At the same time Jyllands-Posten in Denmark is valiantly establishing that freedom of expression is a core western value and that the right to say what you will does indeed include the right to say what some people may find offensive… a court in Austria has in effect sided with Islamic extremists by sentencing ‘historian’ and fantasist David Irving to three years in jail for upsetting Jewish sensibilities by making preposterous claims about the Nazi Holocaust.
Am I the only one who sees the sickening irony of protecting Jewish feelings ending up giving aid and comfort of Islamic bigots who want to prevent the publishing of anything they find offensive? I can just hear them now: “Oh, so upsetting the Jews gets you thrown in jail but anyone can upset the Muslims…”
Dr Romain, rabbi of Maidenhead Synagogue, said: “I welcome yet another public rebuff for David Irving’s pseudo-historical views, although personally I prefer to treat him with disdain than with imprisonment.”
And that, Rabbi, is the sign of a mature and freedom loving disposition. What a pity that more Muslim clerics do not take such a view when their sensibilities are offended and their community starts howling for the state to ban offensive remarks as Austria has done in the case of David Irving. Had Jyllands-Posten been an Austrian rather than Danish newspaper, it would be hard to make the argument that there was clearly a legal right to offensive (and therefore free) expression.
And before people in the USA get too smug, this is not just a European issue. Let me ask you this: do you support making burning the US flag illegal? If so, then clearly you agree with the Muslims that free speech does not include the right to offend people.
Time to clean house: all insulting behaviour (short of actual incitement to violence), blasphemy and ‘holocaust denial’ laws are an intolerable abridgement of freedom of expression and must be abolished, now!
Update: Stephen Pollard and Oliver Kamm have broadly similar views.
I totally agree with you, Perry. If we wish to live in a tolerant society, we have to accept that people have a right to offend us. David Irving is wierd and revolting, but he has a perfect right to his opinion and a right to express it. Stephen Pollard on his blog today says the same thing, and he is Jewish.
I’m currently studying the U.S.S.R. and the Communist Party’s use of mass ethnic relocations as a tool of policy. Although the U.S.S.R. and current Europe are very different places, it seems that in both places multi-culturalism has directly resulted in a (greater) loss of freedom. It could be that the more cultures you have, the more viewpoints you have to offend and the more people feel under threat each time they see their culture being offended. On the other hand, in a mono-cultural society, people may feel under threat but not in cultural terms, and so freedom of action is increased simply because there are less mindsets to take offense at the actions taken by people enjoying that freedom.
This is a perfect example of that. In this case, even the minority being ‘defended’ has disagreed with the imprisonment of David Irving. However, multi-culturalism demands his imprisonment.
David Irving is clearly a nutter. The Nazis used to put nutters in vans and asphyxiate them using exhaust gas. Austria is carrying on this proud tradition in a milder way by merely imprisoning them. Long love Denmark! Gott strafe Oesterreich!
Sad to see we haven’t really progressed much since the days of Voltaire ..
Freedom of speech is inalienable and not subject to abridgement in any form. Period.
Austria’s posturing about this is disgusting. Yes, Irving’s a nutter, but Austria is using him to prove its credentials – and by so doing is proving it does not have the credentials to be an advanced Western society.
I support the right to burn the US flag, as long as the flag in question isn’t somebody else’s property.
Where are bounds drawn for inciting violence?
An imam orders his krew to kill someone.
A crowd has signs that tell their krew to go kill someone.
Someone says it would be good to overthrow the government.
Someone says it would be good to overthrow another country’s government.
I am actually quite curious about to make such a legal definition stand the test of time.
Where does speech stop and conspiracy start?
What a shame.
I remember reading Mr. Irving’s book, “Hitler’s War” during college. It was the best book about the Second World War I’ve ever read, bar none.
The rabbi you quoted is a model of good sense. If only all religious figures were the same.
Irving is a turd. The best way to deal with such folk is ridicule, contempt and crushing scholarship, not jail.
Samizdata, has, of course banned anti-semites and racists from this site, as a privately owned institution is entitled to do. But we are not calling for any of these pondlife to be thrown into the slammer.
Perry is absolutely correct and represents, I believe, the consensus among thinking people of both left and right. (I am not sure of the center.)
But I do wonder/doubt about the motive he imputes to the Austrians: “protecting Jewish feelings.”
Is there any evidence that that is the reason? I had assumed it was a well-meaning if mis-guided attempt to prevent Austrians from taking part in more murders. Now I guess you could say that that would in fact “protect Jewish feelings” but in light of their support for Kurt Waldheim, I would be surprised if Austrians really gave a hoot about the Jews, though I would be happy to be wrong.
Absolutely right that the movement to ban flag-burning is on the side of the muslims protecting their founder’s image. Interesting, isn’t it, that US nationalism/patriotism has this kind of religious character. All rationality goes out the window when the sacred symbol is defaced.
However – to be fair – this is no longer an issue. You’re thinking back to 1988 when then-President George Bush the First made this a central election issue and persuaded Congress, in 1990, to pass a law (modeled after a Texas law) against flag burning. The Supreme Court had already struck down the Texas law and wasted no time striking down the federal law as well. You’ll find that their language in both decisions is unequivocal. From the second decision:
Note the direct reference to offensive religious speech as protected by the First Amendment, and note also that the Court absolutely rejects the idea that any kind of popular consensus trumps speech rights.
