Racist Dutch MP Geert Wilders to be Prosecuted for Fitna

[The_Prince]

A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an "attack on the freedom of expression".

"Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said.

Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the "Islamisation" of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned.

"Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?" he added.

'Incitement'

The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders's "one-sided generalisations" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians
"The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement.

"The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.

The court's ruling reverses a decision last year by the public prosecutor's office, which said Mr Wilders's comments had been made outside parliament as a contribution to the debate on Islam in Dutch society and that no criminal offence had been committed.

Prosecutors said on Wednesday that they could not appeal against the judgement and would open an investigation immediately.

Gerard Spong, a prominent lawyer who pushed for Mr Wilders's prosecution, welcomed the court's decision.

"This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism," he told reporters.

'Fascist book'

In March 2008, Mr Wilders posted a film about the Koran on the internet, prompting angry protests across the Muslim World.

The opening scenes of Fitna - a Koranic term sometimes translated as "strife" - show a copy of the holy book followed by footage of the bomb attacks on the US on 11 September 2001, London in July 2005 and Madrid in March 2004.

Pictures appearing to show Muslim demonstrators holding up placards saying "God bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to hell" also feature.

The film ends with the statement: "Stop Islamisation. Defend our freedom."

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said at the time that the film wrongly equated Islam with violence and served "no purpose other than to offend".

A year earlier, Mr Wilders described the Koran as a "fascist book" and called for it to be banned in "the same way we ban Mein Kampf", in a letter published in the De Volkskrant newspaper.

Mr Wilders has had police protection since Dutch director Theo Van Gogh was killed by a radical Islamist in 2004.

Correspondents say his Freedom Party (PVV), which has nine MPs in the lower house of parliament, has built its popularity largely by tapping into the fear and resentment of Muslim immigrants.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7842344.stm

Now before all the none-Muslim start making their comment saying oh this against freedom of speech bla bla bla, let me pull the rug from under your legs to leave you with not one real argument. this Geert Wilders has called for the banning of the Quran, essentially the banning of religion, which is against freedom, and freedom of speech, so plz dont cry now saying freedom of speech is being attacked, where were all of you complaining and shouting for freedom when wilders was calling for the end of freedoms for Muslims? oh yeahhhhhh, u were NO WHERE. if wilders was in power, he would be doing the same thing to Muslims.

so with that said, none Muslims have no case at all, if they complain about this then they just show their hypocrisy and double standards, ohhhhhhhhh the irony is so funny, we are so sad that freedom of speech is being taken away from a man who wants to take away the freedom of speech of others! Wilders is getting his own medicine, i hope he likes its taste.

[Woodrow]

It is
nice to see good news every now and then.

[Civilsed]

:sl:

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up :thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:D:D:D:D:D

[Qingu]

Now before all the none-Muslim start making their comment saying oh this against freedom of speech bla bla bla, let me pull the rug from under your legs to leave you with not one real argument. this Geert Wilders has called for the banning of the Quran, essentially the banning of religion, which is against freedom, and freedom of speech, so plz dont cry now saying freedom of speech is being attacked, where were all of you complaining and shouting for freedom when wilders was calling for the end of freedoms for Muslims? oh yeahhhhhh, u were NO WHERE. if wilders was in power, he would be doing the same thing to Muslims.

so with that said, none Muslims have no case at all, if they complain about this then they just show their hypocrisy and double standards, ohhhhhhhhh the irony is so funny, we are so sad that freedom of speech is being taken away from a man who wants to take away the freedom of speech of others! Wilders is getting his own medicine, i hope he likes its taste.

Prince, you seem to think that supporting freedom of speech means supporting everything that is said under that freedom. That is absurd.

I support freedom of speech.

That means I think people should be able to freely say what they want—even if they say things like "Muslims should be banned from practicing religion." Or things like "Blasphemers should be killed under Shariah Law," and other things I think are absurd and dangerous.

In fact, the entire point of freedom of speech is that you are supposed to (legally) tolerate things that enrage you, opinions you think are stupid or dangerous—including calls, like Wilder's, to end Muslims' freedom of speech. I think Wilder's opinion is stupid and dangerous. But calls to end freedom of speech are protected under freedom of speech, and so he should not be prosecuted.

Where is the hypocrisy, Prince?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[The_Prince]

Prince, you seem to think that supporting freedom of speech means supporting everything that is said under that freedom. That is absurd.

I support freedom of speech.

That means I think people should be able to freely say what they want—even if they say things like "Muslims should be banned from practicing religion." Or things like "Blasphemers should be killed under Shariah Law," and other things I think are absurd and dangerous.

In fact, the entire point of freedom of speech is that you are supposed to (legally) tolerate things that enrage you, opinions you think are stupid or dangerous—including calls, like Wilder's, to end Muslims' freedom of speech. I think Wilder's opinion is stupid and dangerous. But calls to end freedom of speech are protected under freedom of speech, and so he should not be prosecuted.

Where is the hypocrisy, Prince?

so its ok to say go kill :) thats freedom of speech, or i can go call ppl ******s, kikes, sand ******s, etc etc etc, theres a difference between free speech, and speech that incites against the law, when you call for things that are against the law and consistution thats not simple free speech.

now heres another thing, if i said this about Jews, that theyre book is a facist book, the Jews are dangerous, must be banned from our country, etc etc i would be stopped at once, and heyyyyyyyyyyyy that sounds familiar doesnt it? someone else used to do that and then what happened? but no when its MUSLIMS oh its just freedom of speech, deal with it! give us a break.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Good. Eat that right-winged racist bigots.

[KAding]

Disturbing news. A black day for our liberal democratic system.

[AntiKarateKid]

Disturbing news. A black day for our liberal democratic system.

It is a bright day for common sense freedom.

While you guys defend every verbally rabid maniac out there under the guise of "freedom of speech," some people are smart enoggh to know that everything has a limit.

Bye bye blind speech and hello common sense!


I can get kicked out of public universities for swearing and making slanderous accusations at people but that is all bright and dandy but when a person insults billions and spreads lies and people stand up and say "enough is enough!", rabid liberals jump to arms trying to protect the last thing protecting them from a good bloody nose when spewing such rubbish.




Hey Kading, go chant the N-word during black history month out on the streets and we'll see how far your extremist interpretation of freedom of speech takes you! :statisfie

[Amadeus85]

It doesnt really matter if Wilders achieves political succes or not. The sign of his victory would be if the mainstream political parties take the core of his views, which can happen, as Holland is a small country with millions of immigrants.

[Intisar]

Disturbing news. A black day for our liberal democratic system.

How? :? :rollseyes

Someone is persecuted for equating Mein Kamp to the Quran and that's disturbing news?

[Trumble]

Disturbing news. A black day for our liberal democratic system.

Depends what he is actually being prosecuted for, and the nature of his comments. If he is accused of inciting religious and/or racial hatred which may explicitly or implicitly lead to violence and social disorder the prosecution is correct. If all his comments have done is offend some people, it is indeed an unjustified attack on freedom of expression. Not to mention giving Wilders a far bigger audience than he would ever have had otherwise.

[Ar-RaYYan]

i hate the way the western world use the term 'freedom of speech' to justify everything :exhausted
there is nothing wrong with freedom of speech but it should have its limitation like everything else

[Keltoi]

There is a difference between expressing a point of view and making hate propoganda. I can understand the charge on that basis, but hopefully the outcome of this prosecution won't damage the right of citizens to express a point of view that might offend others.

[al Amaanah]

WONDERFUL news.

:w:

[Güven]

indeed VERY GOOD news ! what a bright day for those who seek REAL freedom!

That man is a mess and half of the dutch politicians too!

freedom of speech , dont make me laugh...

[The_Prince]

freedom of speech aint under attack, idiots who go around comparing a religous text by the 2nd most largest religion in europe as nazism and facism, and etc etc is a jackass who does not deserve to have a forum and shud be arrested at once, thats not even causing offence, this goes even beyond the line of annoying someone.

whether you guys like it or not, we Muslims are not your punching bad to excersize your bigoted views on, you think were here to just sit around and allow you to liken us to nazism, and call our core beliefs backward and barbaric on a non stop basis???? its actually amazing as to how much patience we Muslims are showing, not only do they kill us, but they want to destroy what we stand and believe for, you guys better start keeping these barbarians in check because the Muslims wont be quiet and patient forever, say freedom of speech all u want, the reality will change one day, and not in your favor. on a scale of 1-10 Muslim anger is at 7 right now, you dont want it at 10, because then you guys will know what the definition of carnage really means, and this aint a threat, its a FACT, stop pushing a sleeping giant.

