Sullivan: Take the negativity out of ‘freedom’

I never write about fashion and I don’t often get a chance to bash France, so this column… I never write about fashion and I don’t often get a chance to bash France, so this column should be fun.

At the beginning of March, British designer John Galliano unleashed a rant of prime, Mel Gibson-level anti-Semitism in a Paris restaurant. He was promptly fired from fashion giant Christian Dior, where he was the head designer, but this was hardly the end of his troubles. The French government decided it will bring a criminal case against Mr. Galliano for his hateful speech. According to U.S. News and World Report, Galliano will stand trial for “public insults based on the origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity.”

He did apologize for the incident through his lawyers, acccording to the report, he said “Anti-Semitism and racism have no part in our society,” in a statement. As repugnant as his remarks were, and they certainly were repugnant, the idea of criminally charging someone for words leaves its own bitter taste in my mouth. Progressives have a tendency to lionize the governments of Europe because of their incredible social services and perceived liberalism. That’s the problem, though — perceived liberalism. France might have services out the wazoo, but this isn’t the first time that government has taken a swipe at freedoms that Americans hold very dear.

In 2004, for those who don’t remember, France passed a law that banned the wearing of “overt religious symbols” in French public schools. Although this was not limited to any particular religion, the law was precipitated by young Muslim girls wearing the hijab, the traditional headscarf for some observant Muslims.

The argument went that the headscarves, as well as large crosses, yarmulkes and other symbols, were in some way offensive or even threatening to the other school children. With this argument and the threatening of all French citizens with criminal prosecution for words, the government revealed one of its prime impetuses — secularism.

The French government wants a country in which differences among the population are covered up, or at least kept safely at home. It is a system that I describe as negative freedoms, or freedoms “from.” In France, you have the freedom from being accosted by other people’s religion in public places. And in France, it now seems you have the freedom from not only offensive actions but also offensive words.

In America, we guarantee positive freedoms, or freedoms “to.” It is, if I may say so, a much better system. We have the freedom to practice whatever religion we so choose. We have the freedom to say whatever comes first to our minds. We have, and not many people know of or would attempt this, the freedom to give cops the finger.

In keeping with the theme of talking about something I normally don’t, allow me space to praise the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts. A few days after Galliano’s public outburst, the Court handed down its decision regarding the Westboro Baptist Church. The primary question in the case, Snyder v. Phelps, was whether or not WBC’s hate-filled protests at military funerals, where members protest while holding signs that read “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” were an expression of free and protected speech.

The Court, and cheers to them for this, ruled 8-to-1 that the protests were protected speech. Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the protests were a direct attack on the Snyder family as it tried to bury its son, Matthew — something akin to screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater. The rest of the Court followed with a strong opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, which was a surprisingly nice piece of writing: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”

Roberts’ opinion recognizes that free speech is a fundamental and primary positive freedom. It is a freedom to, not a freedom from, and for this reason it is precious. Positive freedoms get a lot messier than their opposite. It is something we have to deal with in this country on a regular basis. But we have dealt with it this long, and I think we can keep it up. Because, and answer honestly, would you rather have to turn your attention away from something you find despicable, or be forbidden from voicing your opinion because someone else finds it despicable?

Write Brendan at b.james.sullivan@gmail.com.