Geert Wilders: Scumbag or Legend?

[Forty Two]

The context of his outpourings cannot be so easily divested from their semantic structure I fear. He has a right to express his views, of course that goes without sating, but he also has to be held to account for both the content and context of any such communication.

What's the context that I've missed?

The context of his expressed views of many years, his political aims, associations, and his activities - basically, his history within the social setting in which he operates. What I'm essentially saying is that you can't simply assess his words as if they've suddenly sprung into existence, unbidden and without preamble, and then seek some absolute formula to determine the rectitude of his utterances.

What aims, associations and activiities?

Are we really to have a law which allows a person with certain aims, associations and activities to say X, but another person with different aims, associations and activities cannot say the same thing because of that different context? So, if a person who traditionally was in favor of very minority friendly programs, was generally pro-immigration and associated only with the best people was to say that due to economic issues in the Netherlands we need to organize fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands, then that wouldn't be hate speech?

Well, if a person cannot know in advance the "rectitude of one's utterances" then isn't that a recipe for the arbitrary application of law? Certainly Wilders doesn't think he's committing hate speech. He thinks he's just calling for the preservation of traditional Dutch culture and the reduction in immigration from different countries. He says he's not out to hate anyone or incite hatred or insult anyone. So, he has to assess, prior to speaking, whether his words will later be "taken in context of his aims, associations and activities" and declared that, in his case, but not necessarily other people's cases, he can't say X, Y and Z, but other people might be able to?

Also, how ought he be held to account? Fine? Imprisonment? Or, by public condemnation in the free marketplace of ideas? The last one is a way to hold people accountable, which is not censorious. Saying "the context of your political opinion is such that I think your opinion is hateful, so you're to be fined by the state and given a criminal records to hold you "accountable" after the fact..." is censorious.

A law like that has a tremendous "chilling effect" on public expression. People must not only conform with a clear proscription which is easy to follow, but they must be sure that they are not pushing into the field of gray area where reasonable minds may differ, for fear that one's opinion breaches the very wide, very grey line. It causes people to hold back in order to not take a risk. If a person has a 10% chance of being prosecuted, that is enough for a lot of people to say "I better just keep my trap shut."

it tends to politicize speech, too, and then if you factor in the growing acceptance of the notion that white people like Wilders can commit hate speech, but that the same kind of words coming from a Moroccan can't be hate speech, because the Moroccans are a margilnalized, oppressed group, and you've got a recipe for unequal application of a politically charged law.... if anything will stoke the flames of hateful ideas, that kind of thing will. Tell a group of people they're not allowed to voice their opinion, and you have just reaffirmed to those people that their opinion must be valid, otherwise "they" wouldn't need to silence it....

You're fond of citing some kind of declared exceptionalism as a justification for the charge of a double standard, but the question remains, is racism, and all that it entails, acceptable in the context of the times in which we live? If not, then perhaps we should seek to limit it's influence. If, on the other hand, one thinks it is acceptable then you're probably a racist.

I haven't cited any exceptionalism at all. Where in the world did I do that? And, I did not cite a double standard. I explained a significant downside to having hate speech laws.

Racism must be "acceptable," because racism is an idea. Ideas are thoughts in people's heads. And, if there is one place the government has no business it's in the thoughts in people's heads. If a person wants to think about pedophilic actions, racist actions, murder, theft, beating up their teacher - whatever - those thoughts are not criminal. If a person wants to advocate for the propriety of these criminal actions or preach/say that these actions are good and proper, then that too is not criminal.

Like, there is a group called NAMBLA, and it advocates sexual relationships between grown men and young boys. A more reprehensible group advocating more criminal behavior is hard to find. But, they don't cross the line into criminality until they take steps to commit an actual crime. Talking about crime, talking about how much one likes crime, and talking about how a particular crime should be legal, is not criminal.

If it were, how would people advocate for drug legalization? There are people who shout from the rooftops the merits of marijuana, cocaine, LSD and other recreational drugs. People who oppose those drug advocates often cite the damage supposedly done by drugs and to addicts/users, etc., but the ideas - pro drug -- pro drug use - pro drug legalization - these ideas are legal.

