No one really wants to fault Tony
Blair as he strives
to address the threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism. After one round
of deadly bombings and a second round of attempted ones just two weeks
apart, everyone knows that his fears are not exactly a hallucination.
In this case, most people in the United States as well as Britain would
prefer the prime minister went too far rather than not far enough.
In a statement last week, he praised his people's "tolerance and good
nature" but said they feel "a determination that this very tolerance
and good nature should not be abused by a small but fanatical
minority." He proceeded to unveil a plan to expel foreign nationals,
such as militant Muslim clerics, who exhibit sympathy for terrorism.
His plan would mandate deportation for any non-citizen who is guilty of
"fostering hatred" or "justifying or validating ... violence" or
"glorifying terrorism." For those who have come from abroad, Blair
declared, "staying here carries with it a duty. That duty is to share
and support the values that sustain the British way of life."
Left unexplained is why that duty should apply only to foreign
nationals. Shouldn't native-born Britons have an even greater
obligation not to criticize or reject such values? Why should anyone be
allowed to question the common ideals of the British nation?
The reason, of course, is that unfettered debate is the foundation of a
free society, and one of the proudest achievements of British
democracy. If open expression by Britons serves a vital
function--informing and stimulating thought--why doesn't open
expression by immigrants and foreign visitors advance that purpose as
well?
The problem with Blair's program is not that he wants to
crack down on terrorist activity undertaken by imported radicals.
Violence and other forms of criminality deserve vigorous prosecution
and punishment. But his plan goes beyond targeting terrorist acts to
penalizing forbidden thoughts and words. Just venturing into a radical
bookstore could get you the boot.
If a radical Islamic leader
is recruiting suicide bombers, helping them plan their crimes or
inciting them to kill people, he shouldn't be deported--he should be
convicted and locked up. Blair, however, wants to expel anyone who
merely expresses ideas that might conceivably be dangerous.
That prohibition is a net that will catch minnows as well as sharks. It
would mean anyone praising Yasser Arafat's leadership could be sent
packing. So could anyone expressing the slightest sympathy for the
Nicaraguan Contras, who once enjoyed the support of the Reagan
administration. Ditto for Nelson Mandela, who led an armed guerrilla
group before becoming a symbol of brotherhood.
The point is not
that anyone will actually be kicked out for saying a kind word about
Nelson Mandela. The point is that there is a huge gulf between
"justifying" violence and engaging in terrorism.
The history of
freedom of speech, in fact, is mainly the story of learning to tolerate
statements that have the potential to cause real harm. We allow the Ku
Klux Klan to hold rallies even though they could inspire people to
racial violence. We permit Communist Party conventions even though they
may spawn cells of armed revolutionaries. We let people hold and
advocate extreme views because we have faith in the value of debate to
expose error and advance truth.
And we don't define truth by
the nationality of the speaker. One of the cardinal principles of law
in this country is that constitutional rights are the property not just
of American citizens, but of anyone who arrives here. A resident
immigrant or a visitor can't be punished for saying things that the
rest of us are allowed to say.
Brits may think we can hold to
that policy only because we're not under attack. But we held to it even
when we faced the biggest threat ever. During World War II, the
government tried to strip the citizenship of a German immigrant who
preached Nazism while we were fighting Hitler. But the Supreme Court
said it could not expel him for expressing "sinister-sounding views
that native-born citizens utter with impunity."
Blair presumes
that if young Muslims are shielded from incendiary rhetoric, they won't
become terrorists. But shutting up a few radical preachers won't
silence their ideas. In the Internet age, anyone who wants to hear
calls to jihad can get them in an instant.
In the end, his plan
promises to sacrifice freedom without improving security. Blair wants
outsiders who come to Britain to "support the values that sustain the
British way of life." They might answer: After you.
----------
Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. E-mail:
schapman@tribune.com