Freedom of Expression, Except for Muslims? [The Washington Post]

March 16, 2009

Lets go through this: the Danish politician Gert Wilders visits the UK. Partly on the basis of a court case against him in his own country for abusing that freedom of expression, the British say politely, 'We do not wish you to say that here. Thank you,' and promptly send him off on the next plane.

Wilders goes off to America, and says what he wants to say. Americans of a particular part of the political spectrum are quite incensed by his ordeal, and host him. In the course of saying what he wants to say, he argues, pretty much in the same breath, that he should never be censured, but, he wants to ban a particular book that is read by more than 20 million people in the European Union. In another breath, he argues he is not a racist, but he wants to ban immigration from particular parts of the world. His audiences applaud and cheer him on.

The British are renowned for the value of freedom of expression - there are not many places in the world where one can so vehemently criticize one's own government, for example, without fear of censure or persecution. As Wilders himself has said, Britain has the mother of all parliaments. But Brits also know that if you shout 'fire' in a crowded theatrer when there is no fire, you should be held accountable for the people that are injured or die as a result of the stampede.

Hence, Britain has denied entry to quite a few people, including neo-Nazis, animal rights campaigners who incite violence and radical religious extremists of Muslim backgrounds.[Interestingly, no one from the U.S. invited them to deliver speeches in Washington, the capitol that banned Cat Stevens... but I digress.]

This is where things start to get rather bizarre. Wilders asks for sympathy in the name of 'freedom of expression', and when he gets to Washington, calls for all limits on freedom of expression to be removed. Yet, in practically the same breath, he calls for banning a book read religiously by more than 20 million people in the European Union, the closing of all Muslim schools in the Netherlands, the prevention of wearing certain types of clothing in public spaces, and desires the banning of around 1.5 billion people from the Muslim world.

As a result of similar things said in the Netherlands, Wilders is already involved in a court case in the Netherlands where he is accused of inciting hatred.

No-one thus far seems to have raised the question: Why is Wilders' freedom of expression so much more important than the freedom of expression of all these other people? And why is it that in response to all this, the political party he is a member of in his own country shoots to second place in the national polls in response to his situation?

The answer, unfortunately, is not an altogether comfortable one. All too often, what seems to be rather clear in terms of our values as Europeans become blurred when it comes to Muslims. Muslims, admittedly, often do not do many favors for themselves in this regard, but as a European whose ancestry goes back to Europe from time immemorial, I confess I am more disappointed in the majority than the minority in this case. Enough Europeans have died for these values to make them a reality - and it is appalling to think they may have died in vain.

Here's the truth of the matter. Wilders was banned from the UK because he abused the very glorious freedom of expression in his own country, and he said he was going to do the same in the UK.

There is and has never been any such thing as absolute freedom of expression. Take the laws against Holocaust denial in many parts of Europe - a classic case of restricting freedom of expression. We have libel laws, defamation laws, and confidentiality agreements in so many different professions.

And why? Not because we suddenly have destroyed the principle - but because we have always had qualified freedom of expression. The question in this case is not about freedom of expression - that's a red herring designed to fool people and get them to ignore the real issue here.

The memory of the Holocaust is, rightly, protected in Europe because it is something so traumatic to the European memory that it is generally considered to be something sacred in the public sphere. I, for one, am quite pleased that is the case, because it means that Europeans should, for as long as the Holocaust is thought of in this matter, remember how radical rightwing propaganda against a religious minority can end up.

Unfortunately, we Europeans have short-term memories. 50 years after the Holocaust, the Bosnian Muslims suffered genocide in Europe; and 70 years after propaganda against Jews took place in Germany, we see the same kind of stereotypes in European media. And now, we have another example of radical propaganda that should have been castigated from the get-go if we remembered our history - but instead, we have Wilders' party shooting to second place, and him being treated like a saint in Washington.

That's why I am disappointed we still have to have these sorts of discussions in 2009; it is also why I am not particularly surprised. But let's be honest about what is going on, and not pretend its in support of our 'values' - it's a flagrant insult of what generations of Europeans died for.

H.A. Hellyer is Fellow at the Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations at Warwick University (UK) and Founding-Director of the Visionary Consultants Group [www.visionaryconsultantsgroup.com] (UK, Egypt, Malaysia). Dr. Hellyer was Fellow of the Brookings Institution (USA), where he focused on Muslim European communities, and visiting Professor in Law at the American University in Cairo. Currently engaged in a project on Muslim minority communities worldwide, Dr Hellyer was formerly ESRC Fellow at the UK's Foreign Office, where he carried out research as Warwick University's Senior Research Fellow, on a project looking at Muslim communities.

Source: Washington Post