Take the Nazi party. In the US, the Nazis can organize, hold meetings, talk about their Nazi ideas, talk about how great it would be if there were no mongrel races and such around - that kind of thing They can even march down mainstreet like any other group, such as the GLAAD group, the Black Panthers, etc. -- they all have the same right to sing songs and carry signs -- people speaking their minds.

that's the idea I'm trying to bring home. Sure, racism is "acceptable" in general, just like homosexuality is today, and just like female superiority or whatever. It doesn't mean everybody or even most people in the culture will agree that it's right or acceptable, or allow that talk in their homes and businesses. Of course not. But, it means these ideas are just as legal as any other idea. Where the line should be drawn is where the idea crosses into action. Where a person, say, discriminates against a person based on their race. That's not just racism - that's doing something. It's the difference between thinking about punching someone and taking a swing at them.

[Brian Peacock]

But, the point is, you've got Muslims claiming Geert is committing hate speech, but they're immune from hate speech laws when they distribute the Koran, which says what it says. Irrespective of whatever a person thinks in their own head, if you're peddling the Koran, then aren't you peddling hate speech?

An interesting point. If one was promoting intolerance or differential treatment for those who don't share your views, and justifying it on the basis of some self-selected 'holy' text, then perhaps that might be so, but I doubt that the texts themselves would be the problem in this case. Parts of the Qu'ran and The Bible are truly hateful, immoral, and socially divisive but I think it's too easy, and inaccurate, to classify all Muslims or Christians in those terms. Some are: most aren't.

Get off the issue of whether "all" Christians or Muslims believe the same thing. I'm not talking about individual beliefs in people's heads. I'm referring to what the Koran and the Bible say. They way what they say, so if it's hateful and insulting to groups like homosexuals, women, etc., then it is hate speech. Shouldn't it be banned?

I agreed, the self-selected holy texts of Islam and Christianity do contain a lot of hateful, insulting, intolerant, bigoted, and socially divisive bollocks. But, as I also said, the texts themselves are not the issue, but the people who justify their own bollocks on 'holy' bollocks contained therein. I'm not for banning books, I'm for reading them in context, The Bible, The Torah, and The Qu'ran being mythologies. I don't much care for Mein Kampf, The International Jew, Das Kapital, The Rubaiyat, or Fahrenheit 451 either, but I don't want to see them banned.

How do you think the majority of non-troublesome Christians and Muslims would take to having their 'holy' books banned as hate-speech?

And, if a person, regardless of their own personal beliefs, distributes hate speech, is it not still hate speech? Or, can Geert Wilders get away with whatever he wants to say, if he just hires someone who doesn't agree with his beliefs to read his ideas out loud for him or distribute texts of his ideas for him? The guy he hires can say "I'm not committing hate speech myself, I'm just distributing the hate speech someone else wrote down..."?

Why start the 2nd sentence with 'Or', as if the negation of one idea necessitates the other?

Wilders is a racist.

Maybe. And, if he is, people can oppose him politically. What's that got to do with whether or not he can try to persuade people that he is right about his ideas? I've followed Wilders closely for almost 10 years. I've never read anything he said that appeared "racist" to me. He has certainly been against Islam, the Koran, Muslim immigration and in particular Moroccan immigration. But, that isn't necessarily racist.

Defending his right to be a racist should not necessarily entail defending his racism. He's a bigot and a hatemonger, who like many-a unhinged ideologue, is trying to bend the world outside is head to conform to the one inside his head.

So are lots of Muslim Imams. I don't see them being prosecuted for hate speech.

Irrelevant.

The reason is exactly what Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris and Dennett and the rest of the new atheists spent over a decade shouting from the rooftops. Religion is getting a special pass. Calling something religious seems to automatically mean we can't criticize it or attack it. So, prosecuting an Imam for hate speech would result in massive unrest from the religious community, claiming that the law is persecuting them for their religious beliefs. That's not unique to Islam. The Christians do the same thing - claim the right to discriminate because they say their religious beliefs require it.

It's irrelevant because a failure in one area does not justify or legitimise a failure in another. Yes, religion gets an easy ride, but why should racists and hate-mongers get an easy ride just because religion has traditionally claimed that privilege?

All politicians try to bend the world outside their heads to conform to the one inside their head. Banning hate speech or ciminalizing it, just uses the power of the State to shut one's political opponents up without having to win in the political field of battle.

I guess it depends what kind of society you want to live in.

[Forty Two]

But, the point is, you've got Muslims claiming Geert is committing hate speech, but they're immune from hate speech laws when they distribute the Koran, which says what it says. Irrespective of whatever a person thinks in their own head, if you're peddling the Koran, then aren't you peddling hate speech?

