Authorities said 54 people had been arrested for hate speech and defending terrorism since terror attacks killed 20 people in Paris last week, including three gunmen. The crackdown came as Charlie Hebdo's defiant new issue sold out before dawn around Paris, with scuffles at kiosks over dwindling copies of the satirical weekly that fronted the Prophet Muhammad anew on its cover....As I said earlier this morning, noting the Dieudonne arrest, this is no way to to sell free speech values to those who haven't accepted them yet. How do you explain these arrests to people who don't understand why there shouldn't also be censorship of images of Muhammad?
Among those detained for a Facebook posting was Dieudonne, a popular and controversial comic who has repeated convictions for racism and anti-Semitism. He was later released and will be put on trial next month for justifying terrorism, a judicial official said on condition of anonymity in keeping with French custom.
Like many European countries, France has strong laws against hate speech, especially anti-Semitism in the wake of the Holocaust.
ADDED: Glenn Greenwald writes:
As pernicious as this [Dieudonne] arrest and related “crackdown” on some speech obviously is, it provides a critical value: namely, it underscores the utter scam that was this week’s celebration of free speech in the west. The day before the Charlie Hebdo attack, I coincidentally documented the multiple cases in the west – including in the U.S. – where Muslims have been prosecuted and even imprisoned for their political speech. Vanishingly few of this week’s bold free expression mavens have ever uttered a peep of protest about any of those cases – either before the Charlie Hebdo attack or since. That’s because “free speech,” in the hands of many westerners, actually means: it is vital that the ideas I like be protected, and the right to offend groups I dislike be cherished; anything else is fair game.It's the oldest free-speech game in the book: Free speech for me but not for thee.
Posts
79 comments:
The Anglo-Saxon traditions of common law and the French Code Napoleon are so different in concept that you can hardly explain one to a person brought up under the other.
There is no such thing as totally free speech, not even in the good ole USofA.
I agree this is a bad idea, but for a different reason. Now these suspects and cohorts will know that the authorities are onto them. A smarter move would be to apply closer scrutiny to these miscreants without arresting them outright or clueing them into the attention. In that way, the French can possibly learn of the next attack beforehand by a sudden spike, or drop, in their social media/public activity.
The people who need persuading don't give a rat's ass about free speech, and consider the whole concept to be anathema. The only way they will be convinced is at gunpoint.
The French people rank preservation of French culture (and lives) ahead of free speech. When Le Pen takes office, it will be even more apparent.
Should be interesting...
"this is no way to to sell free speech values to those who haven't accepted them yet. How do you explain these arrests to people who don't understand why there shouldn't also be censorship of images of Muhammad?"
You can't. That London based Imam that asked why the French government didn't do anything about Charlie Hebdo had a point. If it is illegal to disparage Jews and other minorities, but they do nothing about "insulting" Islam, then it is all about whose ox is getting gored.
As I said in an earlier thread, France has now transformed the issue into one of not wanting to get shot for enjoying speech that they support but Muslims do not.
None of my English and few of my Canadian friends understand the American attachment to the 1st.
And don't even bring up the 2nd!
Try explaining that these are not grants of rights to people but a recognition by the government that people own these as birthrights. Boggles them and they edge away from you.
_XC
"this is no way to to sell free speech values to those who haven't accepted them yet"
Not yet -- but keep hope alive. If we just "sell" our values better, Muslims will come around. After 1400 years, they are ready, no doubt.
"How do you explain these arrests"
1. Free speech in Europe isn't as free as in the US 2. Speech that promotes violence is suspect 3. The French don't do foolish consistency. [Not saying the French are right.]
That's France for you--our concepts of basic rights are quite different from theirs. It's why when people say that we should do X because other western countries do it, I point out that there are a lot of things we don't want to do just because the others do.
"How do you explain these arrests to people who don't understand why there shouldn't also be censorship of images of Muhammad?"
