The problem with liberalism is that one never knows where one should stand. Two stories in the news illustrate this quite well. First, on Tuesday we had an up raw over whether or not nick griffin should be allowed to speak at the oxford union. Now, all reasonable people loathe griffin and his racist beliefs; yet, at the same time, one must uphold the position that all people should have a right to free speech. My own personal thoughts were that he should have been allowed to speak, and then, in the ensuing debate, have been shown to be the moron he undoubtedly is.
The second, slightly more complex issue is the British teacher in Sudan jailed for allowing her students to name a teddy bear Mohammed. On the one hand, I think we have to respect the will of the Sudanese people and judiciary; on the other, I, as a liberal atheist, don’t see the point of getting het up about the name of this bear. I don’t see how it insults Islam. Were I to call my bear Jesus, would that insult Christianity? I don’t see how it would. Religion, I think can be taken too far. Do I believe, therefore, that the British authorities should get involved? That is a good question. Part of me says her jailing was wrong, but another part says we should respect the Sudanese people.
Mind you, I just checked bbc news – ” Thousands of people have marched in the Sudanese capital Khartoum to call for UK teacher Gillian Gibbons to be shot.” – I can never condone capital punishment, Sudanese sovereignty or not.
Thus we have the paradox within liberalism. It’s a whole bunch of contradictions really, but while some have used this fact, rather inanely, to discredit liberalism, I think it precisely mirrors the uncertainty of reality. Objectivity is a myth. Unlike conservatism, liberalism acknowledges that there is always more than one side to every story, and therefore only it can be held up as a rational political ethos.