An interesting point. If one was promoting intolerance or differential treatment for those who don't share your views, and justifying it on the basis of some self-selected 'holy' text, then perhaps that might be so, but I doubt that the texts themselves would be the problem in this case. Parts of the Qu'ran and The Bible are truly hateful, immoral, and socially divisive but I think it's too easy, and inaccurate, to classify all Muslims or Christians in those terms. Some are: most aren't.

Get off the issue of whether "all" Christians or Muslims believe the same thing. I'm not talking about individual beliefs in people's heads. I'm referring to what the Koran and the Bible say. They way what they say, so if it's hateful and insulting to groups like homosexuals, women, etc., then it is hate speech. Shouldn't it be banned?

I agreed, the self-selected holy texts of Islam and Christianity do contain a lot of hateful, insulting, intolerant, bigoted, and socially divisive bollocks. But, as I also said, the texts themselves are not the issue, but the people who justify their own bollocks on 'holy' bollocks contained therein. I'm not for banning books, I'm for reading them in context, The Bible, The Torah, and The Qu'ran being mythologies. I don't much care for Mein Kampf, The International Jew, Das Kapital, The Rubaiyat, or Fahrenheit 451 either, but I don't want to see them banned.

How do you think the majority of non-troublesome Christians and Muslims would take to having their 'holy' books banned as hate-speech?

They would hate it. But, their holy book contains a bunch of hate speech, so we can't have that distributed publicly. It's against the law to distribute written hate speech publicly, in the Netherlands. Isn't it?

But, if a person distributes a book with hate speech in it, doesn't that mean they're distributing hate speech? Shouldnt' they be prosecuted? Or, is it allowed for people who don't agree with the hate speech to distribute the hate speech, but not allowed for the people who agree with the hate speech to do the same?

And, if a person, regardless of their own personal beliefs, distributes hate speech, is it not still hate speech? Or, can Geert Wilders get away with whatever he wants to say, if he just hires someone who doesn't agree with his beliefs to read his ideas out loud for him or distribute texts of his ideas for him? The guy he hires can say "I'm not committing hate speech myself, I'm just distributing the hate speech someone else wrote down..."?

Why start the 2nd sentence with 'Or', as if the negation of one idea necessitates the other?

Because the part after the "or" is the same as a preacher who doesn't agree with the racism, misogyny, pro-slavery and homophobia of the Bible, nevertheless distributing the Bible.

I'm asking you if - since you're saying a guy who does not himself support or agree with the hate speech bits can still distribute the Bible without being subjected to the hate speech law -- can't someone else distribute Geert wilders words and disclaim belief in them too? So, Geert can have private conversations and write some stuff down at home - non public - but give them to his friend, who is a good, secular, liberal, who doesn't have a racist bone in his body, and have that person distribute the message? That is, after all, what a preacher is doing who may not himself be a hate-person or a phobe of some kind, when he distributes the hate speech ridden Bible....

Wilders is a racist.

Maybe. And, if he is, people can oppose him politically. What's that got to do with whether or not he can try to persuade people that he is right about his ideas? I've followed Wilders closely for almost 10 years. I've never read anything he said that appeared "racist" to me. He has certainly been against Islam, the Koran, Muslim immigration and in particular Moroccan immigration. But, that isn't necessarily racist.

Defending his right to be a racist should not necessarily entail defending his racism. He's a bigot and a hatemonger, who like many-a unhinged ideologue, is trying to bend the world outside is head to conform to the one inside his head.

So are lots of Muslim Imams. I don't see them being prosecuted for hate speech.

Irrelevant.

Not at all. When we examine a law, whether the law is applied equally or even-handedly is a very relevant concept. All citizens have a right to expect the law to be applied similarly to other citizens. That's inherent in the concept of equal rights under the law. A law which focuses on one person more than any other, or some people more than others, is akin to a Bill of Attainder.

Under the Dutch constitution - According to Article 1 --- all persons in the Netherlands should be treated equally in equal circumstances, and distinctions on grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex, or any other grounds, are prohibited. So, if a law is drawn or applied such that people are not being treated equally in equal circumstances, then that law violates Article I of the Dutch constitution. If Wilders is being held to a different standard than other people similarly situated, and/or if the law is being used to target him in particular, then this Article 1 issue is very relevant.

