Your Right-Hand Man: As Geert Wilders falls, so does free speech

Cher has been arrested and deported by U.S. Officials because of her offensive statements. The former singer now gay icon was handcuffed as soon as she stepped off the plane in L.A. following her third post-retirement world tour. She was read her rights, handcuffed and sent on a plane for these remarks:

“I just don’t understand how anyone would want to be a Republican…I don’t understand. If you’re poor, if you’re any kind of minority…If you’re not a rich born-again-Christian, I don’t get it.”

Republicans cheered on the efforts of federal officials, calling it “a victory for the rights of conservatives.” Next on the list of GOP targets appears to be Michael Moore who has offended gun owners, Bill Maher who has offended anyone religious and Brad Pitt, who has offended anyone that likes to be entertained at the movie theater with Benjamin Button. Cher was declared an enemy of…oh wait. In the United States we are allowed the freedom of speech under the First Amendment. In our country Cher is allowed to have her opinion, no matter how silly. Another example is Ward Churchill, a celebrated leftist academic who said one of the most offensive things ever: that the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks deserved to be killed. If offending someone is grounds for punishment, Churchill should be bludgeoned to death with a wrench (I admit that sentence felt good). However, offending someone isn’t a crime. Liberals in America often forget this, equating hurt feelings with actual criminal activity.

This over-extension of political correctness could have very negative consequences if it spreads to America the way it has saturated Europe. There is a creeping epidemic of intolerance when it comes to different opinions about Islam in Europe right now, and the persecution of those who voice a negative one. (I specifically say Islam because that is where the free speech line crossed. Other religions don’t have nearly the level of potency when it comes to political outrage).

Before I continue, I must make a qualifier here; I don’t dislike Muslim people. I have close family friends who are Muslim and I love them dearly. I understand that Islam is a mostly peaceful religion and there are a lot of (albeit quiet) moderate Muslims who seek harmony.

What I do take serious issue with is a theocracy of any kind, and government being influenced by one particular interest group. In that light, what is happening in Europe in regard to Geert Wilders is a travesty. The former Dutch politician and critic of Islam is being treated as a criminal in the United Kingdom. On Feb. 13, U.K. Secretary Jacqui Smith banned Wilders from entering the U.K., labeling him an “undesirable person.”

“The Government opposes extremism in all its forms... and that was the driving force behind tighter rules on exclusions for unacceptable behavior,” said a government spokesperson.

However, Wilders didn’t do anything illegal. Wilders has made some controversial statements about Islam, many which can be seen as offensive, such as stating that “the Quran is fascist,” and that the book incites hatred. Wilders is most well known for making a film titled “Fitna,” which alleges that Quranic teachings lead to terrorism. While these things can certainly be offensive to Muslims, there is a clear definition between opinion and action. Wilders never physically harmed anyone Muslim and he has never committed any acts of violence. That would be like the U.S. deporting KKK or PETA members. People don’t like those groups, but simply because they are in the minority doesn’t mean they can’t express their offensive opinions.

Also disturbing is how the U.K. is apparently bending to a minority that opposes another minority opinion. One can detect this in the subtle wording of the letter written to Wilders by the British ambassador to the Netherlands, Irving Jones. Jones said that Wilders’ entry “would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the U.K.” Why would it threaten harmony in the U.K. if someone who was anti-Islam entered? Would it be for the same reason that TV stations and newspapers are afraid to show the image of Mohammed? Could it be because Nazir Ahmed, a Muslim member of the House of Lords had threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Wilders from entering Parliament? Simply because Islamic extremists are a short-fused bunch gives them no more protection from being offended. Furthermore, freedom of speech doesn’t mean you are free to just say niceties. Regardless of the Islam aspect, it is clearly dangerous for the U.K. government to act on behalf of a minority that doesn’t like what someone says. If we begin to treat critics of religions like criminals, where is the line? Do we start prosecuting people who offend anyone? How about the display in Luther’s library that equated President Bush with a Nazi? That artist had the right to think that and display it, and was revered at Luther. Would an artistic representation that criticized Islam be allowed?

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband used one of the most often presented arguments against offensive opinion, “you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” The analogy means that you can’t incite dangerous controversy in a society with your speech. However, what if a patron smells smoke? If the theater patron perceives a fire, don’t they have the right to yell? My point is not that Islam is bad, but that it is simply necessary to be able to speak freely about any culture if we are to live in a society without tyranny.

There is nothing wrong with being Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Hindu. America is great because it was a melting pot of cultures, not because it made exceptions to free speech, or any other exceptions for that matter. Every minority group should be treated the same, and protected, under the law. As criticism against Wilders snowballs in Europe, we need to keep in mind that separation between church and state is something else that built America.