A few days
ago I shared this somewhere online,
“Multiethnic
countries are not nations. They are Empires, they may be ruled by a
nation-state, but they are empires. Nor are they small ones. Australia has a
larger population than many historical empires. An empire is one state ruling
over many nations or peoples (these words being synonymous).
Empires
always require force to maintain order between the various people groups in
their borders. Because those people groups will have grievances with each
other. Wars between those peoples home countries, for instance, will be
reflected in some ways in the foreign countries these people live. We see this
in our own country, various minorities seeking to use the law to ban the
opinions of those they oppose.
Hence,
not only is free speech not possible in a Multiethnic society. It's simply one
source of many sources that will cause internal conflicts.
Freedom
is always suppressed in multicultural societies. Because without a strong hand
order is fragile. The choice to become a multicultural society was a choice to
destroy our way of life one new bit of legislation at a time.
And
politicians are now starting to admit this.”
Someone noted
that they could see why this is often the case, but what is my evidence that “freedom
is always suppressed in multicultural societies”? That is a good question. So,
I have decided to answer it in this blog, and send it to them, but put it out
there for others to read as well.
Ok, this is
going to be a relatively detailed answer with recommended extra reading. There
are multiple levels of evidence that shows that for multicultural nations to
exist freedom is necessarily sacrificed.
The first
stream of evidence is logical. When you have widely divergent belief systems,
it is not possible to have people live together without suppressing one or
another of those belief systems. What happens if you have people from one faith
that believe in sacrificing bulls publicly, but another who believe that is blasphemy?
You will have conflict, these peoples will come into conflict with each other,
and you will therefore need to suppress one or both of these faiths to some
degree so that these peoples can live in relative harmony in the same city. This
is simply a logical deduction.
Some people
from both of these faiths will be nominal and not care. But in a large enough group
you will find others who hold these beliefs genuinely. Now, for multicultural societies multiply this by orders of magnitude. You have heaps of conflicting
ideas and beliefs. The authorities, the state, has the responsibility to
maintain order, not propagate faith. They also have the authority to use the
sword. Hence this will lead to some form of oppression, even if only moderate,
because most peoples consider it oppression when they are not able to practice
their beliefs freely. But some beliefs of some faiths simply do not work in a civil
society.
The state
will always see this as justified as well, order comes before perceived or even actual rights. As
the NSW Premier said,
“The
Premier admitted that his approach would encroach on personal freedoms but
seemed undeterred. “I don’t do that lightly. It is impinging on people’s
rights, but we cannot have a situation where, with impunity, someone can walk
down the street sowing division amongst different communities and then
gleefully go home whilst the rest of us are left with the implications,” he
said.”[1]
The state
sees this as justified, but some or many peoples will chafe under this. This is
by definition oppression, even if you agree it is justified, as many do. In
fact, historically, many peoples have considered it to be oppression simply to
be ruled by another culture. This is because not all cultures have the same
ideas, assumptions and practices. However, to maintain order in a multicultural
society necessarily requires the government taking a strong hand. So, the first
stream is logical.
The second is
observational. Empires are always policed by military officers, rather than by simple
civilian officials. Someone may turn around and note that ah, ha, Matt, you are
wrong on this point, we have a civilian police for in Australia. But have you
noticed that our police are now more militarized than ever? They patrol the
streets in combat style gear, rather than the civilian style office gear they
used to wear. Just watch an episode of blue heelers and compare how police used
to dress compared to now. This is because policing is a much more dangerous and
harder job in a multicultural society. It requires different operational
training and tactics.
Others have
noted this militarization as a concern, even if they are not aware of the
ultimate source of the issue,
“Australian
police are increasingly being "militarised".
Front-line
officers in Queensland and Victoria, and specialist units across the country,
are being trained in military-style tactics and thinking.
Lawyer
and former Australian Defence Force officer John Sutton describes this
"convergence" as slow and worrying.
"Typically,
a close ideological and operational alliance between the police force and the
military has always been associated with repressive regimes," he says.
"Australia
has a very strong democracy and a very robust civic mindedness among its
population.
"Nevertheless,
these developments are certainly concerning."[2]
However, this
article does point towards the source of the issue, “But he also believes the
militarisation of police right across the English-speaking world reflects a
pervasive "moral panic" over rising crime levels and increased
terrorism.”[3] Not all terrorism is a
result of multiculturalism, that must be stated. But some of it is, as some
terrorists are recent immigrants or even refugees who have a grievance against
one culture or another. Yes, it is only a tiny minority, but the threat still
needs to be addressed. This is without question an issue, and it is natural for
governments to seek to better equip their police to deal with more serious
growing issues. More natural, but not conducive to preserving our way of life.
Militarized police by definition are trained to use more force and are often given
a much broader range of powers.
So,
observation of how empires are policed in history, with a strong visible
military presence on the streets, is confirmed by what we see in Australia
itself. As our society has become more multicultural, so too have our police
become more militarized. And this has experts worried. Of course, noting that
this is in part a result of multicultural societies is less popular to discuss,
but it has always been a reality in such societies.
