Fear Of Free Speech In The EU

It appears as if the European Union has joined the list of those afraid of free speech. The worthies of that organization don't put it that way, of course. No. The intent of the new Equal Treatment Directive is to spare the sensitivities of those who might be somehow, someway, someday offended by somebody's oral or written statement.

In a trenchant and not particularly biased analysis Paul Belien, an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, has shown the way in which a basically fairminded and proportionate effort to assure that people suffering from a physical handicap would not be discriminated against in access to goods and services including housing bloomed under the ministrations of the Society of Perpetually Indignant and Concerned to a portmanteau attack on freedom of speech and opinion. Kowtowing to the supposed needs of homosexuals and the very real demands of Islamists, the Directive (which must yet be approved by all twenty-seven member states' Foreign Ministers and which was an initially tightly focused proposition) has become a very ambiguously worded device to gag all potential critics of, among other things, Islam, or even Islamist jihadism.

The "Equal Treatment Directive" would not only supplant existing national laws on the subject, it goes far, far beyond the (so-far) nonbinding UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution on the subject of "religious defamation." This resolution, which the US cosponsored with Egypt, was meant to be a compromise with the far more sweeping demands made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It was also intended to be part of President Obama's "outreach to the Arab/Muslim world" gambit.

Ms Clinton has made her (and presumably, the Obama administration's as well) position on the religious defamation versus free speech matter more clear. She has been reported to have taken a strong stance against the proliferation of religious defamation laws. Her statement leaves no word for dubious interpretation

Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called 'anti-defamation' policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion, I strongly disagree. The United States will always... stand against discrimination and persecution... But an individual's ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others' freedom of speech.

The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faith will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.

That seems to be that. One can only hope that the sentiment continues to prevail regardless of trends among the trendy in the European Union or cage rattling from the Muslims.

The problem with freedom of speech and opinion is that while everybody is in favor of the idea--for himself--very few are in favor of the idea when applied to purveyors or holders of uncomfortable, unpleasant and even frankly insulting views differing from one's own. As the noted and indefatigable free speech crusader, Nat Hentoff put the matter in the title of one of his books a few years back, Free Speech for Me But not for Thee.

While opponents of free speech and its necessary companion, freedom of opinion, may couch their arguments in terms of "sensitivity" or "concern for the dignity of others," they are actually motivated by fear. Fear pure and simple undergirds every attack on the rights of others and thus all to speak freely and openly on anything and everything.

Individuals who say, "That hurts my feelings," or "That offends me," are actually saying, "I'm not tough enough, not resilient enough, not secure enough in my identity, values, beliefs, personhood, to listen to that, to read that."

The same is true of groups which hold the necessity of restricting the untrammeled rights of others to speak or write in a way which is less than fawning adoration. When Muslims, when a Muslim entity such as the OIC, demands limits be placed on the rights of free expression, they are actually declaring a lack of faith in the integrity, the power, the validity of their own religious beliefs.

Both Christians and (to a much greater, even lethal extent) Jews have been vilified and attacked in speech both oral and written, both actual and symbolic. Neither has crumbled before these attacks; neither has been deterred, let alone defeated by these "hate crimes," this "hate speech." Arguably, both Jews and Christians have been strengthened in their beliefs, in their collective identity, their collective faith by "negative" speech, by "defamation."

It is of more than passing interest that Muslims alone among the "People of the Book" show this unique sensitivity to any remarks or comments which might be interpreted as "defamatory." Is it perhaps that Muslims are afflicted by some basic insecurity about the value of their beliefs?

Alternatively, is it perhaps attributable to the fear dominated aspects of Islam itself? Whatever the root might be, the bitter fruit of the plant is fear. A fear of a fear so pervasive that Muslims believe they must be protected against it no matter what the cost to other people, other cultures, other societies, other countries.

The High Minded, ever-so-sensitive, ever-so-multicultural activists of the European Union and their colleagues in the US may sincerely believe that the poor Muslims must be protected against those so foul minded as to criticize the religion. They may so despise their own cultural roots, their own national heritages that they are more than simply willing to eviscerate the freedom of expression and inquiry, speech, and opinion that so many of their ancestors bought over the centuries with their own blood. In any event, these super-sensitive, paternalistic, patronizers of the "lesser breeds without the law" are actually serving the worst interests of those they seek to "protect" at the cost of liberty.

By silencing through the force of law those who would criticize, those who would be so bold as to argue against any particular religion, any cited lifestyle, any ideology, the end result is to further fear, inhibit the opportunity to grow stronger through enduring--and countering--unwelcome speech with acceptable speech. The great club of law swings against all--and when it comes to limiting speech, that mindless bludgeon injures all--the would be protectors as well as the purported victims.

It is a cliche that the answer to bad speech is good speech, better speech. Only through the free exchange on the part of all comers to the marketplace of ideas and beliefs can progress toward a more humane world be made. The only place where free expression can be absent without ill effect is the graveyard.