The idea of “tolerance above all” serves to negate the rights that have been previously thought to be inviolable, and “unalienable”. These include the very basics such as free speech and the right to own property. In theory, if we must tolerate theft, then private property has no meaning; only power and the most powerful have meaning. But if we don’t tolerate unconditionally, we harm those objects of our intolerance. This is intolerable.
Aside from the logical paradox and self-refutation of the “intolerance of intolerance”, this is becoming the international cultural and legal standard.
This is true right now in Britain in the form of inverted libel laws, as are described in the Wall Street Journal, European Edition, as described by author Salil Tripathi. Tripathi describes the legal assault on award winning author Simon Singh, who wrote an article about the British chiropractic practice and its claims to be able to cure organic issues, such as, “among other ailments, colic among infants, ear infections, and asthma”.[1]
One might think that empirical evidence might be employed to settle the issue. But that would indicate that the issue is factuality; it is not. The issue is, on the surface, libel, and subsurface, tolerance of anything and everything. So Singh is possibly responsible for any harm to the chiropractic industry, regardless of the truth value of his message.
In Britain, Tripathi writes, the libel laws are the inverse of American libel laws. In the U.S.A.,
“…plaintiffs have to prove that the defendant's statement is willfully false and defamatory, the burden of proof is reversed in Britain. According to U.K. libel laws, the plaintiff has to show only that the statement harms his reputation -- which is the case with almost any accusation, true or false. It is the defendant who must then prove that his allegations were not libelous.”This is roughly a statement of tolerating anything and everything. If you speak against something, you will be punished regardless of whether your statements are correct. You may not so intolerant as to criticize.
Britain has become the center for international lawsuits. It is difficult to impossible to prove that no harm is done when critiquing someone, including corporations, even if the allegations are valid. And Britain is perfectly comfortable with ruling on foreign allegations against foreign targets. So plaintiffs fly in from around the globe to lodge legal actions. This is called “libel tourism”, a profitable business for British lawyers.
The result has been the stifling of free speech. Books have been recalled in order to avert lawsuits, prominantly those critical of Muslim fund raising through front charities, but this is applicable to almost any book but the most bland. Newspapers and journalists are sued for investigative pieces on banks or shady businesses. Even British members of Parliament have used the libel laws to stifle journalistic criticism.[2] Again the validity of the criticism is not the issue; possible harm is the issue.
The real harm is two fold. The cost of litigation is stratospheric, potentially ruinous to publishers, let alone journalists. And free speech is lost altogether.
[1] I can personally attest to the value of chiropractic for relieving pain in a morphing spine. But it would take considerable empirical data to convince me that chiropracty can affect, much less cure, asthma, colic or organic problems of any kind. This is a case where inference is just not enough; empiricism must reign.
[2] Hopefully the recent massive shake-out of corrupt politicians in Briticsh Parliament will lead to more rational government.
No comments:
Post a Comment