[Woodrow]

Freedoms end when they infringe upon or interfere with another persons rights. Freedoms need to be used with responsibility and caution.

A man might have the freedom to marry who he chooses, but he has no right to choose my wife, his freedom of choice ends there.

[Qingu]

freedom of speech aint under attack, idiots who go around comparing a religous text by the 2nd most largest religion in europe as nazism and facism, and etc etc is a jackass who does not deserve to have a forum and shud be arrested at once, thats not even causing offence, this goes even beyond the line of annoying someone.

whether you guys like it or not, we Muslims are not your punching bad to excersize your bigoted views on, you think were here to just sit around and allow you to liken us to nazism, and call our core beliefs backward and barbaric on a non stop basis???? its actually amazing as to how much patience we Muslims are showing, not only do they kill us, but they want to destroy what we stand and believe for, you guys better start keeping these barbarians in check because the Muslims wont be quiet and patient forever, say freedom of speech all u want, the reality will change one day, and not in your favor. on a scale of 1-10 Muslim anger is at 7 right now, you dont want it at 10, because then you guys will know what the definition of carnage really means, and this aint a threat, its a FACT, stop pushing a sleeping giant.

Wow Prince. Sounds like you're threatening hatred and violence. By your logic, you should be prosecuted.

Out of curiosity, Prince, do you think Neo-Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan should be persecuted for expressing their views? I don't.

[Qingu]

Freedoms end when they infringe upon or interfere with another persons rights. Freedoms need to be used with responsibility and caution.

What right is Wilders' movie infringing on, exactly?

He is stating his view about Muslims. Sort of like how the Quran states its view about unbelievers. Frankly, I think the Quran's view of unbelievers is a lot more hateful and violence-inciting than Wilder's movie. Wilder isn't saying that Muslims deserve to be tortured forever in hell and have boiling oil poured into their mouths.

Woodrow, you have a hypocritical double-standard. This is exactly why liberals like me have so little sympathy for Muslim groups "offended" by people like Wilders. You don't care about any broader conception of justice or minority rights. You're just out for your own.

[Woodrow]

Woodrow, you have a hypocritical double-standard. This is exactly why liberals like me have so little sympathy for Muslim groups "offended" by people like Wilders. You don't care about any broader conception of justice or minority rights. You're just out for your own.

Kind of liberal for a white, former Connecticut Yankee to come to the acceptance of Islam. I doubt if you would be liberal enough to do that.

wilder's movie was written for the purpose of promoting hatred, not for educational purposes. Fortunately the dutch government saw it for what it is.

You ever notice that no matter how often I have disagreed with you I still stand my ground to defend your right to speak as you do. That may be a hypocritical double standard, but I think it is quite liberal for a Muslim administrator on a Muslim forum to allow a non-Muslim to post as he pleases with no need to fear reprisals from any of the forum staff.

[Qingu]

Kind of liberal for a white, former Connecticut Yankee to come to the acceptance of Islam. I doubt if you would be liberal enough to do that.

???...Does not compute. :)

wilder's movie was written for the purpose of promoting hatred, not for educational purposes. Fortunately the dutch government saw it for what it is.

First of all, I have not seen the movie. Have you? I'd like to know exactly where and how it promotes hatred. And if it does promote hatred, I'd like to know why you think this is worse than any of the many lines from the Quran ridiculing unbelievers and threatening them with hellfire and torture. I'd like to know what your standard of free speech is where the one is censored but the other is not—where and how do you draw the line? (I'd like to hear your answer to the question I posed Prince: do you think the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi groups should be prosecuted like Wilders is being prosecuted? Should Mein Kampf and other "offensive" books like it be banned?)

Secondly, you draw a false choice between "educational purposes" and "promoting hatred." Obviously, many movies do neither. Wilders' movie may simply be a harsh criticism of Islam and the Quran—and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. After all, the Quran itself is quite harsh in its criticisms.

You ever notice that no matter how often I have disagreed with you I still stand my ground to defend your right to speak as you do. That may be a hypocritical double standard, but I think it is quite liberal for a Muslim administrator on a Muslim forum to allow a non-Muslim to post as he pleases with no need to fear reprisals from any of the forum staff.

Woodrow, I don't think you're a hypocrite because you let me speak freely on here. In fact I admire you quite a bit for that, and for your general even-handedness and empathy. It is usually very refreshing for me to talk to you on here.

With all due respect, though, I do think it's awfully hypocritical to applaud the censorship of Wilders' movie in terms of "infringing upon your rights" in its offensive comparison of the Quran to Mein Kampf. By the same logic, Muslims who compare Zionists to Nazis are "infringing upon Jews' rights"—but I have yet to see you shoot down any posters on here who do so.

If you want to say "This movie should be censored because it insults Islam and I believe insulting Islam should be prohibited!"—then that's fine, just say it. But don't cloak your objection in the rubric of liberal, rights-based morality when it's clear that you do not support this morality when applied to Muslim speech and criticism of rival ideologies. It's a double-standard, and it's hypocrisy.

[Qingu]

Also, just to be clear: I know a lot of European countries ban books like Mein Kampf. I think that's absurd. I think that's a show of cowardice. When you ban books from rival, repugnant ideologies, you are saying in effect that your own ideology is so weak that it can be threatened by a mere book advocating another. As someone who would have gotten killed in the Holocaust (my family is Jewish, though as an atheist I don't identify as such), I am not afraid of Mein Kampf. I'm not even afraid of people who take it seriously. My worldview can tolerate Nazis because I am confident that my worldview is right.

I think Muslims who want to silence and prosecute critics like Wilder are also cowards. It shows that how utterly threatened they are by critics, no matter how insane and irrational those critics are. Islam was once known for its tolerance of rival ideologies, compared to Christendom.

I think you can always tell how weak and afraid a religion, government, or philosophy is based on how hard it tries to censor its critics.

[nocturnal]

Also, just to be clear: I know a lot of European countries ban books like Mein Kampf. I think that's absurd. I think that's a show of cowardice. When you ban books from rival, repugnant ideologies, you are saying in effect that your own ideology is so weak that it can be threatened by a mere book advocating another. As someone who would have gotten killed in the Holocaust (my family is Jewish, though as an atheist I don't identify as such), I am not afraid of Mein Kampf. I'm not even afraid of people who take it seriously. My worldview can tolerate Nazis because I am confident that my worldview is right.

I think Muslims who want to silence and prosecute critics like Wilder are also cowards. It shows that how utterly threatened they are by critics, no matter how insane and irrational those critics are. Islam was once known for its tolerance of rival ideologies, compared to Christendom.

I think you can always tell how weak and afraid a religion, government, or philosophy is based on how hard it tries to censor its critics.

It's an interesting discussion. I agree to a certain extent with you Qingu, but providing a rostrum in an epoch of such frayed and fraught feelings between the West and the Muslim world, to a bigoted individual like Wilders can cause massive problems for communal cohesion. I think the Dutch government has recognised that fact. But at the same time, i also do see your point about not having to resort to defending your beliefs by seeking to ban outright, an opposing view.

It certainly is not easy to attain a level of equipoise in a contemporary, democracy in which liberal, progressive and democratic values of freedeom of speech are upheld and to balance that with making provisions for people of all political persuasions. I guess the question is, what do you do when a legitimate political position, turns into overtly manifested hate towards a prominent world faith? that's the vivid distinction that we should be aiming to perhaps delineate in the wider international debate with respect to this issue.

And if i could also include the Israeli/Palestinian issue into this post, i think any reasonable person of sound mind will agree that it is wrong to denigrate Judaism, because of the pernicious policies and effects of Zionism. The two cannot be conflated. I personally belive that just as Islam has been hijacked by Al Qa'ida, so has Judaism been hijacked by Zionism.

