In 2012, the Institute For Public Affairs published an article entitled "The Soviet Origins of Hate-Speech Laws." It outlines how the initial efforts of Western countries to enshrine free speech into international law was opposed by the Soviet Union and other tyrannical countries which, over the years introduced restrictions on speech, often set out as restrictions on hate and discrimination. Yet, as the authors observe:
... But we must not take them at face value. The concept of ‘hate speech’ (and the concepts which are drawn from it, such as group defamation) was deliberately and explicitly political. Article 20 has its origins in a clash between two worldviews—that held by Western capitalist countries which supported individual rights and liberties, and that held by the Communist bloc, which did not.
It did not end with the declarations and agreements on human rights. Over objections from Western powers that it was inappropriate and unnecessary to use speech laws to legislate morality, the protections of speech under international law was whittled away. The article notes, for instance, that "[t]he same occurred during the drafting of the International Convention for the Elimination of all Racial Discrimination. Here the restriction on freedom of speech is even more strident. All signatories must ‘declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination.’"
The article wraps up:
In 1948, as the Soviet Union was trying to place restrictions on speech in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Gulag system held 2.2 million people. The year the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was approved by the United Nations, 1966, was the same year that two satirists, Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel, were put on trial, sparking the late Soviet dissident movement. ‘It is a sad reflection on Europe’, writes the Danish human rights advocate Jacob Mchangama, ‘that the increasing emphasis on criminalizing words that wound, offend, or hurt is the brainchild of the very totalitarian states with which Western European states were locked in an ideological battle during the Cold War.’ The human rights movement to restrict hate speech and racial discrimination was an ideological power play by the Communist Bloc that was looking for human rights law to approve the suppression of political dissent. The adoption of hate speech restrictions was not intended to liberate minorities (as so many contemporary human rights advocates claim), but to restrain democrats.
In the decade following the two conventions, Western countries adopted their own forms of racial discrimination laws which prohibited, to varying degrees, ‘hatred’ or ‘discrimination’. The United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Europe adopted prohibitions to protect racial or other groups. Of the major Western nations, only the United States now has no prohibition against hate speech.
Understanding the origin of hate speech laws and their purpose--to protect dictators and tyrants--is key to understanding the prosecution and conviction of former Belgian politician "Dries Van Langenhove of hate speech for a lecture in which he presented data and arguments about racial differences, migration and gender."According to the article:
Van Langenhove was found guilty on two counts under Belgium’s 1981 Anti-Racism Law: Incitement to hatred or violence against a group on grounds of nationality, so-called race, skin colour, origin or ethnic descent (charge A), and dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred (charge C). He was acquitted on the gender-related charge (B).
And what were the grounds for this.
- "Van Langenhove argued that differences between groups are not primarily the result of structural racism but rather stem from inherent group differences, a perspective that was presented as part of a broader critique of multiculturalism and progressive policies."
- "He made the observation that people of colour generally are worse off than white people, something his political detractors also claim, though they disagree about the root causes."
- "Van Langenhove also linked mass migration to declining school standards, insecurity, prison overcrowding and strain on social security."
- "He dismissed the prevailing explanation of structural racism, stating: 'You can almost not blame them for thinking that way, because their most fundamental premises, their framework, that of egalitarianism. Once you start with that, you can’t build anything on it, because it’s already wrong from the start. These people are not equal, they are not equal and they will never be equal'."
This was too much for the judges presiding over the case:
In its verdict, the court stated that Van Langenhove’s arguments were not merely controversial but crossed into criminal territory by promoting hatred and racial superiority.
The judges wrote that “For an act to be punishable, it is not necessary for the defendant to have openly incited others to commit specific acts of hatred or violence… It is sufficient that others are incited to adopt a general attitude of intolerance or aversion towards the targeted group of persons.”
The judges acknowledged that political speech enjoys strong protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Belgian Constitution, but ruled that Van Langenhove’s remarks were criminal.
They concluded he had the specific intent to incite hatred, dismissing his disclaimers (such as welcoming everyone to his youth projects regardless of background) as attempts to shield himself from prosecution. The court held that his overall message promoted a hierarchy of groups and attributed societal problems to the presence of certain populations.
You will note that the court was not saying that Van Langenhove incited violence against immigrant groups, but incited his listeners to have thoughts and beliefs other than those approved by the government.
But, again, the purpose of hate speech laws is not to protect people but to protect governments. In this case, to protect government programs and policies concerning immigration, criminal justice, and so on, from public criticism. The question that needs asking is why such a critique not allowed. Is it because there is some nefarious plot that requires Western nations to be overrun by migrants or is it more banal such as protecting politicians and government workers from losing their jobs? Or just a general practice of reflexively squashing dissent not matter what form it takes?
Paul Joseph Watson also has some thoughts about this case in the video below. But as he notes, the prosecution was not required to prove that anything that Van Langenhove asserted was false. "Under the law, merely suggesting that increased diversity leads to anything other than wondrous benefits to society is a criminal offense. For Van Langenhov to have committed a crime, it is not necessary for him to have incited concrete acts of hate or violence. It suffices that others are incited to take on a general attitude of intolerance or disapproval regarding a group protected under the criteria of the anti-racism law. Yes, in Belgium, it's literally a crime to say that diversity isn't our greatest strength."
VIDEO: "He Said The Unspeakable"
m o d e r n i t y (7 min.)
No comments:
Post a Comment