Driving around town late last week, I heard a spirited BBC discussion (carried by my local NPR station) about Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parlaiment who produced a film suggesting the Koran incites violence. Get Religion posted on the story last week. Wilder was entering England at the invitation of the House of Lords (!!) to show his film there, but shortly after landing in London he was unceremoniously ejected from the country as a threat to public safety. So much for free speech on the other side of the pond.
The issue, of course, affects all free societies (aka “the West”). The Wall Street Journal featured a broader discussion: “Geert Wilders is a Test for Western Civilization: If Rushdie should be defended, why not the Dutch pol?” The headline pretty much says it all, but here are a couple of short paragraphs that pose the issues rather starkly:
If routine mockery of Christianity and abuse of its symbols, both in the U.S. and Europe, is protected speech, why shouldn’t the same standard apply to the mockery of Islam? And if the difference in these cases is that mockery of Islam has the tendency to lead to riots, death threats and murder, should committed Christians now seek a kind of parity with Islamists by resorting to violent tactics to express their sense of religious injury?The notion that liberals can have it both ways — champions of free speech on the one hand; defenders of multiculturalism’s assorted sensitivities on the other — was always intellectually flimsy. If liberals now want to speak for the “right” of this or that group not to be offended, the least they can do is stop calling themselves “liberals.”
The article also takes conservatives to task for inconsistent positions. Mr. Wilders is facing actual charges in Holland (for committing hate speech), so this story will be around for awhile.
posted February 18, 2009 at 4:17 pm
this article begs the question , for me: how many months or years away are we from this scenario:
Pastor Joe is told to shut up about his strong “sex only with marriage and between a man and a woman” for fear that the “tolerant sexuality” crowd (straight and gay) goes beserk and burns Pastor Joes city to the ground….
seem far fetched ?? would the above seem far fetched 10 yrs ago ??
GERmIT
posted February 18, 2009 at 4:37 pm
the simple question is: if Geert Wilders rights to free speech are not protected because (illegal) violence might occur as a result, then who’s next , and under what set of circumstances ?? I can readily think of several possible scenarios….and how far away are we from exactly this in OUR country ?? Not a comforting thought.
the liberals are a pride of lions strutting their way to OZ….but are the moderates and conservatives here much better ?? We’re about to find out…..
posted February 18, 2009 at 5:48 pm
“If liberals now want to speak for the “right” of this or that group not to be offended, the least they can do is stop calling themselves “liberals.”"
They’re “progressives” now, haven’t you heard?
posted February 18, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Wilders produces a film alleging that Islam promotes violence. As a result, he’s prevented from entering the UK because of fears that UK Muslims might resort to violence in protest of such a characterization of their faith.
Good grief, you just can’t make this stuff up.
posted February 18, 2009 at 9:45 pm
The real question is how many centuries will have to pass before Islamic civilization joins the modern world. “Radical” Islam is not a religion, it is a trans-national insurgency.
“Muslim citizen”, so far as Western states are concerned, is dangerously close to an oxymoron. No radical Islamist can be a true citizen of a non-Islamic country, because radical Islam is the enemy of all things non-Islamic.
Is England on the high road to the fifteenth century? Do they really want to redo half a millennia of civil progress all over again? That is the way it is looking lately.
posted February 18, 2009 at 10:18 pm
“Muslim citizen”, so far as Western states are concerned, is dangerously close to an oxymoron. No radical Islamist can be a true citizen of a non-Islamic country, because radical Islam is the enemy of all things non-Islamic.
unfortunately, many European countries are finding this out a little late in the game….and then “now what ??” it is much harder getting people, even a fractional minority, to LEAVE then it is to keep a safe standard to start with
posted February 19, 2009 at 5:58 am
Fear tempers free speech in practice.
As for Christians and why they are mocked for their beliefs by some liberals: Consider it a back-handed compliment that they really believe that you are civilized enough to not address mockery with violence, (and yes mockery can go beyond the pale.)
posted February 19, 2009 at 2:10 pm
ah well, the Government has today also banned the Westboro Church entering the UK. Even handed, I suppose….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm?lss