With regard to figures such as Wilders, i think people should have the right to prosecute him for inciting hatred, because that too is a key precept of democracy. If i feel that i have been grossly offended by the actions and words of such a person, as much as it is his right to speak them, i too have the right, accorded to me by law, to prosecute him under laws of blasphemy should i feel his words encourage and foment a hatred which could lead to worse things in the future.

[Trumble]

freedom of speech aint under attack, idiots who go around comparing a religous text by the 2nd most largest religion in europe as nazism and facism, and etc etc is a jackass who does not deserve to have a forum and shud be arrested at once, thats not even causing offence, this goes even beyond the line of annoying someone.

whether you guys like it or not, we Muslims are not your punching bad to excersize your bigoted views on, you think were here to just sit around and allow you to liken us to nazism, and call our core beliefs backward and barbaric on a non stop basis???? its actually amazing as to how much patience we Muslims are showing, not only do they kill us, but they want to destroy what we stand and believe for, you guys better start keeping these barbarians in check because the Muslims wont be quiet and patient forever, say freedom of speech all u want, the reality will change one day, and not in your favor. on a scale of 1-10 Muslim anger is at 7 right now, you dont want it at 10, because then you guys will know what the definition of carnage really means, and this aint a threat, its a FACT, stop pushing a sleeping giant.

I'm afraid Qingu is quite right. If anybody should be prosecuted for inciting hatred it is you.

Freedom of expression will not be surrendered to puerile threats, from muslims or anybody else. It is a right too hard won. Words from a few idiots can't hurt you.

Freedoms end when they infringe upon or interfere with another persons rights. Freedoms need to be used with responsibility and caution.

Avoiding 'mere offence' is not such a right.

[aamirsaab]

You know, I find it strange how this guy is claiming freedom of speech whenever he makes bigoted comments. If he said that stuff to my face, I would sue him for slander. And I would win the court case.

TBH freedom of speech has always and always will be limited (if I go into harlem and shout the n word in an angry manner, I won't be surprised to find a fist hurtling towards my body. Similarly, if I went into the middle of a KKK meeting and shouted: bring it crackers, I would probably not make it out alive [and if I did I wouldn't be shouting KKK hate freedom of speech!]). A recent case of this is the Jonathon Ross and Russel Brand Sachs scandel. That was an example of freedom of speech by Geert wilder's standards yet the public hated them both for it and they were suspended.

Which leads me to believe that freedom of speech is just a bandwaggon - if society says no, then you don't say it. If society says yes, then you must!

Perhaps people should remember that old adage my parents used to tell me: If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it. But I guess when the almighty and absolute freedom of speech is at stake, people stop being nice and polite.

I don't know - maybe I'm just a mumbling-backwards-cave-dwelling towel-head who is late again for his weekly camel race (1st place gets 300 dinars!).

[nocturnal]

I guess it's no cliche then to say that with freedom, comes responsibility. We have to be scruplulous in the manner in which we apply it in our everyday lives. I suppose its fine when you use freedom of speech to debate in a civilised and considered manner, while still retaining a certain measure of respect for whatever it is you are debating or disputing.

I think another additional factor here is the perception of the people. There's many prominent individuals out there who share a similar ideology as Wilders, but the manner in which they raise their concerns would be pointedly different because they would do so in a manner which does not belie any flagrant hostility or calls for extermination or ethnic cleansing of the proponents of an opposing view.

Like i said, Qingu does totally have a valid point, but i think his arguement can prove to be a bit cumbersome and unweildy in practice like Aamirsaab pointed out as well. You cannot have one vast, globally generic concept of freedom of speech which will be lucidly clear to every single person. Differences of opinion will always result invariably in differences in interpretation of what freedom of speech means.

[Muezzin]

Disturbing news. A black day for our liberal democratic system.

The MP was charged for inciting hatred and discrimination, contrary to the law. If he is successfully prosecuted, I do not see how it would be a black day for the liberal democratic system.

Out of curiosity, Prince, do you think Neo-Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan should be persecuted for expressing their views? I don't.

Then I'm thankful the judiciary thinks differently.

[Woodrow]

???...Does not compute. :)

I guess for that to make sense you would have had to know I have only been Muslim for a short period of time.

First of all, I have not seen the movie. Have you? I'd like to know exactly where and how it promotes hatred.

No I have not seen the movie, only read some excerpts from the hearings. The portion I see it promoting hatred is in the use of fear tactics depicting Muslims as being violent and identical to Nazis.

And if it does promote hatred, I'd like to know why you think this is worse than any of the many lines from the Quran ridiculing unbelievers and threatening them with hellfire and torture.

I challenge you to find one line in the Qur'an that ridicules unbelievers. Quite the opposite, you will find many ayyats that instill the protection of the rights of unbelievers and how we are obligated to treat them fairly, honor all contracts and not cheat them in any business transactions.

There are no threats of hellfire, but there are warnings that only one path will lead to Jannah and all other paths lead to hellfire. That is like telling you there are 2 buses at the Bus station one goes to New York and one goes to Paducah. If you want to go to New York, you better get on the New York bus otherwise you are going to spend your vacation in Paducah.

I'd like to know what your standard of free speech is where the one is censored but the other is not—where and how do you draw the line?

The censorship is not because the movie critiques Islam, but that it depicts Muslims as being evil and are out to destroy non-believers. It promotes fear and hatred of Muslims.

(I'd like to hear your answer to the question I posed Prince: do you think the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi groups should be prosecuted like Wilders is being prosecuted? Should Mein Kampf and other "offensive" books like it be banned?)

No I do not think books like "Mein Kampf" should be banned. There is even a legitimate use for them in sociological studies or can even be of use to those interested in learning of the Nazi era and how it developed. I can even justify people reading it out of curiosity or even to learn how to become a Nazi.

Yes I think hate groups such as the KKK and neo-Nazis should be prosecuted when their actions lead to physical or emotional harm to others. I do not know how familiar you are with either. but, I lived in Louisiana when the KKK was very active, segregation was the law and civil rights extended to whites only. I knew quite a few KKK members and sadly even agreed with some of their beliefs. I also grew up in the WW2 era and remember well when the Nazi concentration camps were found and met survivors who migrated to my home town and listened to their stories of life under Nazism. It is slander and insulting to equate Muslims with Nazis. In Holland people know the facts of life under the Nazis, I see it as especially outrages there for a person to equate any group with Nazis unless the intent is to cause hatred.

Secondly, you draw a false choice between "educational purposes" and "promoting hatred." Obviously, many movies do neither. Wilders' movie may simply be a harsh criticism of Islam and the Quran—and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. After all, the Quran itself is quite harsh in its criticisms.

Harsh criticism is acceptable. Promotion of hatred in the name of criticism is not.

Woodrow, I don't think you're a hypocrite because you let me speak freely on here. In fact I admire you quite a bit for that, and for your general even-handedness and empathy. It is usually very refreshing for me to talk to you on here.

Thank You

With all due respect, though, I do think it's awfully hypocritical to applaud the censorship of Wilders' movie in terms of "infringing upon your rights" in its offensive comparison of the Quran to Mein Kampf. By the same logic, Muslims who compare Zionists to Nazis are "infringing upon Jews' rights"—but I have yet to see you shoot down any posters on here who do so.

You will not see it. I keep my actions against other members private between myself and the member as does the rest of the staff.

If you want to say "This movie should be censored because it insults Islam and I believe insulting Islam should be prohibited!"—then that's fine, just say it.

True, that is one reason. But I am also opposed to any movie that insults any religion. I would be and have been just as adamant over things that insult Judaism and Christianity. However, this movie goes beyond insults, it promotes hatred.

But don't cloak your objection in the rubric of liberal, rights-based morality when it's clear that you do not support this morality when applied to Muslim speech and criticism of rival ideologies. It's a double-standard, and it's hypocrisy.

Very many posts written by my Brothers and sisters in Islam never see the light of day or quickly vanish if they are written with obvious hatred or ridicule. Yes, we do promote Islam, this is an Islamic forum. But, we do not permit the bashing of other member's beliefs or any ridiculing of other members. There is a very thin line that separates heated debate and blatant disrespect. To be honest we do not always see when the line has been crossed unless a member points it out to us.

