Eroding Our Own Freedoms
Granddaddy Long Legs
I've said it over and over again, and I'll say it again. People have no Constitutionally guaranteed right to "criticism-free" speech. I'm so tired of people like the Dixie Chicks, Martin Sheen and Barbara Streisand acting as though we live in a true state of despotism where they have been jailed and tortured for their outbursts against the ruling class. There is an undeniable difference between losing popularity for one's words and actions and losing one's freedom for them. A little perspective is merited here. I should also point out that there is a potent difference between "criticism" and "marginalization," and that railing against a speaker's position is not synonymous with silencing him completely.
More importantly, the American populace needs to be reminded that "freedom of speech" should not be confused with "freedom from offense." What ever happened to "stick and stones may break my bones...?" Whatever happened to embracing the American melting pot? There is a very real sense among Americans today (mostly on the far left), that none of their detractors have a Constitutionally-protected right to piss them off, to put them down or to question the wisdom and efficacy of their socio-political ideology. That is flat-out wrong. I challenge any one of these intolerant fanatics to show me exactly where in the Constitution that protections for "an unwounded inner child" are laid out.
To put it simply, too many people are content to suppress others' free speech rights simply because they do not want to ever come into contact with differing perspectives. Can Christians hang a banner in the town square that reads, Merry Christmas? Of course not. Somehow, that has been misconstrued as an official endorsement of one particular region by the United States Congress. Can an anti-illegal immigration activist speak on campus? Of course not. Liberal professors have unleashed their storm troopers to ensure that his message will never be tolerated or even heard. Can a pro-life group organize a display of peaceful protest? Of course not, pro-abortion students, led by a pro-abortion staff, feel they have an obligation and the right to squash any displays of opposing thought.
If there are "brownshirts" in this country, they are most certainly on the left, as this piece in the San Francisco Gate details:
<<< America's college campuses, once thought to be bastions of free speech, have become increasingly intolerant toward the practice. Visiting speakers whose views do not conform to the prevailing left-leaning political mind-set on most campuses are at particular risk of having their free speech rights infringed upon.
While academia has its own crimes to atone for, it's the students who have become the bullies as of late. A disturbing number seem to feel that theirs is an inviolate world to which no one of differing opinion need apply. As a result, everything from pie throwing to disrupting speeches to attacks on speakers has become commonplace.
Conservative speakers have long been the targets of such illiberal treatment. The violent reception given to Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal immigration group, at Columbia University in October is a recent example. Gilchrist had been invited to speak by the Columbia University College Republicans, but was prevented from doing so by an unruly mob of students. What could have been mere heckling descended into yelling, screaming, kicking and punching, culminating in the rushing of the stage and Gilchrist being shuttled off by security.
The fact that the rioting students could be heard yelling, "He has no right to speak!" was telling. Apparently, in their minds, neither Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has a right to express their viewpoints. In any other setting this would be called exactly what it is -- totalitarianism. But in the untouchable Ivy League world of Columbia, it was chalked up to student activism gone awry. While condemning the incident, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger has yet to apologize to Gilchrist or to conclude the supposed investigation into the affair. In other words, mob rule won the day. >>>
The writer goes on to detail specific incidents that she titled: Bay Area PC Intolerance / Muslim Reformers Silenced / Terrorists Recant / Illiberal Mob Rule. See link below to read the whole thing. But I want to tie these acts of speech suppression with a larger problem facing Western civilization.
It is most disturbing to me that these are acts of self-censorship by the people of Western society. While worshipping at the almighty alters of political correctness and multiculturalism, we have voluntarily taken up the call to curb our own precious freedoms. For all of the hyperbolic talk emanating from the left about Bush's "fascist state", the real fascism appears to be home-grown. Its seeds were sewn years ago by self-deprecating Westerners, and the harvest has brought us an increasingly hostile civilization that is slowly becoming "Orwellian."
By popular demand, we now have laws against "hate speech," we have laws against "hate crimes," and we have a growing collegiate network of "thought police." Although these actions were initiated with the best of intentions, they have devolved into nothing more than attempts by a self-righteous group that views itself to be "tolerant" to stifle the opinions of those they deem to be "intolerant." The problem lies in the fact that we all have differing opinions of morality, but those in charge get to officially declare what is right and what is wrong, and what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. A good example of this comes from Penn State's statement on "Nondiscrimination and Harassment" (emphasis mine):
<<< The Pennsylvania State University is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to programs, facilities, admission, and employment without regard to personal characteristics not related to ability, performance, or qualifications as determined by University policy or by state or federal authorities. It is the policy of the University to maintain an academic and work environment free of discrimination, including harassment. The Pennsylvania State University prohibits discrimination and harassment against any person because of age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap, national origin, race, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran status. Discrimination or harassment against faculty, staff, or students will not be tolerated at The Pennsylvania State University. >>>
This all boils down to the assertion that... incidents of intolerance will not be tolerated. Have these people ever heard of the word, paradox?
