The Pursuit of Knowledge
Free Speech in Europe
It is at risk, especially for critics of radical Islam.
It is probably well known to our readers that the British government, on the advice of Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, recently prevented Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament, from visiting Britain, to which country he had been invited in order to show his short film Fitna to a group of peers in the House of Lords. Fitna means “turning away” or “temptation,” and denotes the sin to which young Muslims are exposed in Western societies. The film purports to demonstrate the terroristic nature of the Koran and to give a warning against the Islamization of Europe. It has not been banned in Holland, but it is clearly a no-holds-barred attack on Islam as a creed and a social force.
Prominent among those agitating to keep Mr. Wilders out of Britain was a certain Lord Ahmed, one of those cronies of Tony Blair who were shot into the House of Lords some 12 years ago in order to turn that venerable institution into the yes-machine favored by New Labour. Lord Ahmed, who claims to be a Muslim, announced that he could muster thousands of the faithful in order to make Mr. Wilders’s visit a serious problem for the government. Rather than test this insolent remark as it demanded, the government went along with what it took to be Muslim opinion, and made no effort to defend Mr. Wilders’s right, as a member of one European parliament, to explain his views to another.
A short while later Lord Ahmed was jailed for driving his car on the motorway while drunk and sending text messages—eventually running into the back of a stationary car and killing the driver. Whether his lordship’s reputation as a voice of the faithful will survive this particular episode is anybody’s guess, but no doubt some other self-appointed representative of the Muslim minority will step forward to dictate things the next time the Koran is threatened with a public examination.
I am fairly sure that Mr. Wilders’s exposition of the Koran and its doctrines is biased. Like many non-Muslim readers of the Holy Book, I have been struck by the way in which spurts of vindictive anger punctuate a narrative that is, in itself, a heartfelt invocation of the pious life, and a profoundly serious attempt to reconcile the belief in the one God, all-seeing, all-knowing, with the moral chaos of human communities. I regret the fact that Muslims take this text to be the word of God, rather than a particular person’s attempt to give human words to a revelation that he should have sat on a little bit longer before being sure he had got it right.
Like Mr. Wilders, I find parts of the Koran disturbing in their bloodthirsty and unforgiving anger.
But I find the book of Joshua similarly disturbing from beginning to end. So what? The book of Joshua emerged from a life-and-death struggle, in which God was conscripted to the winning side. The same is true of the Koran, which is as clearly marked by a great emergency as is the book of Joshua. This is normal: only in the Gospels does God appear (to His inestimable credit) on the losing side.
All this can be said and should be said. There is no way forward for Europe if it isn’t said. Whether it is right to say it in the tone of voice of Mr. Wilders is another matter. But free speech is not about permitting only those voices of which you approve. It is about understanding your own beliefs and the beliefs of those who disagree with you. It is about creating the public space in which truth and falsehood can openly contend for their following. Free speech is critical to all the other freedoms that we enjoy, and the impulse to defend it—and in particular to defend the free speech of those with whom you disagree, of whom you disapprove, or who have been targeted by some mob or faction determined to silence them—is proof of the democratic spirit. The capitulation of our government before the hazy threats of one of its own criminal cronies is a disturbing indication of how things have changed in Britain, and how they are changing on our continent. It would not be correct to say, as it was reputedly said by our then Foreign Secretary (Sir Edward Grey) in 1914, that “the lamps are going out all over Europe.” But our governments, who have the responsibility to keep those lamps alight, have no guts for the task.
WHY IS THIS? To answer the question we must see the Wilders episode in its full context: the context of the Netherlands, into which country, unresisted by the guilt-crippled liberal elite, whole communities of Muslims have immigrated from North Africa and the Near East. The Dutch are a tolerant and moderate people who never go to extremes except in showing how tolerant and moderate they are. They have ostentatiously stepped down from the throne of their old convictions and left it vacant. But they never expected what immediately happened, which is that the immigrant communities jumped onto that throne and began to dictate the terms under which they would accept what had been offered, admittedly in bad faith, as hospitality. The Dutch were shocked and, without having any clear idea of what they were up against or how to confront it, changed overnight from a people tolerant of everything to a people tolerant of everything except intolerance.
This is the context that changed the Netherlands from a quiet place where nothing ever happens to the improvised stage on which the drama of Europe is played out. The film Submission, made by Theo van Gogh to a script by Somali immigrant, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, brought death to the director and exile to Hirsi Ali, by then a member of the Dutch parliament. In the meantime Pim Fortuyn, a leftish academic, had led his party to power on the strength of popular revulsion against the dictatorship of righteousness that the Muslim immigrants wished to impose.
