Why do we become so upset over non-mainstream viewpoints? Since the so-called COVID-19 pandemic, global matters have been portrayed as black or white. There is no more room for debate in the grey. The latest episode in this international politically correct play became evident after the interview American journalist Tucker Carlson held with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week—western hypocrisy at its best.

Thanks to the media, the COVID-19 era revealed a glaring truth: a massive, absurd division between permissible thoughts and behaviors emerged. This “prescribed behaviorally code of conduct” was shamelessly imposed by mainstream media outlets and online platforms alike, including exclusion, cancellation, and limitations on free speech. In essence, this “code of conduct” has insidiously permeated our daily lives, infiltrating even our most intimate family interactions.

My personal experience of being excluded from social activities for not complying with vaccination and track-and-trace systems taught me firsthand what social exclusion and discrimination feel like.

This narrative recounts firsthand experiences with the COVID crisis and subsequent global crises, such as the conflicts between Ukraine and Russia, and Palestine and Israel. A binary framework, either in support or opposition, characterizes both disputes.

Democracy, echoing back to ancient Greece, empowers society through self-governance. Amidst conflicts, it fosters common ground, nurturing literature, art, and scholarly pursuits.

However, while science aims for accuracy, it’s inherently human, subject to limitations, guided by the principle ‘true until proven otherwise.’

Lawyers, akin to scientists, meticulously gather evidence, relying on precedent and case law.

Yet, unlike science’s pursuit of objective truth, law entails interpretation within legal frameworks. Legal decisions may be influenced by subjective factors, contrasting with science’s quest for impartiality. In this nuanced interplay, democracy thrives on open debate, listening, and research, where law and science converge with common sense as guiding beacons.

Why aren’t we hearing the voices of Russians in conflicts? It’s like there’s a pre-written script painting everything from Russia as villainous and everything from the West as heroic. And when someone like Mr. Carlson dares to ask, suddenly he’s labeled a threat. Could it be the fear of prosecution, as a lawyer warns, that’s silencing journalists? Are we sacrificing free speech for fear of exclusion and cancellation? It’s time to break the silence and embrace open debate and diverse perspectives.

I appreciate the courage of Tucker Carlson, who, despite facing demonization and criticism, conducted this interview. Regardless of one’s opinions on either party, listening and engaging in dialogue is vital.

Carlson’s retention of a Western perspective strikes me about this conversation. Putin reflected in the interview on what I have observed in Russia: a bridge between East and West.

Reflecting on historical events and information often overlooked in Western media, I feel disheartened. Having lived outside the West for over 15 years, I witnessed the one-sidedness of Western media, somewhat akin to propaganda, underscoring our current state and highlighting the collective neglect of common sense in the West.

I have lived in Russia for over a decade and have resided in Southeast Asia and Vietnam for five years. As a Dutchman, I must say it is unfortunate to see how rapidly Western European society has changed, especially since 2019.

For example, while we eagerly speak about democracy and freedom in the West, my country, The Netherlands, has shifted towards becoming a more regulated and controlled society compared to Russia and Vietnam. In Holland, we pride ourselves on democracy; we have started witnessing censorship, a trend that the EU is now actively embracing.

What Tucker Carlson and President Putin excel at is dialogue, showcasing the emotional reaction from someone with a typical Western mindset like Tucker’s. What I appreciate about the discussion is its historical perspective, reflection on events, and presentation of factual information that is easily verifiable.

The hypocritical reactions in both Europe and the United States also highlight how much Putin is demonized despite his openness toward the West, especially Europe. From a Dutch perspective, I can see my country remaining rigid and stuck in its narrative, continuing down a self-destructive path like many other EU countries with them.

I struggle to comprehend why we, as a society, readily and swiftly embrace predefined narratives without question. Why do we feel compelled to take sides so quickly? Where is our common sense, our willingness to engage in dialogue that could prevent or halt conflicts?

Doing so could avert the loss of countless lives, both directly and indirectly. Why can’t we approach situations with the objectivity of scientists or the legal expertise of lawyers? It’s simple: listen, observe, and remain in dialogue with each other.

The more we question, the harsher the repercussions become. Similarly, the more we resist, the more cancellations ensue. What does this say? Again, why are we not questioning?

Why are we not just listening to each other?

By Wouter van der Wiel

Article published at The Liberum