Like most nations, the USA has its share of idiots. Often, these idiots get together and pass their drivel as law. Unlike many nations, we have a very clear Bill of Rights protecting us from their nonsense.
The whims of the masses will always be with us. This is why it’s important for citizens of all nations to have their rights entrusted to something more solid. The US is not without its flaws – but I think on the issue of flag-burning you’ll have to agree that the system worked and worked well. US popular culture (from 17 years ago!!!) be what it will, the system did its job.
Sincerely,
A smug American
Re Perry’s original article – Has it occurred to anyone else that the Jyllands-Posten is now probably the most famous newspaper in the free (i.e., non-Islamic) world?
The whole issue has nothing to do with questions of freedom of speech and liberties, taboos and cultural offences, and the Austrian “Holocaust denial” law is not intended to protect Jews from insults. This law is an apology for allowing the Holocaust to happen, a self-therapy for the European collective post war guilt complex – and if there is one justified guilt complex – this is it.
And I say – keep apologising. At least as long as the last survivor is alive. Let this law be the last limitation to the freedom of speech in Europe.
Yes – Irving is a scapegoat. So be it.
I agree with bob !
“…upsetting Jewish sensibilities …”
This is not about Jewish sensibilities, and Austrians are’n exactely worried about Jewish sensibilities.
It’s a kind of apology to mankind, a kind of being holier than thou; like saying: “see, we have learned our lesson, we have changed, we will never let this happen again, so you need not hate us any more”.
They may also be genuinely worried about neo-nazis or nazi-sympathizers. This is a problem you English might not appreciate enough.
I join bob in saying: let them err on the safe side, and let this be their worst sin.
I’m not sure that flag burning and denying the holocaust are the same thing. One of them involves setting something on fire in a public place.
It’s illegal to set anything else on fire in the middle of the street, so why should a flag be any different? Where I come from, starting fires to further some kind of political cause is called “rioting”.
Just because you have the right to free expression doesn’t mean you have the right to recklessly endanger other people/property while exercising that right.
If you set fire to your newspaper and tossed it into the street, you would be fined or arrested.
In Australia the left were recently bitching about a case where a young muslim man climbed on the rood of an RSL, took their flag off the flagpole, and set it on fire. He was charged with malicious damage.
But according to the usual suspects, even this crime should go unpunished under the protection of “free expression”. Sorry, nope.
This is the last “limitation to the freedom of speech” claim which I have to make in Europe?
bob – I don’t agree. We didn’t find out about the concentration camps until almost the end of the war. Europe didn’t “allow” them to happen. The Germans in some parts of Germany seem to have had a tacit knowledge, but most people outside the country had no idea of what was going on in Germany. Read actor Dirk Bogarde’s account of having been in the army at the end of the war and how devastated they were to go into a concentration camp no one had even known existed. And how shocked and badly shaken the Tommies were.
So let us not make silly assumptions that WWII was about concentration camps and “Europe”, which even now is not one entity, having some collective guilt deal. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Many countries in Europe were aware that Jews were persecuted in Germany, but didn’t know the extent – although Britain and other European countries took in large numbers of Jewish refugees.
And the Austrian law is wrong too, not factually as you are, but morally. David Irving seems to genuinely believe that there were no concentration camps in Germany, which is demonstrably nuts. The craziness is large, but he has a right to say what he believes.
See, that’s exactly what’s NOT cool about it. “So me and my compatriots can feel better about ourselves” is NOT a good reason to imprison a man!!! If this is what Austria needs to atone for its sins, it has learned nothing from its past.
That is a complete canard. The proposed laws being suggested by various (mostly conservative) people in the US do not say “burning things is a safety hazard and should be banned via a constitutional amendment!”… please, be serious, the laws are not about burning effigies of the president or copies of the constitution or draft cards, it is about burning that emotive symbol of US nationhood, the Stars and Stripes.
So if you are an American, please picture that: a burning US flag on a steet somewhere in the USA (the health and safety issue is a completely seperate matter), surrounded by a jeering crowd of protesters screaming about BushMcHitler, and if that makes your blood boil but you STILL insist that is protected free expression, then and only then are you NOT actually accepting the legitimacy of the views of the Muslims who are calling for Jyllands-Posten to be punished by law for offending their religious sensibilities. It is exactly the same issue because it is about tolerating other people doing things that offend you.
One point about these anti holocaust denier laws. The first one was in France and was called the “Loi Gassyot” (I’m not sure of the spelling) Gassyot was a communist who I believe was later the minister of transportaion in the Jospin Government.
The law, like the one in Austria has much more to do with political posturing than with protecting Jewish feelings. The Rabbi is right.
There is an American expression “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
Nice try, but Perry’s right about flag-burning. The reason so many people wanted to make it illegal in the late 80s had nothing to do with “public safety” and everything to do with the symbolism, which they found offensive. They were trying to legally enforce one of their own cultural taboos on everyone – exactly the same way so many muslims are trying to gain legal protection for some of their taboos right now.
By your logic, we would have to ban campfires too – but we don’t. Fires are perfectly legal as long as contained. No one is advocating allowing people to light kerosene-drenched flags on fire and then toss them into a crowded theater. Short of intent (and likelihood) to cause damage, burning a flag is symbolic speech and therefore protected, no matter how offended you may be by what “the usual suspects,” as you call them, say is legal speech.