The reason is exactly what Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris and Dennett and the rest of the new atheists spent over a decade shouting from the rooftops. Religion is getting a special pass. Calling something religious seems to automatically mean we can't criticize it or attack it. So, prosecuting an Imam for hate speech would result in massive unrest from the religious community, claiming that the law is persecuting them for their religious beliefs. That's not unique to Islam. The Christians do the same thing - claim the right to discriminate because they say their religious beliefs require it.

It's irrelevant because a failure in one area does not justify or legitimise a failure in another. Yes, religion gets an easy ride, but why should racists and hate-mongers get an easy ride just because religion has traditionally claimed that privilege?

...because all citizens' have a right to an equally difficult or easy ride. Just because someone thinks another person's idea is hateful or insulting doesn't mean the hateful or insulting idea is less protected under the law. I think a lot of religious ideas are hateful or insulting. I don't, as it happens, think that they should be dealt with by the State in any way, or prosecuted. I likewise think that racist ideas should not be dealt with by the State. However, if you are going to make it a crime to insult people based on their sexual preferences or sexuality, sex, race, or religion, then each citizen has a right to see that law applied equally, and not selectively, under Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, and if it were in the US under the Equal Protection of the Law clauses in the US Constitution.

All politicians try to bend the world outside their heads to conform to the one inside their head. Banning hate speech or ciminalizing it, just uses the power of the State to shut one's political opponents up without having to win in the political field of battle.

I guess it depends what kind of society you want to live in.

Well, the kind of society I want to live in is one where each individual is treated equivalently under the law under the same or similar circumstances, and under which we have individual rights to think and believe, and to say, write, and express that which we think or believe. For each citizen to have that equal right, the right must be extended not only to ourselves and our friends, and not only to those with whom we agree and find appropriate, but also to those we find repugnant and disagreeable, and even hateful.

We don't have to agree with them. We don't have to let them in our houses or be their friends. We don't have to deal with them, and we are free to resoundingly condemn them and ridicule them.

But, if the State has the just power to prosecute and fine someone you find reprehensible, then the State can later have the just power to fine you. And, you cannot be assured that some day your political opponents or the very people you seek to silence will not find their way into positions of power, and when they do, they may well decide it is their turn to decide what is "hate" and what is "insulting."

It's like the argument from back in the founding days of the US, when the notion of religious liberty was bandied about. It was a revolutionary notion, the idea that the State does not side with a religion. The idea that individuals could believe or not believe whatever they wanted existed nowhere else in the world in the 18th century, and it was bitterly fought over in the US and France. One of the arguments made in letters to and from Thomas Jefferson involved the Congregationalist Christians and the Danbury Baptists in Massachusetts. And, in sum, one of these groups (the weaker one, of course) was really keen on having "freedom of religion" in the State, while the stronger one was keen on having itself named the official religion of the State. The idea was, ultimately, expressed by Jefferson that not having any official religion and allowing the people to organize themselves religiously and preach as they pleased, was what would protect BOTH religious sects from domination by the other and from oppression.

The same applies to free speech. If you want to live in a society where "insulting" people on certain bases is illegal, then I submit you are not interested in individual freedom or liberty, very much. And, liberty, my friend, in case you've forgotten is the soul's right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath, the laws are girded too tight. Without liberty, man is a syncope. Ibid., Your Honor.

[JimC]

To many, Wilder's speech about Moroccans had a clear message of implied violence to them, to reduce their numbers. That was the heart of the potential criminality, not that he was saying nasty things about Islam, which of course he has the right to do.

[Brian Peacock]

I see the "Why do you hate Freedom and Liberty" joker has been played.

[Forty Two]

To many, Wilder's speech about Moroccans had a clear message of implied violence to them, to reduce their numbers. That was the heart of the potential criminality, not that he was saying nasty things about Islam, which of course he has the right to do.

Well, I mean, who gives a shit if someone takes another person's words the wrong way. He did not call for violence or incite it to happen. He didn't even say violence would be a good idea. If the legality of speech is to be determined by what one's political or social opponents say they infer from one's ideas, none of our opinions are safe.

[Forty Two]

I see the "Why do you hate Freedom and Liberty" joker has been played.

Where, exactly? Didn't you raise the issue of "the kind of society we want to live in?"

[pErvinalia]

Umm, "liberty is the soul's right to breathe"...

[Hermit]

To many, Wilder's speech about Moroccans had a clear message of implied violence to them, to reduce their numbers. That was the heart of the potential criminality, not that he was saying nasty things about Islam, which of course he has the right to do.

