 |
Liberal Democracies Must Protect (Hateful or Dumb or Disagreeable) Free Expression |
|
 by Michael Moynihan, April 17, 2008 |
||
From this Series
There are a number of points on which Ali Eteraz and I agree. Despite my general hostility to organized religion, I too have little patience for Robert Spencer-type arguments that Islam is possessed with a preternatural desire to force unbelievers into a state of "dhimmitude," nor am I terribly concerned that the minarets of "Eurabia" will soon encircle the Islamisized capitals of Western Europe. As I noted in my Reason column, I have little interest --- and little academic qualification --- in such conversations, and will leave the discussions of Koranic interpretation to theologians and historians. But thankfully, for the sake of Jewcy's readers, there is much on which we disagree. But let me start be reiterating that I too was unimpressed by Wilders film, and his views of Islam still strike me as reductive and, to put it mildly, incomplete.
So let’s get right to a few important points of
disagreement: I suspect that Ali
Geert Wilders: Is he not a man entitled to human rights? If he picks, does he not bleed? understood that I would strenuously object to
his characterization of Wilders as a "threat to liberal society" --- a threat
to whom? How grave a threat? --- and that there exists, as he writes, some “threat
of discussion.” And while I can, I suppose, sympathize with his desire to "rid
liberal society of people like Wilders," it is worth pointing out that here Ali
is entering pie-in-the-sky, Five Year Plan territory. Besides, any attempts to
purge people with unpopular opinions from polite society risks having the very
opposite effect.
Ali also advises that, to achieve harmony amongst Muslims and non-Muslims, it is necessary “ignore Michael's exhortation about looking out for Wilders rights, and spend our time either ignoring or mocking him.” This is a perfectly baffling sentence. Ali will find that my editorial in support of Wilders' right to hate Islam is also an exhortation to debate him (Mocking, devoid of serious debating or debunking, will likely be an ineffective weapon). But if Ali truly believes that Wilders shouldn't be prosecuted for thought crimes --- as was suggested by both implicitly and explicitly by Dutch Muslim groups and members of the Balkanende government --- then he must, on some level, be concerned with the right to free speech.
Instead, you advocate threatening Wilders --- “The only way we can make this showing is if Wilders is aware that he is perpetually ‘this close’ to losing his right to offend --- which sounds as if your conception of free speech comes with a few conditions. So, Ali, what do you propose to do? On the one hand, you defensively write that no law should be created or employed that would abridge Wilders' right to free speech, though you want to threaten to silence him in order to demonstrate that, in a liberal society, there are times when the government must be illiberal. So how do you suggest we force reasoned discourse if not by the force of law? And who will determine what is offensive?
I agree with Ali that there has been in a shift in Dutch perception of Islam, but his analysis is oversimplified, focusing largely on what he sees as a perception that “immigrants from Muslim countries are viewed as being inherently incapable of becoming good citizens in the West.” In the argument about Islamic extremism, foreign policy “blowback,” and America’s standing in the Muslim world, it has been a frequent refrain that we must look inward, and ask “why they hate us.” Ali’s position is an admirable one; it is worth repeating that other frequent refrain here: radical Islamists are in the minority.
But that said, we must see if there is indeed an integration problem in the Netherlands, we must honestly assess whether there indeed exists a perception that assimilation of the country’s Muslim immigrants is hopeless. In other words, let us also ask "why do they hate them?" We therefore cannot discuss the issue of Dutch "intolerance" while ignoring the brutal murder of Theo van Gogh, the armed cells of radicals broken up by Dutch police, Rotterdam’s imam declaring that "Homosexuality does not only affect the people who have this disease, but it can also spread." That "40 percent of the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands reject western values and democracy," according to a study by the University of Amsterdam’s Center for Radicalism and Extremism Studies, cannot be blithely dismissed as the byproduct of Islamophobia. Wilders may be a boor, but that shouldn’t obscure the real problems of radical Islamism and religious Balkanization in Holland.
Before I run too long, allow me to object to the logical
fallacy of Ali's comparison of
The true meaning of freedom Wilder's anti-Islam film and to the public
rejection of racism or sexism. I am of course not the first to make this
distinction, but I think it is worth repeating that the adoption of a religion,
even if bequeathed to you by your parents or community, is still a choice. It
is a set of superstitious beliefs and moral precepts. Theological issues are
something with which we can vigorously disagree and debate. Gender and race are
immutable; one cannot choose these things. It would be quite different, then,
if Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins were to write book-length attacks on blacks or
women rather than religion and the religious.
And one final point: Ali also says that those of us who defend democracy have allies, and those allies are the brave Iranian students who defy the vile regime under whose boot heel they live and not Mr. Wilders (who is brave in his own right). Well now. Can one not name both as worthy of protection? Can we venerate one and merely argue that the other should be allowed to insult a religion because he believes it to be irredeemably violent? Democracy, after all, means defending the rights of those who possess opinions both decent and indecent. There are real consequences if we were to abandon either.
You want to tell Iranian students that “as you fight your supremacists [the Mullahs], we fight ours [Wilders].” While I am loathe to accuse Ali of employing moral equivalence, I must strongly object to his suggestion that those who hang gay men from cranes in Tehran are morally as reprehensible, are an equal threat to civilization, as a marginal politician who denies that moderate Islam exists. There is, you must admit, a difference.
A neoconservative Jewish convert to Islam blasts Ahmadinejad for...
A dispatch from the (further) Americanized Jerusalem
The actress talks about her vegan conversion, her Jewish upbringing,...
If the Native American Church can trip, why can't I?