[crayon]

Wilders is just an attention wh**e with bad hair.
He should just be ignored like the whiny child he is.

[Bittersteel]

I think Muslims who want to silence and prosecute critics like Wilder are also cowards.

is the Dutch govt a Muslim one?Muslims DID NOT react at all or at least not at the scale of that of the cartoon drawings.anyways I don't care.as long as the majority of the Dutch people don't have the same views as this nutcase(most probably they do).

[Muezzin]

as long as the majority of the Dutch people don't have the same views as this nutcase(most probably they do).

I agree with all of your post except the part in bold - that's not a fair assumption to make.

[Keltoi]

There is a way to criticize an ideology or religion without resorting to hate speech. If one truly and honestly wishes to express criticism it can be done without the use of demonizing imagery and slanderous, dehumanizing rhetoric. I have watched the movie, and I understand very well why this was called hate speech. I support freedom of speech as much as the next guy, but not at the expense of another's right to live free from hate.

[crayon]

There is a way to criticize an ideology or religion without resorting to hate speech. If one truly and honestly wishes to express criticism it can be done without the use of demonizing imagery and slanderous, dehumanizing rhetoric. I have watched the movie, and I understand very well why this was called hate speech. I support freedom of speech as much as the next guy, but not at the expense of another's right to live free from hate.

Exactly.
Thank you.:):thumbs_up

[The_Prince]

Wow Prince. Sounds like you're threatening hatred and violence. By your logic, you should be prosecuted.

Out of curiosity, Prince, do you think Neo-Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan should be persecuted for expressing their views? I don't.

haha im threatning violence and hatred? no buddy, im talking a fact that Muslims wont remain silent and pushy forever, this is human nature incase you didnt know, when you keep kicking someone, eventually they will snap and kick back, and you want that to happen. you are killing Muslims, occupying our land, stealing our resources, and then you go even worst to try and destroy our values, there is a break point eventually, and it is comming, as i said Muslim anger is at 7 now, you keep pushing for a fight, you will get one, and lets all be honest your secular media is asking for a fight with their continous provacation, and it will come one day.

[The_Prince]

lol you gotta love it, these kaffirs commenting on this thread are saying I should be prosecuted! but a guy who says Islam is Nazism, facism, Muslims are a threat, ban Mosques, ban Muslims, no no thats ok freedom of speech! But when I make a simple post, stating a fact, that when you continue to provoke 1.5 billion people into a fight, and you get that fight, it will be very bad, then I'm preaching hate! lol lol, im stating a simple fact, maybe you kaffirs dont know how to logically think, or maybe your just a bunch of hypocrites :).

Either way, as usual, these kaffirs expose themselves for what they are, make no mistake folks, these few kaffirs who come posting on this forum are not in a minority, many many many think like them, and are like them.

[Muezzin]

It's a good thing there are also many who feel like this:

There is a way to criticize an ideology or religion without resorting to hate speech. If one truly and honestly wishes to express criticism it can be done without the use of demonizing imagery and slanderous, dehumanizing rhetoric. I have watched the movie, and I understand very well why this was called hate speech. I support freedom of speech as much as the next guy, but not at the expense of another's right to live free from hate.

[Whatsthepoint]

The problem with hate speech is that its hard to define, what some people perceive as stating their opinion, other will see as a blatant insult, what some believe is expressing their religious beliefs, the other guy will see it as a violation of its own rights, inciting hatred etc.
That's why its hard to set reasonable hate speech laws, because in every way certain groups will find them restirictive and others will see them as to mild and there's also the issue of bias towards one's self, as Quinqu pointed it out.
That's why I am opposed to hate speech legislation, except when incting to violence is involved.

[Trumble]

It's a good thing there are also many who feel like this:

Pffftt.. the ones The_Prince is criticizing think like that as well, not that he'll ever grasp that.

How can one guy even the Dutch seem to think is an idiot 'provoke' 1.5 billion people into doing anything?

[Qingu]

haha im threatning violence and hatred? no buddy, im talking a fact that Muslims wont remain silent and pushy forever, this is human nature incase you didnt know, when you keep kicking someone, eventually they will snap and kick back, and you want that to happen. you are killing Muslims, occupying our land, stealing our resources, and then you go even worst to try and destroy our values, there is a break point eventually, and it is comming, as i said Muslim anger is at 7 now, you keep pushing for a fight, you will get one, and lets all be honest your secular media is asking for a fight with their continous provacation, and it will come one day.

Again, Prince, I am struck by how much you sound like this Wilders fellow. I can imagine him saying something similar:

haha im threatning violence and hatred? no buddy, im talking a fact that Westerners wont remain silent and pushy forever, this is human nature incase you didnt know, when you keep kicking someone, eventually they will snap and kick back, and you want that to happen. you are killing Westerners, flying planes into our buildings, immigrating to our countries, and then you go even worst to try and destroy our secular values, there is a break point eventually, and it is comming, as i said Westerner anger is at 7 now, you keep pushing for a fight, you will get one, and lets all be honest your al-Jazeera media is asking for a fight with their continous provacation, and it will come one day.

Either way, as usual, these Muslims expose themselves for what they are, make no mistake folks, these few radical Muslims who come into the Netherlands are not in a minority, many many many think like them, and are like them.

And that's the whole point, Prince. Censorship is a blunt instrument. You want to censor Wilders because what he says offends you. Someone could just as easily make that same argument for censoring you.

This is why I don't think anyone should be censored, unless what they say puts people in immediate physical danger.

Edit: One more thing, Prince. I don't mind being called an "infidel"; in fact I think it's kind of cute. But I do mind when you lump me in with pro-Israel neoconservatives. As others have pointed out, this is not fair. And it's just as annoying as lumping all Muslims together with al-Qaida.

(Woodrow, I'll respond to your comments later tonight—apologies for the delay)

[Qingu]

It's an interesting discussion. I agree to a certain extent with you Qingu, but providing a rostrum in an epoch of such frayed and fraught feelings between the West and the Muslim world, to a bigoted individual like Wilders can cause massive problems for communal cohesion. I think the Dutch government has recognised that fact. But at the same time, i also do see your point about not having to resort to defending your beliefs by seeking to ban outright, an opposing view.

It certainly is not easy to attain a level of equipoise in a contemporary, democracy in which liberal, progressive and democratic values of freedeom of speech are upheld and to balance that with making provisions for people of all political persuasions. I guess the question is, what do you do when a legitimate political position, turns into overtly manifested hate towards a prominent world faith? that's the vivid distinction that we should be aiming to perhaps delineate in the wider international debate with respect to this issue.

And if i could also include the Israeli/Palestinian issue into this post, i think any reasonable person of sound mind will agree that it is wrong to denigrate Judaism, because of the pernicious policies and effects of Zionism. The two cannot be conflated. I personally belive that just as Islam has been hijacked by Al Qa'ida, so has Judaism been hijacked by Zionism.

With regard to figures such as Wilders, i think people should have the right to prosecute him for inciting hatred, because that too is a key precept of democracy. If i feel that i have been grossly offended by the actions and words of such a person, as much as it is his right to speak them, i too have the right, accorded to me by law, to prosecute him under laws of blasphemy should i feel his words encourage and foment a hatred which could lead to worse things in the future.

I definitely see your points, nocturnal.

Basically, I feel like our disagreement boils down to the following: What exactly constitutes "dangerous speech"?

We both agree that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater should be prohibited. This is obviously speech that can physically endanger people.

We also both agree that Muslims who call unbelievers "infidels" and threaten them with burning in hell should not be prohibited from doing so. You and I both see such speech as "protected," even if it offends people.

Where we disagree is where to draw the line between these two poles. You think speech like Wilders should be banned because it might incite anti-Muslim violence. You, like many European governments, would rather err on the side of safety and social order than freedom of expression. I, like many Americans, would rather err on the side of freedom expression—because censorship is a blunt instrument. If you use blasphemy laws to censor people like Wilders, you are opening the door for future governments to use laws to censor Muslims, or atheists, or any other ideology certain people might find offensive or dangerous. And I think that's more dangerous than the speech itself.

