In the Netherlands one may badmouth or lampoon a group’s god or
prophets, just not the group itself. Many European Muslims,
however, would prefer to have it the other way around, and see
this as a prime example of how secular Europeans place man before
God. Europeans, conversely, see the Muslim reaction as an example
of how Muslims have failed to adapt to Western ways of thinking.
This distinction is at the crux of a case presently before a
Dutch court. The case involves a cartoon published on a pro-Arab
European website depicting two
Jewish men poking around in a pile of bones next to a sign that
reads Auschwitz. One man says, “I don’t think they’re Jewish. The
other responds, “We have to get to six million somehow.”
Dutch prosecutors say the cartoon insults Jews and therefore
conflicts with hate speech laws which ban discrimination against
groups. Such laws were put into place across Europe as a response
to the Holocaust, but they have never been popular with
free-speech proponents, who point out that such laws are
violations of natural rights and would not have prevented the
Holocaust anyway.
In August, Dutch prosecutors gave the Arab European League two
weeks to remove the cartoon. Then came news that prosecutors were
dropping charges against Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.
Wilders had been indicted for a hate crime after he made a film
that showed controversial images of the Muslim prophet Mohammed.
Dutch prosecutors, however, found that Wilders had not attacked
Muslims as a group, but only their spiritual founder, therefore
he could not be prosecuted.
The AEL, meanwhile, says it does not dispute the Holocaust
happened and claims it published the cartoon to illustrate the
double standard that prevails in Europe. Apparently, AEL felt
there was a double standard even before charges against Wilders
were dropped.
There appears to be a childish tit-for-tat going on. A spokesman
for the Center for Documentation on Israel, which initially filed
the cartoon complaint against AEL, said Jews had nothing to do
with the Muhammad cartoons shown in the Wilders film, therefore
it did not make sense for the league to retaliate against Jews.
“Imagine if Dutch Jews insulted Muslims every time they heard an
anti-Semitic remark. What kind of perverse world would we be
living in?” a spokesman told the Jerusalem Post.
It should come as no surprise that AEL attacked Jews instead of
Christians. (Wilders, it should be noted, is a Roman Catholic.) A
brief scan of the AEL website finds a Boycott Israel/Free
Palestine poster containing the image of a hand grenade covered
with a fruit sticker that reads “Product of Israel.” (The French
word grenade comes from the word for pomegranate.) One could
argue that this image is far more dangerous than the Auschwitz
cartoon, since it is ambiguous enough to avoid hate speech
prosecution, while it could be understood to encourage
terrorism.)
IF THE GOAL OF Europe’s many hate speech laws is to render
offending people illegal, it is failing miserably. Dutch
prosecutors must have known Muslims would regard hate speech
involving an image of the prophet Mohammed as more contemptible
than hate speech directed against Muslims. By dismissing the case
against Wilders, prosecutors seemed to have gone out of their way
to offend Muslims. But isn’t offending Muslims as a group against
the law?
This is what happens when politicians start monkeying with free
speech in order that no one be offended. Doubtless there will be
calls to go even further. European lawmakers will have no choice
but to ban hateful speech directed at any and all religions, and
any and all gods, prophets and spiritual leaders. This will lead
to calls for more bad laws, perhaps from Europe’s secular
humanists, for equal protection from unwelcomed criticism, until
European jails are crowded with speech offenders.
I find myself (unfortunately) on the side of AEL’s
Abdoulmouthalib Bouzerda, who told the Jerusalem Post
that anyone should be allowed to publish insulting material in
the interest of public debate. Of course, many European
politicians do not think public debate is healthy. You would
think that a few Europeans would remember what it was like under
communism, fascism, and Nazism when public debate was squelched.
Instead, lawmakers seem bent on following the example of
totalitarian governments by banning more and more speech.
Some will argue that hate speech laws would have prevented the
Holocaust, or will prevent a second holocaust. But that is being
incredibly naïve. Imperial and Weimar Germany had
incitement-to-hatred laws, including a law prohibiting libeling
the Jewish religion (under Paragraph 166 of the Weimar Penal
Code). Indeed, the speech laws in Europe in the 1920s were even
more draconian than today’s laws. None of this mattered, because
in the end a dictator makes his own laws. Ultimately speech laws
only made matters worse.
