Safe zones, free speech and the Islamisation of the West.
There’s a new phrase which is entering into common parlance in the chattering classes – safe zone. There are a lot of cuddly wuddly new-age definitions of what it means but the bottom line one is excluding people from your particular niche of society whose views don’t agree with yours and which you consequently find terribly terribly distressing.
In my view, I don’t mind such emotional and intellectuality fragility, since it ghettoises a certain type of over-sensitivity in dealing with life and different opinions. If some people want to retreat out of sight into their own little snail’s shell, that’s okay with me. Just as long as the little dears are happy and content and out of the grownup’s way.
Where it gets complicated is when such delicate flowers seek to extend the borders of their own safe zone to the point where it starts to impinge on my right to think and express my own thoughts. In a broad sense, I’m talking about the suppression of free speech, but that particular abstraction has always had caveats on it, both legal and interpersonal.
You tell a man exactly what you think of his slattern wife and you’d run the risk of getting punched on the nose. Tell the king what you actually think of him and his new suit of clothes and you could very well end up dropped down into a deep oubliette in his castle.
Where we draw the line on where free speech ends is not some absolute standard; it’s more usually cultural. For instance, try evangelising on the streets of New York to convert people to Christianity and you’re just an ignored part of street life; try the same in Saudi Arabia and you’re looking at mutilation or a death sentence.
What it actually comes down to is the latitude with which free speech can be exercised in any society depends on how tolerant that society is, as a lot of young people in tertiary education are finding out.
This creeping encroachment out of safe zones and on top of the liberty of other people’s lives was exemplified last week by Al Gore’s attempt to get the Attorney Generals of various states to start making commitments to prosecute climate deniers – in other words, people sceptical of and in disagreement with his apocalyptic climate prophecies. To the credit of most of the AGs present, only four of them appeared to give some lukewarm support to Gore’s initiative, with the rest of them not saying a thing.
While I noted the political adroitness on their part, I can’t help but feel a robust condemnation of such a basic attack on liberty in supposedly the land of the free and the home of the brave would have been more appropriate. As Thomas Jefferson said, the law is there to not only protect citizens from each other, but more importantly to protect them from their own government.
This was a blatant attempt to utilise state and federal power to suppress what is at end of day political opposition to what is deliberately misrepresented as a scientific dispute.
Standing idly by and saying nothing shows more an inclination to the politic rather than the constitutional, the latter in a higher sense being what they’re actually there to protect.
While Gore may be nothing more than a narcissist making money hand over fist in the climate alarmism industry, they knew the global warming issue has been at the bottom of people’s concerns for years and weren’t going to put their name to his latest publicity stunt at the risk of damaging their own career prospects.
In any case, the simple reality is that any attempt to prosecute companies and most especially individuals would be a constitutional nightmare, never mind a legal one. The political disaster of principled citizens lining up to go to prison in defence of the freedom to dissent with a very dubious area of science is what would very shortly happen.
No one but a rabid climate fetishist could look forward to lines of martyrs, née deniers, lining up to go to prison. Such fanatics are increasingly beyond the pale for mainstream politicians since over the years they’ve not only advocated imprisonment for dissenters and worse, but did a bit of book burning along the way, suggested tattooing denier on skeptics foreheads, never mind turning up at night masked at people’s homes complete with burning firebrands. Nice people and the lineal descendants of the KKK.
Who in their right mind would want to be associated with those fanatics?
We’re currently in a war with people who want amongst other things to establish a Muslim caliphate in the Western world. To achieve their objectives, the real thing they have to destroy is our tolerance, even if that’s to be done by murdering as many people as possible in suicidal slaughters of innocents.
We’ll beat the terrorists in the end, no caliphate will be established, but we’re in danger of imposing something rather similar on ourselves by allowing vociferous but unrepresentative internal minorities to stifle any dissent to their views by ruthless intolerance of it.
The crypto-Islamisation of the West is what we’re looking at.
Related articles by Pointman: