Hate-Speech Laws Aren’t the Answer to Islamic Extremism; They’re Part of the Problem

In 2008, the EU mandated religious hate-speech laws, with European officials indignantly declaring that there is “no right to religious insult.” More revealingly, one official European commission delicately explained that this measure was taken to “preserve social peace and public order” in light of the “increasing sensitivities” of “certain individuals” who “have reacted violently to criticism of their religion.”

Europe was frightened and wanted to cool down its angry Muslim populations and appease the censorship lobby that claims to represent them in the 56-member-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Since 2004, it had seen the assassination of Theo van Gogh in an Amsterdam street for his and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s film on abuses against Muslim women; worldwide Muslim riots and economic boycotts over an obscure Danish newspaper’s caricatures of the Islamic prophet Mohammed; and yet more rioting and murders after Pope Benedict presented a paper to an academic audience at Regensburg University that questioned Islam’s position on reason. The subjective hate-speech laws were intended to placate those — including Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who in 1989 issued a fatwa against novelist Salman Rushdie — who demand that Europe police its own citizens for conformity to Islamic blasphemy codes. European leaders insisted that this could be accomplished while somehow still upholding Western principles of free speech.

These hate-speech laws have failed in both aims. Islamist extremism continues to grow in Europe, while speech critical of Islam is undertaken at ever greater personal risk, including risk of criminal prosecution. Some are so intimidated that they remain silent even when it is their duty to speak up. The gang rapes of 1,400 British girls in Rotherham by men of Pakistani origin went unreported for 16 years reportedly because officials were reluctant to say something critical of Muslims, who were the perpetrators in that case.

  • Alain

    This was solely done to protect Islam. Had Islam not been present these laws of the Dark Ages would never have even been considered. Another reason I call the EU, Evil United.

    • That is a good name for them. I anticipate my own arrest at some point in the future. Our political class has turned on its own people.

      • Uncle_Waspy

        Arrested for badthink, Cat? The pattern thus far has been for the state pc ministries not to arrest heretics, but to bankrupt them via kangaroo courts.

      • Linda1000

        Read what the Palestinan journalists wrote to Hollande about Abbas being invited to Paris.

      • DMB

        I hope if it does happen God forbid it won’t be anytime in the near future.

      • moraywatson

        There is no law against disparaging someone else’s politics. You do not have to cede that religion has anything to with islam. I devoutly believe that islam has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with totalitarian political ambition. Others may or may not agree, so be it.

        • occupant 9

          That won’t protect you or me because officially, Islam is the religion of peace. Don’t believe your own lyin’ eyes.

          That we know the open secret is why we are dangerous, why this blog is dangerous and ultimately why, unless there’s a great awakening within our political class, BFC is not wrong that he may yet be arrested; certainly charged and taken to the so-called HRC, which seems solely to exist to protect and promote Islam.

          If our government wanted to understand the threat they place us all in, they wouldn’t be fasttracking Muslim immigration, let alone INCREASING it to never before levels.

          At any time, because of this, our nation will sacrifice any numbers of innocent citizens to a series of probable scenarios from a slaughter in a preschool, hospital or shopping mall, ongoing, and increasing … until Muslims stop it … which is never.

          That’s the risk Muslim immigration brings. Has there ever been an immigrant group that has such barbaric baggage?

          • moraywatson

            The “open secrets” are the result of the exercise of freedom of expression. The islamic cat is already more than half way out of the bag. The danger at this point does not derive so much from describing islam, talking about its prophette, or even mocking it, but in being in its wounded path.
            We need to denormalize islam, to declaw it. BCF does an excellent job in nurturing that process (as do many other fine blogs and news sources) by providing the truth, the forums for discussing the truth, and perhaps most importantly the assurance that others share our understanding of those truths, and that we are not islamophobes but islamorealists.
            I am ready to have my say, and to argue that islamic collective rights must never trump my individual rights and freedoms. I am ready to rebuke the proposition that I am required to view islam as a religion when I am confronted with it just because others do so, regardless of their numbers.
            And I strongly believe that my opinions and the way they are expressed are neither criminal acts nor violations of our detestable HRC’s. And I believe the same with regards to the content of BCF.

  • Tom Forsythe

    An essential fact has been lost in the coverage of the Charlie Hebdoe terror attack: it was never about the cartoons. When the terrorists went abroad to get their training from al Qaeda, they didn’t know who their target would be; they just wanted to engage in jihad.

    Had Charlie Hebdoe only printed cartoons about fuzzy bunnies and unicorns, al Qaeda would have attacked the French National Assembly, or a cafe, or simply decapitated a soldier walking down the sidewalk. Charlie Hebdoe was simply moved to the front of the line.

    Anyone who thinks that they can avoid an Islamic attack simply by not being rude to them, they are living in a fantasy world. They would shoot up the CBC just as soon as Sun News.

  • Mickey Oberman

    Assuming this article is correct.
    A realistic answer, please.

    • Xavier

      Free speech, gun rights, and closed borders.

    • moraywatson

      Islam has to be denormalized. So I agree with Xavier on all three of his choices: Free speech, gun rights, and closed borders to totalitarians.

    • Frau Katze

      Stop Muslim immigration. One might reconsider if they change…that would take several generations.