2010-11-30 07:44:05
By Finlo Rohrer BBC News Magazine
Howard Flight and Lord Young have joined a long list of people who have realised that there are some things you can't say. So when and why is an utterance likely to get you in trouble?
We have come to learn as either public or private individuals that there are certain situations that mean careful self-censorship is required.
For all the talk of freedom of speech in liberal democracies, poorly chosen comments can end careers, lead to arrest, or just cause offence and embarrassment. So what are the unwritten rules and regulations of speech?
EUGENICS
Howard Flight got into trouble for talking about "breeding".
"We're going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it's jolly expensive, but for those on benefit there is every incentive. Well that's not very sensible," he said in a newspaper interview.
The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened.
A recent article in Poverty, published by the Child Poverty Action Group, showed that a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and bring them up.
They are born to mothers who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5.
Many of these girls are unmarried, many are deserted or divorced or soon will be.
Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness which are more important than riches.
They are producing problem children, the future unmarried mothers, delinquents, denizens of our borstals, sub-normal educational establishments, prisons, hostels for drifters.
Yet these mothers, the under 20s in many cases, single parents, from classes 4 and 5, are now producing a third of all births.
A high proportion of these births are a tragedy for the mother, the child and for us.
You probably wouldn't have to stop too many people in the street before you found somebody who agreed with that sentiment, but critics have said Mr Flight's remarks smack of "eugenics".
And eugenics is a bad thing in the popular mind, at least in part due to its association with the Nazis. But there's more to the story than that.
If you had given a speech about eugenics in the latter part of the 19th Century, it would have been a fairly unremarkable position to take. Eugenics' pioneer, Francis Galton, was a respected scientist and his theories continued to have currency well into the 20th Century.
The University of London - as its own history notes - had a department with "eugenics" in the title until 1963.
Galton was one of the first people to suggest the heritability of human traits and he openly advocated encouraging talented people to have more children. But once the Nazis took eugenics to a horrible conclusion by exterminating "undesirables", the subject and the word itself was soon highly negative.
Mr Flight's critics compared his remarks to a speech given by Keith Joseph in Edgbaston in 1974. The speech dealt with Mr Joseph's analysis of the problem of large numbers of children being born to young mothers who were incapable of properly raising them.
But to some his language - "our human stock is threatened" and "social classes 4 and 5" - was a nod to eugenics and therefore enough to stop any aspirations to be Conservative party leader.
Howard Flight Howard Flight didn't technically advocate eugenics
In Mr Flight's case it's not easy to even argue he was advocating eugenics. A eugenics supporter might advocate encouraging "superior" people to have more children and "inferior" people fewer.
What Mr Flight actually said was it was wrong to effectively encourage one set of people over another. The critics were instead seizing on an implication. But the lesson is that a term - or even an implication of that term - can become unsayable within a couple of generations.
Conclusion: Eugenics has gone from a serious scientific discipline to a basic pejorative term. Avoid.
WHO YOU ARE
If you are the kind of public person whose pronouncements are parsed to an almost pedantic degree, you must exercise extra caution.
Faith and reason speech
Pope Benedict XVI Regensburg, 2006
[Byzantine Emperor Manuel II] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying:
'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'
The current Pope found that out in 2006 when, during a lecture tackling the relationship between faith and reason, he quoted a reasonably obscure historical dialogue between the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II and a Persian.
In that dialogue, the emperor said: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Nobody reading the whole speech by the Pope could have thought he was endorsing this quote. But the reporting of the speech generated a wave of protests in Muslim countries, and was even linked to the death of a nun in Somalia.
If he had been an ordinary person, or even a politician without an international profile, his words would have been unlikely to have spread so far so fast, and those encountering it would have been more likely to have read the context before passing judgement.
Conclusion: Very often what you can't say is about who you are.
WHERE YOU ARE - DON'T SAY 'BOMB'
Of course, that's not to say ordinary people can't get themselves into a whole lot of trouble by saying something wrong.
