"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Whether or not Voltaire ever uttered those exact words, they long captured the spirit of Western liberal democracy. The principle was simple: bad ideas are defeated by better ideas, not by intimidation.
Somewhere along the way, that principle was turned on its head.
Today, it is no longer enough to disagree with someone. Increasingly, they must be silenced, shamed, de-platformed, or destroyed.
The irony is striking. Those who most loudly proclaim themselves defenders of tolerance have, in many cases, become remarkably intolerant of views they dislike.
Debate Has Been Replaced by Denunciation
Not long ago, a disagreement over immigration, gender ideology, Islam, climate policy or multiculturalism would have sparked an argument.
Today it is just as likely to spark an accusation.
Question mass immigration and you may be labelled a racist.
Question aspects of transgender ideology and you are branded transphobic.
Criticise Islamist extremism and you risk being called Islamophobic.
Question climate models or the economic wisdom of Net Zero policies and you become a "climate denier."
Notice something important about these labels.
They are rarely arguments.
They are conversation stoppers.
Once someone has been successfully branded with one of these labels, many people feel no need to engage with what they actually said. The label itself becomes sufficient reason to dismiss them.
This is not debate.
It is social censorship.
The Dictatorship of Virtue
An excellent recent essay from the Gatestone Institute describes this phenomenon as a "dictatorship of virtue." The article argues that many Western societies have replaced the pursuit of truth with the pursuit of ideological conformity. Increasingly, expressing the "wrong" opinion can carry social and professional consequences entirely disproportionate to the words spoken. (Gatestone Institute)
In such an environment, virtue is no longer demonstrated by listening or persuading.
It is demonstrated by identifying heretics.
From Words to Intimidation
Perhaps even more disturbing is how quickly disagreement has evolved into intimidation.
People have lost jobs.
Speakers have been shouted down.
Universities have cancelled lectures.
Businesses have been boycotted because of opinions expressed by owners or employees.
Ordinary citizens have become afraid to express perfectly lawful opinions in public.
This "cancel culture" does not require government censorship.
It works because people learn that speaking honestly may come with a heavy personal cost.
The result is self-censorship.
And self-censorship is often far more effective than official censorship.
Meanwhile, Calls for Violence Are Increasingly Normalised
Here is where the inversion becomes truly disturbing.
While ordinary citizens are condemned for expressing controversial opinions, slogans that many interpret as encouraging violence are increasingly treated as legitimate political expression.
The slogan "Globalise the Intifada" is one obvious example.
Supporters often argue that "intifada" simply means "uprising." Critics point out that the term is historically associated with waves of terrorist attacks that deliberately targeted civilians. For that reason, many Jewish organisations regard the slogan as a call to extend such violence globally.
Whether one agrees with that interpretation or not, surely a slogan that many understand as advocating violence deserves at least as much scrutiny as someone questioning immigration policy.
Yet in many public discussions, the opposite seems true.
"Death to the IDF"
The same pattern appears with chants such as "Death to the IDF."
Supporters sometimes argue they are referring only to a military organisation.
Others hear an explicit call for the killing of individual soldiers—many of whom are ordinary young men and women performing compulsory national service.
Again, the point is not whether every listener interprets the slogan identically.
The point is the double standard.
A citizen expressing scepticism about climate policy may be publicly condemned within hours.
A crowd chanting slogans that many interpret as advocating violence often receives far less condemnation.
The Trump Exception
The same inconsistency has appeared in American politics.
Following repeated assassination attempts against Donald Trump, social media has continued to host countless comments openly wishing for his death or encouraging further violence.
Imagine the reaction if similar comments were directed toward many other political leaders.
The outrage would be immediate.
Standards should not depend upon whose side someone is on.
Threats of violence are wrong regardless of the target.
Australia Is Not Immune
Australia has increasingly experienced similar trends.
Recent reports of school students chanting "Kill Pauline Hanson" should alarm every Australian—not because everyone agrees with Senator Hanson, but because normalising political violence against elected representatives corrodes democracy itself.
Disagree with her policies.
Challenge her arguments.
Vote against her.
But teaching young Australians that political opponents deserve death rather than debate represents a dangerous moral failure.
Even when public figures attract strong criticism, leaders should be quick to condemn calls for violence rather than remaining selectively silent.
Freedom of Speech Was Never Meant to Protect Only Popular Opinions
Freedom of speech has never existed to protect opinions everyone already agrees with.
Popular opinions require no protection.
The entire purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular opinions.
That does not mean freedom from criticism.
Robust debate is healthy.
Strong disagreement is healthy.
Mockery can even be healthy.
But intimidation, threats, organised cancellation, and attempts to destroy livelihoods simply because someone holds a different opinion are not.
The Slippery Slope
History repeatedly shows that once society accepts censorship for ideas it dislikes, the list of prohibited ideas never shrinks.
It grows.
Yesterday's unacceptable opinion often becomes tomorrow's accepted wisdom.
Many beliefs now considered mainstream—from women's suffrage to civil rights and same-sex marriage—were once denounced as dangerous or offensive.
Progress depends upon allowing people to challenge prevailing orthodoxy.
We Need to Recover Liberalism
The answer is not to silence the other side.
It is to defend one principle consistently.
No one should be threatened for expressing lawful opinions.
No one should lose their livelihood simply because others disagree.
And no political movement should receive a free pass for slogans or rhetoric that appear to glorify or encourage violence.
Freedom of speech is not tested when we defend views we already support.
It is tested when we defend the right of people to express views we dislike.
Western civilisation did not become strong because everyone agreed.
It became strong because disagreement was permitted.
If we forget that lesson, we risk replacing the marketplace of ideas with something far darker: a culture where fear, labels and intimidation determine who is allowed to speak.
That is not progress.
It is the quiet abandonment of one of the greatest freedoms our civilisation has ever achieved.
