2003 Ron Paul 113:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise with great concerns over this legislation — both over its
content and what it represents. First, I think it
is absurd that the U.S. Congress believes it
has the responsibility and authority to rectify
the inappropriate statements of individuals in
foreign countries. Have we moved beyond
meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries
— as bad as that is — to even meddling in
the very thoughts and words of foreign leaders
and citizens? It is the obligation of the U.S.
Congress to correct the wrong thoughts of
others that have nothing to do with the United
States? Additionally, is it our place to demand
that other sovereign states, such as the members
of the European Union, react as we say
they must to certain international events?
2003 Ron Paul 113:2
More troubling than what is stated in this legislation, however, is the kind of thinking that
this approach represents. The purpose of this
legislation is to punish inappropriate thoughts
and speech — to free debate on difficult topics
and issues. In this, it contains a whiff of totalitarian
thinking. This legislation advances the
disturbing idea that condemnatory speech that
does not explicitly incite violence is nevertheless
inherently dangerous. It asserts that even
debating controversial topics inevitably leads
to violence. This is absurd on its face: it is
only debate that leads us to come to understandings
over controversial topics without violence.
That is why nations engage in diplomacy.
2003 Ron Paul 113:3
Those who feel aggrieved over an issue can either broach the issue through discussion and
debate or they can attempt to address the
grievance through the barrel of a gun. Which
is preferable? I think the answer is self-evident.
Once persuasion is taken from the realm
of possibility, the only approach left to address
grievances is violence.
2003 Ron Paul 113:4
Is the prime minister of Malaysia wrong in his statements? Debate him. Invite him to one
of the various multilateral gatherings with
someone who disagrees with him and have a
debate and discussion over the issue. This approach
is much more likely to result in a
peaceful resolution of the dispute than what
we are doing here: a blanket condemnation
and a notice that certain difficult issues are not
subject to any inappropriate thoughts or statements.
This is chilling for a nation that prides
itself on its tradition of protecting even the
most distasteful of speech.
2003 Ron Paul 113:5
Dr. Mahathir has long been known for his statements on the Middle East. His views are
no secret. Yet even President Bush, who invited
Prime Minister Mahathir to Washington in
May, 2003, chose the path of debate over
blanket condemnation. President Bush said at
a joint press conference that, well also talk
about the Middle East, and I look forward to
hearing from the Prime Minister on the Middle
East. So well have a good discussion. Abandoning
our beliefs and traditions — especially
those regarding the right to hold and express
even abhorrent thoughts and ideas — when it
comes to our foreign relations is hardly the
best way to show the rest of the world the
strength of our system and way of life.
2003 Ron Paul 113:6
A careful reading of the prime ministers speech did not find any explicit calls for violence.
Actually, Dr. Mahathir called for Muslims
around the world to cease using violence
to seek their goals. He stated, is there no
other way than to ask our young people to
blow themselves up and kill people and invite
the massacre of more of our own people?
Also, he advises against revenge attacks
and urges Muslims to win [the] hearts and
minds of non-Muslims including Jews...who
do not approve of what the Israelis are doing.
While we may agree or disagree with the
cause that Dr. Mahathir espouses, the fact
that he calls for non-violent means to achieve
his goals is to be commended rather than condemned.
This is not to agree with every aspect
of his address — and certainly not to
agree with some of the ridiculous statements
contained therein — but rather to caution
against the kind of blanket condemnation that
this legislation represents. Do we not also
agree with his words that Muslim violence in
the Middle East has been counterproductive?
President Bush himself in May invited Dr.
Mahathir to the White House to, in the presidents
words, publicly thank the Prime Minister
for his strong support in the war against
terror.
2003 Ron Paul 113:7
I strongly believe that we need to get out of the business of threatening people over what
they think and say and instead trust that our
own principles, freedom and liberty, can win
out in the marketplace of ideas over bigotry
and hate. When the possibility of persuasion is
abandoned, the only recourse for the aggrieved
is violence. Havent we seen enough
of this already?