EUcrats Against Free Speech

EU plans far-reaching 'genocide denial' law reports yesterday's Daily Telegraph. There is a point to free speech, in maintaining the average man's ability to resist the state, which I suspect is why so many EUcrats want to restrict it.

Threatening genocide deniers — generally a despicable lot — is an attractive camel's nose to shove into the tent, when you want to get the rest of the camel inside, up to and including the smelly bits. Neo-Nazis don't make good poster boys for freedom of speech, but they make great illustrations for scary ads.

The article gives an example of what could happen, if this expansive legislation is passed, since charges of genocide are now a political tactic (a rhetorical "nuclear option," to borrow a term):

General Lewis MacKenzie, the former commander of UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, courted controversy two years ago by questioning the numbers killed at Srebrenica in 1995.

He took issue with the official definition of the massacre as genocide and highlighted "serious doubt" over the estimate of 8,000 Bosnian fatalities. "The math just doesn't support the scale of 8,000 killed," he wrote.

Balkans human rights activists have branded Gen MacKenzie an "outspoken Srebrenica genocide denier" and, if approved, the EU legislation could see similar comments investigated by the police or prosecuted in the courts after complaints from war crimes investigators or campaigners.

I have no idea if the general was right or not, but I am sure that even if he was right, some politically-interested people would make the same charge. Adding the coercive power of the state to these matters does not help in getting at the truth of difficult matters like what happened in Srbrenica.

Comments

[T. Chan]

And if somehow Turkey is admitted to the EU, would this law be applied there as well?

[Stuart Koehl]

The problem with all these "genocide denial" laws is that they don't work, on the one hand; and seriously abridge free speech on the other. Christopher Hitchens, no right wing fanatic, has argued that such laws merely make martyrs of genocide deniers in the eyes of their deluded followers, while endowing such people with more importance than they would ever have (in the same manner in which the Catholic League can elevate any obscure art house film to blockbuster status by denouncing its anti-Catholicism). The Turkish-Armenian writer Hrant Dink, who had been imprisoned in Turkey for writing about the Armenian genocide, wrote shortly before his murder that if France passed a law prohibiting denial of the the Armenian genocide, then he was prepared to go to Parish and publically proclaim that the Armenian genocide never happened--because the truth or falsehood of any statement cannot be determined by legal fiat.

Another problematic aspect of such laws is the selective manner in which they are applied. On the one hand, should a Christian or secularist deny the Holocaust, you can be sure he will be hauled before a judge. On the other hand, this is standard fare in mosques all across Europe. Will we see these cesspits of hatred shut down? Will we see imams frog-marched in handcuffs to the local hooscow? I sincerely doubt it, if only because European bureaucrats are really attached to their Pugeots, Saabs, Mercedes and BMWs, and would hate to see them used as tiki torches. In other words, there is an inherent Muslim violent reaction exception to such laws, and thus their primary purpose is to enforce a certain type of political correctness upon a marginal and largely harmless segment of the population, while ignoring the one segment of the population that presents a real risk.

On the subject of what happened at Srebrenica, the facts are not in dispute, nor are the numbers of dead (because we dug up the graves and counted them).

[Nick]

I strongly agree. This has even given a certain Iranian madman too much of a soapbox. You can't stop people talking unless they're dead. By trying to shut them up you lend credence to their ideas no matter how crazy. Therefore, if Europe really wants this to work the law would have to be supported by a genocidal policy.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>Another problematic aspect of such laws is the selective manner in which they are applied. On the one hand, should a Christian or secularist deny the Holocaust, you can be sure he will be hauled before a judge. On the other hand, this is standard fare in mosques all across Europe. <<<

Belgium, june, 2006:
A Belgian judge condemned two men for minimalising the Holocaust and for inciting racial hatred
The two condemned, Abdel Rahman Ayachi and Raphael Gendron, were
responsible for an internetpage of the 'Belgian Islamic Center'

Stuart, it is easy to parade your seemingly intimate knowledge of European affairs before an audience of people who don't know any better. But not when
there are people who really know what's going on. Then it becomes obviously that it's all just right wing propaganda.
Stick to what you really know: theology.

