It seems to me that, any way you slice it, the reported intent of this yet-to-be-introduced ordinance considering Kenmore City Council conduct is an overreaction. Even if a member of a political body misrepresents the facts, the reaction should not be a removal from office, but rather should open up frank and honest discourse about what that member has stated, what facts he may be missing or ignoring to come to his conclusion, where he is going wrong in his analysis and possibly recognition by those opposed to his view of their own errant information or reasoning. In my personal opinion, it is only when a misrepresentation gains the status of an outright lie that such harsh actions as censorship and removal from office should occur.
Humans are complex pack animals who, while still following those higher in a hierarchy, can also think and provide insight concerning dangers, inefficiencies and new ideas. If a member chooses to stand silent, the world keeps moving in the direction it is going in, however misguided that course may be. If the hierarchy chooses to force silence upon a member or members, the consequences fall squarely upon the shoulders of those who did not let those with ideas give voice to them. If ideas are heard, then through the process of educated dialogue, errors may be corrected, new information may be brought to light, and even better ideas, solutions and innovations may be discovered. If we decide to unquestioningly follow a select few sources or ideologies, not checking for errors ourselves, then like rats behind the piper’s tune, we track toward the unknown.
Is it not better, then, to allow all members of this human pack to have a voice and discuss their ideas? Some of the most insightful minds throughout history came very close to being shouted down to silence: Galileo, with his heliocentric theory of our solar system; Einstein’s theories about the inner workings of our universe, without which much of the technology which we now rely on would not have come to be; Locke and Hobbes and other Enlightenment philosophers who contributed to the paradigm shift, which allowed our great nation to come to be.
Even if ideas are wrong, what does allowing them to be heard cost? Maybe a few man-hours, used for discussion and research, get regarded as “wasted.” Is this not an acceptable price to pay for the possibilities of great insight, or the correction of possible grievous errors in the understanding of a system?
The ideas of others may not seem to fit in with a current view of a system, but should that be a reason to dismiss them as untrue, without allowing for a reexamination of that paradigm? However contrary to the truth an idea may seem, it is worth a modicum of investigation, as it may come to pass that the current perception of the truth is in fact contrary to the actual state of things. Silence cannot solve problems; it can only let them persist.
Alexander Barbe
