Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Defending Voltaire to death

By Helen Pringle - posted Tuesday, 6 September 2005


Andrew Fraser is in trouble. For quite some time now the associate professor in public law at Macquarie University has been asserting what he sees as the perfectly innocent and harmless point that Africans in Australia are a crime risk because of their low IQ and high testosterone.

Fraser offered to the Australian media the following remarkable facts about sub-Saharan refugees: “Their IQ is 70 to 75 so there are differences between the cognitive ability of blacks and whites. Blacks also have significantly more testosterone floating around their system than whites.”

A further piece of evidence offered by Fraser is that crime rates rose and “things spiralled out of control” in the United States following the abolition of slavery in 1863 (The Australian July 21, 2005). Fraser set out similar views in a letter to the Parramatta Sun, published on July 6, in which he asserted that “experience practically everywhere in the world tells us that an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems”.

Advertisement

All appearances to the contrary, Fraser seems to consider himself a moderate, saying that most people secretly agree with him, and that he is only saying what they are thinking.

Fraser will soon be telling us that he is always being prevented from telling us what he really thinks about Africans, and that the only thing stopping him has been some political correctness floating around the system. And after all, Fraser has been relatively even-handed: he has also targeted Asians, although apparently because they have assimilated too well and are too rich and too successful.

When Fraser’s views first came to media attention, I waited patiently for his defenders to preface their remarks with something along the lines of: “As Voltaire said, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’.” I didn’t have to wait long. But surprisingly, first off the mark was Fraser’s chief antagonist. The Vice-Chancellor of Macquarie, Di Yerbury, sought to outflank any other potential Voltaire quoters by enlisting the 17th century philosopher on her own side.

In criticising Fraser, Yerbury noted, “I am also a passionate defender of free speech, subscribing to the saying attributed to Voltaire: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’.” Yerbury nattered on that free speech brings responsibilities as well as rights, and offered to buy Fraser out of his contract so that he could speak even more freely. Begin with the absurd position that free speech is an absolute, and you are going to be backpedalling like Yerbury in very short order.

Letter-writers to newspapers also invoked the dead Voltaire to defend Fraser’s right to speak. For example, Andrew Merlino, of Keilor Park, in the letters page of The Australian (August 3) called Voltaire’s sentence “the essential of democracy”.

Attacking the political correctness of which Fraser is allegedly a victim, Andrew Robb, of Marsfield, in the Northern District Times letters page (August 3), put the sentence in the mouth of a US Senator, who once apparently said, “I may not agree with what you say, sir, but I would fight to the death to uphold your right to say it.” Even the usually careful Hugh Mackay invoked the spectre of political correctness, asking his readers to defend the right to speak out, pleading, “As Voltaire was supposed to have said (though he didn’t, quite), ‘I disapprove …”

Advertisement

Yerbury, the letter writers and Mackay are all taking a familiar course in making their solemn oath to defend to the death the right to say what they disapprove of. The prime minister himself has also taken the solemn oath, on numerous occasions since 1995, as well as committing all true Australians to it. In May 1997, for example, Howard reacted to demonstrations against Pauline Hanson by asserting, “Any person, including Pauline Hanson, has a right to be heard. That great injunction of Voltaire was, ‘I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ Now that is a cornerstone of our democracy. Violent, unruly demonstrations are un-Australian.”

Again, in a February 2003 interview with Neil Mitchell, Howard defended himself against the charge that anti-war protestors were angry with him at being told they were giving comfort to Saddam Hussein: “I celebrate their right to peacefully demonstrate. I believe in Voltaire when he says I don’t agree with what they say but I defend to the death their right to say it.”

Howard savoured his own version of the sentence so much that he re-used it shortly after, in April 2003, in responding to calls to make flag-burning a criminal offence. Howard said, “I know that I’m in a minority in what I’m saying but I do hold to what might be called an old-fashioned view on something like this and all as I detest people who burn the Australian flag it does in my thinking come into the category of an expression of an opinion, not an expression I’d agree with, but I am influenced by that ancient saying of Voltaire when he said I don’t agree with what he says, but I’ll defend to the death his right to say it.”

Howard’s view that Voltaire’s sentence is a cornerstone of Australian democracy is widely shared. In January 2002, the Australian Press Council responded to a complaint by Charles Littrell, of Wombarra, about an allegedly anti-American column by Phillip Adams. Adams had argued, “The US fails to see that it has always been among the most violent nations on earth”. In the course of its adjudication, the council also elevated Voltaire’s sentence to the heart of liberal democracy itself: “The 18th century writer-philosopher Voltaire is credited with the celebrated comment: ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ This sentiment is at the heart of legislation in most democracies to protect rights of free speech and publication.”