By the way that's probably why you have such a dislike for me : ).

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>Therefore, if Europe really wants this to work the law would have to be supported by a genocidal policy.<<<

what a very Christian expression! (warning: irony)

maybe you would like to reenact the crusaders special treat for Jerusalem on some elected muslim towns

for your information:
- when conquering Jerusalem: the crusaders killed all men, women and children
the Jews were brought together in the main synagoge and burnt
afterwards there was a mass thanking God for all his many blessings and for the victory in his name

[Joe Long]

Um.."irony warning" Dirk, I think you missed an earlier ironic comment - the genocide reference itself.

While we're in the irony mode, let me assert up front that Western nations should never reenact the taking of Jerusalem you describe: never again, when we take a Moslem city, should we kill a single Jew.

In any case, your history is a bit shaky. The aftermath of the taking of Jerusalem, while ugly, was about par for medieval warfare. The city was certainly not entirely depopulated. An eyewitness account of those events of 1099 actually said:

"Entering the city, our pilgrims pursued and killed the Saracens up to the temple of Solomon. There the Saracens assembled and resisted fiercely all day, so that the whole temple flowed with their blood. At last the pagans were overcome and our men seized many men and women in the temple, killing them or keeping them alive as they saw fit. On the roof of the temple there was a great crowd of pagans of both sexes, to whom Tancred and Gaston de Beert gave their banners [to provide them with protection] . Then the crusaders scattered throughout the city, seizing gold and silver, horses and mules, and houses full of all sorts of goods. Afterwards our men went rejoicing and weeping for joy to adore the sepulchre of our Saviour Jesus and there discharged their debt to Him. . . ."

(More at http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusades.htm)

Of course events a millenium ago are open for considerable argument, but if you're looking for Christian offenses against Islam you've got to use the examples you can find, no matter how far, far, far in the past they all seem to be.

BTW, good on the Belgian judge!

[Nick]

Dirk, try harder. The irony was that the law was inherently ironic. It is unenforceable without taking up the same policy it purports to warn against.

As to Jerusalem, when, in this period, was it likely that the victorious besiegers would not run amok through the city? There were no radios. Command and control as we know it just didn't exist. To make matters worse the Saracens hadn't exactly been setting up churches and giving financial support to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This was the culture after all that had taken Southern Italy, Sicily, Spain, Sardinia (can't remember if Corsica fell too or if I have it backward).

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>was it likely that the victorious besiegers would not run amok through the city?<<<

- at Akko, Richard slaughtered 2500 prisoners with their wives and children in front of Saladins troops
- in contrast: Saladin forbade any bloodshed when conquering Jerusalem, and when during a battle with Richard, Richards horse died, Saladin sent him two new horses so he could continue the fight

[Stuart Koehl]

Interdictus!

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

should I now say, vade retro?

[Joe Long]

Good old Saladin - we'll never see his like again. (Richard sent him some gifts, too, of course.) Not a very good Moslem, though - unless of course each act of chivalry or mercy was a tactical ploy, in which case the Koran would have allowed them.

Perhaps Saladin was canny enough to know that one chivalrous Moslem conqueror could aid Islamic apologists' arguments a thousand years running, and excuse all the future routine brutality of the Religion of Submission.

[Nick]

Saladin was one of the most noble warriors of his time period. Having said that, the execution of prisoners in a failed prisoner exchange isn't the end of the world for this period. Saladin was warned to cough up people, failed to do so, and lost 2,500 people for the mistake. A good call by Richard? Probably not since its still brought up to this day. But I'd hate to think what the Turks would have done to Vienna hundreds of years later if they'd won.

