EUDC 2008 - Open Finals

Рет қаралды 51,653

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер

@raphael32515 4 жыл бұрын

PM's Speech: So James and I have a Private Museum you might say just a couple of things mementos things that make James smile in the evening. And because we're not keen on criminalizing ourselves we want to be quite clever what we are doing. We don't think this is a debate about museums. We don't think this is a debate about the educative function of symbols or hanging up like a Nazi uniform in the Imperial War Museum. What we think this is about is the active and ideological use of symbols in political life, in public life. And so what we're banning in public life is all of this stuff. It's using rallies. It's used by skinheads. Its presence on monuments. And we accept that there may be a couple of cases where this line is hard to draw. So we say simply where it's ambiguous. We're going to ban it. We will not take the risk. You may ask where are we doing this? The answer is wherever. Wherever we find it, we think is likely to be more of a problem in Poland than it is in Botswana, but if it is a problem in Botswana we'll do it there, too. Im going to talk about two things Firstly, I'm going to talk about public discourse and communicative action. Or, if you prefer, I'm going to talk about when it's legitimate to ban things just because they're offensive and only because they're offensive. Secondly. I'm going to talk about why we regard these symbols as extremely offensive I'll don't put a spend too much time on that. James is going to talk a little bit more about ideology oppression that sort of chat. So, when is it legitimate to ban things purely and only because they're offensive? When is it legitimate in particular to limit speech acts? We think that in general and we think filters will agree with me that there is a presumption in favor of free speech. We think it's kind of cool quite a lot of time, but we also think is there's no reason to regard freedom of speech as an overriding good in every circumstance, and there's no reason to believe the public debate is always good, all of the time, unless its the right sort of public good some of the time. And what we want to say very clear right from the start is that a speech act CAN BE OPPRESSIVE. Not in the sense of me going "those Muslims you want to go beat them up". Because that's incitement. We think that should be ilegal, but in the sense of saying "These people are scum. These people are worth nothing, these people are less than animals and they deserve to be treated as less than animals", where no incitement is there. Now why is that true? That is true because the social world of the THE WORLD IN WHICH YOU LIVE IS CONSTRUCTED THROUGH LANGUAGE AND THROUGH MEANING. The way you understand yourself. The way you understand actions. The meaning you import to actions is mediated through meaning and language. And the rest of that. We say that alone doesn't mean a speech could be oppressive. That's just the first step. The second thing that needs to be true in order for a speech act of impressive is if THAT ACT IS BOUND UP IN RELATIONS OF POWER, and that's why the display in the museum is not oppressive by using it at a rally might be Ladies and gentlemen, because we think these symbols and are used across Europe and in other places to intimidate people, to scare people, to make people feel like they cannot go out, to make people feel like they are less; to make people feel like their words do not count the same as other people's words And the test for that is: are this used in political and public life in relations of domination? We are perfectly willing to accept this may apply in other cases. We think that's fine. We do want to ban hate media. We think that's absolutely all right. Our test is quite simple. Do citizens get deprived of fundamentals goods through permitting these speech acts to take place? And we say that happens when this symbols are yielded by those in power. If every element of these people live is focusing upon trying to intimidate those who they do not like then something other than the symbol is going to identify them through their views they have through the new simple pictures with clothing. We may will ban others things. That's fine. We think hate speech should also be banned, bye-bye. Anyway, so final bit of that point. We think it is entirely legitimate for the state to not just monopolize but control and shape public discourse in order to secure the basic goods for its citizens such as: not feeling afraid, not feeling degraded, not feeling oppressed. So secondly why these symbols And the first thing we say is: there maybe others. We think in a country James J comes from, Apartheid symbols may occupy similar roles. We think things like memorabilia celebrating just a Desiree mbutu in Congo might be similar. We're happy to say that those principles that we've laid down here my work there as well. But we say more generally there is a Lacuna in the current law. Which is that we don't even pay attention to words when we ban assignment we only pay attention to words when ban hate speech or the hate media. And we say a symbol is still a piece of shed comunication, a symbol is still a piece of shed language and can function in exactly the same way. And also we do think racist hate speech should be banned even if there's no direct incitement because of I said before we think it can still be oppressive, but furthermore we do think there are reasons to believe that these symbols are UNIQUELY AWFUL, because they do not, ladies and gentlemen, represent valid political ideologies at all. Firstly, we do think like pluralistics societies are kind of cool and we do think that in a plural society be like the people disagree about what the good is and how society should be organized. That should be. That's fine. But we also think that in order for society to exist at all we must have minimum agreed to live together. We must agree, we must consent to associate as one society and we're so we say a basic commitment any ideology that wants to exist in the modern world must be a commitment to the equal concern and respect which every single citizen deserves, right? We say a genuine pluralism is one where you have an overlapping consensus of people who disagree, but an overlapping consensus of reasonable doctrines of the good, right? We say that these ideologys which have perpetrated the barbaric slaughter of millions upon millions of people for no better reason than they were an enemy of the proletarian or they were Jewish or they were gay or they were disabled or they were a gypsy or dozens of other things. We say that if you deny the basic rights of citizens as a ideology, there are people who should be exterminated. You are not a valid ideology. You are evil. We say you're not part of the legitimate political discourse. We're going to expunge you. So because speech matters because symbols matters and functions as part of language too and because these are really uniquely viol symbols that also matters. Im very proud to propose.