Secularism is supposed to be at the heart of free thought and expression, not an excuse to suppress them

Written over the door of the Faculte de Droit in Paris is the promise of liberty, equality and brotherhood from the secular state to its citizens, yet secularism still faces accusations of overbearing paternalism.

Secularism, at its most literal, means the separation of church and state. At the core of the principal is the idea that no religion - or any other formal, organised, set of beliefs - should play an integrated role in the governance or administration of civic institutions, so as to maintain their neutrality.

However, it is also intended to guarantee to citizens the freedom of conscience, and through that policy give support to freedom of thought. So as much as it means religion staying out of public administration, it also meant the state leaving personal beliefs, including religion, as a private matter.

How that principle is applied in practice, in modern times, has come under a spotlight in the past week thanks to the response of some to a rising fear in Europe of fundamentalist Islam. In France, local government in some areas have passed prohibitions against certain kinds of outward religious expression - the most notable result so far being the clamp down on 'burkinis' (Amrani, 2016).

One thing is absolutely clear. Issuing legal commands as to what women can and cannot wear does not convey "la légitime et saine laïcité", the legitimate and healthy secularity, or the guarantee of the freedom of conscience, promised by the French secularism that descends from the 1905 laws.

Part of the problem, perhaps, is that the world today is not the world into which those particular laws where issued. Listed amongst the laws of 1905, almost paradoxically next to the freedom of conscience, was the prohibition of public displays of religion.

The France that had the 1905 law applied to it was a country deeply entwined with the Catholic Church. The entangling influence of the church was deeply resented and the emergence of laicite came hand in hand with a history of anti-clericalism that pushed back and tried to wrestle society out of the grip of the clergy..

The Left bloc government that advocated secularism, formed by Radicals and Socialists, wanted in particular to end the influence of Catholicism over education - which had been traditionally provided almost exclusively by the clergy. Yet the broken clerical influence was simply replaced with that of the centralised state.

As much as laicite, and in particular secular education, was a republican and humanist project, it was also deeply nationalist. In early twentieth century France, secularism was at the centre of a broader policy of 'modernisation', that sought to establish and project the power of a centralised nation-state - seeking to make the civic state the centre of a society with a singular, integrated and unifying, language and culture.

In modern Europe, secularism has largely succeeded, yet it has done so alongside the advance of the centralised nation-states and nowhere in Europe has secularism and the nation-state been so heavily intertwined as in France - as to represent a major component of the 'national values' and national identity.

The rise of extremist and fundamentalist religion, and extremist and fundamentalist ideologies - that seek to play an active role in government to directly impose their values on citizens - do call for careful thought. The Nationalist Right's answers to these complex matters has been to call for a more strict imposition of 'national values' - and in France that has meant using secularism as the means to legitimise an overbearing policy.

This is a threat to the principles of secularism. The independence of the functions of government from any interest group is a worthy idea. The freedom of conscience is essential. As George Clemenceau - former Prime Minister of France, a radical and a contemporary to the 1905 laws - argued that you do not get liberty by fighting one tyranny with another tyranny.

Clemenceau wrote of his certainty that "apprenticeship in liberty can only be served through liberty" and that to "struggle against the church there is only one means - the liberty of the individual". Support for free thought, openness and tolerance are the progressive response to closed tyrannical intolerance. Stooping to the regulation of citizens' clothing just swaps one degrading paternalism for another.

Efforts to extinguish the light of human progress sometimes cause the candlelight to flicker, but it always burns the brighter after

Peace for Paris. Photograph: From Subjectif Art, design by Jean Jullien (License)

The world is moving inexorably forwards. More freedoms, more rights, more equality. That progress has been tempered time and again by horrifying bouts of violence and war, psychotic acts of terror and ruthless acts of sectarian cleansing. Yet humanity has continued to stumble its way out of the darkness.

Acts of violence, counter-revolutionary reaction and suppression by those would keep the world trapped in the darkness, rear up with each step forward. They attempt use fear to control and dissuade, to put out the light. Yet each act of violence has changed humanity. It forges an ever growing, ever spreading, solidarity against violence, ignorance and selfishness. It simply makes the case, and support, for peace, liberty and tolerance stronger.

