Netherlands Arrests Cartoonist: Claims Not to Suppress Free Expression
A Dutch political cartoonist was arrested this week on suspicion of insulting people because of their race or religion through his work, authorities said Friday. The artist, who works under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot because he’s received death threats. Here’s a relatively tame example of his work:
Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports “Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin says he does not believe the case has anything to do with suppressing free expression.” I guess Nekschot just needs to express himself in the proper way authorized by the Justice Ministry. I hadn’t realized that the Taliban had taken over the Netherlands. No wonder we can’t find Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden; we’re looking on the wrong continent!
I find it ironic that those who claim to value tolerance are in fact unable to tolerate any opinion that deviates from their own. More at The Razor.
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
21 comments
Is hate an opinion? I’m not saying this man should have been arrested, but the way hate speech is elevated and enshrined in these debates drives me nuts.
My issue with the johnny-come-latelys of free speech advocacy is this: they never come out in defense of the journalists, poets and artists who are arrested and tortured under repressive regimes every single day. They only come out in defense of smut. When an Arab journalist–who has a much better shot at inducing change in the Muslim world than some satirist with an agenda–is tossed into Sig’n Tura in Cairo, there might be a hat-tip in a few blogs, but that’s it. But when a white man gets in trouble for drawing nasty, hateful, demeaning pictures of non-white people, there’s an international uproar.
To me, that doesn’t look like a debate over free speech. That looks like plain old racism.
And before anyone accuses me of making this into some obscure religious argument about iconoclasm or the superiority of Islam or something, let me say this: if this man was arrested for making a controversial film about the life of the Prophet–akin, let’s say, to The Last Temptation of Christ–I’d be lobbying vigorously on his behalf right now.
Is hate an opinion?
What else is it?
…the way hate speech is elevated and enshrined in these debates drives me nuts.
Perhaps it isn’t the debate, it’s the subject. Defining what is and what is not hate speech can give one a headache.
My issue with the johnny-come-latelys of free speech advocacy…
I hope this isn’t referring to me. I’ve been advocating free speech rights since I was in high school. I’ve also written in support of foreign journalists in their home countries.
However you leap right over the point as you hop to your conclusion of "racism": the Netherlands is supposed to be one of the freest societies on the planet. Mention Amsterdam and what comes to mind? I’d like to think it would be some of the finest museums in the world; instead many (like me I’ll admit) think red light district and pot bars.
If speech isn’t protected in one of the freest societies in the world, how can we expect it to become established in oppressive societies?
You then cite the Last Temptation movie - which some Christians took as hate speech, although that term wasn’t commonly used in 1988 when Scorcese’s film came out. Van Gogh’s movie; Hirsi Ali’s writings; Mel Gibson’s the Passion; the Mohammed cartoons. All of these can be viewed as hate speech by one group or another.
And that’s the crux of the problem: what you see as art others can see as hate speech. There is no absolute meaning of the term, and any definition will end up undermining one of the most basic of human rights.
This also crosses into the realm of hate crimes - which I also oppose for similar reasons.
As Dean has written here before, the solution to hate speech is more speech. If I find Rosie O’Donnell offensive, which I do, I write about her. I satirize her. I make fun of her - or I ignore her. But I don’t want to see her imprisoned, and as a classic liberal would defend her right to say anything.
I get what Willow’s saying to a certain extent, although I must say that here on DW we’re pretty consistently pro-free-speech period. I do get a little tired, though, of the examples immediately bubbling to the top of some people’s conscience if Islam is involved one way or the other, while in the meantime, other incidents just as bad or worse get ignored by a lot of bloggers because it doesn’t fit in with their excessive need to paint Muslims as dark satanic forces because they’re Muslims.
In a completely different vein:
In the United States we are a little different in our attitudes about certain civil rights than people in Europe. For example, "separation of church and state" is a very American concept. Countries like the UK and the Scandinavian countries and quite a few others have actual official state churches, typically some variety of old-line Protestant. At various times Italy and France have been officially Catholic, but they change their Constitutions about as often as they issue new postage stamps in those countries so I can’t recall offhand if either is officially Catholic at the moment–wait about five minutes and they will be again anyway.
I mention this to illustrate that there’s a marked difference there about certain rights; freedom of religion for them is typically *not* defined as separation of church and state. Those are completely separate discussions for them. Indeed, that’s why it’s often referred to as "Freedom of Conscience" instead of Freedom of Religion over there.
In a similar vein, frequently other European nations do not have something they call "Freedom of Speech." They often call it the Freedom to Criticize, and I imagine there are at least some conservatives in America who wish the U.S. Founders had used that language, because such language is much more rarely used to claim that strippers and porn merchants have a right to peddle their wares in public, because while it’s not *too* hard to spin the word "speech" into "expression" and thereby make a "right" out of all sorts of things, it’s much harder to spin "criticize" into anything other than political speech.
