The issue of whether or not people ought to have unlimited freedom to express whatever thoughts and opinions they may hold is, at this important juncture in humanity’s evolvement toward universal freedom and peaceful co-existence, of the utmost and fundamental importance and will determine whether or not we survive both as a species and as free and independent individuals.
While this may sound at first like a rather preposterous and pretentious pronouncement to make nonetheless it bears urgent consideration given the relative and recent turn of events over the past century; ones which have accelerated all the major components of a nation’s (and a planet’s) essential nature – political, economic, social, cultural and environmental – to such a degree of intensity that the world is now facing a global dilemma of such scale that at no other time in our collective past have we had to face the harsh, impending realities that presently lay before us.
The litany of lies and deception and the magnitude of malfeasance on the part of our governments, our judiciaries, our religious institutions, coupled with the calculated, criminal complicity of the corporations and media, has reached a zenith of decadence and delusion and unless, as a collectively conscious and united whole, we the people of planet Earth begin to openly analyze and question the root causes of our combined quandary we will soon lose the one key able to unlock the mystery of the dismal human predicament we now find ourselves in.
That key is the individual’s ability to express their thoughts and ideas freely and without fear on any conceivable subject. It is not hyperbolical to state that this freedom is akin to one’s right to breath the common air that surrounds the planet or drink the liquid element we call water without which our bodies quickly cease to function. It’s synonymous with our right to eat healthy, vital, life-giving food that nourishes and sustains our physical self rather than being forced to consume adulterated, genetically modified food substitutes that are proven causes of disease and deformity in all living entities. It is parallel with one’s right and freedom to light a fire on a cold winter’s night to keep themselves warm or to seek shade when the sun’s beneficent rays become too hot to handle. Freedom of speech is therefore quintessential to our emotional, mental and spiritual health and well-being and cannot be allowed to be infringed upon by any organized body, be they legislators or lobbyists, for whatever reasons they might conjure up in their defence.
There are those who would scoff at pronouncements such as these and counter with endless argumentation, pleading that restrictions upon a person’s right to freedom of expression are necessary for the greater good of the public at large, all the while rolling out their reasons why this and that particular aspect of speech is dangerous or harmful to certain segments of society and therefore ought to be seen as a necessary compromise in order to protect whatever minority group that might be affected by the opinions or thoughts of others which they deem inimical to the interests of the aforesaid group. That is all part of the process of freedom of speech and ought to remain sacrosanct even though it is a plea for restrictions. This same sort of argument against limiting freedom of speech also uses such ruses as “a person cannot be allowed to yell ‘fire’ inside a crowded theatre or room” in a vain effort to lend credence to their seemingly innocuous arguments for restricting speech yet at the same time they refuse to acknowledge the beneficial results that often can result from a person who senses a grave danger in the body politic itself and yells “be aware!” via whatever medium of expression is available to them, be it a soap box, a song, a newspaper, a book or the Internet.
Where such proposed limitations cease to have meaning or validity and become a threat to every citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of speech is when they advocate the imposition of criminal charges such as are contained in sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code and in sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is here the metaphoric Rubicon of reason and common sense has been crossed and double-crossed and tyranny begins. It is here that all of our combined freedoms end and Orwell’s fiction becomes fact. Thus the necessity to rid Canadian jurisprudence of these dangerous, undemocratic “hate crime” laws that benefit only specified minority interests and penalize the fundamental freedoms of the vast majority.
Such is the pressing predicament that restrictions on freedom of speech pose; not only for the person who tries to warn others of impending threats to their (and other’s) well being but for those who, unbeknownst to themselves, are being led into lifestyles or linear patterns of thinking that ultimately are not beneficial to the planet or its inhabitants.
As the quote above this article clearly states, we either have freedom of speech or we don’t. There is no in-between stage; no dead zone of arbitrary discernment; no no-man’s-land of equivocation; no bardo plane of intermediary bluff that can be exploited and manipulated to the detriment of this fundamental right of all people everywhere and used to justify its limitations. All our freedoms rest upon this one. Never forget it.