Speak,debate,challenge

Index’s job is to report on all issues that undermine freedom of expression without fear or favour, writes RUTH ANDERSON

IT SHOULD SURPRISE no one that I am profoundly committed to the basic human right of freedom of expression. After all, I run Index on Censorship. I have spent most of my adult life trying to provide a voice for people who struggle to be heard, and was brought up by an extraordinary woman who was adamant that those who had the skills and resources to fight for the rights of others had a moral requirement to do so. She taught me that campaigning for change and for a better society was the most important thing you could do with your life. And among the tools that we have to help people are our voices, which should be used as often as possible to demand change from those with the power to deliver it.

This led me to march against pit closures as a child, to campaign against neo-fascists as a teenager, to organise demos against factory closures in my 20s and to spend countless weekends campaigning for change in my community. Each of these pieces of activism has made me who I am, and I have been fortunate enough to live in a country where our right to speak up against injustice is largely free from fear of prosecution.

But while the concept of freedom of expression is straightforward and our rights to use it are protected in law, its application can be far from easy. Every issue that I have campaigned on has had an organised opposition, who have exactly the same rights as me to campaign - as they should. In a democracy, the legal rights of my opponents are just as valuable as my own, even when I fundamentally disagree with them.

This is even more important when we consider identity and cultural change, because issues that touch people’s personal lives are always emotive. This means the subject itself can become toxic and hurtful and can drive people away from seeking to understand the opposing viewpoints of the key protagonists. But as a political campaigner, I know that no argument or social debate has ever been resolved by fewer words, by less discussion - or by silence. Vital progressive battles are won by taking people on a journey, by persuading the moderate-middle that your cause is right, by being prepared to seek compromise, and by convincing politicians to take a stand. This was true for universal suffrage, for the civil rights movement, for abortion rights and for gay marriage - and it will likely be true for every cultural change that will happen in my lifetime going forward.

That doesn’t mean that having these debates is easy. As a member of a minority community, I know how painful it can be to watch other people debate your identity and your rights. I know how frustrating it is to watch others pontificate about what’s best for you and your community - or worse, why you’re wrong and others are right. I’ve had too much experience of where some of these debates can lead to and of where challenging language can become abuse and then threats. But that doesn’t make freedom of expression a less important right, or one that we should renege upon.

This brings me to the one issue that seems to dominate every conversation I have about my work at the moment - gender identity. Current conversations are all too often toxic. Every discussion brings hurt and anger. I’ve sat with friends as they’ve cried over the fear they face because of the personal and aggressive nature of the current discourse and I’ve spoken to dozens of people who feel isolated and are self-censoring as they don’t want to get caught in the maelstrom.

All of which brings me to the role of Index.

Index is not, and will never be, a campaign vehicle for any issue other than the protection and promotion of freedom of expression as a democratic human right. We exist solely to protect and promote this right around the world - not to pick a side on an issue of conscience and of personal values. Our job is to report on issues which undermine freedom of expression without fear or favour, and to provide a platform for those people who are persecuted. While our professional staff and our board may all have their own opinions, institutionally we are not - and we will not be - aligned with any organisation that seeks to silence opposing views.

Within this context I think it is vitally important to restate our approach to freedom of expression.

This is our guiding framework for freedom of expression:

Index on Censorship applies a consistent approach to freedom of expression across all of our work streams. In line with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights we promote and protect the fundamental human right of freedom of expression, but we will not defend hate speech or incitement to violence as defined currently under the law.

This means that we will always focus our efforts to defend the rights of dissidents, academics, journalists and campaigners - amongst others - to speak, argue, debate, challenge and campaign.

Index on Censorship’s remit is and always has been global. The threats we therefore respond to are varied, but we respond to all. Today trans voices top the lists of books banned at libraries and schools across the USA, while in the UK we have seen repeated attempts to prevent gender-critical feminists from exercising their lawful rights to speech. We will and do oppose both.

Index defends the right of people to speak, but that is not the same as the right to be heard. These are different things. No one has the right for their views to be heard on any given platform and to be accepted by the wider world. At the same time, we oppose the cancelling and silencing of voices associated with a specific view. We will defend the rights of people to speak if they have been invited, and in turn we defend the rights of those who seek to peacefully protest views that they don’t share. These are all different issues and the nuances are important here.

Index believes that state institutions funded by the tax payer, such as the BBC, have a responsibility to represent a range of viewpoints and we will challenge them if we believe they are falling short of that responsibility. But that does not mean always giving equal weight to a selection of views - that is an editorial decision. Nor do the same responsibilities apply to private and/or voluntary bodies. If the latter chose to not print a certain viewpoint we won’t automatically assume that’s censorship and instead will investigate further.

As with all issues that shape both democratic and authoritarian societies, we will provide editorial comment highlighting where people’s freedom of expression is restricted because of their views, and we will report on this without fear or favour.

Index’s commitment to freedom of expression on every issue is unwavering - and has been since our founding in 1972. We were established to provide a platform for the persecuted and to protect freedom of expression at home, regardless of how controversial or unpopular a voice may be. It is not for us to judge which voices need to be heard; only for us to highlight which voices are being silenced and campaign for a world in which censorship does not exist.