Making it illegal to disagree?

All of us argue. Most of the time these arguments expose the truths and biases we all have, while revealing our own incompetence or misunderstanding of the disputed issue. Those well versed in debating are more likely to swing us to their point of view by using convincing facts or strong analogy, but almost always they do so by appealing to our inner voice of reason. 

But sometimes the debate turns ugly. Facts get twisted or cleverly omitted, participants shut down objective reasoning and the whole thing turns into a battle reminiscent of something from The O'Reilly Factor. Institutional bias, political partisanship and ingrained religious viewpoints are usually the cause of this malcontent, which leads one to wisely consider the maxim of not discussing religion and politics unless paid to do so.

But it is something altogether different when a modern nation state shuts down the debate. In an recent display of this anti-Plato spirit of intolerance, France has decided to make it illegal to deny the 1915 Armenian genocide at the hands of the Ottomans. Not surprisingly, Turkey isn't all too thrilled with the French Parliament's decision and has voiced its opinion by recalling its ambassador from Paris.

That's not to say that a genocide is a good thing. I suppose someone in the French Parliament just got fed up over the Turks rejection of culpability in that nearly 100 year old fiasco and decided to draft up a resolution just to spite them. After all, what does an Asian massacre carried out a hundred years ago have to do with life in 2011 France?

My guess is that some in France are trying to undercut Turkey's efforts regarding their European Union membership bid. Seeing that Turkey has never really been accepted into the European fraternity, it is likely this latest row is just another manufactured issue in an attempt to prove the unworkableness of such a shotgun marriage.

Another reason may be more domestic, as over 500,000 citizens of Armenian decent live in France, and are seen as a key source of support for President Sarkozy in the upcoming presidential election.

But it's not just the French proclamation that worries me. Despite the relatively free democratic, philosophical and religious environment of Europe over the last 60 years, there seems to be a movement towards limiting undesirable discourse.

Perhaps a generalized theory to explain this regression in European free expression could be the increasing secularization of European society. There seems to be an intolerance of dissenting viewpoints regardless of whether or not they are valid, if only to be seen defending humanist values.

But when a modern nation state threatens its citizens with imprisonment for diverging from a prescribed narrative, something smacks of state authoritarianism. It is doubtful that such a law would fly in the U.S, although Canada has come close a few times regarding other recently invented anti-humanist values, such as homophobia.

Recent controversy surrounding the Dire Straits song “Sultans of Swing” led to a massive backlash after the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ruled the song unfit for the airwaves due to an implied gay slur. And all this after one person complained.

But the intolerance being witnessed lately is peculiarly inverted. In particular, European society, at least on a corporate level, seems to have a greater level of intolerance towards views and beliefs that don't exactly gel with the mainstream. This attitude is clearly obvious when evaluating European Holocaust denial laws.

According to a Wikipedia entry:

Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 16 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland. The European Union's Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia states that denying or grossly trivialising "crimes of genocide" should be made "punishable in all EU Member States".

The problem is Europe just can't come to a consensus on this. Britain twice rejected Holocaust laws, Spain ruled the laws unconstitutional, Italy and the Netherlands refused to set prison sentences and Sweden and Denmark rejected such legislation.

While Holocaust denial is indisputably distasteful and intellectually dishonest, it's still just a viewpoint. Certainly those European members who rejected such "denial" legislation recognized the slippery slope presented by criminalizing an intellectual position, no matter how foolish it may seem.

Holocaust denial laws exist because of the psychic and tangible damage left behind by Nazism, especially in places that suffered from Nazi oppression, like France and Poland. Interestingly, Germany -- the birthplace and primary aggressor of the “final solution” -- is the most outspoken agent in silencing holocaust deniers.

And how far does this criminalization of thought go? Do conspiracy theories qualify? Anyone with half a hippocampos knows the holocaust happened pretty much the way the official narrative says it did, but what are we supposed to do about the fringe theories of the 9/11 Truth movement or the Flat Earth Society?

Just because a dissenting viewpoint is so obviously incorrect (and possibly offendingly so) isn't grounds for throwing people into prison. Such authoritarian actions make Western democracies look like a monster of sorts, and if there is a consensus we can all agree on it is that the 20th century saw enough of those.

The real life superheroes

The other day my son and I were delivering newspapers. Running behind schedule and with the sun quickly setting, my son caught sight of me squinting in search of mail boxes and asked me about it. “It's always darkest before the dawn” I told him. “What's that mean, Dad?” he replied with a quizzical look.