Of course, the freedom to criticize will wind up with a different history of jurisprudence behind it, as will other national cultures, but, I’m betting that in a lot of European nations, the freedom to criticize is generally understood to mean criticizing specific government officials and public figures and the parties they are associated with, and therefore, from that perspective, it’s much easier for them to say that "hate speech" is not protected since it’s not political criticism it’s just slandering innocents.
I think this is part of what the Canadians are wrestling with, since their own Constitution, I believe, has a Freedom to Criticize Government Officials, and not a broad Freedom of Speech (but don’t quote me on that if I’ve gotten it wrong, I only speak limited Canadian).
Hate speech laws would undoubtedly be about as convoluted and hard to argue about in those countries as arguing about whether or not porn qualifies as free speech or not here. They probably go back and forth on it a lot: is it legitimately within the spirit of the freedom of criticism to demean broad swaths of innocent people? If yes, then you shouldn’t outlaw it, but if no, then such laws should be forbidden.
By the way, not long ago I saw a pretty interesting documentary on the Netherlands and how they became the porn capital of Europe. Believe it or not, they had extensive national debates about it with a lot of acrimony, and finally their parliament (or whatever they call it) basically legalized it all by democratic action, not by court cases.
It’s interesting how much just one word can change an entire debate and frame of reference, isn’t it?
Willow,
I agree with what you are saying, but then shouldn’t you join Scott (and others) in solidarity on this issue, and use that common ground as a jumping-off point for explorations of speech repression in Egypt and elsewhere?
Scott,
also worth noting is that Nekschot has already been released, and his arrest is being roundly criticized from within the Netherlands (or so nekschot’s wikipedia article would have one believe).
My friend Jack takes issue with my characterizing the usage of hate speech laws as a liberal device. He zeroes in on this sentence:
Seeing the Netherlands, a country where drugs and the sex trade are all but formally legalized, arresting an artist in the 21st Century only proves that liberals are a greater threat to classical Liberal values like the freedoms of speech and expression than conservatives.
Poor word choice on my part. My point was that in the 1980’s the threat to censorship came from the Right Wing - think Attorney General Ed Meese and the nationwide crackdown on pornography. Now the threat comes from the Left with hate speech and hate crimes laws. As I note in my response, these laws aren’t about liberal/conservative - they are about oppression and therefore wrong regardless which side uses them.
Oh, and Willow, I accidentally stumbled upon this piece by Dave Price done over 2 years ago about a Muslim journalist being jailed. So looks like Dave ain’t a johnny-come-lately either.
Scott, I wasn’t specifically referring to you, but to the industry that has grown up to paint smut peddlers as cultural martyrs.
I agree that art shouldn’t be censored, even if it’s an irresponsible use of artistic license. But if the result of that irresponsibility is total crap, we shouldn’t be afraid to call it total crap. That’s my right to freedom of speech as a consumer of art. This idea that anything controversial must be a) good b) worthy of ideological defense and c) empirically true is a result of our own myopia. This isn’t simply a matter of someone "holding a different opinion" than the majority.
Just to put this all in perspective, would you still be up in arms if this guy had been arrested for drawing cartoons depicting Jews as hooked-nosed thieves and conspirators? Such ‘art’ wasn’t that uncommon fifty to a hundred years ago, especially in certain parts of Europe. Would you be willing to admit that this helped build up a cultural tolerance for antisemitism, which in turn may have contributed to the widespread ambivalence toward the Holocaust during its first years?
Still worth defending?
Not to me. I’ll defend the abstract right to produce crap, but I refuse to defend the crap itself. Do people who produce hate speech have a right to remain physically unmolested for their actions? Sure. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to back off from calling them what they are: irresponsible and morally repugnant.
I never called Dave a johnny-come-lately. I admire his work.
Willow
I could cite you on the Designated Hitler rule, but I won’t.
Instead…
Just to put this all in perspective, would you still be up in arms if this guy had been arrested for drawing cartoons depicting Jews as hooked-nosed thieves and conspirators? Such ‘art’ wasn’t that uncommon fifty to a hundred years ago, especially in certain parts of Europe. Would you be willing to admit that this helped build up a cultural tolerance for antisemitism, which in turn may have contributed to the widespread ambivalence toward the Holocaust during its first years?
Such "art" is common in the Islamic world and amongst neo-Nazis today. Does the art contribute to Antisemitism or does the antisemitism lead to the art? It doesn’t matter. What matters is when a Jew is killed or a swastika is painted on a synogogue. Those are crimes that should be punished, but the art should not be.
The simple fact of the matter is, there are different expectations for that part of the world that prides itself on freedom and that part of the world that does not.
Holland used to be part of the world that valued freedom.
Apparently, we’re losing one.
That concerns me more than the repression that exists in a part of the world that never valued freedom, which does concern me up to a point.
I think you could call me on the designated Hitler rule if I was suggesting that everyone who supported a neonazi’s right to make neonazi art was therefore a neonazi, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying elevating that art (his freedom is under attack! Poor misunderstood artist!) gives that ideology a legitimacy it wouldn’t otherwise have.