Well, you could try being honest: 'It's our country, and we'll run it the way we want. If you don't like it, go back to Turkey or Algeria or whatever benighted country you come from.' In French, of course.
I am not a robot.
It was a march of millions to support the offensive images, as it will appear in islamic media.
This fall back to unfree speech is no surprise for me, was it for you?
"How do you explain these arrests to people who don't understand why there shouldn't also be censorship of images of Muhammad?"
Teach them the history of France. Different countries have different histories that lead to different interpretations of shared values.
@Expat(ish),
Suggest to your friends that they go to a library and borrow - or better yet, buy - a copy of Blackstone's "Commentaries of the Laws of England," London 1765.
"Commentaries on ..."
It’s not right to threaten or use violence against people whose speech offends you but what some people don't realize is that using the power of government to arrest, fine and/or imprison people for speech that you find offensive is also itself an act of violence.
Hopefully this does not confuse too much since it is where we are heading.
France is run by leftists.
Scratch a liberal, you will find a fascist. Every. Time.
The king is a head of the Monarchy that is a collective of subjects. He/she owns everything with some narrow due process rules.
The generosity of the elegant collective must be bowed down to. just ask The Bishop of Rome who have historically claimed that they are the king over kings. No wonder Pope Francis is so comfortable with grade-B Marxist dictatorships doing what comes naturally.
Jason: "France is run by leftists."
Yes it is. But how long do you think it will take for our very own leftists to start claiming that no true leftist would support this?
I give it 48 hours.
In Europe, the government tells you what rights you have and makes it clear those rights can be diminished or taken away. In the UK and Canada you have your rights but the government can always take them away (parliamentary supremacy, the "Notwithstanding" clause. The US is unique in that your rights are yours, aren't limited to those enumerated and the government can't take them away.
$0.99 on Kindle, ~$15 used paperback from Amazon - and worth every penny.
The American concept of free speech as an individual right is a tiny minority position, and even in American about 1/2 the country (Progressives) and several SCt justices do not really believe in it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/02/breyers-dangerous-dissent-in-mccutcheon-the-campaign-finance-case/
Kyzernick said...
You are right.. putting them under surveillance is a better idea. But if the numbers are too high for that, this will out a stop on those who just talk the talk and differentiate them from others who carry it further.
I'm reading "glorify terrorism," "justify terrorism" and "promote violence" (from Sebastian's comment).
Two of the three, given the context and language used seem to me to go beyond any freedom of expression into the threat arena. We aren't given enough information.
You can tell a Jew he will not be served in your store (free speech) or you can tell him you will kill him if he comes in again or even say that all Jews should be killed.
Don't we have laws here equivalent that would justify charges in the latter?
"How do you explain these arrests to people who don't understand why there shouldn't also be censorship of images of Muhammad?"
You think you can explain free speech and how it pertains to depicting images of Muhammad and get understanding and acceptance?
Bless your heart.
Free speech in France? Let's start with Marquette!
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/395014/marquette-suspends-professor-who-blogged-about-free-speech-violations-maggie-gallagher
I gather they are arresting people who are advocating murder - and perhaps trying to incite it?
They are doing precisely what Secret Service does when some idiot goes on Facebook and talks about his brilliant idea to off the president.
Even in the US, if you are talking amongst yourself in some documentable form about attacking groups of people, the law is going to grab you if it can find you.
I think your point here makes NO sense whatsoever.
Not to make this about sports but, Dieudonne is Tony Parker's friend.
Ann, how do you prevent things like the video you posted two threads down with taking action like this? Please advise.
We could turn this around to positive effect. "Hate crime" is an anti-American, anti-rights concept. Some people like the concept.
Look at France. Let's be like that! Hate people for what you think is in their heads.
There is no God. Therefore, there is no guarantee of a solution to any given social problem. There are only optimal approaches, approaches which are seldom, if ever, obvious.
