Fitna - Geert Wilders and Islam

[Coito ergo sum]

That's true - you can't defame people (make false and defamatory statements that cause actual injury) - you can't conspire to commit violent crimes - you can't threaten people's lives or hire them to commit murder using words - you can't falsely claim there is a fire in a crowded theater, etc.

However, the point here is not anything like that.

As you see it. The OM seems to think otherwise or this trial would never take place. You assert things

Of course, I'm explaining my opinion and the opinion of many. Obviously, the authorities in Holland see it differently. That's why they are prosecuting the guy for voicing an opinion.

We know that they see it differently. However, that would be like someone getting arrested for blasphemy in the US and then responding to anyone who says it's a violation of the first amendment with "well the prosecutor sees it differently and he'll get his day in court." People would be outraged if such a thing happened here, for good reason. And, that's what most of us consider is happening in Holland. It's a violation of Mr. Wilders' fundamental rights as a human being.

What accountability? Are all our political opinions to be subject to a state review board?

No, just the laws that every Dutch citizen has to adhere to, including me.

That remains to be seen. Right now, the defense is fighting for the fundamental right right to speak one's mind. That's what's at stake here.

As I said before, I don't give a shit about Wilders or his politics. But if he has indeed broken the law, than he can and should be tried.

Unless the law violates a person's freedom of expression, in which case the law itself is invalid. Holland is part of the EU and a signatory to the UN convention on human rights, and protects freedom to express political opinions and opinions on religion as fundamental rights.

If you don't like that law, though.

No, it's not just "tough," if that's what you mean. I consider it a violation of an individual's fundamental rights, and I hope the Dutch court agrees, because then such a travesty will not happen again, at least not until something radical changes or creeping political correctness wins out again.

[leo-rcc]

It seems I lost half of my post as I replied but I'm not going to bother elaborating. This discussion is heading nowhere. If you feel that strongly about it, our government is situated in The Binnenhof in The Hague, send them a letter (not until next year though as our cabinet is now decommissioned).

From where I am sitting, the justice system in the Netherlands is surprisingly liberal given the Lutheran and Calvinistic influences. It's not perfect, but no legal system is.

[Cunt]

He has no interest in "criticism" in islam he just wants to use it as a card to gain votes.

But that is the point. You don't prosecute idiots. You ridicule them. We really shouldn't ban ideas, no matter how stupid.

If it was a legitimate idea then yes i'd agree with you when its just bigotry and racism dressed up then it should be banned

Bigotry? You mean, like "religious bigotry" such as calling religion or belief in god a "delusion?" Or, suggesting that the Jewish and Christian God is a homocidal maniac, or that religious folks are idiots?


Also, I did not say the "don't prosecute idiots" line. That was someone else. I agree with it. I just didn't write it.

I didn't write these things. I would like you to be more careful with your quotes.

I think it is interesting that leo-rcc was defending this assault on personal dignity based on a law, then when you mentioned the higher law (convention on human rights) he...

I'm not going to bother elaborating. This discussion is heading nowhere. If you feel that strongly about it, our government is situated in The Binnenhof in The Hague, send them a letter (not until next year though as our cabinet is now decommissioned).

Why would he bother, now that neither of the legs he was standing on are of any use?

[leo-rcc]

Cunt, this discussion has already taken more time then I think that Wilders is worth. If you are so gung ho about making this a human rights issue, then do it without me and leave me out of it.

[Coito ergo sum]

It seems I lost half of my post as I replied but I'm not going to bother elaborating. This discussion is heading nowhere. If you feel that strongly about it, our government is situated in The Binnenhof in The Hague, send them a letter (not until next year though as our cabinet is now decommissioned).

From where I am sitting, the justice system in the Netherlands is surprisingly liberal given the Lutheran and Calvinistic influences. It's not perfect, but no legal system is.

I never said Holland's legal system was bad.

I'm saying what it's dong to Wilders is very bad, and has serious implications throughout the western world.

[Coito ergo sum]

He has no interest in "criticism" in islam he just wants to use it as a card to gain votes.

But that is the point. You don't prosecute idiots. You ridicule them. We really shouldn't ban ideas, no matter how stupid.

If it was a legitimate idea then yes i'd agree with you when its just bigotry and racism dressed up then it should be banned

Bigotry? You mean, like "religious bigotry" such as calling religion or belief in god a "delusion?" Or, suggesting that the Jewish and Christian God is a homocidal maniac, or that religious folks are idiots?


Also, I did not say the "don't prosecute idiots" line. That was someone else. I agree with it. I just didn't write it.

I didn't write these things. I would like you to be more careful with your quotes.

