The uproar over the crass display of the crooked cross by British prince Harry has provoked calls for banning display of the symbol entirely. (It’s already banned in some countries.) Now some members of the European Parliament are proposing to ban the display of the hammer and sickle, as well. According to the BBC, Jozsef Szajer, whom I knew from working with FIDESZ, back when it was an opposition student group in Hungary, has made the proposal:
“We would like to have an equal treatment of the other evil totalitarian regime of the communist system,” said Jozsef Szajer, a Hungarian MEP, according to the Associated Press news agency.
The ban on the swastika, images of Hitler, and other emblems of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was imposed after the defeat of the Third Reich. And quite rightly, in my opinion, for it wasn’t merely a matter of “free speech,” but of preventing a brutal criminal conspiracy that had murdered millions from regrouping and taking back power. Banning it in, say, Canada or the U.S. would have been unjustified, as there was little chance that such people would organize to take over power here. (Ditto for restraining the speech of “holocaust deniers,” who should be allowed to peddle their crackpot views, which are about as plausible as denying the occurence of World War II.) But in the countries of Europe that had suffered through National Socialism, the ban was justified, on libertarian grounds, viz. a form of self-defense against known criminals.
What of the symbols of the Communist Party? That party, too, was a vast criminal conspiracy that murdered millions. What if it were to come back to power? I favored Boris Yeltsin’s banning of the Communist Party in Russia and think that one source of Russia’s many problems (yes, just one) was that it was relegalized and ended up blocking a number of very important reforms, such as private ownership of land. But should the symbols of that horrifyingly murderous system, under which so many were marched to their deaths, be allowed to be publicly shown? (In Moscow and St. Petersburg I saw clubs that have Soviet kitsch as their themes; as one commentator said, “That’s what happens in a country that got rid of a one-party, murderous dictatorship without being conquered.”)
I think that such a ban would probably be an error, but that’s mainly because I think that the chances of that particular evil returning to power is minimal. On the other hand, I understand the anger when people who suffered so much under communism see those symbols. (As an aside, I see them frequently enough in the U.S. One sometimes sees fashionable exercise gear with “CCCP” [“USSR” in Latin letters] or a hammer and sickle across the chest, worn by people who think that it’s cool to flaunt such a naughty symbol, and who seem unconcerned that many millions were murdered under that symbol. And I’ve made my views about Che’s images on t-shirts known, too: 1, 2.)
The hooked cross needs to be banned to ensure any long term stability in a region still reeling from the Second World War, and so European nations should. But should the EU parliament do it? If it’s main purpose is to be a confederation of nations united for trade and economic purposes, then unless all the member nations unanimously agree (and quite honestly they have got to), doesn’t that overstep the bounds of that entity’s intended purpose? Or am I reading into this too much?
Mr. Radzinsky’s comments seem eminently sensible. If the hammer and sickle is an organizing symbol for a murderous criminal conspiracy that actually murdered lots of people in, say, Hungary, but not in Britain, why have an EU-wide ban? (And I might add, if it’s not likely to come back to power, the case for a ban even in Hungary is weak. But again, I can easily understand why people who see such symbols worn openly are angered.)
I’m skeptic about symbols having so much power.
I can easily understand why they’re angered, but more than a decade out from under a repressive regime seems long enough to do away with the threat of sudden reorganization. Sixty years later, I think it’s safe to say the swastika is no longer any kind of imminent threat.
The hammer and sickle, of course, have never been so universally repudiated. Communism is still widely considered to be morally superior to fascism. So while I’m all in favor if treating one murderous totalitarianism like the next, I think this only means that to ban either is a bad idea. To display either symbol in a show of support is repugnant but not clearly dangerous.
Where do you draw the line. Is it OK to ban “far right” and communist parties in Europe as “self-defense against known criminals.” Given that there are probably no living Nazis politicians left, what “known criminals” are we defending ourselves against. Do you suppor banning the most popular political party in Belgium, the Vlams Blok because they opposed immigration. Was that self defense? How about the confederate flag in the South?
So much for free speech.
Also, while I don’t think Communism is a threat anywhere in the World, there certainly seems to be a lot more sympathy to it in Europe than Nazism. Le Pen was fined for merely saying that the Holocaust was not as big a deal as everyone said it was (read, not that it didn’t happen or less people were killed), while Jospin refused to even acknowledge that Stalin Killed anyone, was in a coalition gov’t with the Communist Party, and nothing happened to him.
I don’t see why either symbol or party should be banned, but it seems to me if you were going to do one, it’d be the Commies.
Mr. Epstein raises the question of where one draws the line. That’s a most important question, but the mere raising of it does not imply that no line can be drawn. It does not follow that, because some speech is or should be legally prohibited that we should throw up our hands and say, “So much for free speech.”