There is no such thing as "rights". Only those freedoms that society decides to grant. Yes freedom is granted, it doesn't just exist. Unless of course you can get on a spaceship, get to some distant planet where there are no other people. Then you can have your 'natural rights'.
Because War, and because France. I don't recall that there were Nazis parading around American streets during WWII. It may be argued that France is not in an officially declared war, but modern war is seldom declared. We have returned to pre-Westphalian times, which is the reason we can't decide if fighting terrorism requires the police or the army. Bit of both, I think.
They may not have American-style free speech, but they're light years ahead of any Muslim country. Of, France will likely be a Muslim country in a few decades. I passed the reCAPTCHA Turing test!
You heard it here first.
"The US is unique in that your rights are yours, aren't limited to those enumerated and the government can't take them away."
Hahahaha!
The great philosopher Robert Heinlein once said that the only inalienable right is self defense.
Of course that doesn't mean that you will be effective.
Robert Cook of course wants us all to live in a world where he dictates what we all will need and desire, and so everybody will be free.
If you want something else besides what he's got on offer? Well, that is what psychiatrists are for.
In France was it really about freedom of speech?
Obviously some of the marchers (e.g. political leaders from Palestine or Turkey or Jordan) can't possibly have intended to make a blanket statement in favour of "freedom of speech" since that's not something they practice or support domestically. And for them, it probably wasn't about the glories of French state secularism, either since that's pretty alien to them too (the current leadership in Turkey, in particular, has been opposed to Ataturk's aggressive secularism).
Instead, it was, I think, simply about supporting the French in resisting an attempt by a particular violent minority -- a rabid Muslim minority that threatens everyone, Muslim and infidel alike -- to cow the majority.
Here in the US, we view that through the lens of freedom of speech because of course we do. But no one else really cares about freedom of speech the way Americans do (or pretend to do) -- there are much more important things. Whether it's secularism, for the publishers of Charlie Hebdo, or the rights of the majority not to be terrorized by a minority on general principles, or just resistance against this particular strain of minority madness. And that's fine.
Ann Althouse said...How do you explain these arrests to people who don't understand why there shouldn't also be censorship of images of Muhammad?
As others have already answered, you don't. The expansive American view of freedom of speech really is an outlier both culturally and legally, and while not absolute is far beyond what most enlightened Europeans consider necessary. This is a good example of American exceptionalism, an idea frequently mocked by the Left (including our current President).
If I were French, though, I think I'd point out the distinction between the types of sanctions being applied, that is, I'd note that one the one hand people are being arrested and on the other they're being extra-judicially executed/murdered in cold blooded terrorist attacks--so we're definitely dealing with differences of degree regarding how disfavored speech is punished.
Alex said "There is no such thing as 'rights'. Only those freedoms that society decides to grant."
That's the old, European idea. The American idea is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Given your opinion, you might be happier if you moved to France, or Russia or Saudi Arabia.
I am not a robot, but a free man.
Is this really about free speech? I might have thought it was about being murdered by terrorists.
The hate speechers will get their day in court. Charlie Hedbo was forced to the bar several times in defense of their rights. That's how the rule of law works.
Sing La Marseillaise and round up the usual suspects!
"Quoi! des cohortes étrangères
Feraient la loi dans nos foyers!"
Run that through Google translate.
"How do you explain these arrests to people who don't understand why there shouldn't also be censorship of images of Muhammad?"
I don't remotely agree with these arrests, but one possible answer to your question is that France needs to show the animal subset of Islam who's actually in charge.
In my view, odious antisemitism shouldn't be any more illegal than odious anti-Islamism, but right now, no-one's shooting up people in a halal grocery.
There is no such thing as totally free speech, not even in the good ole USofA.
That's like responding to a murder by saying "nobody lives forever".
It is either a banal statement of an obvious fact, or a tacit endorsement of the act in question. Either it is unhelpful, or it is wrong.
