|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2009 : 03:06:01
|
Netherlands right-wing parliamentarian and filmmaker Geert Wilders was recently turned back at Heathrow Airport when he attempted to go to a scheduled talk at the House of Lords to discuss his anti-jihad film, "Fitna." (Pat Condell has a few choice words to say about that.)
Right-wing or not, I could find no misstatements of fact in Wilders' "Fitna."
Here's the link to the film in one segment at Google Video. It's just 17 minutes long.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/16/2009 03:21:49
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2009 : 06:28:00 [Permalink]
|
Well, it's not solely about the statements in Fitna. Wilders was refused entry because the UK government feared that his entry in the UK would lead to disturbances.
I know I should probably care about this, but I cannot. To see the rules that Wilders wants to have implemented against others applied on him can't give me any other feeling than one of a high appreciation of the word "irony". |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2009 : 08:33:12 [Permalink]
|
No, it sure doesn't help Wilders that he's a hypocrite. But I think Pat Condell has a point about this being another instance of Islamists dictating against free speech through threats and intimidation. And even right-wing hypocrites should have the right to express themselves in a legal manner.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2009 : 08:37:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
No, it sure doesn't help Wilders that he's a hypocrite. But I think Pat Condell has a point about this being another instance of Islamists dictating against free speech through threats and intimidation. And even right-wing hypocrites should have the right to express themselves in a legal manner.
|
I disagree. The point being that since 9/11 and especially since the bombings in the UK, the UK have been disallowing extremist muslims entry just as well. So it is not "Islamists dictating against free speech" but rather a more restrictive policy by the UK in general.
But then I have an inherent dislike of Condell since his last comments on the judicial case against Wilders, where he was so far of the mark he ended up shooting himself. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2009 : 09:41:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by HalfMooner
No, it sure doesn't help Wilders that he's a hypocrite. But I think Pat Condell has a point about this being another instance of Islamists dictating against free speech through threats and intimidation. And even right-wing hypocrites should have the right to express themselves in a legal manner.
|
I disagree. The point being that since 9/11 and especially since the bombings in the UK, the UK have been disallowing extremist muslims entry just as well. So it is not "Islamists dictating against free speech" but rather a more restrictive policy by the UK in general.
But then I have an inherent dislike of Condell since his last comments on the judicial case against Wilders, where he was so far of the mark he ended up shooting himself. |
I did not know that last. Care to elaborate?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2009 : 12:06:18 [Permalink]
|
In his video "shame on the Netherlands" he states that the reason the courts ordered the prosecution of Wilders is because of fear of Muslims. If he would actually have an inkling of an idea about the laws for which the courts ordered prosecution, he'd know that the statements made by Wilders fall under those laws (laws against hate speech, discrimination and group insult). His arguments, as he makes them in the Netherlands, are discriminatory and xenofobic. Now, you can argue that free speech should be upheld for these kind of statements, but you cannot blame the courts for adhering to the laws.
Furthermore, he acted like Wilders was already convicted, which is not true either. The courts ordered his prosecution after the ministry of justice neglected to do so. The problem with this decision is that it may likely have been motivated by politics. In the documents of the ministry of justice one of the arguments not to prosecute is that this might increase Wilders' popularity.
Basically everything he said about that case was wrong on so many levels, it really grated with me. What is more, comments that tried to put this in perspective on youtube were inadvertently rated minus. These are supposed to be atheists, you know, the people who are continuously stating that they follow the rational perspective? Well, this confronted me once more that "rational" is only reserved for the enlightened few, and most atheists ain't amongst those either. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2009 : 22:11:58 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for all that, Tom.
It does seem that Condell needs more attention to details.
I do understand that the European approach to civil liberties is much different from the ideal that US generally tries to approach. In most of Europe, there are taboo areas for free speech, especially "hate speech." The US approach (which is not totally consistent, but is the dominant style here) might be described as small-"l" libertarian. Offensive and hateful speech being not only allowed, but defended by our Constitution.
I'm not going to argue that our approach is objectively better, but I am familiar with it, and personally mightily prefer it. I really don't like civil liberties to be denied on the basis that expression may cause protests or disorder. In my opinion, such speech and resulting tumult are part and parcel of a vigorous democracy.
Intimidation by either side of a debate to suppress the opposition, especially if the suppression itself is carried out by intimidated authorities, strikes me as a reward for, and an invitation to, Brownshirt-style thuggery.
Yet I admit I'm simply not there. Like many Euros who naturally have difficulty in understanding the cumbersome way we Americans do things, I assume I'm pretty ignorant about Europe's ways of operating.
By the way, have any jihadist Muslims been charged in the Netherlands with hate speech?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2009 : 08:22:05 [Permalink]
|
In the Netherlands, I am not sure, but I remember several case elsewhere in Europe, yes.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 09:05:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Thanks for all that, Tom.
It does seem that Condell needs more attention to details. |
Regarding his items on Wilders, he might try to get the general story correct first. If he succeeds there, we can go into the details.
