Wilders on Trial

[DogOnPorch]

The Dutch government has gone ahead with Geert Wilder's trial re: hate crimes.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100025018/the-trial-of-geert-wilders-why-we-wont-be-hearing-about-camel-urine/

http://www.wildersontrial.com/

Pat Condell's take on Mr Wilder's trial...I feel the same.

[DogOnPorch]

Geert Wilder's opening speech from a few days back...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZyXkiQ-vn0

Edited February 6, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Argus]

The Dutch government has gone ahead with Geert Wilder's trial re: hate crimes.

Condell's an amazingly effective, blunt and humorous speaker.

The problem for the Leftists is that they refuse to acknowledge that Islam is not merely a religion but a political ideology. Refusing to allow anyone to say anything against Islam deprives people of the right to effectively oppose the political ideology. And that ideology is completely at odds with western concepts of freedom.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Condell's an amazingly effective, blunt and humorous speaker.

The problem for the Leftists is that they refuse to acknowledge that Islam is not merely a religion but a political ideology. Refusing to allow anyone to say anything against Islam deprives people of the right to effectively oppose the political ideology. And that ideology is completely at odds with western concepts of freedom.

All religions play the political ideology card to one extent or another. Bishops threaten to withhold sacraments over abortion rights, the Pope is in Britain railing against same-sex unions. Islamist's approach this from a more direct route, of course, but still, religion and politics always have been and always be inextricably joined.

That all being said, a lot of European Muslims seem to be pretty damned infantile, and a lot of politicians seem eager to acquiesce. The tide is beginning to change in some parts of Europe, it's almost certain Britain, regardless of who wins the next election, is going to come down a lot harder on jihadists and the like.

[bloodyminded]

All religions play the political ideology card to one extent or another. Bishops threaten to withhold sacraments over abortion rights, the Pope is in Britain railing against same-sex unions. Islamist's approach this from a more direct route, of course, but still, religion and politics always have been and always be inextricably joined.

That all being said, a lot of European Muslims seem to be pretty damned infantile, and a lot of politicians seem eager to acquiesce. The tide is beginning to change in some parts of Europe, it's almost certain Britain, regardless of who wins the next election, is going to come down a lot harder on jihadists and the like.

Well, people should be able to say anything they like, about Islam or any other non-libellous topic. It doesn't even need be accurate (Geert maybe shows his hand here, by proclaiming that what he says is "the truth"; any true free speech advocate will understand that some objective "truth" on such matters rarely exists, and is beside the point at best).

[ToadBrother]

Well, people should be able to say anything they like, about Islam or any other non-libellous topic. It doesn't even need be accurate (Geert maybe shows his hand here, by proclaiming that what he says is "the truth"; any true free speech advocate will understand that some objective "truth" on such matters rarely exists, and is beside the point at best).

We can all agree that Jihadists teaching teenagers and young adults to strap bombs to themselves or to place them in subways is bad, and something needs to be done about it. To my mind, that's what sedition and treason laws are supposed to be about. If you have a mullah teaching Jihad in London, you don't try to silence him with weird anti-speech anti-hate laws, you charge the bugger with sedition. If he's a foreign national, after his stint in prison, you give him the choice between an airplane ride to whatever hellhole he originated from or he can swim, if he likes.

I realize that there is a dangerous collision between public safety and national security on one side and freedom of speech and freedom of religion on the other, but I think that teaching Jihad triggers the "crying fire in a crowded theater" test well enough, and beyond that, ultimately, Jihad is at least seditious, if not outright treasonous. We certainly wouldn't let some group plot the violent overthrow of our governments, so why exactly we let these mullahs teach Jihad is beyond me.

[eyeball]

We can all agree that Jihadists teaching teenagers and young adults to strap bombs to themselves or to place them in subways is bad, and something needs to be done about it. To my mind, that's what sedition and treason laws are supposed to be about. If you have a mullah teaching Jihad in London, you don't try to silence him with weird anti-speech anti-hate laws, you charge the bugger with sedition. If he's a foreign national, after his stint in prison, you give him the choice between an airplane ride to whatever hellhole he originated from or he can swim, if he likes.

I realize that there is a dangerous collision between public safety and national security on one side and freedom of speech and freedom of religion on the other, but I think that teaching Jihad triggers the "crying fire in a crowded theater" test well enough, and beyond that, ultimately, Jihad is at least seditious, if not outright treasonous. We certainly wouldn't let some group plot the violent overthrow of our governments, so why exactly we let these mullahs teach Jihad is beyond me.