Fortuyn was assassinated by an animal rights activist, and his party collapsed in disarray. But nothing by then remained of the old Dutch consensus, in which toleration was the ruling principle.
Everything that happens in Holland is now closely watched by other European leaders, anxious to know where Europe itself is going. And when the opportunity arises to take sides in a Dutch issue—as in the Wilders affair—our governments rush in to show their political correctness. The fact that this involves jettisoning our inherited freedoms and the ground rules of democratic politics is of little significance, compared with the opportunity to show pre- emptive acquiescence in whatever demands the Muslim minority might be prepared to make.
THE MAIN ARGUMENT PRODUCED BY those who censor people like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not that their views should be silenced, but that their views should not be expressed in an inflammatory way. Even the most fervent democrat will admit that the right of free speech should not be used to stir up social confl ict or destroy the civil peace. It is not just that you don’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. You don’t shout “Sieg heil!” in a crowded synagogue, or “God is dead!” in a crowded mosque. And by extension, you don’t make provocative films like Submission and Fitna that are bound to be taken as insults by those whose faith they criticize.
However, who is to decide what is, and what is not, a threat to the civil peace? It takes two to make a provocation, and while it is right to be provoked by some things, it is wrong to be provoked by others. If I am so constituted that any criticism in my presence of the philosophy of Hegel causes me to boil over with anger and assault the speaker, does this make criticism of Hegel into a threat to the civil peace? Surely not: it is I who am a threat to the civil peace, and a true defender of free speech would have me locked up, rather than the anti-Hegelians who so enrage me.
Of course, criticism of the Koran is not quite the same thing as criticism of Hegel. But if we allow only those who resent such criticism to define how far it can go we are in effect surrendering to intimidation. It is for the community as a whole, and the politicians who represent us, to distinguish legitimate criticism from inflammatory provocation. To allow the issue to be settled, as at present, by the ostentatious outrage of Muslims is to surrender in the face of threat.
Just where all this is leading is anyone’s guess. Nobody (other than al Qaeda) wants to change the resentments of Muslim communities in Europe into a state of open war. We are entering a situation that must be carefully managed if our legal and political inheritance is to survive. But one way of mismanaging the situation is to allow a belligerent minority to dictate terms to the rest of us. Our governments must face up to the fact that Geert Wilders was elected to the Dutch parliament, and enjoys considerable popularity, precisely because he has not been intimidated. You may not like what he says or his way of saying it, but it is people like him, and not the ones who censor them, who are defending the political order of Europe.
About the Author
Roger Scruton is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His latest book, How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism, has just been published by Oxford University Press.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (70) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Roger Scruton
More Articles From The Pursuit of Knowledge
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/07/free-speech-in-europe
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
- The Continuing Crisis
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
David| 5.7.09 @ 7:49AM
Scruton's article is good, and it is definitely wrong to silence Wilders, Fortuyn, and Van Gogh. But I don't think Fitna is all that offensive, considering Maplethorpe's Piss Christ, or The Last Temptation of Christ, or Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, or Bill Maher's Religulous. Or any of dozens of sneering and scoffing network newsreaders. Where's the similar outrage against these broadsides against Christianity?
Merlin Perkins| 5.7.09 @ 8:15AM
Equating shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater and the making of a provocative film leaves out an important distinction. I do not have to watch a film. The shout in forced upon me and everyone else in the theater.
Pingback| 5.7.09 @ 8:28AM
Snaphanen » Roger Scruton: Geert Wilders links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
John Navratil| 5.7.09 @ 8:49AM
Roger Scruton says that the principal argument in opposition to Wilders, et al. isn't that they should be silenced, but that they shouldn't be so inflammatory.
Rubbish!
At least with respect to Islam, subtlety and quiet discussion do not seem to be hallmarks of the imams, mullahs and ayatollahs.
A lack of restraint on one side certainly does not call for a similar lack on the other. You may make of "Fitna" what you will and, having seen it, I believe Wilders invites you to do just that. Provocative? Certainly. Inflammatory? Not an insupportable conclusion. But notice that the intended audience for the film hasn't risen up to sack the mosques. Those who are offended by the message are the very one who reinforce it.
Without protection, I imagine Wilders would end up like Van Gogh with a "love note" tacked to his chest.... silenced!
Rockmelon| 5.7.09 @ 11:14AM
The article was well written but I have to disagree with some of Mr. Scruton's observations and conclusions.
