|
'I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam,' says Holland's rising political star
Geert Wilders, the popular MP whose film on Islam has fuelled the debate on race in Holland, wants an end to mosque building and Muslim immigration. Ian Traynor met him in The Hague.
Free speech or hate speech? 'I don't create hate. I want to be honest. I don't hate people. I don't hate Muslims. I hate their book and their ideology.'
'People ask why don't you moderate your voice and not make this movie. If I do that and not say what I think, then the extremists who threaten me would win.'
The Observer, Sunday 17 February 2008
Define Hate Speech!
The ambivalent free speech or hate speech debate has particularly interested me since reading a memorable newsletter handed to me outside Brixton station with the words “lift ban on Minister Farrakhan” enlarged at the top. The front-page article in the newsletter was questioning the legitimacy of the ban on entry into the UK placed on the controversial black religious leader, Mr Farrakhan.
Successive home secretaries have banned Mr Farrakhan since 1986 on the grounds that he has expressed anti-Semitic views and his opinions are perceived not to be conducive with good public order. Nevertheless critics of the ban have argued that the home secretaries decisions and comments about Mr Farrakhan are wild assumptions and contravene the countries commitment to article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
I am a stalwart Human Rights advocate and post graduate of International politics and Human Rights, and I am therefore deeply troubled by the unequivocal belief that there is a hierarchy of human rights.
If the right of freedom of expression is placed in a precarious position when what is expressed conflicts with the states liberal democratic framework, then there is sufficient justification for the questioning of that states approach to article 10 of the ECHR, and it may also be imperative to differentiate between free speech and hate speech.
If the equilibrium of human rights is an idolism and there is a hierarchal structure in existence and operation than we are all to be troubled deeply, for who will protect us when our expression is no longer conducive and is perceived to be a threat to public order.
The ban of entry into the UK imposed upon Dutch MP Geert Wilders last month further emphasises how relevant the debate over freedom of speech remains. It is not relevant to discuss if his efforts was a publicity stunt. It is quite clear that he knew he would be apprehended upon arrival into the country and therefore he achieved his aim. What is of extreme importance is how the response of the home secretary will be interpreted.
It was extremely disappointing to hear certain high status MP’s shying away from the discussion and hiding behind "laws of the land" which if fervently explored would show that the composition of hate speech remains ambiguous.
Yes it is true that the ECHR is very clear on the provisions of freedom of expression and its limitations. According to the ECHR the right of freedom of expression may not be used to cause disorder or incite criminal behaviour, and it must not infringe upon other rights identified by the ECHR. Nevertheless the question still remains, "how do you differentiate between free speech and hate speech?"
It is interesting to note that Mr Wilders was actually invited by a member of the House of Lords under the conviction that Mr Wilders film on Islam as a religion would serve its purpose in appeasing extremism in the country. It was even more interesting to learn that many who supported the home secretaries decision to ban the Dutch MP had not even watched the film he produced. Indeed nor had they appeared to engage him or his supporters in any meaningful debate about the film.
When I was about fourteen I remember doing my homework with the kitchen radio on listening to the presenter taking calls from the public, discussing the BBC’s decision to air the BNP’s political broadcast. Some callers were angered by the decision and were adamant that immediately after the five-minute broadcast racists would take to the streets to propagate racial hatred and stir up racial tension. Other callers felt it necessary that the broadcast be aired so that a proportionate debate could follow without rhetorical points of views submerged in biasness.
For me the broadcast was necessary as my knowledge and understanding of the political party was based on what my parents told me. I needed to formulate my own opinions and take ownership of my own political standpoint outside of my parent’s convictions.
Therefore can Mr Wilders be denounced as a ‘trouble maker’ without affording him the time to state his case? Are we to take the home secretaries ‘word for it’?
In my opinion the decision to ban him was counterproductive as it did more damage to the country’s protection of liberal democracy. Had Mr Wilders been allowed to show his film and make his points, then a productive debate could have been generated. Indeed the film would have been criticised for its lack of objectivity, and he would have been denounced as a separatist whose opinions are drenched in anti-Muslim doctrine. Instead his ban has given him enough leverage to accuse the country of infringing upon his right for freedom of speech, thus assembling curiosity about his film.
I would be extremely disappointed but not too surprised if his video views have now doubled.
|
