That's Chris Caldwell, writing on the latest controversy over Islam and free speech in the Netherlands. (via Rod Dreher)
« Swords Do Furnish A Room | Main | Do Or Die » "A Political Crisis Out of Borges"28 Jan 2008 11:01 am Comments (8)
"At a speech in Madrid, Maxime Verhagen, the foreign minister, said: 'It is difficult to anticipate the content of the film, but freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend.'" Then there's no freedom of speech, is there? Because that means the government must squelch any speech that is deemed "offensive" by any and every identity-politics grievance group. The message of European officialdom to its citizens concerning the spread of radical Islam in Europe is "Your freedoms no longer apply." And it is such a double standard. Can anyone imagine a European bigwig saying anything at all like the above if a filmmaker put out a movie criticising Christianity? Of course not. This is the civilizational suicide pact that is political correctness / multiculturalism--the tearing down of Western culture is encouraged, but any critique of the cultural traits and beliefs of non-western immigrants, no matter retrograde and illiberal, will be silenced, and maybe even punished. 
Of course it is against the law to attack Islam, Judaism, or racial groups using speech in such a way in many European countries. Mr. Wilders is not a civil libertarian or an iconoclast, he is an Islamophobic bigot. These people should have the ability to speak publicly, but let's recognize them for what they are.
Then there's no freedom of speech, is there? Because that means the government must squelch any speech that is deemed "offensive" by any and every identity-politics grievance group. Right. Without the power to offend, freedom of speech loses al meaning. This is the civilizational suicide pact that is political correctness / multiculturalism--the tearing down of Western culture is encouraged, but any critique of the cultural traits and beliefs of non-western immigrants, no matter retrograde and illiberal, will be silenced, and maybe even punished. Ah, but here you go off the rails. Because this highlights the fundamental incoherence of the Christopher Hitchens et al. line-- multiculturalism and political correctness are a part of Western culture. They are logical off-shoots of the lineage of Western thought. I'm always perplexed when people argue that we should squelch radical Islamist thought because it is opposed to Enlightenment values; the right of the Islamists to hold those views is a product of the Enlightenment! Conservatives love to attack liberals for fetishizing tolerance, but in doing so they fundamentally misrepresent what tolerance means. We tolerate radical Islamist thought and speech. We don't "tolerate" radical Islamist actions if those actions break our laws or damage our security. No one is arguing that we don't fight Al Qaeda. No one is suggesting that we don't fight back against those who attack us. What we are arguing against is suspending the right of anyone to think whatever they want, and to put those thoughts into expression. That tolerance, by the way, in no way empowers Islamists or any other minority group to silence those who say things that are controversial or offensive. But should we "outaw Islam"? That sort of action damages Western culture to a greater degree than Al Qaeda ever could.
The issue is whether Geert Wilders has the right to express his views, however wrongheaded. The "cultured" despisers of religion in the West have had their say for quite awhile: The last monarch shall be strangled by the intestines of the last priest, etc. The outcome would not have surprised Leo Strauss, the political philosopher who warned in 1953 that, for all its roots in the right to the pursuit of happiness, liberal relativism can also be "a seminary of intolerance". We see the evidence of this daily.
"...multiculturalism and political correctness are a part of Western culture. They are logical off-shoots of the lineage of Western thought." In some ways, yes. But multiculturalism does not practice what it preaches, in part because it is inextricably linked to identity/grievance politics. It demands tolerance of illiberal cultural beliefs and practices, but does not expect tolerance from the practitioners of those beliefs in return. In fact, the opposite is the case. It indulges the grievances of the illiberal by squelching the free speech rights of others. "What we are arguing against is suspending the right of anyone to think whatever they want, and to put those thoughts into expression...That tolerance, by the way, in no way empowers Islamists or any other minority group to silence those who say things that are controversial or offensive." That's great. Too bad most of the governments of Western Europe and Canada disagree with you. Radical Muslims are free to walk the streets of London carying placards that say "Behead Those Who Insult Islam", but in Alberta the publisher of a newspaper that ran some of the Danish cartoons is hauled in front of the Human Rights Commission to explain his "intent" in running the cartoons. As I said--in practice, multiculturalism is a one-way street. If radical Islamists in the West want to hold their obnoxious views, and even express them, fine. Where I get aggravated is when my own government and the mavens of multiculturalism then tell me I can't criticise those views and those who hold them--when they demand that I, in the name of tolerance, tolerate the intolerant.
Re: Western Civilization & Islam This recent column that includes this tid-bit. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGRlMmMxMWUzMzYxMGI2OWI4Nzg1YmE0NTIzZjIzMDg=
A few days ago, a pre-trial hearing in an Atlanta courtroom made public for the first time a video made by two Georgia Tech students. Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee went to Washington and took footage of key buildings, and that “casing video” then wound up in the hands of Younis Tsouli, an al-Qaeda recruiter in London. As the film shot by the Georgia students was played in court, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee’s voice could be heard on the soundtrack: “This is where our brothers attacked the Pentagon.” “Allahu Akbar,” responds young Ahmed. God is great. Our ability to moderate Islam is in direct proportion to our confidence in our own civilizational heritage.
The issue is whether Geert Wilders has the right to express his views, however wrongheaded. Then the answer, of course, is an emphatic yes.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The worst thing about being a civil libertarian, as I am, is the constant need to defend the right of people to say stupid things. But it is necessary. Of course, he had the right to say those things, just as the Danish cartoonists had the right to draw those cartoons. Why people would take that kind of idiocy on either side seriously, I couldn't say.
Posted by Freddie | January 28, 2008 11:45 AM