France is increasingly proceeding about the systematic regulation of freedom of speech under the pretext of "fighting hatred and extremism". Newest arrest case Yona Faedda's activist for holding a average speech on the street became a symbol of how political correctness permeates the state's apparatus and suppresses discussion on key social problems.
France arrests Islam critics. Faedda is an activist of the French Collectif Nemesis group, was detained, her telephone was confiscated, and then, as she relates, she was treated as a “terrorist” only for asking visitors questions about Islamism and its importance in society. Significantly, it was not about any march or demonstration with banners. The activist did not organize a convention, but talked to people on the street and cameraed their reactions.
Such actions are not a single incident. As public life observers point out, repressive sentiments are expanding where the hazard of “hate speech” gives the State broad powers to intervene. The activist describes that her bank accounts have been closed and social media accounts have been deleted or blocked, including private ones not active in political activity.
What would usually be a specified component of public debate – a critical voice towards muslim ideology and religion – in France increasingly ends with political apartheid and censorship by state authorities and private companies. akin phenomena are seen in an expanding number of Western countries, where the law on the alleged “talk of hate” and “extremism” becomes a tool for political neutralising incorrect opinions.
Interestingly, Macron's government defenders in these another akin cases claim that the service's actions are aimed at protecting social harmony and combating radicalisation – in peculiar in view of France's experience with muslim terrorism. The fact is, however, that government action in the name of "public security" easy becomes besides simplistic a form of censorship of public debate, where certain subjects are untouchable, so as not to irritate aggressive national and spiritual minorities.
Faedda's arrest sparked contradictory reactions: on the 1 hand, the outrage of freedom of expression defenders who talk about "political police" and "hunting uncomfortable voices"; on the another hand, the reaction of the establishment, which is convinced that combating "talk of hatred" is the moral work of a modern democratic state. However, irony arises here – if criticism of certain spiritual ideologies (Islamism, Judaism) can be banned or punished, what remains in the West of alleged "democracy" and free speech?
Instead of dictating which subjects can be addressed and which are not, democratic countries should cultivate pluralism of opinion: including those critical and controversial. Freedom of speech is not only a privilege to say what the authorities believe is allowed to say, but a foundation on which an open society is based. Reducing it in the name of political correctness, or "social sensitivity" in the long word leads to self-censorship of society, and in effect to incapacitate its citizens within the framework of fresh orwellian totalitarianism.
We besides recommend: Pseudoecologists request a taxation on meat
