A walk on the Wilders side
ALMERE, near Amsterdam:
Three black cars screech into the market square. Shoppers enjoying the sun and a break in one of the many cafes around the square look up from their drinks and ice creams.
About ten serious-looking men in suits with bulges under their jackets get out of the back two cars and position themselves around the front vehicle. One carries a fold-out, body-length bullet-proof shield.
Who can be in the front car? The prime minister? A member of the Dutch royal family? Suddenly a white blond quiff emerges, followed by its owner, Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party (PVV).
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
He may not be royalty but he is, according to some opinion polls, more popular than the Dutch government and hopes to do well in the European elections. He wants to hold a referendum to demonstrate the Dutch people are against the Lisbon Treaty, as they were against the constitution, and wants to take powers back from Brussels. But that's not why he grabs the attention.
He is the Netherlands' Mr Provocative, determined to poke sensitive Muslim opinion in the eye. But is he the heir to the mantle of the extreme right or a post-modern populist? Where does his PVV fit in the political spectrum?
He's been banned from Britain, is being prosecuted in the Netherlands for hate crimes, has made a film about the Koran - a book he wants banned - and promises a second film that will be just as forthright.
Why, I ask him, does he wanted to ban the holy book of Islam?
"It is a book full of incitement to violence and I am very much for freedom of speech. Incitement to violence is over the red line. I have nothing against Muslims, but I fear, and a lot of my voters fear, the growing Islamisation of Europe, of the Netherlands, of Britain, of Denmark, of many European countries. So although we have nothing against Muslims as such, we believe that immigration and the influx of the Islamic symbolism is changing our society."
He's very much against Turkey joining the European Union and wants to take powers back from the EU. He is not advocating leaving the euro or the EU, but wants the balance of power to change. But there's little doubt it is his opinions of Islam that are eye-catching.
There's certainly genuine support for him among people who rush to have their picture taken with him. One woman tells me "he says what millions of us think". It is a refrain I hear repeatedly. But one man ostentatiously shreds the election pamphlet, saying that even Dutch cuisine is based on a mixture from all over the world and Mr Wilders' views were rather un-Dutch. 
That's certainly the view of a theatre company we visit in Rotterdam. The white-clad figures run around in a crazy game of tag that ends with them removing an article of clothing. This is not a peculiarly liberal Dutch playground game, a cross between "it" and strip poker, but a play for schools aimed at combating discrimination and exclusion of all kinds. It's sponsored by the anti-racist group Radar.
One of their organisers, Carla Lepelaars, tells me the economic crisis has deepened the problems they face. "People are more worried, more frightened and so worry about being excluded. The way the public debate is going, talking about groups of people as though they are completely different leads to other people feeling that they don't belong, that they are not allowed to belong."
What does she make of Wilders' party?
"If people are being told that it's another lot of people who are the problem, then all of a sudden you have all these enemies walking around, and you start thinking about everything in ethnic categories.
"He expresses concerns people obviously feel, but then he doesn't come up with solutions that make people stronger, but that make people weaker. If you make them more fearful and tell them we are going to solve these problems by getting rid of all the immigrants, it's not going to happen - not a real solution."
There's no doubt that Mr Wilders aims to provoke and hopes to be rewarded by the electorate for both boldness and speaking out, for not being part of a political elite who are seen by many as disconnected from the real problems and feelings of voters.
Dr Alfred Pijpers, from the Clingendael Institute of European Studies, tells me that Dutch society is becoming more sceptical about the EU and the ciris has provoked a feeling of "Dutch jobs for Dutch workers". He feels Wilders has carefully positioned himself. He says unlike most politicians he is unsmiling, perhaps rather against his nature, to show that he is a serious man confronted by serious problems.
"His views are very radical and offensive to Muslim people and he uses his radical proposals to position himself in Dutch politics. The way he is rejecting the establishment in The Hague and Brussels is an instrument for gaining power."
But he thinks Wilders is not an heir to the hard right.
"He's not a right-winger. He thinks Islam is a threat to homosexuals and women's rights. It's certainly not a fascist party, he's very liberal in some areas and supporting a socialist agenda in the Dutch parliament, to do with social security and housing and healthcare. He's a populist, which means he does not follow the agenda of the political elite."
I would have thought that both an element of socialism and populism are almost key ingredients in a hard-right recipe. There's also a tendency to see previous movements as cruder than they really were. There may be a good few supporters of far-right views who are obsessed with measuring skulls, but even the Nazis or the Klan identified their enemies by behaviour, beliefs and culture and saw themselves as defending Western Civilisation as well as blood lines.
Mr Wilders is adamant he has nothing to do with that tradition.
"I am not a racist at all. I am a democratic person, I have nothing against anybody, any race, only I fear Islamisation. I see Islam as more of an ideology than a religion. It wants to dominate every part of our society and wants us to submit, to dominate us. I've nothing against any people, any colour, any background, any sexual preference."
There is another very important point. The men surrounding Wilders wear white jackets of flimsy synthetic material with party slogans, but that's not a uniform. There are no shaven heads. Of course not even the hardest of hard right parties marches in jackboots these days.
But Wilders has made it 100% clear that he is against the use of violence, or even non-parliamentary means. The use he does make of violence is to stress that he is a likely victim of it.
Two prominent Dutch figures have been murdered for anti-Islamic views and, as the policeman puts away his folding body armour, I reflect that flirting with martyrdom is an effective, but very high-risk, political strategy.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~26~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"Why, I ask him, does he wanted to ban the holy book of Islam?
"It is a book full of incitement to violence and I am very much for freedom of speech.[..//..]"
A believer in the 'freedom of speech' but wants to ban the Koran - says it all really!...
Complain about this comment
I am sick of the numerous Britons lecturing us Continentals on their "superiority". "Look at those Germans and Austrians making holocaust denial a crime! They surely are a fascist bunch..Look at those crazy Dutchman, who wants to ban the Koran, how glad we are that there is freedom of speech in the UK...Look at the Italians and their corrupt society, how could we even be in a Union with them...and how undemocratic is the EU...it surely is not in line with our great democratic tradition.."
Fact is, within the last couple of months, the UK has proven time and again, that it is not better than other "European" countries. Just look at the fact that Wilders is banned(!!) from going to the UK. Can you believe it? Even Dutch politicians who are adamantly against him thought that the UK government was going bonkers. Then you suddenly have all kinds of politicians across the board using public money to fund things such as "duck houses". Please no little Englander ever lecture me again about the corrupt Italians.
Furthermore, I believe MaxSceptic said that the EU couldnt do without the UK and its contribution..
That is utter rubbish...maybe the UK contribution sounds like a lot to an ordinary person but looking at the EU GDP of about 18 billion dollars, its hardly worth noticing. In fact, the whole EU budget hovers around 1% of EU GDP. Tell me which other "government" has such few funds available? Thus any country's EU contributions are very low.
Complain about this comment
Excellent post, Mr Mardell.
Although I do note that elsewhere in the BBC, they are more likely to criticise Christianity for its views on homosexuality and women's rights [e.g. within the Catholic church] than they are to criticise any aspect of Islam. I think a level playing field on this is important if you are to retain credibility for your impartiality and respect for your balance.
Complain about this comment
The lamentable rise of the right is sadly a reaction to millions of europeans being deprived a say in the new EU post-democratic age.
This is still a muted response however.Imagine American citizens being TOLD that their laws would all originate from an un-elected "commission "of 17 people,...there would be an armed revolt against their masters ! Although the European Charter allows live ammunition to be used against European "citizens" in times of "rioting and civil upheaval",I hope it won't come to that in Europe.
The notion of any EU country's (I refuse to use the EU jargon of "state")laws being made by it's own commissioner and 26 others who perhaps know little of that country's language,heritage and mentality...is ridiculous at best.
The Dutch,French and Irish made their opinions clear on the Constitution/Lisbon.Germans,Austrians and Brits also demand that the EU be given less rather than more power.Sadly,..the un-elected commission refuses to listen and has the audacity to encourage us to vote in a "democratic" EU election where one German vote has only 1/16th the democratic clout of a voter from Luxembourg !
Welcome to post-democratic Europe.
Complain about this comment
Well, with the freedom of speech so much eroded (at least in UK) due to the oh-so-dear political correctnes, what else can we expected but people like Wilders being the only ones to dare to speak up? If no open public discussion is allowed on certain topics, from fear of offending somebody, than obviously Wilders and his likes will the ones voicing their opinons, as they do not care a fig about others' sensitivities.
By the way, how is Wilders, with his insistance that he is 100% against violence and his intollerance of Islam, different from the Islamic religious leaders, who maintain that they are against violence yet against the rights of homosexuals and women, and against man-made law? Both Wilders and his counterparts have got chips on their sholders, yet curiously, we do not have a topic on the views of, for example, Omar Bakri (also banned form UK).
Complain about this comment
Johannestannes You are right to say what you have said! *I am sick of the numerous Britons lecturing us Continentals on their "superiority".* However this has nothing to do with the British people, it is all to do with the politically correct *Liberals* and politicians who we also find to be shameful. Best wishes but please do not lump us Britons in with these scoundrels.
Complain about this comment
Oh and one more thing, what exactly is so democratic about having an unlected upper chamber? Surely, the EU is quite similar in that sense (Appointed commissioners, elected parliament). Thus, the EU and the UK are actually more similar than many of you Eurosceptics want to admit.
Complain about this comment
Your wording: *There's no doubt that Mr Wilders aims to provoke and hopes to be rewarded by the electorate for both boldness and speaking out, for not being part of a political elite who are seen by many as disconnected from the real problems and feelings of voters.*
If we just substitute the name of Mr. Wilders for that of Mr.Volen Sideroff, and if we imagine that what happened in ALMERE (near Amsterdam) did happen in Sofia (near Turkey) the picture you made would be 100% the same.
What really strikes me is the repetitive discontent in all member countries which is provoked by the constant requirement of the Muslim people, being European citizens, to be equally treated, and, the evident incompatibility of many Muslim traditions with the liberal views of the Christian majority.
To that matter, Mr.Wilders, or Mr. Le Pen, or Mr. Zhirinowsky, or Mr. Sideroff can easily find his audience all the way down the itinerary from Holland to Bulgaria.
This is not of course an answer to the question how we should assess Mr.Wilders views. I disapprove any form of xenophobia but I still haven got a well balanced, wise and rational idea of how we should coexist with the Muslim people.
Complain about this comment
2 and 7 Gheryando
Are you on the right blog ?
This one's about Geert Wilders and his Islamophobia!
Complain about this comment
On the subject of Geert Wilders, much as I despise his views, I uphold his right to say them in our free (ish) world.