A fantasy writer, Neil Gaiman, put this argument a lot better than me. It's a rather long post, but I encourage you to read it:

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/1...ky-speech.html

[Qingu]

I guess for that to make sense you would have had to know I have only been Muslim for a short period of time.

Wow, and you're already an administrator of the only English-speaking Islamic forum! Impressive. :)

No I have not seen the movie, only read some excerpts from the hearings. The portion I see it promoting hatred is in the use of fear tactics depicting Muslims as being violent and identical to Nazis.

Okay. Let's compare this to random verses from the Quran.

I challenge you to find one line in the Qur'an that ridicules unbelievers. Quite the opposite, you will find many ayyats that instill the protection of the rights of unbelievers and how we are obligated to treat them fairly, honor all contracts and not cheat them in any business transactions.

The reason I waited to respond is because I wanted to get home and open my Quran up to random pages. This is what I'm doing now, and here is what I found. Again, I am literally opening my Dawood translation up randomly.

God revealed his will to the angels, saying ... "I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!" That was because they defied God and his apostle. He that defies God and his apostle shall be sternly punished by God. We said to them "Taste this. The scourge of the Fire awaits the unbelievers." (8:12)

They declare: "There is no other life but this; nor shall we ever be raised to life again." If you could see them when they are set before their Lord! He will say: "Is this not real?" "Yes, by our Lord," they will reply, and He will say: "Taste then our scourge, the reward of your unbelief!" (6:30)

The unbelievers say to the faithful: "Follow us, and we will bear the burden of your sins." But they will bear none of their sins. They are surely lying. They shall bear their own burdens, and other burdens besides their burdens. (29:13)

He that does not heed the warning of the Merciful shall have a devil for his companion. (43:36)

But those that disbelieve and deny our revelations shall be the inmates of the Fire, and shall abide therein forever: an evil fate. (64:10)

I could go on, Woodrow, and I have before. I once made a bet with a friend that he could open up the Quran to any random spread of pages and find at least one threat of hellfire of disparagement of unbelief, and I won.

There are no threats of hellfire, but there are warnings that only one path will lead to Jannah and all other paths lead to hellfire. That is like telling you there are 2 buses at the Bus station one goes to New York and one goes to Paducah. If you want to go to New York, you better get on the New York bus otherwise you are going to spend your vacation in Paducah.

You have an interesting definition of "threat," then. Because when I read in a book that if I don't do what it says, I will go burn in a Fire, that sounds functionally equivalent to a threat.

And the point of all this is not to argue about how threatening and hateful the Quran is. The point is that it would be easy enough for some poor Christian or atheist to get "offended" by these verses, claim they are "hateful" and "inspiring violence against kufr," and then use the legal system to prosecute Muslims and the Quran. It is the exact same argument that Muslims are using to censor Wilders—and that is why you should not support this argument!

The censorship is not because the movie critiques Islam, but that it depicts Muslims as being evil and are out to destroy non-believers. It promotes fear and hatred of Muslims.

Again, the same could be said for countless verses of the Quran. It's a slippery slope.

No I do not think books like "Mein Kampf" should be banned. There is even a legitimate use for them in sociological studies or can even be of use to those interested in learning of the Nazi era and how it developed. I can even justify people reading it out of curiosity or even to learn how to become a Nazi.

Yes I think hate groups such as the KKK and neo-Nazis should be prosecuted when their actions lead to physical or emotional harm to others.

These statements seem to contradict each other, though. Why should KKK and Neo-Nazi speech be banned while Mein Kampf should be allowed? Isn't Mein Kampf the source of Neo-Nazi speech?

Now, as I said to Nocturnal, I agree with you that speech should be banned if it causes immediate physical harm. But I stop there. I don't believe speech should be banned if it causes "emotional" harm because almost any speech can cause emotional harm to someone. I'm sure plenty of people are "emotionally harmed" by those random Quran verses I quoted—but you obviously don't think the Quran should be banned!

As I argued to Nocturnal, we both agree that there are certain limits to free speech. But I think it's important for both of us to draw that line as far as possible towards the "free" end of the spectrum. Because if governments are able to censor speech just because it offends you, what is going to stop them from censoring your speech when it offends other people?

I do not know how familiar you are with either. but, I lived in Louisiana when the KKK was very active, segregation was the law and civil rights extended to whites only. I knew quite a few KKK members and sadly even agreed with some of their beliefs. I also grew up in the WW2 era and remember well when the Nazi concentration camps were found and met survivors who migrated to my home town and listened to their stories of life under Nazism.

My grandparents grew up during this period; some of their family died in the Holocaust. But as I said before, I am not so frightened by Nazi ideology that I would try to censor anyone who promotes it.

It is slander and insulting to equate Muslims with Nazis. In Holland people know the facts of life under the Nazis, I see it as especially outrages there for a person to equate any group with Nazis unless the intent is to cause hatred.

I don't think it's slander at all. It's a stupid analogy, probably a harmful analogy—but stupid analogies are not slander.

Harsh criticism is acceptable. Promotion of hatred in the name of criticism is not.

What counts as "promoting hatred"? How do you legally define "promoting hatred"? And what would prevent someone from claiming the Quran promotes hatred and censoring it by that exact same criteria?

You will not see it. I keep my actions against other members private between myself and the member as does the rest of the staff.

Fair enough. I concede this particular point.

[The_Prince]

oh yes qingu, im so like mr wilders, which is why theres a Christian living in my house? how stupid do you look now? (sorry to admins!) and when i say house, i dont mean country, I MEAN PHYSICAL REAL HOUSE, ROOF, ROOMS, WALLS, ETC ETC. yes, the evil mr prince who is so evillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll terrorist has a Christian living in his house.

i dont think the bible shud be banned, i dont think churches shud be banned, im not sick of christians worshiping jesus in muslim countries, i dont view them as a threat, foreign ppl are more than free to visit and inhabit Muslim countries, no problemo. :), ah yes but i sound like geert wilders,,,,,,,

[Woodrow]

.

I guess for that to make sense you would have had to know I have only been Muslim for a short period of time.

Wow, and you're already an administrator of the only English-speaking Islamic forum! Impressive. :)

Age has it's privileges. Being older than some rocks has it's advantages.

No I have not seen the movie, only read some excerpts from the hearings. The portion I see it promoting hatred is in the use of fear tactics depicting Muslims as being violent and identical to Nazis.

Okay. Let's compare this to random verses from the Quran.

I challenge you to find one line in the Qur'an that ridicules unbelievers. Quite the opposite, you will find many ayyats that instill the protection of the rights of unbelievers and how we are obligated to treat them fairly, honor all contracts and not cheat them in any business transactions.

The reason I waited to respond is because I wanted to get home and open my Quran up to random pages. This is what I'm doing now, and here is what I found. Again, I am literally opening my Dawood translation up randomly.

God revealed his will to the angels, saying ... "I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!" That was because they defied God and his apostle. He that defies God and his apostle shall be sternly punished by God. We said to them "Taste this. The scourge of the Fire awaits the unbelievers." (8:12)

That is taken from al-anfaal (The spoils of war. The surah deals with warfare and proper conduct. war is never nice, but sometimes necessary and at those times there needs to be guidelines for combatants before during and after. Let us look at 8:12 in context with some of the ayyats preceding and following it.



يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الأَنفَالِ قُلِ الأَنفَالُ لِلّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ فَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَأَصْلِحُواْ ذَاتَ بِيْنِكُمْ وَأَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ {1}
[Yusufali 8:1] They ask thee concerning (things taken as) spoils of war. Say: "(such) spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Messenger: So fear Allah, and keep straight the relations between yourselves: Obey Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe."
إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الَّذِينَ إِذَا ذُكِرَ اللّهُ وَجِلَتْ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَإِذَا تُلِيَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتُهُ زَادَتْهُمْ إِيمَانًا وَعَلَى رَبِّهِمْ يَتَوَكَّلُونَ {2}
[Yusufali 8:2] For, Believers are those who, when Allah is mentioned, feel a tremor in their hearts, and when they hear His signs rehearsed, find their faith strengthened, and put (all) their trust in their Lord;
الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلاَةَ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ {3}
[Yusufali 8:3] Who establish regular prayers and spend (freely) out of the gifts We have given them for sustenance:
أُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ حَقًّا لَّهُمْ دَرَجَاتٌ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَمَغْفِرَةٌ وَرِزْقٌ كَرِيمٌ {4}
[Yusufali 8:4] Such in truth are the believers: they have grades of dignity with their Lord, and forgiveness, and generous sustenance:
كَمَا أَخْرَجَكَ رَبُّكَ مِن بَيْتِكَ بِالْحَقِّ وَإِنَّ فَرِيقاً مِّنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ لَكَارِهُونَ {5}
[Yusufali 8:5] Just as thy Lord ordered thee out of thy house in truth, even though a party among the Believers disliked it,
يُجَادِلُونَكَ فِي الْحَقِّ بَعْدَ مَا تَبَيَّنَ كَأَنَّمَا يُسَاقُونَ إِلَى الْمَوْتِ وَهُمْ يَنظُرُونَ {6}
[Yusufali 8:6] Disputing with thee concerning the truth after it was made manifest, as if they were being driven to death and they (actually) saw it.
وَإِذْ يَعِدُكُمُ اللّهُ إِحْدَى الطَّائِفَتِيْنِ أَنَّهَا لَكُمْ وَتَوَدُّونَ أَنَّ غَيْرَ ذَاتِ الشَّوْكَةِ تَكُونُ لَكُمْ وَيُرِيدُ اللّهُ أَن يُحِقَّ الحَقَّ بِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَيَقْطَعَ دَابِرَ الْكَافِرِينَ {7}
[Yusufali 8:7] Behold! Allah promised you one of the two (enemy) parties, that it should be yours: Ye wished that the one unarmed should be yours, but Allah willed to justify the Truth according to His words and to cut off the roots of the Unbelievers;-
لِيُحِقَّ الْحَقَّ وَيُبْطِلَ الْبَاطِلَ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُجْرِمُونَ {8}
[Yusufali 8:8] That He might justify Truth and prove Falsehood false, distasteful though it be to those in guilt.
إِذْ تَسْتَغِيثُونَ رَبَّكُمْ فَاسْتَجَابَ لَكُمْ أَنِّي مُمِدُّكُم بِأَلْفٍ مِّنَ الْمَلآئِكَةِ مُرْدِفِينَ {9}
[Yusufali 8:9] Remember ye implored the assistance of your Lord, and He answered you: "I will assist you with a thousand of the angels, ranks on ranks."
وَمَا جَعَلَهُ اللّهُ إِلاَّ بُشْرَى وَلِتَطْمَئِنَّ بِهِ قُلُوبُكُمْ وَمَا النَّصْرُ إِلاَّ مِنْ عِندِ اللّهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ {10}
[Yusufali 8:10] Allah made it but a message of hope, and an assurance to your hearts: (in any case) there is no help except from Allah: and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
إِذْ يُغَشِّيكُمُ النُّعَاسَ أَمَنَةً مِّنْهُ وَيُنَزِّلُ عَلَيْكُم مِّن السَّمَاء مَاء لِّيُطَهِّرَكُم بِهِ وَيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمْ رِجْزَ الشَّيْطَانِ وَلِيَرْبِطَ عَلَى قُلُوبِكُمْ وَيُثَبِّتَ بِهِ الأَقْدَامَ {11}
[Yusufali 8:11] Remember He covered you with a sort of drowsiness, to give you calm as from Himself, and he caused rain to descend on you from heaven, to clean you therewith, to remove from you the stain of Satan, to strengthen your hearts, and to plant your feet firmly therewith.
إِذْ يُوحِي رَبُّكَ إِلَى الْمَلآئِكَةِ أَنِّي مَعَكُمْ فَثَبِّتُواْ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ سَأُلْقِي فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ الرَّعْبَ فَاضْرِبُواْ فَوْقَ الأَعْنَاقِ وَاضْرِبُواْ مِنْهُمْ كُلَّ بَنَانٍ {12}
[Yusufali 8:12] Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ شَآقُّواْ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ {13}
[Yusufali 8:13] This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.
ذَلِكُمْ فَذُوقُوهُ وَأَنَّ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَذَابَ النَّارِ {14}
[Yusufali 8:14] Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire."
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ زَحْفاً فَلاَ تُوَلُّوهُمُ الأَدْبَارَ {15}
[Yusufali 8:15] O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.
وَمَن يُوَلِّهِمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ دُبُرَهُ إِلاَّ مُتَحَرِّفاً لِّقِتَالٍ أَوْ مُتَحَيِّزاً إِلَى فِئَةٍ فَقَدْ بَاء بِغَضَبٍ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَمَأْوَاهُ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ {16}
[Yusufali 8:16] If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!
فَلَمْ تَقْتُلُوهُمْ وَلَـكِنَّ اللّهَ قَتَلَهُمْ وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ وَلَـكِنَّ اللّهَ رَمَى وَلِيُبْلِيَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْهُ بَلاء حَسَناً إِنَّ اللّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ {17}
[Yusufali 8:17] It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).
ذَلِكُمْ وَأَنَّ اللّهَ مُوهِنُ كَيْدِ الْكَافِرِينَ {18}
[Yusufali 8:18] That, and also because Allah is He Who makes feeble the plans and stratagem of the Unbelievers.
إِن تَسْتَفْتِحُواْ فَقَدْ جَاءكُمُ الْفَتْحُ وَإِن تَنتَهُواْ فَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَإِن تَعُودُواْ نَعُدْ وَلَن تُغْنِيَ عَنكُمْ فِئَتُكُمْ شَيْئًا وَلَوْ كَثُرَتْ وَأَنَّ اللّهَ مَعَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ {19}
[Yusufali 8:19] (O Unbelievers!) if ye prayed for victory and judgment, now hath the judgment come to you: if ye desist (from wrong), it will be best for you: if ye return (to the attack), so shall We. Not the least good will your forces be to you even if they were multiplied: for verily Allah is with those who believe!
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ أَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلاَ تَوَلَّوْا عَنْهُ وَأَنتُمْ تَسْمَعُونَ {20}
[Yusufali 8:20] O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak).




I can see this is going to be a long process addressing each part. It is getting late and I need to be getting on the road. I will pause here and return the day after tomorrow or so.

[nocturnal]

When i say that such productions as Wilders's movie might incite violence, i actually also do believe that conversely, if such a Muslim production was released, and alot do get released in the Muslim world which i think should be banned, then that too would be just as much a credible threat to society, and will inflame latent stereotypes that are just waiting to explode.

I agree for sure, that European governments do tend to err on the side of caution, and i agree with that stance, but i also don't think that we here in Europe, do so in a manner that compromises freedom of speech and democratic norms at large. It's a pragmatic, and open-minded approach that seeks to incorporate into mainstream society, all elements of cultural diversity. Here in the UK, we have xenophobic parties like the BNP (British National Party), who are openly nationalist, anti-Islamic and are still accorded full rights in the political process.

The Dutch government recognised rightly, that what Wilders is seeking to do, is to tap into a very deeply ingrained, albeit falsely based, fear and apprehension of Islam, and is projecting it as an imminent threat to civilization as we know it. To produce and disseminate dvds of the twin towers, and then juxtapose those images with verses from the Qur'an taken out of context and with images of Taliban fighters, etc, is a shocking abuse of the privilege of freedom of speech.

If i produced similar dvds of the bombing of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, wherer innocent people die everyday because of indiscriminate killing by coalition and NATO forces, and intersperse those with images of people enjoying themselves in major Western capitals while the blood of Muslims spills, with the deliberate intention of fostering antipathy towards the west and non-Muslims, surely this is unacceptable too. And to be frank, it is just these kind of propaganda tools that have facilitated the burgeoning of the ranks of militant organisations, who know what will radicalise the youth.

But again, in your unswerving loyalty to freedom of speech, you would permit such activities without giving adequate consideration to what the repurcussions can be. Wilders's movie is out there on the net right now, being circulated between people an households, convincing gullible people that this faith called Islam is out to destroy them.