Saladin "forbidding" bloodshed in Jerusalem is also a bit of a stretch. The Siege of 1187 was negotiated after Saladin realized that it may drag on too long. A ransom was demanded paid and those unfortunate souls who couldn't pay were sent into slavery. This period also included the slaughter of 200 soldiers post capture by Saladin and the parading of the "True Cross" upside down in Damascus. This allowed for an orderly divestment of the city. As such it differed from the previous siege in 1099 (and if Saladin's troops hadn't been repulsed in their last attempt an argument can be made that the result would have been similar to 1099).

What is truly amazing about the Crusades is, given the religious nature of the conflict and the fact that both sides were from wildly different civilizations, just how well mannered *both* sides were.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What is truly amazing about the Crusades is, given the religious nature of the conflict and the fact that both sides were from wildly different civilizations, just how well mannered *both* sides were.<<<

They weren't as different as all that. The Lords and knights of Outremer rapidly "went native", much to the consternation of visiting crusaders. It was almost the same reaction that the original crusaders had to the Byzantines, whom they found on entirely too close a footing with the Saracens. That, of course, was due to their living in close proximity to them, the mutual borrowings of the two civilizations, and the need to arrive at a modus vivendi. The Crusades were relatively short punctuations of a long period of generally peaceful coexistence. That was also necessary, since the bulk of the population of Outremer was not composed of Latin Franks, but of Syrians, Greeks, Jews and Arabs. The rulers of the Crusader States wanted--needed--order so as to collect taxes, build castles, draft troops, engage in trade, and so forth.

Nothing propinqs like propinquity, so after a century or so of living in the region, leaders on both sides shared a lot of the same values, and naturally would observe the agreed upon code of conduct.

[Nick]

Too much hot retort, not enough editing. Please feel free to add commas and swap phrases all over. The second paragraph also needs reordering let's try:
Saladin "forbidding" bloodshed in Jerusalem is also a bit of a stretch. The Siege of 1187 was negotiated after Saladin realized that it may drag on too long. A ransom was demanded, paid, and those unfortunate souls who couldn't pay or be paid for were sent into slavery. This allowed for an orderly divestment of the city. As such it differed from the previous siege in 1099 (and if Saladin's troops hadn't been repulsed in their last attempt an argument can be made that the result would have been similar to 1099). This period also included the slaughter of 200 soldiers post capture by Saladin and the parading of the "True Cross" upside down in Damascus.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>As to Jerusalem, when, in this period, was it likely that the victorious besiegers would not run amok through the city<<<

my reply about Saladin was only intended to show that the former remark was not correct

>>>What is truly amazing about the Crusades is, given the religious nature of the conflict and the fact that both sides were from wildly different civilizations, just how well mannered *both* sides were<<<

the Crusaders, although under the high morals of christianity, were not exactly 'well mannered' even against other christians.

[Nick]

Dirk,

They were a'plenty well mannered. They treated with the Saracens and exchanged prisoners. They sent apologies for having to break treaties (such as in the case of the final defense of Jerusalem). They ruled, as Stuart rightly points out, a rather cosmopolitan section of the world. If you want to make a mockery out of them for your own personal political enjoyment, fine, but it has nothing to do with history. It has a lot more to do with bigotry.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

A litle list about the most noble deeds of our holy and good christian forefathers during the crusades