I do not believe he should have been banned from the UK - that sort of publicity only plays to this sort of politician. After all, he is more famous now that he's been banned.
Having said that, I would be interested to know who is paying for all his security detail. He has every right to say inflammatory things (as long as he doesn't actively incite violence), but if his stated views put him in fear of his life, his security costs should be born by his supporters and his political party machine, not the Dutch taxpayers.
I'm always wary of these populist, "I'm not a racist, but ..." style of politicians. I wonder does their support come from the rural areas where few Muslims live, but where people are susceptible to the fear-mongering demgoguery of people like Wlders etc. I remember reading that much of Le Pen's support base in france was in rural areas with very low immigrant populations, but lots of "fear".
Sadly, to uphold my own ideas of free speech, these people must be allowed their say ... but we don't have to give them publicity, or respect, for they are ignorant scaremongerers and often help to create the very feelings in minorities that may lead them to become a problem in society.
Complain about this comment
"Imagine American citizens being TOLD that their laws would all originate from an un-elected "commission "of 17 people,..."
Or a cabinet of 23 people of which only two are elected (on a joint ticket)..... The American public didn't vote for Hillary Clinton or Timothy Geithner....
Complain about this comment
Considering the number of people who seem to agree with Wilders, there must be something in what he says that rings true. It's now become fashionable to regard anyone who does not take the proper PC line as being Islamaphobic or racist or a nazi, this I'm afraid is as bad as any of the accusations levelled at such people. Free speech has to be protected, even if it offends, as long as it does not openly incite violence or unbridled hatred; upsetting the beliefs or sensitivities of someone is hardly an assualt on their life. Perhaps people have a bit more understanding than seems to be believed by the PC set, they know in the main what is right and truthful as well as what is wrong and false. It has now reached a point here in Britain , where , to have an opinion contrary to the PC brigade is tantamount to a capital offence and liable to end up in an appearance in court and incarceration. 1984's thought police are already hovering on the horizon.
Complain about this comment
I suppose there is a clown in every circus.
And this debate about what is acceptable in terms of "free speech", it is a pure circus. The intellectual quality of engagement is probably around the 11 year old level.
Wilders is a one issue politician, but he is still a politician. He is not just pursuing a cause, he is also responsible for the business of government. More to the point, the people who benefit from his one issue politics are spending a lot of money. Ergo, this issue is being used quite deliberately to excite and to titillate voters, and the press are dutifully reporting the farcical terms of reference as though it is worthy intellectual debate.
So this issue is mere entertainment. It isn't serious. Wilder knows that he can generate support by appealing to people's xenophobia and fear, and that is as far as it goes.
If this were a serious issue, it would be a discussion about the status of ALL religious policy and doctrine.
If this were a serious issue, people would be making comments about the Islamic church, and then making devastating accusations against the catholic and protestant doctrines.
If this were a serious issue, folks would be talking long and loud about the legal privileges that allow, nay encourage, organized religious institutions to farm people with organized fraud.
Nobody with power is ever going to confront organized religion about the tax free status it enjoys, because the established order in our western society is very much centered around exclusive legal privileges that allow religious institutions to farm people like cattle. Our economy, our schools and our courts are full of weird and wonderful privileges that attach to institutions that promote a belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden. that is the bottom line. Nobody can touch religion, because religion owns a controlling stake in the power structure. Folks talk about the separation between church and state, but they talk the established doctrine, not practical analyses. The established doctrine says the church is separate from the state, that it is a friendly and harmless institution. Nobody looks at the direct effect religion has on human rights, and nobody is willing to suggest that religion is essentially an organized fraud, a business that tells bald faced lies in order to promote the growth of its own commercial interests.
Until we can begin speaking about how religion, christian and jewish religion, affects our own politics and our own society, we will never be able to talk sensibly about Islam. All we can do is to make a circus show of our own intolerance of the scam that "they" participate in.
I blame the scientists in our society. We are all to blame. We sit in our homes and we say nothing whilst the religious frauds tax us and preach utter nonsense to those who are vulnerable to exploitation. We allow human rights to become secondary to religious privilege, and we say nothing to defend the dignity of reason, because we are frightened of the anger of unreason.
If there is to be war on Islam, first there should be war on our own religions. Otherwise, it is just a circus. Entertainment for the TV audience.
Complain about this comment
Correction: Although Pim Fortuyn was very outspoken about islam, he was actually murdered by an animal rights activist. So only one prominent dutchman (Theo van Gogh) was murdered for his anti-islamic views.
As for Mr. Wilders, he doesn't offer any pragmatic solutions.
Complain about this comment
Who did invent this list of undesirables, what reasons are behind these stories?
Should we not point to ourselves first before we strike and point at others, regardless as to which country, why and when?
Would it not be wiser to forget our past unpleasantness, but demand that our referenda on the Lisbon treaty counts. A campaign to make the Commission and all other quango type appointments subject to elections could form future democratic change, equally, open candidate lists for European elections.
gert Wilders is banned due to the mistaken circumstances, terrorism and incitement is taken as more important than global warming in Britain, still, I find it regretable that one is not allowed to throw tomatoes at Gert like one can with other politicians.
Globalisation and past colonial empires have welded many countries into relationships, workers move too in this world and why not, homogenaeic societies will become rare, only in environmental extremes will there not be such a multinational mix.
That is the inevitable result from our centralising and globalising efforts, we have to learn to live with it in a harmonious way and we can.
I hope he does not get elected, for roughly the same reason I do not want other crackpots who salut nazi's see get access to a European stage.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell likes to create an image that anyone against the EU is against foreigners. There are no doubt quite a number of right-wing xenophobes that are against the EU because they have a fear of foreigners. But equally the most common reason for supporting the EU is a fear of America and leads many (the euro-nationalist) to say that we must team up (in the EU) to resist America EVEN at the sacrifice of our own ability to govern ourselves.
Real freedom is not motivated by a fear of foreigners, but by a belief that we as individuals should have as much control over our own lives as possible (without impeding on the equal right of our fellow citizens to the same). When the EU political elites continue to demand ratification on the EU Constitution / Lisbon treaty that has been rejected by the peoples of France, the Netherlands and Ireland and would be by many others, then it is clear the EU has become the usurper of our political power. If it is allowed to get away with that but once, then the road to the elimination of democratic government lies clear ahead.
Complain about this comment
As there is also a lot of violence and bloodshed in the Christain Bible, could he also ban that book please.
I've no idea about other religions text's but if they condone violence could we ban all of them.
Just imagine, a whole country where people are free to live thier lives according to their own moral principles and the law passed by the government with no unseen heavenly bodies issuing their will on the popluation.
Complain about this comment
#17
"As there is also a lot of violence and bloodshed in the Christain Bible, could he also ban that book please.
I've no idea about other religions text's but if they condone violence could we ban all of them."
Indeed, and what is more, if this was in the UK we would have to ban the works of Shakespeare too...
Complain about this comment
Geert Wilders is pointing out that the values of Islam and the values of Liberal Europe are fundamentally incompatible and any attempt to combine them is inevitably going to lead to a serious conflict that can only be resolved by one dominating the other. Accusing him of racism or xenophobia is too miss the point entirely and reveal the shallowness of one's own thinking.
Complain about this comment
@ Johannestannes, 4:
"Sadly,..the un-elected commission refuses to listen and has the audacity to encourage us to vote in a "democratic" EU election where one German vote has only 1/16th the democratic clout of a voter from Luxembourg !"
Actually you need 80 German voters to get the strenght of 1 voter from Luxemburg (or Malta or the other very small ones), not 16. The bigger the country the lesser counts a vote of it's people. As Germany is the biggest it's voters are by far underrepresented and more underrepresented than those of any other nation within this Union.
Complain about this comment
HardWorkingHobbes, the main difference between the Bible and the Koran as regards violence is that the former mostly describes while the latter mostly prescribes.
The fomer tells what did happen with no particular recommendation for future violence while the latter actively encourages violence against dissenters, non-Muslims and others. Obviously people constantly disagree about the meanings of each text but, regardless of who has the 'correct' interpretation, the reality is that it is very rare for anybody to find inspiration for violence from the Bible, or to justify violence with a bible text. On the other hand it is very common for people to find inspiration for violence from the Koran or to justify violence using a koranic text.
No Islamic or Christian or Jewish society is perfect even by its own standards, but they are susceptible to different kinds and degrees of fault. If you cannot discern any significant difference between the Jewish, Christian and Islamic texts how do you explain the different kinds of behaviour and society that each leads to?
Complain about this comment
tuppence_two,
I rather agree with HWH on the topic of the Bible being no different to the Koran, when it comes to finding justification for your actions. The fact that nobody nowadays finds justification of violence in the Bible is not due to its peaceful content but to the change in society and mindset of the people who read the Bible. Let us not forget that during the Middle ages quite a few people in Christian Europe found enough justification in their Holy book to torture, kill or burn horribly at the stake people with differring views. What has changed is that people have learned not to take the Bible too seriously (that is excluding some certain groups in the USA). The same goes for the Koran and Muslims. I have heard surprisingly mild and moderate views expressed by Muslims, compared to the views of some allegedly civilised Europeans. Obviously, there are extremists who choose to read or believe or teach only those texts of the Koran, which suit their aims. It is unfortunate that those people seem to be nowadays most vocal and visible, thus some Muslims seem willing to accept their point of view, with all the lamentable consequences this leads to. This is the main problem, people deciding that they have to do everyting a dusty old book or a bearded man in a cave tell them to do. Change that mindset and nobody will ever be troubled by what is said in the Koran about violence.
Complain about this comment
18 boilerplated
"Indeed, and what is more, if this was in the UK we would have to ban the works of Shakespeare too..."
This is nonsense.
Although many people revere the Bard as a great writer, organised hierarchies of English teachers are not exhorting their followers to act according to his writings..... or we'd all be dressing up as our sisters,biting our thumbs provocatively, washing up on island shores, talking to skulls and eventually dying tragi-comically!!!
Complain about this comment
18 boilerplated
re-reading your post it seems (I hope) that you were being ironic. Apologies.
Complain about this comment
21 tuppence
"the reality is that it is very rare for anybody .... to justify violence with a bible text."
Has "an eye for an eye" escaped you?
I know it is jewish old testament, but it is often used to justify the idea of capital punishment for murder, conveniently forgetting the turning of cheeks and forgiveness that pop into the New testament.
I agree that it is all in the interpretation, but Christianity has its share of blood.
"No Islamic or Christian or Jewish society is perfect even by its own standards, but they are susceptible to different kinds and degrees of fault. If you cannot discern any significant difference between the Jewish, Christian and Islamic texts how do you explain the different kinds of behaviour and society that each leads to?"