QUOTE: "The film purports to demonstrate the terroristic nature of the Koran and to give a warning against the Islamization of Europe."
Purports? Fitna contains actual film footage. Nothing was scripted or staged.
QUOTE: "I am fairly sure that Mr. Wilder’s exposition of the Koran and its doctrines is biased"
BIASED? The Qur'an is the "direct word of god". Unchanged for 14 centuries! Who in their right mind would tell "god" that they don't want to do things HIS way?
QUOTE: "It is not just that you don’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.”
YOU DON'T? What if there IS a fire? I certainly hope that someone has the courage to stand up and yell fire when there IS a fire! And Wilders et al are doing just that and being criticized for it!
I could say more but I have to take my dog for a walk!
Still, the article makes many good points but unfortunately, not enough.
A Right Wing Extremist and proud of it!
altalena| 5.7.09 @ 12:17PM
I hugely respect Roger Scruton, but I think he's misconstrued what's going on here. He says that most of the people who would censor Geert Wilders object to the "inflammatory" tone of his film. He also says that he himself finds the book of Joshua objectionable. Well, a good many other people find the Revelation of St. John the Divine objectionable. Now, let's imagine for a moment that Geert Wilders had produced, instead of Fitna, an "inflammatory" film about either the book of Joshua or the book of Revelation. Does anyone seriously propose that either film would have been greeted with the threats and the vituperation that have greeted Fitna? The mere idea is laughable. If anything, Wilders would be lionized.
What's the difference? Why would an "inflammatory" treatment of Hebrew Scripture or of Christian scripture be treated so differently from an "inflammatory" treatment of Muslim scripture? The question answers itself.
It takes two people, at the very least, to make something inflammatory: a writer or speaker on the one hand and a reader or listener on the other. The fact is, Jews and Christians may be vexed or incensed or even enraged by something they read or hear, but they don't riot or burn cars or threaten to behead their fellow citizens as a result. Muslims -- or certainly some Muslims -- do.
This isn't a free speech problem at all; it's a fear problem -- the fear of Muslim violence that's manifest in a large part of the West today. I'll be happy to change my mind about this the next time I see a news report about a bunch of Jews or Christians rampaging through a large Western city because they've been inflamed by criticism of their sacred books.
JP| 5.7.09 @ 2:04PM
As far as I know movies like The Last Temptation of Christ and The DeVinci Code, or any number of films offensive to Christians can and are shown in Great Britain.
Islam is making very big strides in the municiple politics of many EU cities (Amsterdam, London, Louvain, Rotterdam, etc...) Fear I think is the real motivation. Many EU cities now have large no-go zones where the police refuse (for thier own safety) to patrol -these neighborhoods are Islamic.
The Far Left has made a pact with the very people who wish to put it out of business-a warning to American Leftists.
Alan Brooks| 5.7.09 @ 11:23PM
Islamics just want to sponsor Boy Scout picnics and Love Ins.
Ed Bell| 5.8.09 @ 4:30AM
If Mr Scruton were to take the expedient of arranging the verses of the Koran in their accepted chronological order then he would see that the sporadic violent verses he refers to coalesce around when Muhammed had gained earthly power and could, arguably, drop the veil of piety displayed in the earlier verses. These later verses are unremittingly violent and expose the Koran as a case study in the corruption of power.
henry| 5.8.09 @ 4:47AM
The cornerstone of modern ethics is relativism. Any course in ethics would include Christian ethics. I challenge anyone to find reference to Muslim ethics. There is no such thing, because Islam is not open to debate. In Islam, there are only three types of people: believers, apostates and infidels. And the latter two should be slaughtered.
To dodge this concept is craven wishful thinking.
CaptainZen | 5.8.09 @ 8:03AM
I have been in moslim countries, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and I did not like the way things were going there. The Islam is a very demanding business. It is for the uneducated who will believe anything those who have more will say. All religion is mental slavery. All religion should be outlawed, and global birth control imposed on all, if we are to save our self as a human race. Religions keep the misery growing every were. A religion is a criminal organization enriching itself with lies and violence and hard to stop once it starts...
Rob| 5.8.09 @ 9:50AM
For the record, Lord Ahmed was not drunk when he crashed his car, though he had been texting. The driver of the broken down car he drove into had been drinking, though this did not really influence the accident. If Lord Ahmed had been drinking, he'd have been sent to prison for several years, but that was not the case.
