#1
May 5, 2009
Why Exclusionism is Wrong
Recently I read on Yahoo News a bulletin on Britain’s casting out of those deemed ‘Extremists’. The “name and shame list”, so called by Home Secretary Jaqui Smith, is a list of those unwanted people who have been expelled from Britain. I will provide a link at the end of this essay for those who are interested in doing their own research, as well as some helpful Google keywords.
The people on this list seem quite nasty overall, but is it ok to cast them out of the country without a trial or fair representation? Even if they had a trial (I am not certain if they had one where they could defend themselves) can it really be called fair? One of the people exiled was a neo-Nazi by the name of Erich Gliebe. Now we, and by we I mean most of the so called-civilized world, know Nazi-ism is wrong so he was deserving of exile. Right? His beliefs were wrong so he was punished. Sounds bad doesn’t it?
“But he followed the path of Evil! Nazi-ism ended with the death of millions!”
I am not denying how bad Hitler was or how grave the losses of the holocaust. My point is Erich Gliebe would have fit in during that time period and the population would have approved. And don’t say that the whole German population was evil. There cannot be an entire race of evil people. It is simply the nature of human kind to follow the few members of humanity gifted with leadership qualities. We follow because they promise safety, and survival is the dominate programming in all animals and humans.
Once those leaders are in charge they introduce their own visions and beliefs and gradually the rest of the people adapt and even become like-minded.
“Ok, so the one person was at fault, what is your point?”
My point is not that the leader is at fault but that citizens grow up knowing only what they are taught. And they are taught what the government instructs. So the leader’s views are passed down. How can we then, tainted ourselves, tell others what is right and what is wrong? Was Hitler right? I do not think so. But I cannot prove it. I cannot prove my way is right and I cannot prove anyone else’s view is wrong; I can only do what I believe to be right. So… casting a human being, someone who eats and drinks and breathes out of a country just because you do not agree with their choice of beliefs, just because they are attempting to spread them is wrong. If you do not want that person to spread hatred…well, I’m sorry but if people want to hate then they will hate. It is not for you, not for anyone to choose what thoughts are forbidden. That is to take on the authority of God. Democracy is believed to be right but that is what we were bred to believe. Look at the Roman Empire; five hundred years of relative peace for its citizens. Were the Romans unhappy with an Empire? Sometimes yes but also no. Eventually Rome became a democracy as times grew dark and people yearned for something new but it is widely known today as one of the greatest empires in history.
This leaves the question of what to do with the undesirables. Like it or not a country must protect itself and bringing in new and potentially dangerous ideas are not in its best interest. So if exile is no longer an option what can be done? Simple, establish a place of debate for those estranged philosophers to scream and rant at each other. At worst it gathers them all in one place. The mind should not be chained no matter how outrageous a concept is contained within. That is freedom of thought, and freedom of speech is our way of expressing those thoughts. If someone is causing havoc in a neighbourhood and is not wanted I beg that whatever decision made is made with all rights held in mind, all points of view more then just glanced at.
Authors Note: After re-reading this it occurs that my writing is haphazard and I am not satisfied with the result. Still it gets most of my opinion on the matter across and I believe what I have attempted to express with my amateurish writing can be applied to some other matters as well.
Why Exclusionism is Wrong
Recently I read on Yahoo News a bulletin on Britain’s casting out of those deemed ‘Extremists’. The “name and shame list”, so called by Home Secretary Jaqui Smith, is a list of those unwanted people who have been expelled from Britain. I will provide a link at the end of this essay for those who are interested in doing their own research, as well as some helpful Google keywords.
The people on this list seem quite nasty overall, but is it ok to cast them out of the country without a trial or fair representation? Even if they had a trial (I am not certain if they had one where they could defend themselves) can it really be called fair? One of the people exiled was a neo-Nazi by the name of Erich Gliebe. Now we, and by we I mean most of the so called-civilized world, know Nazi-ism is wrong so he was deserving of exile. Right? His beliefs were wrong so he was punished. Sounds bad doesn’t it?
“But he followed the path of Evil! Nazi-ism ended with the death of millions!”
I am not denying how bad Hitler was or how grave the losses of the holocaust. My point is Erich Gliebe would have fit in during that time period and the population would have approved. And don’t say that the whole German population was evil. There cannot be an entire race of evil people. It is simply the nature of human kind to follow the few members of humanity gifted with leadership qualities. We follow because they promise safety, and survival is the dominate programming in all animals and humans.
Once those leaders are in charge they introduce their own visions and beliefs and gradually the rest of the people adapt and even become like-minded.
“Ok, so the one person was at fault, what is your point?”
My point is not that the leader is at fault but that citizens grow up knowing only what they are taught. And they are taught what the government instructs. So the leader’s views are passed down. How can we then, tainted ourselves, tell others what is right and what is wrong? Was Hitler right? I do not think so. But I cannot prove it. I cannot prove my way is right and I cannot prove anyone else’s view is wrong; I can only do what I believe to be right. So… casting a human being, someone who eats and drinks and breathes out of a country just because you do not agree with their choice of beliefs, just because they are attempting to spread them is wrong. If you do not want that person to spread hatred…well, I’m sorry but if people want to hate then they will hate. It is not for you, not for anyone to choose what thoughts are forbidden. That is to take on the authority of God. Democracy is believed to be right but that is what we were bred to believe. Look at the Roman Empire; five hundred years of relative peace for its citizens. Were the Romans unhappy with an Empire? Sometimes yes but also no. Eventually Rome became a democracy as times grew dark and people yearned for something new but it is widely known today as one of the greatest empires in history.
This leaves the question of what to do with the undesirables. Like it or not a country must protect itself and bringing in new and potentially dangerous ideas are not in its best interest. So if exile is no longer an option what can be done? Simple, establish a place of debate for those estranged philosophers to scream and rant at each other. At worst it gathers them all in one place. The mind should not be chained no matter how outrageous a concept is contained within. That is freedom of thought, and freedom of speech is our way of expressing those thoughts. If someone is causing havoc in a neighbourhood and is not wanted I beg that whatever decision made is made with all rights held in mind, all points of view more then just glanced at.
Authors Note: After re-reading this it occurs that my writing is haphazard and I am not satisfied with the result. Still it gets most of my opinion on the matter across and I believe what I have attempted to express with my amateurish writing can be applied to some other matters as well.