IslamicBoard
Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!
View Full Version : Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
Ramadhan
06-23-2011, 05:35 PM
Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
AP – Right-wing politician Geert Wilders and his lawyer Bram Moszkowicz, right, as Wilders gives a brief statement …
By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press – 30 mins ago
AMSTERDAM – The boundaries of free speech in Europe widened Thursday after a Dutch court acquitted politician Geert Wilders of inciting hatred against Muslims when he compared Islam with Naziism and called for a ban on the Quran.
Political analysts say the ruling will likely embolden Wilders and other right-wing populists across the continent to ramp up their anti-immigrant rhetoric, with remarks like Wilders' call for a "head rag tax" now squarely within the boundaries of fair political debate.
The ruling did lay down a clear limit: Calls for violence remain out of bounds. Wilders, who has lived under constant police protection due to death threats since 2004, has never called for violence or endorsed it.
Presiding Judge Marcel van Oosten said some of Wilders' comments — such as saying foreign influences are "breeding" in the Netherlands and threatening to overrun Dutch culture — may be "crude and denigrating." But he said they did not amount to inciting hatred and must be seen in a wider context of a fierce national debate over immigration policy and multiculturalism.
While the United States has enshrined the right to freedom of speech in its Constitution, many European nations introduced hate-speech laws in the wake of World War II, determined to prevent the scapegoating of minorities.
Van Oosten cited one of Wilders' most incendiary statements — "the core of the problem is the fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as laid down in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Quran" — saying that criticism of a religion and its followers is not illegal.
Wilders sat stone-faced while the judge read the ruling, but smiled broadly and shook hands with his lawyers after the verdict. His cheering supporters hugged each other in the public gallery, and Wilders waved to them and grinned as he left the courtroom.
"It's not only an acquittal for me, but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands," he said afterward. "Fortunately you're allowed to discuss Islam in public debate and you're not muzzled."
Political science professor Andre Krouwel of Amsterdam's Free University said Wilders might have been convicted a decade ago, but his ideas have since entered the mainstream. Wilders' Freedom political party is now the country's third-largest in parliament and it is propping up an all-conservative Dutch government that agrees with much of his right-wing platform.
"(The verdict) will further the inward-looking and to some extent xenophobic atmosphere in the Netherlands," predicted professor Leo Lucassen, chair of the Social History department at Leiden University.
The verdict comes a week after the government announced plans to end programs to help integrate immigrants into Dutch society, which "fuels this idea of immigrants who are basically an alien element to the Dutch people," Lucassen told The Associated Press.
The government also is moving to ban Muslim face-covering clothing and to further slash immigration.
Dutch Muslims who pressed for the trial said Wilders' strident anti-Islam tone has already led to increased discrimination and harassment against them, and even attacks on mosques. But Krouwel said seeking remedy in the courts proved an "incredible mistake" because Thursday's decision "legalized populist rhetoric."
"Inside the Netherlands and outside, politicians will now go the same way: to the edge of what is allowed," he told the AP. "Right-wing politicians in other countries will be able to point to the Netherlands and say, 'They can say it there, why not here?'"
Immigration-related issues have dominated politics in the Netherlands and much of Europe over the past decade. Wilders has drawn comparisons with populists such as the late Jorg Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France.
His stances resound deeply with Dutch voters, who have reconsidered their famous tolerance amid fears their culture is being eroded by immigrants who don't share their values. Around six percent of the Dutch population is now Muslim.
Groups that filed the complaints that led to Wilders' prosecution were disappointed with Thursday's ruling.
"What surprises me is that the judge says that what's permissible is determined by the context of the societal debate," said Aydin Akkaya, chairman of Council of Turks in the Netherlands. "In other words, if you just find a 'context' you can go nuts."
Mohamed Rabbae, chairman of the moderate National Moroccan Council, said the case has gone as far as it can in the Dutch courts and the battle will switch to another venue.
"We will go to the U.N. Committee for Human Rights in Geneva. The suit will be directed against the government of the Netherlands for not protecting ethnic minorities against racism and discrimination," he said in an email.
The court found that Wilders was "at the edge of what's legally permissible" when he described the threat Islam allegedly poses to Dutch culture as "a fight going on and we must arm ourselves."
"This has an inciting character," Van Oosten said. But because the lawmaker later added that he has no objections to Muslims who integrate and accept Dutch values, judges ruled he had not crossed the line.
The court paid special attention to Wilders' 2008 film, "Fitna," — Arabic for "ordeal" — a 15-minute series of verses from the Quran juxtaposed against news videos of violence and terrorism. The film prompted angry demonstrations and official protests around the Muslim world.
"Given the film in its whole and the context of societal debate, the court finds that there is no question of inciting hate with the film," the judgment said.
Even prosecutors called for his acquittal and said they are satisfied with the ruling. Despite prosecutors' initial reluctance to prosecute the politician, the court ruled last year that it was in society's interest the case be heard, given public confusion over free speech rules.
___
Associated Press correspondent Arthur Max contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110623/...ds_hate_speech
Reply AP – Right-wing politician Geert Wilders and his lawyer Bram Moszkowicz, right, as Wilders gives a brief statement …
By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press – 30 mins ago
AMSTERDAM – The boundaries of free speech in Europe widened Thursday after a Dutch court acquitted politician Geert Wilders of inciting hatred against Muslims when he compared Islam with Naziism and called for a ban on the Quran.