Stephen Hulbert| 5.8.09 @ 11:41AM
I'd just like to thank 'Altalena' for the insightful comment: "This isn't a free speech problem at all; it's a fear problem -- the fear of Muslim violence..."
Yes, there is an issue of freedom of speech... but we often forget there is also an issue of fear. Mr Wilder's bravery comes not from criticizing religion (anyone can do that), but criticizing the a religion which feels it has the right to impose a death sentence on those who criticize it.
Tantor | 5.8.09 @ 7:22PM
Mr. Scruton's argument is flawed when he sets the test for free speech as the majority opinion of the community. When Copernicus claimed that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than vice versa, that opinion should not have been suppressed because it was not the norm of his society. Likewise, folks who claimed the Earth was round rather than flat should not have been silenced, even if it irks the majority.
The truth is often disturbing and extraordinary lengths should be taken to preserve the free speech of those who say radical things which often are true. Mr. Scruton is wrong to condemn Wilders for being inflammatory in "Fitna." What Wilders has done is match Koran to atrocity using the very words of the fundamentalist Muslims who justify such violence. What hypocrisy it is to condemn Wilders for revealing the way radical Muslims justify terror while giving the source of these quotes a free pass.
What we need now is more honesty and clarity about the motives of Islamic terrorists, rather than flinch in the face of the truth and demand the truth-tellers quiet down.
Pingback| 5.10.09 @ 6:35AM
Raimonds Staprans » Blog Archive » Post-creole continuum links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.10.09 @ 8:02PM
Persevere » Blog Archive » Free Speech in Europe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.12.09 @ 11:04AM
Steynian 354 « Free Canuckistan! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
wbheff| 5.12.09 @ 12:53PM
Synopsis of three religions (if one considers Islam as a "religion" rather than a blood cult)
Judaism - We are the Chosen People. We accept converts, but don't encourage them, because if you aren't born a Jew, how "chosen" can you really be?
Christianity - Go forth and baptise all nations in the name of The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But, if you don't want to convert, it's your choice.
Isllam - Convert, Submit, or Die.
Oh, and for the twit who wrote, "All religion should be outlawed, and global birth control imposed on all, if we are to save our self as a human race. " Please lead by example, or, as a bumper sticker I saw recently read, "Save the Planet; Kill yourself."
Pingback| 5.13.09 @ 7:52AM
Steynian 354 | acorn 8 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Alan Brooks| 5.13.09 @ 7:24PM
Islamics just want to construct a Haight Ashbury district in Jerusalem so they can blow bubbles in the parks.
Richard Baker| 5.15.09 @ 12:11AM
With all the anger of the Moslems over free speech, have you ever wondered why? They must have an inferiority complex to beat the band.
Pingback| 5.18.09 @ 3:52AM
Roger Scruton: Free Speech in Europe :: International Free Press Society links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
al Rassooli | 5.18.09 @ 7:16PM
This is a very disappointing article which, despite one or two good points, is generally full of factual errors as well as both confused and dangerously delusional thinking. The article gets off on the wrong foot by claiming that
Roger says: “Fitna means 'turning away' or 'temptation,' and denotes the sin to which young Muslims are exposed in Western societies.”
As a native Arabic speaker (born in Iraq) I can confirm what many people in the Western World now know thanks to Mr Wilders courage: that “Fitna” in fact means a mixture of “struggle”, “upheaval” and “conflict” all generally reflexive and violent in the context of anything to do with reactions from Muslims to any attempt by Westerners in trying to find out about the true nature of Islam – let alone daring to give it any independent thought.
Fitna is NOT about “…the sin to which young Muslims are exposed in Western societies” – what utter nonsense! On reading that remark I couldn’t help wondering if Roger Scruton has even bothered to watch the film, despite the fact that it’s only a few minutes long. No, Fitna is very much about the violence, intolerance and hatred at the core of Islam that is now not only being imported wholesale into the West but also rapidly (but surprisingly stealthily) “home grown” throughout Europe and (not far behind) in America.
Scruton is rightly critical of Blair’s Lord Ahmed, though personally I don’t think he goes far enough – there is far more that could be said, for example that as a “Lord” the man should be representing Britain and its interests not boasting of the “Victory for Islam” that he instead succeeded in brining about by intimidating his own government (tantamount to treason if carefully analyzed). However I don’t understand why, just because Ahmed is clearly an unpleasant and unpatriotic man as well as flagrant hypocrite (Muslims who drink etc), that Scruton tries to suggest he somehow isn’t respected by the “Muslim Community”, i.e. that great and rapidly growing “Ummah” – an amorphous and borderless menace which all sane Europeans should view with growing concern. He is simply another of their many “weapons” of which they are extraordinarily proud.
