A note on Charlie Hebdo (and free speech as a whole).

One of the things that I’ve noticed amongst the most leftist political commentators, some of whom I would identify as friends, is that despite this heinous crime the content of “Charlie Hebdo” should not be forgotten about. That, while it does not justify this horrific, abhorrent crime, the magazine was apparently filled with xenophobia, racism, sexism and the like. One blog I follow noted that freedom of speech should be granted but that this magazine was “hate speech” and should not be incorporated into arguments concerning freedom of speech.

The most important thing to remember about freedom of speech is that it gives anyone a right to the microphone of publishing content, should they choose to take it.

And many consider this a “problem” about free speech ideology.  That without this, movements like the KKK and UKIP would crumble instantly. Because while everyone is entitled to whatever opinion they may have, it is only those of perhaps a pure mind or heart that should be listened to. This is, essentially, where most of left wing’s elitism lies. It is not tied to finance but instead to what they believe to be intellectual and what they deem as ignorant ideas from ignorant men and woman. Which is a fair argument until eventually; it just becomes about they’re fighting against.

I thought it’d be a good time now to incorporate something I heard from the Commons coverage yesterday whilst they were discussing the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill said by a Labour backbencher concerning the Paris Attack;

“In expressing our horror about what has occurred in Paris, some understandably ask how it is possible that it could take place. They ask how it is possible that journalists could be gunned down in the way they have been because of what has been written or because of cartoons. The answer is simple: we are dealing with murderous psychopaths. If hon. Members are puzzled or mystified by how such an outrage could occur, I simply ask them to remember what the Nazis did and remember the millions of people murdered for one reason only—not their politics and so on, but simply their racial origin. We are dealing here with people with a Nazi mindset, who consider it an obligation, as the Nazis did, to take lives."

By granting those who do not agree with you a voice, you are opening yourselves to outside of the parameters you have designed for yourself.

So what do we do? Make sure UKIP has as much time with the megaphone as the Government? Perhaps I am. Because they’re free to think what they like and technically, say what they like. But that doesn’t mean I’m totally shutting my doors to the idea I mentioned earlier – but instead, I would like to rephrase the sentiments of left wing thinking. (Naturally, the only course forward is to look at American politics!)

In 1984, one of the various clever tactics of President Reagan’s re-election campaign was to delegitimise the attempts Walter Mondale made for the White House. He allowed Mondale to speak on the same issues and to bring up issues that Reagan hadn’t addressed. Ideas that he disagreed with. However, whenever they side-by-side he simply made his philosophies sound like the only procedure and Mondale’s some alien’s design. It is about the legitimacy one has on a subject in comparison to someone who is not as well versed in such a matter.

It is the way to deal with those who are uniformed on feminist issues or LGBT. It is the way to address racial issues – to truly win a debate on any platform, your argument must look like the legitimate, correct one whilst still allowing your opposition to voice theirs. And if people have felt in the past that Charlie Hebdo has shown to be “hate speech” then it is simple – prove your argument to more than the simple squabbles of what many consider to be a new dawn of political correctness. Because for many? It was a magazine that did not allow the aristocracy, the great established organised churches of our world, to live with their glass ceilings.

But despite this quite convoluted argument concerning free speech, I think we can all agree that the crime committed was an atrocity. And the second you start killing those who are simply guilty of making people laugh then I can only assume that your understanding of the world is limited to the structures of your small minded caves.