This is all a matter of public record. Look up any of the laws that banned flag burning. You will not find a single clause concerned about public safety from arson.
There is a distinct difference between saying, or writing, or singing words, i.e., engaging in speech, and performing an act.
The continuing attempt to equate these two essentially different things is one of the primary tactics used by the PC crowd to justify speech codes on campus, demand self censorship in any public utterance, rationalize the absurdity of “hate crime” laws, and, yes, demand that certain cartoons not be published because they are an offensive assault upon the delicate sensibilities of our Muslim bretheren.
The laws in several European countries banning the expression of fascist ideas, within which this “denial” offense falls, have been on the books for decades. I find the sudden concern by civil libertarians just as questionable as the sudden outrage by some Muslims over cartoons published months ago in an Egyptian newspaper.
There sure seems to be a lot of disconnected indignation floating around, some of which appears to attach to trivia because that’s what is current, instead of being directed to serious matters which might be less trendy.
And, no, I do not support flag burning laws.
The sad thing is that far more was being accomplished in harming the case of holocaust deniers by having Irving get beaten in open argument. He was largely giving up on holocaust denial in the face of plain reality and this seems a far better result than locking him up:
http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com/2006/02/holocaust-denial-laws.html
We’re right and people are smart enough to see through people like Irving.
Yup. I’m with Joshua and Perry. Burning the American flag or the British flag, for which people have died, is vile and sickening. But it’s a sign of impotent rage. Burn the symbol because the real thing is too strong for you. Those women in Pakistan – unidentifiable due to bin liner couture – carrying signs that read “Thank God for Hitler!” were the powerless of the powerless. Muslim women.
Sudden? I guess you don’t read much written by us civil libertarian types because we have been bitching about these sorts of laws for a very long time indeed. The reason it warrented my article today was that the creep (with whom I once had a physical altercation with, I might add, so no love lost there) was sent to the slammer for 3 years.
I understand what happened to Irving, and I oppose the idea of imprisoning someone for having the “wrong” ideas in Austria every bit as much as I oppose it in some misbegotten dictatorship somewhere.
My comment was twofold:
1) There are variations of these laws all over Europe, and they are becoming popular as a way to stop any discussion in areas of sexuality and immigration as well as the current emphasis on religion. I realize that some voices have been raised in opposition for a long time, and if my use of the word “sudden” does not apply then I retract it.
The point is that the EU is on the verge of becoming an enlarged college campus, with speech police inspecting every public utterance to insure no one could be offended;
and 2) One of the errors leading to this state of affairs is the equation of speech with action. I object to classifying burning a flag as speech. It is not.
Burning a flag is a political act. It has no other meaning. And, since it causes no injury that would not be covered by the appropriate laws concerning arson and/or negligent fires, there is no need for any special law against it.
The attempt to blur the distinction between speech and action is part and parcel of the argument now being made in numerous speech codes that some speech constitutes an assault if a vulnerable class member objects to it, or that some sexually explicit material commits a sexual assault on any vulnerable class viewer who finds it offensive.
Perhaps my frustration with the continued worsening of the situation as these speech/thought codes are expanded muddled the point I was trying to make—that this case is only the tip of a very big and very dangerous iceberg looming on the horizon.
While David Irving may not be a very pleasant man, I agree with the poster who commented that his book, “Hitler’s War”, was excellent reading. Those who describe him as an historian in pejorative inverted commas are expressing a childish free opinion to which they are entitled, as is everyone….even Irving. That all this should happen in Austria, were it not so hypocritical would be hilarious. The country which gave the Untied Nations Kurt Waldheim (among other better-known awfuls) isn’t exactly renowned for its philosemitism… but is so post-bellum confused that it is scrambling for solutions which it thinks will please everybody. I have to add that the attitude of the EU, soon to be Eurabia, regarding the democratic election, some time ago, of Jörg Haider was nothing short of scandalous. But then what can one expect?
I expect the last reason for imprisoning David Irving, quite wrongly for sure, is to pacify Jewish opinion. Holocaust Denial statutes were passed in European states when several were faced with extensive Nazi sympathies in their public and indeed in government at the same time they were espousing democracy and seeking American protection from Ivan. Instead of denazifying, they suppressed. I do not get the impression that anywhere in Europe is there much concern for Jewish opinion, whatever that might be.
The comments on this thread have refered to flag ‘protection’ laws.
Sorry Joshua, we don’t have much room to be smug.
The American Legion is the largest US military veterans association. It has membership reserved to past and present members of the United States Armed Services. A google of ‘American Legion’ generated 2,570,000 hits. They have 3 million members in 15,000 posts.
This(PDF) is their official stand. They are still very actively campaigning for it.
It is a constitutional amendment.
An effort to defeat our first amendment protection of speech (expression of opinions)
our fourth amendment’s protection of our right to ‘be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures’
and the fifth amendment’s ‘nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property‘.
Did you catch that last sentence?
Sound a little bit like the cartoon jihad? Oh my.
Sadly, it looks as though Jyllands Posten may have run up the white flag – has anybody heard more about this?