Compare the medieval Christian society with the current most extreme aspects of Islam.
The medieval church had death penalty for heresy, apostacy etc.
For non-christians there were forced conversions or death or exile.
Christianity has had 600 extra years to develope (or "enlighten").
Nice
Both are as bad as each other.
Complain about this comment
19. tuppence_two wrote:
"Geert Wilders is pointing out that the values of Islam and the values of Liberal Europe are fundamentally incompatible and any attempt to combine them is inevitably going to lead to a serious conflict that can only be resolved by one dominating the other."
You could substitute the word Christianity for Islam and have the same statement.
Our demonisation of muslims based on the fact that they are different and some of them are terrorists is weak and feeble.
Remember that a "christian" just murdered a doctor in Kansas.
Religious extremists just use religion as an excuse to follow a path of chaos and destruction. By demonising the whole of Islam we simply force more disenchanted young muslims into the arms of the extremists.
Complain about this comment
#22
"I rather agree with HWH on the topic of the Bible being no different to the Koran, when it comes to finding justification for your actions. The fact that nobody nowadays finds justification of violence in the Bible is not due to its peaceful content but to the change in society and mindset of the people who read the Bible."
I assume you are referring to only the EU countries, the same can't be said for all parts of the world, there was an instance of Christian teachings leading to violence in the USA only yesterday.
The 'West', and fundamental Christian countries in particular, are no different to many of the religions/countries they despise, wasn't the Iraq war justified by both it's main political leaders on religious grounds - one because good has to defeat evil and the other because a voice from his beliefs told him it was the right thing to do?
Complain about this comment
Nothing but your typical fascist.
Only one inciting hatred is this joke.
Guy would be arrested in any half-decent country
Complain about this comment
'The lamentable rise of the right is sadly a reaction to millions of europeans being deprived a say in the new EU post-democratic age.'
It's amazing to see the dexterity with which eurosceptics pin all of Europe's woes on the European Union.
'By the way, how is Wilders, with his insistance that he is 100% against violence and his intollerance of Islam, different from the Islamic religious leaders...'
Because of his desire to legislate against the latter's free speech rights with respect to the Koran.
'Mark Mardell likes to create an image that anyone against the EU is against foreigners.'
Yes, by talking about Mr. Wilders, whose stance on the EU is surely more problematic than his stance on Islam. This post of yours is bordering on paranoia, Freeborn-John, though that doesn't surprise me. I'm amused you'd turn a relatively unimportant reference to his anti-EU position into an example for Mark Mardell's attempt to smear Mr. Wilders. It doesn't seem to occur to you that Mr. Wilders can do that perfectly well all by himself, though this has little to do with his views on the European Union. Frankly, I couldn't care less what he thinks about the EU; on the other hand, his popularity does--and should--exercise the minds of those of us who are concerned with the political rights of minorities.
Take your silly obsession elsewhere.
'Accusing him of racism or xenophobia is too miss the point entirely and reveal the shallowness of one's own thinking.'
Call it what you will, tuppence_two. Mr. Wilders isn't ashamed about his proposal to ban the Koran and 'do something' about the supposed 'Islamication' of the Netherlands.
One doesn't need to go overboard in describing the man, surely, but I'm less concerned about what we label him than I am with his dangerous proposals.
You can jump through hoops all you like; Mr. Wilders has gone to great lengths to exploit fears about the 'other' lurking in Dutch society. Such exploitation takes us down a very dark path indeed, where we begin not to see human beings as members of our community, but as a faceless threat against it.
Complain about this comment
#28
"[The] Guy would be arrested in any half-decent country"
I suspect that he and his supporters would welcome nothing more, political martyrs make for great publicity (and sympathy), especially when still alive and well...
Complain about this comment
Gheryando @2 wrote:
"... I believe MaxSceptic said that the EU couldnt do without the UK and its contribution..
That is utter rubbish...maybe the UK contribution sounds like a lot to an ordinary person but looking at the EU GDP of about 18 billion dollars, its hardly worth noticing. In fact, the whole EU budget hovers around 1% of EU GDP. Tell me which other "government" has such few funds available? Thus any country's EU contributions are very low."
Apart your comment being very confusing (I think you mixed UK and EU a few times), all I can say is that the UK is a nett contributor to the EU budget.
If you want your countrymen's taxes to cover our portion, that's dandy by me. (Assuming, of course, that your country is one of the few nett contributors rather than the lucky recipients of other peoples' hard earned taxes).
Complain about this comment
Mark, if you get the chance to ask Wilders a question, please ask him if he thinks the christian religions in Europe should keep their tax free status.
Complain about this comment
Wilders is 100% correct in pointing out the danger that Islamism (not muslims) poses to the Liberal Democratic society that we in the West take for granted.
His banning (and smearing as a 'racist) by our pathetic Home Secretary is an act of degrading and disgraceful appeasement such as we've not seen since we sold Czechoslovakia down the river in 1938.
I am ashamed.
Complain about this comment
Religion and liberal government have different and non-overlapping aims. The purpose of liberal government is to put a strong authority in place to prevent one individual citizen from harming the interests of another. It is therefore only concerned with the EXTERNAL BEHAVIOUR of individuals in society here on Earth. Religion is or should be about the INTERNAL BEHAVIOUR (e.g. private thoughts) of an citizen and what happens to them in the afterlife. Liberal government therefore simply has nothing to say on matters that are in the realm of religion and is therefore implicitly tolerant of different religions.
A state that acts in an illiberal way when it begins to intrude into the non external behaviour (i.e. private thoughts) of the individual. In this case it can come into conflict with the religious values of citizens. It has been the goal of plenty of religious states in the past to do just this with the dominant church explicitly aiming to harness the power of the state to force their particular standards of morality into the minds of the population at the expense of minority faiths. This was the case during the Spanish Inquisition in Europe. And it has been the case much more recently in the Islamic world, for example under the Taliban in Afghanistan. We in the West are forced by values central to our own civilisation to defend religious toleration to others (even to those who do not tolerate us).
Similarly if a church urges it followers to act in ways harmful to other elements of society (e.g. agitates for violence against followers of other faiths) then it will intrude into the external realm of behaviour that is the province of the state. In this case the state has a duty to enforce its law to protect followers of minority faiths against the external aggression of even the dominant religion in society. This is why liberal democracy requires that basic issues of human rights must rank above even the short-term majority in parliament.
If churches and the liberal state stick to their allotted realms (one to do with our internal thoughts, the other our external behaviour) then all can peacefully co-exist side by side. Holland has always been well known for defending these respective limits.
Complain about this comment
'Wilders is 100% correct in pointing out the danger that Islamism (not muslims) poses to the Liberal Democratic society that we in the West take for granted.'
And yet his proposals fly in the face of liberal democracy.
You can't square religious book-banning with liberal democracy. You can't advocate administrative detention and denegrate consensus-based politics while still praising liberal democracy. You can't advocate nationalist policies--and for all he may protest, Mr. Wilders IS a nationalist of the worst kind; he believes that Flanders should be a part of the Netherlands, for example--and still be a liberal democrat. You cannot advocate the removal of the principle of 'equality under the law' and still smile and pretend you believe in liberal democracy. You can't be a liberal democrat when you seek to lift-up a particular cultural body or tradition over another. You can't seek to curtail even mundane religious expression and pretend to be a liberal democrat.
You can't, in other words, flatten the sociopolitical landscape of a country and still pretend as though you care about liberal democracy. Mr. Wilders is, at best, an illiberal populist; at worst a closet fascist.
Complain about this comment
35. At 5:57pm on 01 Jun 2009, RCMoya612 @35,
Some of your comments deserve fisking:
You can't advocate nationalist policies--and for all he may protest, Mr. Wilders IS a nationalist of the worst kind; he believes that Flanders should be a part of the Netherlands, for example--and still be a liberal democrat. Why not? Many Flemish Belgians would rather not be Belgians (Just like many Scots and Welsh would like not to be British). Does this make them non liberal democrats?
"You can't be a liberal democrat when you seek to lift-up a particular cultural body or tradition over another." Of course you can - and should!. Our not most European traditions superior to those quaint cultural traditions of female circumcision or suttee?
"You can't seek to curtail even mundane religious expression and pretend to be a liberal democrat." Nobody is seeking to curtail 'mundane religious expression'. Some people are trying to curtail religious extremism of the kind that killed 52 people in London in 2005.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Wilders may be propagating anti-Islam ideas, but that does not explain his popularity. What he really thrives on is his strong stance on the way young street terrorists should be dealt with. Most of them are of Moroccan descent, so the link with Islam is easily made. Take away the problems in the streets, and Mr. Wilders will loose most of his ground.
"Two prominent Dutch figures have been murdered for anti-Islamic views": I live in the Netherlands and know of only one: Van Gogh. Mr. Fortuyn was killed by an animal rights activist.
Complain about this comment
As currently published, promulgated, printed and taught, the Qu'ran is incompatible with the recognition of fundamental human rights for women and children.
It unequivocally calls for the slaughter of "infidels" who are defined as people who refuse to embrace Islam.
In that sense, it is not inaccurate to understand certain fundamentalist varieties of Islam as indeed "ideological" rather than "religious" movements. Totalitarianism has never been acceptable, nor ultimately viable, as a system for social organisation.
To this day, even 'moderate' Muslim men struggle to accept the full equality of female human beings to their male counterparts. What formal efforts are being undertaken by the EU to help adapt Muslim males to the reality of full human rights for women and minors?
Is it even shocking to anyone that a young man from an affluent family in Egypt will castrate himself rather than adhere to an imposed marriage?
What can be more basic than the right of an adult human being to choose with whom to engage in intimate or romantic behavior? Why is this still a subject that has to be explained to people born where Islamic teaches hold sway?
Why are the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations still subject to proof?
The deluded souls who imagine they live in a tidy world full of only "nice people", whose politically correct obsessions preclude standing up for the rights of those Islam consistently pushes down into postures of submission, really need to ask themselves whether maintaining a superficial politesse and the appearance of serene multiculturalism is more important than asserting the sanctity of individual sovereignty, and the protection of basic human liberties that is the very foundation of what made, and makes, Europe.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong or questionable about requiring people who come to live in your community from accepting your standards for safeguarding human rights. If their scriptures are in contradiction with those standards, you can certainly ask them to provide detailed annotations to such scriptures expressing your national position under the law.
No one in the Western world has ever been prevented from reading the works of its most determined foes, even when such works are not readily available. But we can and do impose restrictions on the promulgation of hateful teachings, on access to texts that advocate or condone violence, on the preaching texts that describe certain members of the general public in bigoted and unhealthy terms.
