European Guilt vs Free Speech

The holocaust never occurred, it is a hoax arising from a Jewish conspiracy... Now I don't believe that at all, but at least I can say it, here in America.

I can not legally make that statement in: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland. I can not make that statement even though the European Convention on Human Rights Article 10, Paragraph 1. would seem to give me that right:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

Were I French, with it's 5 million Muslim immigrants, I would be unable to say that I believed that they were ruining our country, that I lamented the Islamization of France.

See the Brigitte Bardot article at: http://foutsc.blogspot.com/2008/04/finally-brave-frenchman-er-woman.html

In addition, the Council of Europe and UN Human Rights Committee have rejected arguments that such speech is protected free speech.

I may not like the current immigration policy of the French government regarding former Muslim colonial possessions, but I dare not voice my opinion lest I be fined and thrown in jail.

This is the danger in the restriction of free speech, and our rights in general.

The authors (one of whom was Jewish) of a Le Monde article were tried and given token fines (1 euro each) for an article critical of Israel that condemned Mr. Sharon for ''oppressing and asphyxiating the Palestinian population.'' One of the passages cited by the court:

''One finds it hard to imagine that a nation of fugitives descended from the people which has been persecuted the longest in the history of humanity, having been subjected to the worst humiliations and the deepest contempt, would be capable of transforming itself in two generations into a 'dominating and self-assured people' and, with the exception of an admirable minority, a contemptuous people taking satisfaction in humiliating others.''

Apparently the court took exception to the phrase 'dominating and self assured people', which ironically came from a speech by Charles De Gaulle following the 1967 war.

While the intent of such 'hate speech' laws is admirable, their effect is not to reduce hate but freedom. They stifle free and democratic debate of the issues, lest anyone 'offend' someone.

It is absurd to operate on the presumption that speech is going to produce irreparable psychological damage to the subjects, or that freedom from 'offense' is a basic human right. I am Irish Catholic... say what you will about the Irish or about Catholics, while I may be offended by your words, I promise your speech lacks the capability to 'incite' me to riot. Be forewarned that I will undoubtedly reply and you will certainly be offended.

Or perhaps I should just sue to get all those darned 'clergy sex abuse' stories out of the news. They are after all denigrating to the vast majority of non-pedophile Catholics and an unworthy stereotype.

So when will I be unable to say that the large numbers of illegal Mexican immigrants have a negative impact on our country and our culture? I certainly couldn't say it in France. When will you be unable to say George Bush or Bill Clinton are criminals?

How much do you value your free speech? Enough to stand up for it? Enough to stand up for the rights of others? Who say things you don't like?

It is easy to defend free speech you agree with. It is honorable to defend free speech you despise.

~Finntann~