A European reader argues in favor ot the anti-hate speech laws
Frank Gerlach writes from Germany:
I think there is a good reason to ban hate-speeches, which call for physical harm to other humans. There is no legitimate need for fascists or Islamists (or other enemies of mankind) to publish their wicked crap. Wicked is the right expression for ideas that come straight from something which is also called “the devil.”
I agree that the authoritarianism of Islam is a grave threat to Western Civilization. But do we have to use the extreme methods of tyrants to fight it ? Aren’t we then compromising our own ideals ?
Can’t this kind of brutality (expelling Islamic people) be turned against ourselves, later?
Regulating immigration is a simple way of handling this issue, as is rejecting Turkey from joining the European Union. Mr. Sarkozy and Mrs. Merkel are doing it right.
It seems though, that the British are taking the stance that the tyrant’s money (and the entailing ideas) from Arabia are actually something they are attracted to.
LA replies:
You write:
“I think there is a good reason to ban hate-speeches, which call for physical harm to other humans.”
Your definition of hate speech is incorrect. In various European countries, including Belgium, hate-speech is defined as speech that MAY incite people to “acts of discrimination.” And “discrimination” is not defined.
Thus virtually any critical statement about a protected group can, on the whim of the authorities, be treated as as a criminal offense.
You write:
“I agree that the authoritarianism of Islam is a grave threat to Western Civilization…. Regulating immigration is a simple way of handling this issue, as is rejecting Turkey from joining the European Union.”
But under existing “hate-speech” laws, what you just said could be treated as hate speech, depending on the whim of the authorities, because you are saying things that arguably could incite people to acts of discrimination against Muslims.
P.S. I was not aware that Sarkozy opposes the entry of Turkey into the EU. The last I heard, he supported it.
- end of initial entry -
James P. writes:
Frank Gerlach says there is “no legitimate need” to allow “enemies of mankind to publish their wicked crap.” This is typical of the liberal conception of rights as something the government gives you—if it decides you have a “legitimate need” for them—rather than something you inherently possess. Your right to speak, your guns, your property, your freedom, your religion, your associations—who wants government bureaucrats deciding whether or not you have a “legitimate need” for any of them?
As a practical matter, we have seen that “hate speech” laws are most often used against people who oppose the Islamization of Europe in any way, and hardly ever against Muslims who express the most vicious hate against the West. Islam would like nothing better than to suppress the arguments against it as “hate speech” while it continues to vomit forth its own hate under the banner of legally protected “diversity.”
I found his support for “hate speech” laws puzzling in contrast to his subsequent opposition to the use of “the extreme methods of tyrants” to fight Islam, which he says will “compromise our own ideals.” What is the suppression of free speech (via hate speech codes) but one of the extreme methods of tyranny that compromises Western ideals developed over centuries?
Frank Gerlach replies:
You wrote: “Your definition of hate speech is incorrect. In various European countries, including Belgium, hate-speech is defined as speech that MAY incite people to “acts of discrimination.” And “discrimination” is not defined.”
I don’t know about Belgium. They have their French/Flemish issue there, which probably complicates things….
You wrote: “But under existing “hate-speech” laws, what you just said could be treated as hate speech, depending on the whim of the authorities, because you are saying things that arguably could incite people to acts of discrimination against Muslims.”
No, I don’t think any German judge would fine me for this statement. Former chancellor Helmut Schmidt recently said that something like “Immigration was a grave mistake,” and nobody questioned the legality of that. Regulating immigration is done virtually everywhere, and so is discussion about it. Calling for “Not letting more Muslims immigrate to Europe” would not be considered illegal in Germany, even though it is a touchy subject.
I will not censor myself, and therefore I
- label Islam as a religion associated with authoritarianism
- call the Quran a product of a schizophrenic and violent mind
- see Islam as a danger for democracy, free speech and the rule of law
But we should not overreact. Turkish people here in Germany mostly assimilate into German society in a generation or so. It only gets dangerous if the inflow of Muslims is too high. I don’t know about other countries, though.
James M. writes from England:
Frank Gerlach wrote: “I think there is a good reason to ban hate-speeches, which call for physical harm to other humans.”
“Hate” means “criticism of a group privileged by liberalism.” Your (Larry’s) truthful article on black male victimization of white women was hate; the Duke University scandal, which promulgated lies about white male victimization of non-white women, was not hate because it did not involve criticism of a privileged group. Liberals don’t merely approve of hate when it’s directed at whites, men or heterosexuals, they force those groups to support it with their taxes.
Steve D. writes:
Although I acknowledge that it is a small sample, it would be interesting to get Frank Gerlach’s response to the following questions: “Have the responses to your post convinced you that hate speech laws are, in fact, bad policy? If not, why not?” It seems to me that one of the greatest obstacles to salvaging Western civilization is our ignorance of the thought processes of our adversaries—not the Moslems, but the European liberals. We must discover the key to convincing them—if it exists.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 23, 2008 07:10 AM | Send