Defending Voltaire to death

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.