Go look at your post of "Cunt » Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:38 pm" above. Something is messed up there in your post, and I quoted your post when I responded. Maybe if you fix that one it will carry through.

I think it is interesting that leo-rcc was defending this assault on personal dignity based on a law, then when you mentioned the higher law (convention on human rights) he...

I'm not going to bother elaborating. This discussion is heading nowhere. If you feel that strongly about it, our government is situated in The Binnenhof in The Hague, send them a letter (not until next year though as our cabinet is now decommissioned).

Why would he bother, now that neither of the legs he was standing on are of any use?

Agreed.

[JOZeldenrust]

It seems I lost half of my post as I replied but I'm not going to bother elaborating. This discussion is heading nowhere. If you feel that strongly about it, our government is situated in The Binnenhof in The Hague, send them a letter (not until next year though as our cabinet is now decommissioned).

From where I am sitting, the justice system in the Netherlands is surprisingly liberal given the Lutheran and Calvinistic influences. It's not perfect, but no legal system is.

I never said Holland's legal system was bad.

I'm saying what it's dong to Wilders is very bad, and has serious implications throughout the western world.

The only reason Wilders is being prosecuted is because there's a substantial part of Dutch society that wants his claims investigated in a court of law. Not prosecuting would give the impression that criticism of Islam is given a special pass. Initially, the public prosecutor refused to prosecute Wilders, now they're seeking conviction without punishment, and there's not a snowballs chance in hell that he'll get convicted.

Meanwhile, Wilders claims that Islam is inherently evil, opposed to western (Judeo-Christian) democratic values, immutable, retarded, barbaric. He claims that young Moroccan men are overrepresented in crime numbers because they're muslims, even though there's no overrepresentation when you correct for social and economic factors.

Of course Wilders should be free to say whatever he wants. As far as I'm concerned he could even incite hatred or violence. Fact is, he's a wingnut demagogue and a xenophobe.

[Coito ergo sum]

It seems I lost half of my post as I replied but I'm not going to bother elaborating. This discussion is heading nowhere. If you feel that strongly about it, our government is situated in The Binnenhof in The Hague, send them a letter (not until next year though as our cabinet is now decommissioned).

From where I am sitting, the justice system in the Netherlands is surprisingly liberal given the Lutheran and Calvinistic influences. It's not perfect, but no legal system is.

I never said Holland's legal system was bad.

I'm saying what it's dong to Wilders is very bad, and has serious implications throughout the western world.

The only reason Wilders is being prosecuted is because there's a substantial part of Dutch society that wants his claims investigated in a court of law. Not prosecuting would give the impression that criticism of Islam is given a special pass. Initially, the public prosecutor refused to prosecute Wilders, now they're seeking conviction without punishment, and there's not a snowballs chance in hell that he'll get convicted.

I think prosecuting him is giving Islam special status, plus I think they are prosecuting him mostly for their opinion of him in general.

Meanwhile, Wilders claims that Islam is inherently evil,

A valid opinion.

opposed to western (Judeo-Christian) democratic values, immutable, retarded, barbaric.

It's just a belief - an opinion. Whether one thinks Islam is inherently evil or that Judaism or Christianity are retarded and barbaric is up to the individual. Maybe all of the above are true.

He claims that young Moroccan men are overrepresented in crime numbers because they're muslims,

Maybe they are over-represented in crime numbers, and maybe it is because they are Muslims. Although, I would want to see the exact quote you're referring to. Quite often when speaking of Wilders people are pissed off about what they "think he meant" rather than what he "actually said."

even though there's no overrepresentation when you correct for social and economic factors.

Says you. Just because one source has one set of numbers and "corrects" for whatever factors doesn't mean anyone has to believe the numbers. There is no "Ministry of Correct Information," and the last decision-maker I would trust with deciding what is the truth and what is a legal opinion to hold is the State.

Of course Wilders should be free to say whatever he wants.

We agree there.

As far as I'm concerned he could even incite hatred or violence.

We agree there, too.

Fact is, he's a wingnut demagogue and a xenophobe.

And it should be your right and freedom to voice that opinion. However, the concern is that if a wingnut demagogue and a xenophobe can be prosecuted for holding and expressing negative opinions about Muslims, then it is not too far of a stretch that you and I might be prosecuted for expressing our opinion that a man or group of people are wingnut demagogues and xenophobes. After all, such language may well "incite hatred" against the individual or group being called wingnut demagogues and xenophobes.

[Coito ergo sum]

Cunt, this discussion has already taken more time then I think that Wilders is worth.

The thing is, it's not about what Wilders is worth. It's about a person, any person, being prosecuted for an offensive or hateful political and/or religious and/or racial opinion.