Third, some
of the West’s best thinkers predicted this is exactly what would happen in a
multicultural or multifaith society. For instance, here is an extended quote
from John Locke on the subject of the limits of toleration,
“But
to come to particulars. I say, first, no opinions contrary to human society, or
to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society,
are to be tolerated by the magistrate. But of these, indeed, examples in any
Church are rare. For no sect can easily arrive to such a degree of madness as
that it should think fit to teach, for doctrines of religion, such things as
manifestly undermine the foundations of society and are, therefore, condemned
by the judgement of all mankind; because their own interest, peace, reputation,
everything would be thereby endangered.
Another
more secret evil, but more dangerous to the commonwealth, is when men arrogate
to themselves, and to those of their own sect, some peculiar prerogative
covered over with a specious show of deceitful words, but in effect opposite to
the civil right of the community. For example: we cannot find any sect that
teaches, expressly and openly, that men are not obliged to keep their promise;
that princes may be dethroned by those that differ from them in religion; or
that the dominion of all things belongs only to themselves. For these things,
proposed thus nakedly and plainly, would soon draw on them the eye and hand of
the magistrate and awaken all the care of the commonwealth to a watchfulness
against the spreading of so dangerous an evil. But, nevertheless, we find those
that say the same things in other words. What else do they mean who teach that
faith is not to be kept with heretics? Their meaning, forsooth, is that the
privilege of breaking faith belongs unto themselves; for they declare all that are
not of their communion to be heretics, or at least may declare them so
whensoever they think fit. What can be the meaning of their asserting that
kings excommunicated forfeit their crowns and kingdoms? It is evident that they
thereby arrogate unto themselves the power of deposing kings, because they
challenge the power of excommunication, as the peculiar right of their
hierarchy. That dominion is founded in grace is also an assertion by which
those that maintain it do plainly lay claim to the possession of all things.
For they are not so wanting to themselves as not to believe, or at least as not
to profess themselves to be the truly pious and faithful. These, therefore, and
the like, who attribute unto the faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is, in
plain terms, unto themselves, any peculiar privilege or power above other
mortals, in civil concernments; or who upon pretence of religion do challenge
any manner of authority over such as are not associated with them in their
ecclesiastical communion, I say these have no right to be tolerated by the
magistrate; as neither those that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating
all men in matters of mere religion. For what do all these and the like
doctrines signify, but that they may and are ready upon any occasion to seize
the Government and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their
fellow subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate
so long until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?
Again:
That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is
constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso
facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince.
For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign
jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it
were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and
fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to
this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally
subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to
persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely
religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of
eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan
only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian
magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield
blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely
obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion
according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would
yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same
person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.”[4]
Locked predicted that a strong hand of the state would be required if England became multicultural, because this would allow ideas that were considered not conducive to civilisation a chance to flourish. He wrote this in the 17th century, which shows quite considerable foresight, because Britian is not in this exact situation. Read his whole letter on the issue, it really shows how limited toleration should be for it to actually work.
Locke is here
making the case for classical liberalism, and he is predicting that the
magistrate, or police and judges, would have to use increased power to maintain
order, if certain types of faiths were to live in the same nation. In other
words, toleration always had to have limits to work. Otherwise, it would just
create a series of nonsense contradictions and society would increasingly
fracture. Toleration was always meant to be limited, it was never meant to be
absolute.
It should be
noted here, that when Locke refers to "Mahometan" religion in this
letter, he is actually talking about Catholicism, though it was illegal for him
to be so open about this while he was writing his case, so he had to speak of
it cryptically. Locke saw how important it was for Protestants and Catholics to
have their own spheres of influence and authority, because he saw how they
would clash, and he saw how loyalty to a foreign sovereign, in this case the
Pope, could cause issues in a Protestant nation, where the highest earthly
authority was meant to be the king. In this way he predicted many issues that
would arise across Europe. Although, it must be said, that he had already
witnessed this in his own country, and in wider Europe in this day.
Fourthly, for the scientific minded, there is the 2007 study by Robert D Putnam, Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century.[5] I encourage you to read the whole paper. Essentially what Putnam found is that as diversity increases social cohesion decreases, and as social cohesion decreases society fractures, and brings with it all the flow on negative effects of that loss of social cohesion, including crime. This increased crime requires an increased police presence, which goes on to decrease social cohesion even more. He argued that there were ways to increase social cohesion, but these only have limited contextual applications. Putnam proved what we have argued for logically, from observation, and historical predictions with social scientific data.
Multicultural
societies require a stronger hand of the government, because there are more
sources of disturbances.
List of
References
[1] Staff Writer, 2024, https://caldronpool.com/nsw-premier-signals-crackdown-on-free-speech-to-protect-multiculturalism/
[2] Antony Furnell, 2019, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-20/creeping-militarisation-of-police-why-experts-are-concerned/11517266
[3] Ibid.
[4] John Locke, 7 Works, Letter
Concerning Toleration, Kindle Edition.
[5] Putnam, Robert D, 2007. Diversity
and Community in the Twenty-first
Century, The 2006 Johan Skytte Price Lecture, Nordic Political Science
Association.
No comments:
Post a Comment