» posted on Tuesday, October 9th, 2007 at 9:40 pm by Andy D
The Dutch to Debate Free Speech
Is free speech worth protecting? What if free speech is used to criticize Islam? Newspapers have wavered back and forth on this issue in the past. Some newspapers believe it is worth protecting. Others have decided to censor themselves in order to avoid offending believers of the “Religion of Peace”. This week the Dutch government will debate if a prominent citizen of its country should be protected after criticizing Islam (and after the Dutch Government promised to protect her) or if it would be more convenient for the government to simply leave her to her own devices.
The issue is whether or not Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves to have government provided security. Ms. Ali has been in hiding since the 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gough. Mr. Van Gough was killed because he had produced an 11 minute film critical of how women are treated in Islam. Ms. Ali wrote the script for that movie. A man stepped from the shadows and attacked Van Gough on his way to work one morning. Van Gough’s attacker shot him and almost cut his head off before stabbing a five page letter to his chest addressed to Hirsi Ali. She has been in protective custody since that time. The man who killed Van Gough was acting on a fatwa that had been issued against Van Gough. Many Muslims also want Ali killed for her part in the making of the film.
If you aren’t familiar with Ms. Ali, I have a short review of her latest book, Infidel. In her book, Ms. Ali describes what life was like growing up as a Muslim in Africa and the Middle East. After suffering an assortment of abuses (including female genital mutilation) she fled to the Netherlands and adopted that country as her new home.
However, some in the Netherlands still believe that fanatical Muslims can be appeased. These individuals believe that if they withdraw their protection of Hirsi Ali, then maybe fanatical Muslims will leave their nation alone. There are people in the Netherlands and Europe who have clamored to have her protection removed. There are also those who have tried to get to her before, and those who hope someone gets her. Her critics say she is too critical of Islam. If she has to have 24 hour a day protection, I would ask if she is being as critical as she could be. Some have said she has brought these troubles on herself. Individuals such as Ms. Ali should be able to say what they wish in a Western nation without fear of being stabbed in the streets.
Many on the left in our country wish our laws were as liberal as those in the Netherlands. The Dutch government is trying to hide it’s cowardice behind the financial cost imposed on them by protecting Ali. I find it hard to believe that the cost to protect her is more expensive than the cost free speech and open debate will suffer in the West if some harm should come to her because the Dutch government is worried about offending some of the people within their country. The Dutch are often shown as the model of a free, liberal, Western Government.
filed under freedoms · Islam · women | one Comment
Gerrit said:
Feb 17, 12 at 12:43 pmThis article predates the discovery of your blog by myself, but I believe this debate is still very up-to-date, including in my native country.
As a defendor of free speech AND of freedom of religion, I believe that we should allow free speech to the maximum extent, but with some restrictions to avoid abuse of free speech. In Europe, many politicians have abused that free speech and made very provocative statements about immigrants and other minorities ; when then being confrontated with their statements, they hide behind free speech. I believe this is not much different from religious extremists trying to spread their hatred and then hide behind free speech.
I do believe free speech needs restrictions (as it is in reality in every single nation) ; hate speech should be illegal in my opinion. Racism and provocative statements based upon religion come into that category in my opinion. This means indeed religious extremists should not have a forum to out their hatred. It however also means that islamophobes should not be able to spread their hatred about Islam and then hide behind free speech. The moment free speech opens wide the door for abuse, it is time to put restrictions on that free speech. Just like saying the Hitler salute or making the Hitler saluting sign are illegal, I believe provocative statements about religions with the sole intention to provoke, should not be legal neither.