I'm inspired to write (pretty anti-climatic I must say) on this topic because of recent discussions with some friends and also because I just recently wrote an essay on religious freedom a couple of weeks ago, which very much delves into this discussion of freedom of speech.
Being in the UK allowed me to have firsthand experience of being at the receiving end of hate speech and micro-aggressions. It is no wonder that there have been many ongoing campaigns, ground-up initiatives and NGOs which address issues such as racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, along with many others which are associated with intolerance, abuse, and hate speech. The things I have been reading on these forces of hatred have actually come to life.
In Singapore, voices are being stifled and suppressed because of the rules and laws in place. When there are voices that are deemed by the state to be corrosive to the national harmony, the state would not hesitate to implement bans (for instance, banning religious speakers such as Mufti Menk, Zakir Naik and also Christian speakers from entering Singapore) and strict laws which keep voices at bay. Nevertheless, we see these voices loud and clear in spaces such as the social media and in the private spheres and behind closed doors. Nobody wants to be seen as racists. But people still get away with these things by perpetuating stereotypes in their own circles, giving snide remarks and making jokes with racist undertones. Prejudice remains unchallenged. With restrictive space given to air one's views, they remain potent as long as they are not caught. Just recently, an educator left her job (I'm pretty sure she was asked to leave) because she directed blame towards parents for their children's poor literacy abilities (this would be an interesting discussion for another time). The point is, so long as you decide to go public, you would risk being subjected to strict actions by the state. It still does not resolve the bulk of prejudice which lingers beneath the veneer of peaceful co-existence and harmony.
In the UK, people are generally free to voice their opinions, so on the contrary, you see prejudice, hate, bias, discrimination, all unfiltered and raw. We get to see a spectrum of opinions, responses and reactions from the populace. You see identity politics coming alive, numerous groups of people fighting for their rights. The good thing about being in a liberal society is, you really get to see how people really think of you and this could be helpful in understanding where one's hate, bias and misunderstanding stems from. This is particularly helpful when one wants to formulate policies and counter-hate strategies and devise methods in bridging gaps of misunderstanding and mending relationships. Of course the bad thing is having to be at the receiving end of hate speech and discrimination. It is purely painful and could be deeply traumatising especially when one finds himself/herself at the end of discrimination in its worst forms of physical attacks, violence and even murder.
The dilemma, or rather the debate, would put the limelight on the costs of freedom of speech and religion. Do we choose harmony, while being at risk of on-the-surface type of harmony, over knowing people's actual prejudices? Or do we prefer to see it all, while risking lives, and but knowing where to nip these harmful views in the bud?
Comments
Post a Comment