Women make up half, if not slightly more than half, of the human population. Women contribute enormously to society. The fact that much of what women contribute goes unpaid does not diminish its significance: perhaps rather the opposite. Is it not time to insist that religions that explicitly diminish the status of women as a matter of doctrine rewrite their texts and alter their teachings -- at the level of the priesthood? And that this be done as a matter of compliance with Law?
What is the point of having a democracy and democratic institutions, including taxation, if the voices, wishes and requests of the majority, of those who pay the salaries and the benefits, of those who ultimately support immigrants in the first place, are not accorded any kind of real weight?
Complain about this comment
Does this make them non liberal democrats?
Of course, if that means resurrecting oddly quaint histories of a Greater Nationalism in the process. The problem isn't so much for Mr. Wilders to point out the obvious connection between communities--it's the provocative stance he takes on the continuing existence of Belgium. The PVV actively seeks to encourage the break-up of Belgium and the absorption of Flanders. Mr. Wilders himself has praised the 'impending' break-up of Belgium as a 'beautiful' event. And they have called for Holland to send an ambassador to Flanders, i.e. not to BELGIUM, which it considers a moribund entity.
Our [sic] not most European traditions superior to those quaint cultural traditions of female circumcision or suttee?
You're surely overstating your point. Banning SPECIFIC practices is one thing; you can say the same for a whole host of 'quaint' pagan practices that pre-dated Christianity, and those that continue to operate within it; likewise of Judaism, Buddhism, et al.
But the targeting of specific practices is not the same elevating one cultural tradition above another. The latter is, specifically, what Mr. Widlers advocates. THAT is the problem.
Nobody is seeking to curtail 'mundane religious expression'.
Oh, because banning mosque building and prohibiting religious services in languages other than Dutch would not be repressive? Is having a mosque to pray in, or being able to pray in the original language of the Koran, not a 'mundane' expectation? The language ban would apply to Hebrew too--is that not also a problem?
MaxSceptic, I don't think you understand just how singularly perverse Mr. Wilders policy proposals are.
Complain about this comment
#36 MaxSceptic wrote:
"Some people are trying to curtail religious extremism of the kind that killed 52 people in London in 2005."
It might have been better to curtail the religious extremism that cause such events, if they have no cause... Extremism just builds and equal and opposite extremism.
Complain about this comment
You are all missing the point of this blog post. Mark Mardell is trying, on the eve of elections, to create a linkage between those who oppose the EU (i.e. the entire center-right in the UK) and the far right. In the last six weeks has mentioned the British National Party (BNP) several times in these pages, something which he has never done before. In his radio broadcast at the weekend he referred twice to UKIP as "the BNP in blazers". And now he blogs about the Dutch PVV.
It is a very great pity that Mark Mardell feels that giving hard right parties the oxygen of publicity on the eve of election is a price worth paying to attack by association center-right parties that oppose EU federalism on very different grounds.
Complain about this comment
39. At 6:39pm on 01 Jun 2009, RCMoya612 @39,
Your arguments are unconvincing.
I lived in the Middle East for some years, and have also travelled expensively throughout Asia.
I can categorically state that European civilisation and traditions are - on the whole - superior to all others.
Some of Wilders' proposals may or may not be 'singularly perverse' - but that is a matter for Dutch voters. (Personally I'd stop minaret (not mosque)-building in the UK until such time as Saudi Arabia allowed church-building in Mecca, but then I'm probably a 'racist').
As a Briton I am appalled that we allow in (and actually subsidise) merchants of hate from all manner of hell-hole places and backward cultures, but smear and ban a Dutch democrat so as to placate the extremists in our midst.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic, I forgot the following:
Some people are trying to curtail religious extremism of the kind that killed 52 people in London in 2005.
So, tell me how limiting the religious expression of every Muslim--by banning the Qu'ran, banning the construction of Islamic religious buildings, and prohibiting the use of Arabic (which is as central to Islam as Hebrew is to Judaism)--will prevent the lunatic fringe from carrying out attacks. Don't you think this is a case of using a shotgun to kill a fly?
What he really thrives on is his strong stance on the way young street terrorists should be dealt with.
Street terrorists, lol. That's PVV-talk for 'street crime', or even 'petty crime', as known elsewhere in the world.
Now, maria-ashot:
As currently published, promulgated, printed and taught, the Qu'ran...
...is the Qu'ran, for better or worse. If you're suggesting 'editing' it or 'banning' it, then I think you could probably do the same for the Old Testament. Somehow, I don't think Levitical law is entirely compatible with modern, secular, European states; and in fact, not entirely too compatible with modern, reformed Christian thinking.
You dwell on the violence advocated by the Qu'ran against 'infidels'. You ignore, on the other hand, similar invocations in the Old Testament against the enemies of Israel.
What formal efforts are being undertaken by the EU to help adapt Muslim males to the reality of full human rights for women and minors?
So do you mean preemptly targeting Muslims for 're-education' before they've committed any crimes? I agree that we should expect a minimum standard for immigrants to any host country; but this is a rather Orwellian suggestion.
What is the point of having a democracy and democratic institutions...if the voices, wishes and requests of the majority...of those who ultimately support immigrants in the first place, are not accorded any kind of real weight?
This is absolutely ridiculous, a complete red-herring. You're grossly ignoring the fact that most immigrants, JUST like anyone else, work hard for their standard of living.
And you are, again, advocating against one of liberal democracy's most important tenets: that the rights of minorities should be preserved precisely because of the over-bearing power of the majority.
And your assertion--that the voice of the majority is 'ignored' in favour of the minority--is propaganda, pure and simple. It's so palpably untrue it doesn't warrant a longer response.
Complain about this comment
22. Isenhorn
Nobody denies that the Jewish texts also contain violence. My point was that mostly (not entirely) they are descriptive whereas many Islamic references to violence are prescriptive. You have not addressed this at all.
There are other significant differences. Jewish violence is prescribed in the context of law or, on the few occassions where it is prescribed for armed conflict it is clearly limited to that time and place and cannot easily be extrapolated to another time or place. The new testament contains only passing references to prescriptive violence, its is basically an acknowledgement that the rulers of the state have the right to use violence to enact justice. Much of the violence in the Koran is prescriptive and is neither time nor place limited, and it is recommended as a means of extending Islam.
A further big difference is in the way each sees its 'kingdom'. The 'kingdom' of the Jews is very much a Jewish thing with a fairly well defined boundary and little or no ambition outside that boundary or the Jewish community. The 'kingdom' of Christians is 'not of this world'. Islam however has a built in goal of bringing the whole world into submission to Islam, using violence as required. Islam anticipates that the whole world should be part of its 'kingdom'. Do you not think these differences could be significant?
It is also false to say that people take the bible less seriously than did people in the middle ages. On the contrary, in the middle ages the words of the bible were, for European Christians at least, lost in translation since the text was held in Latin and hence incomprehensible to most people. When the text was translated into plain German and plain English it was taken more seriously, not less, and Europe's development leapt forward out of the bad old days of the 'dark ages' and into the age of 'enlightenment'. Or was that just a happy coincidence?
You did concede that what people believe influences how they behave. So, how exactly are we supposed to integrate people who do not share western liberal beliefs? How do you propose that Europe accomodate the very many people (Muslim and non-Muslim) whose beliefs do encourage them towards behaviour that European liberals reject?
25. RomeStu.
"Both are as bad as each other."
The interesting word in your comparison is "are". Unfortunately the Christians that you describe as being as bad as the worst of today's Muslims "are not" because, as you admit, they are 600 years in the grave. The ideas that they held, whether you think they were biblical or not, are not widely held by Christians anywhere in the world *today*.
The question is whether large groups of people from notionally Islamic backgrounds with values completely contrary to those of European liberals can be assimilated into contemporary Europe without disintegration, major conflict or some similar extreme unhappiness. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they cannot.
Bashing the Christians of the middle ages doesn't lead to a solution for today's problem.
26. RomeStu wrote
"You could substitute the word Christianity for Islam and have the same statement."
Well, no, because the values of Christianity are deeply interwoven in the values of liberal Europe just as the values of Islam are deeply interwoven into various other regions of the world. Europe has become what it is because of Christianity, not in-spite of Christianity. If Europe had been strongly influenced by, say, Taoism or Buddhism instead of Christianity it would be completely different to what it is because beliefs strongly influence behaviour.
So the question remains, can large numbers of Muslims be incorporated into a liberal Europe without conflict and without compromising those liberal values? If so, how? If not, how to avoid the conflict?
How much diversity can a western society accomodate before it disintegrates? No system can accomodate unlimited diversity ... where are the limits, how do we identify them, how do we avoid reaching the disintegration point? Geert Wilders is trying to raise these kinds of questions, most people are busy trying to pretend the questions don't exist.
Do you actually care about liberal values? Do you think they are worth preserving? If so, how exactly do you propose we do that bearing in mind the massive influce of people who either don't care about them or who actively despise and reject them?
Complain about this comment
You are all missing the point of this blog post. Mark Mardell is trying, on the eve of elections, to create a linkage between those who oppose the EU (i.e. the entire center-right in the UK) and the far right.
Erm, no, Freeborn-John.
I lived in the Middle East for some years...I can categorically state that European civilisation and traditions are - on the whole - superior to all others.
And my arguments are less convincing than your, um, 'arguments'? Sheesh, some folks are really rather out there.
In any case I find it deliciously ironic for you to lambast these 'inferior' countries/cultures, yet advocating a tit-for-tat exchange of religious building construction between a liberal democracy (the UK) and a theocratic régime (Saudi Arabia). Great way to stand out from those 'inferior' cultures, eh, by stooping to such a low level? ;-)
tuppence_two:
My point was that mostly (not entirely) they are descriptive whereas many Islamic references to violence are prescriptive. You have not addressed this at all.
That's a matter of debate. That God was routinely advocating violence against the enemies of Judaism makes your argument a classic case of splitting hairs. The Old Testament and the Qu'ran are similarly violent, similarly intolerant, and similarly a product of their time and place. And that time and place are both necessarily far removed from our circumstances today.
The ideas that they held, whether you think they were biblical or not, are not widely held by Christians anywhere in the world *today*.
This is possibly untrue, or in the event quite irrelavant anyway. We're talking about banning a religious group on the pre-text that it could incite someone to violence. By that rather lax standard we could argue that ANYONE anywhere can take up the more anti-deluvian aspects of any religion and use them to their advantage. Having a die-hard Jewish fundamentalist murder the Israeli PM Yitzkah Rabin--despite the moderate religious views of the majority of Israelis--rather embellishes this point. If it only takes one loony person to believe in the worst aspects of a religion--or, similarly, of an ideology--your point is obviously invalid.
