Open Dialogue Vanishes When Common Sense is Deemed Hate Speech

Nigel Biggar, an Anglican minister, theologian, and ethicist, recently visited the colonies to discuss the importance of free speech and colonisation.

In an interview with The Epoch Times, he was asked about hate speech.

“Hate crime,” he explains, “is not a legal concept. It’s a catch-all for anything certain minorities find distressing. The term ‘hate’ has been stretched to include dissent and criticism, in ways that common sense, if it still exists, finds baffling.”

He makes a valid point. We seem to be in a world where feelings have taken precedence over facts, and hurt feelings are equated to harm.

“If I say something to you,” Biggar continues, “and you, as a member of a previously marginalised group, find it distressing, I can now be accused of harming you. But common sense, again, tells us that’s nonsense.”

And so we find ourselves in a time of heightened sensitivity, where words once freely spoken are now under threat of repercussions.

Related Stories

Biggar expresses concern about the “loosening of concepts of hate and harm” in the UK and Australia. He notes, “Speech that was entirely free a decade ago is now under threat.”

He acknowledges the value of having an eSafety commissioner to educate the public, especially young people, about the dangers of the digital world. However, he emphasizes the importance of not giving authorities the power to dictate what constitutes harm.

“The danger,” he warns, “is that with this vague idea of harm, reasonable viewpoints could be censored.”

Censorship is another issue that has emerged, fueled by misinformation and disinformation.

Biggar acknowledges that misinformation has always existed but has been amplified by social media platforms.

However, he remains steadfast in his belief that “the best defense against misinformation is through robust debate and the truth.”

For Biggar, the solution is straightforward: advocating for free speech and resisting government interference.

Australia, in particular, has taken a step towards this with the establishment of a free speech union.

Biggar sees potential in this development. “If it gains support and resources, it could become a significant force.”

Shifting the Spectrum

Biggar points out how the enemies of free speech have evolved over time. He notes that both the left and right have attempted to suppress dissent in the past.

Today, however, it is the far left that is primarily responsible, imposing its views on transgender issues, systemic racism, and criticisms of the British Empire.

Despite considering himself a moderate, Biggar finds himself at odds with the far left.

“I see myself as a moderate,” he reflects, “but these views are so unacceptable to the hard left that I’m now labeled as right-wing. The center has shifted leftward due to the influence of the hard left, leaving many of us isolated.”

But Biggar does not absolve the political center of responsibility.

“The moderate center,” he suggests, “has allowed this shift, making those of us in the center who are less compromising appear extreme. I’m seen as divisive simply because I disagree with the hard left. It’s absurd.”

In essence, Biggar is not just warning against the erosion of free speech but the gradual transformation of public discourse itself.

He highlights a climate where words are used as weapons, reasoned debates are stifled by ideological fervor, and the once-balanced center has either weakened or vanished entirely.

The real danger, according to Biggar, stems from our collective retreat from open, robust dialogue.

Biggar’s concerns, although tinged with nostalgia for a simpler time, underscore the importance of preserving the right to dissent, question, and think critically. In a world where free speech is increasingly under threat, safeguarding these rights may be the most radical act of all.