If you are so gung ho about making this a human rights issue,

It is by its very nature a human rights issue. It involves the freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Those are human rights recognized just about everywhere.

[Coito ergo sum]

AMSTERDAM — Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders went on trial Monday for alleged hate speech, even as his popularity and influence in the Netherlands are near all time highs.
Prosecutors say Wilders incited hatred against Muslims with remarks comparing Islam to Naziism and by calling for a ban on the Quran.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... =D9IKO7U80

We should all, IMHO, be very concerned about this prosecution. If he is convicted, it will be an especially black day in Western history. On trial is the right to blaspheme against religion, and to blaspheme against orthodoxy. On trial is the right to hold and express political and religious views.

The fact that there even is a trial is a pathetic display, antithetical to the notions of Enlightenment liberties. It is an assault upon the sanctity of the human mind, and the security of each individual to express political and religious views no matter how repugnant they may be to the majority, or to any other individual or group.

No matter what one's opinion of Geert Wilders, solidarity should be with him in this fight. If we do not permit freedom of expression for those we hate, then we lose it for ourselves. It is only the unpopular speech that needs protection.

In solidarity with Geert Wilders I say: Fuck you, Muslims complaining about blasphemy. Fuck you multiculturalist douchebags trying to shut people up for being "offensive." Suck it all you authoritarian jackasses who think it's the government's business to control what people think and say.

[Coito ergo sum]

Mohamed Rabbae, chairman of the moderate National Moroccan Council, said outside the court that he hoped judges would force Wilders to issue an apology for his past remarks.
"We are not for getting Mr. Wilders in prison. We are for correcting him," he said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... =D9IKO7U80


Mohamed Rabbae can go fuck himself. "Correcting" him? Fuck you and your stupid religion!

[JOZeldenrust]

AMSTERDAM — Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders went on trial Monday for alleged hate speech, even as his popularity and influence in the Netherlands are near all time highs.
Prosecutors say Wilders incited hatred against Muslims with remarks comparing Islam to Naziism and by calling for a ban on the Quran.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... =D9IKO7U80

We should all, IMHO, be very concerned about this prosecution. If he is convicted, it will be an especially black day in Western history. On trial is the right to blaspheme against religion, and to blaspheme against orthodoxy. On trial is the right to hold and express political and religious views.

The fact that there even is a trial is a pathetic display, antithetical to the notions of Enlightenment liberties. It is an assault upon the sanctity of the human mind, and the security of each individual to express political and religious views no matter how repugnant they may be to the majority, or to any other individual or group.

No matter what one's opinion of Geert Wilders, solidarity should be with him in this fight. If we do not permit freedom of expression for those we hate, then we lose it for ourselves. It is only the unpopular speech that needs protection.

In solidarity with Geert Wilders I say: Fuck you, Muslims complaining about blasphemy. Fuck you multiculturalist douchebags trying to shut people up for being "offensive." Suck it all you authoritarian jackasses who think it's the government's business to control what people think and say.

Wilders isn't just a critic of Islam. He holds the position that anyone who wants to partake in Dutch society should embrace "our cultures Judeo-Christian heritage", wants to keep imigrants out of the country based on their religious background, wants to ban the Quran, wants to tax wearing a headscarf, wants to deport Dutch citizens who commit multiple crimes if they are of non-Western descent etc.

The man is a racist bigot. His criticism of Islam might be (partially) valid, everything else about him stinks.

[Coito ergo sum]

AMSTERDAM — Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders went on trial Monday for alleged hate speech, even as his popularity and influence in the Netherlands are near all time highs.
Prosecutors say Wilders incited hatred against Muslims with remarks comparing Islam to Naziism and by calling for a ban on the Quran.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... =D9IKO7U80

We should all, IMHO, be very concerned about this prosecution. If he is convicted, it will be an especially black day in Western history. On trial is the right to blaspheme against religion, and to blaspheme against orthodoxy. On trial is the right to hold and express political and religious views.

The fact that there even is a trial is a pathetic display, antithetical to the notions of Enlightenment liberties. It is an assault upon the sanctity of the human mind, and the security of each individual to express political and religious views no matter how repugnant they may be to the majority, or to any other individual or group.

No matter what one's opinion of Geert Wilders, solidarity should be with him in this fight. If we do not permit freedom of expression for those we hate, then we lose it for ourselves. It is only the unpopular speech that needs protection.

In solidarity with Geert Wilders I say: Fuck you, Muslims complaining about blasphemy. Fuck you multiculturalist douchebags trying to shut people up for being "offensive." Suck it all you authoritarian jackasses who think it's the government's business to control what people think and say.

