Intolerable intolerance (Gleaner)

Andre Wright,

The modern world's lust for political correctness has so relativised every concept that nearly every commentator tiptoes daintily for fear of stepping on anyone's corns. Nothing is absolute - except for relativism, of course. Yet, with all the talk there seems only to be tolerance for the tolerable. The ability to offend - even intellectually - is blunted by the desire not to hurt anyone's feelings.

This burgeoning culture of wimpishness has trespassed on the fundamentals of freedom of expression, where every person who defends marriage as a union between a man and a woman is caricatured by the gay lobby and their sympathisers as an oafish neanderthal, a dim-witted dweeb whose opinions must be disregarded, swept aside as anti-intellectual excreta. As a former colleague of mine often said, "let's call a spade a shovel".

Carrie Prejean, a finalist in the Miss United States of America beauty pageant, learnt that the hard way on Sunday. On the final lap of the contest, her opinion was sought on gay marriage. Prejean, who represented the state of California - which last November voted for Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage - did what in many circles was deemed the unthinkable. She said, quite respectfully, that she disagreed with gay marriage, believing that union to be the sole domain of a man and woman. In one fell swoop she became the archetypal dumb blonde.

Politically correct

Everyone knows that the kosher comment would have been to hail the right of gays to marry and consummate their union as man and wife (or man and man or wife and wife, or whatever). That politically correct comment would have been the home run that won her the crown. Yet, Prejean spoke her mind. And speaking your mind gets you in trouble. Speaking your mind costs you the crown.

Freedom of speech has always been an endangered species. And even in these so-called more civilised times, such freedom is still the victim of whichever group has greater sway in the pendulous swing of power and influence.

However, despite the unpopularity of MP Ernie Smith's rants against homosexuality or Iranian President Mohammed Ahmadinejad's fusillade of anti-Semitic rhetoric, civil society, if it is to live up to its snuff, should facilitate the airing of such views. Ideas, no matter how objectionable, must be confronted at round tables and in debate halls. They should not be censored or stifled by those who believe they exclusively have the right of right.

Promulgators of gay rights have, wittingly or unwittingly, become the very bigots they have decried, launching every weapon in their arsenal - whether through economic arm-twisting or abject scorn. Instead of trying to eyeball proponents of heterosexual marriage, they have taken the easy route - labelling all opponents brainless, antediluvian Bible-thumpers. Maybe some are. But the knee-jerk willingness to broadbrush must be checked. Those detractors, just as the homosexual lobby, have a right (without being overwhelmingly offensive) to reject the gathering storm of opinion. What is abhorrent is the clamorous crescendo for newspeak - a language, as in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which all have a unidimensional viewpoint: Conservatism be damned! Long live liberalism!

Contending ideas and arguments are still the most potent tools for changing mindsets - not censorship, not brutality, not the bludgeoning silence from those who think they are winning wars by not 'dignifying' comments with a response. The US boycott and subsequent walkout by delegates at the United Nations conference on racism on Monday during Ahmadinejad's usual anti-Israel bombast achieved one thing. Nothing.

Proponents and opponents

Like it or not, our world will always have racists and sexists. There will be proponents and opponents of gay marriage. Atheists and religious adherents will have to co-exist. Either we talk to each other or torture each other.

If persons are proud to call themselves neo-Nazi 'nigger haters' (Oh my gosh, I used the N-word. Boo hoo.), let them spew their hatred. But let it be countered with facts and images of a victorious Jesse Owens or Joe Louis, not simply howls of protest for protest sake, or flying fists of fury. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech or expression, as our foul-mouthed deejays have found out. But there must be some space - though certainly not on free-to-air radio - where even the Kartels and Mavados are unshackled to air their opinions.

Feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.