Politicians have been saying the wrong thing, at the wrong
time and to the wrong people for as long as there have been politicians. Recent
controversies such as those surrounding Todd Akin, George Galloway, and Ken
Maginnis have once again provided the public with great topics for debate and, it’s
easily argued, that’s actually been of benefit to society. It is, after all,
important to air issues and to know what our representatives really think about
certain things.
Inevitably though, following some off-policy rant, a
politician is usually criticised or disciplined by their party and that, also
inevitably, is met with the ever so pitiful cry of ‘what about freedom of
thought and freedom of speech’. I’ll
skip over the ‘freedom of thought’ part because I assume people really mean ‘freedom
of speech’ but just haven’t grasped the difference.
The trouble with people who claim that X or Y should be
entitled to freedom of speech is that in nearly every case, no one has
restricted anyone’s freedom of speech – they have just restricted their ability
to speak for others; namely, the political party they represent. That’s a
crucial difference and one that is often overlooked in the argument.
Take Ken Maginnis. His views on Homosexuality – that it is a
rung on the same ladder as Bestiality and that homosexual sex is a deviant act –
are offensive to a great many people, but, as it stands, his words don’t technically
constitute speech that incites hatred or violence and so remains legal speech. He can say what he likes and when he likes so
no one is has restricted his freedom of speech.
What his party leader has done (at least initially) was to
tell Ken Maginnis that he couldn’t say those things while standing on a UUP
platform. In essence – you have the right to say what you like (within the law)
but you have no right to say it on behalf of the UUP and the UUP have no
obligation to continue to provide a platform on which you can say what you
like.
This isn’t unique to politics – it’s the same for any
professional organisation, whether it be a major multi-national or a small
local run shop – if you are making statements that are contrary to policy or
can do damage to that organisation, it is only right that they can take action
to stop that.
What’s really behind the freedom of speech argument is not ‘people
should be free to say what they want’ it is ‘people should be free to say
things I agree with’.
