A Dangerous Precedent

While I usually find any sort of racial or stereotypical humor to be insulting to say the least, what I find even more distasteful is the currently proposed British law making hate-speech a crime. This is a very slippery slope that, if brought to its final conclusion, is little more than an attempt at thought control and will set human rights back several centuries rather than furthering the causes of freedom and equality. We are opening a Pandora's box under the misguided notions that hate can be prevented by legislation limiting vocal self-expression and that ideas can be changed by force rather than education and enlightenment.

History has shown time and again that ideas do not die simply because those championing them die. You can kill the messenger, but the message remains. Once hate speech against minorities is banned, where does it go next? Do we then ban any speech that does not agree with the thinking of those in power? Do we imprison those who would speak out against a corrupt or oppressive government? And if hate speech is banned, how long before it extends to its next logical level, the banning of books that may contain hateful thoughts? We condemned the Nazis, amongst others, for their book burnings, and yet this is the very same thought process they used to justify their actions.

Hate speech also serves at least two useful purposes. One, it reminds us that we still have a long way to go in the struggle for equality. Speech is the vocal extension of thought and if people truly believe we are not equal, then their actions will follow suit. Murder is illegal in many countries, and yet the Matthew Shepards of the world continue to die. If we rest on our laurels simply because a law has been passed, we become complacent in the notion that we no longer need to stand up for ourselves because those in charge will do it for us. Apathy has been one of the greatest enemies of the GLBT community. Many prefer to sit in their bars or bath houses rather than march in protest or promote understanding via social discourse. Hate speech should be a shocking reminder for our community to get off its collective asses and work to make the change rather than sit idle and hope others do it for us. It is the alarm bell that screams FIRE!

The second useful purpose of hate speech is simply this. If I am to do battle, I prefer to face my enemies at a time and place of my choosing and know who they are, rather than have them creep silently in the shadows to stab me in the back when it is least expected. It is only when the enemy can be identified that we can plan the appropriate responses, and even then it is a tough battle. Giving them the element of surprise is a very serious tactical advantage in their favor and only makes our struggle for equality all the more difficult. Is it not better for our enemies to expose themselves with their words, rather than their deeds?

Evelyn Beatrice Hall (under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre), wrote in her 1906 biographical book The Friends of Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If we understand their position, we can use logic and reason to counter their arguments and be the champions of freedom of speech and self-expression at the same time, but this requires us to be able to hear their arguments in the first place. If we want to condemn and hold accountable, we should base it on actions, rather than thought or speech.

* 08NOV2007