Political analysts say the ruling will likely embolden Wilders and other right-wing populists across the continent to ramp up their anti-immigrant rhetoric, with remarks like Wilders' call for a "head rag tax" now squarely within the boundaries of fair political debate.
The ruling did lay down a clear limit: Calls for violence remain out of bounds. Wilders, who has lived under constant police protection due to death threats since 2004, has never called for violence or endorsed it.
Presiding Judge Marcel van Oosten said some of Wilders' comments — such as saying foreign influences are "breeding" in the Netherlands and threatening to overrun Dutch culture — may be "crude and denigrating." But he said they did not amount to inciting hatred and must be seen in a wider context of a fierce national debate over immigration policy and multiculturalism.
While the United States has enshrined the right to freedom of speech in its Constitution, many European nations introduced hate-speech laws in the wake of World War II, determined to prevent the scapegoating of minorities.
Van Oosten cited one of Wilders' most incendiary statements — "the core of the problem is the fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as laid down in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Quran" — saying that criticism of a religion and its followers is not illegal.
Wilders sat stone-faced while the judge read the ruling, but smiled broadly and shook hands with his lawyers after the verdict. His cheering supporters hugged each other in the public gallery, and Wilders waved to them and grinned as he left the courtroom.
"It's not only an acquittal for me, but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands," he said afterward. "Fortunately you're allowed to discuss Islam in public debate and you're not muzzled."
Political science professor Andre Krouwel of Amsterdam's Free University said Wilders might have been convicted a decade ago, but his ideas have since entered the mainstream. Wilders' Freedom political party is now the country's third-largest in parliament and it is propping up an all-conservative Dutch government that agrees with much of his right-wing platform.
"(The verdict) will further the inward-looking and to some extent xenophobic atmosphere in the Netherlands," predicted professor Leo Lucassen, chair of the Social History department at Leiden University.
The verdict comes a week after the government announced plans to end programs to help integrate immigrants into Dutch society, which "fuels this idea of immigrants who are basically an alien element to the Dutch people," Lucassen told The Associated Press.
The government also is moving to ban Muslim face-covering clothing and to further slash immigration.
Dutch Muslims who pressed for the trial said Wilders' strident anti-Islam tone has already led to increased discrimination and harassment against them, and even attacks on mosques. But Krouwel said seeking remedy in the courts proved an "incredible mistake" because Thursday's decision "legalized populist rhetoric."
"Inside the Netherlands and outside, politicians will now go the same way: to the edge of what is allowed," he told the AP. "Right-wing politicians in other countries will be able to point to the Netherlands and say, 'They can say it there, why not here?'"
Immigration-related issues have dominated politics in the Netherlands and much of Europe over the past decade. Wilders has drawn comparisons with populists such as the late Jorg Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France.
His stances resound deeply with Dutch voters, who have reconsidered their famous tolerance amid fears their culture is being eroded by immigrants who don't share their values. Around six percent of the Dutch population is now Muslim.
Groups that filed the complaints that led to Wilders' prosecution were disappointed with Thursday's ruling.
"What surprises me is that the judge says that what's permissible is determined by the context of the societal debate," said Aydin Akkaya, chairman of Council of Turks in the Netherlands. "In other words, if you just find a 'context' you can go nuts."
Mohamed Rabbae, chairman of the moderate National Moroccan Council, said the case has gone as far as it can in the Dutch courts and the battle will switch to another venue.
"We will go to the U.N. Committee for Human Rights in Geneva. The suit will be directed against the government of the Netherlands for not protecting ethnic minorities against racism and discrimination," he said in an email.
The court found that Wilders was "at the edge of what's legally permissible" when he described the threat Islam allegedly poses to Dutch culture as "a fight going on and we must arm ourselves."
"This has an inciting character," Van Oosten said. But because the lawmaker later added that he has no objections to Muslims who integrate and accept Dutch values, judges ruled he had not crossed the line.
The court paid special attention to Wilders' 2008 film, "Fitna," — Arabic for "ordeal" — a 15-minute series of verses from the Quran juxtaposed against news videos of violence and terrorism. The film prompted angry demonstrations and official protests around the Muslim world.
"Given the film in its whole and the context of societal debate, the court finds that there is no question of inciting hate with the film," the judgment said.
Even prosecutors called for his acquittal and said they are satisfied with the ruling. Despite prosecutors' initial reluctance to prosecute the politician, the court ruled last year that it was in society's interest the case be heard, given public confusion over free speech rules.
___
Associated Press correspondent Arthur Max contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110623/...ds_hate_speech
Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ramadhan
06-23-2011, 05:38 PM
Can you imagine what happens if a dutch lawmaker does similar thing to jews and judaism?
ReplyĞħαrєєвαħ
06-23-2011, 07:03 PM
Assalaamu Alaaykum
Subhaan'Allaah it is just making times more difficult for muslims their and other countries where this is happening. It is sad.
may Allaah keep the believers strong and steadfast upon their deen and protect them..
ReplySubhaan'Allaah it is just making times more difficult for muslims their and other countries where this is happening. It is sad.
may Allaah keep the believers strong and steadfast upon their deen and protect them..