Consider also Europe's anguish at and guilt about its continent-wide complicity with the Nazis in rounding up local Jews and sending them off to Auschwitz. Vichy France was particularly odious when it came to this act of collaboration. Much like the lingering effects of slavery on our social discourse on race here, the impact of all that blood still evokes a visceral reaction in Europe. Hell, the EU was created mostly to prevent fascism from every finding a national home again. This is why France and Germany in particular are rather vigilant about squelching any signs of political revival from Hitler's spiritual heirs. Thus anti-semitic activity is seen in a far different light than anti-Islamic agitation.
Robert Cook of course wants us all to live in a world where he dictates what we all will need and desire, and so everybody will be free
He was responding to the statement "The US is unique in that your rights are yours, aren't limited to those enumerated and the government can't take them away."
That is a statement that describes the United States as envisioned by the Constitution. It in no way, shape, or form describes the United States as it exists today.
Today, there is virtually no aspect of life that is not subject to government regulation. It is essentially impossible to avoid committing felonies. You are held responsible for knowing the law, but government officials are not. The government can, and regularly does, strip you of rights. Hell, Canada does a better job of respecting human rights and liberty these days. How sad is that?
I don't know that I'd laugh about it, though. Weep, maybe.
I guess they figure harsh cartoons are a less real form of "hate speech".
Reminds me of hate crimes here. Murder the wrong person for wrong reason and it's more badderer murder. Killing Joe Bloe for their shoes less so.
Agree with Balfegor. Well said. That is how I interpret what happened in Paris and free speech is just a catchall phrase. Hopefully Paris serves as a notice to the minority that are perpetrating the evil deeds all over the world. When you look at the big picture of what those millions and 40+ leaders came together to support, you will really see why Obama comes out lacking.
Dieudonne is kind of a weird case, as he's sort of the White Whale of Arno Klarsfeld (son of the Honorable Serge Klarsfeld, largely resting on his father's laurels according to many), who currently stands as a Legal Advisor to the State (Conseil d'Etat).
Valls/Klarsfeld have been sort of grandstanding lately, with the Dieudonne prosecutions, which has been sort of pushing Dieudonne towards further "Incitation towards Hate," now called "Incitation towards Terrorism."
***
Before anyone gives me any crap about this: Charlie Hebdo is pretty nasty. Their editorial staff didn't deserve the extrajudicial (vigilante justice?) execution.
Dieudonne is wicked nasty. For what he was jailed (and for what Valls, by proxy, is trying to destroy him for) doesn't deserve such prosecution.
Nice sentiments from Greenwald, but I would seek to emigrate from any country where he came to power. I trust the sincerity of his values not at all. Look where Trotsky ended up despite his paeans to individual liberty.
How do you explain these arrests .... Etc.
Why try? Seriously. Why try? Tell the Muslims to play by our rules when they are here or pack their bags and head back to the 3rd world pest holes they came from.
Well, Greenwald has a point. Exhibit A is any American campus. As other people have noted, the Charlie Hebdo cartoon not could get printed on any American campus. So if the locus of free speech is academia we can confidently state that France is more hospitable to free speech than UW Madison. Yet we don’t seen Ann discussing the suppression of free speech at her publicly funded employer.
Having established that unbridled free speech as propounded like Greenwald is a unicorn, let’s focus our view on the poor schlub who was arrested by the FBI today for planning to attack the capital. According to the news reports he never had a chance to actually do anything, so the question is: what did he actually do, as opposed to what he was thinking, that is illegal? When you arrest someone for speech, thought, or for legal activities, even if he was contemplating a crime, are you guilty of inhibiting free expression or freedom of action?
Here’s a question for the lawyers: under current US law, when did the Charlie Hebdo killers commit a crime? Before they began shooting? Were their preparations part of their freedom of speech or action? Can we be arrested for thinking about killing someone? Apparently so, so what the hell is Greenwald nattering on about?
