FREEDOM of expression is perhaps one of the most coveted of civil rights in the free world. As Americans, however, we are quick to take our First Amendment rights for granted. Our political tradition upholds them as inherent rights, so many of us do not recognize the threat to these liberties looming over American soil. Rights to free speech and self-expression have been crippled of late by thePatriot Act. Unfortunately, freedom of expression has not only been limited in the United States, but throughout the world in response to growing fear of international terrorism.
Whether we Americans like to admit it or not, our government's tendency thus far has been to limit the free expression of those whom we have been most skeptical of since Sept. 11 -- Arab-Americans and others of Middle Eastern descent. Islamic-Americans have long stood out as some of the easiest and most probable targets of state-led discrimination. This has only intensified over the past three years. Still, the United States government has maintained somewhat subtle mechanisms of discrimination, mostly through legalization of discriminatory practices. Because the laws technically apply to all Americans equally, it makes it difficult to combat racial and ethnic profiling. The Patriot Act has been a key factor in suppressing Muslims' free expression in this country.
But those of the Islamic faith have not necessarily faired better throughout the rest of the world, most notably in Europe. Already evident are the numerous problems that French Muslims have faced with respect to bans on religious garments, violence and other forms of state-led discrimination.
One of the most overt cases of government discrimination arose on Monday in Berlin. The Berlin state government has now officially banned an Arab-Islamic Congress to be held in the city next month, which aimed to rally support for Iraqi and Palestinian resistance. The conference, which posed no direct threat to Germans or to the Berlin state government, troubled German officials due to its fundamentalist nature.
Although many Americans have accepted that our First Amendment rights have been hampered by the Patriot Act and other government measures, few would feel comfortable denying citizens the right to free assembly that is so ingrained in our political tradition. That happens to be the key difference between contemporary German and American conceptions of civil liberties. However, the U.S. government feels justified in usurping some Americans' civil liberties given the current national security situation. Are we really that far removed from the German model?
Henrike Morgenstern, a spokesperson for the Berlin interior ministry, was quoted on MondayReuters as saying that the Arab-Islamic Congress' ideas "significantly overstepped the limit of what can be allowed in terms of opinion-forming." Even the most ardent defender of the Patriot Act would be hard-pressed to say such a thing. The language of the Patriot Act hides the government's usurpation of its citizens' liberties under the guise of national security. Thought and practice are clearly two different things in America -- but Germany has inherited its tradition of political correctness and censorship from its experiences over the past century.
The situation in Germany today is a direct consequence of Nazi fundamentalism in the 1930s and 1940s. Germans' fears of fundamentalist movements are highlighted by Cornelie Sonntag-Wolgast, head of the parliament's home affairs committee, who said that anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic appeals were in strict violation of Germany's constitution.
The safeguards built into the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany to protect against such ideas do not fit comfortably within the context of American politics. Or, at least, they didn't before. Even in light of the United States' involvement in the World War II and the large number of Jewish Americans and Holocaust survivors living in the United States following European liberation, the federal government has rarely acted so quickly as to stop anti-Semitic or otherwise racially discriminatory appeals that do not pose a clear and present danger. The 1977 neo-Nazi parade on the heavily-Jewish community of Skokie, Ill., provides a powerful example of Americans' value of such civil liberties. Our actions over the past few years, however, paint a different picture of America as a guarantor of liberty.
Perhaps the Berlin state government is looking to thwart a non-existent threat. Government officials have alleged that the Congress has released statements advocating suicide attacks, although publicly its organizers have condemned such behavior. Gabriel Daher, a spokesman for the event, saw the Congress as an opportunity to "avert discrimination and correct the picture of Islam." Now, its opportunity to do so has been taken away. Sonntag-Wolgast, who expressed her approval of "an open dialogue and a free exchange of opinions," still feels that the ban is necessary.
As Americans, it is easy for us to look at the German ban as a violation of fundamental civil rights. But has our government been treating its citizens all that differently?
Todd Rosenbaum's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at trosenbaum@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
