Part 1: Intro and DEARBORN

Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Yes, according to that nation’s Free Press Society. And it’s the same for Dearborn, Michigan, say groups struggling for free speech rights in America’s most Arab enclave.

Working at the East-West interface I’ve had the chance to closely observe and interview leaders with diverse opinions at both these venues. The crux of the matter seems to be a battle between two longstanding values of the West: individual freedom of expression vs. respect for every individual and people group. Is there a solution which can balance the two or one must inevitably dominate the other? These conflicts may provide the answer.

Viewed in context, sparks are bound to arise when people raised in repressive societies are confronted by Freedom of Speech.

Not all nations have Freedom of Speech. When discussing politics and religion with residents in the Middle East and North Africa, we whisper and dart furtive glances – even search for “bugs” – as if we were in a cold war film. Symbols of loyalty, such as photographs of rulers, are prominently displayed in businesses to ward off suspicion, since it is illegal to criticize the ruling elite as well as the religion.

As a child I asked how much money the Queen of England had. In reply a close relative from a Commonwealth nation told me, “It’s not quite a sin to think about such things, but almost.” There was no threat, yet I was well into adulthood before I realize I had internalized this value.

Likewise, we can imagine how difficult it is for Muslims, who have never heard disrespect toward their prophet and were told that such criticism merits death, to hear the worst about him from infidel lips. It would be like a 7 yr old child hearing a drunk curse Santa as a dirty rotten fake.

The converse is often also true. Some of the most outspoken critics of Islam are non-Muslims from Muslim countries. “We have been forced to keep quiet for 1400 years,” they tell me, “now we are in America and we can finally talk back.”

One of them is Sudanese-American George Saieg. On June 17, 2011, when Dearborn police stopped his group from distributing peaceful literature on public land a block from a mosque, he told them, “If you stand against our freedom of speech now, what will you tell your grandchildren when America becomes just like the Middle East?”

Many groups wanting to exercise free speech come to the Arab International Festival in Dearborn. This June, protestors in the festival’s Free Speech Zone held signs with insulting slogans like “Mohammed was a child molester”. Other groups there were quick to distance themselves from such harshness, just as they were from notorious Koran-burner Terry Jones who had visited the town earlier in the week. Yet they recognized the protestors’ rights to speak, and even burn.

Two ironies emerged in Dearborn during this year’s festival of June 17-19. First is that the protestors’ organizer claimed their presence was in retaliation for arresting distributors in prior years. “When you arrest people for distributing literature, you’re going to get people like us,” he said.

The second is that the authorities, ever-vigilant in rooting out what might offend Muslims, largely overlooked violence toward non-Muslims. Water bottles, food and such were hurled not only at the protestors but also an open air preacher with less offensive signs while authorities watched nearby. Would they have done the same if the reverse were true I wonder?

Even after two successful court battles this year championed Freedom of Speech in Dearborn, festival event staff tried to force distributors off of the public sidewalk near the festival. But this time the sheriff stood by the distributors.

Once the official harassment subsided, groups present at the festival proved they could exercise their free speech rights without either obstructing sidewalks or causing disturbances. Nevertheless, there may be a new court case because as Saieg found, the city still restricts free speech in many public places.

Although my writing does expose unpleasantness in Islam, I don’t like offending people. Thus, you won’t see me joining the ranks of those with insulting placards. But does that mean everything I wouldn’t do should be illegal? As I pointed out in a previous Huffington Post article, if we aren’t free to offend, we aren’t really free to speak.

Part 2: DENMARK

“Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.” Danish penal code section 266b.

When I first read this it sounded good. Then I remembered examples to the contrary, and realized that such a law sets up protected classes based upon an ideal that they could never produce anything that must be spoken against. So for protection, a movement could simply garb itself in one of these cloaks and gain impunity from criticism. Brilliant. You can call anything a religion. Thus Denmark legislates niceness in place of freedom and inadvertently creates a dangerous loophole.

Free or nice? Which is more important for a society? Have you ever detected self-pride in voices of those who refuse to look critically at an issue, as if not looking deeply will prevent evil from surfacing? It is not the cats, but the watchdogs that protect homes from harm, including dogs with loud barks and the occasional bite. We should at least listen to them before we throw a shoe.

Europe has an undeniable challenge before it: integrating masses of actively reproducing and slowly assimilating immigrants from cultures dramatically different to its own.

The week of Denmark’s Free Press Society’s May 2011 conference, its president, journalist Lars Hedegaard was convicted of racism for ill-guarded statements on incest made at a Christmas party - a decision being appealed. Yet the tone of the conference I discovered was not one of hate, but of concern for the rights of oppressed minorities on European soil, and protection of the traditional rights and lifestyle of Western Civilization.

Can a group be called racist when, as I discovered, its board members and speakers have close friends and family members of all races and religious backgrounds whose rights they strive to protect? Speakers at their May conference included:

Norwegian bestselling author Hege Storhaug, who spoke out of a broken heart that girls born in her country of foreign ancestry are being shipped overseas into harsh schools or for female genital mutilation. She begs Norway to protect these young citizens just as it would those of Norwegian ancestry.

Former Muslim Wafa Sultan is one of the most powerful speakers I have ever encountered. She transfixed and led the audience from indignation to tears as she described the plight of women in the Middle East. One scarcely breathed. No wonder her television appearances have staggered the Arabic-speaking world.

Professor Hans Jansen gave an academic presentation on the background of the Koran, and ended with a statement that the best thing we can do is tell people that the Koran is unreliable. Considering the theme of my book The Topkapi Secret, how could I disagree?

Finally Lars Hedegaard himself spoke expressing dismay at the condition of Muslim women in his country and around the world. Both during and after the conference he stated that Western Civilization is based on values not accepted by traditional Islam. This worries him for the future of Europe, which in his view is losing its ability to think objectively in favor of being politically correct.

While in Denmark, legislator Mogens Camre gave me a copy of his book Land of Liberty. In it he reminds us that the very prosperity and freedom that attract immigrants to the West are the fruit of root values to protect. As he says,

“We must argue that a culture that develops respect for fundamental human rights and that creates economic and social progress through freedom is more valuable than one that does not… If we choose wrongly, our free societies will cease to exist.”
Terry Kelhawk, June 23, 2011

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here