I feel the same way about the mouth-breathers in the Muslim world who generate antisemitic art. People who push propaganda and call it art are cut from the same cloth no matter what their ideological background.
Ironically we’re not actually arguing. I agree with you that any attempt to limit hate speech is a slippery slope. But I really wish there was a clean-cut way to differentiate, because defending crap on principle is getting tiresome.
But I really wish there was a clean-cut way to differentiate, because defending crap on principle is getting tiresome.
Goal!!!!!
Absolutely. Whether it’s Larry Flynt being attacked by the Right Wing or a racist being pilloried by the Left Wing, defending these guys isn’t fun. Unfortunately it has to be done, but it’s a sucky job.
Can I be the Designated Hitler next time?
Did you bring your jack boots and fake moustache, Dean?
Elisha Feger’s last blog post..Blatant Disregard for the Rules
Arrested for being racist. Interesting. I guess if he spray painted his work on wall he could be arrested for defacement of property. Otherwise, other than his employer firing him, there is no justice in this. There is no call for an arrest. This arrest was done out of fear, not out of respect for others. It’s a show so the evil ones won’t blow up the dutch.
"See look how we punished him, please don’t blow us up!"
"Excellent, the crazy terrorist organization approves of this dutchmen, we will save you for last!"
"Yay!"
What a bunch of pussies.
As might be expected, since Willow and I are orcs of the same stripe, I also am not enamoured of hate-art to the extent that I think it should be raised to occupy the same pedestal as genuine satirical or political statements expressed in artistic means. So frankly the infamous Bomb Turban cartoon (as an example) is not something that I find particularly provocative or insightful, just a crude insult intended purely as an insult, and drawn by a coward hiding behind Art as a shield. And I will call it as such. I have more respect, in a way, for Geert Wilders who does not bother to mask his opinions behind the rubric of freedom of speech - he is quite clear that he wants freedom to be selective, and that he thinks Islam is a threat. With such people, I can deal honestly, at least.
As far as this case goes, I think however that this description of one of his works seemed intriguing enough to warrant a look:
Now, that’s all kinds of awesome. On the basis of that alone I dont think that we can lump this guy into the pure jafi category. At any rate I think we do need to err on the side of free expression and be against such laws as the one under which he was arrested. Who knows what gems we may find among the muck.
I also strongly believe that this case illustrates that the true ideal of freedom of speech is hardly implemented in the West. Perhaps there is more freedom of speech, on the law books, in the West - but there are restrictions on speech that operate beyond the written law as well. On the whole I think anyone who attempts to argue that the West is intrinsically defined by its freedom, is ignorant of the fact that speech is never and nowhere truly free.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..Pipes’ dream
…a coward hiding behind Art as a shield
Say what you will about the guy, he’s not a coward. He is living under a death sentence.
Turns out, some people want him dead. (Who? Why? Another mystery…)
What these Danish "cowards" have done is prove that "The West" has not yet been cowed to the point where it will remove one, specific religious group from the long list of groups it is willing to insult.
It has NOTHING to do with art. It is a pushback against pure, unadulterated intimidation.
The idea that raging mobs of lunatics can prevent Europeans from doing something they have long prided themselves on - goring sacred cows - (artfully or otherwise) is truly chilling.
….I also strongly believe that this case illustrates that the true ideal of freedom of speech is hardly implemented in the West.
"True ideals" exist only in the mind. The West may not perfectly realize ANY ideal, but it does at least make the effort, as any number of people who make comfortable livings criticizing it from its own soil will be only to happy to deny.
…On the whole I think anyone who attempts to argue that the West is intrinsically defined by its freedom.
It used to be. I’m starting to wonder, though. Threatening it seems to at least trigger a pretty strong anti-freedom impulse - an impulse to which the words "tolerance," and "diversity" get attached like post-it notes on dung.
…is ignorant of the fact that speech is never and nowhere truly free.
Nothing - no thing - is ever "truly" (by which I mean, "perfectly) ANYTHING. Reality is one imperfect thing after another.
I’m often amazed at people who broadly claim that Europe is known primarily for its free expression, therefore we should be frightened if we see an instance of that supposedly changing.
It’s basically bullshit through and through. But if you can get people to believe that bullshit, then, it’ll be easy to scare them. Such values did not originate in Europe, and the Europeans have exactly the same struggles with them that we do, although sometimes just a little different. Am I the only one old enough to *remember* the Meese Commission? Yeesh.
But it is true that the anti-freedom impulse - an impulse to which the words "tolerance," and "diversity" are attached - is remarkably similar to putting post-it notes on dung.
Can’t really disagree there. I can only point out once again that in the Netherlands, porn and drugs and prostitution all came about through the legislative process and not anything else, and they had fierce arguments over it for quite some time. I also just repeat again: their rights are geared toward "freedom to criticize" (i.e. go after government officials) and not so much "freedom of speech," which is basically an American value.
You must log in to post a comment.