Racist Dutch MP Geert Wilders to be Prosecuted for Fitna

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Prince
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 59
  • Views Views 8K
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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!).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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

Hypothetical Geert Wilders said:
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)
 
Last edited:
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/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top