- the men of Peter the hermit slaughtered 4000 Hungars (christians)
- sacked Belgrade
- sacked several villages inhabited by Greec christians
- they didn’t dare to attack Nicea, but attacked instead the christian villages around it torturing the inhabitants and roasting the newborn
- Jews were killed at Spiers, Worms (500) , at Mainz (+- 1000) a bloodbath that lasted two days, all jews in Prague and Regensburg
- when the next band of crusaders passed Hungary the king demanded a hostage so
the crusadres would not behave as before. On leaving the country they sacked the surroundings of Seymbra a byzantine town
- attacked Byzantium
- when starving Flemish crusaders hunted down turcs for dinner (around 1098)
- Peter the hermit deserted
- when conquering Jerusalem: killed all men, women and children
the Jews were brought together in the main synagoge and burnt
afterwards there was a mass thanking God for all his many blessings and for the victory in his name
- the fleet from Pisa bringing the papal legate attacked on it’s way to the holy land a number of Byzantine cities and isles
- when Bernard of Clairvaux called for a new crusade (+- 1146) this led to new
slaughter of Jews in all big cities of the Rhineland
- when the count of Portugal conquered Lisbon (in mohammedan hands) he promised
to spare the lives of the defenders. After opening the gates they were massacred.
- a German crusader army sacked Byzantine territory, burning a orthodox convent
and killing all the monks
- Reinoud de Chatillon attacks and destroys Cypre . It’s inhabitants were christians and
belonged to the Byzantine empire. These same people helped the starving crusaders of another crusader campaign, but this ment nothing to Reinoud. He tortured the patriarch of Antioch. Three weeks Reinouds men sacked Cypre, burning and destroing like madmen, cities, villages, churches and convents. Taking hostages for ransom and mutilating
orthodox priests. (the same Reinoud was responsible for the war with Saladin)
- in contrast: when the Boudewijn died in 1162, someone asked Noereddin to take advantage of the situation. Noereddin replied that it would be wrong to profit from the mourning of a people at the dead of such a great king.
- 1168 Amalrik conquers Bilbeis. A bloodbath followed that even shocked the Franks.
Muslims, coptic christians, women and children, old people and newborns were all killed.
A few days later at the harbour town Tanis which was almost exclusively inhabited by coptic christians a new bloodbath took place. This caused the Egyptians who could have sided with the crusaders to choose the side of Noereddin.
- at Akko, Richard slaughtered 2500 prisoners with their wives and children in front of Saladins troops
- in contrast: Saladin forbade any bloodshed when conquering Jerusalem, and when during a battle with Richard, Richards horse died, Saladin sen him two new horses so he could continue the fight
- 1204 the crusaders conquer the christian city of Constantinopel. Three days the slaughter lasted. Twentythousand men killed, burned, raped. Churches robbed, nuns raped, a prositute on the throne of the patriarch,…

bigotry you say?

[Nick]

You repeat your case, including the ones I debunked (Richard et al). We'll take just one of your list since its the last.

In 1024 the crusaders sacked Constantinople. In this you casually ignore the actions of Alexius the IV and the effective civil war the crusaders got mixed up in while in Byzantium. Its this sort of gloss that makes your case look bigoted. Women and children die in war. War is a result of the fall and therefore tainted by evil. War causes things and people to get smashed and hurt. This does not make the Crusaders paragons of virtue or paragons of vice. It makes them people of their times. And, rather noble people of their times. We should all pray for peace and wars to cease. We should not be so blind as to vilify a people that lived 500 years ago fighting a war they felt was critical to their survival. We should not be bigots ignorant of the depths of history.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>you casually ignore the actions of Alexius the IV <<<

I don't ignore them, I just don't mention them because I only treat the crusaders. If you would have portayed the Byzatines or the Muslims as angels I would have reacted to that, but this was not the case. Or is it so that if one criticises the crusaders one is always oblidged to say something bad about the other side? And not the otherway around?

And besides it's not because Alexius was not the sweetest of guys that one must condone everything the crusaders did.

- on Richard and Saladin:
>>>Saladin was warned to cough up people, failed to do so, and lost 2,500 people for the mistake. <<<

Saladin kept his word. It just didn't go fast enough for Richard. So he killed not only the 2500 men but also their wives and children.

wives and children!

- you conveniently leave out the several cases where crusaders massacred christians

but that doesn't fit in nicely with your >>>fighting a war they felt was critical to their survival<<<

does it?