BTW, when are they going to send Eric Hobsbawm to jail? The man has been an apologist for Stalin one of the greatest mass murderers for years.
Sorry, that was a naive question.
I don’t think ‘Jewish opinion’ has anything to do with it at all. Firstly there are not that many Jewish people living in Austria now – surprise, surprise – and secondly Mr Irving knowingly broke the law relating to Holocaust denial, albeit in 1989. To deliberately state your view on the holocaust in one of the few countries which does not permit the Adolf Hitler fanclub to openly express its opinion is in my own opinion either remarkably naive and stupid (which Irving tried to use as a defence) or done, like some Rushdie-type ruse, with the sole intent of increasing book sales.
Whenever odious individuals like Irving climb onto the bandwagon you should check in the back for the snakeoil and the carpetbag.
Not at all… the apology was for causing offense, not for actually publishing the cartoons. That is not just a minor semantic difference (and that was something several irritated muslims noticed in fact).
Whatever Irving is he isn’t stupid – he uses his holocaust denial to promote the vilest form of racism and anti-semitism and I don’t for one minute believe he has changed his mind.
He was probably prosecuted for the wrong offence however. His trip to Austria, knowing that there was a warrant for his arrest was surely an attempt to stir up hatred – and given his associates there – violence.
I’m losing no sleep over his being locked away.
Its pretty clear that Irving was trying to martyr himself by going back Austria. He will now be a hero to lots of people for what he has done. He did it to keep his profile high. And the Austrians walked right into it.
Perry, have you noticed this story
Point the first – Irving should not be in jail – for only saying what he believes. Period.
Point the second – anyone can burn a US flag in my presence, all they like, as long as it’s their property and they’re not breaking any laws that would apply if they burned anything else. It’s just a thing, and civilized people don’t venerate things any longer, any more than we venerate ‘holy relics’, golden calves or the like. The compulsion to venerate things, and demand that others venerate them also, is the province of medieval and less-developed societies and belief systems.
There is an absolutely crappy chick-flick called ‘The American President’, starring Michael Douglas. It is an obvious dry-run for the TV series ‘The West Wing’. But, surprisingly enough, it contains a speech by the President’s character on the subject of flag-burning which is spot-on:
“Everybody knows American isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship.
You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.”
llater,
llamas
What I wrote(Link) on Monday, pretty close to Perry’s analysis: –
I think you guys have got me wrong. I don’t give a crap about the symbolism. If someone has a tiny flag on a stick and sets fire to it with their cigarette lighter I couldn’t give a toss.
What I’m talking about is people in large rallies who ARE setting fire to large flags using accelerants in a crowded public space. Look at the picture in This story.
I’ve got nothing against free expression, even if it means setting fire to a flag. I just don’t think we should ignore all other laws just because someone is protesting something political.
“By your logic, we would have to ban campfires too”
Try lighting a campfire on Piccadilly circus and see how far you get.
“Fires are perfectly legal as long as contained.”
Not where I come from (Australia). You can’t even burn leaves in your backyard without a permit.
I’m not terribly alarmed at the possibility of a ban on flag burning. I don’t think flag burning is an essential and indispensable venue for free speech, and if you can’t burn a flag it’s the end of free speech.
I think that the “Campaign Finance Reform”, enacted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court – is a far, far worse abridgement of free speech – it puts limitations on people’s rights to publish political ads.
I think one needs to cool down and put things in proportion.
A flag burning ban and a Holocaust denying ban aren’t really the most important and terrible instances of free speech denial, or the most acute exemplars of it.
What nobody seems to be saying is that the right to free speech is absolute. I rather don’t like all this “I hate David Irving, and of course I don’t agree with him, and it’s all poisonous nonsense, but prison is too severe” stuff. David Irving must have the same rights as me, and everybody, whatever his views. It ought to be possible to say this without any disclaimer.
Nazi Austria limited free speech for reasons of state. So does modern Austria. The two policies are the same, and we must fight them in the same way.
Agreed. Giving this individual notoriety and, for him, welcome publicity is the last thing anyone should be doing but should we tolerate the intolerable? I don’t think so.
P.S. I do hope they allow Mr Irving to serve his sentence in the UK under the EU reciprocation agreement. I look forward to hearing that Irving and Abu Hamza were roommates at Her Majesty’s pleasure, mind you Irving wouldn’t have to worry about somewhere to hang his coat every night …
No, I do not agree. For sure I am happy to demand his right to freedom of expression be respected and this monstrous sentance overturned… but I will NEVER EVERY say anything about David Irving without either figuratively or literally spitting on the floor first. He is a vile piece of work and I personally detest him (yes, I have met him) and I will use MY freedom of expression to make sure that in no way am I seen as supporting either his views or him as a person. It is his rights I care about, not him. I would not cross the road to piss on him if I saw him on fire.
Midwesterner-
I see your point, but I’m still proud of the US’s general record on free speech, which I believe to be one of the best in the world. I’m not at all surprised that there is a lobby group (particularly THAT lobby group) campaigning for some nonsense. There are plenty of such groups in all democracies. The reason they advocate something so drastic as a Constitutional amendment is because the American system as a whole has been unequivocal on the issue (see the Supreme Court cases I linked). They have no other avenue open to them. This is as far as any Constitutional protection ever goes.
