Showing posts with label polical correctness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polical correctness. Show all posts

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Are We Incrementally Giving Up Our Right to Free Speech?


 
Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; (my italics) or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Court decisions have extended this prohibition to all levels of government.

One might think that, with these two bulwarks of human rights so clear on the matter, freedom of speech is an unassailable concept. Instead, freedom of speech is under attack throughout the world, especially on U.S. college campuses.

Nowhere in either the Declaration of Human Rights or the Constitution is there any mention of a freedom from being offended. Freedom from offense is a “right” of recent manufacture. It derives from the recovery movement of the last century. This movement promoted the idea that we are all victims of abuse of some kind. People were encouraged to view the world through the eyes of a victim. They preached that all humans are fragile and easily damaged by any speech they deemed hurtful. Censorship was postulated as a moral necessity.

In the February 22, 2015 issue of the Washington Post, writer Wendy Kaminer criticizes university administrations for adopting the recovery philosophy in their cultures. They sought to protect minority groups on campus from being exposed to speech they considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory. Kaminer wrote that, “Popular therapeutic culture defined verbal ‘assaults’ and other forms of discrimination by subjective, emotional responses of self-proclaimed victims.” She further points out that, “The tendency to take subjective allegations of victimization at face value—instrumental in contemporary censorship campaigns—also leads to a presumption of guilt and disregard to due process.” She concludes, “This is a dangerously misguided approach to justice…Instead of advancing equality, it’s teaching future generations of leaders the ‘virtues’ of autocracy.”

Unfortunately, the media world seems to be collaborating in this assault on free speech. When gunmen attacked a recent cartoon contest in Texas because the subject was images of the Prophet Mohammed, one of the frequently asked questions by reporters was, “Should such a contest have been allowed to take place?” Where was the outrage at the attempted massacre?

I wrote in a previous blog post about my belief that “political correctness” is a totalitarian concept beloved by absolute dictators like Stalin, Hitler, and the Kim Dynasty of North Korea. Criminalizing an individual’s thoughts, no matter how much we may disagree with them, is anathema to a free society. What happened to the “marketplace of ideas” that educators and politicians of both parties used to praise? Who gave progressives or conservatives the authority to decide what the rest of us may think and say? It is time they realized that millions of Americans believe that “political correctness” is being taken to the absurd.

In the April 29, 2014 issue of The Washington Post, columnist Kathleen Parker decried the death of straightforward speech in an article entitled, “When sensitivity triumphs over truth.”  Her unifying theme is that, “We are slowly becoming a nation that pays greater heed to sensitivity than truth, and that prefers the comfort of committee-crafted thoughts that neither offend nor enlighten.”

I, for one, refuse to see the world through the eyes of a victim. I admire straightforward communication. I hate racism, despise any form of government that oppresses individual initiative, and have been called a feminist because of my views on full equality for women. Based on my study of science, I believe that sexual orientation and gender identification are hard-wired into the brain, and governments should let the subject alone. But I’ll be damned if I’ll cede to any other human the right to tell me what to think or say. I’ll leave that to God.

The accompanying cartoon from the Miami Herald, which was reprinted in The Washington Post, inspired this blog post.

Share This Post





Warren Bell is an author of historical fiction.  He spent 29 years as a US Naval Officer, and has traveled to most of the places in the world that he writes about.  A long-time World War II-buff, his first two novels, Fall Eagle One and Hold Back the Sun are set during World War II.  His third novel, Asphalt and Blood, follows the US Navy Seabees in Vietnam.  His most recent novel, Snowflakes in July, is a Pentagon thriller about domestic terrorism.  He is currently working on a new novel, Endure The Cruel Sun, the sequel to his best-selling novel, Hold Back the Sun. For more about Warren Bell, visit his website at: wbellauthor.com or see him on twitter @wbellauthor.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Do We Really Want “Thought Police?”

