Decriminalizing Crime; Criminalizing Speech

By a strange and perfectly logical logic many people believe that, for example, if there were no guns there would be no gun violence. Ergo, eliminating all guns will eliminate all gun violence. It will do nothing about knife violence, but you can't have everything. And the logic does not explain how we are to take way over 300 million guns. But, to the zealot, ideology trumps reality. 

Similarly, if we want to reduce crime, or, at least crime statistics, the best way is to decriminalize crime. The more we legalize otherwise criminal activities, the fewer crimes there will be. By the logic of political correctness and certain idealist thinkers, what means that what makes a crime a crime is saying that it’s a crime. Saying that it’s a crime leads people to pass laws making it a crime. And then, otherwise acceptable behavior become criminalized. So, we must decriminalize crime by criminalizing speech. Saying that it’s crime makes it a crime. Not saying that it’s a crime makes it not a crime.

The larger philosophical question is this: is there such a thing as intrinsic criminality, actions that are criminal regardless of the laws? Do criminal laws name and punish criminal actions or do they create crimes? The same principle can be applied to art: do some works of art have intrinsic artistic value or do they only become art when we say that they are art… or when we pay astronomical sums to hang them in the parlor?

Take Germany, a leader in the world of political correctness. Strange to say, but German Chancellor Merkel, a center-right politician, has led the march to fulfill the terms of the Obama promise of making us all citizens of the world. She opened her country to hordes of Muslim migrants and led her nation to forbid anyone from ever saying that it was a bad idea. Or that it wasn't working. It doesn’t matter what these migrants do. It doesn’t matter which crimes they commit. The local constabulary has gotten into the habit of not noting the ethnicity of criminals. The real problem is speech, speaking ill of migrants, speaking ill of Islam.

Thus is the great Western tradition of free expression sacrificed on the bonfire of political correctness. Muslims do not commit more crimes. If it appears to be the case, we can solve it by not arresting those who do. But, God help you if you say the least disparaging word about the religion of peace. Islam has provoked a wholesale rejection of Western values. And it has produced our very own cultural revolution. And you were worrying about Hong Kong?

Don’t think for a minute that the problem is white supremacy. It is an old warhorse, trotted out to distract from the real problem. No one is being prosecuted for speaking ill about white people. People are lauded for it. About Islam, it’s another story and another set of rules.

The Gatestone Institute’s Judith Bergman reports on a new survey from Germany. (via Maggie's Farm.) Several years after Merkel’s open arms policy, everyday German citizens have learned that there are some things they cannot say in public. Their right to free expression has been seriously curtailed.

A new survey on self-censorship in Germany has shown that Germans censor their own speech to an astounding degree. Asked whether it is "possible to express oneself freely in public" a mere 18% answered yes. By contrast, 59% of Germans said that in their circle of friends and acquaintances they express themselves freely.

Not only that, but patriotism has become questionable, even punishable:

"Patriotism, cosmopolitanism and support for Europe", (meaning support for the EU) did not use to be mutually exclusive, according to the survey. Today, however, "The population is no longer so sure that the elites, with their strong support for European integration and in a globalized global economy, are still holding the nation in high regard... citizens increasingly fear being considered right-wing when they emerge as patriots. Meanwhile, a third of the population says that politicians should be wary of proclaiming national pride if they do not want to expose themselves to harsh attacks".

I trust that it sounds familiar. It’s a sad state of affairs. In Germany, Islam is the problem. But, if no one says it's a problem, presto changeo, no problem. Anyone who speaks ill of Islam or of Muslim migrants will be courting trouble:

For example, 62% of Germans are convinced that a politician stating that Islam has too much influence in Germany will expose himself to harsh criticism, but only 22% believe that expressing such a sentiment in private conversations would cause offense. Similarly, the sentiment that 'too much is being done for refugees in Germany' is viewed as a risky statement to air in public, but only 31% would consider it a problem to say that in private. There appears, in other words, to be a significant gap between what Germans say in public and what they think.

The loss of the right to free expression has now been enshrined in German law. Thus is speech criminalized by the state:

The results that the survey conveys are hardly a huge surprise to observers of the retreat of respect for freedom of speech in Germany in recent years. This retreat, so far, culminated in 2018 with Germany's censorship law, which requires social media platforms to delete or block any alleged online "criminal offenses", such as defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint. If the platforms fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros.

As for examples of speech that is beyond the German pale:

People in Germany have been prosecuted for criticizing the government's migration policies: In 2016, a married couple, Peter and Melanie M., were prosecuted in a criminal trial for creating a Facebook group that criticized the government's migration policy. According to news reports, the page stated that, "The war and economic refugees are flooding our country. They bring terror, fear, sorrow. They rape our women and put our children at risk. Make this end!"

Peter was not convicted. He was seriously admonished.

At the trial, Peter M. defended his remarks online and said, In his verdict, the judge said, "The description of the group is a series of generalizations with a clear right-wing background." Peter M. was sentenced to a nine-month suspended prison sentence and his wife to a fine of €1,200. The judge added, "I hope you understand the seriousness of the situation. If you sit in front of me again, you will end up in jail."

It gets worse. Any parent who speaks ill of Islam can lose the right to see his children. This is presented in the most enlightened liberal terms, but in truth it is merely Islamic blasphemy law:

In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air "xenophobic" views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children. There need not even be a criminal offense for a court to consider the child's welfare to be endangered and to restrict the parents' right to see his or her child or to order "an educator" present during a meeting between parent and child, who can "intervene as required." It is also possible to forbid certain actions, expressions or meetings in the presence of the child. As a last resort, the court can take the child out of the parent's care entirely.

Not only that. One journalist faced jail for posting a picture from the Hitler years. In the picture the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, uncle of Yassir Arafat, was meeting with a senior Nazi. As you know, the Mufti was all in with Hitler’s final solution for the Jewish problem.

In August 2017, the Munich district court gave Michael Stürzenberger, a journalist, a six-month suspended jail sentence for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of "inciting hatred towards Islam" and "denigrating Islam" by publishing the photograph. The court found Stürzenberger guilty of "disseminating the propaganda of anti-constitutional organizations". After he appealed the sentence, an appeals court in Munich, in December 2017, acquitted Stürzenberger of all charges. The appeals court ruled that his comments were protected by the freedom of expression. Nevertheless, the impression left on German society is that even historical facts have now become a taboo.

Once-Great Britain is not very much better. Here, from the Liberal Democrat Party:

In a recent case, a candidate for the Liberal Democrats, Dániel Tóth-Nagy, was suspended from the party for comments he made, such as: "There is no such thing as Islamophobia" and responding to a tweet about Islamophobia with, "What about FGM? Honor Killings? Forced marriage? What do you think about the protest of women in Iran, Saudi-Arabia and other Islamic countries against the compulsory hijab? What about Sharia in Britain? LGBT rights and education denied by Muslims in Birmingham?"

Naturally, Toth-Nagy was excoriated by a local party official:

... this is what the party's local spokesman had to say:

"These posts are completely outside of our party's values and beliefs, and will not be tolerated. Had we been aware of this before, there's no way he would have been selected as a candidate. We have immediately suspended him and we apologise to anyone that has been upset or offended by these comments".

The same situation now exists on America’s college campuses. At the least it tells us that the Obama legacy is alive and well.