Scruton says “….you don’t make provocative films like Submission and Fitna that are bound to be taken as insults by those whose faith they criticize”. Please just watch both of these short and very well intentioned films more carefully…. Neither of them is “insulting” any sort of “faith”; each in it’s own way is looking at aspects of Muslim life that are without doubt ubiquitous in all Muslim countries as well as the majority of European “communities” where there is a sufficiently high density of Muslims living. These films simply speak the truth (for example in Fitna by showing normal Muslim leaders quote directly from their own “holy” book and in the case of Submission how a completely innocent woman is imprisoned in the normal Muslim way within a domestic system that repeatedly leads to her betrayal and rape by trusted members of her family and the destruction of any dreams she may have nurtured for any even the simplest forms of freedom or pleasure in life).
Roger, instead of than casually condemning these films without explanation please try and identify a single quotation or concept that either of them portrays which you can show to be always incorrect. I don’t think you will succeed because each of these short films is solidly based on factual information about the way vast numbers of people in the world today think and behave.
Roger, in common with many other people you have once again rattled out the old adage of the impropriety in “shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre. There’s a good little article about this on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater ) which immediately points out that, as you have misquoted it, you failed to start with the word “falsely” as in “falsely shouting fire…”.
If shouting “fire” is really what Mr Wilders is doing then I’m very greatful to him and very much think it IS necessary and he may as a result be doing the world a great favour (at considerable cost and personal risk to himself). Islam is not compatible with the Western world and I would hope that if enough Wilders shouted “fire” often and loud enough even a few liberally minded, forgiving, Islamic apologists might eventually make the effort to look into it properly and find out – with luck even in time to save themselves.
You say “Nobody (other than al Qaeda) wants to change the resentments of Muslim communities in Europe into a state of open war”. I wonder exactly what you mean by this? Firstly what actually ARE these “Mulsim resentments”? Could it be, perhaps, that a few sharp eyed, courageous and open minded people have actually rumbled what they are up to and Muslims resent this as it could make it harder for them to “get victory” i.e. destroy the Western systems they are currently living off parasitically? And as for the “state of open war” that you claim “only al Qaeda” wants, well, sorry, but if you take the trouble to actually read the whole of the Quran objectively (I’ve been studying it intensely in Arabic for more than two decades now) you will discover that is, and always has been, the main thrust of that “holy” book of warfare to be waged openly and forever against all of humanity until they are subdued and forced to submit (which is what Islam means, buy the way).
I could analyse your article further – it is, as I said before, filled with misinformation and confusion – but I will just touch on one last point. You say that Geert Wilders “has not been intimidated”. What an extraordinary claim! Mr Wilders receives large numbers of totally serious and credible death threats on a daily basis which is why he must be guarded 24 hrs a day and can never lead a normal life for a moment… if he tried he would quite simply be murdered by one or other of the hordes of vile, mindless thugs – not peaceful spiritual people – that he has been so heroically warning us about!
There’s a great deal of sense and urgency in what Geert Wilders says and, along with large numbers of people throughout what remains of the free world, I’m very grateful that he does. He is however a politician and not an academic. For more insight and a great deal more information and evidence I highly recommend any of the recent books (or talks which can be seen online) by Robert Spencer – truly an intellectual giant, as well as completely down-to-earth and “accessible” authority of this subject.
Jesmond Mifsud | 5.23.09 @ 4:25AM
"It is not just that you don’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater..."
If there really is a fire, then I would hope that someone DOES shout "Fire!". It might seem ironic to some that I, as a liberal, support Geert Wilder 100% and I don't understand how any real Liberal would support the mainstreaming of a religion which does away completely with everything that we stand and fight for. Might I remind any liberal who might be reading this that Islam has no respect for equal rights (women are treated like crap), no respect for life (women, children, homosexuals, people of different opinions and beliefs...they die every day because of what is written in the koran). Do you not understand that our freedom is at stake here? What kind of freedom do you think you'll be enjoying when sharia law is declared in your country? If you're a real Liberal you would support and appreciate what Geert Wilders is doing. He has the guts to speak out, there is no more time to be politically correct here. We still have a chance to make a difference. Lets unite as Europeans, right or left wing, it doesn't matter. Remember that we are not fighting a race here, Islam is NOT a race, it's a dangerous and medieval ideology which attempts to infiltrate every aspect of modern life. We cannot allow it to gain power.