Wilders isn't just a critic of Islam. He holds the position that anyone who wants to partake in Dutch society should embrace "our cultures Judeo-Christian heritage", wants to keep imigrants out of the country based on their religious background, wants to ban the Quran, wants to tax wearing a headscarf, wants to deport Dutch citizens who commit multiple crimes if they are of non-Western descent etc.

The man is a racist bigot. His criticism of Islam might be (partially) valid, everything else about him stinks.

He "holds the position" = belief

Whether everything about him stinks should be settled in a free society through free and open discourse.

Muslims often advocate Sha'ria law, and everything about a lot Muslim leaders and Imams stinks too. Since Sha'ria Law is racist and misogynistic, and homophobic, shall we prosecute those who advocate it?

If Wilders is prosecuted, so should some Imams in Holland as well. So should publishers and sellers of the Qu'ran in Holland. The only reason they are not is because the prohibition against racists and discriminatory speech is one-sided. Muslims are allowed to advocate discriminatory laws and misogynistic laws, and homophobic laws. Wilders, apparently, may not enjoy that same liberty.

Like I said, whatever one thinks of Wilders or his ideas, it is not for the government or a court to decide truth or legal speech. They are not competent to make that decision. It is not for them to tell individuals what they can and can't hear or say.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy

If all mankind minus one were of one 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. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.....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. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart (Fmr. US Supreme Court Justice)

The dirtiest book of all is the expurgated book. ~Walt Whitman

[Coito ergo sum]

[
Wilders isn't just a critic of Islam. He holds the position that anyone who wants to partake in Dutch society should embrace "our cultures Judeo-Christian heritage",

So what? That's what he wants. I want Muslims to leave their Saudi Arabian culture behind them too when they come to the West. It's perfectly legitimate to advocate a particular way of life. That's what the Muslims do when they come here advocating Sha'ria law, and like Imam Rauf in the US - advocating that the US become "Sha'ria compliant." Imams in Holland are advocating the same thing.

wants to keep imigrants out of the country based on their religious background,

Good. There is no right to immigrate from a particular country to Holland. If Holland wants to ban ALL immigration, they could. If they want to only allow immigration from EU countries, they could. If they don't want Muslims in, they can do that. Whether it's the right thing to do is up to the political process which requires free and open debate. If Wilders is wrong, then he can be shown to be wrong on the floor of parliament, in the newspapers, and in the court of public opinion.

wants to ban the Quran,

Other books are banned in Holland. Why not the Qu'ran? And, why, if Mein Kampf is banned in Holland, should Wilders not be able to advocate the banning of the Qu'ran? Before Mein Kampf was banned, someone advocated its banning. So, would you have a country where some people get to advocate the banning of books, but not other people?

And, from what I've heard from Wilders, he doesn't advocate the banning of the Qu'ran in a vacuum. He stated his position on Qu'ran banning in response to the issue of hate speech being banned in general. He says, and I agree, that the Qu'ran IS hate speech under Dutch law's definitions. And, it is. His point is that if book X, like Mein Kampf, is banned, so should the Qu'ran. And, so it should. Shouldn't it? I've read the Qu'ran - it is very hateful.

wants to tax wearing a headscarf,

So what? France banned it altogether. Lots of politicians favor certain dress codes and the banning of face coverings, masks, and other items. Wilders can't advocate taxing something? That warrants prosecution? Risking him being in jail for a year?

wants to deport Dutch citizens who commit multiple crimes if they are of non-Western descent etc.

So what? Every country has rules about their naturalized citizens that commit crimes. It's not "dutch citizens of foreign descent" that he advocates deporting - it's dutch citizens of foreign BIRTH. No other country is going to take someone born in Holland as deported, unless the person is able to secure a visa under normal channels. Countries only accept deported nationals.

In the US and Canada, if you commit certain crimes as a naturalized citizen, you can lose citizenship. So.....Wilders can't advocate that naturalized citizens who are habitual criminals be kicked out? Even if it's not the way to go, it is certainly not something so horrid that he should be prosecuted for advocating it.

The man is a racist bigot.

Says you and so fucking what?

Freedom of thought means FREEDOM of thought, not freedom to think only GOOD thoughts. Ditto, expression.

His criticism of Islam might be (partially) valid, everything else about him stinks.

And, in a free society what you consider to be valid is not the end of the debate. Many folks may think many arguments you make are not valid, or only partially valid, and they may think that your views stink or that everything else about you stinks. But, they and you are equal citizens, and as such, you are not arbiters of the truth as a matter of law. Neither of you has the right to an alliance with the State to shut up your opposition.

