The Daily Plunge

Why is it that whenever something goes awry the first instinct of “progressives” is to look for ways to infringe on our liberties? The tragic shooting in Arizona perpetrated by a lunatic has become the opportunity du jour for a raft of leftists to call for a clamp-down on free speech.

One of my favorites comes from UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau in his statement on the Arizona shooting. Here’s one of Birgeneau’s profound observations in the statement:

A climate in which demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated can lead to such a tragedy. I believe that it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons. This same mean-spirited xenophobia played a major role in the defeat of the Dream Act by legislators in Washington, leaving many exceptionally talented and deserving young people, including our own undocumented students, painfully in limbo with regard to their futures in this country.

Where to begin? Well, let’s start with the climate in which the “demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated.” That “climate” is called “free speech,” protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It’s the law of the land and I’m sorry that Mr. Birgeneau doesn’t appreciate the fact that citizens have every right to demonize and offend.

My simple message to Mr. Birgeneau and others of his ilk who would love to, by force of law, tell me what I can and cannot say or believe.

Ironic, isn’t it, that Mr. Birgeneau bemoans the climate of demonization in America, and then demonizes those who believe that illegal immigration is illegal, even though illegal immigration is, in fact, illegal. The law abiders, for lack of a better term, are mean-spirited xenophobes! According to Mr. Birgeneau, open and rigorous debate equals hateful speech.

So let me get this straight… We’re supposed to be tolerant, but there are certain things we shouldn’t tolerate (a.k.a., any political position with which Mr. Birgeneau disagrees). I get it. It reminds me of a childhood friend who used to make up the rules as we went along to whatever game we were playing to ensure his victory. “Okay, that’s HORSE,” I’d say as the ball swished through the net. “That’s great,” he’d reply. “But we’re playing that the first person to HORSE loses.” Okay then.

Mr. Birgeneau makes an insidious, yet extremely irrational connection between the shooting in Arizona and the immigration debate. Somehow, in Mr. Birgeneau’s world, one helped cause the other because there are people who disagree with Mr. Birgeneau and exercise their right to do so. That can’t be good.

How I long to live in a world where I’ve been forced to believe everything Mr. Birgeneau believes, or at least where I’m not allowed to say anything that’s opposed to his beliefs. It would be, as they say, Utopia. Imagine all the people, living like Birgeneau. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I know I’m not the only one, because Mr. Birgeneau also has this same dream.

Mr. Birgeneau concludes: “Continuing to support our principles of community will ensure a better and safer campus. We must do this now so that our students, as future leaders of this great country, will continue to set the standard for a better and safer nation.”

I’m sorry, Mr. Birgeneau, but I don’t much care for living in a “better and safer nation,” at least not the padded, totalitarian one his statement suggests. I prefer to live free with all the inherent risks that come with living in a free society.

I don’t mind the fact that I will be exposed to offensive, hateful speech. I’d prefer to listen to hate speech, and even suffer the consequences if some wacko is inspired to do something crazy by said hate speech, than have to abide by someone else’s notions of what’s acceptable and unacceptable to think and say. Mr. Birgeneau’s approach to speech is far more dangerous than even the most hateful of hate speech.