Peter Dunne: Tolerance, diversity don't depend on acceptability

COMMENT

Lately, I have been reflecting on two famous statements attributed to the French political philosopher Voltaire. The first is, "I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", and the second is, "Common sense is not so common". Both are relevant to events in this country.

A curious trend seems to be developing where the proclamation of tolerance and diversity as hallmarks of a free and democratic society is becoming more and more tempered by the notion of acceptability. The expression of tolerance and diversity is increasingly permitted only if it is deemed acceptable.

Thus we have the situation in which the distinction between a person's or organisation's views and their right to be expressed is more and more blurred by an assessment of how acceptable these views might be to those who will hear them.

So, Holocaust-denier David Irving is forbidden entry to New Zealand mainly because views he may or may not express here are widely held to be unacceptable.

And Cabinet minister David Benson-Pope can attack the Destiny Church's stand on the Civil Union Bill as extreme because of the manipulative use of children in its aggressive public protest in Auckland.

Let me put my cards on the table. I think David Irving's views on the Holocaust are extreme, undoubtedly offensive to those who were affected by it, and not supported by reputable historians.

Likewise, I think the Destiny Church takes a fundamentalist view on many things, which frightens many mainstream people.

But while I am not making any links between Mr Irving and the Destiny Church, and wish no involvement with either, prohibiting or ridiculing the expression of their views will simply reinforce the stereotyped images we have of both.

And the more those stereotypes become established, the more intolerant the rest of us become and the more likely to resort to the extreme behaviour in reaction to them that we criticise them for in the first place. None of which strikes me as especially common sense.

Prescribing the publication of opinions by the subjective criterion of acceptability is not only extremely dangerous but betrays an appalling lack of confidence in the critical judgment of the mainstream.

Are we really so worried that, despite the overwhelming wealth of evidence to the contrary, Mr Irving might be right on the Holocaust and thus incite New Zealanders to rise up behind his banner?

Or do we genuinely believe that the sight of black-shirted heavies in dark glasses on big bikes is going to inspire our families, friends and neighbours to surrender themselves to the Destiny cause?

Of course we do not, because common sense tells us that the propositions being advanced in each case are too extreme and absurd to be of influence.

What is more dangerous than a brief visit by David Irving or a Destiny march is the sense being fostered that we are no longer able to be trusted to think for ourselves and, based on the value systems of an open, diverse society, reach our own decisions.

It sounds much like the McCarthy era in the United States, and the attendant concept of un-American activities that destroyed the lives of so many in the 1950s. Yet, the lesson of that time remains apparently unlearned.

McCarthyism was destroyed ultimately not by the suppression of the views of those with whom McCarthy disagreed but by the sheer absurdity and extremism of his own position as it became more widely publicised.

Oh Voltaire, where are you when we need you most?

* Peter Dunne is the leader of United Future New Zealand.