Well, I mean, who gives a shit if someone takes another person's words the wrong way. He did not call for violence or incite it to happen. He didn't even say violence would be a good idea. If the legality of speech is to be determined by what one's political or social opponents say they infer from one's ideas, none of our opinions are safe.

Wilders is very good with the dog whistle. He avers that "I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam." and he is very careful to fulminate against Islam rather than Muslims. Most the time, anyway. Occasionally he does slip up, though, like when he condemns the majority like this: "Of course it is a minority that uses the violence, but unfortunately there is a majority of these people who support the idea, and think they are heroes." Evidence? He does not proffer any. The condemnation is based on no more than his opinion, which he reiterates like this: "... Muslims, consciously or unconsciously, hide their true opinion as they are not in the majority. ... As the number of Muslims increases, even when they are not violent, the ideology of Islam will become more prominent and society will change." In view of those statements his assertion that he does not hate Muslims rings rather hollow.

Furthermore, Wilders only pretends to be fighting for freedom, including the freedom of speech: "We must not let the violent fanatics dictate what we draw, what we say, and what we read." He insists that "We must defend freedom of speech, which is the most important of our liberties." but it's a one-way street, for he also says: "The Koran is a fascist book which incites violence. That is why this book, just like Mein Kampf, must be banned."

So, yes, he is good with the dog whistle, but his true attitudes and intentions leak out despite his efforts to hide them. Wilders is a Muslim hating fascist whose commitment to freedom, particularly the freedom of speech is not even skin deep. Demanding and approving the banning of books is undemocratic and quite difficult to reconcile with "We, the defenders of freedom..."

[Forty Two]

That doesn't mean "why do you hate freedom and liberty?"

As you would know, if you were at all educated decently, the only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

In the case of opinions, if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. He who knows only his own side of things knows little.. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Every man who says frankly and fully what he thinks is so far doing a public service. We should be grateful to him for attacking most unsparingly our most cherished opinions.

Than you, J.S. Mill. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/3 ... 4901-h.htm

[pErvinalia]

You literally said that he might not be interested in freedom very much. Just before bleating the silly "let freedom ring" bollocks.

[Forty Two]

To many, Wilder's speech about Moroccans had a clear message of implied violence to them, to reduce their numbers. That was the heart of the potential criminality, not that he was saying nasty things about Islam, which of course he has the right to do.

Well, I mean, who gives a shit if someone takes another person's words the wrong way. He did not call for violence or incite it to happen. He didn't even say violence would be a good idea. If the legality of speech is to be determined by what one's political or social opponents say they infer from one's ideas, none of our opinions are safe.

Wilders is very good with the dog whistle.

So? So are lots of people, like those who use scare tactics to suggest that Donald Trump will nuke the world and that it will be an international calamity if he's elected. Or, the people who speak out against entire classes of people, like teabaggers, conservatives, liberals or Marxists. If someone decries the number of Marxists or teabaggers in a country, are they implying that they want to commit mass murder?

He avers that "I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam."

Even if he did hate Muslims, so what? I've heard lots of atheists freely stating that they hate religious people. Dawkins wrote a whole book calling them deluded, brainwashed and suggesting that raising a child with a religion is child abuse. Hate?

As an atheist, I want to be able to hate whatever religions I want to hate, and if I hate a religion's followers, then that's my right too.

and he is very careful to fulminate against Islam rather than Muslims.

Sounds like he's keeping his language rather careful and guarded. Surely he's allowed to hate Islam and speak out against it, isn't he? Does the fact that someone else "knows what he really means" have any real import here?

Most the time, anyway. Occasionally he does slip up, though, like when he condemns the majority like this: "Of course it is a minority that uses the violence, but unfortunately there is a majority of these people who support the idea, and think they are heroes."

doesn't sound like a big deal, does it? The majority of people support the idea and think the violent ones are heroes. Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not.

Evidence? He does not proffer any.

Says you, but so what? Since when do we have to present evidence with our public statements? Nobody else presents evidence. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump presented no evidence of any kind, other than their own statements, to support their opinions during their debates. Some of what they said, on both sides, was demonstrably untrue. That's what the public debate is for. Most things are supported and unsupported to one degree or another. In politics, usually things are debatable.

The condemnation is based on no more than his opinion,

What more does he need? Aren't you allowed to say stuff with nothing more than your opinion? Or, do you expect to be fined when you say something without concrete evidence at the ready to support it?

which he reiterates like this: "... Muslims, consciously or unconsciously, hide their true opinion as they are not in the majority. ... As the number of Muslims increases, even when they are not violent, the ideology of Islam will become more prominent and society will change." In view of those statements his assertion that he does not hate Muslims rings rather hollow.

