Every so often, we need to be reminded that the right to free speech is non-negotiable. As long as we are able to have controversial discussions, as citizens of a democratic society, it is our moral imperative to reassert this basic principle without which tyranny would rule again.
Our wilful exposure to different opinions is what keeps us from this bottomless pit and the West must continue to be a beacon of free and open inquiry if we are to continue this experiment we call democracy. Anything which preserves the conversation is worthy of defending.
Even though speaking one’s mind is becoming increasingly difficult, we must not allow censorship, and those who advocate it, to dictate what we can say, think, read or feel. Sadly though, our reluctance to challenge social norms is only reinforced by the assumed legitimacy of popular culture.
Such reluctance is often demonstrated through our disengagement from these conversations. Opting to stay out of the conversation is a choice in itself, which is to say that remaining silent about certain issues has a direct effect on the outcome. So no one can truly wash their hands of the repercussions.
When you do not speak your mind for fear of possible ramifications, you have made the choice of being a passive observer, and while there may be valid reasons for your silence, inaction is by extension compliance to the status quo and has a rippling effect on our limits of free speech.
While passivity is one choice, hostility is another, and the EU has chosen the latter. It is effectively attempting to shut down free speech in any domain it sees as threatening. To do so, it has loosely defined hate speech as “all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”.
The extensive interpretations of this statement makes the very concept of hate speech exceptionally vague and subject to the perception of the majority rule or the loudest voices in the room.
The very concept of hate speech seems to directly counter free and open inquiry
The problem here is that criticising a group of people whose generalisable characteristics happen to be among these categories does not inherently make it hateful. It does not follow that the simple use of such categories makes a person evil. In fact, one would have to make extraordinary leaps in thought to arrive to that conclusion.
The fact of the matter is that reference to a group of people by their distinct characteristics is necessary for any following logical argument. This does not mean that there aren’t deviations from the norm, or that there should be blanket discrimination against such people, but that generalisations are a requirement for any ensuing, meaningful debate.
Therefore the very concept of hate speech seems to directly counter free and open inquiry. If we are prohibited from debating these things, which by extension excludes the possibility of agreeing on the postulations upon which further deliberation would occur, then how are we supposed to progress to a solution?
It seems like this vague definition of hate speech is using the guise of virtue, whereby it portrays itself as a protective measure for alleged minority groups, to covertly paralyse the necessary discourse needed to get out of these confounding situations. Even if the intent is pure, which doesn’t seem likely, such a law can only exacerbate tensions between groups of people, as their tools for healthy deliberation have been reprimanded, which leaves them with only one other option - violence.
It’s safe to say that keeping the conversation civil without resorting to violence is the better option, but to do so, we must retain the tools needed for the conversation to continue. If we assume that our hard-won western values are going to stick around like the laws of physics, then we have passively complied with the forces that seek to destroy those values.
The side with the most consistency generally wins the argument, and foreign cultures and their apologists have been very consistent with their attacks. So when one provides sound reasons suggesting fundamental cultural incompatibilities, then we should take that person seriously without throwing tantrums and without calling for their head on a plate. This is not about subscribing to a political ideology, but rather about providing a starting point for healthy deliberation.
What is more is that one can’t help but feel contemptuous towards those who wish to dictate the limits of debate for their own motives, be it financial or social. As the late Christopher Hitchens said: “Do not take comfort in the false security of consensus, as you may find that you’re on the wrong side.”
Which leads us to the question, is restricting the conversation in favour of the majority rule fundamentally beneficial to society?
To which Aristotle may have answered: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
Christopher Attard is a university student furthering his studies in psychology.