I believe in freedom.
That is not the problem.
The problem is that I also believe in self-preservation and those two things are constantly placed in conflict anytime the construction of a free and civil society is attempted.
Looking back over history, as well as looking at my own life, I have arrived at a strongly considered belief that one cannot be free and infinitely tolerant at the same time. One cannot expect to be allowed to live free if one must tolerate those whose views so completely contradict yours as a choice must be made about who gets heard, who occupies a certain space and who is asked to compromise but not getting heard or is not to occupy that certain space.
To be completely free implies infinite tolerance of the freedom of others, when the fact remains that one simply cannot allow enemies within the walls of a society and expect to continue to survive.
A conundrum, to be sure, and one I am not sure can be resolved without discrimination (which current society says is so very bad, bordering on evil, really).
Seems logical to consider ANTIFA, BLM and the recent rise of the American Hamasites (again, nothing new as America has seen antisemites before) as enemies of everything America seems to stand for. I do not think we should be shocked simply because Hamas hates Jews – ANTIFA hates successful people and BLM hates whites. All three are motivated by race or religion (or some combination thereof), both of which are characteristics our constitution protects.
And if you do something about your enemies, the challenge then shifts to how to define your “enemy.”
Enemy is a serious appellation. It carries with it serious consequences – but let’s not fool ourselves, because there are real enemies afoot. It is hard not to see the radical communists and the Hamas supporters as true enemies of America. These are not just little rich radicals with daddy issues and AWFL suburban wine mommies, although some may be, these are people aim to harm America to the benefit of a foreign entity, one that openly supports terrorism against the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.
Most often, capitulation is advised by “authorities.” Avoid that area. Shop somewhere else. In the case of Jewish students at Columbia and other universities, they are being told to “stay at home and do remote learning” which is the equivalent to home confinement. Why should Jewish students be restricted due to something they did not do?
You may choose to divert yourself away from such a situation but that seems a lot like capitulation rather than compromise. The awful irony is that if you choose not to discriminate, someone will make that choice for you, allegedly to “keep the peace” and by doing so, subvert your rights to the rights of someone else.
And then the real question is if you had those rights in the first place, especially if they are so easily taken.
Mostly, my view of the Sixty’s, especially the late part of the decade, is not especially good. The Civil Rights Act passage was good, as was the music. The Vietnam War was bad, and the rest was a little “iffy” in my estimation – but there was another part I think we should consider bringing back and that is how law enforcement approached threats to our civil society that were posed by radical groups and communist infiltration and agitation.
Today’s Hamasites, ANTIFA and BLM are not that different from the Black Panthers, the KKK, the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Weather Underground, and we actively addressed those groups.
One false belief that has evolved in our modern world is that we now believe it is possible to suppress a threat rather than eliminate it, but we all know suppression never works. The threat always comes back, sometimes as itself, sometimes cloaked as another thing, but the end effect is always the same.
There is a line to be drawn if we want to avoid our constitution becoming, as it has been said, a suicide pact.
I don’t know if this is the right answer, but I do know it is a question that must be answered.
I agree there must be a trade-off. Violent activity must be dealt with harshly with finality. Perhaps there is another place on our planet that another Australia could be created? Antarctica comes to mind -- a penal colony where all those described in your write-up are sent.