A Different Kind of View
I have asked myself what we’re fighting for,
And have acted at times as if I knew,
But now I understand what really counts:
The right to take a different kind of view.
If you wish all opinions the same,
The enemy’s arrangements are for you,
But some of us will battle to preserve
The right to take a different kind of view.
The free flow of exchanges and ideas
Contributes to discovering the new,
But such creativity requires
The right to take a different kind of view.
The strongman believes his system better
For reaching the results he would pursue,
But our ambitions are pitched higher by
The right to take a different kind of view.
Dissent can be untidy and unkempt
And liable to stir an ordered crew,
But submission’s the path if we ignore
The right to take a different kind of view.
Though a free society is messy,
And difficult to manage, it is true,
An artless void awaits the world which lacks
The right to take a different kind of view.
Stephen Gospage
Thu 28th Mar 2024 09:03
Thank you to everyone - David, Graham, Auracle, Tim, Ray, Telboy and John for your comments. You all make good points and I am very grateful to you for taking the time to set out your views.
I wrote this because I believe that freedom of speech, expression and the press is fundamental in the tolerant, liberal society in which I would like to live. 'Different views' can sometimes be infuriating and their expression (e.g. through demonstrations) disruptive but, nevertheless, there still needs to be a compelling reason to restrict them in any way. (Restricting free speech means shutting people up, and if they don't shut up, taking steps to make them do so. And we all know where this can lead...)
To put it simply, societies which uphold these freedoms are more creative and more fun.
Having said that, I am not so naive to think that the right to free speech is absolute. Democracy has to be defended, as you say, John. Incitement to violence or hatred, libel or slander require remedies. But criticising your government or saying things which 'upset' certain people does not. 'Balance', with a very high burden of proof, is the watchword here, as you say, Graham.
This why we have to reject the playbook of the 'Strongmen' (who are in fact mostly weak, insecure men), whose tactic is to brand anyone who disagrees with them as a traitor or an enemy of the state. In the end this is all self-defeating, as it stifles debate and inventiveness with disastrous results.
As regard pro-Russian opinions, Telboy, I would not object to reasoned arguments being posted, even if I found them objectionable. However, we should obviously not accept attempts to justify murder or destruction in Ukraine. I understand that the line is thin here and no one ever said that the defence of such rights was easy.
And my thanks to Hugh, Jennifer, Holden, K Lynn, Steve, Kelso, Manish and Rob for liking this.