As much as I may deride the US and its citizens for their transgressions, minor as well as major, there is probably no more succinct an injunction against the basic tenets of democracy than the First Amendment's clearly stated instruction to its elected legislature from the general population. When one considers what has been enacted in European states, for whatever the reason, in the name of so-called tolerance, the banning of written or spoken 'incitements to racial hatred', the illegality of 'pro-Nazi' tracts or speeches in modern day Germany, the 'dress code' in France, it is reassuring to note that the basic freedons of speech have been preserved in that most reactionary of modern industrialised states, the United States of America. As John Stuart Mill remarked in 'On Liberty':
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Or to quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall, paraphrasing Voltaire:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
It has become fashionable, nay almost mandatory, to attempt to quash any, or all, voices which dissent from the mainstream. Rather then give people the opportunity and the education to apply critical thinking to any statements made, society now prefers to legislate against, or discriminate against, those sections of the population who hold views considered unethical or immoral by the mainstream and to brand those who support the individual's right to genuinely free speech as supporters of those views, irrespective of whether these so-called supporters actually agree or not.
Governments, legislatures take, as nature herself does, the path of least resistance, the path of least energy. For those who wield the power, elected or otherwise, it is easier, and uses far fewer resources, to control the extent to which essential freedoms are allowed to be exercised than it is to give individuals the intellectual tools to make a considered and informed judgement.
David Irving is, quite rightly in my view, largely discredited as a historian, mainly due to the establishment's view that he is (a) pro-Nazi and (b) his views do not accord with facts. However, in one important respect, he is absolutely and unequivably correct; there is no extant and signed order from Hitler either to inaugerate the Wannsee conference or to order the extermination of European Jewry. Nearly all commentators share my own view that the circumstantial evidence is so strong that to deny that Hitler had, at the very least, knowledge of what was proposed stretches credulity to breaking point. From 'Mein Kampf', the Enabling Act, 'Night of the Long Knives, the Reich's Racial Purity laws, official 'party sponsored' newspapers and films, Krystallnacht, the Einstazgruppen in Russia etc etc, all point to the fact that this was Hitler's intended policy, whether explicitly ordered or not. For the Germans to make him 'persona non grata' denies Irving the right to try to make a case for his beliefs and everyone else the right, after some cursory research, to laugh out loud at him; surely a worse punishment than a fine or a short term in prison.
I shall try and write about what prompted this little diatribe later but, in the meantime, I leave you with a further quote from Mill:
The beliefs which we have most warrant for have no safeguard to rest on but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails, we are far enough from certainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state of human reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could give the truth a chance of reaching us.
Postscript:
To my neice, congratulations on the birth (19 March 2013) of a new addition to the family; Balham Barnets Booker. It's nice to see you've taken the plunge at last; all good wishes!
No comments:
Post a Comment