Abusing freedom of speech

IN the wake of the terrorist attacks in France, a number of European former heads of states and legislators have come up with a bold plan to outlaw the types of hate speech that led to violence.
The Guardian reported recently that the proposed legislation has received the backing of Europe’s Jewish leaders and aims at combating anti-Semitism. The proposed law for the European Union also includes protection of all religions, including making it illegal to ban the burqa (veil).
The proposed law would criminalize violating the rights of individuals on cultural, ethnic, gender and religious grounds. It goes so far as to also make it illegal to practice female genital mutilation, forced marriages, polygamy and Holocaust denial. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the language that includes the term “group libel,” in which it makes it illegal to engage in public defamation of religious or ethnic groups.
The legislation covers a broad area — perhaps too broad — and the language is probably too vague to have an actual chance of gaining passage. But it should spark dialogue of what it means to attack verbally, in print and online, groups that have been marginalized by society. France has an 8 percent Muslim population, much of which lives in poverty, yet has been the target of frequent attacks in the media, most infamously by Charlie Hebdo.
The proposed group libel laws would criminalize Charlie Hebdo’s brand of satire. But western conservatives certainly will howl over such a law, claiming that it violates the right to free speech. Indeed, the proposed law, if enacted, would curtail free speech as practiced in most western countries.
But there comes a point when such satire serves no useful purpose other than to provoke a disenfranchised community. Occasional cartoons and articles lampooning religious and cultural groups are part of western tradition in the press, but constant barrage of attacks as practised by Charlie Hebdo are only published to inflame those groups. Once media organizations and individuals abuse their free speech rights, there must be consequences for those actions.
While France prides itself on its history and as a freedom-loving republic it can be strangely hypocritical in its application of free speech rights. It gives publications like Charlie Hebdo carte blanche to mock religious minorities, but the mayor of a Paris suburb banned last month from cinemas a Muslim-produced film that satirizes jihadists (the film has since been screened in Paris). French law authorities are also investigating an 8-year-old boy who refused to stand for a moment of silence for the victims of the Paris massacre and had made statements supporting terrorists.
Terrorism and violence against marginalized religious and ethnic groups will continue, if not escalate, unless governments address the abuse of free speech rights and the inconsistent application to who is entitled to such rights.
The men and women behind the proposal for group libel laws may have gone to the extreme in their desire to eliminate the abuse of the marginalized, but it’s not far-fetched to consider that abusing minorities has consequences. The journalists murdered in Paris did not deserve to die, but the reality is that when a community is pushed around long enough it will lash out.
According to the 12-page document proposing the group libel law, “Tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a group who wish to benefit from tolerance must show it to society at large, as well as to members of other groups and to dissidents or other members of their own group. “There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: That freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.”