Mark Steyn identifies recent landmarks in the International Left’s gradual elimination of free speech.
These days, pretty much every story is really the same story:
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of â€˜Fucking Zionist, fucking pricksâ€¦ Get the fuck off our campus.â€™
In California, Mozillaâ€™s chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek â€˜special clearanceâ€™ before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.
In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.
And in Canberra the government is planning to repeal Section 18C â€” whoa, donâ€™t worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever itâ€™s down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in the Age described as the ongoing debate about â€˜where to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural societyâ€™.
I heard a lot of that kind of talk during my battles with the Canadian â€˜human rightsâ€™ commissions a few years ago: of course, we all believe in free speech, but itâ€™s a question of how you â€˜strike the balanceâ€™, where you â€˜draw the lineâ€™â€¦ which all sounds terribly reasonable and Canadian, and apparently Australian, too. But in reality the point of free speech is for the stuff thatâ€™s over the line, and strikingly unbalanced. If free speech is only for polite persons of mild temperament within government-policed parameters, it isnâ€™t free at all. So screw that.
But I donâ€™t really think that many people these days are genuinely interested in â€˜striking the balanceâ€™; theyâ€™ve drawn the line and theyâ€™re increasingly unashamed about which side of it they stand. What all the above stories have in common, whether nominally about Israel, gay marriage, climate change, Islam, or even freedom of the press, is that one side has cheerfully swapped that apocryphal Voltaire quote about disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it for the pithier Ring Lardner line: â€˜â€œShut up,â€ he explained.â€™
Read the whole thing.