I think we'd do a lot better by focusing more on the simple inhumanity of doing harm to others than sedition, treason and religion - mind you we should of course point out that overthrowing governments is something that can be very harmful to humanity.

[DogOnPorch]

I think Salman Rushdie sums up this whole Wilders problem quite nicely.

He basically says our society has gone from multiculturalism to cultural relativism.

"If killing writers is part of your culture...then by all means kill writers."

---Salman Rushdie

Argus: Condell's an amazingly effective, blunt and humorous speaker.

The problem for the Leftists is that they refuse to acknowledge that Islam is not merely a religion but a political ideology. Refusing to allow anyone to say anything against Islam deprives people of the right to effectively oppose the political ideology. And that ideology is completely at odds with western concepts of freedom.

I agree...though it isn't always the leftists that refuse to acknowledge the problems with Islam. They just tend towards the majority.

Pat Condell has been a very effective voice on the internet. Though he is getting tired of the constant death threats from those that 'disagree' with him.

Here's the video he made about a year ago when Geert's troubles started to surface.

[ToadBrother]

I think we'd do a lot better by focusing more on the simple inhumanity of doing harm to others than sedition, treason and religion - mind you we should of course point out that overthrowing governments is something that can be very harmful to humanity.

I think we should, with all consideration to our liberties, do what we need to do to stop Jihadists from blowing up large numbers of civilians. I don't think hugging a guy with a nail bomb strapped to his torso and telling him "I understand your pain" is exactly the route to peace in our time.

Like I said. If we have foreign mullahs encouraging violence, if they're not citizens, they need to be shown the door. If they are citizens, they need to be shown a prison cell. We can give them ample opportunity to change their ways, but it strikes me that having Peter Mansbridge host a CBC forum where everyone hugs everyone is some strange display of brotherly love and affection probably isn't going to sway today's religious fanatics any more than it ever swayed religious fanatics in the past.

That all being said, the chief prey of these mullahs pretty much everywhere they operate are young men, in their late teens to mid twenties, no families and poor job prospects. In the West, they seem to fall into very insular Muslim communities, and thus they're contacts with Western society are somewhat limited. Elsewhere, it's crappy governments that are so corrupt that they can offer few prospects. You don't find a lot of middle-aged suicide bombers. Men with families don't tend to be so easily swayed by lunatics preaching suicide as a path to heaven. From that we can fundamentally assert that, as with all things, economics is the root cause. Better economic opportunities and better integration into the wider society fend of that Muslim tendency to fall into despair, and more dangerously, into righteous despair. We need to move to intrude the wider society into these closed communities, to build bridges where we can, but at least let the light of day in on them, so those held inside can gaze out, and society can adequately gaze in.

[DogOnPorch]

TB: Men with families don't tend to be so easily swayed by lunatics preaching suicide as a path to heaven.

Plus I notice you never see the Mullahs strapping on the TNT vest. I guess there's just too much good works yet to be done on Earth for them to lead the way.

[ToadBrother]

Plus I notice you never see the Mullahs strapping on the TNT vest. I guess there's just too much good works yet to be done on Earth for them to lead the way.

In the words of the great Roger Waters, it's "the bravery of being out of range".

[DogOnPorch]

In the words of the great Roger Waters, it's "the bravery of being out of range".

Indeed...though Roger was aiming his words in the other direction.

[bloodyminded]

It turns out that Wilders is not a proponent of free speech at all. How ironic.

The leader of the Netherlands' right-wing Freedom Party, Geert Wilders, has called for a ban on the sale and distribution of the Qur'an. He would also outlaw the books use in the mosque and at home. Mr Wilders says the Qur'an (Koran) is a fascist book which promotes violence and is similar to Adolf Hitlers Mein Kampf.

In a letter-to-the-editor in todays de Volkskrant newspaper, Wilders argues that the Qur'an should only be permitted for research at an academic level.

Hypocrite.

http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/ned070808mc-redirected

Edited February 22, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

A warning:

Geert Wilders says he wants his proposal to serve as a warning to radical Muslims who misuse the Qur'an to justify the use of violence. His statement comes in response to the recent attacks on Ehsan Jami, founder of the Committee for Former Muslims. He says the perpetrators use the Qur'an as an excuse for the attacks. Wilders writes that...

“The book incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order.”

