level of mutual understanding and respect.
Maybe the key is to reverse the order of the clauses: “I condemn what happened to this person even though we disagree about x.”
I think you're overlooking one of the important features of "While I disagree with XYZ, I respect their right to express those ideas." In addition to affirming the principled liberal value of free speech, the point is strengthened by referencing the underlying disagreement. It's easy, and common on all points in the political spectrum, to defend free speech you agree with, but more challenging to defend the free speech rights of your ideological opponents. Doing so stands out starkly as a genuine commitment rather than a rhetorical gloss. You do this as a matter of course, which is one of the reasons I value your writing.
Thank you, Mike. That was what I was trying to convey.
I agree. I think it is perfectly fine and even right to say, “Even though I disagree with this person on a lot of things, I support his right to say what he wants and repudiate those who would act in violence or support people who act in violence.”
What I’m seeing a lot of is this: “I agree that murder is bad, but if you are going to be a fascist, racist, and (insert other slur here) and going to say things that people don’t like, then you should expect it.” Insert out-of-context quotes here.
I never heard of Charlie Kirk until the day he died. But I feel utterly devastated by how far we have come from even understanding the meaning of freedom of speech let alone the vital importance of it.
Yes, that’s a different argument entirely. It doesn’t work in any situation. We may well be able to expect violent responses to anything - holding political or religious views other people disapprove of, being gay, being scantily-clad, being in a mixed-race marriage - but the violent actors remain entirely responsible for this. I might write more about this tendency to act as though ‘consequences’ are not decisions made by the person inflicting them and they have responsibility for them.
To me, it feels like a distinction without a difference, maybe because I feel inclined to assumed good intentions of you, Graham and Stella? I would read your comments and understand that:
You all believe in free speech for everyone
You may or may not agree with things Charlie Kirk said
No one agrees with everything another person says or believes
I want to live somewhere people can have diverse opinions and share them safely. Because of that I’ve found myself sharing my opinion more (hence starting commenting on here), so have been defending free speech and also saying whether or not I agree with Charlie Kirk or whoever else.
In that context, I don’t have a problem with anyone saying “I disagreed with Charlie Kirk but supported his right to free speech”, we need to say what we think in the way we want to say it, isn’t that the point?
Oh yes! Do assume good intentions. Did it not read like I was agreeing with their reluctance to use that framing within the contexts in which they spoke, but defending the use of it in the one within which I did?
Oh no I didn’t mean you weren’t assuming good intentions, I just meant I couldn’t distinguish between the comments myself, if that makes sense?
The argument that it is bad to mention disagreement because it dilutes support for freedom and speech and the argument that it is good to mention disagreement because it upholds freedom of speech? No, I'm not really following.
It shouldn’t be necessary to say you don’t agree with everything someone says (because no one ever agrees with everything), but if you’re talking about free speech then it is good to mention the disagreement because otherwise people will assume you only support their right to speak because you agree with them and not because of the principle that free speech is for everyone.
Ah, I see. There isn't really a conflict here on the level of principles, because the context in which someone says this and the motivations for doing so make the difference? Yes, I think so too and I think that was Abhishek's point. We shouldn't need to specify this, but sometimes we do and it can be useful in those contexts.
Decency and respect for the bereaved mother and children suggests waiting until the funeral is over before equivocating with but ....
Did you read it? Do you not think it was important for leftists who disagreed with Kirk to visibly condemn political violence?
"Nevertheless, I am going to defend the use of the phrase." I too defend the use of the phrase - after the funeral. Yes, people can but and counter but from the outset. I just feel everyone should have waited until he is buried. There was a time in my lifetime when most would have waited. Of course, manners and deceny are all but gone.
But this is another objection altogether. An entirely different framing. No-one has yet suggested that mentioning disagreement is disrespectful.
Do you not think leftists should have condemned the violence in the immediate aftermath of it? If not, why not? If so, how can they indicate that they disagree politically without saying so?
There's an argument for why I think it is important to say that we support the freedom of speech of people we disagree with and condemn political violence immediately and unambiguously in that piece. Did you read it? Would you like to engage with it?
I agree Kirk's political opponents should have universally condemned violence. Some didn't, but they did not get simple moral correction; they got debate. The only reply they should have got is to have pointed out the lack of any morality and decency in celebrating (perhaps pointing out they are saying it implies they too are legitimate targets) and to say one would return to debate after the funeral. Too many, in my view, on both sides, seized an opportunity to grandstand.
OK, but you're still not addressing my arguments.
Spell out how I could have indicated that I am someone who disagrees politically with Mr. Kirk while defending his right to speak and condemning political violence without saying that I disagree with him politically?
And you are ignoring my point of view. Why the need to tell everyone you disagree with him? His murder was wrong irrespective of whether one agrees with him or not. You could have said free speech means tolerating viewpoints antithetical to one's own and his murder was wholly unjustified. But, you want to insert your seemingly proud self into this. Where did you debate or write about Kirk before his murder?