Why the fear of rational debate?

 

Cardinal Bellarmine, the Church’s chief theologian wrote that “to affirm that the Sun is at the centre of the universe ... is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our faith by contradicting the Scriptures”. Galileo asked that his idea not be condemned “without understanding it, without hearing it, without even having seen it”. Galileo’s eloquent letter was forwarded to Rome where, in the words of one historian, “it sank out of sight as softly as a penny in a snowbank”. (source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html).

I am not saying that the Nitirat Group is anywhere near Galileo. But I am saying that their ideas, like Galileo’s in his day, must not be condemned without understanding them, without hearing them – and that is what Thammasat University has done. To say that giving an idea a voice could lead the public to mistakenly believe that Thammasat organises or agrees with the movement holds no water if the event is a debate, which by definition must have two opposing sides. To say that the debate could trigger violent confrontation is not a reason, either – for the mission of a university is to seek the truth, if need be with authorities present to maintain law and order and ensure freedom of speech.

Thus, Thammasat should arrange public debates between the Nitirat Group and a representative of its opponents, starting with the meaning of HM the King’s birthday speech directly and strongly criticising our lese majeste laws. Then, the debaters could analyse the group’s proposals in light of HM’s opinion.

I stand with John Stuart Mill: “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” As one of our foremost law schools, what has Thammasat learned from Galileo’s trial?

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok