The right to offend?
Geert Wilders is not important in himself. Neither is his 17-minute film on Islam. His party has nine seats in the Dutch parliament. But he is a figure around which an important argument can be had; namely on the limits of free speech in a democracy.
Wilders dislikes the Koran. He believes some of its texts encourage hatred and would like them removed. He sees Islam as "in opposition to freedom". Some Muslims are deeply offended by his views.
On the question of whether he should be allowed into Britain the judges had to consider whether his opinions would provoke violence but they concluded that "it was more important to allow free speech than to take restrictive action speculatively".
The Quilliam Society, which opposes political Islam, whilst finding some of Wilders's views bigoted, also concluded that he had not directly incited violence against Muslims. The society believes that his ideas should be challenged through debate and argument.
"Wilders has been convinced by the words and actions of Islamists and Jihadists that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant," they argue.
Others would be more hostile. What is not in question is that Wilders' views cause offence. As some have pointed out there is a long tradition of criticising beliefs. Offending religion has been accepted in Europe since the Enlightenment. From that moment on religious authority was no longer automatically accepted. After a bloody history the treatment of heretics changed. Dissenters were gradually tolerated. Offending religion and the defeat of dogma ushered in the modern world.
So we live in a society where Richard Dawkins can describe religion acting like "a child with a dummy in its mouth". Some Christians were offended by Monty Python's Life of Brian in which Brian's mother says: "He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy."
But the comedy was defended as freedom of expression.
Many Christians were even more offended by Jerry Springer the Opera. Some thought it blasphemous - "depicting God as a frail old man and Christ as abusive and foul-mouthed". The court ruled that the production had not endangered the peace as a whole.
And that is where the arguments over the right to offend become complicated.
A couple of years ago I covered the row over the publication in Denmark of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. Some of the reaction around the world was violent. Some people died. Many Muslims in Denmark and around the world were angry and offended but others, while disliking the drawings intensely, accepted that they were the price of an open, tolerant society.
During that time, I spoke to Fleming Rose - the man who had commissioned the cartoons. He was deeply shocked by the response and was apologetic for having ignited such feelings but he wasn't apologetic for publishing the pictures.
What he believed was that the threat of violence should not determine whether an opinion or a picture should be published or not. That would hand the censor's pencil to the violent.
But sometimes it is a fine judgement as to whether exercising the right to offend stirs up hatred and violence too.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Much as disagree with (many of) Wilders' views, I most certainly support his right to hold and express them. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of society, and we must block all attempts by religions, of whatever flavour, to restrict that freedom.
Complain about this comment
We believe in freedom of speech for those we despise or we do not believe in it at all.
Wilders is not here to call for the murder of all Muslims. He is here to say he does not like Islam. You cannot stop people saying that just because some lunatics around the world may go off on one.
Complain about this comment
It always does make me chuckle when people like Smith and Harthing, go about freedom and equality yet try to block opposing views such as Wilders. The whole point of freedom of speech is that you can say and hold views no matter what they are, some may find them abhorrent but that is tough. They find your views equally offensive.
Its ridiculous though that its got to this level, I personally hadn't heard of him until they banned him from the U.K. and I certainly wouldn't of heard of his film. Now though I'm quite tempted to find it online and watch it, purely just to see what all the fuss is about. And I'm willing to bet that I can find just as "offensive" films about most major religions online as well.
Complain about this comment
The trouble is that religious fundamentalists, whether Christian, Muslim or any other faith, tend to regard ALL criticism as "offensive". If you go down the road of appeasing them, you end up curtailing freedom of speech. What is particularly obnoxious is the latent threat of violence which is increasingly being applied by some religious people when expressing their "hurt". Politicians and the media have a role here too - if Jacqui Smith hadn't taken time out between filling out her expense claims to ban Mr Wilders, the media wouldn't have bothered and his visit would have gone ahead with no fuss. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Criticism and ridicule are necessary to keep dogma in check. By these methods we have defanged religion in the West. It is an accident of history that Islam has not benefitted from such treatment yet.
Islam must be subjected to criticism and ridicule as a form of therapy. We owe it to our brothers and sisters labouring under the yoke of this medieval dogma. Some may complain - loudly, or even violently - but we will be doing them a favour in the end.
Complain about this comment
Is the British taxpayer expected to pay for the police that will doubtless be required to protect Wilders when he excercises his right to free speach? If he goes too far and is arrested for inciting racial hatred will this mean a major diplomatic incident with one of our few real European allies?
I agree that the right to free speach is vital in a democracy but common sense needs to be used by anyone about to excercise their rights. Personally I see a giant mess looming on the horizon with this.
Complain about this comment
"Personally I see a giant mess looming on the horizon with this."
Stirred up by the British media.
Complain about this comment
It is not a question of free speech because there is no such thing.
For example, if I type certain words here they will be removed. If I express certain views in certain places I will be censured and - depending on the view in question - possibly arrested.
Recently there was a debate about 'Strictlygate' and the use of the P word on the BBC. In discussing the issue on the BBC (which happened interminably) the actual word was not allowed to be used.
I am not necessarily supporting this or saying that such words should actually be used...these are just examples that show that it is not a question of 'free speech' but rather where you draw the line. I would contend that the line should be drawn in the same place at all times or not at all.
That is actually what people get worked up about - not necessarily the content of some cartoons say or the views of a racist bigot (am I allowed to say that?) - the fact that the cartoons are 'free speech' but equivalents in other cases might be not allowed on the grounds they are 'inciting hate'. Double standards. Or even triple.
Complain about this comment
Wilders makes a lot of coherent criticisms of Islam, which deserve to be debated in the mainstream. However, he also has some very troubling ideas such as removing all Muslims from the Netherlands.
Similarly, the English Defence League, which recently demonstrated against Islam throughout Britain, ostensibly had a respectable agenda concerning freedom of speech, but turned out to be comprised mainly of football hooligans, and the protests were described as 'racial'.
Why is it that criticism of religion has been pushed to the far right of the political spectrum? Perhaps it's because we can be arrested for criticising a non-Christian religion, apparently for 'incitement to racial hatred'. When did religion become race?
The only high-profile European figures who dare to criticism Islam, other than the far right, are themselves of Muslim descent, such as Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But they're 'ethnically Muslim', so they can get away with it. For any politician of any other religious background, it's career suicide, and that's a problem.
Complain about this comment
If there is potential for 'a giant mess', this is due in no small measure to the confusion of what should be two quite separate issues. I am not sufficiently familiar with the teachings of Islam to make a qualified comment on whether Wilders is wilfully distorting it to suit his own political agenda or whether he is merely making selectively references to underline a position. It does not really matter. We all know that you could do much the same thing with the Christian Bible to promote homophobia or even preach Jewish superiority over the gentile.
The other thing we know is that, if Mr. Wilders say or does something which is likely to incite racial hatred or even cause a breach of the peace, he could be arrested and charged with an offence. He is not travelling on a diplomatic passport after all. He is therefore a private citizen of the EU exercising his right to travel freely. The attempt to block his visit was a misuse of law as an extremely blunt instrument. In effect, the Home Office was saying that they did not want any trouble in their own backyard so they took the view that a pre-emptive strike based on the assumption that Mr. Wilders was going to break the law and it was very ill-judged. Mr. Wilders should be free to say whatever he likes but be aware that there are laws against making inflammatory remarks likely to incite racial hatred and, if he does so it is at his own risk. That is an entirely different matter from seeking to suspend his rights of mobility under law.
Complain about this comment
As a citizen of the Netherlands, I'd like to add my own two cents.
Freedom of speech is an important cornerstone of our society, and indeed our constitution. So is the right to live in freedom without being discriminated against (regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual preference etc.).
Freedom of speech is the 7th article of our constitution, being free from discrimination is number 1. Perhaps the real issue here is not about Wilders being allowed to say whatever, but the way in which he screams for his constitutional rights while at the same time violating those of many, many others (unnecessarily!).
Wilders is not just a far-right extremist, he's a hypocrite. He will say absolutely anything and cry wolf as soon as "his" right to freedom of speech is questioned, but heaven forbid if the issue of Article 1 is raised. In fact, if it were up to him Article 1 would not exist at all (the late Pim Fortuyn was a champion of that goal).
This country has in the past been subject to a good number of wars and invasions, and as a result we hold or freedom in very high regard. We've been at war with Spain for 80 years just to be free to worship (or not worship) in whatever way we chose. This long war was an important factor in the shaping of our nation, and its influence can be seen in both our constitution and the world's general perception of the Netherlands as a very tolerant nation.
We didn't like the Spanish when they tried to take our freedom, we didn't like the French invaders, and most recently we had little fondness for our German neighbours and their views. (Let's not forget what that particular war led to.)
I do not like terrorists any more than the next person, but I am wary of people like Geert Wilders, who would gladly abuse our constitution (or change it) to serve their own political needs. Even most people here don't really take him seriously. Frankly, we're pretty tired of hearing about him. He wants attention and this is how he gets it- by stirring up "scandals" and letting the media feast on those. Wouldn't it be better to just ignore him? If he wants to scream extremist things, let him do it next to the other village idiots, and let him be ignored just like them.
I'm all in favour of freedom of speech, but I'm also in favour of taking responsibility for the things I say. I'm keenly in favour of people learning that it might be a good idea to get informed about a topic before they start screaming their so-called opinions at the masses. Most of what Wilders claims is misinformed, misguided, wilfully misleading, or blatantly untrue. Above all, it is phrased with the specific intent to insult, hurt, and discriminate.
Since when is his right freedom of speech more important than the right of so many other people to be protected from unnecessary discrimination under Article 1 of our constitution?
Perhaps Geert Wilders should learn that there are many ways in which to voice an opinion, and most of those would allow him to express his views just fine- only WITHOUT offending so many people (Muslim or not). There are plenty of ways to make the same point within the boundaries of Article 1 without necessarily being restricted in the freedom guaranteed by Article 7. These two cornerstones of our constitution are NOT mutually exclusive.
But then again, if Wilders stopped being a hypocrite, he wouldn't get the attention he so craves... would he?
Complain about this comment
Is anyone else sick of the BBC constantly breaking its obligation to be impartial by insisting on the POV reference to Mohammed as a "Prophet"?
Complain about this comment
Did they pay you to write that Gavin? Do you figure impartiality is best handled by being mealymouthed? The BBC - any media organisation in fact - doesn't have to be impartial on free speech. Free speech is an unambiguous *good*. It is as necessary as oxygen.
"But sometimes it is a fine judgement as to whether exercising the right to offend stirs up hatred and violence too."
So wrong. The hatred and violence is not stirred up by the offended speech. It is stirred up by the reactions of those who refuse to accept that in this society, we are free to offend them. The Enlightenment, remember. I also remember the Motoons story - I remember the BBC's shameful refusal to broadcast them. Why was that?
Complain about this comment
#11 Why do you feel the need to hurl insults at people who dare to disagree with you?
Complain about this comment
"Is anyone else sick of the BBC constantly breaking its obligation to be impartial by insisting on the POV reference to Mohammed as a "Prophet"?"
I imagine that is down to accuracy as there are a lot of Mohammeds out there and "Prophet" is easier than "Spokesperson for this particular Magical Sky Fairy". ^^
Complain about this comment
#13 said :
" 'But sometimes it is a fine judgement as to whether exercising the right to offend stirs up hatred and violence too.'
So wrong. The hatred and violence is not stirred up by the offended speech. It is stirred up by the reactions of those who refuse to accept that in this society, we are free to offend them."
You are 100% correct sir. And it's high time the media started upholding our Western, secular right to free speech instead of displaying cowardly appeasment of bigots. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Britain is now a scary place to live in regarding where " freedom of speech" is concerned. Many are glad that Geert Wilders is here to say what every other coward posing as a British politician is afraid to. Another Dutchman back in 1688 released us from tyranny, Geert Wilders could be another.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Hewitt:
I suppose most contributors here need information about a fact from Danish politics, you did not mention: Denmark has a coalition government, which relies on a right wing populist party. Flemming Rose and particularly his newspaper, Jyllandsposten, are very close to this party.
It is unlikely that Rose will ever admit it: His provocations were a part of the hostile behaviour the right wing in Denmark has organised for the last 10-15 years. He and his many friends were taken by surprise by the fact that their provocation had international effect.
They have therefore post-rationalized their behaviour, which I otherwise am not going to analyse, since I have been through this dozens of times before.
Complain about this comment
Mr Wilders is an arch-politician who has found a way to round up masses of votes so he can gain more power. I do not take this man seriously but he needs to be allowed to speak his mind, if only in order for many people to see that this man speaks garbage.
The fact is that a lot of people in my native country currently would vote for his party, making him the strongest party in our parliament. So much for our supposed tolerancy.
Complain about this comment
Look, just go and watch his film, "Fitna". It's on the 'Tube. Basic argument is that the Koran contains numerous incitements to violence, especially against non-muslim. Further that these verses and other "sacred texts" are quoted by people who support and engage in acts of terrorism. Some mistranslations appear on posters at demos from time to time--all that swords and beheading and rivers of blood. These are from "holy" texts. All Muslims are required to believe that the Koran is the final, immutable and literal voice of god. So..when the terorist cuts off the Englishman's head he shout "Allah Akubar"..and NOT take that you bugger. So watch the video. Game set and match to wilders
Complain about this comment
#14,
I thought I was simply exercising my constitutional right of freedom of speech? Or is this only a constitutional right for Geert Wilders?
I call Geert Wilders a hypocrite because he is. It doesn't take a genius to see it. The village idiot remark? Sarcasm- or wishful thinking, perhaps, because it would be so wonderful to be able to open up a newspaper without a Wilders-related headline every now and again. (Charming picture of him by the way, Gavin!) The issue is blown out of proportion the same way a local village idiot might cry fire and brimstone, so yes, if we ignore them when we do our shopping, why can't we occasionally give Geert Wilders the same treatment?
My post was meant to underline the paradox Geert Wilders stands for: he feels he should be allowed to say whatever he likes, whatever way he likes, regardless of the constitutional rights of others- regardless of whether or not, in your words, he is "hurling insults" at people he clearly does not agree with.
So, according to Geert Wilders's line of reasoning, I'm allowed to do the same. If I can't, then it stands to reason that he shouldn't be allowed to do so either. Right? Or are you trying to say that the constitutional rights of Dutch Citizen A (me) are different from those of Dutch Citizen B (Wilders)?
What my post stresses is the hypocrisy and double standards surrounding this issue; coming from Geert Wilders as well as others. Read up a little on Mr. Wilders's interviews and general statements if you're not too familiar with them- you should, it makes for an interesting read. As a Dutch citizen, I've been unable to avoid it myself since he's all over the local media, far moreso than anywhere else in the world I'm afraid. Once you have a better idea of exactly what Mr. Wilders has said over the past few years regarding Islam and other issues, read my post again. Reconsider your own.
Freedom of speech is important, but not to the exclusion of everything else, and certainly not at the expense of the constitutional rights of others.
So you're right about one thing- that I don't agree with him. I'm hardly "hurling insults" at him, though, and in all honesty I think I raised a fair point. You are certainly wrong to assume that I don't tolerate disagreement from anyone. (If I didn't, shouldn't I be hurling insults your way too right now?)
When it comes to hurling insults, Geert Wilders remains the unchallenged champion- at least in my country.
Food for thought?
Complain about this comment
#14. What insult do you refer to in post #11. Wilders IS a hypocrite in the same way that the sky is blue. Demanding one right under his constitution in order to violate anothers right under the same document IS hypocrisy.
Post #11 made a few very valid points and as a Dutch voter who clearly understands the Dutch constitution better than most Brits her point is valid.
There are lines in the Christian (and Jewish) old testament (Leviticus) that clearly state that its O.K to kill gays. Why is Wilder not demanding that potentially inflamattory passages aren't removed too?
#18. A very valid point. However we should perhaps remind ourselves that when the cartoons where originally published they barely made a ripple and that it was only 9 months later that the 'worlwide outrage' happened. We might also question how so many Danish flags were instantly available in Tehran etc? The 'outrage' was clearly staged and props provided.
Complain about this comment
I think Wilders should have the right to say what he wants, just as some Imams. But I also think the media in the whole of Europe should fondly start using their right to blatantly ignore people that are not really doing something usefull with it, and maybe Wilders is one of those...
Wilders has no structural solutions but starts some polemic every few months to be sure to be on all the televisions and newspapers. Once he will say that the Koran needs to be banned just like Mein Kampf. Useless suggestion, but he gets media attention in the whole of Europe. Then he waits a few months and states something similar (e.g. women wearing a headscarf should pay a special tax) and so again the media are talking about this 'offensive statement'. Then he will make a film that is really pointless, but he says in advance it will gravely insult Islam (great marketing). Then off course the media go find an Imam (preferably not a moderate one) or some street kids in Rotterdam who will say that Wilders needs to be shot (or hanged, whatever, preferably togheter with homosexuals). Then off course we have already an intersting side-story. And so on, ad infinitum...
So let Wilders talk as much as he wants, as a journalist you listen critically first. If he really says nothing interesting or launches some idiotic proposal (tax muslim women), ignore him and on to the next story. But stop announcing evey step he makes...Thanks. We had enough of him in our media, so we don't want to have him in the international media as well.
Complain about this comment
"What is not in question is that Wilders' views cause offence."
Sorry Mr Hewitt, this is where you are most definitely misguided and wrong. Views cannot cause any sort of offence, people must take offence, and there is a world of difference. Neither can they cause violence or be an incitement to violence. The violence comes from those who choose to take offence, or choose to be violent and nowhere else. The resposibility for the taking of offence and for being violent in response lies entirely with those offended and violent individuals. It is their actions that need to be restrained or prevented. Only in recognising this can we truly have free speech and move away from religious bigotry. This is why, after centuries of struggle against our own religious bigots, the blasphemy laws were repealed.
There is the old adage - sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. It is about time this were properly enshrined in law and attention given to where the true harm comes from.
What causes 'offence' and harms people are things like killing people for apostasy, or 'honour' killings, or throwing acid into school girl's faces, or blowing up their schools, or stoning women to death for adultery; or more common in Europe, male members of the family dictating to their women on dress code and social behaviour with threats and violence.
In the contemporary world, these atrocities are coming from the Muslim world, and we need free speech to speak out clearly against them, without fear of being branded racist or the fear of being murdered in the street like the Dutch film Director Theo Van Gogh.
Complain about this comment
#14
I don't think you understand your own constitution very well. The problem with Art 1, is the fact that the other article that of freedom of religion trumps all the other freedoms.
Now this sounds very enlightened, until you realise that when one bases their insults and incitement to hatred and/or violence on a holy book, this is allowed. Remember the imam and the booklet published and sold in certain Dutch mosques, wherein it was stated that muslims should throw homosexuals of the nearest high-rise building? The law said, that on the basis of freedom of religion, this was okay to say.
Remember the teacher who got sacked by a christian school, because he came out as gay? The law said it was okay.
So where is your article 1 now then?
Ah yes when such bigotry is aimed at a religion, or without religious dogmatic underpinning, suddenly Article 1 does come into play.
That is hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
"Wilders has been convinced by the words and actions of Islamists and Jihadists that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant..."
What if he's right? Does the Koran call on Muslims to wage jihad on the non Muslim world? Does it give non Muslims only three choices, to pay money to Muslims to remain non Muslims, to convert to Islam, or to be killed? How far must a doctrine go to be antithetical to democracy? At what point do we say ammend your religion to accomodate other people's right not to join or pay homage to it or it cannot be allowed in our society?
Isn't there a sharp distinction between a religion that directly calls on its members to kill people who will not join it and words that merely offend other people's sensibilities? Isn't there a distinction in the law between these concepts? I think that in laws governing freedom of speech in the United States, the courts have made a clear distinction between them. This is why for example it is illegal for anyone in the US to be a member of a Communist party which calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government. That too is antithetical to democracy. We do not tolerate political views which if they became law would deny everyone who didn't agree with its doctrine the right to their own points of view too.
Complain about this comment
Debate, argument and more debate. And more argument. This is the only way to deal with people such as Wilders if you don't like what he says. It is the thin end of a very disturbing wedge to start tinkering with what can and cannot be said in the public square. We all appreciate the restrictions that the laws of libel and slander put on us, and for good reasons in most cases; but criticising and even ridiculing an ideology is fair game. I don't think people should gratuitously set out to offend, but we shouldn't legislate against that, either. It's just bad manners, that's all. It ought to be dealt with by perhaps a nudge from one's peers (and even more debate if necessary). But merely criticising or taking the mick out of an ideology is what pushes debate forward. What would happen if a really, really good point were lurking somewhere in an argument that is stifled, and so never gets brought out into the sunshine for scrutiny? Didn't J S Mill have something to say about that?
Complain about this comment
All muslim protesters do when they arrive bearing banners that read "Sharia for the Netherlands", "Death to those who insult Islam" or call for Wilders to be tried in an Islamic court is reinforce the negative views of their religion. Accuse Islam of being a violent religion and you'll be met with calls of "Behead those who insult Islam".
Religious fundamentalism (from any religion) is something I'd rather not have in this society. But then religion is something I'd rather not have in our society - it only serves to divide people and, frankly, in the 21st century we should be well past believing in fairy stories.
Complain about this comment
A couple of things to consider:
1. Stop referring to him as 'far right'. This is only used by dishonest people to try and delegitimise someone's viewpoint. 'Those nasty far right people!'
2. There is no racial aspect to a person's beliefs. It is impossible to be racist against someone because they are a Muslim. Ever heard of racism against Catholics? Against capitalists? Against vegetarians? Of course you haven't, because the ideology that someone follows is outside of race.
3. Violence is not caused by Wilder's views. Violence is caused by those who are violent.
4. Regardless of opinion, Wilder's views about Islam being a violent ideology are correct. A simple reading of the Qur'an and hadiths will confirm this. Islamic history itself confirms this. Devout Muslims themselves confirm this.
5. There is no need to call Muhammad a Prophet. There are no such things as prophets.
6. More interest needs to be shown in the words and actions of Lord Ahmed, who threatened to raise an army of 10,000 Muslims to attack Parliament if Wilders was not banned from the UK.
7. This whole case exposed the treachery of our government. Lord Ahmed is a traitor for threatening free speech (a cornerstone of this nation). Jacqui Smith is a traitor for putting the Muslim vote above her responsibility to protect the people in this country who would benefit by being made aware of Islam's aims.
8. Geert Wilders is a hero. He puts his own safety on the line to try and make the rest of us aware of the threat Islam faces to Western Civilisation.
9. A 'bigot' is not someone who dislikes Islam. A 'bigot' is someone who hates people who are different to them just for the sake of it. Since Wilders has not said that he hates Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Pygmies, circus performers and anyone else who is different to him, we can assume that he is not a bigot.
Complain about this comment
#25 "Remember the teacher who got sacked by a christian school, because he came out as gay? The law said it was okay."
I'm suprised the school got away with that. The passage in the Bible condeming homosexuality comes from the old testament and is right next to passages saying you should be stoned for wearing cloth of 2 threads (ie poly-cotton) and that its O.K to take slaves 'as long as they be heathens from a foreign land' (direct quote). Leviticus is directly contradicted by the teachings of Jesus which is all 'love thy neighbour' 'do unto others as you would be done unto' and is filled with parables like the good samaritan which says that those who are different may be better friends than our own countrymen. I'd argue that the teachings of Jesus DO NOT condemn gays at all.
This is my whole problem with ALL regigions and those who follow them: you can find passages in any bronze age book thats been mistranslated a dozen times to support which ever intolerant viewpoint you may have. If you can sack a gay from a christian school then by the same logic surely the christian teachers can take muslims or hindus as slaves? If one passage from a 4000 year old text can be used to overturn ever equality law you have then why not the next paragraph too?
Complain about this comment
muslims should remember that NOBODY has the right NOT to be offended
(btw; muslims get offended rather quickly..)
as a dutchman im happy that at least 1 politician has the courage to say what many people in my country think: that islam is an intolerant religion and that to be tolerant to the intolerant is to dig your own grave as free people
Complain about this comment
When a Wilders opponent says: "We need to put this dog on a leash," that is a threat against a person's freedom. it is hate speech. it should not be tolerated in a free society, in a society of laws.
When Wilders says: "islamic ideology, as it grows in influence in our countries, limits the rights of women, apostates, renegades, homosexuals..." (that is almost an exact quote from the news clip), he is making a straightforward true statement. The evidence for this statement is ample.
The problem for Muslims who live in countries whose cultures have not been Muslim for all these thousands of years is A Problem for Muslims, not the rest of us. The nature of this problem is that Muslims come to live in these countries to enjoy their many advantages -- yet at the same time many of them are determined to change these countries so that they will be more like the countries they left.
Well, honestly, you can't have it both ways!
if you believe islam is the superior social model, why have you left your islamic homeland?
imagine if all the Chinese or Russians or other persons from former Communist zones who come to live amongst you required that you allow them to bring their Communist Party legal system with you, or the Communist textbooks, or the Communist ways?
Could people who dressed in Mao uniforms obtain teaching positions in UK schools? Could a card-carrying "Lenin gear" bedecked ex-Soviet gain a seat in Parliament or become a cabinet member or a government advisor? Why not?
For a very good reason!
Richard Dawkins & his coterie like to pretend all religions are alike. So do glib "atheists" in the Bill Maher tradition (i refer to the man with the absurd slanderous film). Not at all: go view the Aztec exhibit and set that lie aside for good. All religions are not the same; all traditions are not "equally hostile".
People imagine "religion causes war." in fact, more human beings have died & been horribly tortured in overtly anti-religious societies, by ideologists who denied the existence of God, than the other way around.
if a majority of human beings present did not believe, whether you like it or not, in some ultimate accountability to Someone, Somewhere -- even in the slight chance they might be called to account -- there would be no deterrent whatsoever from even greater abuse of others than we presently endure.
By the same token, however, no intelligent human being is required to accept the tenets of Any Religion completely without critical examination, reflection or questioning. That is precisely why there are so many institutions for serious theological study in every corner of the world.
The legitimacy of comedians as opinionators on matters of religion, or for that matter morality (i refer to the recent obscenity-laden speech of a certain Sarah Silverman calling on the Vatican to surrender its wealth to "feed the poor") is such a far-fetched proposition, that i am quite staggered to find it even gets headline time. Notice she did not call upon Mayor Michael Bloomberg, or the music industry, or Viacom, or Time-Warner, or the various space programmes, or CERN, or the World Bank or the UN to "cease to exist in order to feed the poor." Just the Vatican. How conveniently selective. Great career move, Sarah!
At the same time, Freedom of Speech is Absolute, or there is no Freedom of Speech. She has a right to spew her vapid views, and i have the right to respond. Richard Dawkins has found publishers for his books; i have not: nevertheless, we can meet in the forum that is the collective Present where thinking people converge, and engage each other in debate.
But islamists will have none of that. What makes the followers of Mohammed so difficult for the rest of us is that they do not recognise the value in simply allowing things to be said, examined, debated, criticised, weighed -- without instantly making threats, issuing fatwas and seeking to manipulate existing statutes or institutions to silence those who have every reason to point out what their Qu'ran-driven societies have blatantly failed to do: protect the rights of women & children, move beyond eighth-century attitudes, abandon the use of force & even extreme, gruesome violence as methods to compel societies to act in certain ways convenient to their own power elites. Case in point: the bogus regime of Khamenei & Ahmadinejad in Teheran: such devout Muslims! Or the Taliban: More Devout Muslims!
i support Geert Wilders and pray for his continued safety.
i have watched Fitna several times & find it to be a truthful, compelling & absolutely inoffensive film.
i am a practicing Christian and am not afraid of being critical of whatever i find takes place in my religious community that is at variance with Christ's message, or plainly contravenes logic. i am not comfortable with extremists or hypocrites who try to take shelter within the architecture of my own religion.
My God is not such a will-o'-the-wisp that the rantings of Dawkins, or Silverman, or Maher or even Monty Python can evoke more than a huge yawn at their foolishness.
And i fail to see why any Muslim imagines they get to apply different criteria to their belief system, than i do to mine.
Complain about this comment
There are two parts to offending someone: what you say, and what the other person finds offensive. Can I declare that I find it offensive when people express negative views about, say, the tellytubbies, and then get people banned from criticising them? The answer seems to be no, unless I also declare that the tellytubbies are a part of my "religion". I have to hide behind the word Religion in order to get away with intolerance, violence, death threats and so on.
My solution: abolish the concept of "religion" in our legal system. That the lovely Tony Blair introduced all these laws banning religious prejudice etc, making religion somehow equivalent to race, was a step in the wrong direction. Not giving someone a job because he has black skin is totally different to not giving him a job because he hears voices in his head and believes that I will burn in the fires of hell for eternity.
Complain about this comment
#30
'I'm suprised the school got away with that.'
Not half as surprised as most people in the Netherlands.
But this is the thing, those who adhere to a religion in the Netherlands have more rights than those that don't. The most vocal group concerning religious rights is at the moment Islam. Christians are now piggybacking on it. After a period of rapid secularisation, suddenly religion and religious rules are creeping back into life and law.
I think this is the cause for most tension in the Netherlands.
Complain about this comment
The truth is that offense represent the twilight zone at the edge of what we consider should be prohibited by the criminal law. Pretty much everyone would agree that the state should prohibit one individual from harming the interest of any other, including the incitement to violence on religious grounds. But to what extent should the law prohibit activities that cause mere offense, such as vulgarity, obscenity or Wilders speeches or the Danish cartoons? And to what extent should we penalise activities which do not offend the received norms in our own societies, but only those in others? Is it the case that no amount of offense constitutes a harm worth prohibiting, that 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me' and so should always be tolerated? The western liberal would today say "Yes", but our predecessors had laws against blasphemy and pretty much everything that the established church of their day disagreed with. And this remains the case in the Islamic world today.
In my opinion, the liberal state should only get involved in religious issues to prevent the incitement of violence on religious grounds. If the British judges concluded that it would be 'speculative' to believe Wilders presence in the UK is likely to provoke violence, then they are right to let him in, and say whatever he has to say. Now Gavin asks if this is in effect giving someone like Wilder a 'right to offend'. The truth is that it does, but that if he is denied such a 'right' then everyone else is too, with society reduced to a space where we each have to watch our every word for fear of being arrested, and in the general case where all new ideas (which are by implication minority opinions at first) can be suppressed for fear of offending the received majority opinion. The global leadership of the Anglo-Saxon world can largely be traced to incidents like the reaction to Galileo and Copernicus that resulted in technological progress being abandoned in Souther and Eastern Europe for fear of offending received religious opinion. So the calculation has to be that giving the likes of Wilders a right to offend others is the lesser evil than avoiding religious offence at all costs. Furthermore the lack of a criminal sanction against offending others, does not mean that the likes of Wilders suffer no punishment for expressing their opinions. He will suffer the opprobrium of society in the form of criticism, ridicule and the general disapproval of ‘polite society’ which while being less onerous than a criminal prohibition is still something that most of us would wish to avoid by moderating our opinions. Some will call this politeness, others political correctness, but unless this grows into a stultifying tyranny of prevailing opinion, it is for most of us nothing more than oiling the wheels of society such that we can all get along together.
In the globalised Internet age, with Western countries not wishing to prohibit freedom of speech that might cause offense in the Muslim world, it seems to me that the only workable solution is that journalists, politicians and individuals in the West voluntarily do our best to desist from expressing opinions (such as the Danish cartoons) that are likely to offend sensibilities in the Muslim world, while never-the-less hoping that these religious sensitivities will diminish over time.
Complain about this comment
As a foreigner who has lived in the Netherlands since the 1970s, I have watched it devolve from the 'Live and let live' society of that era into the intolerant and polarizing nation it seems to be today.
The fact that a politician as extreme as Wilders (whose views make the late Jorg Haider seem like Mary Poppins) is taken seriously makes you seriously wonder about the collective mental health of the nation.
His party is currently the most popular, but the man only seems to have one agenda. Anytime he is seen on TV, he is ranting about Islam.
One of his latest abhorrent suggestions, is the introduction of a so-called 'kopvoddentax', which translated means 'head-rag tax': again aimed against muslims. I bet he doesn't mention that during his UK visit.
His views are so extreme, that when a citizen reprinted versions of Wilder's party's hate-spuwing leaflets by way of demonstration, substituting the word 'muslims' with another religion, the man was promptly arrested. What kind of signal does this allowing of 'selective discrimation' send out to the muslim community in the Netherlands?
Politicians in the Netherlands seem to be using Wilders as a vehicle to address matters that are too extreme or unpopular for them to introduce themselves, such as working out how much an 'allochtoon' (Dutch word for ethnic person living in Holland) costs the state in financial terms.
Maybe, for democracy's sake, it's time people took another proper look at developments in the Netherlands, instead of blindly assuming it is still the liberal utopia it has long since stopped being.
Complain about this comment
post #29 " 7. This whole case exposed the treachery of our government. Lord Ahmed is a traitor for threatening free speech (a cornerstone of this nation). Jacqui Smith is a traitor for putting the Muslim vote above her responsibility to protect the people in this country who would benefit by being made aware of Islam's aims."
Do you know what a 'D notice' is? Its an act of censorship the govt can pass silencing anything they don't want published. You have no right to free speach in the UK and the govt can quite legally silence you if it wishes. You may find the fact that most of the recent 'anti-terror' legislation thats been passed that allows the govt to detain you for ten times longer than normal etc has been passed precisely because of people like you and their hysterical claims about Islam.
FORTY muslims protested outside Parliament today, presumably the same 40 that protested against British troops in Luton. This is out of 1.5M UK muslims.
Another thing to consider is that substitute 'Jew' for 'Islam' in your comment "Geert Wilders is a hero. He puts his own safety on the line to try and make the rest of us aware of the threat Islam faces to Western Civilisation" and it would have gone down very nicely in Nuremberg in the 30's. Frankly Britain is about as likely to become an Islamic republic as the Rothschilds were going to make Europe communist in the 1930's.
Complain about this comment
It is highly ironic that in a thread about freedom of speech, my innocuous comment (#5) about ridicule as a form of therapy has been held in moderation for over 5 hours!
Complain about this comment
#32 Your comments are spot on, the problem with Geert Wilders is that he is continuously misquoted in the Dutch mainstream press (which has a predominantly leftist view) as a means to destroy him: where he said that muslims (or whoever) holding 2 passports convicted of serious crimes should be stripped of their Dutch nationality and send back to where they came from, it is translated into him wanting to send all the muslims back. And there is lots more of this. To me he is just a law-and-order politician expressing his freedom of speech, threatened with his life by people who have no concept of what this really is. However, the threat of unbridled immigration of people who do not uphold this fundamental right in our Western societies nor respect our freedom as a whole have no business being here in the first place. Shape in or ship out. Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Really sick of the massive limitations and stresses needlessly put on free speech in this country.
thanks Mr Wilders for highlighting them - as well as our society's pathetic and constant appeasement of those it considers to be non-establishment, no matter how anti-democratic or anti-freedom of speech their demands might be.
Complain about this comment
and by the way, you can tell from a mile off that the guy who wrote this article is SO SCARED of possibly offending someone, that he's stepping around the issue in the most pathetic way.
Why does the opinion of the minority who take offence carry so much more weight than everybody elses'? Especially at the BBC, you have literally no balls when it comes to standing up to the self-righteous, bleating, hypocryptical minority who now govern what is "appropriate and inappropriate" in the UK media...
Forget about open-minded people who can tolerate opinions different to their own - the ignorant and indignant must be appeased at all times (according to BBC policy)
Complain about this comment
MrsMEvE @ 11 raises a very important point: Wilders is an enormous hypocrite. He demands that the Koran be banned, while at the same time shamelessly presenting himself as a defender of freedom of speech. Regardless of your views on immigration or Islam, if that isn't hypocritical, I don't know what is.
For this reason, it also seems important to me not to fall into the same trap as him, and to allow him full freedom of speech. Nobody can damn him more than his own contradictory rhetoric. To gag him is to do him a favour, especially as people like him thrive on victimism. Wilders, however, is not a victim: he is a privileged citizen of a privileged country.
Unfortunately, I must disagree with Mr. Hewitt on one point: Wilders IS an important person. While his party currently holds a relatively small number of MPs, opinion polls place him in a good position for the next election. He moreover, together with a handful of other Dutch politicians, like Rita Verdonk and the late Pim Fortuyn, have given the once excessively PC Dutch political climate a rather noxious flavour these days. (It must be said that I am talking about three very different people, though: while it was difficult even for his opponents not to feel a sneaking admiration for Fortuyn, and he could hardly be called an hypocrite, Wilders is a much more limited single-minded ideologue although one with a faithful following, and "Iron Rita" is a serial bumbler who hardly commands any respect from anybody these days, not even from the far right).
The views of foreign observers of Wilders are often only based on "Fitna", which, by many accounts, is a rather tame film, especially compared with the rhetoric which Wilders regularly uses in campaign. Don't be mistaken: he IS an intolerant extremist.
Complain about this comment
With the freedom of speech so much eroded in this country, why are we so surprised that Wilders and his likes are the only ones who dare criticise Islam? Nobody else is even dreaming of mentioning publicly anything remotely negative about Islam, out of fear of being branded racist, intolarant, bigot, etc. However, Wilders, BNP and the EDL do not care for such sentiments. Such groups are popular today because they to a certain degree express publicly what many people are privately thinking. By not allowing an open public discussion on the things which grate most in Islam, such as oppression of women, intolarance of homosexuality, denial of freedom of speech and choice of religious beliefs, we end up in a position where we allow the people who are least qualified to do it, to be the ones most visible and outspoken. Thus any rightful crticism gets diluted with nonsence such as 'turban-tax' or 'Moslems out of Europe', which in no way leads to any meanigful results. Allow the people to express their opinion on the medieval practices and beliefs inherent in any religion and we will see how Wilders and the likes will turn int a loughing stock overnight.
Complain about this comment
@36: strange thinking on your part; the live and let live attitude in a society can only be maintained if ALL people share that attitude.. the muslims in Holland have shown time and again that they dont have that attitude (islam is intolerant in its core) we have learned it the hard way; the only answer to intolerance IS intolerance
you reckon all dutch have suddenly gone mad, i say; if even the tolerant dutch have enough somethings got to be very wrong with islam
about Wilders being hypocrite: people can say whatever they like as long as they dont call for violance...
Complain about this comment
I have seen his film nothing to write home about some badly stuck together Islamic film and his views of what they are saying. Those who join these groups do so because they want to be important in some way like women who marry serial killers. The world is full of these people who want to rule but no one wants them to rule as we know deep down they are narcissistic bordering psychopathic who rant about things which are never going to happen like Britian become Muslim and women being made to wore the burqha and what ever comes in to their drink sodden brains at the time and how dangerous Islam is while the white christian world is in their country and killing men women and children with impunity robbing its oil, and minerals and the Government's pretending that they care about the soldiers and their loved ones do the Muslims not have loved ones who will never forget this we forget that the Dutch like the British were colonist's big time and now that the west have wasted their oil and gas they are back on the Crusade under the bander of they are right and Islam is wrong well the real people do not believe them and will not go into slavery and bondage this time. Whom Gods wishes to destroy they first make mad.
Complain about this comment
I get offended when bigoted opinions are criticised. I suggest that criticism of bigotry, criticism of homophobia, criticism of sexism, racism, and criticism of religious intolerance, should be banned. Consequently we should - in BBC traditions of tolerance - tolerate the intolerant or suffer the consequences.
Complain about this comment
#32
maria-ashot,
What struck me most in your post was the fact that you appear to display the same 'selectivity in offence', particular to all religious people. Obviously you do not have problems criticising Islam or atheist- that is evident from your post. Yet for some reason you chose to be unhappy about a certain Sarah Silverman calling for the Vatican to surrender its wealth to the poor. Judging by your comments, had she called for the EU or the UN to do the same you would not had any problems with that. But if it is the Vatican, the organisation which serves as the 'frontman' of Catholicism, then that seems to be a different matter. Even though by their own admission Catholics (and all Christians) must help the poor and the people in need, any suggestions about that to be put in practice are instantly met with calls 'but only if others do it first'.
P.S. 'People imagine "religion causes war." in fact, more human beings have died & been horribly tortured in overtly anti-religious societies, by ideologists who denied the existence of God, than the other way around.'
A often-repeated argument by the 'coterie'[sic] of the religious fundamentalists. But completely untrue.
The societies who have been waging wars since the dawn of mankind and continue to do so today could hardly be called 'anti-religious'. In fact they are just the opposite. Not societies who have believe, but societies who are religious.
Complain about this comment
I do think the confusion about whether criticism of Muslims is racist needs addressing. According to this BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8296200.stm
more than half the World's Muslims live in Asia, not the Middle East, and the rest are spread around the World. So which race am I criticising if I criticise Islam?
As a second point, in what way is my criticism of Islam discrimination? If there are aspects of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism etc. that I disagree with, I'll criticise them as well, but I predict that, as a global community, they will not respond so vehemently or call for me to be silenced. Discrimination involves an action - withholding a job for example - not just words.
As an aside: #37 has a good point, D notices are beginning to be used in cases where the safety of the country is not at stake, for example in the Madeleine McCann case.
Complain about this comment
Religion...in all it's many facets is about control of a population rather than the philosophy contained in the "Harry Potter" books like the Bible and the Koran.
Film, book, Theatre critics have freedom of speech, so why can't critics of vastly over-rated theologies retain those same rights.
I praise the weak minded Christians for their tolerance of indifference in this "get what you can get" age. But I cannot fathom out why the Muslim "I hate westerners but want their lifestyle" cannot take a step back and give themselves a good honest look at what they and their "WARMONGER" attitudes are doing to this world.
Complain about this comment
There are people in this thread who still don't 'get it'.
Wilders ISN'T an intolerant extremist. Just because he doesn't want to tolerate the subjugation, rape, enslavement and murder of non-Muslims, women and gay people in Europe doesn't make him intolerant. Try and understand what words mean please.
And there is no comparison at all between what Wilders is saying now and what the Nazis said about Jews in the 1930s. Hitler hated the Jews for no good reason and used them as a scapegoat for Germany-as-a-whole's problems. There is no comparison between that and a person who calls for those who believe in the subjugation, rape, enslavement and murder of non-Muslims, women and gay people to leave Europe.
If those who still don't 'get it' were to read the Qur'an and hadiths (which they haven't) and were to study Islamic history (which they haven't), then assuming they are honest people then there is no other conclusion to come to other than that Islam is a violent political system whose goal is gaining control over as much territory as possible and the subjugation of its people. THAT'S what devout Muslims believe in. It's impossible to be a real Muslim unless you obey Allah's will. That's even what the word Muslim means: one who submits to the will of Allah. Allah's will is outlined so clearly in the Qur'an and in the behaviour of Muhammad that it's impossible to miss. How unfortunate for Muslims that there are brave, honest and intelligent people like Wilders who wish to warn us.
What shocks me is that in the eight years since 911, there are still so many people who haven't even bothered to learn about what Islam really is. What doesn't shock me is that there are many people who bury their heads in the sand and refuse to admit that there is a problem. Dishonest and cowardly people always exist, in times of crisis or times of peace. Some of them have commented in this thread.
It's like 1938 all over again. No-one did anything until it was too late. 'I have in my hand a piece of paper'. 'This Hitler fellow sounds like a reasonable man - let's talk to him'. 'If we appease him then maybe everything will be ok'. You can just imagine the cowards of the time wringing their hands and refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room. NO! We have to learn about the threat then take action against it. Wilders (and people like him) are trying to help us before it's too late. We can take steps to stop the gradual Islamification of Europe now, or we can leave it to our children in which case they will have to take up arms. What's best - a cheap prevention or a costly cure?
Complain about this comment
One might suspect Mr Wilders to have invited the crowd at the location where he held his first press conference today, to prove his point.
They carried banners with: 'Islam will dominate the World', 'Sharia, the true solution', 'Sharia for the Netherlands', 'Freedom go to hell' and so on.
All banners had as neat 'under-title: 'Freedom go to hell', where neatly printed and held up high, with the koran clearly in view.
On the streets of London the images from Wilder film 'Fitna' came true for me.
This shows also there are quite a number of muslims in the UK that don't want to integrate in the British society, but intend to bring your and my country (Netherlands) under the islamic sharia low.
One might argue that it is only a small splinter-group of the Muslims that behave in this manner, but research in Holland shows that a minimum 4% of the nearly 1 million muslims can be considered fundamentalistic in there way of thinking and behaving, and would definitely support the slogans mentioned on the banners in London today.
This means that we have about 40.000 muslims, who want to have nothing to do with our laws, customs, history, freedom of speech, democratic rights, and so on.
I leave it to the reader to translate the figures to the situation in the UK, taking in consideration that people who do not denounce Taliban and Al Quada and other islamic terror groups -just 'Google' on 'islamic terror organisations'- , should be included in the number of fundamentalists
Out of concern for the values that I grew up with and cherish, I am a supporter of Geert Wilders, who I know nót to be a fascist with far-right ideas.
He has a clear right-wing agenda, and would -if there where elections today- be the leader of the biggest political party in Holland.
He can be offending to the muslims, that is tough but it only hurts emotions, just as much as I am offended and hurt by the way many muslims want to take away my basic rights.
Complain about this comment
There will always be potential for racial hatred....as long as the UK and other so called enlightened nations...allow themselves to be dictated to by other religious beliefs.
Come UK...COME ON THE WORLD....If you want to draw a line... BAN all religions focused around a fantasy like deity
Complain about this comment
For RCalvo (comment 42)
Although I'm not sure that banning the Qur'an is practical or even useful, there are a couple of points to consider:
1. The Qur'an and hadiths make it quite clear that Christians and Jews are to be kept as semi-slaves (dhimmis), that atheists, hindus, pagans and everyone else is to be enslaved or killed, that homosexuals must be killed, that Muslim women are second class citizens and can be beaten and raped, that non-Muslim women can be legally raped and kept as sex slaves against their will, that Muslim parents and grandparents cannot be held accountable for the murder of their children and that non-Muslim children may be taken as slaves. Does that not sound to you like hate speech?
2. Would it be ok if I produced and handed out some pamphlets calling for the rape, torture and murder of your family, with a great reward for those wishing to carry the instructions in the pamphlet? If not, why not? How about if I called it a religion; would that make it acceptable?
3. Just because Islam is classed as a religion, it is unlike any other. It cannot change, unlike other religions, and so cannot modernise like other religions can. It is not subject to interpretation (on pain of death) by anyone other than scholars and those scholars can be killed legally if they try to change anything too much. It is an entire social, economic and political system rolled into one, masquerading as a religion. Islam should be seen for what it is. The Qur'an is a handbook for people who want a reward for behaving in the manner of a 7th century warlord. What place is there for it in 21st Century Europe or indeed the world?
There are many people like me that, whenever there is a fresh outrage such as an Islamic bombing or an honour killing or an assault on the lives and freedoms of decent people, we don't just hold Islam responsible; we hold their cowardly, dishonest enablers (such as the PC crowd) jointly responsible. May the cowards in our society pray that people like me never find ourselves in a position in which we have nothing left to lose.
Complain about this comment
@DeniseCullum222 (comment 45)
Such a large paragraph and so few sentences!
Anyway, one thing which made me laugh (thank you) was "robbing its oil".
Actually, we pay through the nose for oil from Islamic lands. If they operated their business on a purely supply-and-demand basis, just like most other people have to, oil would be $10 a barrel.
It's almost as if you copy/pasted your entire comment from Islamic or PC nutcase forum.
Complain about this comment
Having visited the Netherlands on several occasions I can understand why Geert Wilders is so popular. All you have to do is walk the streets of Amsterdam and not hear one single person speak Dutch. They speak either English, Turkish or Arabic among other languages. The Netherlands is a small country with only 15 million people only 80% of which are ethnic Dutch according to sources. They have a right to protect their culture, language, religious beliefs and way of life. If that means denying Islam or Muslims from their country so be it after all it is THEIR country. Muslims have enough places on earth where they can live according to the Koran or Sharia. Moreover, this publicity is only going to help Mr. Wilders and so is the fact that he is on trial in the Netherlands. I personally wish him the very best. I can not believe the UK would bash Wilders. The protestors outside with "Sharia in the UK" and "Death to Democracy" signs are the ones who should be banned from entering the country.
Complain about this comment
#50. "It's like 1938 all over again."
Now, now the Kristallnacht hasn't happened yet.
Complain about this comment
Gavin said "What he (Fleming Rose) believed was that the threat of violence should not determine whether an opinion or a picture should be published or not. That would hand the censor's pencil to the violent."
Having previously argued (post 35) that journalists and others should have a legal 'right to offend' but voluntarily desist from it, I am wondering what it is about Fleming Rose's statement above that i disagree with. In principle i think his statement above is correct, but cannot justify what he published. What was the message he intended to articulate with a picture of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban? It strikes me as mindless offence.
If he had instead written a piece saying (a) that jihadist violence is violence like any other than no western state should tolerate on its territory, or (b) incitement to violence by Islamic clerics cannot be tolerated because of the religious status of those doing the inciting, or (c) that when certain passages in the Qur'an written centuries ago advocate forms of behaviour towards women or other religious groups that are contrary to the laws of Denmark, then it is the latter that must be followed even by Muslims living there, etc. then I might agree he was making a statement worth publishing, even if it might (perhaps) offend some Muslims. But he should have self-censored what he did publish on the grounds that it was all offence and no message.
And the same is probably a good maxim for those of us who comment on this blog (and not just on this thread). If you are going to offend someone, better that it be an unavoidable side-effect of your message rather than your main intent.
Complain about this comment
MrsMevE wrote on 2009-10-16 At 11:28 CUT regarding the right to offend and free speech.
Comments:
There is no free speech in the Netherlands and racism is protectively enshrined in its institutions. As a start please familiarize yourself with the concept of “majesteitsschennis” in the Wetboek van Strafrecht articles 111 to 113.
Regards, BobFisher
Complain about this comment
Wouldn't it be funny if he took his pen away from his nose and it stayed in that shape for good? Oink! Oink! :-)
Complain about this comment
Wow some of the stuff on here is amazing. It is really unclear is this blog is about freedom of speech - the dutch gentleman or Islam.
I just thought I would say in my day to day work I come across many Muslims - most are kind, gentle, law abiding people- they pray more than Christians, and expect each other to do more for the poor and needy in their communities than westerners. They don't recognise the hate filled nonsense spouted in their name, but worry about their kids being brainwashed by al jazeera.
Please don't conflate all muslims as being intolerant and full of hate it is just silly.
Complain about this comment
The thing I find somewhat infuriating is when liberals accuse people like Wilders of being biggots/racsists etc when discussing the threat of the growing islamic influence in Europe. Don't they realise that it is exactly their liberal beliefs of tolerance, women's rights, homosexuals' rights etc which would be thrown straight out the window if these islamists had their way? It's almost bizarre that are the architects of the potential downfall of their own freedoms.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn @ 47. What struck me the most about your post was that you fail to recognize the tacit anti-Christian bend of many in Europe or the ‘west’ that was implied in Maria’s post and shouldn’t need to be spelled out. Implicit in her post is that Christians are attacked left, right, and center for this, that, and the other and bigots like Maher, et al , only attack Christians. People who, by the way, have very much learned to ‘deal with it’ and toughen their skin.
With this context in mind her assertion, correct by the way, is that the Godless regimes (can’t believe someone would forget about the 20th century so soon!) have certainly killed several orders of magnitude more. Human nature is about power not religion. To abuse the latter to get the former is tried and true but not limited to Christianity as many seem to conveniently forget.
Complain about this comment
20 cobinrain
"Basic argument is that the Koran contains numerous incitements to violence.....
These are from "holy" texts."
Have you ever read the old testament???
And yes, I know Islamic terrorists misuse and misquote for their own ends, exactly as certain Christians have done for almost 2000 years. Terrorism uses religion as a tool to motivate its ground troops, as religious leaders always have.
Strangely christians often use the Old Testamnet more than the New in their justification of wars .... I've never got that.
More seriously and back to free speech and Wilders...
Wilders is a racist dressed up as a politician, and has alot in common with our own rising BNP. Wilders is using a dislike of Islam as a "safer" way to pursue a racist agenda.
I believe that it is important that free speech reigns supreme in a civilised society, but I disagree with the idea that offense is only taken by the "offended party", and cannot be given by the speaker.
13 frankfisher says
"The hatred and violence is not stirred up by the offended speech. It is stirred up by the reactions of those who refuse to accept that in this society, we are free to offend them."
This is rubbish - freedom of speech is not freedom to offend. Enlightment intellectuals did not go out to offend people, but by their rational arguments sought to enlighten - a much more effetive ploy.
All religion is guilty of "taking offence", and IMO all religion should be subject to equal rational argument, except that they have no rational answer. Chrisitanity has learnt to ignore the criticism, Islam has not.
There has to be a sensible middle ground - freedom of speech is not freedom to offend gratuitously. Shall we have the holocaust deniers on question time next, in the name of free speech?
I know that I sound confused, and honestly I am ... partly because as an atheist I find all religions to be ridiculous (some more than others) and I am often offended by the proselytising of sanctimonious hypocrits as well as by the fraudulent sciptural justifications for violence, yet in the spirit of free speech they must be allowed to promulgate their drivel.
Wilders should be allowed to speak, but why give him all the media coverage? If he was ignored he may go away (same goes for the BNP)
Complain about this comment
23
"Then he waits a few months and states something similar (e.g. women wearing a headscarf should pay a special tax)"
I'm pretty sure the Pope won't accept a tax on nuns, whatever Wilders says
;-)
Complain about this comment
Is it me or has everyone been carried away on a cloud of self-righteousness? People who hijack planes and fly them into tall buildings, plant bombs, blow themselves to kingdom come and take innocent human beings with them have abandoned all rights and claims to a philosophy - moral, theological or intellectual. They are criminals and thugs.
Anyone who panders to the belief that there is a coherent rationale behind this kind of behaviour makes the same mistake regardless of whether they are voicing extreme prejudice like Mr. Wilders or calling for freedom of speech not to be further curtailed. They are giving a phoney legitimacy to the indefensible. The same may be said of over-zealous law makers who pile layer upon layer of specific offences which are popularly labelled as gay-bashing or 'racial/religious minority' bashing (I am not allowed to use the vernacular phrasing). They lose sight of the fact that it is 'people bashing' that is the real issue.
By crediting these people with any legitimacy at all, they are simply marginalising the vast majority of peaceful and law abiding people while adding fuel to the fire of extremism. This should be a non-subject.
