Freedom of speech

I'm in a more serious mood today, for no other reason than the world around me seems hostile.  I refer to the British press and their subjective reporting, tainted by their political bias, and need to see who can be either the most controversial, or the more vitriolic in their comments.  It seems that the storm of condemnation, towards Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, and the Daily Mail colunmist, Jan Moir, has reached the point of hysteria, whereby calls for restraints on the freedom of speech should be brought into effect.

This I find worrisome, in particular because both Griffin & Moir are exercising their right to free speech, an ideal which underpins the very foundations of a democracy.  Without free speech there is no democracy, there is only a totalitarian nightmare, something George Orwell expressed all too well in '1984'.  I personally find both Griffin's political ideology, and Moir's condemnation of Stephan Gately, offensive for the very reason they offend my own personal views of the world.  Yet, whilst I would heartily disagree with them, nevertheless I would never presume that my own 'world view' is any more less offensive to either them, or to many others that live in the world.

The very basis of free speech, will always mean that there will views we find personally offensive.  Such views may cause us to rise in anger, to express our own views forcefully, and in the extreme cause us to break the law in some way.  Yet we cannot have a muted version of free speech.  You can only have a freedom of speech, which allows for every view, however reprehensible you find that view.

I fully understand the distaste individuals find in the views held by Griffin & Moir.  Such views are against what I, and many others, would consider fair, just, and plain sensible.  Yet, paradoxically, their views, unpleasant though they are, strengthen the very fragility of a freedom of speech in a democracy.  Divergent views are a necessary framework to ensure that freedom of speech survives, unmolested by those who wish to be rid of that freedom.  There is no halfway house.  If there is to be the freedom of speech, then we must accept all have the right to say what they truly believe, even if we find ourselves angered and deeply divided by those beliefs.

We would do well to remember that once you begin to deny the individual the right to a freedom of speech, then you begin to deny the right to belief, the right to association.  You begin to impose censorship, you curtail the right to freely read, write, watch, listen and enjoy a diversity of life.  In other words, deny the right to free speech and you allow those in positions of power to carry out the worst excesses of human behaviour.

A belief is to be protected, and providing such a belief does no harm, other than annoy the hell out of us, then we should argue against it through discussion.  And if the majority uphold that belief, then the minority must be able to freely oppose it without fear.  Beliefs that are wholly intent on causing pain and injury against children, have no place in a democracy, no fair minded individual would ever condone abuses against children.  But healthy passionate debate does, because this is the only way we can protect ourselves, and those we disagree with, from something far more horrific, totalitarianism.

Finally, it seems to me that life has become about extremes of one kind or another.  Perhaps the human species has become lost, disjointed, and disempowered.  Maybe the only explanation to life is to express views, which are the result of disenfranchisement from society and politics.  Perhaps life has become an unachievable dream, and this is immensely frustrating, leading to conflict.  I have no great answers to the pain of conflict, which seems to surround me; except one.

If everyone managed to make someone smile every day, then the world would be a better place to live in.  Try it :-)