If multiculturalism cannot coexist with free speech, then it is not merely flawed; it is incoherent.

By definition, multiculturalism claims to affirm and accommodate multiple cultures within a single political order. Yet many of these cultures hold beliefs that are not merely different, but fundamentally irreconcilable. They disagree about morality, religion, gender, authority, and the nature of truth itself. Such tensions are not an accident of multiculturalism; they are its defining feature.

It is precisely these contradictions that foster social divisions, which in turn generate pressure on politicians to suppress speech. When deeply held beliefs collide in the public square, offence becomes inevitable. Rather than allowing disagreement to play out through open debate, the solution increasingly proposed is regulation. Politicians impose limits on what may be said, believed, or questioned. Speech must be managed so that cultural conflict is minimised.

Freedom is impossible without free speech.

Democracy is impossible without free speech.

We don't have to agree, but we must have the rights to speak our mind.

Forcing people to be silent does not build social cohesion, it builds resentment.

This is just dangerous, Minns… pic.twitter.com/x2sSOcDcAy

— Matthew Camenzuli (@Matt_Camenzuli) December 23, 2025

But a system that requires the control of speech in order to survive ultimately requires the control of culture itself. Speech is how culture expresses, preserves, and defends its values. To regulate speech is therefore to regulate culture. And a political order that depends on such regulation necessarily demands limits on freedom as a condition of its own stability.

This presents a fundamental problem in the Western context. Freedom, especially freedom of speech, is not a mere preference or optional policy choice within Western civilisation. It is a pillar. Western societies are built on the conviction that truth is best pursued through open argument, that authority may be questioned, and that individuals may speak without fear of state reprisal. These principles are not incidental; they have long been fundamental to Western culture.

Yet in practice, multiculturalism increasingly requires the state to protect every culture except the one that made multiculturalism possible in the first place. Western culture, with its emphasis on free inquiry and speech, must be restrained so that other cultures, often less tolerant of dissent, may feel secure. The host culture is treated not as one culture among many, but as an obstacle to be dismantled.

This is where multiculturalism exposes its internal contradiction. If multiculturalism cannot survive alongside Western culture as it actually exists, if it must suppress free speech, a core Western value, in order to function, then it ceases to be an ideology of coexistence. It becomes an ideology of exclusion, elevating all cultures at the expense of Western culture.

Ultimately, a system that demands the erosion of its own civilisational foundations to sustain itself is not merely unjust or unbalanced. It is self-defeating. It is destined to collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions. Multiculturalism that depends on silencing free speech does not protect diversity; it destroys the very culture that made diversity possible. Once that foundation is gone, the only way to maintain cohesion is through the coercive power of the state.