The problem here is that there is no definition of what constitutes "harassment." If a Muslim student has to walk past a chapel on the way to class, is that harassment? If College Republicans hold a public lecture about the inherent unfairness of affirmative action and a black student on an A/A scholarship disagrees, has that student been harassed? If a Catholic student group requires that a student be Catholic to join, is that discriminatory? If a Muslim group holds an anti-Israel rally on Campus, and a Jewish student is confronted by the mob, has that student been harassed? All of these are very real scenarios. I think you can all guess how University administrators would respond to each scenario, without any regard for blind consistency.
Most liberal University administrators adhere to the policy of "minority rule." These people harbor strong feelings of white colonialist guilt in a Western society that they believe has sinned so badly. Their actions expose their belief that being non-white/non-Judeo-Christian means never having to say you're sorry for your own acts of harassment and intolerance, which are labeled "activism" by the University elites. More importantly, a generation of students who have been indoctrinated with the liberal orthodoxy of self-loathing are transforming our society into one that focuses only on the negatives of our past. These ideologues are the people responsible for "self-censoring" our free society into a hybrid-fascist state, and slowly turning back the clock to a pre-enlightenment era:
<<< Our current crisis is not yet a catastrophe, but a real loss of confidence of the spirit. The hard-won effort of the Western Enlightenment of some 2,500 years that, along with Judeo-Christian benevolence, is the foundation of our material progress, common decency, and scientific excellence, is at risk in this new millennium.
But our newest foes of Reason are not the enraged Athenian democrats who tried and executed Socrates. And they are not the Christian zealots of the medieval church who persecuted philosophers of heliocentricity. Nor are they Nazis who burned books and turned Western science against its own to murder millions en masse.
No, the culprits are now more often us. In the most affluent, and leisured age in the history of Western civilization--never more powerful in its military reach, never more prosperous in our material bounty--we have become complacent, and then scared of the most recent face of barbarism from the primordial extremists of the Middle East.
[...] Note also the constant subtext in this new self-censorship of our supposedly liberal age: the fear of radical Islam and its gruesome methods of beheadings, suicide bombings, improvised explosive devices, barbaric fatwas, riotous youth, petrodollar-acquired nuclear weapons, oil boycotts and price hikes, and fist-shaking mobs, as the seventh century is compressed into the twenty-first.
In contrast, almost daily in Europe, "brave" artists caricature Christians and Americans with impunity. And we know what explains the radical difference in attitudes to such freewheeling and "candid" expression--indeed, that hypocrisy of false bravado, of silence before fascists and slander before liberals is both the truth we are silent about, and the lie we promulgate.
There is, in fact, a long list of reasons, among them most surely the assurance that cruel critics of things Western rant without being killed. Such cowards puff out their chests when trashing an ill Oriana Fallaci or a comatose Ariel Sharon or beleaguered George W. Bush in the most demonic of tones, but they prove sunken and sullen when threatened by a thuggish Dr. Zawahiri or a grand mufti of some obscure mosque.
[...] After the horror of September 11, we in our sleep were also given a jolt of sorts, presented with enemies from the Dark Ages, the Islamic fascists who were our near exact opposites, who hated the Western tradition, and, more importantly, were honest and without apology in conveying that hatred of our liberal tolerance and forbearance. They arose not from anything we did or any Western animosity that might have led to real grievances, but from self-acknowledged weakness, self-induced failure, and, of course, those perennial engines of war, age-old envy and lost honor--always amplified and instructed by dissident Western intellectuals whose unhappiness with their own culture proved a feast for the scavenging Al-Qaedists.
By past definitions of relative power, al-Qaeda and its epigones were weak and could not defeat the West militarily. But their genius was knowing of our own self-loathing, of our inability to determine their evil from our good, of our mistaken belief that Islamists were confused about, rather than intent to destroy, the West, and most of all, of our own terror that we might lose, if even for a brief moment, the enjoyment of our good life to defeat the terrorists. In learning what the Islamists are, many of us, and for the first time, are also learning what we are not. And in fighting these fascists, we are to learn whether our freedom can prove stronger than their suicide belts and improvised explosive devices.
So we have been given a reprieve of sorts with this war, to regroup; and, in our enemies, to see our own past failings and present challenges; and to rediscover our strengths and remember our origins. We can relearn that we are not fighting for George Bush or Wal-Mart alone, but also for the very notion of the Enlightenment--and, yes, in the Christian sense for the good souls of those among us who have forgotten all that as they censor cartoons and compare American soldiers to Nazis. >>>
This is only a small portion of the editorial. Click here to read the whole thing.
opinionjournal.com
(ht: BCB & Professor Mike S. Adams writing for HEO)
granddaddylonglegs.blogspot.com
sfgate.com
firstamendmentcenter.org
badgerherald.com
tlt.psu.edu
dictionary.reference.com
granddaddylonglegs.blogspot.com
opinionjournal.com
bluecrabboulevard.com
humanevents.com |
