Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech

[KAding]

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/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article3530256.ece

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.

 

[KAding]

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.

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.

 

[GuestFellow]

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 a perceived reason why it is a threat, rather than the oppose. 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.

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.

 

[Ramadhan]

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

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:

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."

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.

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.

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]

This still sounds like paranoia to me.

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.

Have you heard of Uzbekistan? The majority of the population are Muslims but the President that controls them is an Atheist.

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!).

 

[GuestFellow]

Calling it paranoia seems a bit too harsh to me.

How about fear?

In reality of course most Muslims are quite integrated into larger society and do not have a particularly political interpretation of their religion.

Most Muslims that I met just want a good job and a stable family life. :/