But on your question, ...'whether large groups of people from notionally Islamic backgrounds with values completely contrary to those of European liberals can be assimilated into contemporary Europe without disintegration, major conflict or some similar extreme unhappiness, itself is rather useless.
Firstly, because you load the question. Yours is not a neutral question on the assimilation of foreigners; it assumes that all Muslims hold 'incompatible' beliefs (To whom? Who is this magical standard? Can I meet him/her?) before asking for the reckoning.
Secondly, it also flies against the face of obvious, long-term interaction between both communities. Has there been friction in the past? Sure. Has Western European society collapsed in the face of tensions? Absolutely not. That is the face of paranoia: going for the frictions in a given sociopolitical context and applying them broadly to all situations with remotely similar structures. You paint a broad and crude picture, and one based much less on reality than it is based on craven fear-mongering.
Complain about this comment
35. At 5:57pm on 01 Jun 2009, RCMoya612 wrote:
"You can't square religious book-banning with liberal democracy."
Mr Hitler's literature, "Mein Kampf", is banned in many countries because it is considered dangerous and yet the Koran, which contains very similar themes and prescriptions is encouraged and protected as 'free speech' and 'religion'.
Europeans were well able to recognise the danger of Mr Hitler's ideas and proposals and have sought to prevent it being read, and yet at the same time they actively encourage people to follow far worse piece of literature that has a far longer track record in encouraging violence and intolerance and in spreading misery and social destruction. If "Mein Kampf" is too dangerous to be read by simple minds then, the argument goes, the Koran even more so.
As I understand it, Mr Wilders was not really desiring to get the Koran banned because this would be a futile gesture and possibly counterproductive. My understanding is that he was advocating a Koran ban in order to highlight the inconsistency in popular thinking and draw attention to the very real danger of allowing the Koran's influence to grow unchecked.
Complain about this comment
Mr Hitler's literature, "Mein Kampf", is banned in many countries because it is considered dangerous...
Oh dear. You're entirely fudging here.
I don't know how comfortable I am with the legal status of Mein Kampf in most countries; but I can see why it is justified in particular countries. On the one hand the philosophy it expounds is specifically intolerant of the specific political regime in place in Germany today. It is dangerous because it is STILL contemporaneous to our era--as many, many Germans are still alive today who were alive back then. It is dangerous because that proximity in time makes the issue sensitive for the ENTIRE body politic today: that is, Nazism was a phenomenon that affected all of Germany, with the war and post-war consequences being only too recent. And this memory, in turn, was of right necessarily inclusive even of individuals who had once been a part of the regime at such level; you can't create a stable democratic order without leaving some of the previous nasty regime's institutions and people intact. This the 'Mein Kampf' context in Germany: it is sensitive because it bespeaks of a specific threat to the present system, but one which will recede over time as Germany steps farther out of the shadow of those times.
But as I've said about the Qu'ran, and similarly of any other religious text with nasty little injunctions: the time and place for such injunctions is no longer remotely similar to those of our own. The Mein Kampf example only really holds if, say, we tried to ban Osama bin Laden's tirade against the West. I would most heartily approve of that. But banning the Qu'ran, even for its most unpalatable aspects, is utterly ridiculous and unnecessary.
It is nowhere near comparable to, say, Martin Luther's disgusting claims in 'On the Jews and Their Lives'...and yet, the only defensible reason for banning this latter book today would have to come from its association with Nazi Germany 400 years after the fact.
The context matters enormously. Any fool can use any book--especially those written in less enlightened times--to justify their extremist policies. It is right for us, in response, not to resort to foolish, cack-handed policies in response.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated and #1.
Have to agree with you: Drat!
Let's just hope in the Netherlands, across Europe and our own UK groups who claim "..not heir to the right-wing" don't get in by the apathy of the EU Citizen electorate.
I readily admit I am one who advocates abstaining from voting as I consider the EU Parliament a fraudulent entity and letting in the extremists of right or left is a risk I am prepared to take, but, it does alarm me. It is a measure of the failure and how low the EU has fallen in the eyes of the pan-European Population that antipathy to it still over-rides a sense of concern about the totally undemocratic elements seeking power within it.
Of course, I blame the EU for the situation of the apathetic electorate: This organisation with its all-consuming ambition for Federalist hegemony has so failed to communicate and represent the Citizens it is a political-historical tragedy the full measure of which is still ahead of us all.
How the EU came to lose the support and goodwill of millions upon millions of Citizens to the extent that in 2009 a PVV, BNP etc. are considered by the electorate will be a philosophical and cultural stain on the body-politic of all the members states irrespective of any results.
Complain about this comment
2. At 11:58am on 01 Jun 2009, Gheryando wrote:
"I am sick of the numerous Britons lecturing us Continentals on their "superiority". "Look at those Germans and Austrians making holocaust denial a crime! They surely are a fascist bunch..Look at those crazy Dutchman, who wants to ban the Koran, how glad we are that there is freedom of speech in the UK...Look at the Italians and their corrupt society, how could we even be in a Union with them...and how undemocratic is the EU...it surely is not in line with our great democratic tradition.."
Fact is, within the last couple of months, the UK has proven time and again, that it is not better than other "European" countries. Just look at the fact that Wilders is banned(!!) from going to the UK. Can you believe it? Even Dutch politicians who are adamantly against him thought that the UK government was going bonkers. Then you suddenly have all kinds of politicians across the board using public money to fund things such as "duck houses". Please no little Englander ever lecture me again about the corrupt Italians. "
I presume that you regard me as a Little Englander. Italian corruption is real and I intend to comment on it again and again and again becauze it is a real reason not to wish to be in a political union with the Italians. I presume it is a real and justified reason for Austrians in the South Tyrol to wish to be free of Italy.
There are plenty of things on the continent that are wonderful. That is a reason to learn from them and to cooperate with them. The things that are a lot less than wonderful are a reason not to be in a political union with them.
Do people like me annoy you?
I think the answer is yes. Then please. please, please try to get the UK thrown out of the "EU".
And please bear in mind that people like me cannot come out with the full glory of our hatred of the "EU" because the moderator would not allow it and we would probably get arrested.
Why does it only count when people like you are annoyed? British citizens, and that includes me, have been lied to again and again and again for forty years. I resent being told I am a "Citizen of the EU" or something similar because of the Maastricht Treaty when it was well know that 64% OF Brits did not want it. I resent seeing the "EU"-flag on my driving licence or indeed anywhere in the UK.
So you stop being over sensitive about "insults" to the "EU" or the continentals and start being sensitive about the wishes of the British people!!
And start doing it before there is an explosion of violence! That is not a threat. That is a concern.
Complain about this comment
Why are people going on about racism? How is wanting to ban the Koran Racist? Last time I checked Islam was a religion not a race.
Complain about this comment
41. At 7:08pm on 01 Jun 2009, Freeborn-John wrote:
" ... Mark Mardell...In his radio broadcast at the weekend he referred twice to UKIP as "the BNP in blazers".
If that is true, then I would think they could sue him for that. I will be voting for UKIP because it is not the BNP in blazers. I am going by the BNP supporters I meet who come out with comments about Jews, black people, Asians and foreigners in general which I reject and despise.
The UK leaflet says "Say NO to unlimited immigration."
Note the word UNLIMITED. It does not say "Send foreigners home." BNP supporters do not accept me as British because my mother was foreign. The fact that she cooked for British forces personnel in WWII makes no difference to them.
Complain about this comment
From Open Europe:
"Open Europe has found that in total, MEPs are entitled to expenses and allowances of £363,000 a year, including a £261 daily subsistence allowance and £45,648 in general office expenses even though they are provided with offices in Brussels and Strasbourg . This equates to £1,816,250 per MEP over a five year term and no receipts are required. (Sun, 26 May; Times, 29 May; Open Europe blog) This comes on top of £83,282 in salary, £29,309 in pensions and £41,641 in transitional payments. In contrast, UK MPs claim up to £144,000 on average in expenses. (Telegraph, 31 March)
...
Under new rules, from June onwards, the travel allowance system will be reformed so that MEPs need to provide receipts for their tickets. However, for the majority of their expenditure (office expenses, daily subsistence allowance, staff allowances) MEPs will still not be required to produce receipts.
..."
Complain about this comment
For Geryando:
From Open Europe:
"Highest paid MEPs have the worst attendance at European Parliament. The worst attendance record at the European Parliament has gone to the highest-paid MEPs - the Italians. Italian MEPs currently earn 134,291 (£120,000) a year but came bottom of the 27 EU nations for turning up in Brussels and Strasbourg . (Times, 16 May)"
Complain about this comment
Viennese newspaper, Wiener Kurier reports the lead Socialist candidate in Austria referring to an "EU"-critical party as "Belchers who stink to heaven."
Complain about this comment
A decent post Mark.
I do find it amazing that the British media (and I definitely include the BBC) are happy to criticise Christianity on any issue they feel like - homosexuality, women priests, contraception and abortion etc .... and yet seem to be struck dumb when it comes to many of the "non-PC, non-liberal elite" views of Islam. It's pure fear and cowardice, of course; fear of someone shouting "racist" and fear of physical attack.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2 (51):
You can hear for yourself at the following link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8075000/8075012.stm
In summary, Mark Mardells piece contained the following insults, which he claimed were made by others about UKIP:
Profoundly unserious pranksters with a weird obsession;
Guilty of a criminal betrayal;
An incompetent joke;
Fruitcakes;
loonies;
closet racists;
The BNP in blazers.
Intertwined among those insults Mark Mardell gave us his own opinion. If UKIP is not the BNP in blazers an attempted takeover by the far-right must say something about the sympathies of some members; if not the BNP in blazers (second time for that insult) they were golf-club militants, boys who did not make prefects, who had achieved nothing. Certainly not achieved their primary objective. The European Parliament is a serious place UKIP have no achievements on this front.
Complain about this comment
Talking of the European elections .... Mark Mardell's UKIP introduction to the John Humphrey/Nigel Farage interview ('Today' programme - R4) was a shocking disgrace. Surely the BBC is supposed to be balanced and impartial, especially just prior to an election? Would Mark have dared given a mainstream party such an intro?
Instructions from someone high up in the BBC to do a hatchet job on UKIP, perhaps? Possibly the U.S. post is the reward for time served and good behaviour? Or has there been a reprimand? Unlikely, I suspect.
Complain about this comment
Austrian Radio website reports:
Ulrike Lunacek, Austria's lead candidate for the Green Party wants a change in the way "EU" commissioners are selected. She thinks this would improve the image of the "EU".
