Image courtesy of Freedigitalphotos.net

I presume that most Cliterati readers are already well aware of the whole Julie Burchill controversy of last weekend, but for those who were on holiday or forgot to pay their ISP bill, here’s a short synopsis.  Feminist writer Suzanne Moore used an ill-considered metaphor which was perceived as a slur by transgendered people, but when confronted with it she defended herself with some very harsh language rather than apologizing.  Many people responded with equally-strong criticism, and then Julie Burchill defended her friend Moore in an essay in the Observer which “upped the ante” with even more offensive language.  This touched off a firestorm on Twitter and in the blogosphere which culminated in the Observer “unpublishing” the justly-reviled article.

I don’t honestly feel any need to reiterate what many others have already said better than I could (and in a more timely fashion), nor do I feel any need to defend the indefensible, especially stated in such an ugly manner by a person who has made a very large number of equally-offensive statements about my profession (for those who don’t know, I’m a retired call girl).  Furthermore, I am no Pollyanna and don’t intend to nauseate anyone with platitudes about “silver linings” and “learning experiences”.  Having said all that, however, I still feel there are two points which have not already been adequately covered elsewhere.

The first is that feminism may have quietly, and without much fanfare, turned a corner.  For years now the exclusionary “old girls’ club” of second-wave feminism – anchored in the denial of biological sex differences, the politicization of sex and the unswerving belief that some kinds of human sexual expression are innately “bad” and exploitative – has slowly given way to a third-wave feminism which embraces the many and manifold aspects of women’s experience and sexuality.  But while the third-wavers have perhaps become more numerous, the generally older and better-established second-wavers have remained far more influential in the government and media.  Perhaps what we have just seen is the beginning of the end of that dominance in the media (though undoubtedly it will take much longer in the political arena); maybe the mainstream media outlets are beginning to realize that it’s time to retire those who are still fighting the gender war, and give their places to those more inclined toward inclusion.

The second point is more of an admonition than an observation: no matter how much reasonable people may disagree with what Burchill wrote, and no matter how offended (or even hurt) we may have been by it, we must resist the urge to censor her.  I recognize that she was not technically censored; though a government minister joined thousands of others in calling for her to be sacked, no official action was taken and one can safely assume that the Observer’s removal of the article was motivated strictly by commercial concerns.  Furthermore, a number of other online sources have since republished the piece, so it cannot even be claimed that Burchill was silenced; some have even credibly suggested that she probably enjoyed all the attention, because she has certainly never shied from controversy before.  However, I must point out that many if not most commenting on the affair used the phrase “hate speech”, which is a political and legal term; it strongly implies a type of speech which the user believes “should” be censored, even in the absence of a direct call for legal action.  And though Burchill may indeed relish negative attention, others might fear a loss of livelihood and therefore self-censor rather than risk provoking such a reaction by expressing an unpopular viewpoint.

It wasn’t so very long ago that “maybe gay people and the transgendered should not be persecuted for their natures” was an equally unpopular opinion, and those who “came out” faced such dire legal, economic and social consequences that the overwhelming majority of them did not dare risk it.  Now the wheel has turned, and I think most of us agree that is a good thing; it does not, however, mean that our society has arrived at anything remotely resembling the farthest-flung hinterland of Utopia.  Many people who have only won recognition of their basic rights within their own lifetimes are yet willing to deny those rights to others; many members of the gay community, for example, are no friends of sex worker rights.  It’s a basic fact of human nature that nearly everyone is closed-minded about something, and that’s why it is so vital that we not allow anyone’s speech to be censored: nobody is (individually or collectively) qualified to judge what ideas “deserve”  to be heard.  The test of our commitment to the free exchange of ideas, and therefore to social progress, lies not in our support for free speech for those who say things we like, or even for those who politely say things we don’t like; rather, it lies in our dedication to defending the right of people we don’t like to say horrible, offensive things with which we vehemently disagree.  This does not mean we need to applaud ugly, hateful articles; it doesn’t even mean we need to ignore them, nor should we.  By all means, get angry at such things!  Write your own response! “Tweet” about it!  Go on television to tell everyone how angry you are!  Your reaction can be concise or verbose, intellectual or emotional, scholarly or personal…as long as it doesn’t include a call for the powerful to harm or stifle the other person for getting you angry.  The antidote to bad speech isn’t censorship; it’s good speech.  And if free thought is to survive we have to trust our fellow-citizens’ ability to tell which is which.