Speak free

First things first: if I were to say I hated Japan (I don’t — it’s just an example), this would not be racism. No, it’s not particularly constructive or even coherent in that form (am I talking about the government, the culture, or something about the islands themselves?) but it’s certainly not racist, either.

If I said in earnest that I hated Japanese people, on the other hand, this would be pretty severe racial vilification. Anyone reading or hearing such remarks could conclude fairly quickly that I was a reprehensible moron and act accordingly. Therefore, however hurtful such racist remarks can be, I don’t believe that racists should be prevented at law from showing their true colours; I’d rather have those attitudes out in the open than festering unseen.

What if I were to say I despised the Indian caste system — would there be anything wrong with that? There’s nothing racist or discriminatory about it, so where does that leave us? Well, it’s ‘culturally insensitive’, for one. But the suggestion that I should refrain from making such criticism in the name of cultural sensitivity is insane; surely no idea should be held above criticism, especially by virtue of its origin!

I have a right to make these statements. So do you.

The equally ridiculous counterpart of this “foreign equals sacred” attitude is the “local equals sacred” cry of so-called patriots. How many times have you heard the term un-American abused? In recent years, it seems to have become increasingly popular to berate United States citizens who criticise their government or country in any way. Funny, that; I could have sworn that the US was founded on dissent.

Moving right on to religion. Secular states make up a large part of the developed world. A disappointing number of these states’ citizens and even leaders seem confused about this, but thankfully many of us do still have some measure of religious freedom. In spite of this freedom, however, religious criticism is far too widely considered taboo.

I’m sure it’s no easy job limiting the mayhem with so many religions coexisting — not when the majority are quite clear on this point, offering all sorts of lovely graphic suggestions on destroying one’s religious enemies. But let’s not cover it up; let’s hear it if Betty thinks her invisible friend can kick Bob’s invisible friend’s arse, so to speak. Yes, that was deliberately inflammatory; I’m trying to make the point that in a secular society, I’m not expected to hold something as sacred just because you do.

From the largest religious organisation (the Roman Catholic Church) to smaller cults (such as Scientology); from fledgling western cultures to the oldest ways, past down through hundreds of generations; scientific theories; economic models; philosophies; governments; whatever — let no idea be held above criticism. The best way to protect your freedom of speech is to exercise it liberally.

If you agree with all I’ve just said, then that’s great! If you think some or all of it’s rubbish, then that’s fine, too; tell me. I might not respect what you say, but I sure respect your right to say it.