Free speech is the heartbeat of democracy. Once it fades, liberty dies a silent death.
Freedom is under siege. Thousands of people are being arrested and imprisoned for their speech and being targeted on the basis of their political beliefs. Only the factions who sympathize with those in power may publicly voice their opinions, all who oppose are subject to the oppression of the state.
This is not happening in Hitler’s Germany or Putin’s Russia, but in Western Europe in 2024, in some of the most “liberal” nations on earth. European governments are offering democracy as a sacrificial lamb to the gods of extreme progressivism.
This sacrifice is done under the guise of maintaining public order and protecting minorities. However, it has only increased dissent, rioting and nationalist fervor in what was once a tranquil Europe. It doesn’t reduce hate.
Anarchy in the U.K.
During the recent right-wing protests in England – which were reactions to the murder of three children – several hundred were arrested for disrupting public order, many through speech. An extremely pathetic example is that of a 61-year-old man who was sentenced to 18 months after screaming “Who the f*** is Allah?” The U.K. is enforcing blasphemy on behalf of Islam, whether it intends to or not. Many more were also arrested for comments made online. Actions like this are anti-democratic and authoritarian.
This is not a new trend in the destruction of freedom. Earlier this year, an Englishman was given a two-year prison sentence for printing out stickers that read “It’s OK to be white.” The police frequently arrest people for demeaning speech toward immigrants, sexual minorities and ethnic minorities.
Freedom is an individual right, not a collective one. Calls to violence are extremely dangerous, but slurs and derogatory speech – while they are offensive and bigoted – are not criminal actions on their own, at least not in an authentic democracy.
When thugs in ski masks burn down a mosque or synagogue, arrest them and sentence them accordingly. But when citizens gather to voice their opinion, even if it is bigoted and hateful, arresting them is a mistake. It will not reform them, it will only antagonize them. There is no strategic sense in restricting speech unless, of course, that is your goal.
The Authoritarian Plague
It is illegal to burn the Quran in Denmark, but you can burn the Danish flag.
When immigrants commit violent crimes in nations like Ireland, France or the U.K., their identities are obscured to “prevent hatred.” If you are so much as curious about their identity, you may be accused of spreading hate.
Prejudice against someone’s identity is only prosecuted one way. If you insult a sexual or ethnic minority you may be imprisoned. If you insult an English person or Christian on the basis of their identity, it is permitted by the state.
Free speech is a myth in Europe. The right to free speech does not exist to protect words that are not harmful. It protects speech which is controversial, unpopular and even offensive. Thomas Paine once said, “He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Free speech is the right to be honest. Honesty is now second to manufactured morality.
This moralizing of politics resulted in the death of free speech in much of Europe. Many of these nations are now experiencing waves of populist right-wing nationalism in reaction to the negligent policies of the progressive consensus in Europe.
The Paradox of Tolerance
The Paradox of tolerance is the self-contradictory concept – introduced by 20th-century thinker Karl Popper – intended to describe a tolerant society that underlies modern progressivism. In order to maintain a tolerant society, we must ourselves be intolerant of those perceived to be intolerant by default.
The thinking goes like this: By moralizing politics, we can prevent the spread of intolerant ideologies by making “immoral” speech illegal. Once said speech is no longer legal, intolerance is forever extinct and a tolerant society is achieved. The paradox being that to destroy intolerance, you must first be intolerant yourself.
The problem with Popper’s ideas – which, to my understanding, are a pillar of the modern left – is that you cannot moralize politics because morality is itself politically contested; i.e., abortion, gun laws, social programs etc. Many different moral systems participate in politics. In a democracy, one morality cannot have a political monopoly. If there was such a universally recognized morality that precludes any debate, there would be no need for politics in the first place.
Monsters like Hitler, Stalin and Mao had moral monopolies on politics. Ironically, aversion to their regimes is the impetus for modern progressivism. Something has gone horribly wrong. We need a better way of handling speech in the West.
Acknowledgment: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author.