One final thought. While I don’t want to minimize the Charlie Hebdo martyrs I have to say that the cartoons they ran were crude and offensive, and they were meant to be. They also have a startling resemblance to the cartoons that were popular in the 1930s and appeared in Der Sturmer. http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/sturm28.htm These are regarded today as despicable, and they are. Der Sturmer focused on Jews, Charlie’s focus was on religion. Yet the murders of Charlie’s cartoonists has hallowed some very similar “art.” No one should be killed for running an offensive periodical. But let’s not kid ourselves that Charlie was anything but a blight on cultural comity.
As I said earlier this morning, noting the Dieudonne arrest, this is no way to to sell free speech values to those who haven't accepted them yet. How do you explain these arrests to people who don't understand why there shouldn't also be censorship of images of Muhammad?
Is there really anybody out there with two brain cells to rub together who didn't know that all this "Je suis Charlie" crapola from our dear leaders and bien pensants was a complete fraud?
"It's the oldest free-speech game in the book: Free speech for me but not for thee"? No shit, Sherlock. But why am I getting the impression that people like you and Greenwald are seraphically unconcerned that Muslims in Europe have not only not been the main victims of "hate speech" laws in Europe (rather, it has more often been the case that a Muslim may steal a sheep but a non-Muslim may not look over the fence), but that some of them have been perfectly happy to work hand-in-glove with the PTBs to go soviet on Europeans who aren't on board with multiculturalism and political correctness?
"Je suis Charlie" was a fraud. You rightly note that arresting Mr. M'bala M'bala highlights the fraud. But it most emphatically is not a matter of non-Muslims being able to practice what Muslims get prosecuted for. If you think that's what it's all about, you're missing something huge.
(As Balfegor more temperately expressed, you need to stop trying to interpret all this through an American lens.)
I have given some thought to this. May not seem like it. Some very good points made about the differences in French and American jurisprudence. And the issue of Nazis' in France and Germany. The Free Speech of Charlie did not advocate the death and destruction of anyone. The Free Speech that is being spouted by the Muslim and their hanger-on's do advocate the killing and absolute destruction of a group, Jews. I think that this is a distinction between the two "Freedom of Speech" issues. After all, I do believe that yelling fire in a crowded room is not considered free speech.
Alex is right, for once, Godfather.
And I might point out that the man who wrote all those fine words bred slaves for sale, so, so much for his "inalienable" rights.
The civil rights we have, are rights we have granted each other, and they need to be jealously guarded, or they most certainly will be taken away from us!
eric said...There is no such thing as totally free speech, not even in the good ole USofA.
Not even on this blog!
The problem with the whole "we have to ban this, because NAZIS" argument is that the major crimes of the Nazi era were carried out by the government, not by private citizens. "The government murdered millions of people, so the government decided to restrict private citizens' rights in response" is not a sensible solution.
The mentality at work here seems to be that ideas can successfully be prevented from becoming popular if you make it illegal to say them. That is not an intelligent thing to believe. Totalitarian states can *sometimes* manage that, but everywhere else it simply makes the forbidden ideas more attractive to people who feel marginalized.
Maybe you could just tell them "Allah says"? Seems to work for a lot of other ideas that make no sense at all.
You certainly can suppress ideas in a free society. Its happening now. It takes more than just declaring them off limits, but it can be done. Over the last 50 years we have come to understand the reality of Gramsci's theories.
walter said...
Reminds me of hate crimes here. Murder the wrong person for wrong reason and it's more badderer murder.
I agree with this but another area where this is true is the fetishizing of the death of cops. A cop's life has the same value as everyone else's life. They will be missed by their immediate family.
Well about 'free' speech.
You can't shout fire in a room full of people, right?
You can't, unless you are Al Sharpton, incite people to riot, right?
You can't go around threatening people with bodily harm or death, right?
But that's free speech, isn't it?
There is limits to free speech. Always has been.
Again, Althouse proves she is no liberal, despite her claims. Just her followers.
Paul said...
"You can't shout fire in a room full of people, right?"