Complain about this comment
50. fluffyfluffkins wrote:
"Wilders ISN'T an intolerant extremist. Just because he doesn't want to tolerate the subjugation, rape, enslavement and murder of non-Muslims, women and gay people in Europe"
In which parts of Europe are these terrible things happening ....?
You seem to be fluffy in the head ....you say
"It's like 1938 all over again. No-one did anything until it was too late."
It's really nothing like 1938.
Complain about this comment
53 fluffy
"Just because Islam is classed as a religion, it is unlike any other. It cannot change, unlike other religions, and so cannot modernise like other religions can. It is not subject to interpretation (on pain of death) by anyone other than scholars and those scholars can be killed legally if they try to change anything too much. It is an entire social, economic and political system rolled into one, masquerading as a religion."
That's one of the best descriptions of medieval christianity I have ever seen. Wow, the parallels are enormous.
Also you seem to be unaware that there are different sects or branches of islam, just as there are different denominations of christianity.
Not all muslims are islamists, just as not all christians are creationists.
Check out the sufi branch. All niceness and wisdom.
That said I find all religion to be laughable ... and in a way we in the "enlightened" west have less of an excuse for beleiving any of that guff - we grow up with freedom of thought and speech at least.
Complain about this comment
"Offending religion and the defeat of dogma ushered in the modern world."
This seems to be a common belief among the comments here, and - from what I've seen - the common belief in Europe.
It's erroneous.
Criticising religion and 'the defeat of dogma' did accompany the West's development into the modern era. Taking on religion is not the reason for modern, advanced civilisation.
Furthermore, the Enlightenment was about questioning what was accepted as fact. This did not pertain solely to religion, as many seem to have forgot. Science was questioned too, and the Aristotlean model of how the universe worked gave way to modern physics. Society was questioned, and the strict social hierarchy of royalty, nobility, commoners, peasants and serfs gave way to a more egalitarian view; prejudice, not only in religious matters, gave way to more tolerance. Political structures were questioned, and absolute monarchy - particularly in continental Europe, but even in Magna Carta England/Britain - gave way eventually to parliamentary constitutional monarchies and republics.
One could argue that the old conditions listed above were supported by the religious leadership. The Roman Catholic leadership clamping down on Galileo. Divine Right. And so on. However, that was just sheepskin to make such conditions (especially the socio-political ones) palatable to the unwashed masses. We have Atheist regimes today who rule by the Divine Right of 'the Party knows best' and who cling to generally unaccepted science because it also supports the accepted order (i.e. Chinese support of the multi-regional hypothesis of the origin of modern humans).
The modern world did not come about by vanquishing adherence to an evil, development-retarding religion. It came about by a healthy questioning of the world and a curiosity about how that world worked and how new ideas could change things for the better.
Ridiculing religion does no good except to make Atheists feel a little warm and fuzzy inside. Observing, analysing, questioning religion and everything else is what is constructive. You question views you disagree with - as well as those with which you agree - you don't mock those views and the people who hold them.
Complain about this comment
One protester, Sayful Islam, said they wanted to see Mr Wilders "tried in an Islamic court" for "insulting the Prophet", adding: "We need to put this dog on a leash".
I have added this quote from the BBC because basically it speaks for itself, and says that, why in a modern world we do not want to hear the stone age rantings of some deeply disturbed people against free speech.
Comments like this show that Islam (and by the way for the dummies it is not a race)has no place in a modern free living society.
Complain about this comment
69 DrMad
If you like to judge whole groups in society by the actions and words of a very few then check out this link below
http://www.newsmutiny.com/pages/HandicappedProtest.htm
“God Hates Cripples” Says Fringe Christian Fundamentalist Group
With loony Christians we just laugh and look the other way, but they are pretty offensive really.
There are 1.5 million muslims in Britain - the ones who protest are well organised and make a lot of noise but do not represent the majority and therefore are in no danger of establishing any sort of sharia caliphate in Britain. Their placards and banners are mass produced by a few instigators, exactly as they are for anti-global rallies, and any political marches in the past.
What is happening is that the moderates, and particularly the young British-born ones, are being marginalised by being lumped together as some sort of dangerous collective.
It's a small smoulder and intolerance adds fuel to it. Wilders and the BNP are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophesy, after which they can say "I told you so".
And Dr Mad, we know Islam is not a race - but dislike of islam can be a more "acceptable" face for racism as well.
Complain about this comment
68 - AnonymousCalifornian
You are entirely right but I think it tends to underline what I am saying. One of the things that arose from the more enlightened view of life were the rules covering the conduct of war (the Geneva Convention and related matters). The norm was established that war was to be conducted by and between people in uniforms which identified them as combatants and that non-combatants were not to be harmed or intimidated. Those who depart from this convention for whatever reason are seeking to drag us back into the dark ages. So I repeat, they have lost any right to be engaged with on equal terms in a philosophical debate. This is true of any kind of fundamentalist extremist and is by no means limited to Islamists.
Complain about this comment
Geert Wilders would be a much better candidate for President of Europe than Tony Blair.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Hewitt,
Do you find that the AFP photograph you use of Mr. Wilders pushing a pen against his nose, thus resembling a pig, is effective propaganda?
Complain about this comment
72. At 10:05pm on 16 Oct 2009, markvero wrote:
"Geert Wilders would be a much better candidate for President of Europe than Tony Blair. "
The "EU" is not Europe.
There is no acceptable candidate for the Presidency of the "EU". To be President of the "EU" you would have to accept the legitimacy of a sick organisation which has denied the people of the UK the referendum they were promised and which a clear majority want and in which about 70% want to vote "NO". I want to vote something far mor assertive than "NO".
Complain about this comment
Personally I believe Geert Wilders should be supported but not for the opinions or views that are preached. Great Britain has turned a blind eye to the Islamic community, we have over 100 Sharia Courts who are not clearly not operating under British law. Clerics have also preached that British law should not be followed etc and don't get let me get started on the treatment of woman. The dress that you typically see a muslim woman wear is not written into the Koran and has nothing to do with Islam, yet for some reason it's claimed to be religous?
It's time we open a discussion and decide what is acceptable in our society or further divisions will be made. The rise of the far right should be worrying for all, if you continue to isolate the voices of these people they will rise in larger numbers and become more willing to use force.
Complain about this comment
It would be really nice if everybody in the UK realised we are a democracy and can speak our views openly, what is sad is to see the news and see these British Muslims saying that if the police were not present see what they would do. I would have thought that it would be better to say let us sit with this guy and have an open discussion to discuss the different views. I travel extensively and do not know of any other country that tolerates open hostility on the streets. Makes me wonder if indeed the Muslim religion is the racialist.
Complain about this comment
Wilders is an extremely dangerous politician.
His claim to exercise freedom of speech when mocking Muslims, immigrants, the left, the multicultural society, the EU, foreign aid, environmental activists has nothing to do with freedom. He never attends a public debate or discussion, refuses to speak to most of the Dutch press claiming they are all left wing, and only issues repetitive monologues and gives speeches for in-crowds. He claims to have nothing against Muslims, yet calls their faith fascist and criminal. He claims only to target the radical, criminal Muslims, yet tells us that moderate Islam does not exist. On Danish TV recently, he even claimed that in his view tenths of millions of Muslims in Europe are all potential criminals and should be outlawed or removed from society.
His agenda is based on a blurry mix of libertarian, neo-conservative and national-socialist political ideas. He advocates for the ultimate free market and wants government influence reduced to the absolute minimum. He constantly speaks about Islam, which he calls backward and inferior, as the root of all evil. In his view, the threat of Islamist world domination is proven through terrorist's actions, countries such as Iran and Saudi-Arabia, and sharia law. No matter what issue, traffic jams, abuse of benefits or a children's TV program with non-western players, everything wrong and part of a plot to overthrow western civilisation, based on his perceived growing influence of Islam.
At the moment, there is a public debate about the future of our retirement benefits system, which is practically the same as when it was in introduced in 1957. The government wants to raise the age from 65 to 67 since more people live much longer than back in 1957. The strongest opponents to this change are the Socialist Party (SP) and Wilders' Freedom party (PVV). In the polls they have about a third of the electorate. The odd thing is that Wilders' in his party's statutes talks about radically reducing government (making between 50.000 and 500.000 civil servants redundant), abolishing minimum wage, allowing employers to make staff redundant at their will, reducing benefits, yet he wants to raise funding for care for the elderly. He claims that he could finance this by stopping immigration, and cutting foreign aid, regulations that benefit the environment, and contributions to the EU.
Wilders is hailed by a large community of followers (15-20% of the electorate) who like him do not believe in the multi-cultural society, who oppose immigration and dislike foreigners and think that the our government and the EU are only stealing tax payers' money to enrich themselves. Everyone who opposes Wilders is marked by them as left wing, labelled as terrorist friend, has to be a Muslim or friend of Muslims, and name called stupid, blind and cowardly or worse. In the past, these people never bothered to vote. Now they see in Wilders their deliverer, someone who will free them from the chains of the multicultural society, the left who have destroyed our country only to fill their own pockets, and the foreigners who make our streets unsafe, who steal our houses, jobs and benefits, and who refuse to assimilate to the values and rules of Dutch national culture, that is the version of Wilders and his followers. Things have been made easy (by the left) for immigrants and non-westerners (20% of our society) at the cost of 'real' Dutch people.
Wilders rouses rabble, he uses offensive language, is rude and confrontational. He is admired by a large part of our society as someone who says what they think, who dares to challenge the political establishment. Although there has never been a left wing government, everything that is wrong is their fault, and his provocation is popular. He enjoys a ridiculous amount of media attention, every day he is somehow in the news, even when there is no news. Every minor incident involving immigrants or Muslims is blown up to gigantic problems, asking the government in parliament about these incidents and why they are not taking action to remove these elements from society. Wilders has been successful in the division of our society and giving the antisocial and xenophobic elements in our society a voice. Now the Dutch themselves are turning violent, driving a car into a Queens Day crowd, beating up aid workers because they feel discriminated and not helped fast enough, a beach where police officers are attacked by a drunken horde name calling them "cancerous Jews", and a few days ago someone drove a car into a bank building after being sent away for smoking indoors. Dutch society becomes more and more antisocial and violent.
Wilders appeals to the 'underbelly' feelings of people. Self-righteousness, egoism, greed, the right to be offensive and discriminatory, stirring up hate towards everyone or everything that appears different or foreign. The majority of followers are people who have been misled by the economic bubble and now face to lose everything and are looking for a scapegoat. He paints them a picture of a better state of we all vote for him, in which everyone and everything is purely Dutch, where no crime exists and individual freedom is banned. He suggests that we can only be free if we all think the same (i.e. like him), fight Islam, close our borders, reduce international affairs and leave everything to the generosity of the free market.
Next year there will be local elections and Wilders will be challenged in court for his expressions. Ofcourse everyone has the right to freedom of expression, but that is not what Wilders wants. He wants the right to deny others the same right. Wilders' PVV decided only to run in two cities for the local elections, since they could not find any qualified candidates. His party is not a real party. It is a foundation with only one member, Wilders himself. The other members have been selected by him or have donated to his foundation. He associates himself with the neoconservatives in the USA, regularly visits fanatic GW Bush and Cheney supporters, who give him vast amounts of money for his campaign organised by Pamela Geller, receiving 'prestigious' prizes such as the 'freedom' award by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and he appears regularly in Fox News warning Americans that the Netherlands and the UK are already lost to Islam and multiculturalism. If Wilders will get his way, which fortunately is still unlikely, democracy with come to an end in the Netherlands.
A very concerned Dutchman.
Complain about this comment
@ 77, lewvdc, 06:59am :
Dear Lewvdc,
You wrote a funny and long story about Wilders, starting with:
"Wilders is an extremely dangerous politician."
This should of course be:
Wilders is an unconventional politician.
Some other corrections are:
"His claim to exercise freedom of speech when mocking Muslims, immigrants, the left, the multicultural society, the EU, foreign aid, environmental activists has nothing to do with freedom."
Must be:
He does exercise his freedom of speech when criticizing the Islam as a culture, he does not see it as primarily as a religion.
His clear arguments in regard to 'the left', the multicultural society, the EU, foreign aid, environmental activists, made him and the PVV virtual the biggest political party in Holland at this moment!
"He never attends a public debate or discussion, refuses to speak to most of the Dutch press claiming they are all left wing, and only issues repetitive monologues and gives speeches for in-crowds."
Must be:
He chooses rarely to attend public debates or discussions and rarely speaks to the Dutch press claiming they are mostly left wing.
But, he gives lectures whereby he in clear words and with simple examples explains what he and his political party stand for.
He also chooses to give speeches for in-crowds, and on important moments he speaks with the press. ( As discussed in my earlier comment, Nr 51 )
"He claims to have nothing against Muslims, yet calls their faith fascist and criminal."
Must be:
He has nothing against muslims as individuals, but more important he considers the islam -as a culture rather then a religion- fascistic, based on many discrimatory articles in the koran.
"He claims only to target the radical, criminal Muslims, yet tells us that moderate Islam does not exist."
Must be:
He specifically targets the radical, criminal muslims, and he also warns that a moderate islam does not exist. Muslims radicalize or they lose there fate and integrate in our Western society.
"On Danish TV recently, he even claimed that in his view tenths of millions of Muslims in Europe are all potential criminals and should be outlawed or removed from society."
Must be:
On Danish TV recently, he claimed that among the tenths of millions of muslims immigrants in Europe there is a very high percentage criminals, and these (the criminals immigrants, with fundamentalistic islamic tendencies) should lose there European passports, and sent back to there countries of origin.
Of course I can rewrite you whole story, but I rather leave that to you now I have opened your eyes to an other perception of facts that you are 'so concerned' about.
Complain about this comment
I believe that Wilders shouldn't be stopped from entering Britain. (In fact, I believe that Britain should be part of the Schengen free movement area.)
I disagree however with your analogy with Richard Dawkins. The difference is that Dawkins criticises his *own* (Christian-Judaic) culture and *all* religions, whereas Wilders criticises Islam only.
The problem is not *what* Wilders is doing (he's entitled to free speech), but the problem is *why* he is doing it. Wilders has a political agenda, based on resentment (at best) that many European "natives" have against immigrants from outside Europe. Most of these immigrants happen to be of Islamic culture and that's where Wilders is hitting the nail on its head: he knows that by muddling the issues, he can hide behind free speech and attack immigrants for being "different". If those immigrants were mostly Chinese, Wilders and his likes would find something else to pick on.
Of course, legally this argument is too subtle to catch the guy on. So just let him speak, let him say what he wants and, if you disagree with him, just counter his claims that Islam is bad with the fact that all religions are bad. Remind him, and those who vote for him, that Anna Frank lived in Amsterdam, not in Afghanistan, and that the political movement he leads is directly inspired to that which deported Anna and her family to the death camps.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Hewitt, could you come up with 1 Islamic body or person who spoke up in favour of the Danish Cartoons being published on the grounds of quote "..they were the price for an open, tolerant society.."?
Because I have searched high and low this a.m. to try to find something on the Internet that would back up your indication that Muslims anywhere embrace the principle of a 'free and open society' where stuff about Muhammed is concerned and I could not find one!?
Mr Hewitt, what many millions of people across the World find more offensive than almost anything else is the persistent attempt by liberal-tolerant-open-minded-politically correct-human rights supporting Journalists, Politicians, Churchmen, Commentators, Judges, Police etc. to portray the Islamic Faith as "tolerant", "open-minded" and willing to accept another's point-of-view on anything concerning Religion!?
This claim for followers of Islam is a deliberate deception by the intellectual elite of the modern, progressive western world: As the Qur'an makes absolutely clear at many points - - Islam does not concede to any Faith or Idea but its own tenet in any and all aspects of Life on Earth - - the rest of us are all doomed. The explanation for this scenario is fundamental to Islam which of course literally translated means "Submission to God".
"There is no God but Allah." This is the key phrase, guaranteeing as it does, a place in Paradise for any Muslim: The final Prophet of Islam (p.b.u.h.) is reported to have said, "Any one who dies holding that belief will enter Paradise."
Why nearly every one of the modern World's Leadership and many key elements within it continue to perpetrate this wholly unfounded idea that followers of Islam can be persuaded into a more amenable view of the rest of the Human Race is one of Life's great mysteries!?
I know simply writing this may cause offence to Muslims in the UK, and in some Islamic nations not only would the Comment never see the light of day but as the author I would not be long for this world either! Publishing may be unacceptable as BBC has so many interests in the world of Islam both within the UK and wider World, but, somewhere, somehow, sometime the BBC as one if not the foremeost Media institution in the 'modern world' really will have to bite the 'offended' faithful's bullet and as the Iron Duke so aptly stated, "Publish and be damned!"
Had the BBC had the foresight and intellectual will-power to Publish the infamous 'Cartoons' a great deal of angst and misery might well have been prevented.
Mr Hewitt, your BBC did no favours to the cause of 'tolerance' and 'open-mindedness' by not confronting the ".. reaction around the world of..violence" perpetrated by some Muslims. Backing down to people just because they have a certain view of the way the World should be is neither accurate, constructive, informative Journalism nor did it ease pressure on the BBC to conform to Islamic beliefs on how it should Report Islam.
But then, at the time of the original offence, the BBC deferred to Muslim sensitivities and never Published the Danish Cartoons.
Preferring to risk insult and belittling of the intellectual capabilities of the vast non-Islamic 'modern World' audience which of course the BBC correctly deduced was so aware of other's Rights it was extremely unlikely to burn flags, scream abuse, or try to kill and maim in the name of Press Censorship or come to that near moribund ideas of Faith!
It was a truly strange and for many of us in the 'west' a very alarming turn of events: An Internationally renowned Media body with immense technological access, vast intellectual concerns and a capacity for reaching the largest World-wide audience deferring to a view of Life first propogated in the early Middle Ages?
A BBC Editorial decision fully backed and lauded by the UK Government for its emolient understanding of 'Islam'.
Astonishing - Bewildering - Creepy - Depressing - Emotive - Frightening -well, the Thesaurus of troubled thoughts about how the BBC could act in such a self-censoring manner has yet to be completed by those of us in the modern world who thought it might be an Independent source of information!
Then we arrive at October 2009, and some minor Politician from the Netherlands with some rather extreme views on Islam not only attracts the ire of the UK Government, but then has a full-course BBC Report of his every breath!
No need for self-censoring when it comes to the extremes of the 'west' it seems!?
How gratifying, heartening, indicative... it must be for all Muslims that BBC pays so much heed.
Mr Hewitt doubtless you are proud to work for such an august institution, steeped as it is in principles of "...fine judgement as to whether exercising the right to (publish) offend stirs up hatred and violence too."
Which leaves those of us who support a modern World Press/Media free of censorship pondering how it came about the BBC can 'offend' some followers of Christianity, Judaism etc. by openly Publishing Articles, Documentaries, Photos, Films about their Faith whilst shrinking back in unqualified fear of offending Islam?
Strange Media company you work for: Stranger still to think we were once all PROUD of its principled stand on delivering News without let or hindrance.
Complain about this comment
Freedom of speech only needs defending when it is offensive. It is the only real test of whether or not there actually is freedom of speech.
Having spent the better part of a thousand years evolving from societies not much different from the way the most reactionary Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia are today into what it has become such as it is (not true democracies but the closest it has ever gotten), Europe seems exhausted to the point where it is ready, almost eager to give up all those gains to revert back to what it had once been. It rationalizes every step backwards. Loss of independence and sovereignty is rationalized as as uniting in strength. Acquiescing to the heinous cruelty and inflexibility of Sharia law and repressing free speech that mocks and denounces it and the dangerous culture and political movement behind it is rationalized as tolerence. Eurabian Union here we come, it's just around the corner.
Complain about this comment
Fact 1: Mr Wilders wouldn't need 24 hr security if he had offended the european Christian community.
Fact 2: Mr Wilders isn't calling for Islam to be banned and so is not infringing on the right of anyone to practice their religion. He is, however, asking for moderate Muslim's to be more vocal in condemning acts of violence and has a perfectly valid, albeit tenuous argument, for why Muslim extremism exists: i.e. hateful versus in the Koran.
Fact 3: As the philosopher John Stewart Mill pointed out; saying that "all bakers are thieves" in a town hall is not the same as saying it outside a bakery. Freedom of speech needs to be protected but limited so it doesn't cause physical harm. Mr Wilders, according to many Muslim's, cannot voice his opinion ANYWHERE; something Mr Steward Mill would certainly be opposed to.
Fact 4: During he lastest visit to the UK, all of the protesters where waving signs saying things like "Sharia is coming" usefully vindicating Wilders' position that people should be afraid.
Fact 5: After the release of Fitna, Wilders had planned to make a similar film about Christianity. Thanks to the childish reaction of everyone, he decided he could get more attention by focusing on Islam, stirring up support amongst disaffectioned Dutch voters thereby winning seats in the Dutch and European parliament. This is a huge own goal by rowdy, unthoughtful Muslim's who thought threatening his life would make him disappear.
Let's debate this subject and protect freedom of speech. Let's sit down with Gert Wilders and talk. Let's give the other side of the argument and reach a plan of action to confront the real extremists, of whom Wilders is not one.
Complain about this comment
79. At 11:21am on 17 Oct 2009, lacerniagigante wrote:
"I believe that Wilders shouldn't be stopped from entering Britain. (In fact, I believe that Britain should be part of the Schengen free movement area.)
etc. ..."
Your subsequent analysis of what goes in in Mr. Wilders mind is interesting mainly because it appears to be ridiculous.
How do you know what is going on in Mr. Wilders mind? Do you have detailed evidence to support your detailed assertions? Or is it as I suspect, namely that this is just another case of an "EU"-lover claiming to have a God-like ability to see into other people's minds?
We have seen it here before. It says more about these "EU"-lovers than it says about the mind they are criticising.
As for Schengen - totally unacceptable. Lots of other counties have let people in that we don't want here in the UK. We need those controls. We need out of the "EU".
Complain about this comment
#62 and 63
DiscoStu-d,
Had you read my post correctly, you would have realised that I had not failed to recognise the 'tacit anti-Christian bend of many in Europe'. What I referred to was the fact that religious people are very prone of selectivity in offence when it comes to religion. As I had pointed out, maria-ashot was very quick to support Wilders on his views on Islam, but was less forthcoming when other people expressed theirs on Christianity.
It is a strange statement to make about the Christans being attacked disproportionately nowadays, when the very same Christians would only criticise atheists or other religions, and not their own.
Now, your assertion that 'Godless societies' have killed more people than religious ones is somewhat contradicted by your own next post, where you refer the reader to the old testament and its use as a justification for war. Even your example of the 20th century is inappropriate as at least the conflicts in that century (mainly politically motivated) led to the notions of human rights and sanctity of life being enshrined in our modern societies. Whereas the same cannot be said for thousands of years of 'God-fearing' societies, which did not hesitate to kill or torture human beings in the name of religion.
Complain about this comment
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practise either of them."
Mark Twain (1835-1910)
Nuf said.
Complain about this comment
83. At 6:38pm on 17 Oct 2009, SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
"Your subsequent analysis of what goes in in Mr. Wilders mind is interesting mainly because it appears to be ridiculous."
Thanks. Appearance can be treacherous :-)
"How do you know what is going on in Mr. Wilders mind?"
Because he's a man that speaks his mind. That's what he said. Then he said that if Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands so must be the Koran.
"As for Schengen - totally unacceptable. Lots of other counties have let people in that we don't want here in the UK. We need those controls. We need out of the "EU"."
Who do you mean by "We" precisely? Now you seem to have mind reading powers, given that you don't speak just for yourself. If you personally want to be out of the EU, it's very easy: just move somewhere outside the EU. (Don't expect the UK to leave the EU soon. Even good old Tories, all they want is your vote.)
As for many people wanting to come to the UK, don't be so worried, it's over. Even the Poles are heading back home.
Complain about this comment
There is not one reason why the advocacy of those aspects of Islam which come into direct conflict with the basic human rights won by western civilization should not be denounced vociferously, frequently, and adamantly again and again and again every time they are mentioned. Nor should they be allowed to be taught in schools to children. I'm talking about the forcible treatment of women as second class citizens, the stoning of people to death for any reason, female genital mutilation, arranged child marriages, revenge killings, amputation of the extremities and limbs of those convicted of crimes, the crime of apostocy, etc. etc. These violate the criminal laws of all modern civilized nations. When they are put in practice and the offenders are discovered, tried, and convicted of these crimes, they should receive the maximum punishment law allows every time as a warning to all those who would bring their cultural baggage with time and try to impose it on our "civilized" societies that they will not be tolerated. Anything less is betrayal of those who fought so long and hard for, sacrificed so much for, and won the freedoms we now take for granted. Those who published cartoons offensive to Moslems should have been defended in every way possible. What happened to "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" That seems to have been jetisoned in the politically correct world of the emerging Eurabia that is being imposed by the European intellectual elite, the same mentality that brought us two world wars and nearly our certain extinction as a species in doctrines that almost precipitated a third.
Complain about this comment
I’m sorry to break this debate about right wing fire-raisers, but there are more important news and they go in the opposite direction:
As a number of media now is reporting the Czech president Klaus is now realising that he cannot go against the will of the parliament and the voters in the Czech republic. He is therefore preparing to sign the Lisbon treaty.
This comes after his unpleasant attempt to create a fire between the Czech republic and Germany, an attempt that would never have just one single chance to succeed.
If this unreliable man does not develop any new delaying tactic we can expect a decision at the end of this month, when the leaders of the EU are meeting.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and #88.
Yes, I agree the news of Pres Klaus seeming likely to cave in to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty very shortly is undeniably the most important news for all Europeans inc. and from my point of view most importantly Britons.
It is 'news' of epic, tragic, calamitous and despairing proportions.
'Epic' as the final ratification of LT will confirm the Federal European Union agenda has established itself as the supreme power.
'Tragic' because for over 2,000 years Europeans/Britons have suffered from, but each time, eventually thrown off the yoke of undemocratic supra-European rule and now it will at some stage need violence again to free the Citizens.
'Calamitous' as it is mine and millions of others' children and grandchildren that will have to undergo servitude to EU supremacy before their sacrifice to restore Citizens' Free Will.
'Despairing' as the voices of the 'anti-EU' have failed miserably to make Citizens aware and convince them at National level of the corrupt, venal, unaccountable, undemocratic institutions that lay at the core of the pan-European Union.
Seldom has the future looked darker: The day Pres Klaus signs on the dotted line will be comparable with August 1st 1914 and September 1st 1939. Hundreds of millions of Europeans facing occupation of their Nations and servility as subjects of an all-encompassing, one-size-fits-all, single, unchallenged power.
That not a shot was fired makes it no less of a massive defeat for the rule of Law and Order - - with an EU Directive applicable from the Arctic region of Utsjoki, northern Lapp-Finland to Mediterranean Terapetra in south-east Crete - - there is no Citizen or State free to make a choice and exercise their Individual Rights and Responsibilities.
It is truly remarkable that Gert Wilders will in years ahead be recalled as one of the last National European 'politicians' to have had any voice outside the confines of Brussels' determining opinion. He will be a curiosity: His petty extremism, so often displayed and repeatedly rejected over centuries by Europeans, held up as a reason for the EU's authority and yet in truth exactly what the Federal EU represents.
The control of the huge Majority of Citizens by the selfish, victimising, aggrandizing interests of an all-powerful Minority.
Complain about this comment
#80, ikamaskeip,
Very well put and absolutely true and to the point, fanatics can never be appeased and political correctness as exercised here in the west just gives fanatics the impression that they are winning, and that their perverse goals will succeed, whether they be religious or political.
As regards the distinction some correspondents raised earlier between the 'right of free speech' and the 'right to be free from discrimination' I have long held the opinion that the charge of 'discrimination' if most often made by those who are inherently fanatic or racist who use the PC culture to further their fanaticism. Complaining about or criticising a religion is not discriminating against that religion, however if that religion passes a certain point and becomes dangerous it can be proscribed, as have several cults over the years. Whether Wilders is a hypocrite or a band wagon jumper is not too relevant, but the debate he opens is since it asks whether Islam is becoming dangerous to the majority of the world, and whether the PC culture is at least misguided and at worse foolhardy and dangerous.
Complain about this comment
You point out that we have to tread a fine line between remarks that offend and insite violence and those that offend but do not insite violence. In our society we have developed an ability to tolerate remarks that in times past would have instigated burning at the stake etc. In order to control this we have developed laws which disallow insulting the individual but allow it when it is aimed at institutions in the name of freedom of speach.
Surely now we need to creat a law that disallows any institution or its members, be it religious or not to react with violence to such remarks.
I firmly believe in tolerence and at the same time I believe that we need rules to determine where my space ends and the others begins.
Therefore any person or institution comming to our society, and by that I mean all of the EU, should be obliged to adhear to such rules and resort only to debate inorder to defend beliefs.
Complain about this comment
One thing recurs in the comments I have seen now for some months. To begin with it was about the Irish referenda, then the verdict of the German constitution court, then the plans of the Polish president, and finally of the Czech president: The insufficient understanding of voters in the representative democracy.
In the case of the British voters it is very conceivable that they after pint number four tell those, who are prepared to listen, what an idiot the PM is, but at the next general election they still vote for him. Voters are inconsistent. Whatever they say in the pubs and cafes, so far they have given their green light for the Lisbon treaty through the general election.
David Cameron can carry through all the referenda, he wishes to. He can ask the British voters for a mandate to leave the union, if he wishes to. The British voters can give an exit party a landslide victory, if they so wish. Actually, I do expect neither the Czechs nor the Britons to leave the union, notwithstanding that the Lisbon treaty will grant both nations and all other member states the possibility. There are no disasters around.
The European integration will carry on, and I expect the Britons will be onboard. Perhaps even with Tony Blair as the man on the top. I cannot say I am amused by it. I would prefer Jean-Claude Juncker, but as a citizen of the democratic and relatively enlightened Europe, I can live with Blair – and his most outspoken wife.
Mathiasen, Danish citizen in Berlin
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen #88 and #92.
Yes, the dye is cast: It remains to be seen if your positive or my negative perspective of the post-Lisbon Treaty EU comes to fruition.
Let us both hope that you are right: However, I fear you have been as misled as anyone of the 'pro-EU' lobby and do not fully appreciate even your own concerns of the implications of voters not "..understanding in the representative democracy..".
The 'Democracy' you have so willingly given away will take dreadful turmoil to restore.
I would agree with you about Blair: He was IMO for most of the time an excellent PM of the UK (as the present lamentable performance of the 'Jock' in No.10 has amply demonstrated), but, he is of course the ultimate ambitious politician and so besottedly 'pro-EU' he is anathema to everything I believe the UK/England needs.
Cameron is a very damp squib who will succumb to the blandishments of Brussels the moment he has the keys to Downing Street - - the man has no ethical backbone and even less interest in the fate of British Citizens in the EU - - and like Blair-Brown his ambition far exceeds his credentials for Leadership.
Ikamaskeip, English Citizen of German-Dutch-Belge-English bloodline and former Free Man of Europe.
Complain about this comment
How will Europeans be able to continue to pretend to themselves and the world that they live in democratic societies as the EU superstate's central government usurps more and more power? Simple, by following the same teachings of the linguist Noam Chomsky who plays tricks with words as it has in the past, as Iran does, as Communists do. By redefining old words and coining new phrases. "Social democracy." "Islamic democracy." "European democracy." These antidemocratic governments are anything but democracies. It is easy once you get accostomed to the mentality of redefining words and accepting their new meanings yet still associating them with the old words and the meanings they used to have. For example, Ireland considers itself a democracy. However, surely some of those who were victims of physical, mental, and sexual abuse when they were children in Catholic Church run institutions and adults who observed it over the decades must have complained to authorities at one time or another about it. Why weren't their complaints investigated and the truth discovered long ago? Why are the perpretrators now beyond prosecution? Because the power of the church is still supreme there over the power of the people. Therefore it was hardly surprising that there were other political powers in Ireland who could negate the first plebecite by insisting on another even though the people had already spoken. All other European nations are the same in one way or another, only the details vary. Europeans can call what they have and what they will have anything they like. It will still be tyrannical absolute dictatorship no matter how they slice it just as it is in Iran, just as it is and always was in every Communist country.
Complain about this comment
"Geert Wilders is not important in himself. Neither is his 17-minute film on Islam."
You started it so nicely. If media wouldn't keep informing the public about him and his party there would be far less hatred produced.
Apart from that there are parts in the bible as well that may be understood as advice to do bad things. I don't think we should start censoring jokes etc about religion, not about christianity not about the Islam. If anyone doesn't like that they don't need to come to Europe or consume our medias.
Complain about this comment
oh I almost haven't noticed that you mysterisouly turned this treat into yet another one about the LT.
Do you plan to continue with it until the UK election? :-/
Would be kinda boring as I doubt either party will change their mind about it.
Complain about this comment
92. At 1:13pm on 18 Oct 2009, Mathiasen wrote:
" ...
British voters ... Whatever they say in the pubs and cafes, so far they have given their green light for the Lisbon treaty through the general election. ..."
AMAZING RUBBISH!!!
The Labour Party got in by promising us a referendum.
Until we get that referendum
THE "EU" HAS NO RIGHT TO EXIST !
Complain about this comment
92. At 1:13pm on 18 Oct 2009, Mathiasen wrote:
"One thing recurs in the comments I have seen now for some months. ... : The insufficient understanding of voters in the representative democracy.
... British voters ... after pint number four ..."
It is the usual arrogant "EU"-lovers rubbish. There is something wrong with the mental faculties of those who disagree with them. This is presumable the reason they feel entitled to treat the voters with contempt.
Complain about this comment
86. At 11:55pm on 17 Oct 2009, lacerniagigante
SB2:
So do you have any evidence to support this assertion?:
79. At 11:21am on 17 Oct 2009, lacerniagigante wrote:
" ... If those immigrants were mostly Chinese, Wilders and his likes would find something else to pick on. ..."
Complain about this comment
86. At 11:55pm on 17 Oct 2009, lacerniagigante wrote:
83. At 6:38pm on 17 Oct 2009, SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
' "Your subsequent analysis of what goes in in Mr. Wilders mind is interesting mainly because it appears to be ridiculous."
Thanks. Appearance can be treacherous :-)
"How do you know what is going on in Mr. Wilders mind?"
Because he's a man that speaks his mind. That's what he said. Then he said that if Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands so must be the Koran.
"As for Schengen - totally unacceptable. Lots of other counties have let people in that we don't want here in the UK. We need those controls. We need out of the "EU"."
Who do you mean by "We" precisely? '
SB2: On this occasion I mean the British government and the British people. There are loads of people near Calais whom neither the British government or people want to let in. I feel confident of the views of the British people on this matter because I have heard so many comments from them. I didn't read their minds. I listened.
' If you personally want to be out of the EU, it's very easy: just move somewhere outside the EU. '
SB2: I might well do that, but I don't have to leave my own country to please the anti-democratic "EU" religion or its adherents or its High Priests.
'(Don't expect the UK to leave the EU soon. Even good old Tories, all they want is your vote.)'
SB2: I fear you are right on that point. In which case I am entitled to stay in the "EU" and coause a load of trouble.
'As for many people wanting to come to the UK, don't be so worried, it's over. ...'
I don't think you are right on that point. It is necessary to keep the controls, just in case.
Complain about this comment
96. At 7:55pm on 18 Oct 2009, Seraphim85 wrote:
"oh I almost haven't noticed that you mysterisouly turned this treat into yet another one about the LT.
Do you plan to continue with it until the UK election? :-/
Would be kinda boring as I doubt either party will change their mind about it."
He can't do anything else. It just isn't going to go away. They can sign it all day and all night repeatedly for months on end and it will still be illegitimate.
Complain about this comment
Daniel Hannan doesn't get everything right , but he does get a lot right:
" EU ... Officials constantly claim, without thought or meaning, to be acting “on behalf of the citizen”, while all the time they are hatching unspoken plots against the public weal. The big truths – that deeper integration would be rejected in almost any referendum, that national politicians can be bought with the promise of Euro-sinecures, that the EU has now become a handy way for an awful lot of people to make a living - are a constant, brooding presence ... .
...
In The Spectator last week, I marveled at the genius of those who had switched our language so that it is considered “swivel-eyed” to be Euro-sceptic, but “mainstream” to want to hand your representative government away to an unelected apparat. By a bizarre inversion, the undoctrinal, patriotic, kindly people with whom I spend my weekends have been cast as Right-wing bigots – an accusation all the stranger coming, as it does, from those who have systematically derided and traduced the values of the majority. It’s a funny old world."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100013970/eurocrats-are-extreme-tories-are-moderate/
He says it better than wot I can.
Complain about this comment
Austrian Radio website reports that if The Czech Republic gets a footnote to the Lisbon Treaty then Slovakia also wants one.
Complain about this comment
Are you guys serious?
Of all things to make a stand for equality and you choose that?
A place where laws have to be passed so that some individuals who are unlike the majority are protected from racial fury.
One would have thought that rational people would, in spite of their natural emotional dislike, at least respect another, thought they be different. But to have to make a specific law that protects others from harm just because they are a minority is ruthless by those who need such incentive.
And now, how much real opposition do you think, do you really think will be offered as debate?
I think all of the brits will, if not outwardly, within will be jubilant to receive this familiar figure. Birds of a feather. From what I hear, there is a guy in Russia who, some, are calling, the Obama of Russia. He walks around with a hulking body guard.
Ever looked inside of the parliament? One mass of color and no contrast. I don't necessarily embrace radical Islam, actually I am doing my best as a sinner to sin less. I don't however pester anyone who refuses to hear the good word and certainly will not insist that they are infidels, and therefore need be killed. So in a way I do agree with this guy, that it is dangerous to sort out who will be a tame Islamic today, and a mad bomber tomorrow. Nevertheless judgment is not mine.
Although I do have an Impression..
Complain about this comment
How will Europeans be able to continue to pretend to themselves and the world that they live in democratic societies as the EU superstate's central government usurps more and more power?
-----------
The fact that we democratically elect out MEPs perhaps?
Complain about this comment
hackerjack and #105.
Re, '...how will Europeans be able to continue to pretend to themselves and the world that they live in democratic societies... EU superstate..?'
and your response, "The fact that we democratically elect our MEPs perhaps?"
How about the reality of the facts:
1) No MEP for the last 3 European Parliament elections in the UK/England has secured more than 40% votes among their local constituency and many in UK/England received less than 20% of possible Electoral voter turnout.
2) Across mainland Europe many MEPs have been returned to Brussels after receiving derisorily less than 30% of the possible Electoral voter turnout.
3) The last 3 European Parliaments did not get above 47% Voter Turnout - - i.e. not ONE MEP can claim a Majority or even ONE-THIRD of Voters supported their Election.
4) The European Commission Budget has been failed by the Auditors 15 out of the last 17 years, but has increased its intake of Monies from every State every one of those years.
5) Under the terms of Lisbon no EU Directive/Order may be opted out of for more than 5 years - - all must be incorporated into National Law irrespective of whether any Political Party has been elected to Govern with a Mandate to reject such Directive/Orders - - hence Cameron's idea of a Lisbon referendum (post-ratification) is a nonsense and a deceit perpetrated on the UK/England Citizens (he'll fit right in with the European Union).
6) The European Commission President under the Federalising powers of the Lisbon Treaty (Constitution mark II) becomes the supreme power-broker across EU Policy-making despite NOT being elected by any Citizens.
7) The European Court of Justice under Lisbon's terms now has it confirmed that it has the ultimate Judicial authority and may overturn any National Parliament Law/Regulation - - including the Right of a Nation to hold a Referendum - - and may overturn a National Ballot result on withdrawal from the EU.
You may consider the above is a form of 'Democracy': Those of us who still have any semblance of understanding the Citizen's true 'Democratic Rights and Responsibilities' know we must endure a Pig-in-a-Poke whilst the EUrocrats enjoy being Pigs-in-clover.
Complain about this comment
There is a saying in mainland Europe that to be British, well English actually, one has to be either an actor or a hypocrite. Their pompous moral self-indulging righteousness (like the Americans) and duplicitous play acting which intentionally or unintentionally stirred up hatred and violence, instigated conflicts, religious lunacy and untold suffering around the world cannot be allowed to continue. Geert Wilders represents the views of fair thinking Europeans and if some Muslims are deeply offended by his views, tough. Of course the British wouldn't like that, he is stealing their show.
Complain about this comment
hijacker;
"The fact that we democratically elect out MEPs perhaps?"
Iran's government claims its MPs are democratically elected too yet in Britain not only has there been no national debate on Lisbon let alone remaining what the EU has morphed into since the populous agreed to join, there hasn't been a debate in parliament either. It is unthinkable for anyone in one of the main parties to even bring it up just as it is unthinkable for the Iranians to question who ultimately rules them. Theocrats in Tehran or Eurocrats in Brussels it makes no difference, it is the same tyrannical principle. David Cameron's coyness about a public vote aside, it seems the UK will comply with all of the provisons of the EU treaty every other government will. And if you think the opt outs will exempt the UK from anything after 5 years, read it carefully yourself...if you have the patience to navigate such a complex verbal maze.
Complain about this comment
ADVOCATUS-DIABOLI and #107.
Great post!
Loved the wind-up-merchant verbosity and the cunning turn around at the close which doubly applied disapproval of the UK/England.
There is a saying in England about people in mainland Europe with such an intense dislike of the British Isles majority population. It is primarily used at football matches about someone on the pitch who is nowehere near as good as they publicly estimate themselves to be: It is a highly appropriate phrase in reposte to you.
"Whoareya? Whoare ya? Whoareya?"
Complain about this comment
#58 Dear Bob,
Perhaps you need some more insight into law before making statements about it? I know the Wetboek van Strafrecht (penal code) better than you seem to think. The constitution overrules the penal code, not the other way around. If it came to a court case, it would be highly unlikely to lead to a conviction and even if it somehow managed to, it would most likely be overturned in a court of appeals.
This isn't a nation that arrests people for making jokes about the royal family (most comedians seem to have one or two in their repertoire), or for drawing satirising cartoons. (Yet!)
I have my reservations about some legislation and proposed legislation, but at this moment in time there is no need to panic. I think awareness is the key here, not hysteria. The law as a field is slippery at best and it is good to remember that not every article is equally enforced, if at all.
Legislation is debatable... which is one of the reasons why people have issues when it comes to dealing with freedom of speech, and exactly what it entails. It's a very important aspect of a free nation, but personally I feel that with this great right comes the responsibility to use it with a dose of common sense. It's all right to criticise, but the language chosen for the task might merit a little thought. Or is being constructive an outdated value these days?
Complain about this comment
Wilders visit is a 'non-event' except its curious how much coverage it gets from the media when you consider how many seriously dangerous criminals are now being released from British jails and how many actual and 'wannabe' terrorists are probably now on British streets and respresent a real threat to real people.
The governments handling of his visit is nasty, nasty spin to corrupt the headlines and take our minds of the real issues - and so the BBC keeps helping the government by obliging.
I'm not at all worried by Wilders who has every legal right to be here and have his say under both UK and EU law - I'm more worried about the inept and corrupt 'smokescreen coverage' by both big government and the BBC as desperate attempts are made, on a daily basis, to steer the news in a particular liberalised, sentationalist direction.
Complain about this comment
Geert Wilders is not violating the Constitution of the Netherlands, as his trial will soon demonstrate. Pointing out that a particular ideology, religious or not, violates Article 1, is not a violation of Article 1 in and of itself. That argument is just ridiculous.
I also have repeatedly read the argument here that the Islamists Wilders is decrying are not representative of "mainstream" Islamic doctrine. And neither were those protesters calling for his punishment under Shari'a Law (and its imposition over the whole of Britain, for that matter). This is such a lame, obviously-flawed argument that it's got to be addressed.
If all these "moderate" Muslims are so offended by the "hijackers of their religion", where are the protests against them? Where are the Muslim-written editorials deconstructing their interpretation of Islam and demonstrating their falseness? Where's the call to mass anti-extremist action in Islamic communities (as we have admirably seen in the form of groups like Anti-Racist Action amongst Europeans)?
I don't care how "marginalized" I am made to feel by society; if I felt that something as core to my being as my religion were being abused and distorted by fanatics, I for one would be on the frontline of the movement to discredit them with the truth (which, with religion, should be particularly easy, since the truth exists in the form of the written doctrine of the faith). So, that lame excuse being demonstrably invalid, where are all these "moderates"? Where are the denunciations of the "extremists"? Where's the mass movement within Islam to meet these supposed charlatans on the intellectual field of battle and point out their errors?
Of course there is none, and there never will be, because this vast silent majority of "moderates" is nothing more than the wishful-thinking fantasy of naifs who insist on clinging to the demonstrably-false belief that every culture is just as open as are those of western civilization. It's a dangerous fantasy, and if Wilders manages to shake us from it, then whatever else he may be, or the trouble he may cause in the short term, he will be doing all of us a service in the long run.
Complain about this comment
Hear, Hear!! to jpetrisor, he has firmly landed on the one sore spot that most Islamic Apologists treat as The Elephant In The Room. If the Jihadists ARE truly extreme radicals, then where is Mainstream Islam's counter to their racist hatred?
To me the bottom line is simply this; "If someones statements provoke a violent response, provided the statements themselves do not deliverable advocate violence, then all the more reason to hear them out completely and thoroughly."
Using violence to quiet opposing viewpoints should be sending up red warning flags all over every thinking man's and woman's mental landscape. If memory serves correctly a recent political figure who made violent oppression of opposing viewpoints part of his political doctrine gave Britain a particularly bad time.
Do the Islamic Apologists truly wish to align themselves with the likes of Mr. Hitler?
It does appear so.
Complain about this comment
"But sometimes it is a fine judgement as to whether exercising the right to offend stirs up hatred and violence too."
No, that cannot be right. I mean, it is not a matter of opinion, this idea that people have the right not to be offended by words just can not be considered a logical possibility.. The cold hard logic of the practical world rejects this sort of moral equivalence posing as a reasonable position.
It is really very, very simple.
I find religious people who become emotionally aggressive about their beliefs to be absolutely intolerable. They scare me, and I feel such people are merely indulging in a fantasy to make themselves feel part of a powerful club. And I find people who become emotionally aggressive about their political beliefs to be intolerable, too. I don't care if someone is a religious fascist or a political fascist. I don't care if they think global warming or file sharing is an excuse to intrude on my rights and dominate me for the sake of their beliefs.
Anybody who becomes emotionally aggressive and threatens violence because of their pet beliefs is a fascist. Religious, political, green or digital. It doesn't matter what kind of fascism it is, what matters is that some people feel they are entitled to threaten violence and outrage and the disregard of others human rights because of the supposed sanctity of what they believe.
That is unacceptable to reasonable people, simply because ANYONE can justify ANY VIOLENCE on the grounds that "I was upset. Those words HURT ME."
For example, if I were to get so upset about religious folks that I threatened them all with violent reprisals, I would be considered insane, at best. Nasty and insane.
So why are religious people different? Why should muslims be getting special treatment, or christians? Why is it unacceptable for atheists to become violent in defense of their beliefs?
One simple reason: reason itself. It is fundamentally unreasonable to threaten violence in response to debate, no matter how dear one holds one's pet ideas. Atheists are expected to behave reasonably, so violent conduct due to ideological debate is considered insane and inexcusable at law.
I fear the enlightened world is being driven to abandon the rule of law in order to appease religious fascism, and the end of the freedom to debate seems the first casualty in the rise of any kind of fascism.
Complain about this comment
Some interesting posts but some are really off topic.
Getting back to Wilders - surely the point is - let him speak and then analyse what he has said - the point being that I do not feel at all threatened by Mr Wilders but I'm worried about hundreds and thousands of very dangerous criminals and actual and potential terrorists who have been let loose by 'Laughing Jack' Straw, Sneering Johnson and Wussie Woolas to name but a few of the various categories of real 'dangermen' and who are a real danger to themselves and other people in the UK.
Partly a question of perspective and fair treatment and reporting, I think.
The other question is whether Mr Wilders is right in what he says is there any merit - if his comments have merit then something needs to be done about it.
The only thing that is not said on this blog properly is what has Wilders actually been saying or proposing to say (in full details)? I would really like to know and now that the BBC have got my attention - I might even agree with him on some points.
Complain about this comment
That dastardly Wilders - how dare he suggest he doesn't like islam! Next he'll be claiming that thousands of adherents to that religion and belief structure will be setting off bombs around the world slaughtering not only non-believers but even others that share their own faith! Why, he'll probably even suggest it could even happen in London! Oh...wait...uhhhhhhhhh
Complain about this comment
Comment from #31: "as a dutchman im happy that at least 1 politician has the courage to say what many people in my country think: that islam is an intolerant religion and that to be tolerant to the intolerant is to dig your own grave as free people"
This is reassuring - perhaps Europe, or at least the Netherlands, is not entirely lost. I don't know though, #11's attack on Wilders sounds more like nervous appeasement of those Wilders is trying to warn you about.
Folks, you've got a REAL problem over there (Europe) and I think a sizable majority of you know it, admitted or not. You're tangled up in a ball of pc twine of your own making. If your expecting your ever growing muslim population to ultimately accept your view of freedom of speech, secularism, acceptance of other religions (good luck Jews), etc as their population continues to explode... well, good luck to all of you.
Complain about this comment
The written text below perhaps alludes to is that, it isn’t just his opinion as much as it is the reality among the many.
Geert Wilders is not important in himself. Neither is his 17-minute film on Islam. His party has nine seats in the Dutch parliament. But he is a figure around which an important argument can be had; namely on the limits of free speech in a democracy.
If one were to dismiss him, then one would also have to dismiss his arguments.
His spoken word is the summation of many, who also feel as he does.
He is correct in that there are parts in the Koran which encourage and demand violent action.
He, however, would have no right to demand the text be removed.
That the country, where the practice of said religion isn’t protected by laws, has direct conflict of its statures, the religion in question has no substance or legal recourse. Civilized societies are not subject to following mandates from religious edicts, especially since no consensus has ever been submitted or voted upon by its constituents.
Now let me state it more to the point.
A country would do well to stay away from mixing its own religions with that of a potentially volatile Islamic one.
Our own religions bring with them many turbulent disputes, and merging with Islam is more likely to, down the road, bring the wrath of purported Godly representatives or self professed martyrs, upon unsympathetic and non subscribing citizens who want no part of it.
I f the problem is that all Islamic disciples want to meter out judgment against the non Islamic, then the answer is quite clear that we ought to be at war with them.
Either way it seems some will be perpetrating a crime in the near future and the Kuran is the written plan, so why take a chance, either they abandon that dastardly plan and convert to civilized code or they are a potential danger to all.
Complain about this comment
Having read recently that Muhammed is the most common name for babies in the 4 largest Dutch cities and very much aware of the murder of Pym Fortun and Theo van Gogh I am not surprised that Dutch society has ceased to be innocent. Who are the people responsible for this state of affairs? Why can't politicians be held personally responsible for the crimes committed by people they allowed in?
Since we know how difficult it is for newcomers to break into the circle of careerist, corrupt or Muslim-appeasing politicians and journalists I appreciate immensely the self-sacrifice, dedication and success of Wilders.
Complain about this comment
Gavin Hewitt:
Yes, Geert has the rigth to offend and the
way; Is not respond to his critique...
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
I completely support "freedom of speach" the problem is we only have that freedom if it suits everyone on that day.
God forbid anyone saying anything against the Old Testiment of the "Christian" bible.
God forbid anyone saying anything against Israel or its people.
God forbid anyone saying anything about Nazis.
The Koran was written once and has never been changed, unlike the biblt that was written 500 years after it supposedly happened and a lot of what was written was not included, just the good parts taken. 500 years after it happened is crazy. A story changes completely after a week, so what is 500 years going to do.
Religion is crazy, going around killing in the name of "GOD" something written about in a science fiction book.
Wake up everyone, we're on our own.
Complain about this comment
As an Indian, let me tell you people. We gave into Islamic demands and gave half our country to Muslims so they could have an Islamic State.
Did it bring them or us peace? No, they just want more and more.
The 'fashionable left' walk hand in hand with the Islamists. They are confused individuals who really believe that their enemy is anyone who opposes anyone who isn't white. Sad. These people would sell their own children for fear of being seen as right wing.
Islam is the largest right wing, facist party out their that is growing day by day. Amazing, how when a Catholic has 4 or 5 children he is described as a fundamentalist, but it is normal for Muslims to have 7 or 10 children and no-one says anything.....
Complain about this comment
The BBC deserves some praise for allowing Nick Griffin on Question Time. No doubt some will accuse me of being a BNP supporter for saying that, but i hope that those familiar with my posts here know that the BNP combination of social authoritarianism and left-wing economics is not an agenda i would support. Rather i would say that attacking Nick Griffin's policies (rather than shouting, spitting, throwing things at him which is all i have ever seen on TV) is long overdue. Debunking his policies should be like shooting fish in a barrel; even easier than debunking the EU supporters on here i would say. ;-)
Indeed if Mark Mardell had not given the BNP the oxygen of publicity (by calling UKIP "the BNP in blazers") on the eve of the EP elections in June, and if Labour did not have one of the worst federalists in all of Europe running for re-election in Yorkshire, then i suspect the only BNP MEP would be Nick Griffin himself. That he has a sidekick in Brussels is the price that we pay for the federalist bias in the Labour party and at the BBC.
Complain about this comment
@ SB in 101
"He can't do anything else. It just isn't going to go away. They can sign it all day and all night repeatedly for months on end and it will still be illegitimate."
Same goes actually for you - you can rant here all day long and about noone that matters will actually care or even notice. Waste of time imho
Complain about this comment
Any religion which threatens death to its members who decide of their own free will to leave that religion should be named as a terrorist organisation because that is what a religion which does that to people is.
Complain about this comment
Well, from what he's said, he just seems ignorant, rather than hateful.
There are far worse people out there who shouldn't be let into this country, Nick Griffin for one.
But on the grounds of him saying that "the Karan is in opposition to freedom" (kind of ironic really) but i don't think he would invoke violence if he came to the UK, i don't know any of his other views on Islam, or indeed anything else. This could just be the surface as far as i know, and he could be the most evil man on the planet.
But just by saying this, i don't think such extreme measures as banning him from the country are necessary. Like i said, he just seems rather ignorant about it all. Some one just needs to have a sit down with him and explain things to him.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS