A matter of decency

Editorial

The murder of six and the attempted assassination of Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords last week has provoked discussions about extreme rhetoric and its potential for inspiring violence.

The hysteria seen too often in media and public discourse over issues such as undocumented immigrants in the United States, abortion, the allegedly imminent demise of Western civilization through Muslim immigration and birth rates in Europe, or a host of other issues taken to acute levels of seriousness by comparatively small groups of people, presents a huge danger to civil discourse. If contentious issues cannot be discussed without resorting to the most demonizing and dehumanizing language, actions will almost certainly come to mirror rhetoric. Where language precludes compromise or empathy, opinions will most likely become hardened.

The rhetoric of political candidates and their media mouthpieces is probably not more depraved than in the past, but is now accessible 24/7. On the largely unmoderated Internet, there is commentary as dissolute as anything ever publicly expressed about almost any group or prominent individual. This is the reality of society today and altering this may be like reversing the rotation of the planet, yet it must be attempted.

Typically, of course, human beings change only when it is in our self-interest to do so. If nothing else, the Tucson tragedy should remind us that the obsessive demonization of the “other” (whoever that may be) can take our eyes off the ball in dangerous ways. Having spent the past decade fretting and planning against the next act of Islamist extremism, then debating the alleged economic and social dangers of illegal immigration, Americans seemed especially blind-sided by this attack, allegedly by an “all-American” young man.

Statistical facts and rhetoric can diverge hugely. For example, as Dan Gardner wrote in the Ottawa Citizen recently, in 2007, 583 terror attacks were attempted, foiled or executed in Europe. Of these, just four were perpetrated by Islamic extremists. The rest were by groups such as Basque separatists, anarchists, radical leftists and extreme rightists. In 2009, the one Islamist incident was matched in number to an incident perpetrated by a fringe group opposing foreign wine imports to France.

For many of us, such facts will be surprising, and we should ask ourselves why this is the case. Although the advice to not believe everything you read or hear is a cliché, it is still relevant. There are people who benefit from keeping others in a constant state of fear, and who don’t care about the consequences of their words. While vitriolic language may not directly result in violent behavior, it does create a hostile environment, and who really wants to live in that kind of society?

Generally, when warnings are issued about the impact of extreme rhetoric, perpetrators will hold up their right to free expression and declaim attempts to “stifle” discussion. But free speech itself is really not the issue. No reasonable person suggests that legal remedies should disallow even the most antagonistic political discourse. This is less a matter of law than of civility, citizenship and human decency. We should not need law enforcement to police our language. We and our elected officials should be policing ourselves. We and our public figures should lead by example, modeling ethical behavior and speech – not because we have to, but because it’s the right thing to do.

^TOP