Free Speech Revisited

Writing in J’accuse (and on the Indy) almost a year ago I discussed the court procedures against Norman Lowell, Malta’s token example of far-right politics.  In that article entitled The Cost of Free Speech I argued that cases such as Lowell’s are best judged by the public and outside the courts of law:

The man who advocates the use of eugenics, leaving Africans in Africa and speaks in “racialist” terms in the mistaken illusion that it is in any way different from “racist” should be left to speak his mind. So long as there is no incitement to hatred we should all be allowed to see the sorry plan as it is. The people have judged Lowell and I am confident that they are fully capable of judging once again without a court of law.

That was almost a year ago. The Lowell Court Saga continues and risks turning the outspoken rightist into a martyr. It’s not that the laws are wrong but that a heavy handed use of them undermines their very purpose of educating through tolerance. The UK is currently faced with a similar dilemma. Geert Wilders, leader of the right-wing Freedom Party of the Netherlands has been denied entry into the UK.

The problem with Wilders is that he depicts islam as monolithic, monocausal and monomaniacal and claims that its founder is a terrorist while comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf. His is a fight against the “Islamisation” of Europe.  We’ve heard all this before and this time the UK chose to block entry to this elected politician from another EU member state. Once again the wrong message has been sent out. Here is what the Times (UK) editorial (Let Him In) had to say about the ban:

The Home Office judges that Mr Wilders’ presence in the UK would threaten public order and has banned him from entering the country. Last year Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim cleric with inflammatory views on Jews and homosexuals, was denied a visa to visit the UK. Mr Wilders’ politics are no less inflammatory.

But that is not enough to warrant a ban. Demagogic speech is a test of the liberal political rights on which the culture of a liberal democracy rests. Let Mr Wilders exploit them. His political posturing is so self-evidently preposterous that, if he is permitted to speak freely, he will be arraigned before the best court in the land – the court of public opinion.

No doubt here at J’accuse we agree. The struggle against intolerance is not won with the use of the same medicine. Let the people be the judge. They have spoken before and will do so again.

UPDATE: One hour ago (15.29 GMT) Geert Wilders tried to defy the ban and landed in Heathrow. He is currently being held and questioned by Immigration Authorities (BBC).