Vaclav Havel was a writer and playwright who became a political dissident against totalitarian communist rule and went on to became the first President of the Czech Republic. At the height of the constant, suppressive, threat of arrest and imprisonment, Havel wrote The Power of the Powerless. In it, Havel described how under the rule of even the most desperate and tyrannical of police states, the light of dissent and liberty can flicker into life through simple acts of disobedience and the refusal to comply with the wielders of power and fear. That in these simple acts, an individual:

"...rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity. He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth."

For many, the events in Paris, or in Beirut, have extinguished their ability to see that light - or so dimmed their sensitivity to it beneath a howling storm of pain and loss that they may never see it again. For those people, there is perhaps little comfort in knowing that despite, and maybe in spite of, atrocities, the statistics say that there are only positive trends when it comes to human health and prosperity.

To those people, it may well be cold comfort that the light continues to flicker, let alone that it will grow stronger. Even so, we cannot give up on, or ignore, that flame. By its light, people have changed the world for the better with even the smallest acts of freedom.

Whether it's the struggle for human rights, civil rights and liberties, and democracy around the world, or their particular manifestations in the rising visibility of struggles for Women's rights, LGBT rights or for recognition that Black Lives Matter, the movement towards equality and respect is irresistible.

Gender Inequality, Laissez-faire and Positive Action

Last week, in the run-up to International Women's Day, there were efforts made in Germany to tackle inequality between the genders in the workplace. While a new law was passed for gender quotas to be introduced to the boardrooms of large companies (The Guardian, 2015), there was still ongoing resistance to legislation aimed at exposing, and ultimately undoing, gender inequalities in pay (Osborne, 2015).

The fact that these moves are necessary in a wealthy and developed country like Germany - or in the UK where the Liberal Democrats have been pushing for similar moves for some time, particularly in the face of a failure of the Conservative 'voluntary' reporting system (Wintour, 2015) - highlights the scale of the problem. Quotas, in turn, represent the practical response to the continuing inequality (Saul, 2015).

And yet, resistance remains to levelling the playing field. There is an insistence in the Western world upon trusting in laissez-faire - removing the obvious formal institutional obstacles and letting the world right itself. That attitude is not helped much by gender quotas being considered an imperfect solution (White, 2015).

However, the world is uncomfortably unequal. In the face of plain unfairness, the simplistic, and false, answer to the struggles of others is victim-blaming (Burkeman, 2015). There is a determination, witnessed in the wider struggle against inequality, to shift the responsibility for unfairness from the established order and those who benefit, and to turn it into blame to be placed on those who aren't succeeding (Seabrook, 2014).

The facts are pretty clear: matters can't just be left to right themselves (Topping, 2015). It was true for the poverty and desperation in Victorian England that led to the collapse of the old Laissez-faire economics, and made way for the gradual rise of social insurance, pensions, welfare and the public healthcare. It is true now tackling gender inequality. The world needs a helping hand to combat problematic institutional biases (Dudman, 2015).

The feminist rallying-calls of public figures like Emma Watson is a reminder of how to tackle these great challenges (HeForShe, 2015): positive thought and positive action, in the pursuit of progress.

In the pursuit of social progress, the old ways of thinking have to change. The 'let alone' attitude is not good enough, particularly when the solutions of negative liberty - simply keeping people free from outside interference - don't, and can't, bring meaningful equality of opportunity, or offer the people the path to the better, and more fair, lives they want.

There is a pressing need to demand a more positive liberty. Affirmative action, in this sense, is about acting to make the principals of fairness in a free society a fact. That burning heart of feminism, is the same one that beats in the breast of all struggles for equality and fairness. Quotas may not be a perfect solution, but they are a positive and practical solution in a world that is imperfect and unfair.

Charlie Hebdo, John Stuart Mill and the Harm Principle

The events in Paris have put freedom of speech at the front and centre of political debate around the world. Governments are discussing their response, including expansion of surveillance powers particularly in the domestic sphere (Watt, 2015).

In the light of the attack upon the offices of Charlie Hebdo, which has been defended as a satirical publication, conservative voices are arguing that some things are sacred, and cannot be ridiculed (Topping, 2015). In response, others have accused conservatives of blaming victims for 'provocation', rather than condemning those who wield violence to achieve their ends (Toynbee, 2015).

