Freedom of Hate

A couple of things happened yesterday that have me really thinking. The first was that Islamic terrorists killed a number of people in France who dared to exercise their freedom of speech. France has gone out of its way to accommodate Muslims and to be tolerant. This satirical paper, which is apparently a sort of French "Mad Magazine" had poked fun at the Islamic Prophet on a number of occasions, and had been attacked before. For that, they lost their lives.

 

Yesterday the discussions were heavy about whether these radical terrorists represented Islam or whether Islam was truly a religion of peace. The current practice of Islam in many places cannot be said to embrace freedom or peace, but rather terror and compliance to Sharia Law. And yet the argument is rightly made that not all Muslims are radical violent extremists. It is said that many Muslims are peaceful and do not endorse this terrorism and violence. We are told that the Koran is what Islam is, not the behavior of certain members of the religion on either end of the spectrum.

The second event that occurred yesterday was a little closer to home. Yesterday I attended the inauguration of elected officials at Missouri's state capital in Jefferson City. I had never attended before and was excited to witness the swearing in. As I entered the Capital I noticed the "No Justice, No Peace" crowd was there on the first floor being very angry and staging their die-in and giving very loud speeches. I listened for a short time, noting the signs and rhetoric. They wanted us to know that "Black Lives Matter", and they have also co-opted a number of other issues, such as expansion of Medicaid.

 

I have written before about Ferguson and Michael Brown and Eric Garner and the problems with municipal courts in St. Louis. There are some real problems that need to be dealt with, but I did not hear any of these protestors present any suggestions for how to do so. We do need to reform health care, but we need to empower free markets and remove dysfunction, rather than simply expand Medicaid to get a few "free" dollars from a federal government that is up to its eyeballs in debt.

I smiled and made my way to the gallery above the Senate chamber and took a seat. A few friends were there and I said hello. After a few minutes we had a color guard present the colors and we said the Pledge of Allegiance and sang the Star Spangled Banner. They were just getting ready to start when Lt. Governor Peter Kinder slammed his gavel and asked the highway patrol to remove a man who had crept into the gallery and unfurled a large banner of protest.

 

I looked around and the aisles next to me as well as the entire gallery were now filled with protestors. The chanting, which had not stopped from the hallways, had now moved inside the senate chamber. They were screaming and letting us all know that there would be "No Justice, No Peace".

The gavel pounded and the officers moved in. The gallery was cleared, including me and my friends. Everyone had to leave. As they had us file out the protestors were in the outer hallway, banging a drum and screaming. I stopped, faced them, and gave them the attention they wanted. I stared. I must admit to a bit of anger and frustration myself, but I kept silent. One young man seemed agitated that I was looking at him. His voice rose, and his movements became more extreme. He looked at me with what I can only describe as hatred as he emphasized "No Peace!!"  

 

These morons eventually filed out and boarded a bus back home. We spoke with a few. The ones we spoke to said they were from churches and had planned a quieter less confrontational protest, which had been joined by a younger more radical crowd with a different agenda. 

Missing a ceremony is no big deal, but this was simply rude. Whether it is interrupting a ceremony or shoppers at a mall or blocking a highway, one must ask what these folks want me or shoppers or drivers to do?  Clearly they want me to know "Black Lives Matter" and that there will be "No Peace".  But they have not mentioned changing the number of Grand Jury votes to get a conviction or having doctors post their prices or opening municipal courts to the press.

 

No, they are just angry and want to frighten and annoy people. Not all of them, I suppose.  Like Muslims or any other group they are a broad spectrum of people. Some are peaceful and some are arsonists, vandals, and looters. Some are idiots and some are reasonable people trying to make a point. 

 

Finally, tonight there is a meeting of the St. Charles County Republican Central Committee. Representatives from Missouri's US delegation to Congress are supposed to be there to explain why they voted for an Omnibus spending bill that continues overspending and was filled with pork and was very unpopular among Republicans in St. Charles County and across the nation.

Many Republicans blasted Ann Wagner and Blaine Luetkemeyer and Roy Blunt and the rest of the Missouri delegation for a last minute, back room, irresponsible spending deal that does not address immigration or Obamacare and continues overspending. We are going to be told that it had to be done and that they will do the right things later and look at all the wonderful pork that was brought home. We will be told that Republicans and conservatives have to stick together and hold our noses in order to get our way so we can elect a moderate establishment type in 2016.  

 

I am very proud of my friends in the Republican base for standing up and saying "THIS IS NOT WHO WE ARE"!  This is not the party of fiscal irresponsibility and back room deals and pork. We are not about kicking the can down the road. We demand transparency and responsible government. 

 

At the protest yesterday I did not see anyone break ranks and say "this is wrong".  I only listened to part of the news about France, but in general I feel "moderate" Muslims have been far too silent. But anyone with half an ear open heard the Republican grassroots opposition to the Omnibus and business-as-usual-Boehner.  Kudos to the base for holding their own party accountable.

 

I support free speech even when it is rude and obnoxious. Interrupting people's lives to get in their face is rude and makes people angry but once you do so you need to have a good, coherent message that people can act on. The protestors yesterday left me with nothing but anger, both theirs and mine. There was nothing there for me to take home except that they are angry at ME and think I am racist and they are not going to let ME have peace. I suppose it is up to me to figure out what they want me to do and how to do it. 

 

The terrorists who killed people in France had a clear message: you are not free to say things we do not like. If you do we will kill you. If that is not the message of Islam then I expect to hear Muslims speak up and correct the message and work for change. 

While I was at the Capital I attended a brief meeting of some conservative "thought leaders" from various grassroots organizations. There were discussions on how to move forward with various ideas that have broad appeal, such as getting rid of Obamacare and replacing it with a better plan. There is very broad support for that in Missouri.

 

One interesting thing to note about that meeting was that we all agreed that we were not going to agree on everything. There are real substantive differences of opinion on a range of topics, and it was healthy to acknowledge that. And so rather than create one large organization and try to create unity, the idea would be to work on specific issues and projects where people with those specific passions could come together to get things done.

 

If you lend your support to a group, any group, it is important to understand what you are supporting and what the specific message is. If a group you support takes actions you cannot condone then you have an obligation to condemn those actions and work for change. If you cannot stop an organization from taking actions or making statements you don't agree with then you have an obligation to withdraw your support.

 

Freedom of speech is not about protecting speech you agree with. It is about protecting the rude and objectionable and stupid speech that you do not agree with. We should protect the right of people to say stupid things, but we are under no obligation to listen. You have a right to your opinion, but you have no right to try to force your stupidity on others.