![](../../images/spacer.gif)
|
|
![archives](../../images/h-archives.gif)
April 25, 2003
Learn, think, then speak
Editorial
At a recent Philosophers' Café, Dr. Leonard Angel was the
featured speaker on the topic of Love, Law and Peace in Israel/Palestine.
At the outset, Angel, who is an author, poet and president of the
Vancouver branch of World Federalists, spoke of his discomfort about
the speech, acknowledging that he was not an expert. Indeed, he
noted, he doesn't know much about the conflict there, but said there
are times when we are obligated to get involved because the issue
is so urgent.
This motivation is sincere and well-intended. Nobody should stand
by idly while genocide or atrocities are taking place this
is one of the lessons of the Holocaust that we will reflect on during
Yom Hashoah Monday evening. But we also have a responsibility to
inform ourselves adequately to make intelligent contributions to
the discussion of world affairs.
On this continent, we have freedom of speech. Yet far too frequently
people mistake the right to speak with an obligation to do so. And
far too often, speakers ignore the concept that with rights come
responsibilities. If we have the right to speak, we also have a
responsibility to do so within the parameters of decency and reflection.
The war in Iraq seems to have lowered the bar on free expression.
Actors, filmmakers, singers and hockey commentators have been moved
to speak up due to the life-and-death nature of some of the issues
facing the world today. Thousands, possibly millions, of people
have marched against the war in what has truly been one of the most
remarkable examples of public mobilization since the Vietnam War.
But how many of these people have taken the time to research the
political history of the area or spoken to displaced citizens of
the region in order to become well-informed about the subject for
which they are waving placards?
Yet, while thousands have marched, some might argue that their collective
voices have not been as strong as a few lone voices with access
to mass media or captive audiences. Consider filmmaker Michael Moore's
apparently spontaneous and not- very-articulate rant at the Academy
Awards. Consider the spectacle of actor Sean Penn traipsing around
prewar Iraq. Canadian icon Don Cherry was hauled before CBC brass
for expressing views about the war that for once drew viewers' attention
away from his sport jacket.
Only an elitist would suggest these individuals do not have the
right to express their views. But each of these people has a public
profile, which bestows on them an impression of legitimacy that
they may not deserve. Each of these people has gained a reputation
for excellence in, variously, filmmaking, acting and sports commentary.
Note that not one of them has a reputation for incisive and informed
comment on international political affairs.
Do we need a doctorate in near eastern studies to comment on the
war in Iraq? Of course not. Every citizen has a right to their own
opinions. But those to whom a degree of credibility has been granted
have a different obligation than the rest of us. The nature of our
society means that many people put stock in the views of certain
people not because they have any advanced understanding of an issue,
but merely because they are given the platforms and the ability
to be heard when they speak. But that ability to be heard presents
them with an obligation.
In the case of Angel, for example, who admitted that his knowledge
base was limited, he referred throughout his entire talk to an entity
he called Palestine, as though it were a state that existed as a
geographical and political unit. He never qualified this term. Though
most of the listeners may have been well-enough versed on the Middle
East to know that such a state does not exist, there are those who
come to Philosophers' Cafés who are not familiar with the
history or geography of the region. Listening to Angel, imbuing
him with a credibility in this area that he may not deserve, such
people may come away believing there is already a state called Palestine,
with which Israel is fighting.
If you admit your knowledge base is minimal, but you're acting on
passion, sentiment, conventional wisdom or common sense, could your
possible misunderstanding of events, and then expression of your
feeling on such events, mislead people?
If you have a platform to speak and people are listening to you,
isn't it your obligation to get informed to the point that you are
comfortable talking about an issue?
If the world troubles us to the degree that we feel obligated to
stand up and be counted, we should at least go to the trouble of
informing ourselves adequately. Thankfully, in this country, we
are free to speak. It's worth remembering that we are also free
to read books and inform ourselves before we do.
^TOP
|
|