This weekend I wrote a column for the Washington Post on the crackdown of free speech in France. The column suggested that, if the French really wanted to honor the dead at Charlie Hebdo, they would rescind the laws used to hound them and threaten them with criminal prosecution for years. (Indeed, at least one surviving journalist expressed contempt for those who now support free speech but remained silent in the face of past efforts to shut down the magazine). Now, however, news reports indicate that the French government is doubling down on criminalizing speech in the name of free speech after the massacre. France has reportedly made dozens of arrests of people who glorify terrorism and engage in hateful or antiSemitic speech.
Prosecutors have gone out of their way to make it known that they are prosecuting people for speech — a remarkably ironic twist since the victims were prosecuted for the very same thing and died defending free speech against such private or governmental speech codes. Some 54 people have been arrested since the Paris terror attacks. The French justice department has encouraged more arrests for speech violations.
Notably, one of those detained was mentioned in my column, the comedian Dieudonne, who has been prosecuted for anti-Semitic jokes. For earlier posts and columns on Dieudonne, click here and here and here. We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have seen comedians targets with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).
The crackdown in France shows that this is really not about free speech despite the rally in Paris. The West seems to be falling out of faith with free speech, which is now something to be prosecuted rather than protected. Of course, the prosecutions will do little to change minds and will only make the West appear hypocritical and arbitrary. Notably, the arrests this week include four minors. The government is also ramping greater surveillance and searches. So, to recap, the French government just rallied millions for liberty this weekend and then used the attacks to further deny free speech and privacy rights.
In the case of Dieudonne, he ran afoul of the laws by posing a Facebook statement that he felt like “Charlie Coulibaly” — merging the names of Charlie Hebdo and Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who seized a kosher market and killed four hostages. It was later taken down. He later wrote to the Interior Minister that “Whenever I speak, you do not try to understand what I’m trying to say, you do not want to listen to me. You are looking for a pretext to forbid me. You consider me like Amedy Coulibaly when I am not any different from Charlie.”
Is there any legitimacy of Sharia Law in constitutional republics such as ours? Essentially, if the supreme law of the land is NOT Sharia, then should any expression of that law under the color of religious freedom be treated as legal or justified if it conflicts with the constitution?
Switzerland: Federal Charter of 1291
UK: Glorious Revolution 1688
France: Bastille 1789
Israel: 1948
Haiti: 1804
India: 1947
Most countries need a foundation moment, which is tied with their values. Nothing exceptional there.
Some countries transitioned smoothly to independence, like Canada. In that case, the celebrated values are a bit less idealistic.
olicou,
Name one and identify that moment.
Looks like we have some Saddam Hussein lovers. BDS makes people crazy and stupid. I see the more Obama screws the pooch, BDS gets worse. Fascinating phenomenon.
Olly, you think that other countries don’t base their values on strong principles? Most developed countries had a “declaration of independance” moment.
JAG,
Re: your comment at 1:12AM this morning.
Have you seen the documentary “Losing Iraq?” It is currently running on Netflix. Very interesting from both an historical and psychological point of view. Iraq was muddling along with a truly awful leader in Saddam, but in his own way, was keeping the place stable as long as we kept him on a short leash. The invasion of 2003 toppled his regime and turned the place into a geopolitical and military free-for-all. The documentary is almost like the old series “Connections” which explains how one thing leads to another, and now we have ISIS. The latter being a truly global threat, since so many ISIS members and supporters have multiple nationalities and passports.
It is a study in incompetence, with blame enough to go around for everyone. Fascinating documentary. I am sure no one will agree with everything in it, but definitely food for thought. One thing I did find amusing was the number of key players interviewed, most whom pronounced themselves virtuous and without blame, while rationalizing their denial with some spectacular logical gymnastics.
I agree with you. I am not defending Stalin and his henchmen. Whereas the Allies did not invade until they were in a position to minimize casualties by virtue of an overwhelming force, Stalin had no qualms about sacrificing men. Did the Allies drag their heels so Stalin would bear the brunt of the fighting? Did they object to Stalin taking Berlin (at such a high cost) though they were in no position to deny him that spoil of war given what he had paid for it in blood.
Jeff Silberman – the fix was in for Berlin. Stalin was to get it. Actually, Patton probably could have gotten there faster.
