If you're truly liberal even hate-speech must be free
Friday May 08 2009
The row over the Government's proposed new blasphemy law rolls on, with liberals effectively crying out 'blasphemy!' in protest. Ironic, isn't it?
Blasphemy, or some word to that effect, is what people always cry out when their basic vision of society is under threat.
Religious believers have traditionally supported laws against blasphemy in the name of public morality. They insist, with some justification, that if you bring religion into disrepute, you attack the foundations of morality itself.
Liberals don't really believe in public morality, or at least not in the way conservatives do. Therefore, they are very intolerant of efforts to protect public morality through limiting freedom of speech.
In fact, liberals regard freedom of speech as one of the most fundamental tenets of open, democratic societies and when it is under attack, they man the barricades, as they are doing now.
But there are actually very few genuine liberals in Irish society. The late Conor Cruise O'Brien was one. Michael McDowell is probably one of the few living examples. Here is how you can know whether you are a genuine liberal or not -- what is your attitude to 'anti-hate' laws?
In last week's column, I pointed out that the biggest enemies of free speech today were not conservatives but leftists who want to protect favoured minorities against attack by publicly condemning the critics of these minorities and bringing anti-hate laws to bear against them where possible.
If you think 'hate-speech' should be very narrowly defined and very rarely prosecuted, then you might well be a true liberal. But if you think it should be broadly defined to encompass simply strong, even harsh criticism of favoured minorities, then you certainly are not a genuine liberal and in fact you belong among the enemies of free speech.
I mentioned a Canadian pastor last week who was silenced and fined by a 'human rights' commission for attacking the gay rights agenda. Let's give a bit more detail of that case. Your reaction to it will define which side you're on in the battle over freedom of expression.
The pastor in question was one Stephen Boissoin. The 'Red Deer Advocate' in Alberta, which has a circulation of 100,000, published a very strongly worded letter by Pastor Boissoin in which he lambasted gay rights organisations for introducing what he saw as pro-gay propaganda into schools and for thereby attacking "the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth".
One of the strongest and more strident passages of his letter read: "Come on people, wake up! It is time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorised to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds." Over the top? Yes. But hate speech? If it is hate speech, then Richard Dawkins is surely guilty of hate speech as well.
He has described passing on religious faith to children as a form of 'child abuse'.
Does the letter justify fining and silencing Pastor Boissoin? The commission ordered that he must "cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals". Wow. Even "disparaging remarks"?
Do you think the ruling by this commission is justified? If so, then you cannot claim to be a defender of free speech and you have no right to be outraged by the Government's proposed new anti-blasphemy law. If you can justify the treatment of Boissoin in the name of protecting minorities from all but mild criticism, then conservatives can justify anti-blasphemy laws in the name of public morality.
As I say, everyone cries 'blasphemy', or some equivalent, when their most fundamental vision of society is under attack. A diminishing number of religious believers think religion is so essential to public morality that it should be protected from extreme insult.
Liberals cry foul when free speech is under threat, from any quarter, left, right or centre.
But the left's vision of society is based in no small part on protecting favoured minorities from criticism. 'Blasphemy' for them is criticising those minorities. Free speech comes a distant second.
The left today are the true successors of those who protested at the opening of the 'Playboy of the Western World' and had John McGahern fired from his teaching post. Programmes like 'Liveline' are the enforcers of this new moral order. They exist to condemn, shame and silence those who 'blaspheme' against their favoured minorities groups. The law is to be used where mere condemnation isn't enough.
Essentially, the left wants immigrant groups, gay rights groups, religious minorities, especially Muslims, single parent groups and feminists to decide what we can and cannot say in public.
It is this politically correct attack on free speech that genuine liberals really ought to have in their sights. The blasphemy row is a distraction from this.
- David Quinn
