EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Voltaire once said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” A quote that perfectly describes what is meant when freedom of speech is mentioned.
Does this principle hold true in Western Europe or is free speech under threat there too? My home country is the Netherlands (Holland). How far does freedom of speech go in the Netherlands?
The Dutch case study
Let's look at the case of Geert Wilders. He is a politician from the PVV party. The name means "Party for Freedom", but make no mistake, he is a nationalist, a Eurosceptic and on "social" issues he is more left-wing than the neo-Maoists.
In March 2014, Geert Wilders spoke at an event about local elections in The Hague. He asked his audience: “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” Now the same man is on trial. This is not the first time Wilders has been tried for his opinions. The charges brought by the prosecutor are: incitement to hatred, discrimination and defamation.
Although I don't like Wilders at all, just like I don't like any other nationalist, he should have the right to express his opinion. This is not the case in the Netherlands. First of all, Wilders asked the same question about the European Union and the socialist party PwD (Party for Labor), not just Moroccans. Why then don't they accuse him of the same thing about the EU and the socialists?
Secondly, Wilders was referring to crimes committed by people of Moroccan origin. The Dutch Bureau of Statistics publishes detailed reports on the relationship between crime and ethnicity. These government statistics clearly show that Moroccans are often at the top of the crime charts.
The most interesting thing about this case is that three members of the socialist PvdA have used much harsher slurs for the same ethnic group. Their leader, Diederik Samson, said in 2011: “These guys have an ethnic monopoly on this kind of nuisance”. In 2008, Hans Speckman, the chairman of the PvdA, said the following: “We have to humiliate in front of our own people these Moroccans who don’t want to be good”. Several Wilders supporters started proceedings under Article 12 of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure. This article is used to appeal a decision by the prosecutor not to pursue a prosecution. The court decided that the applicants were not ‘interested parties’ and dismissed the appeal. Ironically, the first trial against Wilders was under this very article of the law.
One would expect someone like Wilders to be a great defender of free speech. But the opposite is true. Wilders publicly compares the Koran to Adolf Hitler's "My Struggle" (mein Kampf). For this he receives quite an angry reaction, but defends his action with the words "This is freedom of speech!". However, when someone compares Wilders' actions to Nazi demagogy, he is playing the wounded goose, as we say in Dutch. In the journal Elsevier, Wilders calls these comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis tort.
Freedom of speech is not one-way
The Dutch problem is very clear - freedom of speech is one-way; it is a valid argument as long as the listener agrees with the speaker. In the Netherlands, those who preach the right to freedom of speech for themselves and not for others simply do not know the difference between rights and privileges. It is not just about Wilders, but many other cases. When the LGBT community parades almost naked on the canals of Amsterdam, it is called "free expression of opinion", but when a Christian, by his faith, considers this a perversion, suddenly freedom of speech no longer exists, because someone does not like this opinion. Freedom of speech will only exist when the opinion of the other is tolerated.
I don't expect anything from nationalists, socialists, conservatives and other statists, because they absolutely do not respect individual freedom. I am more disappointed with the Dutch liberals, who believe that freedom of speech has its limits and that Wilders has crossed this limit with his opinion. In my opinion, this is part of the deformation of liberal ideology in Western European liberal parties. I often have to ask myself about them: are these truly classical liberals or simply less statist than the others.
Classical liberal ideology is very clear about the freedom of the individual: This freedom stops where one individual violates the freedom of another. That is precisely why a liberal-minded person must defend two-way and unlimited free speech. The words of one person may be harsh, rude, or even offensive, but this does not violate the individual freedom of another person. The other person can always respond. Words are simply an opinion, nothing more.
Unlimited freedom of speech is extremely important, because a place where one has to be careful to express one's opinion, where one can be judged for one's position, where the thought police check whether speech is politically correct, does not sound like a pleasant place to live at all. Let everyone, especially politicians, express their most extreme opinions, because only then will it be completely clear who stands for what. True freedom of speech will exist when everyone understands that this is a two-way right. Free speech is absolute and valid for everyone.
The problems are visible throughout Western Europe
Freedom of speech in Germany is also deteriorating, as the incident with Jan Buchmermann showed us. He performed a satirical verse about the president of Turkey – Erdogan – on German television. The consequence of this is persecution by the German prosecutor's office and threats to his life from fanatical followers of the Turkish head of state. In England, let's recall the case of Tyson Fury, who expressed (extreme) opinions about transgender people and businesses owned by Jews. We see a dangerous, unified trend of censorship, which is a much greater threat to individual freedom than the most extreme opinions.
I can't say that Buchmermann and I have the same sense of humor, and I don't agree with either Wilders or Fury. This doesn't mean that they should be silenced. On the contrary, I defend Buchmermann's right to air as much nonsense as he wants, I defend Wilders' and Fury's right to share their most extreme opinions. It is necessary because, unfortunately, in Western Europe, freedom of speech can no longer be taken for granted.
Because of this, dear readers, in the spirit of Voltaire: Criticize me to the core, it is your right.
Sources:
1) https://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/FA26E32C-250B-4D1D-B3B9-35085B6C48BC/0/2005verdachtvancriminaliteit.pdf
2) http://www.vvd.nl/nieuws/310/reactie-vvd-op-uitlatingen-wilders
3) http://www.testspiel.de/schmaehkritik-ein-gedicht-von-jan-boehmermann-fuer-erdoan/313593/
Let's not discover America, and the Constitution clearly states this - Article 39.
(1) Everyone has the right to express an opinion and to disseminate it through speech - written or oral, through sound, image or in any other way.
(2) This right may not be used to infringe upon the rights and good name of another and to call for a violent change of the constitutionally established order, for the commission of crimes, for inciting enmity or for violence against the person.
I have explained everything starting with the anthology “50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists on Their Faith in God” - https://www.facebook.com/atanas.shalapatov/posts/1765168490428044
It needs to be explained because for some things there can be no point of view, as they once had the opinion (point of view) that the sun revolves around the earth.
For me, there are two types of books - the Bible and all the others.
My Authority is the Lord Jesus Christ who says ''for every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment''/Matt.12:36/ that is, we must measure our words.
The treatment of an illness must begin with an accurate diagnosis and the Patriarch of Bulgaria said precisely in one sentence ''every crisis - economic, ecological, political, social is a consequence of the spiritual crisis, i.e. of the distancing from God and the Laws that the Creator has established in the Universe...''
St. Maximus the Confessor says that true hatred is actually exactly the one in which we, with our "tolerance", support the religious delusion of the other person, from which he is even more damaged - http://www.standartnews.com/mneniya-komentar/savremieto_ni_prevrashta_v_umereni_antihristi-272853.html
The Pope's view in the Middle Ages was to kill and persecute people who had a point of view about the sun and the earth and which one turned which way. Oh yeah, and women had no rights. So please stop with that bible. Religion in any form encourages fanaticism.