The question is, what is free speech? What does it look like? Why is it important? How can we use it?

John Stuart Mill, an influential figure in liberal political philosophy and contributor to utilitarianism, argued that free thought and expression were key to the discovery of the truth, and to keeping honest the establishment that is supposed to embody that truth. Out of these ideas, Mill developed his harm principle:

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant... Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

The point of individual freedom is that you may do as you will freely, but only where you do not impose upon the freedoms of others. The question raised by recent events, and by the opinions thrown out by public figures, is what happens in the grey area?

For Mill, there exists, between the clear freedoms of any two parties and the clear infringements of those freedoms, a grey area of debate. It is in that space that governance takes place - and it requires two voices: one liberal and one conservative, one for progress and one for the status quo. Freedom of speech plays an integral role in the relationship between the two. It is part of the encouragement of individuality, and protection of it. It is part of our defence against powerful establishments that reinforce their own opinions against criticism, tyrannies both of government and of the majority.

Something that the events in Paris brought into particular focus are the tools that those without institutional power use within that grey area. Protest, terror and satire.

Protest and terror are two sides of the same coin. They seek to create an alternative form of power to that of the establishment, in order to project their views and challenge the authority of the established position. One of them is about peaceful civil action or disobedience designed to persuade, and the other is about using force, fear and violence in order to coerce.

Satire follows a different path. Rather than creating a source of power, it instead seeks to undermine power with humour - ostensibly in order to hold it to account. It is meant to be the tool of those who want to challenge a powerful establishment, from a position of relative weakness or powerlessness. The humour of satire aims to dispel the seriousness with which ritual and adherence are followed, to create a dehallowed critical space.

That is, of course, a difficult task. It means walking a line between irreverence towards the things that people hold dear, and a fall into racism, homophobia and sexism, the cheap tools of cheap victories. How do we go about challenging the presumptions of others, or basis of their power, without falling into those traps? How can we safely disrespect the taboos of others, in order to shine a light on the unquestioned, unchallenged or corrupt?

On the matter of how we express ourselves through free speech, and the idea that we ought only to be 'temperate' in that speech, Mill's answer was pragmatic. He argued that while law and government could not, and probably should not, shut down sophistic, 'invective' or 'intemperate discussion', they were none the less tools best not used.

"The gravest of [the principal offences] is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible, on adequate grounds, conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable, and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct."

While those methods - like lying about your opponent and their views or using generalised slurs to sully your opponent and therefore anything they say - are effective at shutting down debate, these tools serve only to sully the causes connected to their use, and to damage our chances of understanding truth by distorting or stopping the contributions of free voices.

"It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either [intemperate argument professing the prevailing or contrary positions], while opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case - condemning everyone, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candor, or malignity, bigotry, or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves; but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own; and giving merited honor to everyone, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favor."

Conservatism seeks to argue that some things are sacred, and cannot be made fun of. To build up dogmas, religious and ideological, to be adhered to. The whole point of satire is to the contrary - to poke fun at, and so undermine, the things people hold sacred when they become corrupt and despotic. To call into question those things that people fail to think about, to critique, for themselves and instead follow blindly.

That aim is at the heart of free speech. We are to be free in our opinions so that truth will not be lost or suppressed, and so that the powerful may be held to account. Those who seek to shut down free speech likely have a vested interest in the prevailing opinions, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Those who fall into racism, homophobia, sexism and other kinds of chauvinistic bigotry also wish to protect a vested interest in an opinion, but through the use of such methods only mark themselves and their cause.

Free speech for Mill was about peaceful, calm and reasoned debate, a process necessary for the discovery of truth and for the advancement of good governance. In the everyday sense, it translates to thinking and expressing yourself freely, but that those thoughts and expressions are not free of criticism, from being challenged and proved false, and that this is the very point of free speech. It is how we move forward, how we learn, how we discover the truth. Ad hominem attacks, bigotry and violence contribute nothing.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's World News section devoted to the Charlie Hebdo attack.

+ Nicholas Watt's 'Ed Miliband rejects calls for revival of snooper’s charter after Paris attacks'; in The Guardian; 11 January 2015.

+ Alexandra Topping's 'Pope Francis: freedom of expression has limits'; in The Guardian; 15 January 2015.

