Fitna - Geert Wilders and Islam

[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.

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.

Fair enough. It is your right to object to either one or both of them. That is a different issue from whether Wilders or Muslims should be PROSECUTED for advocating that others conform to a certain way of thinking. This prosecution is, in fact, an effort by the State to require WILDERS to "conform to a certain way of thinking." Right?

Wilders objects to the level of Muslim immigration to Holland. That's his position. You object to Wilders. Muslims object to Wilders and others like him. Great! That's freedom of thought and expression! The State ought not be prosecuting you, Muslims or Wilders for their views, no matter how repugnant each others views may be to the other, or to those in power in the government.

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.

They always are. Someone with Nazi beliefs is rejected from most countries. England disallowed Wilders from entry because of his beliefs, and they also banned radio broadcaster Michael Savage for his beliefs.

But, let's say your right and a person's beliefs should not be grounds for admittance or rejection. I certainly agree with that. However, Wilders is also entitled to his beliefs, and even if he believes that "personal beliefs should be grounds for admittance or rejection" he should not be PROSECUTED for them. Or, should he?

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.

I think that's Wilders' point. You can't have this one-sided thing - Qu'ran, which is hate speech - is allowed, but Mein Kampf is not. Part of this prosecution of Wilders is the "offense" he caused by comparing the Qu'ran to Mein Kampf. He has not said the Mein Kampf is "good" - he has said the Qu'ran is just as abysmal and hateful as Mein Kampf. That's landed him in the dock. And, that is an affront to human dignity, and a crime in and of itself.

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.

Wrong - they are enforced. "Convictions for discriminatory remarks are frequent in the Netherlands, but penalties are rarely greater than a small fine." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... =D9IKO7U80 Convictions are frequent - the penalties are not normally great. But, the mere fact of the law being on the books and enforced the way they are has a "chilling effect" on speech. People avoid saying things that might wind up generating complaints from others.

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.

You keep mixing the substantive issue with the right of a person to take a position on either said. Women should be able to wear anything she wants? Says you. If someone else takes the position that there should be modesty requirements when people go out in public, or that nudity on public transportation should be mandatory, whatever, that's their right to believe and express that. Just because someone else disagrees with it or finds the view offensive doesn't mean they don't get to think, say or write it. I agree with you that women should be able to wear what they want, or nothing at all if that's what they want to do. But, that isn't the end of the debate, nor does a contrary view warrant prosecution.

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?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, and you are right. Once again, you might not like what he's proposing or trying to persuade others of, but YOUR POSITION IS NOT ORTHODOXY! Wilders is allowed to think, write and speak, and should be able to do so without fear of prosecution, even if his belief was that only three toed men with larger than six inch penises, and bald women with double-D breasts should be allowed in Holland at all.

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"?

All countries have requirements for naturalization and all countries reserve the power to take that naturalized citizenship away.

Whether it is moral or immoral what the US or Canada or any other country does is a matter of opinion. I never said everything they do is moral. The point is that Wilders advocating that habitual criminals be deported is not itself a criminal act. It's the exercise of a fundamental right to believe, think, write and speak.

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.

No no. There aren't "certain things" that people are put on notice that they can't legally say. The determination depends on the reaction of the listener. It's a generalized definition involving the tendency of what is said to "incite" a reaction in the listeners or in a particular group. What is said might be thought in some circles to be very benign - like - drawing cartoons of the prophet Mohamet, or calling the Qu'ran a book of scurrilous lies. But, that might incite a violent reaction in Muslims, or encourage others to mock, ridicule or hate Muslims. If a court makes that determination, then drawing cartoons and slandering the Qu'ran, or any blasphemy, might be punshable hate speech. But, there is no way to know for sure in advance what words are prohibited. It might just be "there is no such thing as Allah" and if that is found to bring Muslims under disrepute or encourage people to look down upon Muslims, then it's prohibited.

The danger here is that someone standing on a soapbox warning passersby of the dangers of belief in the false God Allah and his pedophile prophet Mohamet might be committing A CRIME. And, I will introduce as Exhibit A, the prosecution of Richard Dawkins in Turkey for a similar legal violation based on his publication of the God Delusion there. That book is considered hateful and hate speech by many there. That's the danger.

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.

That's not correct. The court made a determination that the prosecutor should move forward, and it was not based on "enough people."

Now the judicial system will settle once and for all if Wilders crossed the line.

What line? There is no "line." The law doesn't draw a line. It spraypaints a mile wide grey area, and there is no way to govern ones behavior accordingly except to not blaspheme against or criticize Islam. It's not hard to make the evaluation here - Wilders is being prosecuted primarily for three things (a) publishing the movie Fitna, (b) insulting and making discriminatory statements about Muslims and Moroccans, and (c) comparing Mein Kampf to the Qu'ran and vice versa. The danger here is that Wilders might actually be convicted, thereby setting a precedent that people can't compare the Qu'ran to Mein Kampf, blaspheme or criticize Islam/Muslims or Moroccans, or publish a movie like Fitna. That is the sad day in Western civilzation that I've been talking about.

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.

He shouldn't even be prosecuted for what he things, says and publishes.

Right or wrong. Many people are wrong. I haven't heard an Imam speak publicly yet that I don't think is wrong and despicable. The Pope, in my opinion, is wrong and despicable. Many people think Obama is wrong and despicable. Many people thought Bush was wrong and despicable. Many people think Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others are wrong and despicable.

The issue here is not whether they are wrong and despicable, the issue is whether they must guard their tongues for fear that irate, rioting and/or hysterical Muslims will cause a court to consider what they say or write to be hate speech.

