But Will He Get Tea in Jail...

A fascinating juxtaposition of jurisprudence in the past weeks. In Austria, an English historian is locked up for 3 years for denying the Holocaust. Meanwhile, in America, the Supreme Court upholds the right of a religious group to drink hallucinogenic tea in its rituals. And around the world tensions continue to simmer around the cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed.

The situation in Austria is particularly interesting given the recent hubbub about the freedom of the press in Denmark. They have a thing for cartoons, in case you haven't heard. To hear the Dutch tell it, Muslims should swallow their pride, because freedom of the press is absolute, and democracy demands we know how to be offended.

But not so fast my friend! Austria's laws criminalize "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media." A relic of the post-war period? Not at all. The law was passed in 1992.

As the Grillmaster argued in an earlier post, this freedom ought to be protected except in the most abnormal circumstances. The case in Austria is a sad example of fear of the past violating this principle. Austria's democracy ought to be robust enough to withstand the propostrous historical claims made by this British anti-Semite. He should be publicly condemned as a bigot, and allowed to wander into relative obscurity. Unfortunately, the specter of the Nazi past still looms so large, and neo-fascism remains so visible, that Austria lacks the democratic self-confidence to allow fools to speak their foolish minds. An added misfortune is that this surely reminds Europe's Muslims that while their governments will curb speech to protect Jewish minorities, similar restraints do not exist to insulate their beliefs from doubt and ridicule.

On the heels of these decisions, the Supreme Court today affirmed the right of a small religious sect to drink hallucenogenic tea in their rituals. It's not directly related to either free speech case in Europe, but points again to America's remarkable ability to accomodate difference and free expression. The justices decided that the ritual was a sincere religious expression, and thus accomodated difference rather than impose restraint. If the Roberts Court shows similar consideration for freedom from warrentless search and from inhumane treatment while in detention, it will truly do this country proud.

Unfortunately, the Grillmaster wouldn't bet the smoker on it. Governments tend to err on the side of security, especially in time of threat. It's why Austria has the laws it does, and why the Roberts Court is unlikely to live up to my hopes.