"I Disapprove of What You Say,
But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It"
This statement is known as the “Voltairean principle”.
It has been discussed and explained in some detail at this link. It is a principle that is central to the functioning of any democracy, but everywhere in the democratic world it is now under attack. It is, for instance, totally absent from the health debate, which means that there is no debate - is not happening. This is largely as a result of mainstream media censorship, and increasingly with some of the large social media platforms, including like Facebook and Twitter.
Democracy needs to uphold the Voltairean principle because it is our right to question, to challenge, to investigate - regardless of whether the subject is political belief, government policy, social orthodoxy, private and commercial vested interests, or anything else that can cause controversy.
Any democracy needs to recognise that there are different views, different ideas, different beliefs, different interests; and this becomes particularly important when one view, or one idea, or belief, or one vested interest, becomes dominant.
In a democracy it should always be possible to question the dominant view, to argue a different case. Discussing these differences is part and parcel of any society that wants to consider itself to be free. Yet today there is now every reason to see and understand why it is important to allow the voice of minorities to be heard.
- It is important to minorities - because only then will they continue to feel that they are engaged, that their arguments are being listened to, that there is room for compromise, for divergence, for pluralism.
- It is important to elites - because it forces them to understand the views of those who do not share their view, and the level of disquiet and opposition they face. Most authoritarian political regimes have failed to do so, and have eventually suffered the consequences.
- But most important of all, in a democracy, it is important because dialogue maintains the greatest engagement and consent of all society, it reduces fractionalism, and the development of extremism. "No one listens to me, so I can only get my point of view over by opposing, and fighting for what I believe in".
Any minority denied the ability to debate, to air their views, becomes quickly alienated. And alienation is anathema to to democracy. One of the problems we face today is our belief that we have a 'free' press, where minority views are presented fairly, and are never gratuitously attacked without the right to reply. Unfortunately this is just not the case. To a degree this has always been so.
- As a child, in the 1950's, I recall the media coverage of the Mao Mao uprisings in Kenya. This concerned a rising of the Kikuyu tribe, described by the media as a violent campaign against British colonial rule. They were castigated by the entire western media. It is accepted now that both sides committed ruthless acts of violence; indeed some 12,000 Mao Mao were killed. But it was Mao Mao atrocities that were highlighted Yet by 1963 Jomo Kenyatta became the country's first prime minister, after being imprisoned as the leader of Mao Mao between 1953 and 1961. This was the first time I realised that news agency did not tell the whole truth, that they took a partisan view of such situations, and failed to differentiate between terrorism and freedom fighters.
- 40 years later most of us will remember when Sinn Fein spokesmen in Northern Ireland (including elected members of the Northern Ireland Assembly) were banned by the British government from being broadcast on radio and television between 1988 and 1994. The media complied meekly with the government wish to stop Irish nationalists using the media to explain and defend their position. At the same time both government and media were criticising other governments around the world for press censorship! Eventually, of course, Sinn Fein entered a power sharing arrangement with Unionist parties, and continue to do so.
- There are many other similar examples, and they continue. The British media takes a position, usually the majority position, and tells us only about this dominant view, and not telling us anything it believes we ought not to know.
There
was perhaps only one time, back in the 18th century, when the British press was a real thorn in the side of government, when highly critical, anti-government pamphlets were published which informed people, for perhaps the
first time, what was happening to them, and what their 'masters' were
getting up to. When we hear journalists speaking about 'press freedom'
this is the period to which they refer.Government fought hard to
control, repress and censor the press at this time; and the press fought
hard to preserve its freedom, the right to report what was happening. So press
freedom was indeed 'hard won', and the victory enhanced the rise of democracy, the popular desire for a government that represented the people, their views, and not just those of a wealthy , influential and dominant elite.
Many people still believe we have press freedom, and this is what mainstream media wants us to believe. Yet
what happened was that governments, and the elites they represented, discovered a strategy to win back control. This did not involve censorship or banning the media.
It was about taking control of
them. Buying them up and asserting editorial control. And this is what happened during the 19th century.
Ultimately the 20th century Press Barons emerged, Rothermere, Northcliffe, Beaverbrook, still heralding 'press freedom', but in reality
controlling the press for their own purposes, vested interests and class. So gradually media platforms represented the views of the ruling establishment, whilst maintaining the fiction of representing the interests of the people.
Now, our
mainstream media dances to the tune of the government, and the dominant social corporate forces that controls it. Even our 'public service broadcaster', the BBC, cannot be too critical. They want their charter to be renewed.
Now, the most powerful forces controlling governments around the world is the pharmaceutical industry, the wealthiest and most profitable industry in the world, and consequently the most powerful lobby.
The coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic has provided the clearest
demonstration of this, the extent to which the mainstream media is no longer 'free', but conforms to the dominant pharmaceutical view health. Medical science, on the admission of governmentitself, has been in control of government policy. There has been no real debate about health matters for many years prior to this. In 2012 I wrote a seven part series of blogs on the health issues we should be discussing - but weren't (and still aren't) (
The Health Debate? (1) Why the mainstream media is refusing to take part). Now, during this pandemic, a new policy has been vigorously applied by the mainstream media, with no opposing views entering into the discussion.
"I Disapprove of What You Say, and
I Will Defend to the Death My Right to Stop You Saying It".