Justagurl,
American Exceptionalism is not quantified by some worldwide ranking. It’s not necessarily about what we represent ourselves to be but rather by what we have the potential to be. Our Exceptionalism lies in our dedication to the vision of the Declaration of Independence; not in our journey. We have many faults; always have and always will. But what sets us apart are the principles in that declaration that anchor us as a culture. We have proven we will lose sight of those principles but they exist and will continue to endure attacks by apologists.
Anarchist,
I used to have difficulty understanding how the people could give away power to government and still claim to be in complete possession of all the power that naturally defines us. Then I was provided an explanation that cleared it all up.
The rights we have naturally in the state of nature come with us when we enter into the social contract and because these rights are inalienable, they cannot legitimately be given or taken away. Instead, the affect the social contract has on natural rights is to disable and not remove them.
Jon Roland at constitution.org is a great resource for understanding this concept. Here is part of his essay on the subject:
“Under the theory of the social contract, those the individual brings with him upon entering the social contract are natural, and those which arise out of the social contract are contractual. Those contractual rights arising out of the constitution are constitutional rights. However, natural rights are also constitutional rights.
The fundamental natural rights are life, liberty, and property. However, it is necessary to be somewhat more specific as to what these rights include. Therefore, constitution framers usually expand them into such rights as the right of speech and publication, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to travel over public roadways, and so forth. The exercise of such natural rights may be restricted to the extent that they come into conflict with the exercise of the natural rights of other members of society, but only to the minimum degree needed to resolve such conflict.
Such natural rights are inalienable, meaning that a person cannot delegate them or give them away, even if he wants to do so. That means that no constitutional provision which delegated to government at any level the power to take away such rights would be valid, even if adopted as an amendment through a proper amendment process. Such rights apply to all levels of government, federal, state, or local. Their enumeration in the constitution does not establish them, it only recognizes them. Although they are restrictions on the power of government, the repeal of the provisions recognizing them would not remove the restrictions or allow the delegation of any power to deny them. The people do not have that power, and therefore cannot delegate it to government.
Yet constitutions recognize the power to deprive persons of their rights under due process of law. Strictly speaking, a person may not be deprived of such rights in the sense of taking them away. Natural rights are never lost. Their exercise can, however, be restricted or, to use the proper legal term, disabled. While some might question the practical distinction between losing a right and having it disabled, that distinction is important. A right which is disabled under due process may also be re- enabled by the removal of that disability, and the disability is removed if the social contract is broken and persons return to the state of nature.”
http://constitution.org/soclcont.htm
Olicou,
I love reading your posts on this subject..
You are right, about everything..
By the way, I am an American, living in Sweden…
davidm2575: You are comparing USA with Brazil and Mexico about murder rate??? If you want to be compared with developed countries, choose other references. The murder rate is 5 times higher in the USA than most western europe, australia, new zealand, canada, japan…
What is THE Bill of Rights? You don’t think that the one from Britain in 1689 has any value? It’s the basis of the American one. The Founders didn’t take their text out of nowhere.
olicou wrote: “You are comparing USA with Brazil and Mexico about murder rate?”
Of course, because her statement specified Western world without any additional qualifier. Did she then admit her error? No. I care about the veracity of statements that a person makes. I’m not even going to start on the other statistics because it is obviously a waste of time. I just know now that I will never trust what she says. She is on my, “check out the alleged facts” list.
To your credit, your facts generally seem to be checking out. You just have a socialist and fascist mindset through which you interpret the world.
olicou wrote: “You don’t think that the one from Britain in 1689 has any value?”
Of course it has value, but it is not the one of interest when talking about American Exceptionalism. The colonies were under the Bill of Rights of 1689, but did they follow it? No. States like Massachusetts and Virginia was still imprisoning and flogging people who belonged to the wrong religion. Even today the UK is supposed to be under the Bill of Rights of 1689, but they ban people like Michael Savage from entering their country over speech issues. The UK has failed on human rights issues like freedom of speech, and the USA has been exceptional in this area. We have led the world on this issue and you know it. Everybody is trying to follow our lead in this, even when they don’t understand what freedom of speech really means. A case on point is Turkey.
There are no laws against self-censorship. I do not think it makes sense to censor one’s self. If one is not obliged to republish what another has written, how can it be said that he stifled himself? Editors thankfully use their good judgment whether to reprint something just like I am at liberty not to repeat everything I am told. Censorship occurs when someone else interferes with one’s ability to express one’s views.
