The more liberal we become, the less free we truly are.
9 November was no more of a triumph for Trump than 23 June 2016 was for the people of the United Kingdom.
Both dates are an indictment to our entire political system.
Why do we keep getting it so wrong?
These dates signify a rare triumph for freedom of expression, even if the outcome does not accord with the views of many.
We live in a society where people are too afraid to speak publicly and freely; fearful of the backlash they may receive in person, through social media, or even in the media from those with a misconception of true liberalism.
There is something fundamentally wrong when the only place an individual feels comfortable with expressing his or her true opinion without facing verbal or even physical abuse is in the intimate confines of a voting booth.
Dozens of alleged hate crimes reports have surfaced on social media in the wake of Trump’s appointment as President-elect. In California, a girl who expressed support for Trump on Instagram was attacked at school the next day. In Chicago, a white man involved in a traffic accident was beaten and robbed by a group of black people, while bystanders shouted: “Don’t vote Trump!”
Source: POLITICO
The most shocking thing about these events is the degree to which we all live in our own echo chamber. A large number of Remain voters do not know anyone who voted Leave, Clinton voters do not know anyone who voted for Trump, and vice versa.
I look at my Facebook newsfeed and I see a plethora of outraged statuses demonising the Nigel Farages and the Donald Trumps of this world. Rarely however do these outbursts, typed in isolation on a computer or a mobile, engage with people beyond their carefully crafted social circles.
Eli Pariser, CEO of Upworthy, writes of the “filter bubble effect” – how algorithms and social media such as Facebook shape our knowledge: “news-filtering algorithms narrow what we know, surrounding us in information that tends to support what we already believe.”
Journalists have a responsibility to create and inform public discourse, facilitating the forming of opinion in order to strengthen society. I was shocked and deeply saddened to read that students at City University of London, one of the country’s most respected journalism schools, have voted to ban the Sun, Daily Mail, and Express from their campus.
What’s the solution?
Not happy with the decision by the UK to leave the EU or by the US to elect Trump? Talk about it. Debate. Engage.
Yes, words are racist. Yes, words are sexist. Yes, words are sectarian. But people are not until they act on them, and simply labelling them as such achieves nothing.
Needless to say, I am not defending these statements or the people who utter them. I am defending a fundamental human right: the right to freedom of expression.
It is all too easy to label a view and give up on the individual who expressed it, instead of listening to them, speaking with them, engaging with them.
People can choose to change their words and their opinions, or they can choose to remain the same. Boxing them off as an anomaly, as “other”, has not and never will solve the problem.
In the words of Tom Walker’s satirical British news reporter Jonathan Pie: “Unsavoury people should be allowed to say unsavoury things.
“If you make it illegal to say racist things, that doesn’t stop racism, it just hides it. I don’t want my racists to be hidden; I want them to be out in the open. I want them to be able to speak loud and clear, and then I can see them and then I can hear them and then I can choose to either ignore them or to challenge them.”
Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell was correct when he called last month’s so-called Ashers “gay cake” verdict in Belfast “a defeat for freedom of expression”.
The Appeal Court’s ruling sets a dangerous and arbitrary precedent. The bakery’s refusal to decorate a cake with a pro-gay marriage message was discrimination against an idea, not against a person.
“The judgement opens a can of worms. It means that a Muslim printer could be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed and a Jewish printer could be required to publish a book that propagates Holocaust denial,” writes Tatchell.
“Discrimination against people should be unlawful but not discrimination against ideas and opinions.”
If anything is to be learnt from 2016, it is a lesson of tolerance.
At his rally for Hillary Clinton in North Carolina earlier this month, President Barack Obama’s speech was interrupted by a protester holding a pro-Trump placard. When the crowd began booing and moving towards the protestor, Obama immediately asked the crowd to sit down.
“You’ve got an older gentleman who is supporting his candidate. He’s not doing nothing. You don’t have to worry about him,” said Obama.
“First of all, we live in a country that respects free speech. Second of all, it looks like maybe he might have served in our military and we’ve got to respect that. Third of all, he was elderly and we’ve got to respect our elders. And fourth of all, don’t boo. Vote.”
Source: CNN YouTube
Being intolerant of another person’s view will not change anything. We must respect all opinions, regardless of the extent to which we agree or disagree with them.
But part of this respect is not only to listen but to interrogate: to understand why.
2016 has borne witness to a collective lack of empathy. We are not prepared to accept opinions that do not mirror our own, to understand personal circumstances and backgrounds that do not reflect our own.
Do not label an alternative view as shameful or wrong because you do not understand it yourself.
This is where we are as a society. What matters most now is what we do next.
Image credit: Microchip08
Sophia C McBride 