Burning Books
In the 1940s, novelist George Orwell penned a chilling, futuristic novel entitled Nineteen Eighty-Four. Having observed the expansion of oppressive, totalitarian governments during his lifetime, Orwell projected a future society in which individual freedoms would be forfeited to full control by the state. One of the features of the totalitarian government was a force of people charged with assuring that anyone expressing ideas contrary to the official positions would be silenced. He coined the term, “Thought Police,” to describe this organization.

Policing the thoughts of the population has long been a prime totalitarian principle. In Nazi Germany, the thought police were called the Gestapo. In Tsarist Russia, they were the dreaded Okharanka. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, the NKVD (People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs) policed thought. Militaristic Japan of the 1930s and 1940s, the Tokubetsu Koto Keisatsu suppressed improper thought. In Communist East Germany, the STASI (Ministry of State Security) dealt with contrary thinkers. In Mussolini’s Fascist Italy, the function fell to the OVRA.

Improper thought could result in severe penalties for the offenders. In Japan, the state’s initial response was “re-education.” In Italy, huge quantities of castor oil might be poured down their throats. In the Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia, relocation to Siberia or a bullet in the back of the brain were common remedies. In Nazi Germany, thought offenses might range from confinement in a labor camp to being hung with piano wire from a meat hook.

When I first heard the term, “political correctness” in the 1970s, a chill ran up my spine. As you may have gathered from my writings, I am a history buff. Having lived seven decades and eight years on this earth, I have personally observed a pretty wide swath of history. The very idea that opinions contrary to popular consensus should be condemned and suppressed is anathema to everything I believe about individual freedom and liberty.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (emphasis added), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution further states that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Is anything so central to a person than their very own ideas and opinions?

To me, the idea that the populous should be coerced into conforming to some conventional wisdom determined by the political elites is clearly a totalitarian concept. To those who would argue that the purposes of “political correctness” are themselves laudable, I would answer that, “the ends justify the means,” is also a totalitarian concept. Read Arthur Koestler’s classic condemnation of totalitarianism, Darkness at Noon, which concludes, “the ends have become the means, and darkness has come over the land.”

The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. There is no constitutional protection of freedom from being offended. Not very long ago, we celebrated the concept of “competition in the marketplace of ideas” in this country. This is not a right-wing concept. When Hillary Clinton was First Lady, she chided college students for shouting down speakers with whom they did not agree. Freedom of speech court decisions have actually cited the quotation once attributed to the French philosopher, Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it...”

Most people are offended by something. I have written about being offended by excess profanity in today’s speech, but I wouldn’t support a law against it. Like former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, I am offended by the epithet, “redneck.” We are both of Scots-Irish ancestry. The term, “redneck,” originally meant Scots-Irish Protestant supporters of William of Orange in his wars against the Stuart Pretenders. Both Protestant and Catholic militias fought in these wars. The Protestants wore red bandanas to distinguish them from the Catholic militias. The term soon became applied to all Scots-Irish. It was not meant to be disparaging. But neither Senator Webb nor I urge the banning of the word from the language.

One further thing that offends me is that defenders of “political correctness” tend to belittle and ridicule those who disagree with them. Their attitude seems to be, if you don’t agree, you are obviously stupid, uneducated, ignorant, or just plain deluded. In adopting such an attitude, they attempt to make their ideas look good by questioning their adversary’s qualifications to even have an opinion. To me, such attitudes are not worthy of respect.

To those who might not agree with what I think, I say, “Argue your case and try to convince me that I am wrong.” Compete in the “marketplace of ideas.” Don’t condemn me or belittle me because I don’t happen to agree with you.

We do not need “Thought Police!”

Share This Post




Warren Bell is an author of historical fiction.  He spent 29 years as a US Naval Officer, and has traveled to most of the places in the world that he writes about.  A long-time World War II-buff, his first two novels, Fall Eagle One and Hold Back the Sun are set during World War II.  His third novel, Asphalt and Blood, follows the US Navy Seabees in Vietnam.  His most recent novel, Snowflakes in July, is a Pentagon thriller about domestic terrorism.  He is currently working on a new novel, Endure The Cruel Sun, the sequel to his best-selling novel, Hold Back the Sun. For more about Warren Bell, visit his website at: wbellauthor.com or see him on twitter @wbellauthor.