Tolerance versus Imposed Ideas

[StuartO]

I'm quite happy for people who have a strong faith or a strong conviction about some lifestyle or activity thing (such as homosexuals and those who either want to hunt foxes or to prevent it) to do their own thing except they should not try to impose their views on others beyond the civilised limits of exercising free speech and democratic pressure.  So I draw the line at terrorist activity or even violent protest, such as anti-hunt saboteurs grabbing the reins of horses to obstruct hunting activities.

 

Jehova's Witnesses have it about right because they want to be evangelical (which is OK if that's what their faith tells them to) but they don't do anything more aggressive than knocking at your door and they go away if you tell them to.  A group of muslims had set up a stall in the centre of Preston a few years ago giving away tracts (and free copies of the Koran) and that's OK by me too.  I don't mind LGBT marches and parades either.

 

But I really object to the modern trend towards proscribing other peoples opinions and ideas (except for terrorist and violent ideas) and demands that their normality has to be accepted as normality by everyone else.  I don't mind people who are keen on environmental issues saying their bit but they shouldn't try to stop other people expressing contrary views.

 

Campaigning to achieve the assimilation of a pressure group idea into the territory of political correctness, so that it becomes unacceptable for anyone to express contrary opinions (such as that homosexuality is not normal) seems to me to be as threatenning to society as any other imposition of ideas or resorting to violence and terrorism to promote your beliefs.

 

Yet in this internet age, in a developed democratic country it is very difficult to impose controls (on what I regard as the suppression of free speech) as well as even to draw the right line about what is and is not acceptable behaviour.  Maybe it is enough that we can still ridicule political correctness - for example by putting it about that Sleeping Beauty can no longer be performed because the woman in the story has not consented to being kissed.  Maybe its enough that we can try to express views like "homosexuality is not normal to me" in ways which cannot reasonably be regarded as inciting hatred, which nowadays would be a criminal offence.  Conviction for a criminal offence still requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and, at least for most offences mens rea, i.e. proof of the intention to commit the offence.

 

But passing laws which have the effect of suppressing free speech (such as those about incitment of hatred about faith or sexual orientation) are a dangerous step to take.  Somehow we have to find the right balance between ways of banning hate speekers who espouse extreme intolerance without stopping Jehova's Witnesses (or the muslim equivalent) pursuing their faith and their right to try and spread it.

 

An absolutist approach to women having the right to withold consent to sexual approaches, even if they don't involve touching, strikes me as yet another threatening attitude to adopt.  The young female barrister who was on TV arguing that the man who complimented her by email about her nice linked-in picture was sexually assaulting her might have simply been grabbing her 15 minutes of fame to promote her carreer but maybe she was serious!

 

Exercising free speech will always offend some people's sensitivities but I think we've gone too far towards accepting people's rights not to be offended.  It's right that they should be free to say they are offended of course, as loudly as they like, but not OK for them to impose an attitude on others.