I do understand that the European approach to civil liberties is much different from the ideal that US generally tries to approach. In most of Europe, there are taboo areas for free speech, especially "hate speech." The US approach (which is not totally consistent, but is the dominant style here) might be described as small-"l" libertarian. Offensive and hateful speech being not only allowed, but defended by our Constitution.
I'm not going to argue that our approach is objectively better, but I am familiar with it, and personally mightily prefer it. I really don't like civil liberties to be denied on the basis that expression may cause protests or disorder. In my opinion, such speech and resulting tumult are part and parcel of a vigorous democracy.
Intimidation by either side of a debate to suppress the opposition, especially if the suppression itself is carried out by intimidated authorities, strikes me as a reward for, and an invitation to, Brownshirt-style thuggery.
Yet I admit I'm simply not there. Like many Euros who naturally have difficulty in understanding the cumbersome way we Americans do things, I assume I'm pretty ignorant about Europe's ways of operating. |
And this also differs between different countries within Europe. Even knowing something of dutch law, perhaps most than the general population, though still much less than the lawyers and judges, I've noticed a couple of times that this doesn't necessarily give me a good handle on how things are done in other European countries.
By the way, have any jihadist Muslims been charged in the Netherlands with hate speech?
|
Just recently two boys with arabic names (can't say whether they are Muslim or not) in an anti-Israeli protest have been convicted of hate speech for chants in the direction of "Kill the Jews". Problem is that the "hate speech" from Jihadist Muslim clerics is often not made in public, so it's hard to track down.
There has been political consternation in a number of other incidents around the customs of these fundamentalist groups, for example a refusal to shake hands with women or a refusal to rise in court. Both surrounding the same person, Mohammed Enait. In the first instance, Enait was rejected for a number of jobs because he refused to shake hands with women. He sued his would-be employers, the Rotterdam court rejected his claims. As he graduated as a lawyer, he refused to rise in court during a session, claiming he this was also against his religion. Here the same Rotterdam court ruled positive in favor of his claims.
Now, these aren't hate speech issues, but they do show that the issue is more complicated than just "appeasing the Muslim" as people like Wilders, and lately Condell, would like us to believe. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 13:35:02 [Permalink]
|
| Louis at After the Bar Closes has something to say about Fitna and Wilders that I cannot agree more with. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 02/19/2009 13:37:57 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 05:53:34 [Permalink]
|
I'm taking over this topic as my personal "ranting against Wilders"-topic (sorry Halfmooner). Wilders has claimed that the decision of the dutch courts to order his prosecution is due to fear of Islam, instead of him being a bigot dipshit. He has stated that the only reason he has been prosecuted is because he "criticized Islam" and pretends that his case has already been decided in advance.
Recently a dutch extreme-right supporter was arrested after complaints because he had a poster in front of his window stating that "Stop the cancer that is Islam". Lower courts convicted him. Today the dutch supreme court overturned this conviction, stating that the lower courts had maintained a definition of "group insult" that was too broad in its interpretation. The decision also stated that in the case of Wilders that is to come, the court needs to make a distinction between insulting a religion and insulting a group.
I still am in two minds about legislation on hate speech as it is in the Netherlands and other European countries. While I can see a legitimate purpose to them, I am no fan of it. The purpose of this post is just to show that the current case against Wilders is not born out of fear of Islam, nor is it a case against criticism of Islam or insulting Islam. Both are perfectly legal in the Netherlands. It is also to make the prediction that neither Wilders nor Condell will give any rumour to these cases. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 13:09:16 [Permalink]
|
You're perfectly welcome to turn this into a "bash Wilders" thread, as far as I'm concerned. I'll even help a bit.
Tom, I think that a set of laws that tries to allow the insult of a religion while making illegal the insulting of a "group" is effectively self-contradictory. It seems to me there will always be disputes and dangers with such laws.
Look, I don't claim that the US is in many ways as progressive as Europe, except in this, where I think we got it right: We allow free speech almost without limit, including hate speech against both religions and "groups." This does in no way stop us from prosecuting illegal acts against either, and "hate crime" laws here can add additional punishment.
I honestly do think Wilders is a bigot. But what's the best way of defeating his excesses? I don't think it's through what I see as the throughly flawed "hate speech" laws. In fact, I think Wilders has been cleverly playing the Netherlands and other European states by exploiting the contradictions between their free speech traditions and their "hate speech" prohibitions. The problem of defining his target as either a religion or as a "group" just adds icing to the cakes that Wilders likes to throw.
I think that it's best to let Wilders have his say, and defeat him in the court of public opinion. If doing this results in intercommunal violence, I feel that's a small price to pay for freedom of expression that applies to everyone. By not banning Wilders' intemperance, you would stop giving him a whining public platform to complain of his abuse. (And it's real abuse, in my opinion. Even if flawed laws are applied to him the same as to anyone, they remain flawed laws for all.)