Paul Chambers found out via a criminal conviction and a 1,000 fine that it's unwise to even jest about threats to airports.
His case represents the zenith of stringent post-9/11 air security law enforcement. In January, Mr Chambers wrote on Twitter: "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your [expletive] together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high."
He was subsequently convicted of having sent a "menacing" message and fined. Critics have claimed it is a miscarriage of justice and he has become a bit of a cause celebre, with Twitter notables like Stephen Fry backing him and numerous people tweeting the same message with the hashtag "iamspartacus".
But he's not the first person to suffer as a result of an air security related joke.
The cases of a British student arrested in the US for joking about a bomb and an Iraqi sea captain who said he had two bombs in his briefcase show how the authorities are rarely amused.
The ordinary person knows that terrorists are not usually inclined to winkingly announce the presence of a bomb in their luggage as a daring double-bluff to airline staff.
But the airport security operative is obliged to be stony-faced and literal-minded, because while the chances are negligible that the joker actually is a terrorist, the stakes are rather high.
Conclusion: You can't say bomb in an airport. Not even if you immediately say you were joking. Probably best not to even say it about an airport.
ROLE MODELS
Being a role model, who's expected to be an inspiration to ordinary people, rather constrains what you can say.
Glenn Hoddle Ruminations on karma and disabled people might be kept to oneself
Footballer Glenn Hoddle found this out the hard way. His ruminations on karma in a Times interview in 1999 were enough to get him the sack as England manager.
"You and I have been physically given two hands and two legs and a half-decent brain. Some people have not been born like that for a reason."
The point was made at the time that the England manager is inevitably going to have contact with disabled footballers.
And there were some who wondered whether he might not have been a bit more fireproof if he hadn't just had three poor qualifying games - a defeat against Sweden, a home draw against Bulgaria and a laboured win against minnows Luxembourg.
Tiger Woods also got in trouble - although not nearly the same level of trouble - when in an offhand moment he suggested that he had played like a "spaz" during a difficult tournament.
Conclusion: Watch what you say if you are a sporting role model, and be particularly sensitive in your comments about disabled people.
BAD JOKES
Labour MP Tony Banks got into hot water when he called William Hague a "foetus" in 1997 and suggested Conservative politicians might want to rethink their views on abortion.
And the Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman had to apologise last month for calling Lib Dem Danny Alexander a "ginger rodent".
Tony Banks Tony Banks pushed the envelope when it came to public speaking
Both remarks took place at party conferences, where it is understandable that comments will be widely publicised.
Former Conservative MP Ann Winterton got herself sacked as a shadow minister after making a joke about Pakistanis, at a rugby club dinner in 2001. She was then effectively suspended from the Conservative party in 2004 after making a joke about the 23 Chinese cockle pickers drowned in Morecambe Bay at a dinner.
In both cases, comments filtered out and were widely publicised because they were made by an MP - and an MP with a track record at that.
But comedians also suffer after going too far. Billy Connolly was lambasted after joking about the kidnapping in Iraq of the Briton Ken Bigley by Islamist militants. "Don't you just wish they would just get on with it?" he said.
Even in a small comedy club gig that line would have had an audience wincing, but at a theatre venue it was inevitable the "gag" would leak out and draw negative coverage.
And comedians have failed to get away with a host of off-colour jokes. Jimmy Carr got into trouble for joking about gypsies on BBC radio. Alan Carr had to apologise for a quip about child kidnapper Karen Matthews.
Conclusion: Even ordinary people might do well to avoid potentially offensive jokes.
GEOGRAPHICAL SENSITIVITY
You would also do well to watch which country you're in.
Some might find it ironic that the Islamic Solidarity Games should be cancelled because of a battle over the correct appellation for a body of water. And yet that is exactly what happened in January.
Iran insists on calling it the Persian Gulf, but there are some countries on the opposite side of the water that prefer Arabian Gulf. Trouble soon flared over logos and medals.