Given what this might and indeed has lead to in many regions of the world, i do believe that it is better to err on the side of caution and pragmatism. And it can be done without fundamentally affecting the rights and freedom of people. Perhaps if the US was more flexible in its approach to this issue, and did not seek to impose its values of "freedom" forcefully, but rather, by sticking to it's own nostrum of open debate, we may not be at the catastrophic juncture we are at today in world history.

[Qingu]

I can see this is going to be a long process addressing each part. It is getting late and I need to be getting on the road. I will pause here and return the day after tomorrow or so.

Woodrow, please don't bother, for your own sake. Not that it wouldn't be a fruitful discussion. But the only reason I brought up these verses was to show that someone could get offended from reading them. I didn't mean to put you on the defensive about the content and context of the verses.

But would you agree with my point—that if the law can be used to censor people like Wilder, it could just as easily be used to censor verses like these (because someone could claim they are offensive and/or hateful)? That is the danger I see with censorship. I only brought up the Quran verses because I think you ought to be afraid of it as well.

[Woodrow]

Woodrow, please don't bother, for your own sake. Not that it wouldn't be a fruitful discussion. But the only reason I brought up these verses was to show that someone could get offended from reading them. I didn't mean to put you on the defensive about the content and context of the verses.

But would you agree with my point—that if the law can be used to censor people like Wilder, it could just as easily be used to censor verses like these (because someone could claim they are offensive and/or hateful)? That is the danger I see with censorship. I only brought up the Quran verses because I think you ought to be afraid of it as well.

I will agree that freedom of speech is a great gift and a necessity.

The problem I have is trying to determine at what point does Freedom of Speech become abuse of speech. Is censorship permissible when free speech

Violates national security

Endangers a person's life or property

Enrages people to a point of irrational behavior

Causes ill feelings among the populace

Encourages bigotry or prejudice

[KAding]

How? :? :rollseyes

Someone is persecuted for equating Mein Kamp to the Quran and that's disturbing news?

Yes it is. Be aware that these same "hate speech" laws will and are being used to prosecute Muslims for certain of their beliefs, such as on homosexuality or even how Islam views unbelievers. It is not as the Qu'ran is very kind about non-Muslims, such as calling us "evil" (Qur'an 7:177) and the "worst of creatures" (Quran 98:6). Nevermind the fact we're so bad we need to have our skin burned off for eternity. Show me one quote where Wilders calls Muslim evil or apes or anything like that.

If you want to be consistent and ban "hate speech" you'd have to scrap parts of many holy books, including the Qu'ran. Which is not something I want to do, yet at the same time I don't want religions to be more protected than any other ideas. Therefore these "hate speech" laws must go.

Nevermind the fact that I don't approve of an elected representative being silenced in this way.

[KAding]

Depends what he is actually being prosecuted for, and the nature of his comments. If he is accused of inciting religious and/or racial hatred which may explicitly or implicitly lead to violence and social disorder the prosecution is correct. If all his comments have done is offend some people, it is indeed an unjustified attack on freedom of expression. Not to mention giving Wilders a far bigger audience than he would ever have had otherwise.

I do object to this idea of "implicitly leading to violence". If a member of parliament says that "communism sucks" and the next day a communist gets killed. Surely he is not responsible for that death? Where does one draw the line? Can I say that the Communist Manifesto is like "Mein Kampf"? Or should that also be illegal?

I'll be honest, I think people who are now cheering are cut from the same cloth as Wilders himself, they are both trying to silence and suppress an ideology they don't like and think is a threat to society.

[KAding]

Freedoms end when they infringe upon or interfere with another persons rights. Freedoms need to be used with responsibility and caution.

A man might have the freedom to marry who he chooses, but he has no right to choose my wife, his freedom of choice ends there.

The US has no "hate speech" laws as we have them in Europe. It is fairly unique in that sense. Wilders could never get prosecuted in the US, never. Do you think religious and ethnic relations are much worse in the US?

I want us to go to an American-style free speech protection, where a nutter is just seen as a nutter, rather than given weight and a podium by prosecuting and fining or jailing him. It only feels the cycle of victimhood, which further threatens social stability.

[Amadeus85]

The US has no "hate speech" laws as we have them in Europe. It is fairly unique in that sense. Wilders could never get prosecuted in the US, never. Do you think religious and ethnic relations are much worse in the US?

I want us to go to an American-style free speech protection, where a nutter is just seen as a nutter, rather than given weight and a podium by prosecuting and fining or jailing him. It only feels the cycle of victimhood, which further threatens social stability.

I think that liberal democracy and freedom of speech are just slogans, and the reality forces the stare to change their liberties and democratic visions. The reality is that Holland, country of 18 million people, accepted few millions immigrants from all cultures, and now, in a matter of the civil rest, you Dutches must appease the minorities. The hard reality forced you to do so, as Holland isnt the one nation anymore, and you are afraid that hundred thousands of those or others immigrants will start civil unrest.

[KAding]

I think that liberal democracy and freedom of speech are just slogans, and the reality forces the stare to change their liberties and democratic visions. The reality is that Holland, country of 18 million people, accepted few millions immigrants from all cultures, and now, in a matter of the civil rest, you Dutches must appease the minorities. The hard reality forced you to do so, as Holland isnt the one nation anymore, and you are afraid that hundred thousands of those or others immigrants will start civil unrest.

In all fairness, these "hate speech" laws stem from the 1930's in response to Fascism, so they are not a direct response to immigration.

Nevertheless, there is some merit in your point. Of course there are pressures to 'keep the social peace', to stop any further polarization and whatnot. On the other hand, Holland is not, say, India of course: there has been no rioting or ethnic unrest because of Wilders. In fact, his movie had already largely been forgotten. Also, the prosecution (part of the ministry of justice) originally decided to not press charges against Wilders, because they believed they could not build a case. Only now did a judge (so not the government) order the prosecution to bring forward charges.

[nocturnal]

In all fairness, these "hate speech" laws stem from the 1930's in response to Fascism, so they are not a direct response to immigration.

Nevertheless, there is some merit in your point. Of course there are pressures to 'keep the social peace', to stop any further polarization and whatnot. On the other hand, Holland is not, say, India of course: there has been no rioting or ethnic unrest because of Wilders. In fact, his movie had already largely been forgotten. Also, the prosecution (part of the ministry of justice) originally decided to not press charges against Wilders, because they believed they could not build a case. Only now did a judge (so not the government) order the prosecution to bring forward charges.

There might not be a very significant risk of polarization along religious lines in Holland on this issue, mainly because i think the Dutch are a smart people, they can recognize when an upstart politician is feeding apprehension about Islam in very fraught global political times.

But i think the government is at the same time right too, in it's position, to consider prosecuting him for fear of civil disorder. It probably is right in such cases to be circumspect rather than risk the implosion of civic order in society. I guess the question is, is there a prospect of a character like Wilders propagating a very dangerous notion, of resulting in national strife? i guess it would be different if he were to engage in constructive debates and discussions with religious, secular, nationalist authorities from a cross-section of society about his reservations, without having to resort to disparaging any faith or ideology.

I think that happens in many countries and it doesn't necessarily cause a political firestorm because it's conducted in a decorous and respecful manner.

[nocturnal]

Kading, i really don't believe adopting US style free speech laws here in Europe is a good idea. I think Qingu made that point as well, but you have to consider different factors which the US is adamant are inconsequential with regards to free speech. The demographic profile of a country is one key factor. In the US, i think it's pretty well known that there's certain regions, especially in the South, where such rabid bigotry is highly prevalent.

In Europe, which has commendably, a very liberalized immigration policy, people of all cultures, mentalities, educational backgrounds, etc are forced to urbanize and integrate quite quickly because of a number of constraints.

So, in such cases, you have to weigh the options quite carefully and adopt a considered approach to freedom of speech. Im not suggesting that we need to abrogate it altogether, but it must be exercised responsibly. When you grant a podium to antagonists like Wilders, whether we like to admit it or not, there are always certain elements in society that are susceptible to such misplaced and absurd rhetoric.

Here in England, we have the British National Party (BNP), which is overtly premised on an anti-immigration, and in particular, anti-Islamic doctrine. And as much as they fully engage in the political process, they too are circumscribed within the rigid regulatory framework that defines freedom of speech.