Never to be outdone in pomposity, Janet Albrechtsen is a regular taker of the solemn oath. In June 2002, Albrechtsen went to bat on behalf of Senator Ross Lightfoot, Noddy and Speedy Gonzales, all apparent victims of political correctness.

Albrechtsen concluded that in universities, “The classics need a revival. Not just Speedy Gonzales and Enid Blyton. When university mottos pick up on Voltaire and say: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it’, then just maybe free speech will seep back into our laws.” (The Australian June 19, 2005.) Albrechtsen returned to the fray in October 2002, using a rather tenuous hook from the shooting of Courier-Mail journalist Hedley Thomas to the teaching of Middle Eastern studies in US universities. Albrechtsen argued that the appropriate punishment for Thomas’ assailant was “to spend years in a solitary prison cell writing over and over again Voltaire’s proud defence of free speech: ‘I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.’”

Alas, moaned Albrechtsen, Voltaire is “old hat” and “finds more resonance in a country pub than on campus”. She warned that “If our leaders - on and off campus - don’t respect Voltaire, don't be surprised when kooks in suburbia display a similar disregard.”

Albrechtsen’s riff on free speech was directed against what she called “this lazy academic world”. And it is true that most of his oath-takers don’t seem to have got a clue who Voltaire was. Peter Fitzsimons responded to critics of Anthony Mundine’s comments on the September 11 attacks, by saying, “The thing we have to remember, surely, is that this was simply Mundine’s opinion, freely expressed. It ain’t that big a deal. That great French fullback Voltaire once said: ‘I might not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’” (Sydney Morning Herald October 24, 2001.)

Fitzsimons was being flippant, but I’ve always wondered if there are any people in Albrechtsen’s pubs who think that Voltaire did indeed play for the Blues. In early 2000, Ron Casey had broadcast radio commercials pleading for freedom of speech, in which he quoted Voltaire’s sentence. Mike Carlton commented that “Ron’s a lovely bloke, but three weeks ago he would have thought Voltaire was a refrigerator.” (Sydney Morning Herald, February 21, 2001.)

One problem with all this solemn taking of oaths to the death by reference to Voltaire is that Voltaire never said anything remotely like this. Voltaire died in 1778. The claim only gained currency after 1906 - for the good reason that it was first composed in 1906, in a book called The Friends of Voltaire, written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre.

A chapter of Hall’s book concerns Helvétius, the philosopher and author of De l’esprit, a work condemned by the Pope and the parliament of Paris, and publicly burned by the hangman. Voltaire and his friends had not much liked Helvétius’ book because of its insufficient recognition of Voltaire’s genius. But after its condemnation, they somewhat warmed to its author.

In her book, Hall pictures Voltaire’s reaction to the brouhaha: “‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his attitude now.”

Hall later said that the sentence attributed to Voltaire’s attitude was her paraphrase of “Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too” (from Voltaire’s Essay on Tolerance). The original doesn’t have quite the same high-sounding ring to it. Even Voltaire himself backtracked on his re-evaluation of Helvétius, later claiming that Montesquieu was a far more daring writer.

It seems unlikely that Andrew Fraser’s being called to account by Macquarie University will make anyone much warm to his ideas. It’s doubtful whether even Fraser himself would recognise the expression of his “ideas” as worth defending to the death. For my part, I think I might be able, at a push, to defend his right to express those ideas, along with a few coon jokes, over the backyard barbecue. But their expression in a public context is a malign denigration of the civil standing of already vulnerable groups.

And I am not sure why I should feel compelled to defend discrimination to the death - even if it is discrimination by a person who claims to be a misunderstood victim of a pervasive political correctness that is now allegedly spreading through the lazy academic world of Australian universities.

The words falsely attributed to Voltaire are usually spoken in defence of those who have the certainty that they are speaking the truth and the hope that other people hate them for it. The irony is that Voltaire himself was notoriously fond of life and reluctant to throw it away in order to defend any babble of which he either approved or disapproved. Voltaire was no martyr, and it seems unlikely that too many of his modern misquoters feel any more martyrish than Voltaire himself did, for all their solemn oaths.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

A shorter version was first published in the University of New South Wales Uniken, no 27 in September 2005.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

19 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Helen Pringle is in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of New South Wales. Her research has been widely recognised by awards from Princeton University, the Fulbright Foundation, the Australian Federation of University Women, and the Universities of Adelaide, Wollongong and NSW. Her main fields of expertise are human rights, ethics in public life, and political theory.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Helen Pringle

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Helen Pringle
Article Tools
Comment 19 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy