“I’m a free thinker,” says Freddy Thielemans. Really? Many critics now doubt it after the socialist mayor of Brussels banned a demonstration under the slogan of “Stop the Islamization of Europe” (SIOE).

The rally was scheduled for Sept. 11, and the organizers from Germany, Britain and Denmark had planned to bring about 20,000 people from all over Europe to protest not just Islamist terrorism but what they call the “creeping” introduction of Shariah law in their societies. The march would have ended in front of the European Parliament with a minute of silence for the victims of the 2001 terror attacks in the U.S. The organizers now hope that Belgium’s administrative court will overrule the mayor’s decision tomorrow and allow the rally to proceed as planned.

In the meantime, the ugly word of censorship has been making the rounds. The suspicion gained even more currency when, around the time of his Aug. 9 decision to ban the anti-Islamization protest, Mr. Thielemans authorized an anti-American demonstration slated for Sept. 9. “United for Truth,” a loose group of anticapitalists and conspiracy theorists, suggests that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks and demands an end to “state terrorism.”

Even so, Mr. Thielemans rejects any questioning of his democratic credentials. The demonstrators’ ideology had nothing to do with his decisions, he says. It was all a matter of public security. While there are no indications that the “United for Truth” rally could turn violent, he adds, the same could not be said about SIOE. The police have warned of “a very strong possibility that there will be a breach of peace” at the SIOE march, he told me in his office Friday.

As the mayor of not just Belgium’s but Europe’s capital, shouldn’t he rather err on the side of political freedom? Not in this instance, Mr. Thielemans shoots back. “I won’t have Brussels regarded as the capital of racism, that’s what I think for sure.” Apparently, anti-Americanism doesn’t qualify as racism. At any rate, the mayor’s characterization of the SIOE protesters seemed to contradict his previous statement that political disagreements had nothing to do with his decision to ban the protest. Pressed on that point, he acknowledged that he has little sympathy for the group but reiterated that his decision was purely based on security reasons. He also qualified his racism charge, admitting that he didn’t know enough about the people organizing SIOE.

“But when they consider a community as a whole as a danger, that is disturbing,” he said. “I don’t mean they intentionally wanted to be racist but it turns into racism in my eyes. . . . The oversimplification of ideas is always a risk.”

True, the organizers paint with a broad brush and often care little for nuances. “We have a difficulty with the concept of ‘moderate’ Islam because the Muslim world is moving toward what the media call ‘radical’ Islam,” Stephen Gash, one of the British organizers, told me over the phone. No doubt their message can be provocative or even extreme, especially when it includes calls for a halt to Muslim immigration.

Yet you don’t have to sympathize with the speakers to believe in free speech. Beyond that, banning the protest partly out of fear of violent reactions from Muslims would seem to bolster the protesters’ point. If Muslim radicals decide the level of debate about Islam in Europe, doesn’t it show that “Islamization,” the erosion of traditional European liberties, is a reality? Mr. Thielemans did not address that irony. He said instead that he’s not only worried about Muslims reacting violently to a SIOE march. “A number of democrats announced that they’d react too,” he said, along with “NGOs that are in favor of peace and integration.” It’s difficult to see how people who threaten to disrupt a demonstration can be called “democrats” or “in favor of peace.” Pressed on the point that the organizers should not be limited in their democratic rights due to what their opponents might do, Mr. Thielemans eventually agreed. In fact, if the counterprotesters were his only worry, he said, he’d probably let the demonstration go ahead. What really concerns him, the mayor said, is the possibility of violent racists infiltrating the protest, mingling among peaceful demonstrators and provoking and attacking foreigners. The mayor says that police have discovered extremist Web sites calling on their followers to join the protest and cause trouble.

Unfortunately, many demonstrations contain the possibility of turning violent and some in the end do so. It is the job of the police to nip such violence in the bud and arrest troublemakers. The pre-emptive strike of banning the entire protest seems justified only if the threat to public safety is significant.

How significant is the threat in this case? The mayor didn’t elaborate. He couldn’t even say how many potentially violent racist protesters were expected. “That’s hard to say. And on top of it you are sometimes astonished—even people you would never expect can react strangely,” he said. “A part of the analysis always remains in the dark.”

During our interview at least, not much of this analysis ever came to light. The mayor pointed to a “recent” demonstration in the U.K. where, he said, racist protesters attacked nonwhite bystanders: “The phenomenon would be similar to what happened in London. I don’t remember the date but the police absolutely referred to it. It was very violent.”

When that particular demonstration took place and what exactly happened remains a mystery. Oddly, Mayor Thielemans didn’t know the specifics of an event that apparently was important in his decision to limit civil liberties in his town. His spokesman promised to provide details later about this London protest but never delivered. Whatever happened, it can hardly have been a major race riot. That’s not the sort of thing that goes unnoticed in Europe these days.

Of course, the mayor is responsible for public security. If a controversial demonstration that he approved a permit for were to turn violent, he would be held responsible.

Yet freedom of speech, particularly controversial speech, is also a treasured good in a democracy. In this instance, moreover, any immediate threat to public security perhaps should be weighed against a potential long-term threat to peace. Among other things, banning the SIOE demonstration will embolden Muslim radicals by suggesting that violence, or the fear of it, is the way to manipulate freedom lovers. Arguably, a ban may also undermine faith among ordinary people that their concerns about radical Islam can be voiced, and addressed, in a democratic fashion. Perhaps the court will consider this at tomorrow’s hearing.

27 August 2007
The Wall Street Journal Europe
Mr. Schwammenthal edits the State of the Union column.