GuestFellow
06-23-2011, 07:23 PM
Not surprised.
Salaam,
It will make it an interesting experiment. According to the Judge, as long as the statements made towards Jews are made within the context of public debate, then they are acceptable.
ReplySalaam,
It will make it an interesting experiment. According to the Judge, as long as the statements made towards Jews are made within the context of public debate, then they are acceptable.
Welcome, Guest!
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
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
Mister Agenda
06-23-2011, 09:40 PM
I agree with the ruling so long as it applies equally to all groups. As the article pointed out, we enshrine free speech in America. We have a saying: the best antidote to bad speech is not to prevent it but to have more good speech.
This is not to be taken as an endorsement of Wilders' anti-Muslim statements. I disagree with them wholeheartedly. Another saying, this one by a Frenchmen, but Americans (the ones I consider patriotic, anyway) have adopted it: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" -Voltaire
ReplyThis is not to be taken as an endorsement of Wilders' anti-Muslim statements. I disagree with them wholeheartedly. Another saying, this one by a Frenchmen, but Americans (the ones I consider patriotic, anyway) have adopted it: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" -Voltaire
GuestFellow
06-23-2011, 09:58 PM
^ There is a limit to free speech. The limitation includes hate speech towards a particular group or libel/slander against an individual.
The ruling in theory may apply to all groups, but I suspect this will not be the case in practice.
ReplyThe ruling in theory may apply to all groups, but I suspect this will not be the case in practice.
Mister Agenda
06-23-2011, 10:10 PM
True, even in America, inciting violence or causing panic is not legal speech, so while our limits may be broader than Holland's, we do have limits. We do not have a law against hate speech here (some states have laws against hate crimes). I recognize Holland has such a law.
And if they do not apply the ruling equally, they will be in violation of their own law. I imagine a test of that will turn up soon enough, and we shall see if they are discriminating.
ReplyAnd if they do not apply the ruling equally, they will be in violation of their own law. I imagine a test of that will turn up soon enough, and we shall see if they are discriminating.
MSalman
06-23-2011, 10:13 PM
@ Mister
When we talk about free speech, looking at it from secular camp's perspective, how is that defined and how do we implement it eaxctly? Do we have some sort of boundry or is it all free game? If there is a boundary, then why is that?
ReplyWhen we talk about free speech, looking at it from secular camp's perspective, how is that defined and how do we implement it eaxctly? Do we have some sort of boundry or is it all free game? If there is a boundary, then why is that?
GuestFellow
06-23-2011, 10:42 PM
It would be useful to have full information about this case. Sometimes, the media does not or is unable to present the full facts.
I think there will be a criteria to determine what amounts to hate speech.
ReplyI think there will be a criteria to determine what amounts to hate speech.
Mister Agenda
06-23-2011, 10:59 PM
I don't know that I speak for the secular camp. I think many in the camp would put more restrictions on free speech than I would.
My feeling though is that that speech which promotes an immediate physical danger (like shouting 'fire!' in a crowded place or inciting a riot) is clearly a necessary boundary, for the sake of public safety. Parents should also have a reasonable expectation that they should be able to shield their children from being exposed to obscene speech; so some limits (based on what is considered unacceptable in the overall culture) in that regard are appropriate for public media: I can't think of any important ideas that require obscenities on TV to get across, but if someone could make that case in court, more power to them.
And of course, speech with intent to defraud or endanger should not be allowed.
I think that covers it, though I may have missed something. The important principle is that no one should be prevented by force from expressing their ideas and opinions. That doesn't mean we can't condemn or ridicule what people have to say, that is also part of free speech.
Many people have said America shouldn't have allowed KKK members freedom to spew their hate. However, in the long run, allowing them that freedom exposed them as the fools that they are and a once-powerful force in America is now largely a marginalized joke.
Wilders is a bigoted fool, and because he speaks out, everyone knows it. The path that leads to Naziism is smoothed when the state has apparatus to prevent people from speaking out. What is turned against a Wilders today can be turned against protestors tomorrow.
ReplyMy feeling though is that that speech which promotes an immediate physical danger (like shouting 'fire!' in a crowded place or inciting a riot) is clearly a necessary boundary, for the sake of public safety. Parents should also have a reasonable expectation that they should be able to shield their children from being exposed to obscene speech; so some limits (based on what is considered unacceptable in the overall culture) in that regard are appropriate for public media: I can't think of any important ideas that require obscenities on TV to get across, but if someone could make that case in court, more power to them.
And of course, speech with intent to defraud or endanger should not be allowed.
I think that covers it, though I may have missed something. The important principle is that no one should be prevented by force from expressing their ideas and opinions. That doesn't mean we can't condemn or ridicule what people have to say, that is also part of free speech.
Many people have said America shouldn't have allowed KKK members freedom to spew their hate. However, in the long run, allowing them that freedom exposed them as the fools that they are and a once-powerful force in America is now largely a marginalized joke.
Wilders is a bigoted fool, and because he speaks out, everyone knows it. The path that leads to Naziism is smoothed when the state has apparatus to prevent people from speaking out. What is turned against a Wilders today can be turned against protestors tomorrow.
Ramadhan
06-24-2011, 03:39 AM
Certainly not applied equally, especially when it comes to jews.
It's been proven that it doesn't apply equally to all groups.