To put it in perspective – there is also a significant (and vocal) minority in Denmark that supports the muslim position on those cartoons. We don’t, thereby, think Denmark inimical to free speech – and rightly not. Their government has been rock solid on the issue, as has the majority of their population. One newspaper’s decision does not a “Danish” position make (which is why the Arab boycotts are so silly, remember). What makes a “Danish” position is a general sum of public opinion, government action, and legal precedent.
If you can quote me a current and reliable poll that says that a large enough majority (to warrant passing it, I mean) of Americans would support a Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning, I’ll change my position (hell, I’ll go out and burn a flag). Until then, I think the evidence speaks for itself. There are always annoying lobby groups with pet ideas lurking about. What I’m interested in is whether the law protects me from them. So far, it has done a very good job.
In any case, the main point of my comment was to respond to the idea that the average American needs to do soul-searching on this issue before citing his country’s record on free speech. I don’t think I know even a single person who supports prohibitions on flag burning. I’m sure there are some about, but they’re hardly any kind of representative group – at least, not since the 80s. I don’t really know why Perry felt the need to dust off that old issue. Maybe he comes into regular contact with annoying American nationalists, I don’t know. It’s true that any person who supports flag burning laws has no ground to stand on in criticizing muslim demands for legal protection for images of their founder, but I just don’t share the impression that most (or even many) Americans these days support such laws. But maybe I just don’t know the right people.
rpw – What Perry said – but, in addition, guess what! The Jyllands-Posten did not take out that ad! Mysterious, eh?
The ad appeared in a Saudi Arabian newspaper – a reprint of the anondyne “sorry if you got offended by our exercise of our right of freedom of speech but …” statement by the editor of the Jyllands-Posten a week or so previously. The Jyllands-Posten had no knowledge of this ad until they were called about it by another newspaper.
More infantile Muslim trickery. And they are stupid enough to think people in the West aren’t going to finger them and fall on the floor laughing. These people have all the cunning of daring six-year olds.
PS – We do not yet know if those “clever” Saudis changed any of the wording – by mistake of course! An error in the translation. I don’t know if any Arabic speaker has bothered to check.
Graham Asher writes: I am baffled by your statement: “What nobody seems to be saying is that the right to free speech is absolute.” The overwhelming majority of people commenting above have stated that freedom to express any opinion is unalloyed. I said so twice myself. So did Perry de Havilland. So did almost everyone else.
veryretired makes another of his stunning and chilling points.
“What nobody seems to be saying is that the right to free speech is absolute.”
“One of the errors leading to this state of affairs is the equation of speech with action.”
Surely there is something of an exaggeration here? I may denounce the jailing of Irving as vigorously as everyone else on this thread has done, yet it does not follow that freedom of speech is absolute. There are limits to freedom of speech: the “yelling out ‘fire’ whilst in a crowded theatre and in the absence of such a fire” test. This sort of thing ought to be a crime because it is an example of speech that is likely to ’cause’ intended and unwarranted harm to innocent people who get crushed in the ensuing stampede. Lest the example seem irrelevant – replace the term ‘fire’ with ‘suicide bomber’ or ‘dirty bomb’ and replace the ‘crowded theatre’ with ‘crowded train’.
Wishing to assert our belief in freedom of speech as boldly as possible should not blur the common-sense out of our heads.
Oops! Did I accuse anyone else of blurring out?!
It should of course read..
“What nobody seems to be saying is that the right to free speech is absolute.”
“One of the errors leading to this state of affairs is the equation of speech with action.”
Surely there is something of an exaggeration here? I may denounce the jailing of Irving as vigorously as everyone else on this thread has done, yet it does not follow that freedom of speech is absolute. There are limits to freedom of speech: the “yelling out ‘fire’ whilst in a crowded theatre and in the absence of such a fire” test. This sort of thing ought to be a crime because it is an example of speech that is likely to ’cause’ intended and unwarranted harm to innocent people who get crushed in the ensuing stampede. Lest the example seem irrelevant – replace the term ‘fire’ with ‘suicide bomber’ or ‘dirty bomb’ and replace the ‘crowded theatre’ with ‘crowded train’.
Wishing to assert our belief in freedom of speech as boldly as possible should not blur the common-sense out of our heads.
Is it really true that it is not an offense (under French law) to burn the French flag in the street? How about a picture of Chirac? Somehow I think European nations are not quite so free and easy about symbolic insults to their governments that they have standing to criticize America, where the only restrictions are potential.
He shouldn’t be sent to jail, but a punch to the face seems appropriate.
– Josh
I don’t like your suggestion, either, Josh. Free speech is free speech. You have absolutely no right to be offended to the point of violence.
And now they have decided 3 years isnt enough and want to make a bigger martyr of him. Sigh.
Irving’s an arse. Every time he opened his mouth he proved this. All locking him up does is create the suggestion in some impressionable minds that there must be something to what he is saying because ‘The Man’ locked him up for saying it.
I’ve been doing some reading on this related to earlier postings – and it seems I have to take back what I said.
Apparently, there is currently a bill before the Senate about just this. So – fine – Americans have to right to be smug about free speech as this issue is apparently still current. It is a horrible, horrible idea to except the flag from symbolic speech – definitely on par with muslims wanting to make exceptions for Mohammed. So I stand corrected.