I read both the God Delusion and God is not Great - both of those books can EASILY be considered hate speech against Muslims and Christians - very easily.

[Trolldor]

He shouldn't even be prosecuted for what he thinks, says and publishes.

Spelling error aside, this pretty much sums it up.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

When even the prosecution calls for a defendant's acquittal and the trial judges have been disqualified for the appearance of bias, maybe it's time to drop the charges. Rather than a retrial, a dismissal would be the best outcome in the case of Geert Wilders, the Dutch lawmaker accused of insulting and inciting hatred against Muslims.

Mr. Wilders is not shy in his criticism of Islam. He has called for banning the Quran, which he has compared to Hitler's "Mein Kampf." Mr. Wilders became famous by making a short film, "Fitna," which juxtaposes Quranic verses calling for jihad with footage of the aftermath of Islamist terror attacks.

As unattractive as his expressed sentiments may be, they also qualify as free speech, which is why Dutch prosecutors initially dismissed complaints against Mr. Wilders. "No doubt his words are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims," prosecutors said in 2008, but "freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society."

That should have been the end if it. However, an appeals court overruled the prosecution last year, forcing Mr. Wilders to stand trial. But the prosecutors still believe that no crime has been committed. "Criticism of a religion is not punishable," prosecutor Birgit van Roessel told the Amsterdam district court 10 days ago.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

[Coito ergo sum]

Geert Wilders Wins a Retrial in Dutch Anti-Islam Case
by Soeren Kern
October 27, 2010 at 5:00 am
Print Send Comment RSS
Share

In a stunning turn of events, a Dutch court has summarily removed the judges presiding over the anti-Islam hate-speech trial of Geert Wilders, after it emerged that one of the judges attempted to influence an expert witness before the trial. A hastily convened judicial panel agreed with Wilders that the judges were biased against him and ordered a retrial, sending the closely-watched case back to square one before an entirely new panel of judges. Wilders, who has called the trial a farce, a disgrace and an assault on free speech, welcomed the decision, saying: "This gives me a new chance with a new fair trial."

Wilders is facing five charges of inciting racial and religious hatred for remarks which include equating Islam with fascism and others calling for a ban on the Koran and a tax on Muslim headscarves. Viewed more broadly, however, the Wilders trial represents a landmark case that likely will establish the limits of free speech in a country where the politically correct elite routinely seek to silence public discussion about the escalating problem of Muslim immigration.

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1626/geert-wil ... ns-retrial

[Cunt]

Very interesting, Coito ergo sum. Thanks for sharing. Do you think a different set of judges will really get him a fair trial? Many here have (for instance) accused him of being racist, without offering any evidence of racism. (remembering that I think 'muslim' or 'islamic' are NOT races, but belief-systems)

[Coito ergo sum]

Very interesting, Coito ergo sum. Thanks for sharing. Do you think a different set of judges will really get him a fair trial? Many here have (for instance) accused him of being racist, without offering any evidence of racism. (remembering that I think 'muslim' or 'islamic' are NOT races, but belief-systems)

...and, racism is not a crime...well, it shouldn't be, anyway.

[Cunt]

There is an enormous tension in the reaction against islamic fundamentalism. On the one hand, there is virtually no aspect of islam that does not deserve a vitriolic and forthright condemnation, and it remains deeply at odds with any rational or enlightenment values.

On the other hand, the face of islam in western societies is also the face of a different race and a different culture, both triggers for right-wing xenophobia. It is perfectly reasonable for societies to have laws to protect people from slanders over race or ethnicity, and Pat Condell sometimes strays perilously close to demonstrating the fear of the other that is at the heart of such racism.

But when ethnicity and fundamentalist religion is conflated into a witches brew of mixed motivation, political correctness will try to prevent the reasonable and trenchant critique that islam is due. Rational atheistic criticism cannot afford to be bedfellows with racism in any form; but how to clearly separate the two?

EDIT: I meant to include this:

I strongly suspect that intelligent islamic fundamentalists (unfortunately not an oxymoron) are fully aware of the tension in western societies described above, and exploit it to the fucking hilt. Every over-the-top reaction redolent of racist overtones is grist to their mill, and they are ably assisted by the gaggle of academic cultural relativists who delight in a masochistic guilt trip over western imperialism of the past.

Has it gotten harder to be critical of Islam, without being vilified for it?

[Tyrannical]

This is the worst case of necromancy I have ever seen

[Cunt]

Maybe, but I miss the threads that used to have us more 'together' on topics. Seems the focus turned hard into US politics, and away from the corrosive religions.

It's still very popular to be harsh to the whitey religion, but very unpopular to be critical of the 'unique hats' religions.

It's enough to make an atheist wail at a wall. Or fly a horse balloon over a protest.

[Sean Hayden]

I can’t relate, it’s never been a problem here.

[macdoc]

It's not a problem in Canada either...seems the right wing wants to overlook peaceable communities.

[Cunt]

And what happened to Geert in the meantime?

Wilders' party won the most votes in the 2023 Dutch elections, but he abandoned his bid to become prime minister due to a lack of support from other parties.
Despite this, Wilders' party is part of the new Dutch government, which includes the VVD, NSC, and BBB parties.

[Sean Hayden]

Aye, it was good fun reminding Europeans they’re just people, warts ‘n all.

[pErvinalia]

People? They're communists!

[Sean Hayden]

—Bastids!

And by people, I mean of course, only dutchy, to dutchy!