Too tolerant?

[Saffron]

NPR's On the Media ran this story today:

War of the Worlds

Earlier this month, right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders was denied entry into the United Kingdom to screen his controversial film about Islam. The British government's decision sparked the ongoing debate about free speech, xenophobia, and a clash of cultures when it comes to Muslim immigrants in western societies. In a piece that aired last April, Bob talked with some of the main players in the struggle to define the future of free speech in Europe.

The questions posed in this program cut right to the heart of the difficulties of protecting free speech. The piece raised hard to answer questions like: How and when is it okay to put restrictions on free speech? Is there a point when we become too tolerant? Is multiculturalism in Europe realistic? In the past several years with the influx of Muslims into European countries, Europeans have had to face these question. Add to the picture a backdrop of Nazism and the issues become more complicated. One of the people interviewed for the radio essay identifys "White guilt" as part of the problem of dealing effectively with Muslim extremist. For us American's there is a correlate, "white guilt" and racism. The speaker went on to say that it makes governments and individuals too ready to apologize and excuse and too willing to tolerate bad behavior. Somehow a balance needs to be reached between shutting down incendiary hate speech and open honest examination without fear of reprisal and condemnation.

To listen: On the Media -- War of the World

[richards1000]

Saffron:

Thanks for this thread.

I like the U.S. policy: Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/019.pdf , controversial public speech is generally permitted, because we have a representative government in which most adult citizens elect representatives to the national and state legislatures (and in many states, they also elect the judiciary), citizens have a right to petition the federal government directly for redress of grievances, and citizens in some states have a right to legislate by referendum. The theory underlying the U.S. policy is that access to more information leads to better voting and petitioning choices than access to less information. I agree with that theory, although I believe there is some political science empirical scholarship that questions it. Under the U.S. policy, the appropriate response to controversial public speech is refutation, i.e., to make a persuasive counterargument. This system can be inefficient (because it entails high information costs and it takes a lot of time), politically and institutionally risky (because some controversial speech may lead the public to challenge existing institutional arrangements and governmental policies), and sometimes harmful (because some people experience emotional injury from some controversial speech that does not qualify as defamation). The theory underlying the U.S. policy holds that the benefits of having a better informed citizenry generally exceed the costs of inefficiency, instability, and individual harm. I agree.

[Trish]

As I understand in the UK, some lawmakers are actually considering allowing for Sharia Law in British courts. I'm not quite sure how this would work. A British client of mine just told me about this. I do know there are anti hate speech laws there. Many liberal European countries are getting to be so in love with their own multi-culti attitudes that they are repeatedly backing down from fundamentalist Islam. It only sends a message that threats and violence work. There are many, many things wrong with Western civilization, but we should never apologize for the right to criticize or make fun of any authority, religious or secular. Again, religion demands all the respect for itself and gives none. The solution to even the most vile speech is more speech not less.

[richards1000]

in the UK, some lawmakers are actually considering allowing for Sharia Law in British courts.

According to this article in The Times of London, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 749183.ece , and this article in The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/world ... ria&st=cse , the UK already permits Muslim courts to decide some types of civil cases, principally those involving family law or certain issues in business law. According to these articles, the U.S. and the UK have for many years permitted Christian and Jewish religious courts to decide similar cases, though in the UK the jurisdiction of the Anglican ecclesiastical courts is quite limited now, with most of those cases now heard exclusively by the secular courts applying common law or principles of equity. According to Abul Taher in the Times of London article, the rulings of Muslim courts in the UK are at least potentially enforceable in the UK secular courts under the UK Arbitration Act.