Advice from Lebanon
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Defend Free Speech, Not Treason - Some Advice to the West
Speech that incites riot is prohibited. Speech motivating enemy soldiers must be stopped.
Speech costs the most when humans must pay for it with their lives. If Abu Hamza al Masri urges Muslims to commit acts of terror, and they do, he must be silenced. If he believes Islam is at war with the West, regardless of whether the West believes this notion, he is no longer a free citizen. He is committing treason and must be tried, not just deported.
In Lebanon, speech that promotes sectarian violence is banned completely. There are 18 different religious groups living side by side in a country slightly larger than Puerto Rico (three times the size of Rhode Island), and without a dominant religious group.
A fanatic Sunni might believe that the Shia are heretics and that the Bahai and Druze should be killed, but he's not allowed to say it.
Taken to an extreme, this is a country where a Protestant could quite possibly be imprisoned for bashing Catholics.
Is that religious oppression? Marginally. I would rather restrict speech than create an environment conducive to slaughter.
This is the one way the government has made it possible for everyone to live together. Government power to enforce religious civility is one of the things that keeps Lebanon unified. The Netherlands should take note. In Lebanon, calling for an Islamic state is viewed as an act of war by some communities, thus fundamentalist groups are closely monitored or banned. One of the reasons Omar Bakri Muhammad was in London is because his organization, Hezb at Tahrir, was banned in Lebanon. Islamic government stands in diametrical opposition to the Lebanese system, and the majority of Lebanese are very willing to say this publicly.
Muslims can believe that Sharia should be the law, and Maronites can believe that the Pope should be Lebanon's head of state, but using violence physically or in the form of words is strictly forbidden. Should they choose democratic means to put their program in place, their speech still must be controlled so that sectarian chauvinism does not spark violent conflict.
The Muslim revolutionaries want to topple governments to put their system in place because they know they will never convince all Lebanese women to vote clothes onto themselves and Lebanese men to vote ease on their livers. Extremists are not interested in the will of the people, and they have to be stopped for society to function.
The reason Lebanon can get away with laws that ban groups and the West cannot is not because Lebanon is an unwashed, uncivilized place that has no respect for liberalism. It's primarily because the West is too caught up in post-colonial insecurities to do the obvious.
In Lebanon, the Sunni Muslim prime minister comes out against religious fanaticism. In England the descendents of East India Company employees are the ones going after the Muslims, who are descended from the people who did the colonial labor. The insecurity is understandable, but now that people are losing their lives, it's time to come to grips.
It's not going to feel very comfortable banning speech and organizations. You might have to deport some of your homegrown citizens who get swallowed up in this ideology (why do you think Omar Bakri Muhammad isn't in Syria?). But to defend your society, you have to do it.
To stop a man who wants to oppress you is not a case of you oppressing him.
http://lebop.blogspot.com/2005/08/defend-free-speech-not-treason-some.html
Defend Free Speech, Not Treason - Some Advice to the West
Speech that incites riot is prohibited. Speech motivating enemy soldiers must be stopped.
Speech costs the most when humans must pay for it with their lives. If Abu Hamza al Masri urges Muslims to commit acts of terror, and they do, he must be silenced. If he believes Islam is at war with the West, regardless of whether the West believes this notion, he is no longer a free citizen. He is committing treason and must be tried, not just deported.
In Lebanon, speech that promotes sectarian violence is banned completely. There are 18 different religious groups living side by side in a country slightly larger than Puerto Rico (three times the size of Rhode Island), and without a dominant religious group.
A fanatic Sunni might believe that the Shia are heretics and that the Bahai and Druze should be killed, but he's not allowed to say it.
Taken to an extreme, this is a country where a Protestant could quite possibly be imprisoned for bashing Catholics.
Is that religious oppression? Marginally. I would rather restrict speech than create an environment conducive to slaughter.
This is the one way the government has made it possible for everyone to live together. Government power to enforce religious civility is one of the things that keeps Lebanon unified. The Netherlands should take note. In Lebanon, calling for an Islamic state is viewed as an act of war by some communities, thus fundamentalist groups are closely monitored or banned. One of the reasons Omar Bakri Muhammad was in London is because his organization, Hezb at Tahrir, was banned in Lebanon. Islamic government stands in diametrical opposition to the Lebanese system, and the majority of Lebanese are very willing to say this publicly.
Muslims can believe that Sharia should be the law, and Maronites can believe that the Pope should be Lebanon's head of state, but using violence physically or in the form of words is strictly forbidden. Should they choose democratic means to put their program in place, their speech still must be controlled so that sectarian chauvinism does not spark violent conflict.
The Muslim revolutionaries want to topple governments to put their system in place because they know they will never convince all Lebanese women to vote clothes onto themselves and Lebanese men to vote ease on their livers. Extremists are not interested in the will of the people, and they have to be stopped for society to function.
The reason Lebanon can get away with laws that ban groups and the West cannot is not because Lebanon is an unwashed, uncivilized place that has no respect for liberalism. It's primarily because the West is too caught up in post-colonial insecurities to do the obvious.
In Lebanon, the Sunni Muslim prime minister comes out against religious fanaticism. In England the descendents of East India Company employees are the ones going after the Muslims, who are descended from the people who did the colonial labor. The insecurity is understandable, but now that people are losing their lives, it's time to come to grips.
It's not going to feel very comfortable banning speech and organizations. You might have to deport some of your homegrown citizens who get swallowed up in this ideology (why do you think Omar Bakri Muhammad isn't in Syria?). But to defend your society, you have to do it.
To stop a man who wants to oppress you is not a case of you oppressing him.
http://lebop.blogspot.com/2005/08/defend-free-speech-not-treason-some.html
Comments
The whole realm of "hate speech" is fraught with problems. Have you ever listened to Michael Savage. Would you outlaw is attacks on Muslims, gays, attorneys, judges and the ACLU?
While I basically agree with John Stuart Mill's arguments about the marketplace of ideas, I think when people advocate using violence to eradicate other people's rights, they should lose their own rights as a result.
These fanatic religous types are not interested in the "marketplace of ideas." they wish to kill those who disagree with them.
If you think I jumped for joy over the Nazis being defended by the ACLU in Skokie, I didn't.
However, some how our nation has survived with commie pinko liberals, antiwar demonstrators, and the likes of Michael Savage.
I think we need to be very careful about limiting any speech that is not incitement to immediate violence. If a radio talk show host suggested that Ruth Bader Ginsberg should be removed from the court by any possible means, that's getting pretty close to the line. If the host gave out her home address, her route to work, the make of car she drives, the clubs or restaurants she frequents, etc., I think the intent of the speaker is clear. There are enough nuts in the population that hear voices, this is going too far.
However, I don't think we need new laws because they will be overly broad and be used in ways that the drafters never intended.