Here's one small but ****ing evidence:
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/Jew...aspx?id=186296
Dutch court fines Muslim group for Holocaust-denial cartoon
By JONNY PAUL
08/28/2010 23:31
In addition to the fine, it imposed a two-year probation period on the group.
Talkbacks (24)
LONDON – A Nasserite European Muslim group was fined €2,500 ($3,200) by a Dutch court earlier this month for publishing a cartoon suggesting the Holocaust was made up or exaggerated by Jews.
Overruling a lower court’s acquittal, the Appeals Court in Arnhem said on August 19 that the cartoon published on the Web site of the Belgiumand Netherlands-based Arab European League (AEL) in 2006 was “unnecessarily hurtful.”
In addition to the fine, it imposed a two-year probation period on the group.
ReplyIt's been proven that it doesn't apply equally to all groups.
Here's one small but ****ing evidence:
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/Jew...aspx?id=186296
Dutch court fines Muslim group for Holocaust-denial cartoon
By JONNY PAUL
08/28/2010 23:31
In addition to the fine, it imposed a two-year probation period on the group.
Talkbacks (24)
LONDON – A Nasserite European Muslim group was fined €2,500 ($3,200) by a Dutch court earlier this month for publishing a cartoon suggesting the Holocaust was made up or exaggerated by Jews.
Overruling a lower court’s acquittal, the Appeals Court in Arnhem said on August 19 that the cartoon published on the Web site of the Belgiumand Netherlands-based Arab European League (AEL) in 2006 was “unnecessarily hurtful.”
In addition to the fine, it imposed a two-year probation period on the group.
Ramadhan
06-24-2011, 03:42 AM
Another fine example of free speech in liberal europe:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/.../8-9-12.0.html
No Free Speech in Preaching
Swedish pastor sentenced to jail for blasting homosexuality.
By Lars Grip, ENI, in Stockholm | posted 8/01/2004 12:00AM
A Swedish court sentenced a Pentecostal pastor to one month in prison after finding him guilty of offending homosexuals in a sermon. The case was the first trial test of the national law against incitement as applied to speech about homosexuals.
Last year during a sermon delivered in the east coast town of Borgholm, Ake Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He called homosexuals "perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest weapon against God."
During proceedings, the public prosecutor, Kjell Yngvesson, played a tape recording from the sermon. According to the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, he justified the arrest by saying, "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but [the sermon] is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech."
In his defense, the pastor said he merely wanted to make clear the biblical view on homosexuality, not to express disrespect.
Replyhttp://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/.../8-9-12.0.html
No Free Speech in Preaching
Swedish pastor sentenced to jail for blasting homosexuality.
By Lars Grip, ENI, in Stockholm | posted 8/01/2004 12:00AM
A Swedish court sentenced a Pentecostal pastor to one month in prison after finding him guilty of offending homosexuals in a sermon. The case was the first trial test of the national law against incitement as applied to speech about homosexuals.
Last year during a sermon delivered in the east coast town of Borgholm, Ake Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He called homosexuals "perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest weapon against God."
During proceedings, the public prosecutor, Kjell Yngvesson, played a tape recording from the sermon. According to the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, he justified the arrest by saying, "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but [the sermon] is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech."
In his defense, the pastor said he merely wanted to make clear the biblical view on homosexuality, not to express disrespect.
Ramadhan
06-24-2011, 03:45 AM
Conclusion:
in fine, liberal, equal-rights-for-everyone, freedom loving western countries, you are allowed to spew as much hate, blasphemy, ridicules, insults, attacks as you want against Islam and muslims, and protected by law in doing so, but it is a crime to hurt the sensitivities of the jews and the homosexuals.
Replyin fine, liberal, equal-rights-for-everyone, freedom loving western countries, you are allowed to spew as much hate, blasphemy, ridicules, insults, attacks as you want against Islam and muslims, and protected by law in doing so, but it is a crime to hurt the sensitivities of the jews and the homosexuals.
Trumble
06-24-2011, 07:09 AM
The ruling was only made yesterday. It's wider application hasn't even been tested yet, let alone 'proven' to apply in a particular way. Not that I disagree with your sentiments particularly; I also suspect the result might have been different if the 'hate speech' had Judaism as a target. Homosexuals aren't relevant, as the very distinction on which this case was decided only applies to accusions of inciting hated in relation to religion, not sexual orientation.
Incidently, like most similar European laws the Dutch ones have nothing to do with 'hurting sensitivities'. They are intended to prevent incitement of hatred leading to discrimination and violence.
ReplyIncidently, like most similar European laws the Dutch ones have nothing to do with 'hurting sensitivities'. They are intended to prevent incitement of hatred leading to discrimination and violence.
Muhaba
06-24-2011, 07:35 AM
it is really terrible. they really want to ban the Quran don't they. that is how much they hate islam. i think they are actually testing the waters, to see what the reaction would be. muslims should protest. even the muslim governments should do something. now it is just someone saying these things, in time they may even act on it. if they can ban women's face covering without any reaction from muslim governments, then they can even try to ban the Quran.
ReplyGuestFellow
06-24-2011, 10:22 AM
:sl:
Yes, I agree with you that the law is not applied equally. I suspect things will get worse.
I suppose this has something to do with the new ruling:
ReplyYes, I agree with you that the law is not applied equally. I suspect things will get worse.
