From the time Greek philosopher, Socrates, was put on trial for corrupting gullible minds to today's blasphemous assaults, freedom of speech has been an evolving right that depends on time — defined, allowed and proscribed by those in command.
Today, Europeans are very engaged in a “social debate” surrounding freedom of speech. But anyone who thinks free speech is an absolute right in Europe is horribly wrong.
Try and discuss or, deny the ‘holocaust' freely, you will be swooped upon, in Europe. Germany and Austria will even jail you up to five years.
Newspaper editors exercise good judgment, every day, when it comes to printing material so as not to cause offence.
In Belgium, the long deceased comic book artist Mr Hergé is on trial for his suspected racist book Tintin in the Congo, first published in 1930. Mr Hergé later disowned the book, saying that he “was fed on the prejudices of the dirigent society in which I moved,” but the plaintiff wants it banned from bookstores.
Mr Geert Wilders, Islamic-critical leader of the Party for Freedom, is on trial for “inciting religious hatred” towards Muslims, Moroccans and other non-Western groups in the Netherlands. Mr Wilders is under 24-hour protection following death threats.
He has frequently referred to Islam as a “fascist” faith and has equated the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf . The specific charges against the parliamentarian stem from comments made in his campaign “stop the Islamisation of the Netherlands.”
Considered as one of the most powerful men in the Dutch parliament, Mr Wilders is pleading to the Court to drop the charges against him in order to “protect free speech”. That definitely may not come about.
Holland is not the only European country combating the exercise of uninhibited free speech. Several Europeans in other EU nations have run afoul of alleged abuse of free speech.
Unrestrained Free Speech
The European Convention on Human Rights, which legally binds all EU states and supersedes domestic law, explicitly guarantees “the right to freedom of expression” including “the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.”
This provision is in keeping with the central instruments of international human rights law to which Europeans adhere to.
Yet Europe's interpretation of unrestrained free expression has wandered and is still evolving from its clear-cut original intent. European governments have been consistently crushing analogous rights and, outlawing publication of hate speech.
In Austria, for example, Member of Parliament Ms Susanne Winter was convicted for the “crime” of saying that “in today's system” the Prophet Muhammad would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to a six-year-old child. She was also convicted for “incitement” for warning that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.”
In Italy, journalist and author Ms Oriana Fallaci was taken to court for writing that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.”
Animal rights activist Ms Brigitte Bardot was convicted in June 2008 by a Paris court for “inciting racial hatred” for demanding that Muslims anaesthetise animals before slaughtering them.
Conviction and sentencing of the British historian Mr David Irving to three years imprisonment by an Austrian court for Holocaust denial is the most current annotation to European clampdown on unrepressed freedom of expression over the past decade.
Last year, the Catholic Church won a court injunction to ban a fashion advertisement based on the ‘Last Supper'. The judge said the message was “an ingratuitous ... act of intrusion on people's innermost belief”.
Europe is generally wary of ‘wild' free speech than elsewhere in the world.
Laws against inciting hatred and violence have sprung up in countries such as France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark, resulting in criminal cases, convictions, and, in the case of foreigners, expulsions.
Anti-hate legislation
In Germany, anti-hate legislation that took effect five years ago has been used to rein in Muslim preachers who call for terrorist attacks or, propagate hate.
In Sweden, meanwhile, the most prominent case has involved a clergyman accused of inciting hatred against homosexuals.
In Finland, the law also makes it possible to penalise entire groups of individuals that may share a common racialist view in cyberspace, whether they share it out among the public or on different forums on the Internet.
This means that a xenophobic or, racist impulse will be a legal factor in the courts of all the EU-countries. Thought-crime is almost a reality in Europe. Racist bent of mind is a crime, in itself.
It means that even if you would have a Web site or, a blog where you simply collect news about a community and display them publicly, if you are seen to have a racist ‘itch' in doing that, it becomes a crime.