The benefits of a small tribal gene pool
| Dev Blog | Privacy | Submissions | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | FAQ | Masthead |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Anonymous
Interesting piece
While I too am put off by many who attack Islam for the behavior of its adherents, I nonetheless find the actions of this minority to be disturbing and I agree with Mr. Moynihan above that we need to deal with "the real problems of radical Islamism and religious Balkanization in Holland". Of course this is very vague, but thats due to the very nature of the problem itself, that is how should Holland and by implication Western liberal democracies in general, deal with the problem of popular movements whose goal is their very destruction.
Anonymous
reductive, incomplete and?
...unfortunately largely factual. I'm sure I'm not the only denizen of the EU who would rather disagree with mr. Wilders, were it possible to do so without lying to oneself. Both Theo Van Gogh and Geert Wilders are easy to dislike, but that does nothing for or against their works. We could, of course, argue about the intentions of islamic immigrants 'till the mullahs come home; we can discuss ( though we aren't qualified to ) interpretation of the Koran - but living in the here and now we are forced to deal with realities. Realities of Islam's adherents behaviour in the EU. Both Van Gogh and Wilders make a strong case for the proactive and vigorous exclusion of islamic emigrants from Holland and the EU at large.
And while we're at it, neither of their works is an "attack on Islam" - merely an exposition of eu islamist cultural propensities.
It isn't the open debate of islamic behaviour and mores that threatens liberal society, but the very behaviours under discussion....vide french islamic riots of 2005.
Anonymous
As a Muslim, as if it's worth anything
I'm not here to debate the inherently violent nature of Islam or lack thereof; although, I'd like to comment that it's not -- of course, the bias is a given.
Liberal democracies need to allow the free expression of all thoughts, maybe even those that advocate its downfall. The theory being that only then can it'd be pointed out just how ridiculous that would be. And after all, I thought the idea behind "liberal" was some at least some semblance of liberty.
Wilders make, at best, a poor case for anything.
Mr. Eteraz has perhaps failed this one time, but maybe not always, to realize how advocating "removing" a member from "liberal" society is ridiculous. How can we point out the foolishness of Wilders if people like Wilders are silenced? How can we have that debate, then? Just as Wilders should not be completely ignored, Muslims everywhere need to be given the opportunity to have a good, hearty taste of liberty. It's hard to cherish liberty when you've never really experienced it.
Anonymous
The problem with so many of
The problem with so many of these "defending free expression" arguments is that there's no rules regarding where one draws the line that seperates free expression from an attack that threatens the freedom of others.
Is Islam evil? Possibly, but simply saying that isn't a threat to the belief. Demanding that the evil be curtailed is a different matter.
Windtell
Islam vs. Christianity
I'm of neither religion btw but the bible urges people to slay nonbelievers including children, enslave their women, and allow their souls to burn forever. People who think that the koran is violent and sadochistic by nature really need to go have a good rereading of the 'good book'. How many of you take it for granted that if your brother dies you'll be marrying his wife ?
The behaviour of a person of a religion doesn't neccessarily say much of the religion in any case. Cultural integration problems aren't specific to the Netherlands, and I've met more born agains who struck me as loons then Muslims, I've lived in Muslim countries for many years, in one (Turkey) on holiday as I write this. Those evangelical born agains are something else though ..
Back on topic though, wanna denounce a religion ? Go ahead, that's your right, I'll mock you or agree at will. That's mine. It's the people that you most hate that you must defend the most. Not only religion, KKK and all male clubs have my full blessings to exist. Let idiots parade at will for us all to mock.
Anonymous
Moynihan, great article.
Thanks for the article, Moynihan. I could not have said it better.
Micha Ghertner
No Rules, Huh?
The problem with so many of these "defending free expression" arguments
is that there's no rules regarding where one draws the line that
seperates free expression from an attack that threatens the freedom of
others.
Nope, no rules whatsoever.
Anonymous
Rules Aplenty
Liberal democracies have in fact developed a number of sound rules for determining where free speech must be curtailed. The United States has perhaps the most liberal rules governing free speech, and even here we have standards. To wit, Schenck v. United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States. Speech that exhorts people to ~actual~ violence is prohibited. Speech that offends people, perhaps making them angry enough to do violence, is not; rather, the state exercises its power to prevent the violence, not the speech.
The troubling modern trend that Mr. Moynihan addresses is the failure of society's to understand this distinction between overtly encouraging violence and merely offending groups of people. This is no trivial matter. When government fails to guarantee the security of the speaker, bowing instead to threats of violence or social unrest, we lose everything.
Including ~perspective~. Speech that angers people, that is offensive, crude, or moronic, is no great threat to any healthy society. Trust in the ability of people to see what is self-evident in a statement, and the few who cannot comprehend it do not matter. The majority of Europeans are not swayed by racist tripe, just as the majority of Muslims are not rendered terrorists by the ranting of ignorant extremists. It's time to stop wringing our hands and engage these ideas in open debate, while the government protects all participants' right to do so.
jwheelock
Free Speech
Free Speech
This is a very interesting article that I would agree with. Free speech is the bastion of any democratic and free society - without free speech, all other freedoms become eroded because it becomes more and more difficult to defend them. Ideas, whether good or bad, should be discussed in an open society and criticism should be heaped upon them so the best ones live and the others die out. I actually found Wilders' film to be very effective and moving. He brings up a serious issue in Europe and did a very good job of letting the words and actions of Muslims speak for themselves. Attempts by Muslims to intimidate this film into silence, whether by legal action or by the death threats Wilders has received, only reinforces his point that radical Islam is incompatable with a free society.
Post new comment