Striking the Right Balance - Sometimes Difficult.

The first confession I must make is that I am no expert in the laws of physics or the nature of change. But as an octogenarian observer, looking back over some eighty plus years, change seems to be a constant factor. I do remember in my high-school physics class being taught the "laws of physics". Granted, they were described as theoretical principles. I can't verify this because I am sure my high-school physics teacher is no longer here to defend himself. However, I read something recently that the duration of a second can change depending on how fast you are moving! Is a second really a second?

So lets suppose change is the only constant. However, the circumstances of those changes seem repetitive. No matter how far you go back in time we find the same human problems occurring in the world but under different conditions. There were eight crusades dating back hundreds of years. Their purpose was to "Free the Holy Land" and many of those killing fields were in Syria. And today, ISIS is engaged in another war with the western cultures, much of the violence taking place in Syria and Iraq.  Bullying, especially in schools and armies, has a long and frightening history. Yet bullying is alive and well and has morphed into "cyber-bullying". Sexual harassment, of children and adults, is as old as history itself. The circumstances change and take on new dimensions, but the basic issues, the human issues, remain constant.

What Have I done?

For me the problems recently emerging from Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine and its cartoons, are twofold: First is the issue of free speech. We all know, or should know, that free speech is not free. As Lord Russell once wrote; "The problem...is one of balance; too little liberty brings stagnation, and too much brings chaos." So even in a democracy individual rights must be conditional. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press in our country are not absolutes; they exist under the law and not above it. (Think hate propaganda, obscenity, genocide, extreme pornography) What then are the standards by which we judge the difference between liberty and license? The problem will remain, but when does abuse become serious enough for authority to put limitations on free speech? 

Remember the old schoolyard quote, " Sticks and stones may break my bones but words (pictures!) will never harm me". If someone hits me or smashes my window, it is another who inflicts the physical harm - a black eye or destruction of property. But if I am wounded by words or pictures, do I not harm myself by allowing the taunts to get under my skin? I am in charge of my own feelings and I should not be at the mercy of my own emotions? In most cases if the bullies do not get a response they soon tire of their perverse games. In fact, in a healthy democracy, we should be critical, even of religion and governments! We all have different ideas and  perhaps even ridicule one another from time to time, but we can still remain friends. But at the same time our respect for each other implies there is a line somewhere that must not be breached. Just because we can do it, should we? If for example, millions of our fellow human beings are emotionally hurt by insolent and infamous cartoons of their prophet and, even if that hurt is based on their own private beliefs or their dislike of our liberal culture, should we go ahead and publish anyway? Did 'I am Charlie' step over that invisible line? Even so, even if they did the violent and extreme revenge for such publications was not only disputatious but seriously schizophrenic in my opinion.

Aristotle - "In Medio Stat Virtus"

The second issue is believing that making new laws and rules solve problems. If that were true, how come there are still sexual predators, bullies and murderers among us?  Laws help dissuade felonious behaviour, but major incidents, such as the murderous response to "Je suis Charlie" can be used as an excuse by lawmakers to further curtail, and even weaken, the foundation of our fragile democracy namely, freedom of speech. Benjamin Franklin once wrote," Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing freedom of speech" 

Another American writer put it rather nicely. "It is by the goodness of God that we have those three unspeakable precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them." Mark Twain

And that's Dick's View of the World this Week