re: "Punching Down"

Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna (" At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war. ") provided examples of why free speech rights shouldn't be optional for governments to respect.

Money quote(s):

"Fear is in the air.

Fear of what Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff had to say about Islam prompted the Austrian authorities to prosecute her for “denigrating” the Religion of Peace."

There are crucial differences between the free speech rights of the Anglospheric tradition, enshrined in our Second Amendment, and those permitted under continental European constitutions. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is permitted, for instance, when the movie theater is actually on fire.

"Fearing the truths told by Geert Wilders, the Dutch government prosecuted the PVV leader, and when that failed, prosecuted him again.

In Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Australia, and Belgium, ordinary citizens and politicians alike have been harassed or prosecuted for speaking out against Islamization and mass immigration."

Some opinions are clearly too dangerous for citizens or even lawmakers to possess or express. Perhaps expressing the desire for Holland to remain a country inhabited by the Dutch is example of this.

"(W)hen the decent law-abiding people are thrust aside, driven into obscurity, and jailed, what sort of activists will remain?

The current system is nearing its endgame, and will not persist much longer. Who will take the reins of power when the dominant paradigm falls?"

Both Ralph Peters and Tom Kratman have explored this "what-if" and neither path is pretty.

"(B)y denying decent, honorable, law-abiding people the right to preserve themselves, their families, and their way of life — the Powers That Be have cleared the deck for the emergence of forces that are much darker, much more ruthless, and far beyond their ability to control.

Something wicked this way comes."

1/4

re: "Does the acquittal of Geert Wilders signal a changing Netherlands?"

Robert Zeliger at PASSPORT ("A Blog By The Editors Of Foreign Policy") marked a significant development in Holland.

Money quote(s):

"The Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders has called the Quran a "fascist book" that ought to be banned. He has referred to the Prophet Mohammed as "the devil," and said all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands should be stopped and immigrants currently there should be paid to leave. He's said women who wear the hijab should have to pay a tax and if Muslims continue immigrating, it would mean the end "European and Dutch civilization as we know it.""

Clearly offensive speech (at least to Muslims, and certainly at least some others) but Constitutionally-protected speech in an American context. It's nice to see this sort of thing (free speech, that is) catch on in foreign parts.

"(H)e was acquitted on charges of inciting racial hatred."

If a member of parliament can't speak freely, what hope is there for the average citizen?

"(T)he truth is that the social and political ground have been shifting in the supposedly tolerant society for years. Last year, Wilders's Party for Freedom won 15 percent of the vote in national elections, making it the third largest in parliament. And his ideas are slowly creeping into mainstream politics: The Netherlands has some of the strictest immigration laws in Europe, and has banned face-covering attire like the niqab.

The current government depends on Wilders and his party to remain in power. Though not formally part of government, they are at the very least a silent partner. Without their votes, the minority-government wouldn't be able to pass its legislation."

Good political analysis, answering the question: "So what?"

"Wilders's judge today said that while some of his statements were "crude and denigrating," they were nevertheless protected speech. But the decision might widen the scope of the debate on multiculturalism in Dutch society, and embolden Wilders to take his anti-Islam and anti-immigration crusade further."

Widening "the scope of the debate on multiculturalism" should be considered a feature, not a bug. Why should a social construct or consensus (which is apparently far from universally held) be exempt from debate?

re: "OIC Demands Action Against Free Speech"

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs understands that compromising on Constitutional principles will only encourage our enemies.

Money quote(s):

"Qur'an-burning is a stupid idea, of course, but is protected under the laws of free speech. The burning of books is wrong in principle: the antidote to bad speech is not censorship or book-burning, but more speech. Open discussion. Give-and-take. And the truth will out. There is no justification for burning books. If free men are to be free and not live under Islamic law (sharia), then this man can do this if he wants, and his freedom and rights should be protected. Islamic supremacists should not be allowed a victory for their violent intimidation -- if these people want to burn a book, they're free to do so.

If they had burned a Bible, no one would be threatening violence against them.

The Islamic warning that this will threaten American troops is just another terror tactic. This is based on the assumption that they are fighting us because we are doing things they don't like. Actually they are fighting us because of imperatives within the Islamic faith. They will never like us unless we convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. If we stop doing things they dislike, where will we draw the line? How far will Sharia advance in the U.S., with Americans afraid to stop its advance for fear of offending Muslims and stirring them up to violence? The Muslim Students Association is already pushing for halal cafeterias, segregated dorms, segregated gym facilities on campus. This is incompatible with American freedom. We have to draw the line.

I will tell you this, Islamic law (sharia) cannot, must not, and will not have its way over our free speech. That is worth fighting for, worth dying for."