Let me start with putting the Burchill controversy into perspective.
In the past, the Guardian Media Group, of which the Observer is a member, has published articles by notorious anti-Semites, Islamic fundamentalists, 9/11 truthers, genocide deniers, and dictator apologists.
It is without question that these articles have caused deep distress and hurt to large numbers of people.
Noam Chomsky is a case in point. I despise every word of the anti-Semitic trash the man has ever written; find his pathological hate-mongering against America and his Srebrenica revisionism repulsive; and take strong objection to his glorification of the Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein regimes.
However, I would never call for Chomsky to be censored and banned from publishing.
The right to free speech is what separates us from closed, illiberal societies. The ability to absorb individuals and their views, even or especially if we do not like them, and to deal with them in a critical way – write counter-arguments, question the validity, rip it them into pieces – is what makes our societies great, healthy, and strong.
The context in which the Burchill controversy took place is important.
It all started with Suzanne Moore’s piece in the New Statesman about the challenges faced by modern women. Her reference to transsexuals caused a Twitter storm with the result that she was driven off the network by a mob of bullies, who insulted her in the strongest possible terms and accused her of transphobism.
Secondly, Julie Burchill is Julie Burchill. It is almost impossible to find a group of people she has not offended during her controversial career. While that might not be everyone’s idea of decent, responsible journalist, liberal societies must have a place for controversialists and polemics like her.
Thirdly, the central argument in Burchill’s piece, namely that transsexuals should not demand privileges over those who were born as women, is fair and legitimate.
Of course, the language used was inflammatory, insensitive, and insulting and caused hurt and anger among the transgender community.
But the point is that every day journalists write offensive material that puts individuals or groups in the line of fire. If we start banning everyone who offends one group or another, we will end up with little left to publish.
We must resist the temptation to answer controversies, such as the Julie Burchill one, with censorship and deal with them with the weapons a free society provides us with. Shutting down journalists is not what 21st century Britain should look like.
John Mulholland’s decision to take down the Burchill piece from the Observer website was an act of 1984 Orwellianism. He might just as well join the thought police.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
I am now also under attack on Twitter by members of the transgender community. According to them, I have failed to condemn the views expressed in the Burchill article, despite having stated repeatedly that I defend her right to free speech and not the article per se.
I will not allow a tiny group of people to spread lies about me, misrepresent my views, and bully me into an apology and clarification which I am not going to give, as I made my views perfectly clear in the first place.
Example below.
Those attacks on you are pretty horrid.
Why oh why are men so AGGRESSIVE?
Good on you for calling them out! People are so hateful sometimes. x
I agree, Cathy, those fucking trannies are hideous. Why do they think they have a right to live among us feminists? No really! Fucking Messy faggots is what they are.
Your language proves the point Julie was making. Thanks for that.
Okay, lol. I was kidding on the Cathy Comment. MsIntervention, do you realize all of the comments here are transphobic? LOL. Yea, right? Ooops. No, really OOPs my fucking bad. I don’t have those nasty transssexual. The fucking scummy trannies. ohh..nasty. ooops sorry. gross. puke. oops.
Wow.. Caprica just spews self hatred. Of course, she’s just pharaphrasing what she thinks “we” are thinking. I think her continous rant and attack on you just shows she’s up for stirring the pot. I mean, heaven forbid that anyone on their own blog write their own personal feelings and their own beliefs. But feel free Caprica to just stomp out Ms.Intervention to put her own thoughts on her own blog. I absolutly agree with you Cathy, Caprica’s disgusting name calling and self bashing of her ownself just proves that some people just can’t fix stupid.
Just a pity you didn’t do any research into what actually happened. I’m sorry to see that you are being attacked, it may not be very pleasant, though I suspect it may be because some people feel that your post is yet another piece that misrepresents them. There were people online who watched the whole thing unfold in real time. Suzanne Moore was criticized on Twitter politely by another woman (who ironically was not even transgender), who actually complimented her on the rest of her piece but queried the ‘brazillian transsexual’ line.. Moore seemed to lose her temper and responded with a series of dismissive and downright abusive comments about trans people. She did then get a few comebacks, but actually pretty mild by Twitter standards, o and in any case a reaction to what she’d dished out. Perhaps seeing she’d gone too far, Moore then deleted her account and her comments (though a few minutes Googling soon turns up a cached copy). The myth of her being hounded off after an attack by ‘transsexuals’ seems to have been spread around later by Moore and her friends as some sort of cover story and of course, given the ignorance and prejudice against this group , plenty of people were all too ready to believe Suzanne had been victimized by those nasty transsexuals.Then Burchill quickly came up with her ‘defence’ of Moore, ( lines from which were tweeted in advance by fellow journalist Nick Cohen who obviously had prior notice it was coming) which was just an excuse to trot out a more extreme version of the same old transphobic hate that she’s been peddling for years. I agree she has a fundamental right to be heard, but being published by the Observer is not a fundamental right. She could blog her ignorance like so many others do. If I want to read hateful rubbish by nazis and sociopaths I know that the darker realms of the blogosphere is the go-to place, but I don’t really want to be confronted with it while enjoying my breakfast on a Sunday morning. Call me old fashioned. I agree with everything you say about the value of free speech, but next time you blog about it please a) check your facts and b) try to understand that the inalienable right to speak freely does not confer on anyone a right to get paid to launch hate fueled attacks against a vulnerable minority group in a national newspaper. Unless you understand those subtleties, your words will be at best static, at worst your’re spreading willful misinformation and encouraging some very nasty and even dangerous behavior. Hate speech is something we sadly have to tolerate in a free society, but give it too much of a platform and real people end up getting hurt.
I hope you realize what you are defending. This is not a matter of free speech. Julie wrote what she wanted and people had free speech to respond. The Observer choose in its capacity of free speech to take the article down. The Telegraph republished it.
Nothing was censored.
How do you define censorship?
Julies piece was hateful towards a group of people that deal with a lot more BS everyday than you realize.
Sure I believe in freedom of speech but if a bunch of idiots want to spread hate I think they should be silenced.
When the Nazi party was outlawed in Germany would you argue that was PC censorship? If you could go back in history and silence Hitler would you? Or would you defend his freedom of speech? Hateful words can get out of control pretty quickly and cause a lot more damage than just hurt feelings.
As a trans woman I am not asking for special rights. I am asking for the same rights everyone else should have.