I think there is a clear difference in the perception of the origin of freedom between anglo-saxons and french tradition. Anglo-Saxons obtain their rights AGAINST the state, which is by definition absolutist. Bit by bit, British lords eroded the power of the king until it become quite confined. The Bill of Rights predates the American Revolution by a century. Only after that, the American made their taxation revolution.
In french’s mentality, freedom comes FROM the state. It is the Republic that garantees the rights of individuals. It is hence the state that imposes limitations on the freedom of speech for its own preservation and, hence the preservation of individual liberty. It seems ironic and confusing, but the Republic is more important than individual rights, because it preserves individual rights.
In France, there is no “natural freedom”, since it cannot arise in an environment with 20,000 people per km2 (Paris). Maybe you can do whatever you want in a ranch 200 miles away from Phoenix, but not in a European country where you always cross the path of somebody. The density of population in Western European countries is much higher than in the USA, and this difference was even higher in the past. A more complex society requires more complex rules.
The mentality is also quite different between anglo-saxons and latins, probably because of religious background. In Protestantism, morality is an individual quest, combined with a strong peer-pressure. In Catholicism, there is a structure with a leader that imposes rules over the believers. It’s quite different. This is why Dieudonné would not have to worry in the USA, but all the American newspapers self-censored themselves and did not show the cartoons from Charlie Hebdo.
olicou wrote: “Anglo-Saxons obtain their rights AGAINST the state, which is by definition absolutist.”
It might look that way, because governments all trend toward tyranny, but the truth is that we obtain our rights independent of the State.
olicou wrote: “The Bill of Rights predates the American Revolution by a century.”
Not THE Bill of Rights, but many of the concepts therein certainly did predate the American Revolution. We almost did not even establish a Bill of Rights because many were concerned that people would erroneously think that their rights came from government and that this list was all the rights that they had. There were 12 Amendments originally submitted to Congress on March 4, 1789 that evolved into the 10 Bill of Rights that were ratified on December 15, 1791, some 8 years AFTER the American Revolution ended.
olicou wrote: “In french’s mentality, freedom comes FROM the state.”
Which is a HUGE mistake.
olicou wrote: “It is the Republic that garantees[sic] the rights of individuals.”
Which is impossible. In your philosophy, the Republic would only grant rights to individuals that agree with the Republic. It would take away rights and freedom from those who are perceived to be contrary or even possibly contrary to the goals of those individuals running the government.
olicou wrote: “It is hence the state that imposes limitations on the freedom of speech for its own preservation and, hence the preservation of individual liberty. It seems ironic and confusing, but the Republic is more important than individual rights, because it preserves individual rights.”
This concept that the Republic is more important than individual rights is fascism. This is what Mussolini believed. It is what Hitler believed. The concept does not work because it leads to tyranny and oppression of the people. How ironic that the French were delivered from the philosophy that hurt them, only to return to that philosophy in the end. I guess the spirit behind Napoleon lives on.
olicou wrote: “In France, there is no “natural freedom”, since it cannot arise in an environment with 20,000 people per km2 (Paris).”
Of course it can, but you are missing the point. When men like Locke explained natural law as being what rights men have in their natural state, it is a philosophical exercise to understand the origin of rights and how individuals can be free when living in a society that is governed. The goal of the exercise is to prevent tyrannical government by understanding that rights originate in the laws of nature.
olicou wrote: “The density of population in Western European countries is much higher than in the USA, and this difference was even higher in the past. A more complex society requires more complex rules.”
No it’s not. You are only talking about 2 to 3 times the density, and it really doesn’t mean anything. There is plenty of land everywhere in Europe. Only in the cities of both Europe and the USA are there the high densities you are thinking about, but people congregate there by choice. I am starting to wonder if you have ever been to the USA. Have you?
olicou wrote: “This is why Dieudonné would not have to worry in the USA, but all the American newspapers self-censored themselves and did not show the cartoons from Charlie Hebdo.”
The newspapers here are taken over by liberals who are too afraid of being killed by Muslim extremists. They can choose to do whatever they want. Some will show it, but most will not. It is their choice. That’s what freedom is about.
