Europeans regularly denounce America for infringing civil liberties – by imposing the death penalty for murder, confining terrorists in “secret prisons”, refusing to give Geneva Convention protections to illegal combatants, etc. To many on the Left, those outpourings stem from the critics’ exquisite sensitivity toward human rights. We should listen to our transatlantic betters, we are told, and heed their wisdom.
So what do those wise guides have to say about the human right that is least controversial in the United States? Americans (outside a few enclaves of the Fascist Left) agree that the government shouldn’t punish people for expressing their opinions, even if those opinions aren’t liked by the majority. Though Voltaire didn’t really say, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, that is the American position, limited only in the most extreme circumstances. Thus communists, racists, atheists, Bible thumpers, Islamofascists et al. can contend in the public square against conservatives and liberals.
In Denmark matters are different. Article 266 b) of the Danish Criminal Code “prohibits the dissemination of racist statements and racist propaganda”.
The Danish authorities have informed ECRI that between January 2001 and the end of September 2003, 23 cases were brought to court against 32 people and that 24 convictions were passed, including a 20 days’ imprisonment sentence. [Footnote: “Amongst these cases, 4 concerned words yelled at someone, 7 were about statements made on the Internet, 2 concerned advertisements, 2 concerned statements made at political rallies, 3 were about interviews given in the media and 3 concerned mail sent topoliticians.] . . . ] In 2003, 16 court decisions were rendered against politicians under Article 266 b) of the Criminal Code and NGOs have noted an increase in 2005 in the number of complaints against politicians, especially for statements made regarding Muslims and Islam.
In this country, there would, I trust, be cries of outrage if anyone were punished for what he said in a letter to a politician, at a political rally or on a Web site. The report from which I just quoted also expresses outrage, to wit:
18. ECRI [the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance] deeply regrets the fact that the police are still very reluctant to register complaints of racist statements and to investigate and press charges under Article 266 b) of the Criminal Code, partly due to the fact that freedom of speech is given priority consideration in Denmark. It has been indicated to ECRI that the few cases that are brought to court only result in afine. . . .
20. ECRI urges Denmark to take a more proactive approach in prosecuting anyone who makes racist statements, since Article 266 b) of the Criminal Code as interpreted by the Supreme Court does not appear to be adequate.
The ECRI also thinks little of freedom of association:
22. ECRI notes that racist organisations are still not prohibited in Denmark. Furthermore, although the Danish authorities have indicated to ECRI that the policy in Denmark is to prosecute individual members of neo-Nazi or skinhead organisations, very few cases, if any, have actually been brought againstthem. . . .
25. ECRI strongly recommends that the Danish Government penalise the creation or leadership of a group which promotes racism, as well as support for such a group and participation in itsactivities. . . . It also recommends that Denmark take a more proactive approach in punishing members of such organisations.
One can only imagine what these Eurocrats think of our Constitution and its pernicious First Amendment.
Needless to say, the primary meaning of “racism” in this context is the expression of negative opinions about Islam. Only two “vulnerable groups” are mentioned: Moslems and Denmark’s minuscule population of Gypsies. The latter, one to two thousand in number, seem to have been brought in so that “groups” could be plural. Regarding the oppressed Moslems, the report decries once again those dreadful Jyllands-Posten cartoons and the inexplicable way in which the public associates Moslems with terrorism, extremism and oppression:
88. In its second report, noting with concern the climate surrounding Muslims and Islam in Denmark, ECRI recommended that the Danish Government undertake awareness-raising measures in the public sphere as well as in the education system to promote a more objective and informed perception of Muslims. ECRI also recommended that public opinion leaders promote a more informed and diverse image of Muslims and Islam.
89. ECRI notes with deep concern that the situation concerning Muslims in Denmark has worsened since its second report. ECRI has been informed that, apart from the above-mentioned discrimination that Muslims face together with other minority groups in areas such as employment, education and housing, politicians from some political parties such as the Danish People’s Party and some media continue to make incendiary remarks about Muslims. Although, in 2003, a number of cases of incitement to racial hatred in general, and against Muslims in particular were successfully prosecuted, ECRI notes that the police are generally reluctant to investigate complaints made by Muslims concerning hate speech directed against them. ECRI regrets in this regard that the lack of a strong message that would be sent by consistently prosecuting those who breach Article 266 b) of the Criminal Code has given some politicians free reign to create an atmosphere of suspicion and hatred towards Muslims. This problem is compounded by the fact that the media mostly interview those imams who express the most extreme views, thus confirming the image that is being given of Muslims as a threat to Danish society. In September 2005, with the stated intention of verifying whether freedom of speech is respected in Denmark, a widely-read Danish newspaper called on cartoonists to send in caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad; such drawings are considered to be offensive by many Muslims. This newspaper thus published 12 such cartoons, one of which portrayed the Prophet as a terrorist. The issue has caused widespread condemnation and a protest march was organised in Copenhagen as a result. The fact that, according to a survey carried out regarding the publication of these drawings, 56% of the respondents felt that it was acceptable is a testimony of the current climate in Denmark. ECRI considers that the goal of opening a democratic debate on freedom of speech should be met without resorting to provocative acts that can only predictably elicit an emotional reaction. ECRI wishes to bring to the Danish Government’s attention in this regard, that in its General Policy Recommendation No. 5 on combating intolerance and discrimination against Muslims, it calls on Member States to encourage debate within the media on the image which they convey of Islam and Muslim communities and on their responsibility in this respect in avoiding the perpetuation of prejudice and biased information. [Footnotes omitted]
The reader who carefully peruses that bafflegab will observe that the only debate that the ECRI desires to encourage is one among journalists over how much self-censorship they should practice.
So these are the lovers of liberty who lecture us on our deficiencies in human rights! I would just as soon hear strictures on law and order from the mouth of Michael Corleone.
In Europe, freedom to oppose Islamofascism is disappearing, because the rulers are afraid of Moslem mobs. One suspects that Europe’s concern for conditions at Guantanamo arises largely from the same source. The biggest chasm in the world is that between those governments that cherish freedom and those that regard it as a concession by the governing class, to be revoked or restricted whenever it becomes inconvenient. Closing that gap would be an excellent thing – but not if it means moving one step toward the dhimmis across the sea.
Addendum: Meanwhile in Belgium, bien-pensants are demanding that the editor of the Brussels Journal be prosecuted for “promoting racism”. His offense is writing articles like “Muslims Create Islamophobes, Then Want Islamophobes Punished”. They are, alas, being handed what they want.
Comments