Islam and Free Speech

Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), has just-released a film called "Fitna" which, he says , is intended to make clear the dangers contained in the Qur'an and Islam.


There used to be a maxim in Common Law "The greater the truth the greater the libel".
Although this particular guideline is outdated, there is a sense in which the Muslim reaction to perceived slurs against Islam illustrates this dictum. Common sense would indicate that not all sections of society have the same "pain threshold" regarding what they would term as insult; the Jews, in particular, have, quite understandably, been sensitive regarding what they perceive as anti-Semitic rhetoric. And it is only reasonable that in a heterogeneous society such sensitivity should be taken into account.

In spite of the outdated legal maxim referred to above, I would consider that the truth is, indeed, an appropriate yardstick with which to measure slights and insults. Thus the sensitivity exhibited by Jews towards Holocaust denial is not, as some Muslims claim, because the Shoah is one of their Holy Cows; but rather because, irrespective of its horror and magnitude, it is a historic event whose veracity is undeniable.

It is a sad fact that the majority of Muslims, who are far from the extremists portrayed in such films as Geert Wilders' and "Submission" by the late Theo Van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, will suffer from being tarred with the fanatics' brush. But these so-called moderates too must bear some of the criticism for not speaking up against the extreme actions of their co-religionists.

If the result is to empower the moderates within Islam, then that will be all to the good.

But experience leads one to fear that the opposite will be the case.

Mayors and Maires

What is the most striking difference between the UK and France these days, at least on the level of Middle Eastern policies? Consider the following two reflections on national/local policies and politics.

Mayor Ken Livingstone of London looks likely to be re-elected to office yet again, with the support of the UK labour government, in spite of - or perhaps because of - being accused of anti-Semitism on more than one occasion (he told two Iraqi Jewish businessmen to "go back to Iran and try their luck with the ayatollah" and proffered a Nazi insult to a Jewish reporter). He has been officially cleared of anti-Semitism, but even he would not apologize for his virulent anti-Israel stance. (Of course, according to the European Union’s
Draft Definition of Anti-Semitism, this is indeed equivalent to being anti-Semitic.)

What would have happened in France? We do not need to speculate. As reported in the French Press (Le Parisien, Figaro, etc) of today (24 March 2008) and national TV media, the Sub Prefect (Sous Prefet -something like a Deputy Mayor) Bruno Guigue of Saintes (Charente-Maritime) has been dismissed from office by the French Minister of the Interior, Michèle Alliot-Marie. His offence? He “criticized, without subtlety, the US and Israel” in an internet publication destined for French-speaking Muslims, a diatribe characterized as being “violently anti-Israeli”.

What about Freedom of Speech ? The concept of Freedom of Speech does not extend to the Nazi-like filth that is currently evidenced all over the Arab world and, unhappily, extending in more nuanced form to the British media. Voltaire’s dictum that “I disapprove of your views, but would fight to the death for your right to express them“ must be contextualized by Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes’ injunction “not to falsely cry fire in a crowded theatre”. We are all living in a crowded theatre of global conflict , and inflammatory views such as that of Bruno Guigue, must be firmly stamped upon.

The UK – please note.

Spring is in the Air?

Like all love stories, that between Israel and France has had its ups and downs. Perhaps the nadir was when , after the 1967 Six-Day War, Le Grand General , echoing God, called the Jews a stiff-necked people ("le peuple juif, sûr de lui meme et dominateur" ) - or perhaps De Gaulle thought that God was only echoing him.

Prior to that, France, as Israel's main arms supplier and early provider of its nuclear facilities, could claim to be Israel's greatest friend. After the De Gaulle reversal the tilt towards the Arab nations caused something of a refroidissement in relations between the two countries, which continued somewhat unabated until the end of the Chirac presidency.

Comes Sarkozy, and Spring seems to be in the air as far as this particular romance is concerned. Significantly, the first Head of State to be invited on a presidential visit to the Elysée is Israel's Shimon Peres. French TV currently abounds with such Jewish luvvies as singers Patrick Bruel and Enrico Macias supping with the presidents. Peres himself was categorical “No country has aided Israel as much as France.” And this year's Paris International Book Fair has Israel as its Guest of Honour, greeting the inevitable Arab boycott of the event with a Gallic shrug.

Like all relationships, there is always the danger of spurned lovers lurking in the background. The amount of hate-mail directed at France emanating from certain American Jewish sources continues to be disturbing. And like all irrationalities, this cannot be quelled by facts.

Let us hope that this particular affair is more than a springtime romance, and heralds a new era of entente cordiale between two mature and consenting adult democracies.