There are apparently laws on the book in Australia and New Zealand, Germany, France, and Austria, and I have read that in Denmark, Norway and Japan it is legal to burn the national flag but not the flags of other nations (can’t seem to find a specific source now but am sure I will run across it again soon).
So – in answer to the question – apparently no, Europeans have no right to be smug vis-a-vis the US on the flag-burning issue. But then again, neither do Americans have any right to be smug about free speech issues so long as this bill is before the Senate.
I take it back.
Joshua, you’ve done a lot of work. Thank you.
The thing that bothers me most about the American Legion resolution is that these well meaning present and past soldiers, people who have offered their lives for the defense of the United States, don’t seem to understand how badly they could vandalize the principles and constitution they swore to protect.
They have fallen for that leftist tool of inflation of rights. Weakening fundamental rights by diluting them with arbitrary and capricious rights. Now they want to ‘return’ to us a ‘right’ to ‘protect’ the flag. It’s so Orwellian. They want to return something that we never had, give us a right by taking away many others, and protect the symbol of the constitution from the very constitution it represents.
I wrote my first letter to the editor on this issue probably around 15 years ago when this latest campaign surfaced. It’s a relief to see other loyal admirers of this constitution who also oppose this amendment. 15 years ago, I couldn’t find any others. Thank you Perry for this forum.
Midwesterner – I think the American Constitution, even if it’s not our constitution, is all that is standing between us and the Islamofacsim that is marching forward at an ever-increasing pace.
As I said, I personally don’t know anyone who supports this amendment (though I admit my grandmother might – I just haven’t ever asked her). But there might be a regional issue here, and I’m honestly curious to see what you think. You call yourself “Midwesterner,” and somehow in the past I’ve gotten the impression that means Wisconsin? Maybe even northern Wisconsin? I’m from North Carolina but am currently living in Indiana. I lived in Asia for 5 years and in that time came into contact with a number of American expats. At some point this “Under God” in the Pledge issue came up, there was a pretty strong divide in the expats I was working with (admittedly not a scientific poll…). Those of us from the South all didn’t mind if they changed the Pledge. The people who seemed to mind were all from the Midwest (mostly Ohio in this case). This probably had something to do with the fact that it also seemed to be true that none of us from the South had ever been required to say the Pledge every day at school (I certainly wasn’t), but many from the Midwest were. I’m too tired to comb the net for numbers now, but I would be very interested in a regional breakdown of support for the flag burning amendment. I’m willing to bet support is heavier in the Midwest than in other regions, and that that might explain why I don’t personally know anyone who supports it despite the fact that it seems to have a lot of support.
I completely agree with you that the “return” wording is Orwellian. Orwellian in the sense that the authors seem to know they don’t have a leg to stand on, but they’re doing it anyway. As if their sentimentality trumps out rights. Revolting.
I completely understand why a veterans’ association would be taking this line, though. Probably it comes from the WWII and Korean War vets. The US was a completely different country then, and what they remember is everyone pulling together for the common cause and then greeting them with seas of waving flags when they came home. I think some of them honestly can’t get past those images and feelings, and I can understand that (it doesn’t make it right, but I can see where they’re coming from).
In any case, this is serious and current. I need to start writing letters to Senators and newspapers. They have until the end of 2006 to vote on it. It seems unlikely that it will pass, but that’s no excuse for complacency since we just don’t know what will happen.
Verity, you’re right. I hope it and we are strong enough. And smart enough. Time will tell.
Joshua,
I’m from southern Wisconsin and have been living here for over twenty years. My father was working in Chicago when I was born and I grew up in Chicago and the suburbs. When my father retired, he moved back to the family farm. I came along to help.
My frame of reference includes past experience in the greater Chicago area and current experience here. I have also spent a fair amount of time on the UW Madison campus which I think you already know is generally an altered reality of its own.
I think it’s simplest to divide demographics into who’s for and who’s against.
For the amendment: Farmers & their families. Small business owners and usually their families. Industrial union members and their families. Members of fundamentalist, conservative, and some moderate churches. Viet Nam era veterans who came home to flag burnings and definitely all of their families for a generation in either direction. Most carpenters, plumbers, electricians and other trades people. Korean and WWII veterans. Law enforcement. War supporters.
Against the amendment: UW liberals. Most media employees. People using social services heavily. People providing social services. Doctors. Lawyers. People with advanced degrees. Libertarians. War protesters. Non- or liberal church goers.
This is my perception, not based on any survey. The common denominator for supporters of the amendment is no-nonsense, hard working, no patience for hooligans type of people. They are the people that produce what we live on (and in), and defend it. Not only that, they vote. In droves. Usually that’s a good thing.
I based this on the idea that the question is posed (as it is and will be) as “… to amend the Constitution of the United States of America in order to return to the people their right to protect the Flag from acts of physical desecration.” Regrettably, most of those people will say yes and add some comments of their own about the sort of people who burn flags.
I’ve been making my case for years and people who know me are generally circumspect and non-commital. People who don’t know me wonder if I’m one of those commy pinkos. They seem unable to discern support for the right to burn flags from sympathy with the flag burners.
I’m not sure yet how the cartoon jihad is effecting these opinions. The perceived threat may make them more determined. Or the consequences might become apparent. I’m afraid this mistake is a lot more possible than it looks.
