Harry Hunt
We are living in a world where people would prosecute you for thought crime if they could figure out what you were thinking. Remember that old joke your dad used to tell you? It’s sexist and derogatory. What about that time your grandad told a raunchy joke at the family dinner? He’s a misogynist. But he fought in the war, you tell them. “He’s no hero, all those old guys are racist,” they retort.
Two words: **** Censorship
How do we know society has become too complacent? When they rely on everyone else to feed them their opinions.
Last week saw the removal of Sir Winston Churchill’s portrait in Parliament. While some were infuriated, it sparked a debate among a few colleagues. How far is too far? When I started researching this issue I realised that this was only the tip of the iceberg. Let’s start with the Churchill painting and work our way through.
Sir Winston Churchill, the anti-fascist leader who saved a nation and led a global war against the evil of tyranny, united a nation, and then its allies including its largest ally, America. But none of that matters, right? Because someone has decided that he was a racist.
Our problem in society is that too often we overlook a person’s accomplishments and tarnish their reputation with a single thing we don’t agree with. In Churchill’s case, people forget the time that he came from. Different times have different rules for acceptable behaviour. Before throwing their opinions around the ring like Tyson and Holyfield, people pointing the finger need to take that difference into account.
Back in those days, there was little accountability nor was there really any stigma around racism, so why hold Churchill to today’s standards? Remember that people from that time period fought for our freedom not once, but twice!
From Winston Churchill to Grandpa Joe it is unfair to try to teach an old dog new tricks when he has been running around longer than you have been walking. Not to mention how outlandish it is to expect others to bow to your ideals for fear of offending you.
Being offended gives you no moral rights yet we live in a society where if someone is offended, we all must act as if the world has stopped and can go no further until a peace treaty is signed. This is a malicious piece of sensitivity akin to a whine. It holds no weight. To “I’m offended by that”, my answer will always be, “So what?”
We should not live our lives afraid of those who may dislike what we say. If it weren’t for free speech there would be only one party in Parliament. When you limit free speech or force your ideals onto others you take away respect for the system. You diminish the value of that system, and you destroy democracy.
Out of all my studies of historical legislature, policy and governmental systems I find little evidence suggesting that limiting people’s opinions creates a happier nation. All it does is make everyone else start to ask questions. Once they start asking the right questions, they’ll realise it was never about free speech, but about control.
Please share so others can discover The BFD.
