Reflections on Chomsky & the Responsibility of Intellectuals in public spaces by Brian Bamford

ON Saturday, 13 March 2021 Andy Wastling wrote in a post entitled 'We ain't got no swing; Except for the ring of the truncheon thing':

'Local Public Space in Rochdale & the homeless: At the local level readers might want to ask their prospective ward councillors standing for public office in May what their personal views are on the anti-democratic measures lurking in the small print of Rochdale Councils Public Space Protection Order? ...' and he concluded 'It would be interesting to see how many councillors have actually even read the locally drafted legislation they voted for which can also be readily deployed against union members on a legitimate picket line or require campaigners to ask permission before handing out leaflets on a street stall or holding a demonstration in the town centre?'

This post allows us to recall what Neil Smith and Amahl Smith observed intheir easay entitled 'Reflections on Chomsky's "The Responsibility of Intellectuals".': 'In "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" Chomsky focused on the responsibility of individual intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies. But if they they are to be able to do that in a way that has impact, there are perhaps prior responsibilities that need exploring.' In particular they refer to ' "CIVIL SPACE" and the infringement of liberties".' and they point out that 'Above we touched on changes to the academic environment that may discourage at least one set of intellectuals from speaking out', but they conclude that '"Civic space" is the set of conditions that enable citizens to organise, participate and communicate without hinderance' and that 'Civic space is only secure when a state protects its citizens and "respects and facilitates their fundemental rights to associate, assemble peacefully and freely express views and opitions".'

At the time of publication of the essay in 2019 by University College London the authors remind us: 'As the organisation Civicus demonstrates, there is ample evidence that civic space is under attack around the world, and that vulnerable groups are discouraged from speaking out, often under the pretect that this is a necessary part of the counter-terrorism agenda.'

'To take a simple example' the authors say: 'as part of its attempt to stop "radicalisation", the UK government instituted the "Prevebt" strategy. Among provision requires that social services, faith leaders, teachers, doctors and others refer those at risk of radicalisation to a local Prevent body, which then decides what to do.. Among the signs that someone may warrant referral is "having a sense of grievance that is triggered by personal experience or discrimination or aspects of government policy".'

To conclude the authors write: 'The changes in the powers of the UK government [already] touched on above reflect ideologically motivated infringement of liberties more generally. This can be illustrated with a motion brought at the 2017 annual general meeting of the civil liberties and human rights charity Liberty, attcking aspects of the UK government's regressive legislation.'

*****************************************************