I cannot find any mention of the fact that we have not had referenda on the Lisbon Treaty in the UK or Austria when it is know that a very clear majority want one.
So what is wrong with the Greens then, that they cannot understand the significance of betrayal and the imposition of a dictatorship on the image of the "EU"?
Complain about this comment
Geert Wilders is a slightly misguided but many of the issues he raises such as Islams compatability with secular Europe are worthy of debate. Many of todays politicians are too afraid to confront these issues for fear of being branded racist. However Islam is nothing to do with race, it is an ideology. Nobody cares if you are Black, White, Arab, Chinese or whatever but if your views are dogmatic then it is right to question them. Holland is a liberal country and if very conservative immigrants are moving in that object to the Dutch way of life then are the Dutch not right to question the future of such immigration?
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic
The only thing I messed up was writing billions instead of trillions.
Complain about this comment
Seems that most of the commentators here actually have no idea what the Koran actually says. If they did they would understand Wilders' critique of the islamic holy book. Strange that Mardell doesn't comment on why Wilders needs such heavy security - could it be something to do with the fact that anyone questioning islam these days is threatened with very real death threats ? So much for the "Religion of Peace". Those "liberals" who always compare the Bible with the Koran should compare Jesus with Mohammed. Jesus preached forgiveness and love, Mohammed preached revenge and conquest.
Complain about this comment
"Mark, if you get the chance to ask Wilders a question, please ask him if he thinks the christian religions in Europe should keep their tax free status."
What has this got to with anything Wilders is saying about islam ? Are Dutch gays being targeted by Dutch Christians ? Are any Dutch politicians or Danish cartoonists in hiding from Christians ? Are French Jews fireproofing their temples because of Christian attack ? Were Spanish Christians responsible for the Madrid bombings? Were English Christians guilty of the 7/7 attacks ? The Christian Church in Europe mostly preaches tolerance and understanding..so why compare it to islam ??
Complain about this comment
"A believer in the 'freedom of speech' but wants to ban the Koran - says it all really!..."
Actually, it does say a lot. Wilders believes that unreformed islam threatens the European ideal of free speech. Look at the situation in Denmark where a mere pencil drawing has led to death threats against the cartoonists involved. Why does Wilders need so much security in order to protect his own right to speak freely. Even in a free society you cannot shout "Fire !" in a crowded theater or demand the deaths of innocent people. The Koran calls for , demands, the deaths of Jews and "infidels" - look at the murder of Theo Van Gogh for daring to comment on islam !!
Complain about this comment
I wonder what Wilders meant by 'an influx of the Islamic symbolism' - perhaps too many crescent moons ?
ironfranco: How would you describe the modern Bulgarian experience of having a sizable Muslim minority, and simultaneously being a neighbour to a populous country with a majority Muslim population ? Does the history of the Ottoman centuries there form a large part of current interfaith relations ? Would Mr Sideroff also be described as saying 'what millions think' there ?
tuppence_two: Surah 109 in the Qur'an describes a 'live and let live' approach between Muslims and non-Muslims, which isn't bad as a call for tolerance from the 7th century AD.
Complain about this comment
Two of the comments here (from woppy6, #14 and Ronald Amsterdam, #37) have claimed that Pim Fortuyn wasn't murdered for his anti-Islamic views because it was an "animal rights activist" who killed him. This is an outrageous lie.
Although Pim Fortuyn may have been murdered by a far-left crazy, the reason for his murder was still his criticism of Islam. Fortuyn had been heavily attacked in the press for his criticisms of Islam and Islamic immigration. The press had demonised him as some sort of threat to immigrants. His killer later confessed that his reason for the assassination was that media campaign.
He killed Fortuyn because of Fortuyn's criticism of Islam and the demonisation campaign in the media that convinced him that criticism of Islam made Fortuyn a threat. That there are now people spreading lies claiming otherwise disgusts me. It is historical revisionism of the worst kind.
Complain about this comment
'51. At 10:36pm on 01 Jun 2009, SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
41. At 7:08pm on 01 Jun 2009, Freeborn-John wrote:
" ... Mark Mardell...In his radio broadcast at the weekend he referred twice to UKIP as "the BNP in blazers".
If that is true, then I would think they could sue him for that.'
Would they? When David Cameron referred to UKIP members as 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists' UKIP threatened to sue over the 'closet racists' part (so presumably they were prepared to accept the fruitcake/loony bit). Anyway, I believe they dropped the action because, in order to sue, you have to prove some sort of loss, but actually Cameron's comments had a positive affect of UKIP's media profile so they would have been unable to prove any loss. Says a lot!
So are UKIP actually racist? Or 'closet' racist? I guess closet is a good word in the sense that it describes an underlying prejudice which is not far from the surface. I saw their party political broadcast last week. The main message was 'do you really want to allow all these Lithuanians, Rumanians, Latvians, Slovenians and Estonians into this country?' I note that they didn't mention the Polish, even though there are probably more Polish immigrants in the UK than any other from the new Member States. This is probably because UKIP know that UK residents perceive (quite rightly) that Polish people generally make a good contribution to the UK service industries in areas where, in recent years, it has been difficult to employ good people. Therefore UKIP are putting a dividing line between perceived 'good ' and 'bad' Eastern Europeans, although, in reality, many of the people driving our buses and cleaning our hotels who we assume to be Polish actually come from other Central and Eastern European Countries. The UKIP 'keep out the immigrants from countries with funny names' message is not exactly 'racism', but it is pandering to popular prejudice.
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments made @ #53
re MEP attendance figures;
The fourth worst MEP for attendance* is a independent Euro-sceptic UK MEP, with an attendance record of only 54 percent - well at least he has stood by his principles and not engaged in a parliament that he doesn't believe in, but then why both to be elected if you can't be bothered to do the job for which not only you have been elected to do (represent your constituency) but are being paid to do...
* source http://www.votewatch.eu/
Complain about this comment
#63
"Actually, it does say a lot. Wilders believes that unreformed islam threatens the European ideal of free speech. Look at the situation in Denmark where a mere pencil drawing has led to death threats against the cartoonists involved."
How would banning a book stop such incidences, in the UK one could (theoretically) commit criminal offences against the teaching or the words within the Christian Bible - Blasphemy - and what about those (in my opinion and I suspect many) miss-guided Christian extremists in the USA who have both made threats and actually murdered those who they consider go against the teaching within the bible - should the 'Holly Bible' be banned too?...
If you believe in free speech you should not be calling for the banning of any book - if you believe the books content is wrong, incorrect, morally dangerous or what ever then educate, banning something doesn't remove the problem, it just hides it at best - if you start banning books you prove that you do not believe in free speech.
Complain about this comment
@ people claiming that this blog tries to make the link between rightists and ant-EU-feelings...
Anyone who's a bit aware of the different countries and their politics in the Europe will know that there are more than enough left-wing parties whoa re EU-sceptic.
Right-wingers are usually a bit more screptic but it's hardly like they're the only ones.
Complain about this comment
Ian Townhill wrote:
"I note that they didn't mention the Polish, even though there are probably more Polish immigrants in the UK than any other from the new Member States"
Oh course! because there is a certain type of Briton that still thinks in terms of goodies/baddies from the era of WWII, hence brave polish fighter pilots defending Briton from the luffwaffe..(we cant slur the brave poles! oh no!smashing fellows! almost as good as an englishman) and the Lithuanians, Rumanians, Latvians, Slovenians and Estonians can all be thought of dodgy foreigners on the take (read gypsy).UKIP just panders to shamefull outdated stereotypes which any right thinking EU Citizen finds abhorrent. Sometimes I find their thinking comical or even endearing, like people living in some time warp. But then I realise that a sizable portion the population actaully buys this drivel its becomes scary. But hey with the Murdoch/Telegraph materialist/freerade media machine dominating all critical thinking on th EU issue it at all suprising that so many people buy this rubbish.
Hopefully this manifest delusion will lead to a arly exit of the UK from the European project. The UK's annual contribution is scarce recompense for all the footdragging. Mind you I hope Westminster has it in its heart not to drag Scotland or Wales or NI into a early exit. Their populations need to be given a separe say on their destinies.
Complain about this comment
There is another aspect to this 'bashing' of the so-called 'extreme' elements of Politics within the EU.
It is very convenient for what are loosely termed the 'mainstream' Political Parties and Groupings found in the 27 Nations to start pointing the finger and prompting a largely compliant European Media to follow their lead in diverting attention from the Economy.
The much vaunted, lauded and central claim of the European Union is/was that there is 'strength in unity' and its 'one-size-fits-all' dictum, e.g. the EUro or Working Time Directive protect the European Citizens from the previous economic ills experienced by them.
The official EU web-site for Statistics EUROSTAT today announced figures for EU-wide UNEMPLOYMENT. I shall just give the basics and leave it for others to draw conclusions as to whether the EU is/was fulfilling its purpose:
Unemployment across the 27 EU Nations is 21 million and rising
Unemployment is 8.6% of those registered across the 27 Nations
Unemployment across the 16 EUro-zone Nations is 14.6 million and rising
Unemployment is 9.2% of those registered across the 16 EUro-zone Nations
Among the EU Nations only 2 recorded a fall in Unemployment for April - -Greece and Roumania
25 EU Nations recorded a rise in Unemployment for April with the following interesting figures amongst the Nations:
Highest Unemployment increases were in Latvia to 17.4%, Lithuania to 16.8% and Estonia to 13.9% (these 3 Nations are approaching 1 in 5 Unemployment).
Spain recorded the highest increase in the 'west' of Europe with 13.9% Unemployed which is 3.7 million and amongst under-25 it was 36.2%.
France Unemployment has risen to 7.2% of the workforce and along with 13 of the 16 EUro-zone Nations it is at its highest for more than 2 decades.
Some EU member Nations not in the EUro-zone recorded similar increases.
The United Kingdom recorded the third lowest rise in Unemployment of the 25 Nations with 6.7% Unemployed which is almost 1.5 million.
According to Eurostat the UK Economy would appear to be ".. absorbing the high level National Expenditure and Investment.. creating a more stable Financial environment.. Recovery is a long way off.. (UK) coping better than many Nations (within the EU)..".
UK is not a member of the EUro-zone, the Working Time Directive or the Schengen open-borders policies.
Complain about this comment
#70 Ford Mondeo - more europhile nonsense from you. You express that absurd view that the UK virtually pays lip service to the "European project" (a freudian slip?)
Don't you know that the UK compliance industry goes into turbo drive in the race to be the first industry/country to comply with every EU directive issued, irrespective of how long the other 26 take to comply, if at all!
