To summate: Steyn wrote a book called 'American Alone.' It's not something I'd really take the time to read- I've flipped through it and read the introduction and it seemed like a fairly typical conservative screed against supposed European weakness and the dangers of Islamic extremism. It seems to be rooted in a certain amount of almost Burke-ian dystopian thought which seems to permeate conservative thought across the world. (Edmund Burke, of course, railed against the French Revolution warning that it would destroy civilization as we know it, etc, etc, etc.) It seemed like a pretty depressing book that would only irritate me, so I didn't sit down and read it.
But that said, I think Steyn makes a notable point: demography is destiny and European birth rates are crashing, while immigrant populations (read: Muslim immigrant populations) are actually having children. The declining birthrates in the Western World are potentially problematic- but I'm not sure I'd posit the decline as a reason for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the coming collapse of Europe that people like Steyn and Pat Buchanan seem to broadcast with great gloom.
The Canadian Islamic Congress took offense when portions of the book (or an article based on the book) was published in a British Columbia magazine called Mclean's.
The Canadian Islamic Congress took offense. It charged in its complaint that the magazine was "flagrantly Islamophobic" and "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt." It was particularly scandalized by Steyn's argument that rising birthrates among Muslims in Europe will force non-Muslims there to come to "an accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots."
Note: Steyn's article was published in 2006, before Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, supported that point earlier this year when he said that it is "unavoidable" that Britain will ultimately have to incorporate some elements of Sharia into its law in the spirit of "constructive accommodation."
You might think that if Steyn had been able to quote Williams or someone else who'd expressed that view, he and Maclean's wouldn't be in trouble. You'd be wrong. One of the council's chief gripes with the article is that Steyn quoted a Norwegian imam who said that "the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes." An accurate quotation is no defense when giving offense.
The case itself has some pretty troubling ramifications for free speech as it illustrates a widening trend of democracies moving to limit free speech in the name of political correctness and preventing 'hate speech.' And there seems to be a growing trend of questioning the viability of the First Amendment, as well:
As the Atlantic's Ross Douthat observed, the New York Times' only story on the case suggested "that the 1st Amendment is a peculiar and quite possibly outdated feature of the American political system, along the lines of, say, the electoral college or the District of Columbia's lack of congressional representation." By implication, it also lumped Steyn in with rabid Nazis and Holocaust deniers.
I'm not in favor of hate speech or Holocaust denying or inciting racial hatred, but I have to admit I find it troubling when free speech is attacked. In a free society, an active and engaged citizen does not- nor should agree with or approve of everything they hear- and in a free society, the right to speak, even if it is hateful is the foundation of a free society. Undermining it in the name of preventing speech is an attack on the foundations of democracy, plain and simple.
Even in the United States, there are basic, loose limits on freedom of speech. Yet it seems beyond ridiculous to pass a law making the Denial of the Holocaust illegal. Such crackpots who espouse those views are extremist at best and easily dismissed, despite their anti-Semitism. Allowing them to be arrested and given trials only gives them a bully pulpit to advance their crackpot views. (And Holocaust Denial ranks right up there with 9/11 Truthers, Fake Moon Landings, The Queen Killing Princess Di or one of the myriad of theories behind the Kennedy Assassination.) By making hate speech illegal in the name of 'protecting' people you give the promoters of hate speech, distasteful that they are, access to the media and a spot in the public eye for them to shout their hateful views to the world. Freedom of speech is guaranteed- but not everyone should be able to get a soapbox and a megaphone with such ease.
The Westboro Baptist Church is the best example I can think of. Fred Phelps and his gang of 'God Hates America/God Hates Gays' crowd do some truly disgusting things, picketing high school graduations, funerals and even military funerals- yet with every court case and every interview they appear on, they only get the attention they so desperately crave- even if people think they are nutjobs.
In the end, hate speech vs. free speech comes down to this, with me: by making it illegal, you give promoters of hate speech a public forum and a soapbox to promote their hateful and abhorrent views. By ignoring them and marginalizing them, you protect free speech and keep their views on the extreme fringes of society where they belong.
Do I think the Steyn case applies to this view? I really don't. I'll admit to not having read the book, but if the Canadian Islamic Congress is going to get all worked up over every Conservative screed to hit book shelves they're going to be wasting a lot of their time. Publish a rebuttal. In your own magazine. Shout it to the hills if you want- by attempting to limit the debate, you in fact make Steyn's argument for him. The point should be to prove Steyn wrong, not censor him. (Plus, I don't know why the PC crowd seems to be falling all over itself to protect Muslims from 'hate speech.' We've had piss Christ and the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung and the PC crowd doesn't seem to be all that concerned about offending Christians- in both of those cases, it was all about protecting free speech. Is there a double standard? Just a thought...)
No comments:
Post a Comment