The problem with incitement to violence is that it is going to be used by the elite to justify their ideology, as usual. I have no idea what “incitement” means, but it does not seem to mean just “go out and kill Bob”, does it? If it is a matter of just using a few terms, which are known historically to cause suffering, or to cause nutters to kill, then it should not just be Hamza in jail.
The leftist claim that Pim Fortuyn was a “fascist” seemed to be code enough for somebody to kill him, and being called a fascist was often the last thing you heard before getting shot in the head, or starved to death in a Gulag.
Maybe we should examine the hate speech of the left, and it’s uses as incitement.
( I am not denying that there are fascists out there, of course).
Absolutely. This is why it’s important that any “incitement to violence” laws should crucially depend, for their burden of proof, on the action having been an immediate result of the speech in question – and why they also should make no reference to the actual opinions expressed in the speech. Sending fliers to people’s houses urging them to kill blacks should be protected speech. Shouting “kill the niggers!” at a cross burning in a black household’s front yard, however, would be incitement to violence – provided, of course, the klansmen you shouted this to actually then proceded to (attempt to) kill the residents.
Muslims carrying signs saying “behead those who insult islam” should not incitement to violence save in those cases where the audience is an unruly mob of angry muslims. Showing them to mostly non-muslim passers-by on a city street otherwise going about its business shouldn’t count.
As soon as we cross this line, then indeed, I think you’re right that we’ve given the elite a far too powerful tool for use in advancing their agenda. The point is that if we’re going to have incitement to violence laws, they should only apply in these very specific circumstances.
Midwesterner –
Thanks for the response. I guess our experiences are different. I know a number of people who meet your description of the demographic of supporters, and none of them actually support the amendment. I’m curious about this now and will ask my students what they think.
No shit, yeah. One of my friends taught there last semester and came back feeling MUCH better about the state of campus political opinion at IU… I tend to think Chapel Hill must be almost as bad as Madison, though. Maybe worse.
Joshua,
I’m also curious about this. For one thing, it sounds like you circulate in academic circles. (Is that redundant redundant?) They have generally been opposed to the amendment. I think that there is not much thought being put into this by it’s passive supporters and that there is a community assumption sort of thing going on. Next road trip, when you’re in a small (non-university) town, do a spot survey of your own. Be sure to phrase it the way the proponants do. Origanizations like the American Legion tend to be given the benefit of the doubt among the demographic that works hard. I’ll do the same all though I don’t travel much.
On your statement –
It’s funny, I looked at those signs and wondered if they where intended for us, or for Al Jazeera. I wonder if that would make any difference.
HA! This is related to a subtle point on this case that I’m surprised hasn’t gotten more discussion here – namely whether provoking a hostile reaction to your opinion can ever be incitement to violence. I’ve been proceding under the assumption that it’s only incitement if you encourage someone to do something they were already in the mood to do – i.e. fanning the flames. I would actually draw a distinction here – that is, someone making me angry at them can never be incitement to violence, whereas egging on a mob that agrees with you sometimes can be. I’m not really sure myself why I think there’s a difference, but I do.
Good point about Al-Jazeera. I have no idea who those signs were really for! My guess is they were meant to intimidate and/or vent, i.e. were for the BBC more than Al-Jazeera.
Yes, I travel in academic circles (am currently working on a PhD). That probably goes a long way to explaining why I don’t currently know anyone who supports said abomination. However, I’m also drawing on memories from the late 80s, when the issue was really in the press. That’s the last time I remember it being hotly debated in public, and at the time pretty much everyone around me was opposed to it. It was clear that candidate Bush liked it, and many of the people I’m talking about were staunch Bush supporters (Dukakis was pretty ridiculous, when you think back on it), but I don’t remember anyone agreeing with that particular one of his positions. But then, that’s some time ago, and I was much younger then, so maybe there were more around than I remember. Class in 45min. – can’t wait to hear what my students have to say about this (although I don’t feel I can justify an actual discussion – but an informal poll never hurts 😉 )
Agree completely. ‘Provoking’ a hostile reaction to oneself can NEVER be incitement! That would be carte blanche for anyone to muzzle their enemies by claiming to be provoked. Pretty much the Danish cartoons modus operandi.
I think your right about the intent of the signs, but I sure did and do wonder about it.
I think I may just print a copy of that American Legion resolution(Link) to show people, or better yet, just show them the proposed amendment
There are two forms –
This includes a list of the bills co-sponsers(Link) in the senate. I think it’s passed the house yet again.
My opinion is that people should have their say. However, there must be consistency and imprisoning Irving after allowing the cartoons sends a clear messege of prejudice to muslims. I assume the Irving case is possibly fuel for further riots and disdain over the cartoons.
Austria allowed the cartoons but disallowed the holocaust denial. A clear double standard and selective use of “freedom of speech” arguements which is evidently prejudiced in Europe.
jamal,
You came to the wrong site to raise an argument on that point. I doubt many or any of the credible commentators here think Iriving should be locked up for his statements of belief. On the contrary, they think he is a vile idiot who should be allowed to prove his idiocy with his words.
I, at least, agree with you that Austria’s position is hypocritical.
The bill passed the House last year and is now awaiting a vote in the Senate, the way I understand it. Did you notice that Hillary Clinton is one of the gnomes behind it? Definitely trying to gain points with the patriots-r-us crowd. Who says she’s not running for prez?
