Disagreement is the lifeblood of democracy
I frequently disagree with JC Wilcox, while this week I have taken Eric Bahrt (in a letter thus far unpublished) to task for his remarks about my beliefs.
Thursday, we have “Paul” saying we should go to the other “extreme” – his word – and have them both “banned”. The same could apply to John S, who “Paul” seemed to suggest called for a ban on some people. No, he did not; he questioned The Nation’s discretionary acumen (“Letters page continues to air fascist nonsense”, May 23). I’ve read JS’s contribution, and nowhere does he mention that word, although he skirts perilously close to it.
However, haven’t some people learned anything about the evils of the 20th century and earlier, that have carried on into this one? Shutting people up by any method deemed appropriate is the essence of universal totalitarianism and out-of-orbit conservatism and, at the other end of the political spectrum, communism. Whether it originated with Voltaire, Beatrice Hall or whomever, the aphorism “I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it” stays true to democracy. That said, it is indeed true that some forms of disagreement or opinion are beyond the pale. We leave judgements on that matter to the editor.
The views of Messrs Bahrt and Wilcox may be reprehensible to some (including me quite frequently in the case of the latter), but they have the right to express them. Long may it cont