The standard banality, due to an American Fascist of the early 20th Century (who happened to be serving on the Supreme Court), is that there is no right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This fatuous dictum ignores the case in which the theater is on fire.
One does have to wonder, do the French really suppose that having imported millions of mortal enemies into their country, and encouraged them to breed until they are a tenth or more of the population, they can now avert the entirely predictable disaster by telling them to keep quiet?
Let's not forget the suit for alleged "hate speech" brought against novelist Michel Houellebecq for remarks made in an interview just before his novel ATOMISED was published.
Houellebecq said that all religion was stupid, but of all the monotheistic religions Islam is by far the stupidest. He said that at least there is beautiful writing and poetry in the Bible, but there is NOTHING intelligent in the Koran. He said he did not just feel contempt for Islam, but hatred.
Thhis was a HUGE case in France when it occurred. My wife and I contributed to Houellebecq's defense fund. He was facing being wiped out financially as well as prison time.
Almost miraculously (as it seemed at the time), the suit did not prevail. Michel Houellebecq has not lived in France ever since.
His latest novel, SUBMISSION, was featured in the last issue of Charlie Hebdo. It deals with a near-future France after it has elected an Islamic president.
I'm sure the treatment of such a subject is uncontroversial and mild.
"How do you explain these arrests to people who don't understand why there shouldn't also be censorship of images of Muhammad?"
Those people should be grateful the French have evolved. In the late fifties and early sixties those people would have been found floating in the Seine.
As noted by another commenter we here have the habit of viewing a French landscape through an American lens. While I am opposed to hate speech restrictions and am in favor of our concept of free speech one cannot ignore European history and the motivation of why Europeans aren't entirely wrong in limiting some forms of speech. Our history is different for the most part although if Crack were here he would and could legitimately argue that for minorities, especially blacks our history isn't all that dissimilar with respects to hate speech and the evils that kind of speech did help bring about.
Once we decided to define (and punish more severely) "hate" crimes, the idea of devaluing and punishing certain speech as "hate" speech was easy to anticipate.
Hate crimes necessarily value some victims of crimes over others. Hate speech necessarily values and protects some speech over other speech. What could possibly go wrong by taking that primrose path?
And so here we are, where the only way to define what is a "hate" crime or "hate" speech is to let the government -- or a group stronger than we are -- do the defining.
Duke University forbade a pro-life demonstration -- it was too hateful, or offensive, apparently -- and removed Chik-fil-A from its campus. And now the ever-inclusive, tolerant Duke will broadcast the Muslim call to prayer every Friday over the campus PA system so that all may hear it.
"Free speech for thee, if it doth not offend me. Free speech for me, if it doth not offend the King."
So carry on, everyone, and by all means, speak freely.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/14/muslim-call-to-prayer-to-be-chanted-every-friday-at-duke-university/
Meanwhile, French Jews are leaving for Israel in droves, so obviously these Laws have no impact where it counts, so they are kinda silly.
I don't think there is absolute freedom, so I similarly don't think there is absolute freedom of speech. But by the same token we're going nuts enslaving our selves to legislating thought crimes.
If you think gay marriage is wrong, think Man made global warming is a hoax or unproven, or think blacks are inferior, or think that women should be in the kitchen or think the holocaust didn't happen, or think that 9/11 was an inside job, you have the right to think that and even express it.
Where speech runs afoul of the law is in action that causes people to be physically hurt. It's a line certainly and we won't all agree on where to draw it.
But not at the point where if you offend someone's religion or sex orientation you can't say it.
Even worse, the left is violating their standard left and right and get away with it because the targets they are attacking are bad, in their minds. Christians are intolerant bigots and fools for believing in creationism.
They can be mocked freely.
But say a bad thing about Islam and "you cannot insult religion!"
jr565 said;
"But by the same token we're going nuts enslaving our selves to legislating thought crimes..."
You are mistaken as to who is enslaving whom.
In response to my quotation from our Declaration of Independence, Hagar said (at 8:01 pm): "And I might point out that the man who wrote all those fine words bred slaves for sale, so, so much for his "inalienable" rights."
That Jefferson was a slave-owner doesn't mean the Declaration was wrong, it means that Jefferson was wrong.
Revenant said...
"Robert Cook of course wants us all to live in a world where he dictates what we all will need and desire, and so everybody will be free
He was responding to the statement "The US is unique in that your rights are yours, aren't limited to those enumerated and the government can't take them away."
That is a statement that describes the United States as envisioned by the Constitution. It in no way, shape, or form describes the United States as it exists today.
Today, there is virtually no aspect of life that is not subject to government regulation. It is essentially impossible to avoid committing felonies. You are held responsible for knowing the law, but government officials are not. The government can, and regularly does, strip you of rights. Hell, Canada does a better job of respecting human rights and liberty these days. How sad is that?
I don't know that I'd laugh about it, though. Weep, maybe."
This goes back to an assertion comrade Bob made a couple of years ago. He believes that there are no natural rights. That all our rights are a gift from the government.
Dieudonne's arrest is no more an assault against general free speech than Al Capone's arrest was an assault against general taxpayer rights. Imagine that tens of thousands of gays in the US had been intentionally impaled on broomsticks, and a clever, charismatic comedian makes amusing praises of broomsticks and invents a broomstick-inspired salute that goes viral. I'm not saying one can't defend Dieudonne or his gay-mocking counterpart, but a truly principled defense would defend all hate speech regardless of context. Is that what you believe?
Let me add some relevant stats from a 500-page French blue-ribbon commission report entitled The Struggle Against Racism, Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia in 2013. On a per capita basis, reported hate crimes against French Muslims average 1 per 20,000, roughly the same proportion as the FBI reports for hate crimes against Afro-Americans. The per capita rate for hate crimes against French Jews is over 20 times as high. And some of the crimes are horrendous. In one of them, a 21-year-old young man was suckered into a date that led to him tied up in duct tape for a month, acid poured on him, and burned. The arrested Dieudonne has been pubilcly campaigning for the convicted mastermind to be released.
Like Germany, France has prohibited for nearly 70 years Holocaust denial and much other Nazi-like free speech. Perhaps this was misguided, but it did not excite much protest elsewhere given the historical context, and for over 50 years the prohibition was enforced relatively even-handedly. About 15 years ago, the prohibition effectively ceased to be enforced against self-described Muslims. France is now reviving a broader enforcement. Again, I am not denying anyone's right to dislike the law, but the revival of unbiased enforcement is overdue.
I think in a democracy you have to allow the most odious speech to be free. That means neo-Nazis or radical Islamists to say whatever they want.
Otherwise we are not a free nation. So France is not free.
The Smith Act in the US, in effect since 1940 and modeled after a New York law in effect since 1902, outlaws advocacy of the violent overthrow of the govt. So the US by your criterion isn't free either and hasn't been in most living memory. Instead of defining "free" as "absolutely free" with a coverage of zero, why not define it as "relatively free" with a few countries included?
Alex said...
"I think in a democracy you have to allow the most odious speech to be free. That means neo-Nazis or radical Islamists to say whatever they want."
The reality is that Muslim beliefs are incompatible with democratic governance. As the current (and likely lifelong) elected Muslim leader of Turkey has remarked, "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you get to your stop, you get off". In this, they are no different than Communists. When they win an election, their first priority is to prevent further elections. And it is difficult to see any democratic argument against this. Why shouldn't they use democracy to impose their preferred policies? Everyone else does.
This means that the only defense against Islam is demographic. If you want your children's children to live in a democratic state, don't let Muslims set up shop on your territory. Let us hope that the European example will teach us this lesson before it is too late. The Islamic states of the Mid-East are in demographic freefall, while sinking into political anomie. The only way their culture is viable is as a parasite on a Western welfare state, and they will destroy that state when they reach majority.
Post a Comment