In the last week or so, a debate over individual freedoms has ignited in western Europe as a result of some French regions’ decision to ban an item of beach clothing known as a burkini (a swimwear version of the burka). This is a hot topic for the French in particular, considering the amount of Islamic terrorism they have had to endure over the last 2 years, but everybody across Europe seems to have an opinion on this – from so-called ‘anti-racism’ groups to libertarian activists.
To many, particularly the leftists and globalists, the cries of ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘racism’ have nothing to do with personal freedom to choose what garments one wears to the beach, but are simply to advance the cause of Islam and mass third-world migration to Europe – we know this and that is an entirely separate issue to be dealt with. There are, however, some sensible people with legitimate concerns about the state deciding what a person can and can’t wear. Many people hold the notion of individual freedom above all else, including the right to say, do and wear whatever a person wishes.
So the real question is as follows: Is it acceptable to curtail individual freedoms in order to preserve/advance the good of society as a whole?
This is the central issue particularly around the burkini ban and also the wider issue of Islam in Europe – the state is intervening to ensure social order. In a country that has seen more than its fair share of Islamic terror attacks, it is quite understandable that ostentatious displays of Islam in public will make the native French population feel uncomfortable. In fact, a recent poll suggested that 83% of French people support a blanket ban on burkinis – after all, the burka itself is already banned in the nation. With a nation on the edge, it is perfectly acceptable for the burkini to be banned.
Geert Wilders, leader of the PVV (Dutch Party for Freedom) and favourite to be the next Dutch PM, has this week called for the Koran to be banned in the country, mosques to be closed, Islamic schools to be closed, Islamic immigration to be halted and the veil to be banned a public functions. It is fantastic that a European politician with such stature has the courage to stand up and speak out against the alien culture of Islam that has gripped Europe, but again, the left and the libertarians will bring up this question of individual freedoms and human rights and so on.
The first and most obvious point here should be in regards to Islam’s place in Europe. The rights of the native people of European nations should surely be put first at all times, ahead of this alien culture that has been imported against our will. Islam is not part of our culture, so therefore should be fair game for restrictions in any way that the native people see fit. After all, if you visit somebody’s house and they require that you take off your shoes, it is expected that you oblige.
Muslims have proven time and again that they have difficulty fitting into European nations. Whether this is down to genetic reasons such as a lower average IQ than the host population, or down to the religious ideology that they follow, the end result is the same. They often bring violence, disorder, rape and terrorism. Certain cultural ideas which they have brought such as the burka, polygamy, general misogyny and child marriage are absolutely disgraceful – they use their religion to defend these practises, so surely it is only right that the state has the power to remove this defence by restricting their religious freedom?
If we look at this in a more general way, it is a hard question as to whether or not it is acceptable to sacrifice certain individual freedoms for the national/societal good. The issue is, unchecked individual freedom opens the door to internal subversion and anarchy. America is a good example of this – they are, after all, a nation supposedly built on freedom. However, they are also a nation where terrorist organisations such as Black Lives Matter are free to preach their anti-white racism and incite cop killings, a nation where 43 million people are on food stamps, a nation where illegal immigrants can get away with defacing the national flag in public, and a nation where ‘pay up or die’ is their unspoken healthcare motto.
However, on the flip side, we can look at a nation such as North Korea where individual freedom is practically non-existent. It is doubtful whether you could sneeze without the state knowing about it in North Korea. This is clearly a horrible place to live and offers an example as to how communism is the total enemy of individual freedom and the national/societal good. They have a nation where the people are oppressed and the country is poor and unhealthy as a whole – clearly this is the other extreme of the spectrum.
This comparison though, between the freedom-obsessed Americans and the anti-freedom North Koreans, shows how a middle way is probably the better choice. Without societal good there will be no individual freedom, as it will be fellow citizens abusing each other’s freedom as opposed to the state curtailing it. Authoritarianism is not a dirty word – provided the state takes its authority from the will of the people. If there is a public appetite for the state to take away the freedom to practise Islam, then let it be so. If the people are being adversely affected by protest groups such as Black Lives Matter, then the state should intervene to restrict their right of assembly and protest.
The fact that some French regions have chosen to ban the burkini should be a non-issue. Firstly, it is the will of the people to do so (83% in favour). Secondly, Islam has done enough damage to social cohesion in France, therefore displays of this religion are fair game for restriction. The good of the native population must come first in any event, and for foreign liberals and proponents of the globalist cause to pass judgement is entirely wrong. Similarly, if the Dutch people elect Geert Wilders and the PVV on a promise to rid their nation of Islam, then so be it – it is the will of the people and for the national good.
The moral of the story is that individual freedoms are a fantastic aspect of a healthy society, but unchecked individual freedom is always a negative force. There will always be internal subversive forces looking to take advantage of a nation’s tolerance and love for freedom.