+ Polly Toynbee's 'On Charlie Hebdo Pope Francis is using the wife-beater’s defence'; in The Guardian; 16 January 2015.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859. [Buy Now]

Liberty & Choice, Individuality & Privacy

It has come to my notice that the new direction of business practices seems to be exposing a deeper transition within society. As marketing leans towards the individualising of products, it becomes increasingly necessary for these companies to collect a greater depth of information about its customers.

There has been divided opinion as to the merits of targeted internet marketing and the subversive methods of attaining the information necessary to carry out such campaigns.

"People want to share and stay connected with their friends and the people around them. If we give people control over what they share, they will want to share more. If people share more, the world will become more open and connected. And a world that's more open and connected is a better world."
(Zuckerberg, 2010)

"Facebook originally earned its core base of users by offering them simple and powerful controls over their personal information. As Facebook grew larger and became more important, it could have chosen to maintain or improve those controls. Instead, it's slowly but surely helped itself — and its advertising and business partners — to more and more of its users' information, while limiting the users' options to control their own information."
(Opsahl, 2010)

There has also been much talk within care industries about the rise of personalised care, and the call for increasingly specialised responses to individual needs (Morton & Morgan, 2009).

So what does this mean for the public at large? Well, it is not the demonstrated practice of big business to hedge its bets in terms of services offered. This means that a trend towards personalised service could mean a drift towards further sanctioned intrusion into the privacy of consumers. This then raises some issues:

+ First, just how important is privacy within modern society? With the rise of social networking, enabling expressions of individuality has become a visible and profitable market. When the minutiae of the lives of users are volunteered to full public view by millions of users, is this shift towards full disclosure of the 'private' in the interests of a public that is becoming very aware of its own diverse and complex nature?

+ Secondly, considering the first point, are the liberty of privacy and the liberty of individuality incompatible? Is it possible for a market trend and growing social movement towards disclosure to live alongside privacy of the individual?

These thoughts present a bit of a conundrum to me as a believer in the liberty of the individual 'agent' in society. I also consider the likelihood that my attachment to personal privacy may well be the cultural hangover from previous generations, which is being superseded in society by the 'public' right to free information.

==========
References:
==========
+ Mark Zuckerberg's 'From Facebook, answering privacy concerns with new settings';

+ Kurt Opsahl's 'Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline';

+ Tracy Morton & Maureen Morgan's 'Examining how personalised care planning can help patients with long term conditions';

At Liberty to Object

As we remember today all those who have given their lives in the name of freedom and peace, let us not forget those who risked their lives by refusing utterly the order to kill.

As we remember the unequivocal resolve of the Partisan Guerrilla Fighters of Spain during the Napoleonic Invasion or the French Maquis & Polish Post Office Workers in the face of the Nazi occupation; or the many lives of people of all nationalities of all wars who fought in defence of their homes and their freedom, let us not forget the powerful volitions of the conscientious objectors, who chose a hard path in the face anger, fear and accusations of cowardice.

As we remember those who choose to give their lives for our safety, liberty and peace, let us not forget that still in this world their are men, women and children who still do not have a choice.

In this world there still exists conscription, national service and groups putting guns into the hands of children.

In this world there still exists tribunals to whom you must justify your unwillingness to kill.

In this world there still exists punishments for soldiers who hold conscientious objections to wars their nations wage.

In this world, are we still not past Kennedy's 'What you can do for your country' speech? Are we yet mere peasant subjects, commodities to be traded by medieval institutions? It certainly seemed to be a sentiment John Lennon believed.

In a decade when there are serious moves towards multi-lateral nuclear disarmament; with no more cold war; when the death of soldiers on foreign soil is front-page tabloid scandal; with no great war to fight; the human right not to kill has never been more relevant to the world stage.

I believe society can only reach its individual & collective potential through cooperation. But for that to happen, we need new kinds of sense and some old kinds of courage.

'There is one thing that nobody can deny them: and that is courage. The most difficult form of courage in the world. The courage of the individual against the crowd.'
(Capt Stephen Gwynn MP, on Conscientious Objectors)

==========
References:
==========
+Ian Hislop's 'Not Forgotten: The Men who Wouldn't Fight';