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
"Given the film in its whole and the context of societal debate, the court finds that there is no question of inciting hate with the film," the judgment said.
KAding
06-24-2011, 01:13 PM
You have to know that there have also been convictions against people who insulted Muslims in the Netherlands. For example, a man was convicted after he put a poster on his appartment window that said 'Stop the cancer that is Islam'. In other European countries (Belgium and Germany come to mind) anti-Islamic political parties have even been banned or punished for their ideas. So these laws are certainly used to protect Muslims as well from time to time. Yes, Wilders did get acquited, but that was far from a certainty. There mere fact that there was a trial in the first place proves that criticism of Islam or Muslims is not blatantly ignored.
But you make a fair point. nevertheless. But you have to understand that it is practically impossible for judges to be completely objective in these matters. The judicial system is a part of society as a whole and cannot hover over it like some foreign entity. Everything will depend on the larger social context.
The conclusion should be obvious. Laws that infringe freedom of speech by criminalizing "hate speech" are fundamentally flawed. They cannot be applied objectively, nor indiscriminately IMHO. Countries where freedom of speech is even more limited prove as much on a daily basis.
The best way to offer equal rights to everyone is to ditch them completely. I much prefer the American approach, where virtually nothing (short of inciting violence) is considered a crime. This is best for everyone, minority and majority alike.
ReplyBut you make a fair point. nevertheless. But you have to understand that it is practically impossible for judges to be completely objective in these matters. The judicial system is a part of society as a whole and cannot hover over it like some foreign entity. Everything will depend on the larger social context.
The conclusion should be obvious. Laws that infringe freedom of speech by criminalizing "hate speech" are fundamentally flawed. They cannot be applied objectively, nor indiscriminately IMHO. Countries where freedom of speech is even more limited prove as much on a daily basis.
The best way to offer equal rights to everyone is to ditch them completely. I much prefer the American approach, where virtually nothing (short of inciting violence) is considered a crime. This is best for everyone, minority and majority alike.
KAding
06-24-2011, 01:14 PM
Who is "they"? Nobody is going to "ban to Qu'ran" in the Netherlands....
ReplyKAding
06-24-2011, 01:22 PM
I'll be frank, but I believe nothing Wilders has said is on par with what is written about, say, polytheists (or unbelievers in general) in many holy books. Being consistent would probably mean banning all them as well.
I'd rather not go that way....
ReplyI'd rather not go that way....
KAding
06-24-2011, 01:35 PM
If it is any consolation, a conviction of Wilders would not have helped Muslims in any way. He would just have gotten a fine and would be able to present himself as some kind of martyr for freedom of speech.
Turning this into a legal quarrel was an incredibly bad idea. It has bad for everyone, except Wilders...
ReplyTurning this into a legal quarrel was an incredibly bad idea. It has bad for everyone, except Wilders...
Perseveranze
06-24-2011, 02:13 PM
6% of Dutchland is Muslim? Mashallah, lets eventually make that 60%. As it's been proven again and again and again, you can't supress the spread of Islam. You kill one Muslim in Afghanistan and God just puts another one in your own back yard.
Subhanallah.
ReplySubhanallah.
GuestFellow
06-24-2011, 02:15 PM
I just remembered. In the UK, there was a man who stole a copy of the Qur'an and tried to burn it in the streets. He was arrested and punished.
ReplyRamadhan
06-24-2011, 02:22 PM
You don't believe in hell, how would what's written in many holy books affect you?
ReplyRamadhan
06-24-2011, 02:23 PM
Nobody is going to ban Qur'an in europe, but it is a trend that the rights of muslims are being eroded.
ReplyGuestFellow
06-24-2011, 02:40 PM
You failed to take into account the impact of hate speech. Let's assume all religious books (including non-abrahamic religions) claim that atheists are going to hell. Will this cause immediate danger to atheists in a sense that you will have the majority of religious followers carrying out attacks against atheists?
For Muslims, however, when there is a politician who insults Muslims and Islam, it is likely some Muslims will get attacked by non-Muslims.
You spot the difference? Besides, I thought atheists believed religious books are fiction. Why find something offensive when you believe it is not true? :/
ReplyFor Muslims, however, when there is a politician who insults Muslims and Islam, it is likely some Muslims will get attacked by non-Muslims.
You spot the difference? Besides, I thought atheists believed religious books are fiction. Why find something offensive when you believe it is not true? :/
Who Am I?
06-24-2011, 03:00 PM
I find it slightly amusing (and as a Muslim myself, quite a bit disturbing) that these European countries are freaking out over a very small minority of their population. UK, 4.6%. Netherlands, 5.5%, France 7.5%, Germany 5%. I would hardly call those figures an "Islamic Invasion" as some countries have claimed it to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_i...ent_population
Replyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_i...ent_population
Futuwwa
06-24-2011, 03:20 PM
According to various statistical "demographic predictions" made by various far-right groups, differences in birthrate will make Muslims a majority in Europe sometime 2020-2050. Total hogwash, but admit it, it would be really awesome if it was true. Islam conquered Europe not by sabres, bombs and machine guns, but by Islamic family values :statisfie
ReplyPerseveranze
06-24-2011, 03:30 PM
Well, it could also be due to this.
