We have not gone far enough with free speech and our new liberal morality has imposed these restrictions.
Racism, homophobia, anti-semitism (you name it) exists in our society, no matter how much the politicians say otherwise. Of course it is deplorable, but the real problem here is the way in which multiculturalism has worked. The way multiculturalism has worked, with race relations acts, is totally well intentioned but what they have done is completely highlight division.
Here’s an example. There were a group of islamic men in this country who were sentenced to jail for issuing propaganda stating that the Qu’ran says that homosexuals should be executed, which undoubtably the Qu’ran does say. If I then say that I think islam is a vile and disgusting religion which has no place in a modern democratic society, I will also have a policeman fingering my neck and dragging me off to jail as well. This is absolutely absurd!
A mature society would have an islamic preacher or a radical christian getting up and telling me that they think that I am a disgrace to humanity and should be strung up outside Manchester city hall and then I would be able to argue that I think that they are an atavistic throwback to the middle ages and, although I wouldn’t execute them, I would make sure that they had no rights as a citizen because they are not a fit member of a free and liberal society. These extremes should be allowed to be expressed.
3 years before the Danish cartoonists did the controversial drawing of Muhammed, they were given the opportunity to do something similar about Jesus. Mehdi Hasan went on to say that this is the deliberate persecution of Islam. Indeed he is right. He went on to say that we should be consistent and that the danish cartoonists should have done the portrayal of jesus. Indeed it seems like they would rather outrage islam than christianity but they should be allowed to do so. One should not be forced to be equally as offensive, for fairness. Indeed Islam was selected here for offense however christians are not exempt from this. In the christmas Private Eye Mary was mocked and given an unflattering portrayal. They were selective of who they were going to mock for their christmas edition. Mehdi Hasan would not call for Private Eye to also mock Islam, for fairness, and the majority of people would not either, but if Private Eye had done the same as the danish cartoonists, there would have been flocks of people asking for an equal portrayal as christians. Religion has got no privilege whatever here. We heard the Pope, after the Charlie Hebdo shooting, say that religion should be specially privileged. This is nonsense! Why? The idea that you feel so strongly about something that should not be challenged is an absurdity. People can feel very strongly about stupid things.
Both publications must be allowed to be selective if they wish to be and we should not tolerate the violent form of expression carried out by representatives of those who are offended (mostly representatives of islam). Violent expression is not tolerable, non violent freedom of speech must be open to everyone of every persuasion. This is where the line must be drawn. Intolerance should occur when the sword replaces the pen.
The line of restricting free speech should not be drawn or as narrowly as possible. Free speech and freedom of thought is the foundation of what we are.
I’m (not doubt) going to step right out of line here but in France there are very strict laws that you cannot say that the holocaust did not happen. Holocaust Denial. I would repeal this law completely. It is totally unnecessary. We have the example of a man called David Irving who was a holocaust denier. He was sent to jail in Austria and this made him a martyr because our liberal morality which, although founded on the desire for free speech, seems to be killing free speech. He sued a publisher who published a book which said that he was a liar and fraud. Irving was taken to pieces by freedom of speech, by the historian Richard Evans who shredded him in a way that the law in Austria did not. This restrictive free speech in law did not work but actual free speech in practice did.
Freedom speech is us, it is what we are! Some people who belong to the liberal wing (the same wing I belong to) are indirectly killing it.
beyond the Edge of reason 
One thought on “Concessions of the liberal Perspective Part 2: Free Speech”