Evelyn Beatrice Hall (pen name S G Tallentyre), in her biography The Life Of Voltaire wrote the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
This quote is often mis-attributed to Voltaire himself, but it's telling that it should have been actually written by a woman. And a British woman at that.
I'm sure everybody on here has heard it used many times and each one of us on this site (and others) has probably used it themselves.
But do we actually believe in what it means..? Sure, it's great as a throwaway line when speaking up on behalf of a mate who has said something that is under challenge in a discussion, but how many of us would hold to it when confronted by a point of view that they personally disagree with... perhaps vehemently.
Would you argue on behalf of somebody you disagree with, that, regardless of what you personally think, they have a right to say what they believe..?
I ask this question genuinely because in the last few days or so, and particularly in the last 24 hours, I have had cause to doubt that this site... and at least one of its administrators... believes in open discussion or the rights of the individual to have his / her voice heard.
I accept fully that my views on war and military personnel are viewed by some with distaste. That's fair enough. I don't expect people to agree with me, as by the same token, I sometimes disagree with them.
But I recently came across a thread which posted a war poem. In response, I posted a peace poem. The OP didn't object to this and I expect he considered it fair game. He had had his say and I had had mine. If it had stopped there, then the whole thing would have ended equitably.
Enter another individual who knows who he is (and you can see his response if you seek out the thread concerned) who took it upon himself to make the issue rather personal and nasty, and proceeded to spam the thread (against TFS rules) with a mass of pro-war material which amounted to, in my opinion, little more than propaganda thinly disguised as poetry.
Now, he may disagree with my assessment of the poetry and if he argued his case on its merits, that too would have been fine. But he didn't. He resorted to an "I don't like the message so I'm going to shoot the messenger" attitude. He attempted to bully me... something he's done on other threads over a long period of time.
I responded with another poem and this time explained the meaning behind it so that it would be quite clear that it contained, in my opinion, a valid message that anybody reading it may either agree with or challenge if they so wished.
This morning I found a rather peremptory order (an order, no less) from this individual not to post again on another, similar thread to which I had also made a similar sort of challenge. I was also told to go and start my own thread and not use his (his personal property, it would appear).
I also found myself placed under an official warning from the Moderator with a link to the poem and its meaning that I refer to in the previous paragraph.
This action by two individuals, I suspect acting in conjunction with each other, raises serious questions about the validity of TFS as a genuine platform for open, free and vigorous discussion.
I have no problem with anybody posting on any subject they wish but when they do so they lay their opinions and statements open to scrutiny and challenge. If I choose to dispute the content of any post, is that not what a discussion forum is for..?
Or is it only here to provide a mouthpiece for those who consider their viewpoint sacrosanct and above challenge..?
Notwithstanding that my response may be considered distasteful and disrespectful by the other party, is it right that I should be swamped out with spam (against site rules) verbally abused (also against site rules) and then penalised for writing according to my beliefs by a person who has a duty to be fair and impartial, and a moral obligation to act according to the principles of free speech and open discussion..?
I doubt very much that the moderator who warned me for making what I believe was fair comment that contained no personal abuse, bad language or spam, issued a similar warning to the person who spammed, abused and bullied me.
If this forum is to be dictated to by closed minded individuals and administered by those who would repress a valid counter argument then what value the freedom and liberty that we are constantly told soldiers are fighting for..?
Do they only fight to give people the liberty to agree with them..? Laud them..? Shower endless praise upon them..?
Or is there a higher ideal..? Would any soldier ever fight to give me the freedom to criticise him.? Because that's what they're SUPPOSED to be fighting for.
Liberty is a double edged sword. If we are to believe that wars are fought for freedom - including freedom of speech - then does that not extend to those like myself who make a counter argument..?
I was once told that "There is no debate without dissent." I agree with that. Without a dissenting voice, all we are is toadies telling each other how right we are and that encourages those who would feed us propaganda disguised as poetry or homage or anything else as long as it achieves the aim of shaping opinion on their side.
We need somebody to introduce an alternative argument in order to achieve balance so that people can read both arguments and make up their own minds. That's what discussion forums are meant to do otherwise the whole thing is pointless.
I don't mind if people challenge what I say if they can do it with a valid argument. Even then, I might still disagree with them. The discussion may become vigorous and argument and counter-argument may go back and forth. That is what a debate is meant to be..?
But when one party attempts to howl the other down, and then repress them, or worse still, tell them that they must not post there... go and start another thread elsewhere..... then the whole purpose of a discussion forum is lost.
I did consider starting another thread, but that would negate the whole purpose of a discussion forum and If I added caveats such as telling posters they could only write things that I agree with on my thread, then I would then be guilty of the same intolerance, oppression and tyranny as the other.
If anybody can't challenge my arguments with reasoned debate, should I be penalised for his inadequacy..?
Should I my voice be suppressed by an administrator who abuses his authority as a weapon to silence an opinion he doesn't like to hear..?
What does this site actually stand for..?
Because it increasingly appears not to be about open discussion or the exchange of views.
Some of you may get to read this before it's taken down.... Which is not unlikely to happen. It's been done to me before and I have no reason to doubt that censorship is not still alive and kicking on TFS.
I will probably get a ban too, for having the temerity to challenge what I see as a wrong.
I said at the start of this post that it was telling that the person who wrote the immortal quote was a woman, and British.
I'm a British woman and hold dear to my heart our long tradition of liberal values.
I can assure anybody who gives a damn that I will continue, as long as I am a member of this site (be it short or long), to keep expressing my beliefs and opinions and if that rubs anybody up the wrong way, then challenge me on the merits of my arguments. I say: Bring it on.
My last comment is that if I am banned for this message, it will say more about the people who do the banning, than it does about the banned.