LET’S DISSENT!
MOTTO. I think a good motto of this blog could be Larry Flint’s words, transmitted to the Romanian hip-hop band “Parazitii”: “Freedom of speech is not freedom of the thought you love, but rather of the thought you hate – hate the most. Freedom is not lost in one fell swoop. Is lost with a book at a time, a magazine at a time, or a CD at a time. Censorship goes against the very grain of our basic freedoms – primarily, the freedom of expression, which should be inherent to all idividuals. I can’t believe that Romania, being a country that should have learned from the past, is still exercising cenzorship. Nothing worthwile can come with this. And people have an inherent desire to be free. And they’re gonna be free, if not with the existing government, then with a new government that they will put in their place” (I chose Lary Flint – and not some higly respected philosopher – especially because he’s one of the DISSENTERS I like)
Is it trivial to say that the most basic thing in democracy is the freedom of consciousness, together with its corollary, the freedom of expression? I think not. Let me give you one example.
Some years ago, David Irving wrote a book, in which he denied the reality of the Holocaust. As far as I know, he didn’t denied that jews were killed by the Nazis – he only denied the existence of a plan, of a programmatic action of killing Jews. I don’t want to enter into this academic debate, simply because I am not a specialist in history. Still, I want to draw your attention on a very important consequence. David Irving was arrested in Austria for his views. He was sentenced to three years in jail. After two years in jail he was liberated (in december, 2006).
Now my question is: was it right to sentence David Irving? I think not. I will try to explain you why.
Let me first explain what I am NOT saying: 1) I am not saying that David Irwing is a “true historian”; 2) I am not saying that his views are right; 3) I am not saying that his arguments are correct; 4) I am not saying that his sources are reliable
What I DO say is: 1) Whether a specialisy in history or not, David Irving has the fundamental right to the freedom of his consciousness; 2) As a consequence, he has the fundamental right to the freedom of expressing his consciousness; 3) The academic discourse should not have political or other kind of limits: every scholar has the right to propose a subject in the academic community or in the public sphere, no matter what feelings this subject hurts; 4) Once the subject is proposed, all scholars have the right to critically discuss it, and dismiss it, if it is based on wrong assumptions, false data, or it is logically inconsistent; 5) But no subject should be dismissed “a priori” only because it is “politically correct” to do so.
As a consequence, I think that Irwing’s book should have been discussed in the Academia. I think it was wrong to dismiss it on political criterions. More important, I think it is wrong and dangerous to put a human beeing into prison just because she or he freely expressed her or his opinion.
If we base our academic discussions on the “political correctness” criterion, then we are faced with a slippery slope. We won’t have the right to critically discuss not only problems related to the Holocaust, but also we won’t have the right to discuss any problem (for example, obesity), that might hurt (for example) fat people’s feelings. And so on.
The problem is not trivial. As all of us know, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, wants to propose a law for the entire European Union, according to which if one person negates the Holocaust, he or she will be put to prison. The slippery slope is about to begin.
So I think that we must fight by all means to keep what we have achieved so hard: the freedoom of consciousness, both in Academia and in public debates. Of course, this means that crazy people will be allowed to say many crazy things. That is correct. But this is the core of democracy and liberalism. We are not allowed to do whatever we want: we cannot do something which would physically hurt someone, for example. But there is something in relation to which we should have absolute freedom: this is the consciousness, and its expression. If we agree to loose these, we loose everything.
So I think that David Irving has no right to implement another Holocaust; but he has the right to talk about it, if he is crazy, stupid, or evil enough to do so. He will discredit himself, to be sure, both as a human beeing and as a historian. But he has the right to discredit himself. We cannot take him this right.
And another example: remember the whole controversy about the cartoons representing the prophet Mohammad (in a Danish newspaper). Has been the author of these cartoons rightly fired? I think not. And if your answer is the oppossite, then just imagine a world in which no one has the right to make cartoons with Mohammad, Jesus, Buddha, fat people, people with long noses and small penises, and so on. So much about democracy ad liberalism…
So my blog is an attempt to fight for the basic human rights. And among these, the freedom of consciousness and of its expression is the most important right. In a time when al sorts of extremism are resurrected (the extremism of Nazism, religios fundamentalism, but also the extremism of “political correctness”), I think it is not trivial to say that we have the right to the freedom of consciousness and of its expression. And we have the right to fight for this right.
So let’s DISSENT!
P.S. Of course, I will not be THAT serios all the time. In fact, I have other interests besides fighting for liberalism and democracy. I am also interested in literature, arts, dogs (especially Chow-Chow), and many others. And I will tahe them into account, too.