I think that, by taking away his weapons of playing around with the hate speech laws and the religion/group definitions silliness, you would eventually trivialize Wilders and other of his ilk right across the spectrum.
Now, I don't expect that the Netherlands will turn on a dime and go for the American style of unfettered free speech. But I do see that in the long term that approach could be a major part of the solution to the legal contradictions you now have.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/10/2009 13:13:43 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 14:48:29 [Permalink]
|
| I agree with you Mooner, full frontal free-speechity is the way to go, IMHO. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 14:53:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
You're perfectly welcome to turn this into a "bash Wilders" thread, as far as I'm concerned. I'll even help a bit. |
Thank you 
Tom, I think that a set of laws that tries to allow the insult of a religion while making illegal the insulting of a "group" is effectively self-contradictory. It seems to me there will always be disputes and dangers with such laws.[/quote]
I agree that there will be disputes with the distinction. I do not agree that the distinction is self-contradictory however. It is the difference between insulting a belief and insulting those holding that belief. As Dawkins said in his response to a student complaining that Dawkins insulted him: "I insulted God, I didn't insult you." I didn't think the distinction was self-contradictory when Dawkins said that then, I don't think it is self-contradictory if the dutch courts make that distinction now.
[quote]Look, I don't claim that the US is in many ways as progressive as Europe, except in this, where I think we got it right: We allow free speech almost without limit, including hate speech against both religions and "groups." This does in no way stop us from prosecuting illegal acts against either, and "hate crime" laws here can add additional punishment.
I honestly do think Wilders is a bigot. But what's the best way of defeating his excesses? I don't think it's through what I see as the throughly flawed "hate speech" laws. In fact, I think Wilders has been cleverly playing the Netherlands and other European states by exploiting the contradictions between their free speech traditions and their "hate speech" prohibitions. The problem of defining his target as either a religion or as a "group" just adds icing to the cakes that Wilders likes to throw.
I think that it's best to let Wilders have his say, and defeat him in the court of public opinion. If doing this results in intercommunal violence, I feel that's a small price to pay for freedom of expression that applies to everyone. By not banning Wilders' intemperance, you would stop giving him a whining public platform to complain of his abuse. (And it's real abuse, in my opinion. Even if flawed laws are applied to him the same as to anyone, they remain flawed laws for all.)
I think that, by taking away his weapons of playing around with the hate speech laws and the religion/group definitions silliness, you would eventually trivialize Wilders and other of his ilk right across the spectrum.
Now, I don't expect that the Netherlands will turn on a dime and go for the American style of unfettered free speech. But I do see that in the long term that approach could be a major part of the solution to the legal contradictions you now have.
[/quote]
As I said, I am no fan of the legislation myself. I think ideas like those of Wilders will need to be fought in the public sphere anyway, with or without that legislation. In that sense, it's effectiveness is questionable.
I also agree that the legal process gives Wilders more exposure. At this point, due to the current situation, Wilders ratings in the polls has increased. The problem than is what this indicates. My personal idea behind this is that Wilders would have found another way to hit the news if this would not have happened. For the idiot he is, he definitely is media-savvy. He knows how to say something inane that the media will jump on whenever he is down in the polls (and then complain that the media never gives him attention). As in America, the dutch media can't help themselves. They're like hungry mongrels waiting for Wilders to throw them another bone. In that sense he's like the dutch Rush Limbaugh, only then with a bit more brain. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 15:23:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
I agree that there will be disputes with the distinction. I do not agree that the distinction is self-contradictory however. It is the difference between insulting a belief and insulting those holding that belief. As Dawkins said in his response to a student complaining that Dawkins insulted him: "I insulted God, I didn't insult you." I didn't think the distinction was self-contradictory when Dawkins said that then, I don't think it is self-contradictory if the dutch courts make that distinction now. |
I think that the most important issue here is who and what is making the "distinction." When a private person like the gentlemanly Dawkins makes an unbigoted distinction between Muslims and Islam, I'm singing along with his choir. But when a court of law reserves the right to make that distinction to itself alone, I object.As I said, I am no fan of the legislation myself. I think ideas like those of Wilders will need to be fought in the public sphere anyway, with or without that legislation. In that sense, it's effectiveness is questionable.
I also agree that the legal process gives Wilders more exposure. At this point, due to the current situation, Wilders ratings in the polls has increased. The problem than is what this indicates. My personal idea behind this is that Wilders would have found another way to hit the news if this would not have happened. For the idiot he is, he definitely is media-savvy. He knows how to say something inane that the media will jump on whenever he is down in the polls (and then complain that the media never gives him attention). As in America, the dutch media can't help themselves. They're like hungry mongrels waiting for Wilders to throw them another bone. In that sense he's like the dutch Rush Limbaugh, only then with a bit more brain. |
I'm in full agreement with all this last part.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Geert Wilders' anti-jihad film, "Fitna" now online
