Safe Spaces
In case you are not aware ‘safe spaces’ are a term mainly used throughout Universities and are claimed to be a place in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to things such as discrimination, conflict, criticism, harassment, opposing views, debates, arguments, violence or emotional or physical harm. They are mainly used by minority groups.
Safe spaces may have started out with some justification a long time ago but the monster that they have mutated into today proposes a real danger to a free society and can be a breeding ground for dictatorships and fascism. The definitions of what safe spaces are and what they aim to achieve can sound good on paper and in theory, after all, who doesn’t want to feel safe?
Let me start off by saying that I am in favour of having a designated area within a larger area where people can retreat to and chill out if things are getting too much for them and they need a break. For example, if there is a debate happening in the campus and somebody feels it’s getting too much for them and they want to step out for a while, then having a room where they can go to and know that nobody will come into that room and continue the debate is a good idea for those who need it. So I am in favour of safe spaces when implemented sensibly.
However, the safe space should remain within it’s boundaries and not venture outside into the real world. Because the real world needs debate, opposing ideas, free speech, free press and a wide spectrum of views. It needs people to feel uncomfortable or offended in order to stimulate change for the better.
For example, if I was to say that Muslims reproducing with their first cousins produces a higher rate of disease and disability in the offspring, then I should be allowed to say that and show the evidence to support my statement. And then the opposition have an equal opportunity to do the same. However, as soon as you play the ‘I'm offended or racist card’ and designate an area as a safe space where it shouldn't be, then the discussion is immediately shut down and the person raising the issue can often have their career derailed as a result.
The safe space concept is progressively being expanded into the debating hall itself, into publications, book shops, libraries, meetings, media and just about everywhere across the University in an attempt to designate the entire area as a safe space.
Part of the problem is that once you designate that an area is a safe space then you automatically designate that all other areas are ‘unsafe’ and the result of that will naturally be to try and make all spaces safe. The other part is that safe space advocates simply want to behave like dictators and see how much they can use the safe space concept to gain power for themselves over the masses. Safe spaces are clearly are in favour of minority groups and left wing politics and discriminate against right wing politics and majority groups , which is mainly the straight native white male or female. However, if you do belong to a minority group but hold right wing views then you too will probably be discriminated against.
Generally, what type of people ban books, censor media outlets and free speech and are violent and aggressive to all who stand in their way? – fascists, dictators, tyrannies and despots. And that is what these safe space groups are rapidly becoming. So be warned, if we do not oppose the expansion of safe spaces and the aggressive demands of these groups then that is what we will end up with.
Somebody who tries to expand the safe space idea into all areas of a University, workplace or society is, to my mind, saying that they do not posses the intelligence, ability to reason, communication skills, facts, data, empirical evidence or personal character to discuss issues and ideas with someone else for fear of having their position exposed as false or not as strong as they thought. They fear honest information and have a weak infantile mind.
All this talk of safe space begs the question of what is an ‘unsafe space’. Well according to the actual behaviour of safe space advocates, unsafe equates to free speech, debating, a free press, and anybody who holds and dares to communicate a different viewpoint – whether that be political, environmental, sociological or religious etc. What they are increasingly being used for is to shut down debate, stop alternative views and expression of ideas, de-platform speakers, ban media outlets and publications and curtail free speech.
Here are a few examples of how they often work in practice today:
Student Unions, such as City University in London and Plymouth University have banned certain newspapers such as the Sun, Daily Mail and Express from the entire campus on the grounds that they contain hate speech. In reality the papers will often raise concerns about immigration, Islam and staying in the EU for example. Clearly not hate speech but a just different viewpoint which many of the general public share.
The de-platforming of speakers who hold views different from the special interest and minority groups. Many people such as Nigel Farage, Germain Greer, Milo Yiannopolous, MP David Willets, comedian Kate Smurthwaite, human-rights activist and ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie, Richard Dawkins, Ben Shapiro and many more have been banned from appearing and speaking at Universities. At venues where these people are actually allowed to speak then the safe space crew will shout over the speaker, cause disturbance in the room, turn off power to presentation equipment and any cause any kind of disturbance to prevent the speaker from speaking. They behave like spoilt brats crying for attention. When they did this to Maryam Namazie, who eventually asked them to be quiet, they responded by shouting ‘safe space, safe space, intimidation’. The hypocrisy of it all!
Outside of the designated safe space areas there are aggressive and violent protests (often covering their faces like terrorists), defamation of character, actual racism and discrimination, outright lies and the labels of racist, bigot, white supremacist, misogynist, Nazi and fascist etc. aimed towards anyone who does not agree with their point of view or support their agenda in an attempt to expand the safe space zone in order to to shut people up.
Clearly, the original safe space area concept is now being expanded to bring all areas under its jurisdiction. And quite clearly they are prepared to use aggressive, violent, dishonest and underhand tactics to achieve their goals. They are creating more unsafe spaces than achieving safe ones.
Why are safe space people getting their way? Because they make the most noise, the most protests and are often aggressive and violent. In order to achieve safe spaces they will behave the opposite of safe. This is similar to what we have seen throughout history in regards to revolutions where a particular group takes power through aggression and force whilst promising that they are doing it to create a peaceful utopia for all, whereas the reality is that it almost always ends up with a dictatorship of some sort squashing and censoring all opposing views.
In general society people should not be cushioned from criticism, opposing views, free speech, ideas or debate. Western civilisation is doomed if we mass adopt this principle of safe spaces across the whole. What we will end up with is a dictatorship ran by childish idiots.
What we need is to respect designated safe space areas within larger areas, such as a room within a building, whilst opposing the full on geographical takeover and the lust for power that the safe space champions crave. And the safe space crew need to respect the freedom outside of their little safety bubbles.