![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hate Crime, A Savage Hypocracy
Friday, February 13th, 2009 05:21 pmAccording to Daily Telegraph columnist Philip Johnston, the Home Office's denial of a visa to Dutch MP and Islamophobe Geert Wilders is a sign of New Labour's lack of concern for free speech and spineless capitulation to Islamic radicalism. I almost agree. New Labour, like Old Labour, has never been the party of free speech. Neither, for that matter, has the Conservative Party. The Liberal Democrats (like their forebears in the Liberal Party) have always championed freedom of speech, but then they haven't been in power since the Bronze Age, and so haven't had their championship put to the test of political expediency.
Johnston contrasts the hostility towards Wilders to a previous (Conservative) government's wholehearted support for Salman Rushdie. When Khomeini issued his fatwa against Rushdie, urging all Muslims to kill the poor fellow, Britain pledged its support for Rushdie and broke off diplomatic relations with Iran. But are the cases really comparable? Rushdie is a British citizen, and a government who tries to kill a British citizen is, in effect, declaring war on Britain. (That sounds odd, but apparently this is what happens in international law, since governments can't declare war on individuals, only on other governments.) Governments have a duty to protect the lives of their citizens, especially when the threat originates from another government. They also have a duty to protect the freedom of expression of their citizens. Whether they have an equal duty to protect the freedom of expression of other countries' citizens is less clear; I'd say they had a duty, but by no means an equal duty. Wilders may have the right to slander Islam in Holland, but that doesn't automatically give him the right to come over to England to do so. The Home Office can declare anyone they want to be persona non grata, and free speech just doesn't enter into it. They can deny you entry into the country for being in possession of a silly hat if they want. The real problem there is nothing to do with freedom of speech or New Labour; it is the godlike powers awarded to the Home Secretary under all governments. There is a little-known clause of the Seditious Persons (Amendment) Act of 1846 which allows the Home Secretary to personally bugger anyone who doesn't stand up to sing God Save the Queen, known to lawyers of the day as the "stand up or bend over" clause.
Flights of fancy aside, I still think Wilders should have been allowed to come and show his libelous little film to the House of Lords as planned. His case is that the Koran should be banned because it counts as hate crime, and while he is wrong (unless you also count the Bible as hate crime), to say that something is a hate crime is not itself a hate crime, and even if it were, I don't think hating people is in itself a crime. Telling people to kill each other might be, but Wilders isn't doing that, as far as I know. What he is saying is that the Koran tells people to kill each other. His film even quotes the Koran telling people to, well, kill each other. For example, he quotes Al Anfal verse 60, which goes "And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them." Strong stuff. But let's have a look at the next verse: "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." So you're supposed to make peace with people who make peace with you, and fight people who make war on you. And this is a hate crime? Maybe for Mahatma Gandhi, but not in any reasonable court of law, which is why the Dutch government have not responded to Wilders' pleas to ban the book.
So it looks like neither the Dutch MP nor the alleged author of the Koran (God) is guilty of anything more than strong language, and the British government is just acting in its normal silly way. Freedom of speech is not dead, we're not about to be over-run by crazed jihadis, most Dutch people are really awfully nice and not at all like Mr Wilders, and Chewbacca has absolutely nothing to do with this case, ladies and gentlemen of the so-called jury, absolutely nothing.
Johnston contrasts the hostility towards Wilders to a previous (Conservative) government's wholehearted support for Salman Rushdie. When Khomeini issued his fatwa against Rushdie, urging all Muslims to kill the poor fellow, Britain pledged its support for Rushdie and broke off diplomatic relations with Iran. But are the cases really comparable? Rushdie is a British citizen, and a government who tries to kill a British citizen is, in effect, declaring war on Britain. (That sounds odd, but apparently this is what happens in international law, since governments can't declare war on individuals, only on other governments.) Governments have a duty to protect the lives of their citizens, especially when the threat originates from another government. They also have a duty to protect the freedom of expression of their citizens. Whether they have an equal duty to protect the freedom of expression of other countries' citizens is less clear; I'd say they had a duty, but by no means an equal duty. Wilders may have the right to slander Islam in Holland, but that doesn't automatically give him the right to come over to England to do so. The Home Office can declare anyone they want to be persona non grata, and free speech just doesn't enter into it. They can deny you entry into the country for being in possession of a silly hat if they want. The real problem there is nothing to do with freedom of speech or New Labour; it is the godlike powers awarded to the Home Secretary under all governments. There is a little-known clause of the Seditious Persons (Amendment) Act of 1846 which allows the Home Secretary to personally bugger anyone who doesn't stand up to sing God Save the Queen, known to lawyers of the day as the "stand up or bend over" clause.
Flights of fancy aside, I still think Wilders should have been allowed to come and show his libelous little film to the House of Lords as planned. His case is that the Koran should be banned because it counts as hate crime, and while he is wrong (unless you also count the Bible as hate crime), to say that something is a hate crime is not itself a hate crime, and even if it were, I don't think hating people is in itself a crime. Telling people to kill each other might be, but Wilders isn't doing that, as far as I know. What he is saying is that the Koran tells people to kill each other. His film even quotes the Koran telling people to, well, kill each other. For example, he quotes Al Anfal verse 60, which goes "And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them." Strong stuff. But let's have a look at the next verse: "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." So you're supposed to make peace with people who make peace with you, and fight people who make war on you. And this is a hate crime? Maybe for Mahatma Gandhi, but not in any reasonable court of law, which is why the Dutch government have not responded to Wilders' pleas to ban the book.
So it looks like neither the Dutch MP nor the alleged author of the Koran (God) is guilty of anything more than strong language, and the British government is just acting in its normal silly way. Freedom of speech is not dead, we're not about to be over-run by crazed jihadis, most Dutch people are really awfully nice and not at all like Mr Wilders, and Chewbacca has absolutely nothing to do with this case, ladies and gentlemen of the so-called jury, absolutely nothing.