By the way, I asked in my classes today and exactly 0% of students informally “polled” claimed to support the bill. One of the students is in the military and says that they have actually discussed this issue, and while there is some support for it, most of his comrades are reluctantly opposed. So I’m as mystified as ever where the support comes from. Maybe it is a generation gap thing. In any case, my regional theory doesn’t seem likely to stand up since Indiana is clearly in the Midwest and not the South (though I guess parts of it would very much like to be in the South).
Jamal-
Please take the time to notice that almost everyone on this site has categorically condemned Irving’s imprisonment. Austria clearly does have a double standard, and most people posting here have been quick to condemn it.
Please also understand that Austria’s double standard has historical roots. The law comes from Austria’s (misguided) attempts to atone for attrocities in which it was complicit. Most people on Samizdata agree with you that the Austrian law represents a double standard, but the purpose of the law is NOT to discriminate against muslims. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the Austrian law is wrong, but you have no grounds to conclude from the wrongness of this law that there is any anti-muslim prejudice behind it. The law has nothing to do with muslims whatever.
Joshua, I’m glad our founders made the constitution so incredibly difficult to amend(Link). I have to admit that the support this has in both houses excedes my understanding.
If it does pass both houses, it needs 3/4 of the states (38) to pass it with a simple majority.
I do think it fascinating that there is a process available by which the states can amend the federal constitution without any participation or consent by the federal government in any way whatsoever. Hhmmmm………
Interesting! I had no idea there was a second process available. Thanks.
Joshua – Re Jamal – they honestly think the world is all about t-h-e-m-m-. They are ignorant of the history – even very recent history – of the area of the world in which they were born. It’s all about Islam.
Jamal – quick hint – no one in Britain or Europe gives a monkey’s arse about your religion or your god. They’re not a consideration in our 2,000 years of thinking.
If you want to be in our area of the world, you must read up on your history and understand Austria’s role in WWII = nothing to do with you. Nada. Zilch. Rien. No one had heard of Islam. It was about territory. Lebensraum. Teutonic gods.
The Holocaust (a name with which I have always had a problem, but OK) was about exterminating an entire race of people. Do try to keep up, Jamal, because you’ve got pork fat on your face and look rather silly.
I don’t know why anyone would want to assume that Southerners want flag censorship instead of flag freedom. (Burning or displaying.)
Think about it: the Southern flag issue is about the Conferederate flag. There are some Southerners who display it at their homes or their pickup trucks as a symbol of Southern pride, not necessarily with any racist intention. Other Southerners say the Confederate flag is inherently racist and implies an endorsement of slavery and seek to remove it from public display.
So, most Southerners you would normally assume to be anti-flag-burning patriotic rednecks suddenly get all free speech on you when you recast the discussion about whether the Confederate flag should be banned from public display.
I lived in a small midwestern city when the KKK came to town. The solution to hate speech is more speech. We educated people about their tactics–don’t show up and protest their rally, they’ll take a crowd count of everyone present and give that as the number of their supporters.
Instead, we hosted a unity rally across town and it was a big party and fun and a great way for people to express solidarity. There were speeches, songs, cake, music, dancing, candles, etc.
Our crowd was huge. The KKK rally was puny and mostly people from outside the area. It was their little group and the empty city park and the few policemen assigned to ensure public safety.
The evening news film footage clearly depicted who was the “winner.”
I hate it when people make weird assumptions about midwesterners and southerners, thinking they’re more backwards than they are. These are my peeps and I love ’em…even more so than the coastals!
I notice that Muslim free speech rallies often involve brandishing long daggers while calling for death for the infidels. I bet the English/Europeans wish they had a Second Amendment at such times. Americans can be cool with such demonstrations, because we know they won’t act on it–they don’t know what citizens are packing heat. That principle of uncertainty will keep them from turning into a murderous mob.
The English/Europeans, with their gun control, must be nervous in such a situation. It is known that no one would be able to defend themselves against the dagger.
I don’t even own a gun, have never fired one, but thank God for the principle of uncertainty!
Um… you’re kidding, right?
The “principle of uncertainty” you mention certainly doesn’t prevent people in the US from committing other crimes, so why would it prevent a mob from going off the deep end?
And it occurs to me that if these people were living in the US, they’d all be exercising their rights to carry lethal weapons for no good reason, and any daggers they were carrying would be purely for show – just like the ones that are carried in demonstrations in the UK & Europe. I’d be a lot more frightened of a crowd armed with guns than I would of a crowd armed with daggers: once you’re beyond arm’s reach, a dagger isn’t much use; that doesn’t apply to guns, does it?
Thanks for your concern, but I’m not particularly nervous. I don’t believe anyone is actually going to stab me with a dagger – maybe my relaxed attitude is due to the fact that I don’t live in a country where I could be shot dead at any moment, for any reason or none.
It is worth noting that David Irving’s Holocaust denial is not merely a historical opinion; it is de facto libel/slander against all who were there, remember these events, and reported them. He is both implicitly and explicitly calling such people liars.
Whether that makes a difference to the acceptability of his views – or what constitutes an acceptable response to them – is a different question that I won’t address here. But his slander should be acknowledged as what it is.