TOLERANCE

WHY WE NEED TO EMULATE VOLTAIRE IN THESE POLITICALLY CORRECT TIMES.

Surely no phrase has logged more miles in the promotion of ideological liberty than Voltaire’s famous statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” It is the gold standard for quotations mustered in defence of free speech.

Today, with the cultural appropriation debate casting a long shadow across Canadian journalism and public discourse, our need for the 18th century French philosopher’s commitment to free expression is more pressing than ever. How might we harness Voltaire’s spirit of tolerance in these politically correct times?

Well, we might start by getting the facts straight about Voltaire’s iconic line. In fact, early 20th century biographer E.B. Hall fabricated the claim that Voltaire was prepared to die defending the right of others to disagree with him. Such a claim was actually wholly out of character for Voltaire. But in the 1930s, Reader’s Digest published the statement as a “Quotable Quote,” which led to it being repeated by columnists and editorial writers for generations. “That line is the bane of Voltaire scholars around the world,” sighs Alan Charles Kors, a Voltaire scholar and historian at the University of Pennsylvania. “He never said it. And further, it’s not even a Voltairian sentiment.” The reason why is of great relevance today.

Voltaire was born François-Marie Arouet in 1694. He enjoyed a better education than would have been typical for someone of his middle-class upbringing, and gained early fame as a playwright. But his biting wit often got him into trouble with absolutist French rulers and the likeminded Catholic Church. In his early 20s, he insulted an aristocrat and was sent to the Bastille. It was a sufficiently unpleasant experience that he subsequently avoided saying anything that might be considered directly critical of the Church or state.

Voltaire instead mastered the art of couching his trenchant or subversive thoughts in irony, obfuscation and satire. If, for example, he wished to scold the clumsy reputation of the medical establishment, he would observe that, “despite the ministrations of the greatest doctors of Europe, the patient survived.” He gave foolish characters names that were anagrams for wellknown religious figures. He would have characters in his stories challenge religious or political orthodoxies, but would follow their claims up with other characters declaring such statements to be heretical and punishable by death. By clouding his work with jokes, double-meanings and ironic commentary, Voltaire sought to inoculate himself from official opprobrium and communicate on multiple levels. And when his literary precautions failed, Voltaire was quick to skip town. He spent two years in England to avoid further time in the Bastille, and lived most of his later years in self-imposed rural exile, far from the salons of Paris.

In sum, Voltaire was never one to put his life on the line for anyone’s beliefs, least of all his own. “While he had courage, he saw to his own safety first,” observes Kors. But if Voltaire’s most iconic statement on free speech is fake, what use is his legacy to the current challenges plaguing public discourse? Quite a lot, suggests Kors.

Voltaire’s greatest gift to modernity was toleration as a societal virtue. At a time when France was seized by religious intolerance and autocratic political rule, he championed individual rights, mutual forbearance and belief in the progress of man — all values that have become part of the bedrock of modern liberal societies. “He was no friend of Protestants or Jews, but he was willing to speak out for their rights,” says Kors. Voltaire argued that where a country had one official religion, the inevitable result was authoritarianism. With two religions: endless civil war. But where a society tolerated many religions — as he experienced in England during his exile — the result was harmonious diversity.

Today, matters of culture and identity have supplanted religion as the basis for division. And unfortunately, on a great many matters, there exists only one socially acceptable narrative — a sign that we may be becoming an increasingly intellectually authoritarian society.

Hal Niedzviecki, formerly of Write magazine, Steve Ladurantaye, formerly of CBC’s The National, Jonathan Kay, formerly of The Walrus, Andrew Potter, formerly of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, and Conservative Senator Lynn Beyak have all recently been publicly scolded — or worse — for expressing opinions that were at odds with the accepted orthodoxy regarding indigenous beliefs or, in Potter’s case, Quebec’s selfimage. These incidents all serve as unpleasant reminders that our society continues to struggle to free itself of the sort of ideological constraints that Voltaire habitually criticized.

“We appear to have entered once again a period of hypersensitivity,” says Kors, drawing a parallel between the control exerted by the French royalty and Catholic Church over public discourse in the 1700s, and the mob rule via Twitter that seems to enforce conformity today. “Social coercion can be just as damaging to freedom as any political or legal act,” he observes. “And this is very perilous to liberty.” Kors knows a thing or two about the importance of free speech. Besides being an expert on 18th century literature, he was also a founding member of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization dedicated to protecting free speech on American university campuses.

Faced with official demands for conformity and obedience, Voltaire learned to promote freedom of speech through satire and coded language. With Canadian journalists now well aware of the potential reputational or professional punishment that awaits them for making statements that run contrary to received wisdom (particularly on matters of identity), irony and double meanings may once again become the necessary refuge for those who still believe in unfettered free speech. “Both the U.S. and Canada could use a lot of Voltaire’s wit at this moment of cultural conflict,” notes Kors.

Consider again the predicament of Niedzviecki, who resigned as editor of Write after penning a defence of free speech and encouraging writers of all cultures to explore the lives of others. “An editor of a writers’ magazine expresses his opinions about writing and the need to see the world through others’ eyes. And for this, the writers’ union apologizes and the editor is removed,” says Kors. “Surely that is Voltairian irony in and of itself.”

Perhaps the new age of Voltaire is already here.

Statue of Voltaire at the Louvre in Paris. “Both the U.S. and Canada could use a lot of Voltaire’s wit at this moment of cultural conflict,” notes Voltaire scholar and historian Alan Charles Kors.