The Free Speech Conundrum

After the terrible events in France over the past week, questions from various parties are being asked as to how this could happen/be prevented in the future etc..etc. There is hand-wringing from political leaders from most European countries still trotting out the ‘This is nothing to do with Islam’ meme, and far-right groups wanting to just declare war on the whole of Islam.

The issue that these events have centred around are to do with free speech and responsibility. There are those who will advocate that anything is fair game and the particular group that is being ridiculed should just to take it on the chin. There are others who will say that some subjects are no-go and that free speech should be tempered with responsibility, and an understanding of the feelings of the likely recipients of the ridicule. This is all rubbish, and mostly a smoke screen to cover the obvious, and what no politician in the west will admit.

It is simply this. With the advent of the Enlightenment Period in the mid 18th C, people in the West began to have grown-up attitudes toward religious and cultural icons. No longer was the church the sole advocates of how mankind came to be and should act. Science, and the scientific way of thinking, replaced the church and religion as the driver for thinking and acting. Science challenged and overthrew the incumbent orthodoxies regarding religion and culture. Satirical humour during this period burgeoned, with any and all political and religious figures of the day being fair game for lampooning. Discovery of the truth through scientific endeavour became almost a religion in itself. It is as if the Western world became free of dogma and could finally get down to the business of finding out where we came from, how things work, creating things to make life easier etc., etc. We started to develop as a people and a country. Religion was moved to the periphery of life. This was not of course limited to Britain. This movement and its thinking was widely embraced in most of the countries of Europe.

In the Eastern world, no such change took place. Religion and religious leaders maintained their grip on learning, thought and deed and therefore effectively controlled people’s actions. This extended into politics, with most of the Eastern world dominated (and still is) by dictatorships and one party or tribe states. Religion was still at the centre of life and still is. Ridicule of religious and cultural icons is unheard of in many of these countries, and indeed most of its people probably wouldn’t understand why we in the West do it. They have a reverence for their ‘leaders’ which we do not. Free speech is not a part of life much in the way that, these days, religion is not part of most people’s lives in the West. In short, we have diametrically opposed cultural and belief systems.

So when peoples from these areas of the world move to the West, there was and is a cultural misunderstanding from day one. Those from more enlightened backgrounds, or who had absorbed Western influences via the effects of various European empires, quite easily adapted and integrated. Those who have not, do not integrate, become increasingly isolated and fall back on their religious/cultural background for support. They find like-minded others and form groups and, effectively, ghettoes. A leader then appears and begins fulminating against the attitudes of the host country and its people, and so begins the process of hate.

The ordinary man in the street’s approach in the West to this attitude has been the same as when our own cultural, political and religious leaders have been attacked by us. We absorb it, we accept that it’s all part of our free speech culture and anyway, they’re just a bunch of loud-mouthed idiots blowing off. Take no notice etc., etc. But here’s the conundrum: at what point do we say ‘enough is enough’, that is not part of free speech but incitement to violence? At what point do we start taking direct action against people who culturally and religiously oppose our own views? And in doing so, do we then become open to having our own free speech curtailed?

Unfortunately, what has happened is that generations of spineless MP’s have decided that our free speech is the unacceptable one, and the Imam’s and hate-mongers is OK. The Islamic hatred of us has been allowed to get out of hand by the very politicians who are now wringing their hands over Paris. Even now, they are still apologists for Islam. What they should have done is to inform the Choundry’s of this world that free speech was a two way street and piss-taking was part of our culture. Furthermore, if they didn’t accept that way of life, then there are other countries more than willing to take them in. In short, politicians and all the other liberal PC hand-wringing idiots should have SUPPORTED OUR CULTURE AND WAY OF LIFE, and expected the incomers to adapt. We should NOT HAVE TO ADAPT TO THEM.

Where do we go from here then? It’s difficult, as we do not have any politicians who are likely to gain power, who possess any sort of back bone. Nigel Farage of course, said it correctly and was roundly vilified for speaking the obvious. Unfortunately, as much as it would be the desired outcome, UKIP ain’t going to win a GE anytime soon. Yes they will gain seats and yes this will allow them to exert more influence over Parliament. But with the next government more likely consisting of a coalition from the already spineless bunch we already have, the future is not rosy. What all politicians and apologists should now realise, is that the ordinary man-in-the-street is getting angry; angry at the way he has been marginalised in his own country and angry that he is expected to adapt to the migrants ways. This anger is already beginning to come out in the marches in Germany and in time this will spread across Europe. What the outcome will be is anyone’s guess, but it’s certainly going to get ugly. And all because the politicians didn’t listen!