Past and current UK governments have conspired to sell our sovereignty to the European project; for what? For the common good or could it be the lure of the EU pension gravy train?
Complain about this comment
#71
"Unemployment across the 27 EU Nations is 21 million and rising
Unemployment is 8.6% of those registered across the 27 Nations"
Lets put that into some perspective, using the USA as a comparative:
Total population across the EU 27 member states is 499,673,325
Total population of all the US 50 member states is 306,540,000
Total unemployment figures across the EU states is 8.6%
Total unemployment figures across the US states is 8.9%
GDP (nominal) 2008 estimate
EU $18.394 trillion
U.S. $14.264 trillion
So actually, far from appearing high the EU has less unemployed than the USA, more more of the working age population in the USA are out of work than in the EU - yet the anti and euro-sceptics often point towards the 'free-market' USA as a model that members of their preferred model for europe should be following!...
I'm not saying that there are not unemployment 'hot-spots' within the EU 27 but then again there are also unemployment hot-spots within the US 50.
Just goes to prove the old adage about the fact that statistics can be made to mean anything!
Complain about this comment
I find this an interesting debate and many of the posted comments raise valid and interesting points. At the end of the day Wilders is tapping into real concerns displayed by a sizeable number of people in not only the Netherlands but other European countries. That doesn't make the way he is doing it palatable or make those concerns right and it can obviously be argued that he is targetting the less educated/most vulnerable. At the end of the day he is actively using the politics of fear and judging by the support he is receiving he is using it well.
I don't agree with either his politics or his proposal to ban the Qu'ran. Like all religious texts (Bible, Torah/Tanakh etc) it all comes down to a question of interpretation. Some posters are naive in the extreme if they believe that the Qu'ran promotes violence. I am not a muslim nor am I a practicing christian but I have read the religious texts of the three Abrahamic religions and they all display remarkable similarities. Islam has two commonly accepted schools - Dar es Islam and Dar es Jihad. The former peaceful in its intent. The latter less so. Like all religious texts though the problem is not with the text but with the people that interpret it and then seek to spread their interpretation. Wahhabism could be seen as an example of Dar es Jihad - ultra conservative Islam. Fundamentalist/ultra conservastive Christianity differs very little from fundamentalist/ultra conservative Islam. By that I don't mean what they believe in, as that is obviously very different. I mean in terms of how they view others that don't agree with them, that don't fit into the way they view the world. Fundamentalists interpret their religious texts as they see fit to justify/support their monocular view of the world and then their actions. Not all Muslims are extremists Tuppence Two and Vivaelcid - if you believe that then perhaps you should move to the Netherlands (if you don't already live there) and vote for Wilders. Failing that try actually reading the Qu'ran...
As for the role of religion in society/politics. Theoretically in the Western world our politics is secular. However, though it might be outwardly secular we are all heavily influenced by religion in one way or another. It has shaped our thinking and actions and historically it has been our society's moral and ethical foundation. This is not necessarily a bad thing as long as we undertand religion's historic role and do not allow our current religious beliefs to dictate current and future political policy. Personal liberty - freedom of speech, democratic liberalism are all too important to Western Society to be subsumed by questionable religious interpretations promulgated by those with questionable motives.
As for the EU, I guess I am slightly sceptical. I have to agree in part with SuffolkBoy 2's stance on the European gravy train and comments posted by others regarding the Commission. The gravy train is wrong and all MEP's plus Commission members should have to fully disclose details of their expenditure. The EU commission is undemocratic and that offends me. Europe is being steered in a direction that is not being determined by it populace. Un-elected commissioners are deciding on Europe's (and therefore as it currently stands, member countries) future. That these people are largely unaccountable worries me further. I remember several years ago when Neil Kinnock was a commissioner one of the Commission's auditors found a 100 million euro hole in the Commission's finances. The auditor in question was told to desist from making further enquiries. When the enquiries continued and the matter was brought to the attention of the European parliament the auditor was fired and soon after the whole matter was swept under the carpet.
The will of the people of Europe is being ignored/overlooked by the Commission and by pro-European politicians. If member state populations want a referendum they should be granted one. That they are not smacks of fear on the part of the Commission and pro-European MP's. Fear of losing, fear that the Federal project might be derailed. If further European integration is a good idea and the Lisbon Treaty nothing to be worried about then let voters choose. The argument raised by some pro-Europeans that the voters wouldn't understand is not a valid one. Even the most committed pro-Europeans have admitted that the Lisbon Treaty is about 95% the same as the previously proposed European constitution. If that was a good idea and the Lisbon Treaty is a good idea educate voters and then let them decide. I feel that Europe has perhaps lost sight of its original purpose and become overwhelmed by self-importance. Perhaps stock needs to be taken and the populace given the chance to decide on the direction of Europe's future.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated and #73.
Cannot argue with your stats on the USA. But then, I never mentioned the USA.
Quite why a pro-EU enthusiast such as yourself should feel the need to hurry out a response to my EU stats with references to the USA, as with my #71, I also leave to others to draw conclusions.
Complain about this comment
#75
"Quite why a pro-EU enthusiast such as yourself should feel the need to hurry out a response to my EU stats with references to the USA, as with my #71, I also leave to others to draw conclusions."
Context, without any context your stats, in fact any stats are meaningless and open to miss-interpretation (the old advertising issue about the original "9 out of 10 cats" 'statement of fact' used to sell cat food) - but quite why an euro-sceptic should suddenly start talking about unemployment stats within a blog about religious intolerance one can only guess at, I leave to others to draw conclusions...
Getting back on-topic.. if Geert Wilders thinks that it's OK to ban the Qu'ran because it promotes hatred then surely it's also right that political parties that promote hatred through their teachings should also be banned?!...
Complain about this comment
Playing devil's advocate on this one Ikamaskeip but don't committed Europhiles often use the actions/strength of the USA to justify further European expansion. Apparently further expansion is needed to counter-balance the strength of the USA in world politics/world economic terms.
Always found the reasoning to be slightly facile/naive myself. Having been in part educated in the USA although British I realise that the USA will always do what the USA wants. Americans believe that their country, rightly or wrongly, is the greatest on the planet and the most powerful and therefore they have an almost divine right to do what they want. They have a sort of naive belief that their way is right. A sort of "it must be because we're American."
The idea that a Federal Europe, sorry Europhiles, a more greatly integrated Europe will counterbalance America is vaguely ridiculous. Bigger is not necessarily better. Unlike America there is no common thread to draw the population of Europe together and therefore Europe will always be just an idea promulgated by those with vested interests. Failing that it will become a huge melting pot with swirling discontent as those that see themselves as the movers and shakers do what they always do - exactly what they want.
Complain about this comment
This is a very good blog. Actually, the image conjured by some Dutch media here is far more flawed (often demonising Wilders and the PVV), however, the article does contain a flaw.
It calls Radar an anti-racist organisation. However, Radar, oddly enough, supports discrimination and racist policy making when it is aimed against certain people, like when they publicly supported minister Ter Horst in refusing a high ranking police officer promotion because of his (white) skin colour and gender. In the past they also took favourable views on the discrimination against men, caucasians, atheists etc.
One could succesfully argue Radar is actually a pro-racist organization because of these views. It's tough to think of an expression to summarize the concept of fighting both against and to promote discrimination and racism, depending on who is being discriminated against, but unfortunately, Radar is most definately not 'anti-racist'.
Complain about this comment
Next time I'm in the "house of books" on Nevsky, will ask for Koran. Never saw the book. At least will glance, what's really in there, as opinions here so much differ. There is a custom with poor intelligencia to quietly read books in the corners in that shop, instead of buying them, various cosy chairs and corners. Tolerated as a decent book store ought to have some traditions.
Come to think of it, never saw Mein Kampf either. Will ask if it's prohibited in Russia, or what.
Complain about this comment
Alice @79
Just imagined the picture of you going into a bookshop in Moscow and asking for the Koran and 'Mein Kampf'. How long do you think it will take for the millicia to arrive? ;-)
Complain about this comment
FRU1973 and #77.
Sometimes the "devil's advocate" does have the best tune and lyrics:
"..sorry EUrophiles.. bigger is not neccesarily better.."
Ah, music to the ears!
That delicate, moving, inestimable and never ceasing refrain whose title is variously described as 'Free-Will!', 'Ascent of Democracy!' and most commonly, 'Let My People Go!'
From the Nations' circle: "More, more, more!"
From the Citizens' stalls: "Bravo, bravo, bravo!"
And from accompanying Chorus and the Orchestra pit: "Dare to Live!"
Let the "..movers and shakers.." do their worst and still we shall overcome!
Well, it's been a particularly hot few days here in Finland and we've had nothing much to do..
Complain about this comment
BackintheEUssr :
Except that you seem to think that gold plating european laws is the end all of the EU. Britain seems to be able to get the technicalities of the european project but not the "spirit", rather like a disruptive child that aways does its homework but refuses to play with the other children "because they talk funny" or "dont play the way I want to play"
Complain about this comment
democracythreat #13
you wrote "If this were a serious issue, people would be making comments about the Islamic church, and then making devastating accusations against the catholic and protestant doctrines." also
"Until we can begin speaking about how religion, christian and jewish religion, affects our own politics and our own society, we will never be able to talk sensibly about Islam."
Now compare this to tuppence_two comment #21
"No Islamic or Christian or Jewish society is perfect even by its own standards, but they are susceptible to different kinds and degrees of fault. If you cannot discern any significant difference between the Jewish, Christian and Islamic texts...."
I find it interesting that you choose to only capitalize "Islam". What makes you more comfortable in insulting Christians and Jews. Is it because it is more PC? Could it be that your respect is founded on fear? Why is that?
Complain about this comment
The real problem is that Mark Mardell's colleagues have been screaming wolf, at the top of their lungs, for way too long: now it is difficult to take Mr. Mardell as seriously as he deserves. What I mean is, there was a time when the "far-right" was anti-capitalist, anti-American, and anti-Semitic. Leave aside the fact that the "far-left" shares these features. My point is that the definition of "far-right" has been broadened, first to include all xenophobes, then to include anybody opposed to immigration of any or all ethnic groups, then to anybody opposed to the EU project, and now to anybody opposed to the Lisbon Treaty. At the same time, in some contexts it is enough to whisper "freedom of speech" to be labeled "far-right". In short, any form of dissent from the political orthodoxy is becoming "far-right", unless it is explicitly far-left. At this point, it is nothing more than a tautology that the "far-right" gains support at a time when trust in the establishment is in dramatic decline: since the far-left has nothing positive to offer anymore, any decrease in support for the establishment is now _by definition_ an increase in support for the "far-right".
