'torture the wife and children'

So the Independent has joined the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph and jumped onto the we-hate-human-rights bandwagon. Torture the terrorists! Pull out their wives' fingernails! Waterboard the children!

An exaggeration? Not really, if Bruce Anderson's recent article is to be believed. After much 'agonising', he has come to the conclusion that if our secret services were sure that we were threatened by a ticking nuclear bomb, and if they were sure that they had the right man to tell us where it was and how to stop the clock, and if they were also sure that the 'right man' would not crack before the ticking bomb blew up, then there is only one answer: 'Torture the wife and children'.

His words, not mine.

It doesn't even matter how incredibly unlikely Anderson's scenario is, nor that our secret services certainty has never been a guarantee that they are right, nor that torture is well known to be the least effective means of obtaining reliable information. Still: torture the wife and children. And don't be squeamish.

Torture is revolting, but we cannot substitute aesthetics for thought. Anyway, which is the greater aesthetic affront: torture, or the destruction of the National Gallery?'

No choice, Bruce. Let fingernails be torn from women's hands and children's heads be drowned with jugs of water to secure the National Gallery! May it stand forever, for the savages to feast their eyes upon. An evening of da Vinci, Raphael and Rembrandt to soothe the soul at the end of a hard day's torturing.

One of the most suprising things about the whole episode is the attitude of the editor of the Independent, Roger Alton. Not only is he happy for the Independent to publish such repulsive ramblings, he seems to be in denial - at least publicly - about what the article actually says. Quite apart from the quote above, the title chosen for the article by his sub-editors would seem to give a clue: 'We not only have a right to use torture. We have a duty'.

But no, according to Alton. No clue. A medialens supporter wrote to him to ask why he allowed the Independent to provide a platform for an advocate of torture and surprise, surprise - 'Never read such balls', said Alton. 'Of course he wasn't advocating torture'.

My correspondence with Alton follows:

Dear Roger Alton
I would just like you to know that I shall not be buying the Independent
again, until you stop providing a platform for a journalist who believes
that it is acceptable to torture women and children (or indeed, anyone
else). You might at least distance the newspaper from such a repulsive
position.

antarchi

I didn't expect a response. That I received one may indicate that he was windier about the article than 'never read such balls' suggests.

Dear [ant]...

I am most interested you should say this. Are you a regular reader? If so, you will know we have published several pages of letters on this subject, and a long article taking strong issue with the arguments in Mr Anderson's piece. And I do not think that is what Anderson's article was saying: I think he was exploring the dead ends of the "ticking time bomb" argument. But if you believe we should live in a world where freedom of expression applies only to what you agree with, then I am afraid we probably ought to part company so to speak. As that is not what I believe, and it is not what anyone who cares about democracy and freedom should believe.

Best wishes

Roger Alton

Knuckles rapped. I am clearly not a democrat. I replied...

Dear Roger Alton

Thank you for your response. I am a strong believer in freedom of expression, and although I find Bruce Anderson’s views odious, I think he should be permitted to express those views on a personal blog or in the BNP’s newsletter, or wherever else may wish to publish them.

My point in writing to you as Editor of the Independent was to express my surprise that you should regard those views as worthy of space within the newspaper you edit, and my dismay that you should be happy to provide a regular platform to someone of such extreme views, such as that it is acceptable to torture innocent women and children (and indeed anyone else, guilty or not). You said in your reply that ‘I do not think that is what Anderson's article was saying’, and I am aware that you have responded in a similar way to other readers. That is both baffling as a response – because he states explicitly in his article that ‘I have come to the conclusion that there is only one answer … Torture the wife and children’. It is also exactly what I had in mind when I suggested that you (personally) had not felt it necessary to distance the newspaper from Anderson’s support for torture: you do not feel it necessary because you do not, for whatever reason, even acknowledge that those are his views.

You are of course quite welcome to publish Bruce Anderson’s arguments in support of torture, even though torture is almost universally condemned and is illegal both in this country and internationally. I am only saying that I am surprised that the Independent, of all newspapers, should think that these are views worth publishing, and shocked that you (personally) should not feel it necessary to separate yourself from such views. I do not wish to limit Anderson’s freedom of expression, as you suggest, but nor do I wish to buy a newspaper which feels that such views are worthy of space within its pages.

Yours
[ant]

P.S. You are wrong to suggest that I think freedom of expression ‘applies only to what [I] agree with’. I believe that there are occasions when freedom of expression should be limited - these might include, for example, the publishing of open calls to rape children or to exterminate particular races, particularly if there is a danger that those calls may be taken seriously. That such expression should be limited, on occasion, is wholly compatible with a belief in freedom, in democracy and in human rights, all of which are complicated concepts which require a delicate balancing of different priorities and interests. Advocacy of torture in a national newspaper comes close, for me, to the limits of acceptability, but even if I had the power to do so, I would not (yet) wish it to be forbidden. I would simply stop buying the newspaper – as I have done.

Another one from him...

Dear [ant]

Yes of course, there are and should be restraints on freedom of expression: as you say, calls for brutality and sexual violence are unlikely to find outlets. In a responsible society, people have to behave responsibly. But as I say, Anderson was not calling for the torture of children. But I cannot expect you to hear what I am saying: as you point out, you are part of an orchestrated write-in, not really connected to what this paper stands for.

Best wishes

Roger Alton

Oh woops - I had let slip that I knew he had been contacted by others. I had become an instrument manipulated by the Media Lens Mafia.

I am no member of any orchestra. I write to journalists where I feel the issue is important. Is it so surprising that this issue should be seen to be important by a number of people, and that these people might have similar objections to the article in question?

I genuinely cannot understand how else to interpret the statement 'torture the wife and children' - if it means something different from calling for torture of (the wife and) children. How do you interpret that statement?

Why are you not willing to stand up for 'freedom of expression' while distancing yourself from what is self-evidently a call to 'torture the wife and children'? Perhaps because you feel it would indeed be irresponsible for a national newspaper to be publishing such a call, eloquently argued, by a regular columnist. It is irresponsible, very irresponsible.
You can ignore the 'orchestra', but you must see that the issue is still there.
[ant]