Resist the onslaught of the intolerant

Kenan Malik makes some valid and nuanced points about the tendency of people on both the left and the right to defend freedom of speech only for views with which they agree (“If you defend free speech, you must defend it all and not silence those you disagree with”, Comment, last week). But he is wrong to invoke freedom of speech to defend attempts to silence certain views.

Malik describes the fact that the Oxford student union was forced to retract a public demand that “gender critical” feminist Kathleen Stock should be no-platformed as a “blatant denial of free speech”. He implies that it is hypocritical for free-speech advocates not to support the right to attempt to silence others. But this confuses the right to protest and criticise with a right to attempt to silence those with opposing views.

The philosopher Karl Popper pointed out in his “paradox of tolerance” that “if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them”. Universities must resist the onslaught of the intolerant, not least for the sake of our students, who must not be deprived of the opportunity for open discussion.

Silencing tactics directed at academics who believe that sex matters are a form of harassment can take a high personal toll. Speech that is intended to silence the legitimate speech of others has a chilling effect on research and education and is not worthy of respect in a democratic society. Professor Alice Sullivan

London, NW1

Malik misses a crucial point. The day after his article was published, Good Morning Britain featured a panel discussion about trans people – without any trans people. While Kathleen Stock and her ilk may have plenty of options to be heard in UK mainstream media (MSM), trans people protesting against her do not. Indeed, while there are many thousands of articles about trans people in UK MSM each year, the overwhelming majority transwe hostile, trans people are allowed to publish only a tiny fraction of them.

If Malik cares so much about free speech, he should be pointing out the huge injustice of this almost hermetic exclusion. A lecture cancelled affects a few hundred people at most. The exclusion of trans people from MSM means millions don’t get to hear our voices. Who here is not defending all free speech; who is silencing those they disagree with?

Dr Natacha Kennedy London SE14

Malik writes: “There is an important debate about how to negotiate trans rights and women’s rights, and how best to ensure that both are respected. Shutting down one side of the debate as unacceptable will not settle the issues but merely make it more difficult to work out a fair solution.”

The crucial aspect is mutual respect. The trend of silencing, erasing, harassing and even threatening women for wanting to live in peace without men entering female public toilets must end. Giving rights to one group of people should never be at the expense of someone else’s right and sense of safety. That said, the debate should never be shut down because then never learn or develop. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of democracy and one of the most vital liberties. It’s too valuable to throw away.

Sanda Ivezic

Nykøbing Falster, Denmark