I understand the haters pain, they can only try to slow it down (by stopping immigration), not stop Islam spreading itself. They could burn every Quran, but ALOT people have it memorized cover to cover. They could try burning down Mosques, but God did make the whole Earth a place to worship him.
Reply
Islam
According to Guinness Book of World Records, Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion by number of conversions each year: Although the religion began in Arabia, by 2002 80% of all believers in Islam lived outside the Arab world. In the period 1990-2000, approximately 12.5 million more people converted to Islam than to Christianity” (Guinness World Records 2003, pg 102).[26] In 1990, 935 million people were Muslims and this figure had risen to around 1.2 billion by the year 2000, meaning that around this time one in five people were followers of Islam. According to the BBC, a comprehensive American study concluded in 2009 the number stood at 1 in 4 with 60% of Muslims spread all over the Asian continent: A report from an American think-tank has estimated 1.57 billion Muslims populate the world - with 60% in Asia.[27][28] The report was done by the Pew Forum Research Centre.[28] The forum also projected that in 2010 out of the total number of Muslims in the world 62.1% will live in Asia.[27] However the report also included a statement saying While the global Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, the Muslim population nevertheless is expected to grow at a slower pace in the next two decades than it did in the previous two decades. From 1990 to 2010, the global Muslim population increased at an average annual rate of 2.2%, compared with the projected rate of 1.5% for the period from 2010 to 2030.[27] The report also made reference to the fact that Muslims are estimated to make up 23.4% of the total global population in 2010 (out of a total of 6.9 billion people) and that by 2030 Muslims will represent about 26.4% of the global population (out of a total of 8.9 billion people).
According to Guinness Book of World Records, Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion by number of conversions each year: Although the religion began in Arabia, by 2002 80% of all believers in Islam lived outside the Arab world. In the period 1990-2000, approximately 12.5 million more people converted to Islam than to Christianity” (Guinness World Records 2003, pg 102).[26] In 1990, 935 million people were Muslims and this figure had risen to around 1.2 billion by the year 2000, meaning that around this time one in five people were followers of Islam. According to the BBC, a comprehensive American study concluded in 2009 the number stood at 1 in 4 with 60% of Muslims spread all over the Asian continent: A report from an American think-tank has estimated 1.57 billion Muslims populate the world - with 60% in Asia.[27][28] The report was done by the Pew Forum Research Centre.[28] The forum also projected that in 2010 out of the total number of Muslims in the world 62.1% will live in Asia.[27] However the report also included a statement saying While the global Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, the Muslim population nevertheless is expected to grow at a slower pace in the next two decades than it did in the previous two decades. From 1990 to 2010, the global Muslim population increased at an average annual rate of 2.2%, compared with the projected rate of 1.5% for the period from 2010 to 2030.[27] The report also made reference to the fact that Muslims are estimated to make up 23.4% of the total global population in 2010 (out of a total of 6.9 billion people) and that by 2030 Muslims will represent about 26.4% of the global population (out of a total of 8.9 billion people).
Futuwwa
06-24-2011, 03:42 PM
I sometimes think that the efforts of the haters both in Europe and the US might actually help the cause of Islam by bringing more attention to it. After all, the rate of conversion to Islam increased in the US after the world trade center attack, simply due to higher exposure and Islam starting to make headlines like it never had before.
ReplyWho Am I?
06-24-2011, 05:40 PM
This is what put Islam in the front of my mind, and really made me start studying it for myself instead of just believing everything I see about it on TV.
Then when the whole "Arab Spring" movement started, it put Islam in the headlines once again. I would have never thought myself that I would end up becoming a Muslim because of the headlines about Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. Yet here I am...
ReplyThen when the whole "Arab Spring" movement started, it put Islam in the headlines once again. I would have never thought myself that I would end up becoming a Muslim because of the headlines about Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. Yet here I am...
Futuwwa
06-24-2011, 06:34 PM
Attachment 4268 :p
The Arab Spring began in... January? February? That's a pretty short time to become convinced. For me, first contact to shahada took a whole eight years. :confused:
ReplyThe Arab Spring began in... January? February? That's a pretty short time to become convinced. For me, first contact to shahada took a whole eight years. :confused:
GuestFellow
06-24-2011, 06:38 PM
Salaam,
These people are paranoid lol. Muslim countries are being invaded and Muslims rights are under threat within non-Muslim countries. In addition, some Muslims are too busy fighting amongst each other. Muslims, as a whole, are not threat to anyone, externally or internally to western countries.
ReplyThese people are paranoid lol. Muslim countries are being invaded and Muslims rights are under threat within non-Muslim countries. In addition, some Muslims are too busy fighting amongst each other. Muslims, as a whole, are not threat to anyone, externally or internally to western countries.
Pygoscelis
06-24-2011, 07:06 PM
Ironically one major barrier to getting "hate speech" laws enacted is the writings/sayings and holy books of religions themselves, much of which people have feared may constitute "hate speech" against homosexuals and non-believers amongst others (including women in some cases). There was a big squabble a while back in Ottawa over "hate speech" laws potentially banning the Christian bible.
ReplyWho Am I?
06-24-2011, 08:03 PM
February was when the Egyptian Revolution took place, and that's when I really started reading the Qu'ran and studying Islam in depth. I knew of Islam before that thanks to 9/11, but I didn't really know anything about it other than what the Western media said about it on TV and online.