- on 1024, Constantinopel

yes there was a civil war but that doesn't excuse:

I cite Norwich in his History of Byzantium:

they went at the city like locusts. Never since the barbaric invasions Eurpe had known such an orgy of brutality and vandalism.
He cites an eye witness:
they broke the holy images and threw the relics of the martyrs in places which I am ashamed to mention.
the man goes on describing : Churches robbed, nuns raped, a prositute on the throne of the patriarch,the church defiled with excrement,…

and concludes: all these men had on their shoulder the cross on which they had sworn to abstinence from the plasures of the flesh until they had completed their mission.

Norwich concludes his chapter on the 4th crusade: this crusade went beyond all the others in it's perfidity and duplicity, in brutality and in search for gain.

Anthony Bridge in his work on the crusades describes as one of the examples of priests robbing churches: how a cistercisienzer abbot Martinus, from Pairis, threatened to kill a Greek priest in the church of the Pantocrator , if he wouldn't show him where the sacred relics were hidden.
He also describes how the sculls of children were smashed against the wall by soldiers swinging them round by their heels.

these are the men you describe as: >>>rather noble people of their times<<<

strange idea of nobility

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>We should not be bigots ignorant of the depths of history.<<<

We should not be bigots ignorant of the evils of history, even if they are our own.

[Nick]

Dirk you hijack the thread with the implication that anybody that believes this law is wrong is a Nazi-in-Waiting and then when you lose the argument claim that you "only treat the Crusader's" and you try to claim *I'm* bigoted. Rich.

The Crusaders did some incredibly stupid and vile things. But, to believe that they were a bunch of impious looters is losing touch with reality. The West has felt a righteous amount of guilt for the Crusades for a long time now. So long that it has come to dominate the conversation.

If you want to hold the Crusaders to such a ridiculously high standard then why don't we talk about:
- The North African massacres perpetuated by the Muslims
- The conquest of Southern and Eastern Europe
- The threat to Vienna
- The five hundred year occupation of Byzantium
- The forced conversions in Yugoslavia
- The Marmaluke's and Jannisaries for crying out loud! There were no mass castrations of muslim *children* who were then forced into a life of servitude in which they killed their former family and were turned into blood thirst monsters.

I could go on but that's not the point. The crusaders did bad things. So did US soldiers in Germany. I still wouldn't turn back the clock and not have sent them. Of course, maybe that's the new Dutch thing.

[Gene Godbold]

Dirk is Flemish (not Dutch).

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>Dirk you hijack the thread <<<

read again,

someone made a remark about genocide having to back the law up
I replied with a reference to the crusaders and Jerusalem

it is you who then began to argue further about
Jerusalem, trying to portray the behaviour of the crusaders as some kind of standard practice
>>>As to Jerusalem, when, in this period, was it likely that the victorious besiegers would not run amok through the city?>>>

>>>when you lose the argument <<<

that's a good one, haven't seen a good rejection yet
I think I've shown quite clearly that, even for their times they at several times, went far beyond the limits

instead from >>>rather noble people of their times<<<
you yourself changed to >>> did some incredibly stupid and vile things<<<

>>> then why don't we talk about:<<<

there is not one of those points that I would deny.
Just as I wouldn't deny that many crusaders were pious men.The question is rather why do you think I would?
I guess that you feel that someone criticising the crusades must be prejudiced.

You seem all quite obsessed with WOII and with the fact that you came over to help us.

>>>Dirk is Flemish (not Dutch).<<<
thank you Gene
which is why I included explicitly the reference to the Flemish crusaders: :)
>>>- when starving Flemish crusaders hunted down turcs for dinner (around 1098)<<<
a bit of self criticism never hurts :)

[Nick]

Twas I, not somebody. And, you continue to miss the irony. Then claimed *I* wanted re-enact the Crusades.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>> >>>Therefore, if Europe really wants this to work the law would have to be supported by a genocidal policy.<<<

what a very Christian expression! (warning: irony)

maybe you would like to reenact the crusaders special treat for Jerusalem on some elected muslim towns<<<

maybe I should have put (warning: irony)
after the other sentence too. I thought that would be understood.