Time To Rethink Our Relations With Europe

Time To Rethink Our Relations With Europe

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. (John Stuart Mill)

In international relations there are no “friends,” only “allies” – those countries with whom we share national interests and societal values. Granted in some cases, such as WW II and the USSR, we may agree to be temporary “allies” with a country that doesn’t share our values due to overwhelming national interests. However, these are alliances of necessity and never last beyond the immediate crisis. In contrast, western Europe shared both our values and national interests since at least 1939, and eastern Europe since 1989 or so when they broke away from the failing USSR. These shared values and national interests served as a firm foundation upon which our trans-Atlantic alliance was built. Well at least they did until recently.

Starting in the late 1990s or early 2000s, much of Europe began to abandon civil liberties in general and free speech in particular. The first shock, at least for me, came in 2006 when Italy brought criminal charges against Oriana Fallaci – an Italian author – for defaming Islam in her 2004 book The Strength of Reason. To be sure, Ms. Fallaci was blunt in her harsh criticism of both Islam and Muslims, but everything she wrote and spoke was well within the bounds of free speech. It is fair to say that her criminal conviction for engaging in disfavored political speech is nothing short of persecution and seems to have accelerated the anti-free speech movement throughout Europe. A couple of examples:

– In 2009 Susanne Winter, an Austrian Member of Parliament was convicted for incitement when she said that “in today’s system” Mohammed would be considered a “child molester” and that Austria faces an “‘Islamic immigration tsunami.’”

– In 2011 an Austrian court convicted Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff of the crime of “denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group.” Her offense was she made critical remarks about Islam.

– In 2012 Sweden convicted four people for handing out anti-gay pamphlets. Their convictions were affirmed by Sweden’s Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights, which in all honesty should drop the last three words in its title.

– In 2016 the Dutch convicted Geert Wilders – an elected official – of hate speech when he asked supporters at meeting if they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans” in the Netherlands. His supporters chanted “Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!” Mr. Wilders replied: “we’ll take care of it.” That was enough for a conviction.

– In 2022 French politician Éric Zemmour was convicted of “public insult” and “incitement to hatred or violence.” According to the AP, his crime was stating that children who “migrate to France without parents or guardians, were thieves, murderers and rapists who cost France money.”

I could go on, but then this would turn into a multi-volume series, so instead let’s fast forward to today and the United Kingdom where it’s become fashionable not only arrest people for engaging in disfavored speech but also for thought crimes.

In October 2024 a man was convicted in the UK for silently praying while standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic. Think about it for a moment – convicted for silently praying…in his head…50 meters…from an abortion clinic. This is the definition of a ‘thought crime’ – you don’t have to speak your thoughts to get arrested, just think them. Then there’s the 50-year-old guy who was arrested for burning a Quran in front of the Turkish consulate in London.  The cops arrested this luckless man after he was attacked, apparently by an angry knife wielding follower of Islam. I suppose the silver lining is the Brits also arrested the deranged idiot who attacked the guy who dared to burn a book.

But that’s yesterday’s news, In Scotland you don’t even have to be outside to get arrested for silently protesting against abortion.  Nope, now you can be arrested for wearing a T-shirt or holding a sign with an anti-abortion message on it – in your home.  If your home is within 200 meters of an abortion clinic, you can be seen from outside, and you wear a shirt or have a sign with a pro-life message, then you can be arrested. No, I’m not kidding.

In September Scotland’s brand spanking new “Safe Access” law went into effect and the Scottish government sent letters to residents who live within 200 meters of an abortion clinic warning them that they could be arrested for this type of behavior. Let that sink in, the Scottish government is putting people on notice that holding a sign or wearing a T-shirt with disfavored speech within their home are grounds for arrest if they can be seen from the sidewalk or the street. Even if Scotland never arrests a single person for engaging in peaceful actions within their home, the mere threat of doing so is chilling speech on steroids. Who wants to run the risk of the police kicking down your door for wearing a T-shirt with a pro-life message?

You think I’m an alarmist? Well, let’s cross the channel to Germany and see.

CBS’ 60 Minutes sent their ace reporter Sharyn Alfonsi to Germany to report on that country’s efforts to stomp out “hate speech,” which in reality is nothing more than a crusade against free speech. During this 13-minute segment Ms. Alfonsi accompanied a German police unit on a raid of an apartment where “6 armed officers” busted in and searched the place at 6 in the morning because the person who lived there was suspected of saying illegal things on the internet.

What are these illegal things you cannot say on the internet you ask? Well, anything promoting hate or that insults people. Yes, it’s against Germany’s “hate speech” laws to insult people. It’s also a violation of these Orwellian laws to spread “malicious gossip,” fake quotes, and false statements. One of the three German prosecutors Ms. Alfonsi interviewed found it funny that people are surprised when officers tell them “We are here with crimes of talking, posting on the internet.” No kidding, surprised is the least that I would be.

Ms. Alfonsi goes on to inform us there are 16 of these ‘hate speech’ units in Germany. The prosecutors assigned to the one she was following around proudly stated that they’ve filed charges against about 700 people in the last four years and have 3,500 more cases they’re investigating.  One case the prosecutors seemed especially proud of was where they obtained a conviction against a person for calling a politician a “pimmel.” Now I don’t speak German, but my understanding is that “pimmel” is the German version of the American slang term “dick.” Honestly, if calling a politician a “dick” was illegal in the U.S., then we’d have 40% of the country behind bars and 40% in hiding. The remaining 20% would be pure souls like my Aunts, whom I’m sure will be calling me after they read this to tell me I need my mouth washed out with soap.

It’s gotten so bad in Germany that a person was convicted of violating Germany’s dystopian speech laws by insulting a convicted rapist. Not only was she convicted, but she received a longer jail sentence than the rapist she insulted! No, I did not make that up. A 20-year-old woman was sentenced to a weekend in jail for calling a convicted rapist who was one of nine people who gang raped a 15 year old girl a “disgraceful rapist pig” and a “disgusting freak.” The rapist was given a suspended sentence and served no jail time “due to his age.”

I’m not sure who’ss the more “disgusting freak” – the rapist or the judge and prosecutors who sent this lady to jail.

A country cannot claim to have free speech, at least not honestly claim to have free speech, if it’s against the law to insult people, especially rapists; use base slurs against politicians, or anyone for that matter; and engage in any other form of disfavored speech. At best they have an authoritarian government with censorship, and if history is correct, they will soon have a totalitarian government. Don’t believe me? Then name one totalitarian government, whether it be fascist, communist, or just a run of the mill banana republic that allows, or allowed, free speech. Then name me one country with a truly democratic form of government that censored its citizens and did not transition into a totalitarian regime.

I used to believe that the recent history of where the anti-free speech policies of the 1930s led Germany, Italy, and Spain would serve as a cautionary tale for all of Europe. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Recognizing this, the next question that logically follows is – should the U.S. continue to spend our money and place our troops in potential danger to defend nations who no longer share our values, and which are on the path to becoming authoritarian regimes?

I hate to say it, but I believe the time has come to distance ourselves from much of Europe, which includes leaving NATO. We can enter bilateral defense agreements with those European countries who still value free speech, while leaving those like Germany, the UK, and some others to their own devices. This does not mean we must become adversaries – we can still have good relations with them…if they so choose. However, it does mean that we should no longer sacrifice our fiscal resources and potentially our people to defend countries whose values are closer to those of Russia than the U.S.