I was going to wait and learn more about Islam, but I already knew that I wanted to take shahada, so I went ahead and did it. I figured I can learn as I go, which is what I am doing now.
ReplyI was going to wait and learn more about Islam, but I already knew that I wanted to take shahada, so I went ahead and did it. I figured I can learn as I go, which is what I am doing now.
Trumble
06-24-2011, 10:17 PM
Which 'countries' are these, then? You seem to be rather confused between countries (represented, presumably, by their governments) and a relatively small number of people living in them. Wilders is an individual that even most Dutch think is crazy, not a 'country'.
ReplyZafran
06-25-2011, 01:30 AM
Who Am I?
06-25-2011, 04:30 AM
There is also opposition in the UK to Islam.
I found this article. It is from 2008, but there it is.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle3530256.ece
ReplyI found this article. It is from 2008, but there it is.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle3530256.ece
Mister Agenda
06-25-2011, 08:52 PM
There's a saying in marketing that there's no such thing as bad publicity.
ReplyKAding
06-27-2011, 09:02 AM
Of course it affects me. I have to live in a society in which these same holy books have important political and social implications. I assume you don't agree with Wilders either, but that does not mean he is not important.
But I think that question misses the point a bit in the context of laws on 'hate mongering'. The reason why anti-hate speech laws were invented was not to protect sensitivities, but rather to protect the social peace. They should be understood in the context of the atrocities of the Second World War. What is explicitly not important is how those targeted are directly "affected" by hate speech, after all it is only hate "speech" and not hate "action". What matters is the supposed long-term affect on the masses. How will speech about how Muslims, unbelievers, homosexuals or Jews are bad people affect social relations. The assumption is that such speech might eventually lead to a social and political climate that can lead to violence and discrimination. Laws against hate speech are the proverbial pre-emptive strike against communal violence.
Whether I personally (1) am affected, (2) believe these hate speech claims or (3) take them serious is hardly relevant in that sense. What matters is the social climate they help create, which might be destructive in the long term. In that sense I really do not see the difference between:
ReplyBut I think that question misses the point a bit in the context of laws on 'hate mongering'. The reason why anti-hate speech laws were invented was not to protect sensitivities, but rather to protect the social peace. They should be understood in the context of the atrocities of the Second World War. What is explicitly not important is how those targeted are directly "affected" by hate speech, after all it is only hate "speech" and not hate "action". What matters is the supposed long-term affect on the masses. How will speech about how Muslims, unbelievers, homosexuals or Jews are bad people affect social relations. The assumption is that such speech might eventually lead to a social and political climate that can lead to violence and discrimination. Laws against hate speech are the proverbial pre-emptive strike against communal violence.
Whether I personally (1) am affected, (2) believe these hate speech claims or (3) take them serious is hardly relevant in that sense. What matters is the social climate they help create, which might be destructive in the long term. In that sense I really do not see the difference between:
- some holy books saying unbelievers are such evil people they deserve to have their skin burned off over and over for eternity
- or political speech (like from Wilders) saying Islam is an evil religion
KAding
06-27-2011, 09:27 AM
This is unsurprising of course and nothing new. There has always been resistance to what people perceive as threatening external cultural influences. People are of course also free to prefer their own culture/beliefs over others. Heck, who doesn't prefer his own beliefs? There is also much resistance against perceived "Westernization" in the Muslim world, no? I mean, this is why, say, building new churches, proselytizing or apostasy are legally restricted? The French, for example, also require at least 50% of music on radio to be in French as well. Is this discrimination? Probably yes. As a libertarian I think this evolution towards legal restrictions is sad, but it was also to be expected.
Overall it is inevitable that majority cultures (especially if there is a growing, vocal and proud minority culture) assert their dominance. In Western Europe this cultural assertiveness is probably a democratic correction for the somewhat excessive (and unpopular) embrace of cultural relativism by an overly idealistic intellectual and political elite over the last few decades.
ReplyOverall it is inevitable that majority cultures (especially if there is a growing, vocal and proud minority culture) assert their dominance. In Western Europe this cultural assertiveness is probably a democratic correction for the somewhat excessive (and unpopular) embrace of cultural relativism by an overly idealistic intellectual and political elite over the last few decades.
KAding
06-27-2011, 09:36 AM
I don't think the threat is perceived as some organized Muslim effort to 'conqueror' 'us'. Rather the threat is perceived in demographic changes, i.e. immigration and pre-modern birth rates. That the Muslim world is such a mess politically and economically is one of the reason for immigration, and thus exactly why it is perceived a threat, rather than the opposite. When people don't feel at home anymore in their own neighborhoods that is bound to have political repercussions.
Personally I believe even the demographic threat is exaggerated though.
ReplyPersonally I believe even the demographic threat is exaggerated though.
GuestFellow
06-27-2011, 10:22 AM
This still sounds like paranoia to me. Have you heard of Uzbekistan? The majority of the population are Muslims but the President that controls them is an Atheist.