In early April 2020 I suggested some key questions that should be asked about the COVID-19 panic, questions that weren't being asked then, and are still not being asked
(Coronavirus COVID-19. The important questions that aren't being asked).
First, the pandemic has allowed government policy to become more autocratic even dictatorial. A variety of severe, usually foolish, often ridiculous and potentially quite disastrous constraints have been imposed
- on our personal relationships
- on our mental health
- on the economy
- on employment and jobs
- on our children's education
- on the justice system
- and much else.
Why? One view is that it is preparing us for mandatory drugging, the destruction of patient choice and health freedom.
Second, these government policies have been pursued on the advice and guidance of the conventional medical establishment, stating ad nauseam that its policy is based on 'scientific' advice. If so it has clearly been done to the exclusion of all other financial, economic, educational or other considerations, and quite regardless of the harm that its policies will cause.
Third, the mainstream media has proven itself a willing and compliant mouthpiece for government policy. There has been little questioning, little investigation into its underlying justification, or their likely long-term consequences. This was government policy. It was necessary to respond to a pandemic that was (unquestionably) dangerous. We all had to stick together. There was no room for dissent. Anyone who might speak against government policy (that is, against the views of the conventional medical establishment) remained unheard, denied a voice. Instead there has been constant, unrelenting`wall-to-wall coverage reinforcing one single message, daily government press conferences reported in full, allowing government ministers to repeat monotonously the same message day after day; carefully watched over by the medical scientists whose views dictated government policy.
Fourth, those with any views or expertise that was different, not least those with a background in natural medicine, the importance of supporting the immune system, the consequences of social isolation on mental health, the use of homeopathy in Cuba, and both homeopathy and Ayurveda in India, et al, were all excluded.
Fifth, anyone who did express alternative views were criticised, attacked, castigated and ridiculed. They were 'conspiracy theorists'. And perhaps it is this hostility to contrary views that is the most alarming form of censorship.
Natural therapists, especially homeopaths, have not been given a right to reply for over 20 years, years of media hostility, being attacked and ignored. We no longer have any expectation that our voice will be heard within mainstream media. So our relationships are now formed directly with the public; they are local. The internet, and social media platforms have also been used, but now conventional medicine, through its allies in government and the media, is now doing everything it can to censor our voice there too.
So natural medicine is being treated in the same way as extremist left wing or right wing politics - the IRA in 1970's and 1980's - Mao Mao in the 1950's. Yet homeopaths, naturopaths, et al, are not involved in warfare, they don't cause harm to anyone, nor we do not engage in hate speech. Indeed, we apply our trade in order to help people maintain their health, or to help them get well when they are are sick.
Conventional medicine has admitted it had no effective treatment, and clearly it has been able only to watch on as people have died (not of COVID-19 but some underlying health conditions). Perhaps if there had been a real, uncesnored debate on health, the conventional medical establishment might have been able to learn something. Yes, the care offered to the dying has been brilliant, well worth clapping; but the ability of pharmaceutical medicine to treat patiently successfully, to save lives, has been sadly missing.
Certainly, without censorship, without every effort being made to panic people into believing that this was a 'killer' virus, many more people would have come to their own decision about how best to handle the virus - through the prospect of a non-existent, but potentially highly profitable vaccine, or through natural immunity by supporting and maintaining our immune system.
When the mainstream media takes sides in this way it is neither helpful to the democratic process, or the political process? When health and political views are censored, when there is an attempt to brain-wash us into thinkingg 'there is no alternative', non-dominant views or movements do not go away? Censorship draws attention to them - at least to those people who have the ability to question. It makes them even more attractive to those opposed to mainstream wisdom. It merely confirms their views - or even pushes them to further extremes?
I have seen the process happen within the homeopathic community. Every day we hear that homeopathy 'does not work', 'cannot work', that is 'unscientific', nothing more than 'placebo'. We are gratuitously criticised and abused by the media; yet we grow stronger.
Nor does censorship help those in power, whose policies are not subjected to the scrutiny that might improve or enhance them, it allows them to carry on in the belief that their policies are correct, that 'there is no alternative'. They can sit back, safe in the knowledge that alternatives messages are not being heard, so they fail to learn about the wisdom and understandings of those who disagree. There is no discussion, no debate, no cross fertilisation of ideas - just the barren repetition of policies that do not work - like the policies pursued over the last few months with COVID-19.
Eventually, such learning has always happened. Jomo Kenyatta, leader of Mao Mao, eventually came to power in Kenya - with the support of the Kenyan people, and against the wishes of the once dominant colonial power. And peace eventually came to Northern Ireland but only after the British government, and the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, began to speak and listen to Sinn Fein.
When the censored have a tenable view, and an important body of support, censorship supports and confirms those views and ideas. They recognise the powerful vested interests that control politicians, governments, and the media, and their determination to persist and oppose becomes greater.
History should teach us that when people feel excluded and oppressed they push back in whatever way they can; they will not be brainwashed.
As far as health is concerned coronavirus COVID-19 has made it clear that we desperately need to learn from natural medical therapies, from homeopathy. Pharmaceutical medicine is demonstrably failing to keep us healthy. Yet for the short-term it remains powerful, and is still seeking to protect itself by using its profitability to control politicians, governments, national health services, and the mainstream media.
This is what the media censorship of the health debate is all about.
