Public Displays
November 24, 2007 by athinkingman
A 29-year-old man from Straubing, Bavaria, is facing a 3 year jail sentence for giving his dog a haircut.
It was not clear if the man, who has not commented on the markings, had shown the dog in public, a police spokesman said.
“That still needs to be proved,” he said. “If he only kept the dog inside the apartment, it wouldn’t be public.”
His ex-girlfriend asked Police to accompany her to his flat so that she could collect her belongings as she was so afraid of him. When they arrived, they found that his dog had a swastika and the insignia of Hitler’s elite Waffen-SS troops shaved into its fur. The public display of Nazi symbols is prohibited in Germany.
I know some will object to the possible indignity and potential trauma suffered by the dog. However, I was momentarily intrigued (and I say, ‘momentarily’ deliberately) by the possible double standards in this story. Let it be said straightaway that I am no Nazi fan, and like most of the rest of us, am appalled at what they did. I have no desire to see a resurgence of fascism. However, I was initially temporarily puzzled as to how this potential act of locking up a man for displaying a symbol (presumably expressing a viewpoint) differed from those who rioted and murdered in response to the publishing of a particular cartoon in Denmark, or differed from this Thursday’s riot in Calcutta (47 injured, 100 arrested) over writer Taslima Nasreen’s presence there. On the face of it, in all three cases, controversial view-points are being suppressed.
On reflection, I soon found some important differences, though not too many (if you can see more, please do help me out here).
Difference One: Intent
Many of the aims of Nazism threatened human rights and were literally very dangerous to large groups of people who didn’t conform in some way. There is ample empirical proof of this. If Nazism were allowed to flourish again, it would be a cruel, retrograde step for civilized humanity. The views of the artists and writers who challenge Islam are no threat to anyone in a civilized society. They are not calling for Muslims to be exterminated because of their faith. They are just challenging views.
Muslims may argue that they are extremely offended, but the rest of us have to ask, why should anyone be protected from the risk of how they might be offended in response to an expression of difference. Questioning something should surely be allowed in a civilized society, and there is a difference between that, and questioning something and then going on to say that everyone who believes that something should be killed.
If I am a scientist propounding various theories, I accept that anyone can challenge those theories (and even ridicule them and me in student magazines if they wish to). I would want to be able to engage in honest debate with my critics. I wouldn’t want my supporters to riot and murder them. And if I ever started saying: “My critics should be stopped, murdered even …” I would expect to be locked up.
Expression of ideas which challenge should be encouraged. Expression of ideas which threaten with murder, and which have a record of doing so, probably need to be limited in some ways by a civilized society.
Difference Two: Legality
The German police are following due process of law. They are investigating, collecting evidence, and in due course, may put that before a court. They are not enraged citizens taking the law into their own hands. They are acting on behalf of the laws decided by a parliament in a democratic state. Any decision to limit free expression has been debated at length and decided on by parliament. Both the government that passed the law and the agents of the law are accountable. In the two other incidents, the perpetrators have taken on themselves the right to riot and murder and endanger the lives of others, regardless of what the government of the country says. It is literally ‘mob rule’.
Difference Three: Proportionate
In response to the riots over the publishing of the Danish cartoon satirizing the Prophet Mohamed, Theo van Gogh made a film criticising Islam and was stabbed to death because of that. In any civilized society, that response, and the rioting responses mentioned above, are totally disproportionate to a critical expression of difference. While such responses are taking place it is difficult to have any debate that might involve the expression of critical views.
On finding the Nazi symbol, the police didn’t call in their colleagues and neighbours and start a riot or kill the man. They collected evidence which may go before a court. If found guilty, a judge will decide the sentence, taking into account the severity of the crime. And parliament has decided that the maximum penalty the judge can set in the most extreme case is 3 years.
Very thought-provoking situation. I think your first point, intent, may be the weakest. Obviously, I don’t know the guy involved, so I can’t speak authoritatively about his motives. He could just be playing a poor joke, or playing the role of the rebel. In cases like that, he’s probably not harmful, just boorish. On the other hand, he could be a skin-head who really would like to follow up his “speech” with acts of violence if he had the opportunity to do so. The fact that his ex-girlfriend was frightened of him could indicate that he’s nasty, not just a rebel or prankster.
The legality of the situation is clear-cut. He broke a law that has stood, in one form or another, for well over half a century.
With regard to proportionate response, you are correct to point out that the police are acting lawfully and the public is just standing aside and letting the police do their job. This is a striking difference from conservative Islamic states in which religious leaders who hold no government offices believe they have the right to issue fatwas just because they don’t like what someone said about their religion.
Notice that I referred to conservative, not extremist, Islamic states. The hyper-sensitive reaction of a substantial number of Muslims to expressions of disagreement, even within their own community (let alone from western Christians) speaks to a flaw deep within the Islamic religion. This flaw is not unique to Islam. It is a flaw that is inherent in any ideology, religious or not, that is based on irrationality.
Interesting comment on ‘intent’. I failed to make it clear that I was meaning to refer to the intent of the Nazis, not of the individual who shaved his dog. I agree, the individual man may have had a variety of harmless motives. I assume the German law is seeking to limit the growth of a movement that does have a less than humanitarian intent.
I agree too that all ideologies that fail to engage in serious dialogue with opponents, and feel that they have some kind of divine sanction to act outside the law, are the real threat - not necessarily any particular one.
If there is a law against displaying Nazi symbols in Bavaria, then there is a prima facie case for believing that this man has broken it by displaying a swastika, albeit on his dog. Either he knows the law and is willing to accept the consequences or was acting in ignorance. We cannot know his motives, though these may emerge in due course.
A question raised by this incident is obviously that of free speech. Some would, like Voltaire, defend to the death a person’s right to express his opinions even though execrating the opinions themselves. In other words, there are those who would regard Bavarian law, rather than the canine tonsorialist, to be at fault.
As for myself, I feel that the right to free speech has to give way sometimes to a higher sensibility. For example, if a woman walks down the high street wearing swastika earrings, I don’t think anyone should interfere with her but what if she wore the same earrings to attend a synagogue? (If she wore them to attend a Hindu temple that would presumably cause no bother.)
Personally, I feel rather sorry for the dog. He now finds himself an object of ridicule or even opprobrium without knowing why. Presumably he trusts his master and holds him in affection. I think his trust has been betrayed though of course the dog is unable to appreciate this. Perhaps the Bavarian equivalent of the RSPCA should become involved on the grounds that the canine hair stylist is not a fit person to own a dog.
[...] burning Rushie’s The Satanic Verses (without having read the book) to the killing of a Danish film-maker because of religious criticism or calling for a teacher to be killed for allowing a teddy bear to [...]