Please support Geert Wilders by making a donation on his official site: http://www.geertwilders.nl/
Pingback| 5.26.09 @ 8:01PM
Persevere » Blog Archive » Free Speech in Europe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Mohamad Rabbat | 6.16.09 @ 9:31AM
Regarding every claim in Geert Wilders’ movie, performing the actions of hatred and violence supposedly incited by each verse is actually in direct violation of that very same verse. This took a combination of false translations, fabricated context and omissions of parts of sentences from these verses. This video demonstrates this fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DAerxKYipU
Geert Wilders called his movie “Fitna”, which is ironically very appropriate, because this word is usually used in the Quran to mean stirring social conflict and oppression, which is exactly what Geert Wilders is doing, yet exactly what the verses of the Quran want to stop.
Roger Scruton, I agree with only part of your description of free speech: “It is about understanding your own beliefs and the beliefs of those who disagree with you”. Geert Wilders makes no attempt to understand the beliefs of Muslims, rather, he attempts to promote his false and baseless accusations against Islam.
I differ with the rest of your description of free speech: “It is about creating the public space in which truth and falsehood can openly contend for their following.” Free speech is NOT about spreading “falsehood”…this is called slander.
I agree with you that “free speech should not be used to stir up social conflict or destroy the civil peace”. But the real argument for censoring people like Geert Wilders and Hirsi Magan (“Ayaan Hirsi Ali” real name) is not their “inflammatory way”, but because they are inventing lies to incite people towards hatred. The verses in the Quran are innocent of Wilders’ false claims, and Hirsi “Ali” is a proven fraud which is why she was deported.
I also agree with your following statement, except that it actually applies to Geert Wilders and others who invent things to attack Islam: “But one way of mismanaging the situation is to allow a belligerent minority to dictate terms to the rest of us.”
Other than these points, I would like to comment on the statement of IQ al Rassooli (above).
1- In defending Wilders, he falsely claims that the movie Fitna shows “normal Muslim leaders quote directly from their own holy book” While Wilders may suggest this through the video, not one single Muslim in Wilders video cites any allegedly “hateful” Quranic verse. This demonstrates the true deception being perpetrated by haters of Islam.
2- In defending the fraud Hirsi “Ali”, IQ al Rassooli insults the intelligence of all non-Muslims.
3- IQ al Rassooli asks “what ARE these Muslim resentments”…how about the US financed and supported oppression of the Palestinian people for the last 50 years, starting from taking the land of the Palestinians and evicting them, up to invading Iraq with falsified evidence of WMDs.
4- “Islam” means “to submit (to God)”, which the opposite of IQ al Rassooli’s lie that it means “to FORCE OTHERS to submit”. Another video illustrates several Quranic verses that unequivocally guarantee religious freedom in Islam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h_kQgCcv5U So much for IQ al Rassooli’s “supposed” intense study of the Quran for two decades.
Pingback| 8.4.09 @ 1:01AM
SKALDUGGERY » Freedom of Speech, A Quaint Civil Liberty links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Adult Toys | 9.14.09 @ 4:41PM
Free speech is always under attack it seems.
Adult Toys
Copy Xbox 360 Games | 12.18.09 @ 10:28PM
hello admin, I found your blog from yahoo and read a few of your other posts.They are awesome. Please keep it up!!
_____________________________________
copy xbox 360 games
ab circle pro reviews | 3.17.10 @ 2:04PM
i agree. free speech is not where it should be in europe!
Steve| 3.23.10 @ 7:15PM
Free speech? In Europe? Don't make me laugh!
gps speed camera detectors
how to spy | 6.11.11 @ 9:35AM
yeah with all the anger of the Moslems over free speech, have you ever wondered why? They must have an inferiority complex to beat the band.
how to spy on text messages
pharmacy tech certification | 6.26.11 @ 2:02AM
Totally agree with the clout surrounding freedom of speech.
gaucho pants | 7.6.11 @ 3:28PM
I am very amazed at the quality of your work. I will be sure to visit your website again as it is a great resource.
medical transcription jobs at | 7.6.11 @ 6:23PM
amazing work! I am so glad that you have made this website!
Jerry Dunn| 7.15.11 @ 12:14PM
I'm just speechless to read the topic. I learn a lot from this article so you must be a nice guy who shares good things to others.
Regards,
Jerry Dunn
irs email scam
Jimmy | 12.6.11 @ 12:20AM
This article is very useful for me because I am a new beginner for PC and do not know much about good speech.
ANZ Internet Banking