BLOG
January 22, 2005 08:33PM
It transpires that a gentleman from the Austrian Green Party objects in the strongest possible terms to Mr. Schwarzenegger's use of the death penalty and, in something of a non-sequitur, wishes to see Mr. Schwarzenegger stripped of his Austrian citizenship. Mr. Schwarzegger's citizenship should stand and consistent liberals in Austria should consider giving the man behind this idea (a Mr. Peter Pilz) short shrift at the ballot box.
It's an axiomatic liberal cause - and, as such, one I support - to oppose the death penalty. Death being, on my estimation at least, a serious infringement on one's liberty. Consistent liberals, however, must also recognise limits to political action and shun the use of arbitrary sanction as a means of marginalising one's opponents.
"Schwarzenegger is possibly the most prominent Austrian abroad, and he shapes the picture of Austria," Mr Pilz said.
"I don't want that picture shaped by someone who commits state murder. That does not correspond to the political culture of this country."
The case here, as articulated by Mr. Pilz himself, is as simple as it is vindictive. Arnold Schwarzenegger holds views (views, I concede, that he acts upon) that conflict with Mr. Pilz's views. Moreover, they are views that "do not correspond to the political culture" of Austria. Therefore he should no longer be an Austrian. If Mr. Pilz considers unorthodoxy of view to be a bar on retaining one's nationality then - as a member of the Green Party - I rather suspect that he ought to hand in his passport immediately. More seriously, if he really does believe this then he ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
Someone who could claim to know a bit about the conception liberty, John Stuart Mill, had this to say on the matter:
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
It is the livelier impression of that truth (that the death penalty is morally unpardonable and grossly illiberal) that is produced by its collision with error. Mr. Pilz does that cause no good, and some considerable harm, if he thinks that government sanction is the best means of solving disputes on the topic.
I suspect that Mr. Pilz knows this only too well and is engaged in a vapid political stunt. I entreat my Austrian readers - for they are legion - to vote tactically to unseat Mr. Pilz at the first available opportunity.
view comments(2) |
post comment