[JOZeldenrust]

[
Wilders isn't just a critic of Islam. He holds the position that anyone who wants to partake in Dutch society should embrace "our cultures Judeo-Christian heritage",

So what? That's what he wants. I want Muslims to leave their Saudi Arabian culture behind them too when they come to the West. It's perfectly legitimate to advocate a particular way of life. That's what the Muslims do when they come here advocating Sha'ria law, and like Imam Rauf in the US - advocating that the US become "Sha'ria compliant." Imams in Holland are advocating the same thing.

I'm fine with demanding an immigrant, or any inhabitant of a country for that matter, to abide by certain standards of conduct, but that's already the case. What I object to is demanding they conform to a certain way of thinking. I object to muslims who do so, and I object to Wilders who does so.

wants to keep imigrants out of the country based on their religious background,

Good. There is no right to immigrate from a particular country to Holland. If Holland wants to ban ALL immigration, they could. If they want to only allow immigration from EU countries, they could. If they don't want Muslims in, they can do that. Whether it's the right thing to do is up to the political process which requires free and open debate. If Wilders is wrong, then he can be shown to be wrong on the floor of parliament, in the newspapers, and in the court of public opinion.

A persons beliefs should not be a grounds for admittance or rejection.

wants to ban the Quran,

Other books are banned in Holland. Why not the Qu'ran? And, why, if Mein Kampf is banned in Holland, should Wilders not be able to advocate the banning of the Qu'ran? Before Mein Kampf was banned, someone advocated its banning. So, would you have a country where some people get to advocate the banning of books, but not other people?

Only one other book is banned in Holland; Hitlers Mein Kampf. And I think that banning that is a mistake too.

And, from what I've heard from Wilders, he doesn't advocate the banning of the Qu'ran in a vacuum. He stated his position on Qu'ran banning in response to the issue of hate speech being banned in general. He says, and I agree, that the Qu'ran IS hate speech under Dutch law's definitions. And, it is. His point is that if book X, like Mein Kampf, is banned, so should the Qu'ran. And, so it should. Shouldn't it? I've read the Qu'ran - it is very hateful.

Dutch anti-hate speech laws are retarded. They are also never enforced.

wants to tax wearing a headscarf,

So what? France banned it altogether. Lots of politicians favor certain dress codes and the banning of face coverings, masks, and other items. Wilders can't advocate taxing something? That warrants prosecution? Risking him being in jail for a year?

France didn't ban the headscarf, they banned the burqa. And I think that's a mistake too. Forcing a woman to wear anything she doesn't want to wear should be banned. Taking away their right to wear what they want, be it a headscarf or anything else, isn't protecting womens rights.

wants to deport Dutch citizens who commit multiple crimes if they are of non-Western descent etc.

So what? Every country has rules about their naturalized citizens that commit crimes. It's not "dutch citizens of foreign descent" that he advocates deporting - it's dutch citizens of foreign BIRTH. No other country is going to take someone born in Holland as deported, unless the person is able to secure a visa under normal channels. Countries only accept deported nationals.

Second generation Dutch Moroccans have a dual nationality. They don't have a choice in this. They are exactly the group Wilders is targeting with this proposed policy. And what justification is their to treat natural citizens any differently from naturalized citizens?

In the US and Canada, if you commit certain crimes as a naturalized citizen, you can lose citizenship. So.....Wilders can't advocate that naturalized citizens who are habitual criminals be kicked out? Even if it's not the way to go, it is certainly not something so horrid that he should be prosecuted for advocating it.

And everything the US and Canada do is moral? What the fuck happened to "all men are created equal"?

The man is a racist bigot.

Says you and so fucking what?

Freedom of thought means FREEDOM of thought, not freedom to think only GOOD thoughts. Ditto, expression.

His criticism of Islam might be (partially) valid, everything else about him stinks.

And, in a free society what you consider to be valid is not the end of the debate. Many folks may think many arguments you make are not valid, or only partially valid, and they may think that your views stink or that everything else about you stinks. But, they and you are equal citizens, and as such, you are not arbiters of the truth as a matter of law. Neither of you has the right to an alliance with the State to shut up your opposition.

Indeed, no group or individual should have the right to shut other people up. Sadly, under Dutch anti-hate speech law, there are some things people can't legaly say. I think that law should change, but for the moment it's still there. There's also a law that if enough people demand prosecution, the state has to attempt to prosecute. That's what happened here. Those people that demanded Wilders be prosecuted had that right. Now the judicial system will settle once and for all if Wilders crossed the line. The outcome is pretty much a foregone conclusion: he'll be found innocent, and that'll be the end of it.

I'm not saying Wilders should be shut up. I'm saying he's both wrong and despicable.