“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire
Do you have the right to not be offended? Does a government in your name have that right and can it also pass laws to prevent being offended? Laws that only allow one point of view are dangerous to a democratic society. Take for example the recent law in Poland in which:
"The amended act provides for a penalty, in precisely defined [circumstance]s, for the purpose of preventing intentional defamation of Poland. The final determination of a specific case will rest with the courts. The provisions of the amended act [shall] not limit freedom of research, discussion of history, or artistic activity."
The criminal charge can be up to three years in jail, a fine of community service if used unintentionally, or no charge if mentioned for artistic or scholarly activities. You might be wondering what this intentional defamation of Poland would be. Well, it is the use of phrases such as "Polish Death Camps" because the Polish government want it to be known that no Polish people were complicit with the Germans during WW2 in concentration/death camps built by Germany in Poland. None. Zip. Nada. Not likely, say many historians including Polish ones.
To detail the law further:
"Anyone who, in public and against the facts, ascribes to the Polish Nation or to the Polish State, responsibility or co-responsibility for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich, [as] defined in...or for other offences which are crimes against peace [or] humanity or [that are] war crimes, or who otherwise grossly reduces the responsibility of the actual perpetrators of said crimes, is subject to..."
So why is this important? History revision/denial is a dangerous thing. It starts a dark path from what is truth to whatever the government says is truth with the goal of not wanting to be offended. Is the Polish government and people embarrassed that there were Nazi death camps in their traditional borders...yes. Do they have a right to be embarrassed about them...yes. Should they be upset when the phrase "Polish Nazi Death camps" or "Polish death camps" is said...sure, but only to clarify for the speaker that they were initiated by the Nazi regime. But to say, so they won't be offended, that the people in the occupied country's government nor citizens of Poland were not in any way intimidated/rewarded into assisting the goal of the "Nazi death camps situated in Poland" would be highly improbable. Historians, Polish or otherwise, agree as the Nazis had other concerns that took their attention. Like the war.
This topic of truth also brings me to another story, of Sanal Edamaruku of India. He has made it his goal to expose those who cloak their subterfuge and trickery under the guise of faith. He replicates the tricks "holy men" use to get money in small villages, exposes false powers on TV, and has made himself a nuisance of these charlatans. It was not until, in 2012 when he exposed a bleeding statue of Jesus as a result of bad plumbing, that his life was put in danger. This was because of section 295a of India's penal code established in the British colonial era. This code makes deliberate and malicious speech that targets a religion punishable by a fine and prison time. It was done in 1927 to curb religious tensions, a notable goal for an act with anti-democratic results. Now this law, under powerful lobby groups, has made this person unable to return to his native country because he exposed a false claim and offended someone. This law, as other laws in the world have, fails to address the root of the problem and suppresses free speech with the goal of not wanting to be offended and to attempt to correct behavior. Like the defamation of religion at the UN, which changed its anti-blasphemy approach to one of anti-intolerance, thankfully. Like the hate speech laws many countries have. Like the Republic of Ireland's blasphemy laws. Like the Putin clown image in Russia. Like China's President Xi banning a multitude of words and Winnie the Pooh images. See how not wanting to be offended moves from seemingly ok to "what the?".
Laws cannot force someone to comply with accepting another being/religion/organization different from themselves. Nor should it be a tool to beat someone over the head to comply with a status quo. To use these laws to intimidate those who speak the truth or falsehoods should be intolerable to a democratic nation.
Should some speech be outlawed? Speech that is not true? Should holocaust deniers be arrested and incarcerated? Should those that purport one race of people is better than another with no exceptions also be gagged? Should we turn our back on their mistaken and untruthful views but help to care for the person themselves? Yes to the last statement and no to the other things. The person has a reason for those beliefs that if assisted can result in self-realization of those false views.
If you suppress speech, you also give it value to those who feel they are being suppressed. Few who are emotionally attached to wrong things stop when a government tells them no as they will, or already have, stopped trusting the government. When those who have wrongful views can express themselves, it makes them known to the community and the community can help make it known that their view is not shared. It gives them a support network in the hope of them changing their wrong beliefs because you cannot beat it out of them. If not, they hate in secret...roil in secret...meet in secret...plan in secret...act in secret. Do you want that? Do you not want to be offended that badly?
I also hurt when wrong and hateful things are said and spread but as a student of history I know what can happen if speech is suppressed in the the name of conformity. It can be abused. Do you also want a person who tells the truth to be able to be silenced...arrested...disposed of? Having the right to not be offended is antithetic to democracy and is another form of zealotry.
Inspirational websites for this post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendment_to_the_Act_on_the_Institute_of_National_Remembrance
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26815298
No comments:
Post a Comment