Muzzling Falwell

Diana West

The Washington Times

Published 10/18/2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a time of more controlled chaos, linking the Rev. Jerry Falwell to

French author Michel Houellebecq would be unthinkable. After all, what could

the founder of the Moral Majority possibly have in common weese uh Fransh

ossair known for novels of emotional desolation and sexual explicitness? Not

much — until lately.

Just as politics makes strange bedfellows, religion has paired this

unlikely duo. But not their own religions. That would be impossible, given the

celebrated Mr. Houellebecq rejects monotheism altogether, and Mr. Falwell is a

famous Christian preacher of the religious right. And while both men share an

unfavorable view of Islam (Mr. Houellebecq is no fan of Christianity or

Judaism, either), that alone doesn't team them up. What really unites the man

of God with the man of letters, whether they know it or not, is the

international furor they have kicked up simply by expressing themselves. In

voicing bluntly critical opinions of Islam, they have inadvertently revealed

the shocking extent to which our freedom of speech has been curtailed, and the

still more shocking extent to which Western society is willing to accommodate

itself to the new limitations.

In Mr. Houellebecq's case, spoken candor and a new novel that includes

Muslim terrorists has landed him in a Parisian courtroom, where he now stands

trial for having called Islam a name: "The stupidest religion." While this

schoolyard-level charge is almost laughable, the case is no joke: If found

guilty, he could spend a year in prison and pay a heavy fine. Why? Dalil

Boubakeur of the Paris mosque, one of four plaintiffs, put it this way to the

London Telegraph: "Words have a price. One can kill with a word. Freedom of

expression stops at the point at which it does damage and the Muslim community

feels insulted."

In Mr. Boubakeur's worldview, "community" feelings trump personal

opinion

every time; in the event this case isn't dismissed, the future of public

discourse is none too good. What we have here in Paris is a little wave of

sharia law lapping at Western justice. In the case against Mr. Houellebecq,

there's no comprehension of what free speech means (insults included), nor any

understanding of it being a keystone of civilization. Instead, there is only

the drive to censor. Meanwhile, I'm curious: Where exactly is it that can

one "kill with a word?" Iran? (More on that below.)

Maybe no one ever thought French schools would go multi-culti to the

point of eliminating old Voltaire and his quotable chestnut — the one that

says, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right

to say it" — but it looks as they have consigned this all-important lesson to

the dead (white and male) file. But it's not just Muslims who have missed out.

According to the Telegraph, "Mr. Houellebecq has won the backing only of

diehard free speech activists and a handful of fellow writers." Two questions:

What are the French intelligentsia afraid of? What aren't they afraid of?

Then there's Jerry Falwell. Earlier this month, the good reverend

had the

audacity to speak his mind about Mohammed, the Islamic prophet. "I think

Mohammed was a terrorist," he told CBS. "I read enough by both Muslims and non-

Muslims [to decide] he was a violent man, a man of war." With these comments,

Mr. Falwell may have bypassed a court trial, but for exercising his right of

free speech, he now finds himself sentenced to death — to death — by an

Iranian

cleric described in news accounts as a personal representative of Iran's

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. (Also slapped with death sentences for

criticizing Islam are the Revs. Donald Graham and Pat Robertson.)

Now, let's be serious: Given their many official, if futile, attempts to

cobble together a working definition of terrorism that excludes explosive-

strapped humans bent on self-detonating in crowds of people, Hezbollah-

supporting-Iranians and other Islamics are hardly the people to go to resolve

whether Mohammed was a terrorist. To be sure, history tells us Mohammed, at

the

very least, terrorized his rivals and opponents, many of whom were killed at

his behest. But that's neither here nor there. Surely, Mr. Falwell's

contention

is debatable — and without chopping off his head. And surely Mr. Falwell's

right to express himself is one well worth defending, particularly when

weighed

against censorship and threats of murder.

You'd never know it. As in Mr. Houellebecq's case, Mr. Falwell has

had to

stand virtually alone, even apologize, having been castigated, repudiated and

blamed for everything from the resurgence of Islamists in the Pakistani

elections to Muslim-Hindu violence in India. But how much easier it is for the

truly enlightened among us to dump on Mr. Falwell, a man who threatens no one,

than to stand up against a repressive movement that threatens us all.