Well, as the numbers of followers of any philosophy, religion or morality increase, then the prevalence and influence of the philosophy, morality and/or religion will increase. Islam is a piece of shit religion. I don't want people following it. It's false. It is offered without evidence. It's superstition. It's nonsense, and it is an absolutely horrible guide for morality, in even its milder forms. Fuck Islam. That should be free to say, and Wilders has been mild in comparison.

Furthermore, Wilders only pretends to be fighting for freedom, including the freedom of speech:

A politician pretending to hold one position while holding another? sounds like Hillary Clinton saying you have to have a public view and a private view.... So what?

"We must not let the violent fanatics dictate what we draw, what we say, and what we read."

Sounds like a true statement to me. Like after the Danish cartoon incident, it was fashionable for a while to draw Mohamet. Just for fun. Just as fuck you to the people who say we ought not be permitted to. Draw Mohhammed day! Great idea. Fuck them. I'll be damned if I'm going to let a bunch of superstitious fuckers tell me what I can and can't draw, caricature or lampoon.

He insists that "We must defend freedom of speech, which is the most important of our liberties."

Indeed, it is. Freedom of speech is the right of a person to hold and express a view. To create a work of art. To write a song or a work of fact or fiction. To joke. To satire. To protest. To dissent. To rail against, and yes, to oppose and ridicule.

but it's a one-way street, for he also says: "The Koran is a fascist book which incites violence. That is why this book, just like Mein Kampf, must be banned."

Bad idea in my view. But, since people could advocate, and did advocate, successfully, for the banning of Mein Kampf, why can't he advocate for the banning of the Koran? People advocate for the banning of Huckleberry Finn her in the US because it uses the world Nigger. I think they're nutty bookburners, but why can't they express the view that books should be banned? Or, can the Mein Kampf banners say what they want about banning Mein Kampf, but other people can't ask that books they hate be banned?

So, yes, he is good with the dog whistle, but his true attitudes and intentions leak out despite his efforts to hide them. Wilders is a Muslim hating fascist whose commitment to freedom, particularly the freedom of speech is not even skin deep. Demanding and approving the banning of books is undemocratic and quite difficult to reconcile with "We, the defenders of freedom..."

Sounds like a good argument against him, and one that should be made, and argued very strongly.

Demanding the banning of books is undemocratic? Then why is Mein Kampf banned?

I am firmly opposed to all book banning. And, I think Wilders is way off base to want the Koran banned. If book banning advocacy is to be outlawed, then you're going to be silencing a lot of people. There are many people with gripes about various books that they think should be banned.

The very notion you are discussing about book banning is the very same argument that I'm making about speech in general. Books are speech. If Wilders writes a book with his sentiments in it, should he be fined? If so, why shouldn't anyone distributing the Koran? This is exactly the point. If a book full of hate, like the Koran, can be freely distributed, then surely people who hate the Koran can publish their arguments against it, no?

[Forty Two]

You literally said that he might not be interested in freedom very much. Just before bleating the silly "let freedom ring" bollocks.

What I said was following his statement that "it depends on what kind of society you want to live in" -- So I responded that "If you want to live in a society where "insulting" people on certain bases is illegal, then I submit you are not interested in individual freedom or liberty, very much." That's correct - if a person wants a society where "insulting" people is to be criminally prosecuted, then one is not particularly interested in individual freedom or liberty. I didn't say anything about him "hating freedom" or anything. He just wants a society based on criminally enforced politeness, rather than a level of individual freedom or liberty providing everyone an equal right to express their viewpoints.

[Brian Peacock]

Your strawmanning is equal to your gish galloping I fear 42. Why is suggesting that the tolerance of intolerance should have some limit for the public good, or that a desire to see incitement and hate-mongery limited in public affairs equates to a desire for 'criminally enforced politeness'?

Do you feel that all declaratives are fundamentally without motive or consequences and that therefore each of us should be free to say whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want, about who- or whatever we want, and that nobody can ever have any legitimate grounds to object?

[Forty Two]

“Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture” - G. Wilders.

I agree. Dawkins agrees. Harris agrees. Hitchens agreed.

It's a perfectly legitimate statement.

Criticizing or ridiculing a religion or culture should be no less legal than criticizing or ridiculing a philosophy or a club.