Take the issue of hateful speech, for example. To say that Group X is wicked, inferior, or the like on a radio broadcast or in a conversation is one thing; to assemble a mob in front of that group’s place of worship and to use the same terms and language to incite the mob to violence is another. (The use of radio broadcasts to incite mass murder in Rwanda is another example of speech that should be punished.) One could not afterwards reasonably claim that one was merely exercising one’s right to free speech; “it was those other people who did the burning, looting, and killing, while all I did was express my opinions.” Similarly, the speech that is involved in criminal conspiracy (say, planning a kidnapping) is not protected speech.
Where does that leave us with certain kinds of symbols? Displaying a confederate flag on a flagpole or a bumpersticker is a form of protected speech.* What about burning a cross? That quite arguably constitutes a threat to some citizens and is not reasonably compared to merely igniting some wood. It is arguably a threat of violence that is intended to intimidate people from exercising their equal rights. I would be inclined to support banning the burning of crosses. What about marching through Skokie with swastikas? I think that the ACLU basically took the right position in that case, and the disgust that the act of marching through a town full of holocaust survivors occasions among decent people should not lead us to abandon a basic principle, viz. that action that does not harm the rights of others or credibly threaten such harm should not be prohibited. A tiny group of people who are expressing hateful views is not by itself a clear danger to the rights of the offended. What, then, about the wearing of white hoods by members of the Council of Concerned Citizens (or its successor organization, Sam Francis’s Council of Conservative Citizens) when they’ve switched hats, as it were, and wish to express their views under the auspices of another organization? Since the KKK was a terrorist organization that murdered, robbed, and intimidated people, I think that the bans on the wearing of white KKK hoods is defensible. They weren’t merely another kind of hat, but a combination of uniform and disguise for people who engaged in murder.
Currently the display of hateful symbols is allowed in the U.S., and rightly so. But there are occasions when they should not be, as when the wearing of white hoods and the burning of crosses was so intimately involved in the systematic intimidation of black people in America. (And not only in the south, but in states such as Indiana and Ohio, as well, which had active organized groups of such terrorists.) We now generally allow those displays because we allow people to “play” at being National Socialists or KKK members; they can march around, salute each other, and otherwise make fools of themselves if they want. When they actually do what real National Socialists or KKK members do, which is to murder, rob, and intimidate other people, the full force of the law should be (and is) brought down on them, without mercy, as was the case when radio show Alan Berg was murdered by National Socialists in 1984.
What, then, about the display of symbols by a party that may very well take over the state and implement such policies? Are we required, out of respect for freedom, to acquiesce in such groups taking over the state and killing us? I don’t think so. Before I would let such groups actually attain power, I would favor the use of government power (as well as private force) to stop them. Liberalism is not, as has been remarked in other circumstances, a suicide pact. For that reason, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was banned in all European countries after the defeat of the Third Reich. That ban was extended to any groups that are shown to be fronts for the same movement or successors. Perhaps now, sixty years later, that ban should be removed. (I don’t really lose much sleep over the issue, I do confess.) The same may be true for Communist parties and the display of Communist symbols. But a case can be made for such bans; whether they are justified or not is dependent on how likely it is that such groups will actually succeed in exercising illegitimate force and violence, either privately or through attaining state power.
*The display of the confederate flag by private citizens is, by the way, quite a different matter from putting it on a state flag as a deliberate and calculated insult to a group of citizens, as the state of Georgia did in 1956. In such cases, there are no “free speech issues,” contrary to what, say, Tom DiLorenzo has insisted, but merely issues of taste, manners, and appropriate consideration of the interests and sensibilities of all citizens who have to enter court of law over which such flags fly. That is the reason that I think that citizens of states that have incorporated the Confederate battle flag should vote to remove it from their state flags. Merely because the Confederacy was a part of their history for a few years is no reason to celebrate it, just as the fact that the Third Reich was a part of the history of Bavaria for much longer is no reason to celebrate that terrible history by incorporating the swastika or other insignia of the Third Reich into the Bavarian flag.
While I agree that if you burn a cross on someone’s lawn it is a violation of their property rights, but the case where they decided to ban it involved the Klan burning a cross on their property where no one else could see it.
And not to engage in “moral equivolancy”, but What political party doesn’t advocate the killing people. Certainly the Republican Party did in this last election and is backing it up with force (and no, I would not consider this legitimate force) Should the Republican party be banned?
If I’m correct in gathering that Marcus Epstein is referring to the war in Iraq, the analogy seems a bit misshapen, unless of course you believe wholeheartedly that the Republicans have carried out this war for the exclusive purpose of killing innocents (a belief of which I’m just a tad skeptical). In that case, the analogy just happens to be a non sequitur. Whether or not the use of force in Iraq is legitimate is itself a legitimate question – this goes without saying. Whether or not the Republican Party should be banned, however, is not – especially given that the only other viable political party gave, as a majority, what I would consider to be express consent to carry out this war. Should the United States Congress be banned?
Should the United States Congress be banned?
asked Jon.
Best idea yet.