So in your philosophy of the Republic guaranteeing the freedom of individuals, how is that working out for Dieudonné? Not very well, is it. Wait until someone in the French government decides your speech is harmful. I doubt they will guarantee your individual freedom either. History has shown that when government squashes speech, it has become tyrannical and evil. It will continue a pattern of oppression.
At the risk of being accused of being a denier of American Exceptionalism, I should just like to point out the little known fact that 90% of all military casualties occurred on the Eastern Front. We did provide the Red Army tons of supplies with which to sustain its war effort, but Stalin had reason to resent the fact that the Allies delayed opening a second front against the Wehrmacht for many months while his armies suffered casualties in numbers that I think would have been intolerable in the West.
Jeff Silberman – we had every reason to resent the fact that the Soviets helped carve up Poland and made a pact with Germany allowing them to re-arm and re-train. And Stalin was responsible for his own problems by purging the officer corps, leaving himself with an inexperienced cadre to fight the Germans when they finally turned on him.
The Allies agreed to a second front, but war got in the way. Remember we did not see the Soviets as a friendly ally.
The trouble is, you give govt. a tool and they use it to promote selective interests – not for the reason they argued the tool was needed for in the first place. Govt should only seek to control people’s actions if they are dangerous or criminal . Not thoughts or words. The limits on free speech should only be restrictions on promoting or provoking criminal acts. If the govt wants to do something about bad language, offensive language, insulting language that is best addressed by education in the school and supporting social norms which support good manners and respect for others. Christian values. Suitable social controls would be applying categories as are applied to films X-rated, for the worst stuff, a special category for likely to offend. Then it is up to people to read the rating and avoid going out of their way to be offended.
But the whole argument is pathetic. I doubt there is anyone on this forum who was not subjected to brain dead, infantile, feckless abuse from other children in the school playground, and being normal people we adjusted to it, overcame it, and didn’t throw tissyfits just because the world is stuffed full of feckless idiots.
Any adult who can’t take verbal abuse is not mentally normal. But while the fox is among the chickens, our governments are scheming how they can exploit this criminal incident to strip the law abiding majority of even more of their rights. Free speech is the biggest threat to those in power.
Speaking of the Second World War, there is an interesting aspect of how the US government was considering the possibility of a resurgence of the Nazi movement during the occupation immediately after the capitulation of Nazi Germany. It posed a considerable debate among the occupying forces and the governments of the allies. Additionally the Soviets were equally at least viewed with the same concern and their influence.
An insight into what can be done post war is by studying the actions of General Lucius Clay during the occupation of Germany. One aspect in particular was the “culture cold war” where he later advocated the introduction of western popular culture and some of its advantages for the individual in contrast to what the Soviets then presented for the Germans. That and other things for the most part worked.
However, we must also recognize that post war Germany was a western culture with many fundamental similarities to that of the allies so much of these actions represented not as much as culture shock to the population.
Within the context of other wars this concept has had mixed results. Japan worked better certainly than Afghanistan. And even with regard to Iraq which also had opposite effects within regions of the same nation.
An area of Iraq that gets very little attention in the western media is Iraqi Kurdistan which has by contrast weathered this mess better than the rest of the nation as far as stability, advancement, and investment. Not perfect by no means but a welcome sign of a better future. They have a much better relationship with the US than other parts of Iraq and in fact they view us in a warmer manner. Of course they haven’t forgot how they were abandoned when they rose up against Saddam after the 1991 war when we insinuated we would back them and did not.
We need to better understand the cultures of whom we deal with internationally. It doesn’t mean you have to approve but empathy does not necessarily mean sympathy or approval.
Got the women and as they say it’s quality not quantity when you’re picking diamonds – and guests.
You guys could use some traffic and pretty women.
Hey JAG you need to stop by the new clubhouse, too. Inga has the password. Mysogenistic-types not allowed.
JAG, I’m currently in my winter home of San Diego. I’ve gotten to know many Iraqi Christians who moved here during the “better off” days of Saddam Hussein. They’re great people and love the US. They must be crazy, I’ll put them in touch w/ you to get their minds right. These fun loving, entrepreneurial people[They own damn near every convenience and liquor store in town] could tell you the HELL it was for them, Kurds and Shiite during Saddam’s reign of terror. But, I guess the trains ran on time. Don’t rationalize it JAG, it was hell before and it’s hell now. Saddam controlled the press and access to his carnage and depravity. That’s the only difference.