It’s been a week since President Rodrigo Duterte’s controversial speech about his ongoing anti-drug campaign which mentioned Adolf Hitler, the Nazi German leader during World War II. After being criticized by Jewish organizations in the United States for allegedly comparing drug dealers and drug users to the Jews killed by Hitler’s troops in Nazi-occupied Europe during the war, Duterte took the heat like a national leader should, and apologized. Duterte declared that when he made the remark, it was not his intention to insult the memory of the Jews killed in that chapter of world history known as the Holocaust.
As pointed out in last week’s essay, the context of President Duterte’s speech, which was his emphasis on the zeal of his anti-drug campaign, and the fact that the Philippines has no historical tradition of anti-Semitism (hostility towards the Jews as a group), negate any intention of being anti-Semitic on the part of the president.
Moreover, since there is no reason for Duterte to harbor any hatred for Jews in the first place, the conclusion that he compared the Jews killed by the Nazis to the drug dealers and drug users being hunted down by Duterte’s administration appears to be largely impulsive—possibly a knee-jerk reaction to an unexpected utterance of Hitler’s name by the president of a Southeast Asian country with no experience of Nazi brutality.
Since President Duterte had no intention of offending the feelings of the Jews worldwide when he delivered his speech, it would have been enough for him to make the clarification. No, he swallowed his pride and apologized for any wounded feelings his remarks may have inadvertently caused. That act of humility is statesmanship by any standard, enough to make up for whatever shortcomings he may have unwittingly demonstrated when he gave that controversial address.
Sadly, the president’s critics were quick to condemn him, but blind to his remedial virtues. Indeed, high office has its share of unpleasantries.
Anyway, it’s time for some observations which many may not agree with. For the record, however, this discourse is not an endorsement of Hitler or anti-Semitism.
The oath of office taken by the President of the Philippines does not contain any waiver of his constitutional rights, and there is no provision in the Constitution which mentions any such waiver. In other words, the president does not shed off his constitutional rights the moment he assumes the highest office in the land. Those rights include freedom of speech.
President Duterte’s speech is an exercise of his constitutional right to speak. His speech may have mentioned Hitler and the Jews killed during the Holocaust, but it enjoys constitutional protection. It is well within his rights to do so, particularly because he had no intention to insult the Jews in the first place.
Free speech includes “hate speech” or speech which embodies one’s strong disdain for a certain group of persons, even for the flimsiest of reasons. As long as the “hate speech” remains in the realm of thought and expression, and does not ripen into violence, no prior restraint may be imposed on its delivery by a government operating under a Bill of Rights.
Thus, even if it were to be assumed that President Duterte’s speech was in the nature of “hate speech” directed at the Jews, it would have been entitled to constitutional protection nonetheless, there being no overt steps taken by the president towards violent action against the Jews.
It cannot be denied that Adolf Hitler is, notoriously though, a part of world history. His reign of terror is in history books, and in cinema and television. A discussion of World War II in Europe is impossible without mentioning him. Even today’s youth who did not experience the horrors of a world at war know his name. Accordingly, to chastize a person for mentioning Hitler in his speech, or in any expression of his thoughts and ideas, is to criticize that person for exercising his constitutional right to express himself.
History has a way of surprising contemporary critics of Hitler and Nazi Germany.
Not too many know that Nazi Germany introduced to the world the autobahn (the prototype of today’s modern expressways), and the Volkswagen (the prototype of the affordable, durable, air-cooled people’s car). Nazi businessmen produced Adidas and Puma, two of today’s leading athletic brands. Uniforms worn by Nazi military personnel were designed by Hugo Boss, a popular label today.
Thus, one who hints at, or openly praises, Hitler and the Nazis for what they accomplished outside the war zone, cannot be prevented from doing so because the constitution affords him that right. In other words, even a speech embodying one’s admiration for the Nazis and their despotic leader, no matter how unpopular, misplaced or mistaken, is speech protected under the Bill of Rights.
For reasons unexplained, many of those who criticized President Duterte for his “Hitler” speech were silent about international figures from the past who were identified with the Nazis. For instance, Kurt Waldheim, the United Nations Secretary-General (1972-1981) and President of Austria (1986-1992), was a Nazi military intelligence officer during World War II. Another famous example is German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005. He was a member of the Hitler Youth and served in the Nazi military towards the end of the war.
Both international celebrities were the subject of some criticism for what they did during the war, but they were not as vilified as Duterte was in the hands of the latter’s local and foreign critics.
This discussion is not for the purpose of criticizing Waldheim or Benedict XVI. It is, however, rather unsettling to note that while Duterte’s critics didn’t seem to mind that the former peacemaker of the world and the ex-leader of the Roman Catholic Church had ties with the Nazis, they impulsively condemned Duterte for a speech which happened to mention the Nazi leader as a reference point. Good grief!
