In addition to “A Halflings View” Substack I write a fortnightly column for the Listener. As might be expected the views expressed result in feedback and criticism. That does not bother me. I am well used to it. I am a proponent of the hideously unpopular adage in these gentle times “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” So I rejoice that my meanderings are read and have inspired a response.
Somewhat hesitantly I penned this piece. It is a commentary upon a letter to the Listener editor but one which used the jargon of critical theory. I have not done a thorough rebuttal of the letter or its contents, but offer it with a few observations as an example of the way that debate can be blocked by veto words and phrases.
I leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions.
For lawyers the word “privilege” has a number of layers of meaning. Perhaps most importantly it refers to the relationship between lawyer and client. The privilege belongs to the client. A lawyer cannot disclose details of a client’s affairs without specific permission.
In the course of litigation, privilege rears its head. In a civil action a process known as discovery is essential. By this process one side is able to find out what documents the other side is holding. Sometimes these documents may be of assistance. Other times they may not. However, the lawyer for the party against whom discovery is sought can refuse to disclose certain documents because they are privileged. Once again the privilege is that of the client. It means that copies of letters of advice to the client should not be disclosed. Documents used in the course of preparation of the case – referred to as work product – should not be disclosed.
Members of Parliament have a absolute privilege. They cannot be sued for defamation for statements they make in the House. That is why there may be a challenge to repeat the statement outside the House. Privilege doesn’t apply there.
A person who is privileged is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “Invested with or enjoying certain privileges or immunities”. Privilege as a noun has a number of definitions in the OED. In the extended sense it means “A special advantage or benefit; with reference to divine dispensations, natural advantages, gifts of fortune, etc.”
A privileged position is defined in the OED as “the possession of an advantage over others or another”. It may also be a special dispensation from the application of rules. The OED defines the meaning in this way “An entitlement enjoyed by all the inmates of a penal or psychiatric institution as part of the normal regime, but which the authorities may withdraw as a punishment.” That definition was added in 1993.
What the OED doesn’t state is that the term “privilege” can be used as a form of veto word.
I wrote a piece in the Listener about an ad that Hobson’s Choice placed in the NZ Herald and how some critics were of the view that the ad should not have been placed. I saw the issue as one involving freedom of expression.
I said:
“The Herald has faced intense backlash for running the advertisement. The backlash is more a type of exercise of “cancel culture” and the silencing of a point of view rather than debating the issue raised in the advertisement in a rational way.
I recently spent some time at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, London. A group of young men used their own form of the cancel culture or the hecklers veto (and heckling is encouraged at Speakers Corner) by repeatedly and loudly shouting “shut up” to speakers with whom they disagreed. As some of the speakers observed, that is not an argument and that there was an irony that people would want speakers to shut up at Speakers Corner.
In New Zealand where we have the freedom to express and to receive ideas, suggesting that those ideas not be published is an example of a “shut up” approach to the issue.
Those who are critical of the Herald may be better employed exploring the reasons why Hobson’s Pledge is wrong and debating the issue rationally. But in these days of exaggeration and confrontational rhetoric that may be too much to ask or even expect.
But debate has happened. A group of legal academics answered the claims in the advertisement setting out four reasons why it was misleading and incorrect. This demonstrates the value of freedom of expression. If the advertisement had remained unpublished the debate that has finally started would not be taking place.
Better to get the ideas out there and debate them even if that debate, like those at Speakers’ Corner, is passionate and robust. Better to have contrary views put forward rather than yield to the cancel culture and SHUT UP.”
This prompted a letter to the editor. After referring to the article the correspondent said:
“I note that these sorts of views are nearly always expressed by privileged white males. I can't think of an example of it being said by anyone who belongs to any other group of society. David Harvey may try to suggest he is not privileged, but I'm afraid being a white male confers immediate privilege, probably not even noticed by those so privileged.”
The only basis upon which the assertion is made is that I am a white male and therefore ipso facto I have had conferred immediate privilege. This is a breathtaking assertion that simply does not stand up because it is the very worst form of stereotypical generalization.
The suggestion is that all white males have immediate privilege.
I have seen many white males who are anything but privileged – impoverished, suffering from disease, often victims to the ravages of alcohol and drugs, out of work and desperately trying to find an income for themselves and their families.
The other suggestion is that only privileged white males may stand up for freedom of expression. Once again this is a stereotypical generalization that does not survive examination.
The correspondent would benefit from a discussion with some of the members of the Free Speech Union who are neither white nor male and would benefit from a visit to Speakers Corner at Hyde Park to observe the diversity of people who advocate and exercise freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression and support for it are shared by all groups in society and frequently will advocate for it.
In a classical example of a critical theory approach, the correspondent created a reality that may or may not have any foundation in real life but which was based on what could be called “identity” factors – race and gender.
In the interests of fairness I shall show how the correspondent develops the argument, speaking about those who are disregarded and that inferentially white males who ipso facto are privileged may neither see nor value them. The letter states:
“My point is that people who don't have the experience of being disregarded (through not being seen, or not valued) and who may never have tried to understand what it is like to be disregarded, give a higher value to opportunities for an exchange of views, as though this potential discussion is an equal contest. It is not.
So yes, in an ideal world it would be lovely to debate differing views, and sometimes we might come to an accommodation. But even if we don't, we can shake hands, no damage done. However, given that is not the lived experience of a very large number of people, would it not be better to put our energies into creating a more level playing field, rather than continue to try to protect that privilege by disregarding the lack of equality? I would contend that it is that sense of being disregarded, of feeling powerless, that has created the cancel culture needed to try to stop the, at worst, vicious, or at best, unthinking, right to free speech.”
I agree that many disadvantaged people live chaotic lives and have little time for debate. But they do have the right to express themselves, level playing field or no.
What is perhaps the most ironic comment is that the suggestion that the cancel culture and the feeling of powerlessness arises from those who are disregarded when in fact the veto statement of the privileged white male is written by a person who is clearly intelligent, quite articulate and with a sense of social justice. In speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves it could be said that the correspondent is exercising the privilege that those qualities attract. But I am not saying that.
Rather I rejoice that the correspondent is exercising the freedom of expression for which I was arguing in my article. Such a shame that the water of the argument was muddied with stereotypical generalisations and the “us and them” “empowered and disempowered” jargon of critical theory.
But the correspondent is free to use that line of argument as well.