BTW Reagan was also supposed to be "far-right" and was going to start a nuclear war, as I remember. GW Bush was also "far-right" and was going to set up a theocratic dictatorship. I can't remember any leader writer, or any public "intellectual", admitting that they got those predictions wrong.
BTW (2): I didn't think that heer Wilders is as anti-capitalist as Mr. Mardell (or rather, Dr Pijpers) makes him out to be; I'll look it up. But certainly Wilders is neither anti-American nor anti-Semitic, so he is not part of the traditional "far-right".
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated and #76.
Well, if you re-read my #71 you will see in first paragraph exactly why I brought this economic crisis into this debate.
The MPs Expenses fiasco, the attention being drawn to 'extremists' - - how very convenient for the 'mainstream' Politicians of all persuasions - - any idea what will fill the new headlines ad infinitum if PVV, BNP etc. get some more MEPs because I seriously doubt it will be the Economy and 21,000,000+ Unemployed inc. 1 in 7 under-25 across UK/EU.
Thus, I leave you to draw your own conclusions...
Complain about this comment
vivaelcid wrote:
"Mark, if you get the chance to ask Wilders a question, please ask him if he thinks the christian religions in Europe should keep their tax free status."
"What has this got to with anything Wilders is saying about islam ? Are Dutch gays being targeted by Dutch Christians ? Are any Dutch politicians or Danish cartoonists in hiding from Christians ? Are French Jews fireproofing their temples because of Christian attack ? Were Spanish Christians responsible for the Madrid bombings? Were English Christians guilty of the 7/7 attacks ? The Christian Church in Europe mostly preaches tolerance and understanding..so why compare it to islam ??"
These are all excellent questions. The link between the business operations we know as the christian and jewish religions and the death of muslim children is not widely discussed in the Christian world. However, it is excellent that someone is curious, because the muslim world has being trying to get a hearing for a long time.
So, to explain:
Religious institutions have tax free status, allowing them to amass and protect huge sums of capital in western society. They can and do use this capital to undermine market based businesses, and to impose their own doctrines upon the society. Any business that has tax free status is able to prey upon businesses that must pay tax, this is not a particular characteristic of religious businesses. All things being equal, a business that doesn't pay tax can undercut a business that does, sending it broke.
Now when religious businesses amass and protect capital, they become sponsors of government policy. Just like any other conglomeration of capital will do. In the west, we know this activity as "think tanks", "community publications", "religious education" and so on. Our government policies are shaped by large institutions, and there is a very real nexus between the interests of the religious institutions and the other business institutions in the marketplace. In the old days, someone from the higher classes in society would be advised to send their second son to the Army, the third to the law, and the fourth to the priesthood. The first, of course, would inherit the family business and MAKE MONEY in the free market. This wisdom reflects the nexus between the various branches of "public" institutions and the private sector.
Now, how does this mean that our religious institutions are responsible for violence and terror against muslims?
well, the market is making a hell of a lot of money out of dead muslim children. I don;t mean to offend anyone by that statement. It is a bare statement of fact. Anybody can investigate it. It isn't a secret.
Governments are spending HUGE amounts of money on the war (as they do), and the businesses of the establishment are generating profits from this expenditure. And, of course, vast numbers of muslim children are being crippled and butchered in the process.
Now this war, it is the direct result of all the think tanks and the experts in defense corporations, and the academics, and of course the media. Sure, government decide policy, but religion plays a huge part in shaping that policy behind the scenes. Now religious bodies are not the ONLY influence, and perhaps they are not even the dominant force that shapes policy.
But at the same time, there is a definite nexus between the institutions of christianity, the profits of western military corporations, and the piles of little arms and legs that formerly graced the torsos of little muslim children. To pretend that there is no nexus is to be blind to the overall political economy of the western world.
In short, the leaders of our society OWN this war. They created it, they pursued it, they profit from it.
And our churches are some of the institutions that our leadership use to achieve their aims.
And we will never be rid of our leaders private institutions while they enjoy tax free status in the marketplace, because they will predictably use their raw commercial power to undermine and de-rail any meaningful competition to their influence.
In short, the military industrial complex has its roots in a social order that involves religion as an integral part of its make up. If you want to rid yourself of the poisonous fruits of the vine, you need to dig out the roots, and burn the entire plant.
Complain about this comment
#82 Ford Mondeo
And there we have it, the great European project in all its tarnished glory - name calling and distortion are acceptable provided the great project survives! Nothing must get in its way, ignore 'No Votes' because its far too dangerous to hold referendums, the people are too stupid. No need to abide with rules & regulations and do not accept opposition of any kind.
Cost benefit studies on participation are beyond the pale, you can't possibly measure the European ideal! The 'spirit' continues to beat in Ford Mondeo's heat but luckily he is in a distinct minority - the project is unsustainable, its a gonner!
Complain about this comment
Excellent Democracythreat! Soon we will be debating how a secret world order runs everything, how the moon landings never happened and also the Kennedy assassination amongst other things.
You kind of ignore a few basics though. The Church of England is skint, cannot afford to maintain its own properties, can barely afford to pay its own staff and the worldwide Anglican communion is in schism and not able to agree on anything! Indeed in the UK the government has been investigating actively how to divorce the role of the church from the state for a while - i.e. the Church of England will no longer be the Church of England but simply the Church. While your excellent theory may work to a limited extent with the Catholic church, the Christian right wing or the Jewish lobby in the USA it doesn't really pan out anywhere else.
Now if you swop traditional Western religions (Catholicism, Judaism etc) for Mammon you might be onto something. For Mammon read petro-chemical/mineral wealth. Bush was elected using oil money because then the Oil Industry knew they would have their puppet. The 2nd Gulf War was pursued because of Oil, indeed the 1st was as well. Companies such as Halliburton, its former subsidiary Kellog Brown & Root, Bectel etc have made billions out of conflicts pursued by successive American governments. American Oil Companies have gained contracts in parts of the world they had little or restricted influence in previously - either because all the deals were already done with others or as in the case of Iraq because dubious abuses of the Oil for Food programme had allowed the French, Russians etc to sow up the market for their own benefit.
The recent war between Georgia and Russia would be a classic example of Petro-chemical wealth/power determining politics. Russia used the spurious excuse of protecting South Ossetia and Abkhazia against Georgian aggression to justify starting a war. The real reason was that Russia wanted to destabilise the region in order to dissuade the West putting in new oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan through the Caspian sea, via Azerbaijan and Georgia then onto Turkey and thereby the West. If those pipelines are put in European reliance on Oil and Gas that is transitted through Russia or through its direct sphere of influence falls dramatically. Petro-chemical politics at its best.
While your involvement of religion in the socio-political equation may have been valid 60 or more years ago to a limited extent, it is hardly relevant in today's world where Mammon is the major player.
As for your assertion that in the old days people from the Upper classes were advised to send their 2nd son into the army, their third into law and their fourth into the priesthood, what a horrible generalisation. They were not advised at all. Inheritance in those days was based on the right of the first born son - he got everything. Successive sons went into professions whereby they had a chance to make something of themselves. However, going into the army cost money - you had to buy a commission to get into a half decent regiment and then you had to have a bit of money behind you for outfitting etc. If you were lucky your older brother bought you a commission to get you out of his hair. Either that or you had to have a wealthy patron to back you. Going into law was not a typical choice as it was seen, especially in the Georgian era, as not being suitable for someone of the first rank. Going into the Priesthood similarly required family connections although could be well rewarded as becoming a member of the clergy usually meant that you got a good residence to live in and were given a reasonable stipend.
As for digging out the roots and burning the entire plant, enough said.
Complain about this comment
FRU1972 !
???
What petro-chemical in Russian-Georgian war? where have you got these ideas from?
The last thing we in Russia need is to "de-stabilise" the Caucasus or any part of the Southern soft belly. (soft - because it's non-visa comms, for one thing, unlimited circulation).
The war had disputably idiotic acquisitions as a result for us but was kept as short and mini as possible and a good effort was made to limit it, cut, stop, end, extingusih the fire, board up, seal and separate as much as possible.
No silly pipe - 2 Nabucco's effect of loss of business to Russia - would equal a destabilisation in that region for us, in the effect.
A hundred Nabucco's worth of business won't equal in money our losses should the Caucasus go aflame. What an expert you are on Russia-Georgia if you think Kremlin's desire was to de-stabilise the region.
_______________
Isenhorn, @80. LOL!
In fact, I also re-considered my initial intention "to ask in the main book store for Koran and Main Kampf together". :o)))))))
Not thought ab them calling the police :o)))) sorry, can't stop laughing
rather imagined how the book store enquiry desk ladies woild look at me, like at a clinical idiot, imagined the picture live as well.
Will still ask for Koran but Men Kampf - ugh. cockroaches. don't want even to ask.
Complain about this comment
History may well be repeating itself.....
A European politician with an obsessive hatred for a certain religious group manipulates xenophobic ultra nationalistic sentiment to build up his political base amongst a disillusioned public....
Does that sound familiar to people ?
If Mr Wilder's hateful views are rejected by a majority of Dutch people ( and given his near cult like popularity amongst at least some sections of the Dutch public, I do not know that they are ) - let them speak up, or else the much touted ``Dutch tolerance'' may end up turning into something of an oxymoron.
Complain about this comment
#25 RomeStu
"Compare the medieval Christian society with the current most extreme aspects of Islam.
The medieval church had death penalty for heresy, apostacy etc."
first of all i am not christian, nor is geert wilders; so then what relevance does this hold?
second, in what way do the crimes of christianity justify the crimes of islam?
"For non-christians there were forced conversions or death or exile.
Christianity has had 600 extra years to develope (or "enlighten")."
this is basically how most of the planet operated in those times, what makes you believe it was strictly a european trait i am unsure. there were over 1 million european slaves in the ottoman empire from the 17th through the 19th centuries, i assure you forced conversions were not uncommon there either.
so this begs the question; if it didn't take islam 600 years to equal europe in terms of brutality, why does it require an extra 600 years to "enlighten"?
i think if you do a little reading about history you will realize the only thing standing between us and forced conversion to islam for the last 150 years has been our vastly superior armies. people think piracy in somalia is abnormal. read about the barbary wars, piracy has been a staple of islamic expansion for the last 400 years. not until the mid 19th century, when european navies surpassed their muslim counterparts, did the raids on the southern coasts of europe cease.
Complain about this comment
Wilders' views do not differ very much from those of the British National Party, just to put things in context. He mainly has a nationalist agenda.
Complain about this comment
I don't like this Wilders, and hope few people follow him. However I find sad that he has to be over-protected. It's also stupid, in my view, that the UK didn't allow him to get into the country, while we have with us individuals like Abu Qatada.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS