Free Speech

'Free speech' has always been a limited offering.  To many the words mean we can say anything we like anywhere no matter who is listening.  Yet there has always been limits, usually caused by thoughts uttered in an offensive manner towards people who the speaker wishes to upset.  Indeed free speech does not mean, and never has meant, feel free to insult and offend for the sake of it.  
However today we are in a time when little speech is free in any way.  Political Correctness, the new absolutes of western society, decides what we are allowed to say and where we can say it.  This has run so deep within society that I read recently only three universities are without limits on speech of any kind, all the others, including the so called 'Best ones' limit what can be said and by whom.
One such incident saw Germaine Greer, that mentally unbalanced writer, self proclaimed 'academic' and media favourite banned from speaking at one university because she upset some of the students.  Had she been banned because she is a mental case I could accept this but a banning just because she disagreed with them is unacceptable in any university.  Many would say that all universities exist so ideas can be debated, not banned.  Race, sex, religion and just existing appear reasons for rejecting a free thought, and secularists are very bad at this where religion is concerned, the left bad where politics is concerned and the right make use of their media to ensure other opinions are drowned out and kept from the readers too lazy to think for themselves. 

Should anything be banned?  Any idea of any sort?
It would be easy to ban any who suggest violence ought to be banned.  I could agree with this.  On the other hand should there not be a place where the ones making such a suggestion can be questioned about their beliefs, where they originate and what lies behind them?  Universities would be an ideal place for such debate.  Rabblerousers who refuse to debate cold them be banned after refusing to discuss and listen to other open ideas.  
Why are people so afraid to debate their thoughts?  
One fear is what they hear could be right and destroy their preconceptions and long held beliefs.  Ideals long treasured and found to be wanting can destroy an individual and he does not wish to hear any more.  Laziness allows many to accept what their media tells them because it  is easy and saves them from deep thought about their world and their lives.
Why are students so afraid of opposition?  Can it be many are radicalised and unwilling to be open to other ideas, then get out of universities, can it be they are pushing their own beliefs and will never accept another? 
This is not new, this has gone on before within such hallowed halls.  Politics, religion, monarchy and ideas have always caused conflicts in places of learning, possibly it is worse now possibly not.  
I mention this as two men have been found guilty of 'Public order offences' by preaching scripture to people at a Bristol Shopping Centre.  It appears they got into discussion with many who disagreed with the biblical saying by Jesus "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me."  Those opposing took a Muslim line it appears.  Eventually police arrived and the 'PC' PC brought charges against them.  
Now it seems to me these two men, one was an American, handled the situation rather badly.  This was a tough approach but nonetheless the opposition closed them down not because of their manner but because they did not agree with what they said.  Does this mean Muslims, as well as Gays who have tried this before, can stop preaching because they are 'offended?'  What an open door to censorship that is. 
Keep in mind what is occurring in the UK today, the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) has desired to charge people who state that 'marriage is between one man and one woman only' with a 'Hate Crime' against gays, and transgenders!  During this trial the prosecutor states  "To say to someone that Jesus is the only God is not a matter of truth. To the extent that they are saying that the only way to God is through Jesus, that cannot be a truth." How can he say this?  He can say he disagrees and oppose it, he cannot state it is not truth.
What we are seeing here is an outworking of a process that has been ongoing for forty years.  The state now decides what is truth, what is allowable to state, and bans those who state truth.  The church has seen the persecution coming and each week we see similar stories, not always reaching the courts, yet appearing in business, the NHS, and all parts of society.  
Not long before the Christian church is outlawed in the west once again.

Free to Be Offended

Donald Trump, you may have heard of him, made some claims the other day on his way to winning the US Presidential election candidature or whatever it is they do in the Wild West.  The world jumped up and down and grumbled.  This has always been the way.  Since Cain slew Abel people have been quick to complain and object to things they disliked.  Here we find politicians rejecting his words (which like me most have not heard) and people demanding he stand down, go away, be banned for the UK and told to keep quiet as they don't like what he said.
Germain Greer, an objectionable Australian woman, made a comment re transgender types (one of today's fashionable set) and found people demanding universities do not allow her to speak, that she apologises, and keeps her trap shut.  Christians are no longer allowed to speak in some universities as they indicate being is not part of Gods plan, they object to abortion also, the secular types and feminist groups tell them to keep quiet and go away.
Freedom of thought is being lost in the UK and the west in general.  People have always objected to others saying things they do not like but today social media spreads such thoughts both for and against, across a wide net.  Thus objecting becomes easier and much, much louder.  
One philosopher and secularist recently spoke on the radio (I forget his name) condemning the ultra secularists who wish to ban all religions.  How, he asks, can anyone have free speech and ban others?  The Nazi's banned free speech by brute force and as the Communist nations did later put a stop to people listening to other wireless broadcasts.  Free speech was free as long as it is ours.
It is strange that we have a petition to ban Trump but as far as I know none to ban the Chinese President nor the Saudi's latest King.  Both nations are bastions of tyranny, torture and great opponents of free speech, much more so than Trump will ever be!  
Donald Trump is a  bumbling rich boy, an uneducated Boris Johnson if you like, he has cunning, money, friends but in the end will fade away.  If the US is as sinful as I think it is it may be God will allow Trump to win, as a punishment!
We must accept anothers viewpoint even if clearly wrong.  I work and live amongst and have lived amongst people of all faiths and none, gay boys and girls, crooks and rogues, foreigners from all over the place and for the most part we got on well enough.  There are always those you do not wish to tolerate, one Scots drunk in the late seventies comes to mind here and people who have opinions and beliefs that are clearly erroneous (we do not get electricity from the ground that keeps us alive) and often plain daft.  We must just try to make the best of it or avoid them as much as possible. 
However should we be banning people from public speaking because their views are offensive?  If they incite hate or violence, here I consider some radical Muslim preachers, they must be stopped but drawing the line is a difficult thing to judge.  Darwin is much praised by secular types but they forget he considered women second class because of their smaller brain (hmmm) and he thought that blacks were also inferior.  Not much of that in the secular world today, no mention of Adolf Hitler a man who lived out his Darwinian beliefs.  
Free speech is not an excuse to hate others, it is not an opportunity to bring others down but it is an opportunity to oppose their ideas just as they oppose yours.  An argument is not a fistfight it is a discussions, with both ears open, to the other viewpoint.  The results will vary but it ought not to lead to abuse.  
Others views may be offensive to us but we, and universities in articular, must not stop people spouting ideas and opinions we dislike.  After all we are not perfect and in the end it is Jesus himself who will judge them, not us.

Free Speech!

Julie Burchill is a 'controversial' writer.  The word 'controversial' can mean many things.  In her case it refers to her habit of just getting up peoples noses.  It ought to mean writing truth and not being liked because of this, which is very different.  It appears Julie Burchill, a lesbian I am informed, wrote an article, which I did not bother to read, criticising those who claim to be 'transgender.'  Hmmm, pots and kettles spring to mind, although as I say I did not read her words.  Her well known ability among what used to be called the 'chattering classes' to upset people has brought her many enemies.  Maybe she likes it this way?   However now something unusual has happened.  The 'Observer,' the paper in which her article was published, has removed said item and apologised for any offence caused.  Really?  A serious paper apologising for someone writing an opinion, can this be true?  Lynne Featherstone, a somewhat disturbed  Lib-Dem member of parliament and  Minister for International Development in this dreary government, had complained the item was 'Bigoted,' and I believe the word 'Transphobic,' was also used.  

So a loud 'lesbian' comments on 'transgenders' and is opposed by an unstable misandrist MP and the article is deleted?  What happened to 'Free Speech?  Now let me make it plain I see free speech as offering opinions as to how an individual sees the world around them.  It does not mean simply 'rabble rousing,' or deliberately stirring up hatred.  There is a great difference in offering an opinion and sheer hatred.  Which did Burchill offer?  I clearly cannot say but the Observer/Guardian tends to offer thinking people as writers.  I disagree with most of what these middle class 'socialists' say but they have the right to be wrong surely?  Banning their twisted opinions can surely be seen as totalitarian and not the free speech any decent society ought to be proud off.  

On the other hand where do we draw the line?  How does an opinion become offensive?  Does being right bring offence?  Is this wrong?  Of course not, although many will be unhappy and oppose vigorously the truth!  Others can decide if our Julie was being offensive or just bitchy, most women columnists tend to be that way, and MP Lynne might be honest enough to tell us if she has a secret she wishes to hide.  

Far too many jump on the offended bus today, and not because they are offended but because others opinions differ from them.  If you don't like others opinions, right or wrong, should we drown them out like certain groups today tend to do?  'Equality' and democracy cuts both ways.    

Toby Young's view

.