“Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”
[Voltaire, in a letter to M. le Riche, 6 th February 1770]
ACADEMIC FREEDOM is something that philosophers of Voltaire’s enlightened breed struggled for in their lifetimes, and our culture should be seen in some ways as the fruit of their labours. Yet content such as London Student’s take on the reac- tion to Professor Ted Honderich’s ‘Terrorism For Humanity’ lecture can only make us wonder whether certain people have not lost sight of what it means to live in a free society.
Freedom of speech requires that we listen as well as speak, that we do more than swallow a few juicy sound- bites lifted completely out of context from an article, speech or book. Not only did the author do this, but then he wrote as though handing down ab- solute knowledge of the lecture. Prof. Honderich’s writings contain plenty of quotable lines; that one may easily quote from him, however, should not relieve us of the duty of quoting him responsibly. Alas, this simple task is too often overlooked in the pursuit of sensationalism, a trend which no doubt finds its seed in the slums of student journalism. And so to the facts of the matter regarding the vilified article in question.
Prof. Honderich does not support terrorism the world over. His article ‘Terrorism For Humanity’ lends support to whatever means he deems necessary for achieving said goal. Terrorist actions that are un- dertaken in order to achieve the Principle of Humanity are to be thought of as contributing towards terrorism for humanity, hence the article’s name. It is this terrorism, and only this terrorism, which Prof. Honderich supports; acts like 9/11 and the hostage situations in Iraq are just as frowned upon by him as by any other human being.
We do not have to agree with him that the suicide-bombings of Palestinians against Israelis are viable means to any end, no matter how laudable that end may be. No doubt Prof. Honderich would say we have no place to condemn their actions, as we are members of the affluent West- ern community, and thereby hold col- lective responsibility for not aiding the Palestinians in their plight. That, how- ever, is all part of the cut and thrust of debate, and it is what makes aca- demic freedom a great thing: that we can disagree over something without lambasting the other side for daring to express an opinion contrary to our own.
One of the vox pops in the London Student article claimed that Prof. Honderich’s lecture was offensive to all victims of terrorism, including Americans. But how closely did Torricke-Barton bother to read it? Honderich clearly states on a number of occasions throughout his article that 9/11 was wrong. Indeed, for the most part he condemns any form of terrorism. Nowhere in the article was this mentioned. His exception for Palestinian suicide bombers is made because he believes that the Palestini- ans suffer from Israeli state-terrorism and that their condition could be helped were it not for the majority of Western governments following a broadly pro-Israeli program in foreign affairs. Given that they can expect no help from the West, their only alternative (as he sees it) is to terrorise those who oppress them. Whether we agree with Prof. Honderich on this really doesn’t matter; the point is that he did not simply express an unjusti- fied opinion on the issue as though it were fact, nor was the proposition he made anywhere near as far-reaching as has been stated in bits of London Student. He wrote an article that set out his views and the reasons he has for holding them. As intelligent read- ers, it should be up to us to decide whether or not we agree; if not, we should remember that we don’t have to like it.
It is not for journalists to make up our minds for us, not when their sources consist of a few straggly words dressed up in quotation marks and spun into a story so far removed from truth as to be almost unrecognisable. Academics, like anybody else, are free to say what they wish. Above all, they are entitled to the respect of having their speeches heard and their writ- ings read in full, and described accu- rately by all parties. Prof. Honderich is no exception.