Will Tyler made some interesting points about should we attempt
to muzzle all points of view thatseem objectionable to our point of
view, or should we lety them be at laest uttered, however
obnoxious they may be to us or to certasin racial/ethnic/religious
groups.
I remember a quote from Voltaire "I may not .like what you have to
say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Voltaire has
a point here. If we, say, lock up all fascists today, tomorrrow we
may lock up all anarchists, the day aftre, all radical
environmentalists, then all roads protesters, then all left wingewrs,
....then all radical geographers!
I amnot saying any of these grouops bear the slightest
resemblance to fascists, only that a salami slicing out of society of
the most hated groups in it has a very dangerous ending.
We already have criminal offences that can be used if fascist words
are ever translated into actions.
If they remain as words "only" - I agree words alone can have najor
effects - we can refute these with reasoned logic, and let logic
triumph, as it surely will, over unreasoning hatred.
For example the "send 'em all home, they're taking our homes and
jobs" argument....
This is what economists call the lump of labour fallacy, that an
economy only has a fixed amount of goods and jobs available. In
fact allowing more migrants in boosts labour supply and hence
GDP, and even if they do not/are not alowed to work, their demand
for food and shelter boosts GDP, so making the host nation richer.
So long as we learn from history eg Germany 1932 - 45, we can
advance from there BUT the Chinese have a pertinent warning
here..."Those who do not remember history are condemned to
relive it"...So make sure we learn and use that learning
Hillary Shaw
P/G Geography University of Leeds
Hillary Shaw, P/G Geography, University of Leeds
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|