ReplyRamadhan
06-27-2011, 10:35 AM
I am surprised you were not able to see the differences:
1. For you, Al Qur'an is a fiction. And for you the concept of believers and unbelievers are also fiction. For you to treat Al Qur'an on the same level of seriousness as I take Wilders' would be like me asking Harry Potter should be banned because Voldemort hate muggles and want to murder all muggles. And for you, the idea that you will suffer in the hereafter from the power of Allah would akin to receiving punishments from flying spaghetti monsters, which is nada, and the believers do not pose any danger to you at all, while Wilders' rhetorics pose great immediate physical dangers to muslims in Holland.
2. Wilders does not merely say Islam is evil religion, he goes further:
So clearly he has been trying to rouse the dutch society to do SOMETHING about Islam and muslims, to the detriment of muslims' rights.
On the other hand, Qur'an and muslims in Holland are not even saying anything about the unbelievers in Holland or do anything to/against them.
3. The anti hate speech law was designed to prevent the seeds that grew into the atrocities during the world war II against minorities, and ironically by flouting the very same laws the court actually is doing the opposite: fostering hatred against muslims.
Reply1. For you, Al Qur'an is a fiction. And for you the concept of believers and unbelievers are also fiction. For you to treat Al Qur'an on the same level of seriousness as I take Wilders' would be like me asking Harry Potter should be banned because Voldemort hate muggles and want to murder all muggles. And for you, the idea that you will suffer in the hereafter from the power of Allah would akin to receiving punishments from flying spaghetti monsters, which is nada, and the believers do not pose any danger to you at all, while Wilders' rhetorics pose great immediate physical dangers to muslims in Holland.
2. Wilders does not merely say Islam is evil religion, he goes further:
The court found that Wilders was "at the edge of what's legally permissible" when he described the threat Islam allegedly poses to Dutch culture as "a fight going on and we must arm ourselves."
On the other hand, Qur'an and muslims in Holland are not even saying anything about the unbelievers in Holland or do anything to/against them.
3. The anti hate speech law was designed to prevent the seeds that grew into the atrocities during the world war II against minorities, and ironically by flouting the very same laws the court actually is doing the opposite: fostering hatred against muslims.
There have been cases in Holland where right wingers are energized by Wilders, from the same article:
Political analysts say the ruling will likely embolden Wilders and other right-wing populists across the continent to ramp up their anti-immigrant rhetoric, with remarks like Wilders' call for a "head rag tax" now squarely within the boundaries of fair political debate.
Political analysts say the ruling will likely embolden Wilders and other right-wing populists across the continent to ramp up their anti-immigrant rhetoric, with remarks like Wilders' call for a "head rag tax" now squarely within the boundaries of fair political debate.
Dutch Muslims who pressed for the trial said Wilders' strident anti-Islam tone has already led to increased discrimination and harassment against them, and even attacks on mosques
KAding
06-27-2011, 11:59 AM
It is exaggerated, yes. Calling it paranoia seems a bit too harsh to me. After all, there is a demographic trend that shows a growing Muslim minority. Many European cities are likely to have majority Muslim population in a few decades. So I recognize the trend that scares these people so much.
The problem lies more in their interpretation of what Muslims believe. To your average populist 'Islamophobe' any Muslim is essentially a die-hard 'Islamist', at least potentially. For them every Muslim is a potential Sayyid Qutb, an important bogeyman for the far-right in Europe.
To most populist Islam-critics any Muslim that isn't an orthodox (read: extremist) Muslim just isn't a good Muslim. Anyone Muslim becoming serious about their religion is bound to become hostile to 'them' (i.e. the West) at one point or another. Ironically, in that they don't differ much from actual Muslim radicals, who make similar claims! It isn't a coincidence that these far-right Islam-critics love quoting radical Islamic scholars to prove their point.
In reality of course most Muslims are quite integrated into larger society and do not have a particularly political interpretation of their religion.
I am not sure if that is the same. IMHO this is as much about culture as it is about religion. After all, he does come from Uzbekistan and has been raised in Uzbek culture. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any society on this earth that'll happily elect an immigrant president from another cultural and religious background.
Never mind that fact that I am sure there is much resistance from within Islamic circles towards an atheist president in Uzbekistan (even if he is culturally Uzbek!).
ReplyThe problem lies more in their interpretation of what Muslims believe. To your average populist 'Islamophobe' any Muslim is essentially a die-hard 'Islamist', at least potentially. For them every Muslim is a potential Sayyid Qutb, an important bogeyman for the far-right in Europe.
To most populist Islam-critics any Muslim that isn't an orthodox (read: extremist) Muslim just isn't a good Muslim. Anyone Muslim becoming serious about their religion is bound to become hostile to 'them' (i.e. the West) at one point or another. Ironically, in that they don't differ much from actual Muslim radicals, who make similar claims! It isn't a coincidence that these far-right Islam-critics love quoting radical Islamic scholars to prove their point.
In reality of course most Muslims are quite integrated into larger society and do not have a particularly political interpretation of their religion.
Have you heard of Uzbekistan? The majority of the population are Muslims but the President that controls them is an Atheist.
Never mind that fact that I am sure there is much resistance from within Islamic circles towards an atheist president in Uzbekistan (even if he is culturally Uzbek!).
GuestFellow
06-27-2011, 03:21 PM
How about fear?
Most Muslims that I met just want a good job and a stable family life. :/
Reply
In reality of course most Muslims are quite integrated into larger society and do not have a particularly political interpretation of their religion.
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
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
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.