I began to explain how the changing lighting conditions at dusk and dawn play tricks with our eyes, how the retina is slow to adjust and therefore our vision is impaired. But eventually our eyes do adjust, I told him, be it to the darkness of night or the brightness of the rising sun.

Having digested this information, we carried on despite the cold, rain and wind relentlessly hammering us. And in the end we triumphed, heading back to our cozy little home for some well deserved dinner and relaxation.

In this, the dying season (as I fondly call it) it's easy to get discouraged by the overcast skies, the piles of snow, or the cold induced chatter of the teeth. Then there's those awful 24-hours-of-torture hybrid flus I'm positive escaped from some Russian bio-weapons lab. But eventually the dawn (or spring) comes, and that's a good thing.

Paradoxically, this week has been good for me. My ten year journey to pay off my student loan came to an end, my leaking house roof got fixed, and to top it all off, the boss informed me a full time position became available and I was his choice to fill it (with raise to boot!).

I suppose any of the aforementioned endeavours could have driven me to raise my hands in surrender. Given the obstacles and hindrances I've faced a long the way, it would have been easy to say “screw it,” just walk away and save myself the hassle of putting in the hard work.

But perseverance builds character, and character is essential in becoming a successful person. And I think this is where we often fall short. We misjudge the purpose of the journey, which is not always to attain the ends that journey entertains -- although reaping the spoils is certainly beneficial and not without merit. “For it is better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all.”

Personality and character are often at odds. Good character is conspicuously absent in our pop culture, while personality is gratuitously promoted. Those with a strong personality are often charismatic, wowing us with their intellect and suave, but an honest evaluation will usually reveal a host of tragic flaws: they're shallow, egotistical, and more often than not lacking in good judgement.

Hollywood celebrity usually equates to dysfunctional marriages and family relationships, because such unions, though they may have been brought together by personality attraction, ultimately stand or fall based on deficiencies in personal character. A great personality may makes things interesting and fun, but strong character is the glue that holds the mess together.

And I suppose the reverse is true, that those with character but little personality may come off as dry, self-righteous, uneventful and therefore discounted as square or boring.

Rarely have I found an instance where both of these attributes inhabited the same person. In fact just writing this article I sat for ten minutes racking my brain in hopes of finding a worthy (and interesting) individual. Most political and religious figures fall into this category, and yet somehow society considers these types the most untrustworthy of characters. Consider the most recent scandals of late-- most if not all who come to mind are persons who fit this demographic.

Teachers (at a trustworthy factor of 81%) and doctors (88%) are among the highest trusted among society, which leads me to believe that character rates highly in their daily activities. After all, we trust teachers to properly mold our children's development, and we trust doctors when they take our lives into their hands.

On the contrary (and not surprisingly) bankers (29%), journalists (19%) and politicians (14%) rate among the lowest.

But this still doesn't mean that doctors and teachers are the most interesting people. Personally, I find dentists come off as the most aloof and creepy of all the professions (have you seen those Sensodyne commercials?) --  hardly a group I'd attribute a hardcore fan base to. Besides, has there ever been a heartwarming, heroic Hollywood tale of a righteous, charismatic dentist inspiring his clients to teeth brushing perfection? I didn't think so.

However teachers tend to evoke a little more fondness from Hollywood: Mr. Holland's Opus, Freedom Writers, Dead Poet's Society -- all seem to evoke the qualities we seek in the perfect man/woman -- the charismatic motivator, a champion of character, and an under appreciated overcomer of seemingly impossible obstacles.

But society is a somewhat hypocritical being. If this were not so teachers would receive salaries reflecting their importance. Instead society values men who can throw a screaming fastball or women with engorged Kardashian assets and perfectly petite pores.

Perhaps I'm setting my sights too high. Guys like William Wallace (Braveheart) or Martin Luther King Jr.(Civil Rights Movement) are a once in a generation find. But history makers are always in demand. These are the types who inspire others in order to effect change, like Mohandas Ghandi (Indian Independence Movement), and they often have a superhuman quality about them.

More often than not this quality shines bright not because of our heroes stoic stirring speeches or the massive civil resistance and popular consensus these heroes draw upon -- but because they are willing to sacrifice their reputations, livelihoods and even their lives for the cause they believe in.

These examples of our perfect hero all lost their lives to the opposition forces they faced, yet in doing so became a symbol that galvanized societies to achieve the freedom they so desperately sought.