The first point I was trying to make wasn't that any particular individual -
Singer or whoever - sought a master plan to commit the genocide of disabled
people - but rather than any argument should be judged in terms of not just the
speaker's right to exercise the freedom of speech, but its potential impact
upon the potential freedom of others through ACTION that comes from what was
said.
Again, I question the assumption that the opposition to Singer is about "not
wishing to hear his message". We have a right to protest, I am not suggesting
an automatic "no platform" position for Singer.
However, the issue raised in this thread was centred around a decision taken
by an organisation - not disabled people - to pull the plug on him due to
particular comments which could have, in their opinion, lead to an incitement of
specific responses, thus risking the testing of the law.
What I'm suggesting is the notion of "freedom of speech" as a "right" can be
challenged because it isn't an absolute right - the exercising of the right to
speak has within acceptable boundaries.
Not surprisingly, I agree with G Smith - the use of power is central to the
debate. I have no "fear" in terms of what Singer says; my fear relates to what
others with tremenous power will do as a result of Singer peddling his
political ideology.
There's no point gagging people like Singer. However, if he or anyone else,
advocates actions against the well-being of others, I believe we have the moral
duty to protect them by using whatever methods we can so long as these
methods do not harm our cause.
Bob Williams-Findlay
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|