The Iranian authorities have made clear that any airline flying into the country must use Persian Gulf on its in-flight monitors. Any visitor would be wise to bear this in mind.
A similarly bit of nominal geographical controversy can be found in the Balkans. Use the term Macedonia in Greece, particularly in north-western Greece, to refer to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and you may be the recipient of more than a raised eyebrow. They might even call it "Skopia", something that would no doubt irk Macedonians.
Conclusion: Keep up to speed with territorial issues that might make you want to curb your speech.
PRIVATE MADE PUBLIC
Many of the most career-mauling comments ever made have been decidedly private ones that somehow squirmed out into the public arena.
When Labour government spin doctor Jo Moore notoriously described 9/11 as a "good day to bury bad news" she would have been horrified at the thought the comment would be made public.
So too Gordon Brown must have felt his heart sink when he realised his description of a voter he had encountered as a "bigot" had been broadcast on television via an unnoticed radio microphone.
John Major's famous off-camera "bastards" remark fits neatly in the same category.
They all offer a stark lesson on watching what you say.
What is unsayable? Send us your rules using the comments form below. A selection will be published
I think you're reading the issue over Flight's comments in the wrong way. I don't think it's a connection to eugenics, but the use of the term "breeding", which is more usual used in relation to animal husbandry than to humans. It was even more offensive, in that it seemed to imply that the results of "lower class breeding" are less desirable somehow than those of "higher classes". That's what got to me about it, not directly any argument for/against eugenics held to be implicit in what he said.
Jim Farrell, Liverpool
I don't believe in anything being 'unsayable' as long as it is factual. The fact that some members of the public attach their own prejudices to things other people say shouldn't stop people from speaking the truth. If anyone remotely mentions "overpopulation" these days some very strange people make a great leap to "eugenics", even if the original comment has clearly been against eugenics. Too often nowadays people do not hear what has actually been said but rather what they assume the person is going to say. Either that or they attach emotions to a noun so that it takes on a whole host of other meanings. If people actually engaged their brain and listened then there wouldn't be a problem. The speakers often aren't the problem, the listeners are.
Lorna Hamilton, Glasgow
Context is always important (something the press often like to manipulate as many a public figure has learned), and I think intent is too. I doubt Paul Chambers actually planned to blow up and airport, or to cause distress to airport workers that there might be a threat (how many workers from said airport had seen his comment prior to the authorities/press getting hold of it?). I often like to tease people who I know to be particularly wary of being non-PC - for a long time I had my mother convinced that it was racist to say the word black in any context. Similarly, all this molly-coddling of people when it comes to describing their job - why can't bin men just be bin men and dinner ladies just that?! Ricky Gervais' 'Politics' stand up show goes a long way to highlighting some of the idiocies associated with political correctness and the dangers of limiting free speech.
Duncan Paine, Cheshire
Never, ever, comment upon the relative intelligence of different ethnic groups. A few years ago, James Watson, one of the world's most famous scientists, was crucified in the American press.
Daniel Flehmen, San Francisco, US
Interestingly, I suspect many would argue that Howard Flight, and Keith Joseph for that matter, were only saying what many people think but won't say. Which neatly shows that saying 'it's what most people think, even if they won't say it' is not a very good thing to say. Rather, it just digs you a deeper hole.
Chris, London
The main thing that is unsayable in public life now, is the truth - whenever it could be considered to be even marginally unpalatable to even a very small number of people who can be identified as a "group" (whether by religion, race, sex or sexual proclivity, class, wealth or any other percieved commonality). As a result the public is fed a highly sanitised version of the views of important people, designed to be so anoydyne as to be unable to attract the attention of our feral and deliberately destructive media.
Simon, Salisbury
You judge yourself on your motivation, good friends judge you on your motivation too. People who know you less judge you on your action or their perception of your action. We live in a world where 'benefit of the doubt' is replaced with simply, doubt. I hope that one day the pendulum will swing back, but I feel there is too much money to be made on 'taking offence' (NB. not giving it).
Nick, East Grinstead