The single biggest problem with the ideal of free speech ideal, is that anyone can say anything.
Voltaire’s beliefs were famously epitomised with the statement (not his);
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
This is the bedrock of society in the west for many reasons. It allows the free exchange and discussion of ideas, crowdsourcing the gradual evolution of society instead of it being driven by a cycle of dictatorship and revolution. In other words it brings stability. The people are empowered to speak about perceived wrongs as well as ways of resolving them. It makes governments accountable to the people.
The west enshrines three great freedoms; those of the person, the mind and the voice.
Let me digress for a moment. It has been a difficult process in Europe, to welcome and integrate former Soviet countries for whom these freedoms are not deeply embedded yet. The old brigade still cling to influence through a web of deceit and corruption. But we have a duty to continue with the expansion of free Europe; not against the wishes of the people in these countries, but because they will it. It is something the people dream of, to have these freedoms. For Europe the challenge is in holding true to our ideals while being flexible enough to support the precarious journey some of these countries have to take in ridding themselves of the detritus of the previous era. Sometimes we need to be firm. I don’t believe we can contemplate Turkey making any further steps towards integration when the ideals of the EU are being firmly stamped on by the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. We only empower him if we don’t make it clear to the Turkish people that he is driving his country away from Europe, not towards it.
Back to my topic. With freedom of speech comes a problem. Very unpleasant people with dangerous ideas in their heads have a platform to pollute the minds of the impressionable. The West has been struggling with this for some time now. Hitler rose to power on a wave of populism for precisely this reason. Many people are easily swayed, are driven by fear. The Hitlers and Trumps of the world undermine our hard won freedoms by bringing out the worst in us, by encouraging fear and hate to overcome tolerance and love. That way lies a world in which freedom of speech is lost because those who don’t want you to say something will leave you dead in an alley. The mob takes over under the stewardship of the dictator.
Yet, we must hold true to the ideal of free speech.
We cannot silence someone for threatening society without ourselves becoming the threat.
Therefore it comes down to considering the objectives of these people. Easy to do. Without exception they want power. Political power, power over people. It is our Achilles heel that we don’t call out the narcissistic parasites who are driven by self-aggrandisement early on. Instead we say “they must have a voice”, even when they can pour millions of dollars into amplifying that voice so that it drowns out all others.
We let the rights of one man diminish the rights of the others.
Are we getting anywhere? Perhaps. Consider Trump and the politics of America. He is seen clearly on all sides of the political spectrum as a threat to peace, stability and civil society. He is someone who unifies President, Senate and Congress in their disgust of him in a way that no other issue can unite them at the moment. Therein lies the solution I believe.
If a democratically elected government is united in judging that an aspirant to office is not suitable, should they not be able to close the door to that person?
Note that I am not saying “a majority”, I am saying “united”. If I had to quantify that I would set the bar at 90% or higher. If 9 out of 10 senators and congressmen vote in favour of banning someone from seeking high political office, then I would argue that they are defending democracy, not undermining it. The bar must be so high that it does not allow any single party to block someone. It must take near universal disgust, as there is now, to introduce such a block. There must be only a limited set of reasons for such a block and I think they come under a single banner;
We, the representatives of the people, deem that inciting hatred or violence is incompatible with political power in a free country.
That includes expression of, or encouragement in others of racism, bigotry or any form of discrimination based on someone’s race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation or physical characteristics.
I believe a free society justifiably has this right; to prevent a cancer that would undermine the freedoms we value or create a threat to them.
We do not say “You cannot say these things”.
We say “We defend your right to say these things, but you cannot seek political office”.
Many will say that my proposal is too dangerous and open to abuse. I argue that if a free society cannot, through their elected representatives, veto someone from seeking office when their words and actions incite hatred, then we will see more Hitlers and Trumps and we will not long hold our precious freedoms.
Filed under: Politics & Religion Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