You cannot conflate freedom of speech with blatant, unabashed, incitement. The distinction must be defined. Im not saying that we should severely restrain freedom of speech to appease immigrants, but just to have measures in place to curb the excessive, and dangerous impluses of individuals like Wilders.

[Woodrow]

The US has no "hate speech" laws as we have them in Europe. It is fairly unique in that sense. Wilders could never get prosecuted in the US, never. Do you think religious and ethnic relations are much worse in the US?

California Hate Speech Law Raises Questions 10/1/2004
By Lee Duigon

The next time Arnold calls his political opponents "girlie men," he'd better watch out.

Commentary

When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 22 signed California's sweeping new hate speech law, he may have signed on for more than he bargained for.

The law, SB1234, classifies as "hate speech" any public expression that makes certain favored citizens feel "unwelcome" or "intimidated." Anyone found guilty of using such expressions could face six months in prison and a $25,000 fine


Homosexuals, transsexuals, women, the homeless and assorted minority groups have been given the authority to decide what constitutes "hate speech." It's all based on their emotional response to a speech, a conversation, a book or article, a poster, a radio broadcast--whatever. If it makes them feel uncomfortable, it's hate speech.

Source: http://www.cwfa.org/articles/6458/CFI/family/index.htm.

I want us to go to an American-style free speech protection, where a nutter is just seen as a nutter, rather than given weight and a podium by prosecuting and fining or jailing him. It only feels the cycle of victimhood, which further threatens social stability.

you will need to check with laws in each of the 50 States, each state has different laws as to restrictions governing "Freedom of Speech" While "Freedom of speech" is protected at the federal level, State and Local laws can have different views that can be seen in the laws. some States do "work around" the feds.

[Suomipoika]

I will agree that freedom of speech is a great gift and a necessity.

The problem I have is trying to determine at what point does Freedom of Speech become abuse of speech. Is censorship permissible when free speech

Violates national security

Endangers a person's life or property

Enrages people to a point of irrational behavior

Causes ill feelings among the populace

Encourages bigotry or prejudice

Considering how hostile views there are towards gay people even on these forums, does it endanger a person's life or cause bigotry and prejudice if it is taught among other things that gay people need to be punished in perfect society?

---

There was just a while ago murder in Sweden where two muslim boys aged 15 and 17 killed a 26 year old gay man in Malmö. Both have been described as religious and one of the boys was even the son of a local Imam. I doubt it will take long for quite a number of people to start draw connections between religion and the crime. Id be somewhat worried as a muslim if the excuses to punish Wilders succeeds, whats there to stop these excuses from being used against Islam? Anti-muslim feelings are spreading rather fast in Europe and these are the same societies that are thinking whether Hijab needs to be banned in schools or not. Good luck in trusting those to protect your rights to say and preach what you think and believe about gay people. But considering how few here are ready to protect the right of Wilders to say what he thinks about muslims and Islam, if the worse does happen I guess there is some sort of poetic justice there.

[Qingu]

I will agree that freedom of speech is a great gift and a necessity.

The problem I have is trying to determine at what point does Freedom of Speech become abuse of speech. Is censorship permissible when free speech

Violates national security

Endangers a person's life or property

Enrages people to a point of irrational behavior

Causes ill feelings among the populace

Encourages bigotry or prejudice

But Woodrow, do you agree that these criteria could easily be used to censor the Quran or Muslim speech?

Certainly verses from the Quran have enraged people to the point of irrational behavior—the small number of violent Muslim groups routinely cite the Quran.

Certainly verses from the Quran cause ill feelings among the populace—it mocks and threatens unbelievers, and Sumoipoika rightly points out that it teaches that protected minority groups (gays and unbelievers) should be punished for their behavior.

Certainly the Quran can be seen to encourage bigotry or prejudice—many Muslims are quite prejudiced against the "kufr" citing verses from the Quran to support.

Now, I know that you and most Muslims do not interpret the Quran this way. You would argue that people who are enraged by the Quran or encouraged to violence or prejudice are "misinterpreting" it. But that doesn't matter, because a small number of people do, and the five criteria you listed do not specify that a "correct interpretation is needed."

So do you think the Quran should be censored, Woodrow? It certainly seems like it should, based on your own criteria for censorship. (I don't think it should—which is why I disagree with your criteria for censorship!)

[Keltoi]

Many good points raised on this thread.

[Uthman]

Geert Wilders on Capitol Hill

There is a foreign element threatening America. He believes the Qur'an promotes violence. He creates videos of Muslims committing terrorist acts and hopes mainstream media plays them. He is committed to the clash of civilizations -- Islam vs. the West. Britain, our primary ally, denied him entry, claiming he was a threat to public order. Now he wants to come here.

This foreign element does not speak Arabic. He does not pray five times a day. He does not have a beard. He is not even a Muslim. He is Geert Wilders, a Member of Parliament from a right-wing party in the Netherlands. Why he's so interested in amplifying Osama bin Laden's message that Islam promotes violence and division I don't know.

And why he's being invited to screen his offensive film Fitna in the ornate LBJ room in the U.S. Capitol confuses me too. My friend Keith Ellison, an African-American Congressman from Minnesota and a Muslim, compared it to screening the horribly racist film The Birth of the Nation in the White House.

A lot of people are mad about this. But I don't think this is the time to get mad. I think this is the time to think strategy, and to remember core American values.

First, strategy.

1) If this becomes a conversation about free speech, go ahead and hand Geert Wilders the trophy because he wins. The truth is lots of things qualify under free speech. Dirty jokes. Ugly lies. Stupid rumors. Probably Fitna does too. Let's not get into that cat fight. The issue isn't whether it's legal to screen Fitna in the LBJ room, but whether it's American to do so. Shouldn't the best of America be on display in the Senate? Shouldn't Capitol Hill be amplifying our tradition of pluralism rather than returning to the dark days of racism?

2) If our best idea is to protest Wilders we give him the images he wants -- the heroic free speech crusader surrounded by a group of angry looking (preferably bearded) people shouting him down.

3) We shouldn't try to get Fitna banned. And we shouldn't try to get Wilders deported. We should simply point out that Wilders highlights a choice for America: Should we engage one-fifth of the world's population by punching them in the mouth or by reaching our hand out in friendship? Which approach represents the American way?

As God and America would have it, the American Way happens to be on display the same day that Wilders is screening his film. It's a made-for-TV contrast.

Thursday afternoon, Senator John Kerry will be hosting a hearing on how the US. can best engage Muslim communities around the world. Kerry is concerned about the dismal image of the U.S. among a large swath of humanity, and is convinced that we can improve this by better communicating American values.

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright will be testifying, as will Dalia Mogahed of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, and me. My guess is that all of us will say the first step to improving America's image and foreign relations is simply showing respect towards our fellow human beings, including Muslims. Quite universal, really. Africans want respect. Europeans want respect. Americans want respect. Muslims want respect. Pretty basic.

President Obama understands the American virtue of showing respect to others. In his Inaugural Address he told the Muslim world "we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." His first interview was with Al Arabiya, where he stated "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect."

I'm confident that most Americans, seeing the stark choice between Kerry's hearing and Wilders' film, will choose the best of our nation instead of the worst of someone else's country.

Come to think of it, I'm glad Geert Wilders is on Capitol Hill. I hope he drops by our session. Maybe he'll learn something about American values too.

Source

Eboo Patel is founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core, a Chicago-based international nonprofit that promotes interfaith cooperation. His blog, The Faith Divide, explores what drives faiths apart and what brings them together.

[medlink student]

It is a bright day for common sense freedom.

While you guys defend every verbally rabid maniac out there under the guise of "freedom of speech," some people are smart enoggh to know that everything has a limit.

Bye bye blind speech and hello common sense!


I can get kicked out of public universities for swearing and making slanderous accusations at people but that is all bright and dandy but when a person insults billions and spreads lies and people stand up and say "enough is enough!", rabid liberals jump to arms trying to protect the last thing protecting them from a good bloody nose when spewing such rubbish.

Hey Kading, go chant the N-word during black history month out on the streets and we'll see how far your extremist interpretation of freedom of speech takes you! :statisfie

+1 :) w/salam alikom

[Uthman]

Anti-Islam fim's director goes to Washington