The jurist, commentator and co-member of the Committee for Former Muslims, Afshin Ellian also thinks that the Qur'an “possesses extremely violent passages with regard to women, Jews and non-believers”. However, he is against a ban. Mr Ellian says you should take measures against the people who abuse the Qur'an, not the book itself:

“It’s a religious book which of course can be read and discussed. What we really should fight are the radical imams and mosques which use the Qur'an to spread hatred. We must take firmer measures against them.”

The sale and distribution of Mein Kampf is already banned in Holland. But seeing that the internet has full versions of both Mein Kampf and the Koran, any attempt to ban anything these days is an uphill battle...often quite pointless. As mentioned in the article, he didn't give it a realistic chance of coming to pass...but he seems to have said it for the effect it would cause. These articles are from 2007...I think the Koran is still in use over there...and Wilders and others like him still require 24/7 security re: the Religion of Peace ™. Even if his party ends up forming the government, a ban on the Koran would still be a near impossible thing to actually carry-out without becoming the fellows that actually read Mein Kampf.

[bloodyminded]

The sale and distribution of Mein Kampf is already banned in Holland. But seeing that the internet has full versions of both Mein Kampf and the Koran, any attempt to ban anything these days is an uphill battle...often quite pointless. As mentioned in the article, he didn't give it a realistic chance of coming to pass...but he seems to have said it for the effect it would cause. These articles are from 2007...I think the Koran is still in use over there...and Wilders and others like him still require 24/7 security re: the Religion of Peace ™. Even if his party ends up forming the government, a ban on the Koran would still be a near impossible thing to actually carry-out without becoming the fellows that actually read Mein Kampf.

Anyone who SAYS what he did not not support free speech. Period.

[DogOnPorch]

Anyone who SAYS what he did not not support free speech. Period.

I guess if you or I had a fatwa on our heads and a pack of crazies out to cut off same, our attitude towards Islam might match Mr Wilders. But I'm sure you'd never do anything to upset the so-called radical element...eh?

Edited February 23, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Bonam]

Heh I just watched Wilder's opening speech linked in the second post. You can tell that only one of the judges (or whoever they are on the front bench) is actually paying attention. The other ones are just waiting for it to be over. The trial is a sham as can be seen by their refusal to allow the requested witnesses to appear before the court.

[Bonam]

Dang, just googled around for this trial and there are hardly any results from any mainstream media outlets. What kind of influence does it take to convince all the world's biggest media companies that this potentially explosive story should be muzzled?

[JB Globe]

The problem for the Leftists is that they refuse to acknowledge that Islam is not merely a religion but a political ideology.

Of course, the problem with this argument is that it's simply false.

[DogOnPorch]

Dang, just googled around for this trial and there are hardly any results from any mainstream media outlets. What kind of influence does it take to convince all the world's biggest media companies that this potentially explosive story should be muzzled?

I know...damn peculiar.

What we do know is that the Dutch coalition government has fallen and they are pulling out of Afghanistan. Perhaps this is an attempt by PM Jan Peter Balkenende to derail Wilders at the polls.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/19/dutch-afghan019.html

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/21/afghan-dutch-marjan.html

JB Globe: Of course, the problem with this argument is that it's simply false.

That Islam is a political system as well as a religion? Or that leftists don't seem to know that?

Edited February 23, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bloodyminded]

I guess if you or I had a fatwa on our heads and a pack of crazies out to cut off same, our attitude towards Islam might match Mr Wilders. But I'm sure you'd never do anything to upset the so-called radical element...eh?

Ye gods.

I didn't say Wilders has no reason to believe what he does--including his explicit opposition to free speech. I only pointed out the fact that he has an explicit (outright, stated, asserted) opposition to free speech.

I'm only helpfully correcting some implied misperceptions that Wilders is a free-speech-rights hero; or that Wilders even believes what he says about this freedom.

He isn't one; and he doesn't believe his own words.

So, good, that point is settled.

[DogOnPorch]

Tsk, tsk...putting words in my mouth.

[bloodyminded]

Tsk, tsk...putting words in my mouth.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm stating an uncontroversial point: that Wilders is publically defending a "right" which he doesn't believe in; and that some of his supporters seem to take his claims seriously, rather than listen to the very man whom they admire.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm stating an uncontroversial point: that Wilders is publically defending a "right" which he doesn't believe in; and that some of his supporters seem to take his claims seriously, rather than listen to the very man whom they admire.

I seriously doubt you have any idea what Wilders thinks or believes.

[bloodyminded]

I seriously doubt you have any idea what Wilders thinks or believes.

Since I'm not a mind-reader, I'm rather forced to go by what he himself has said about his own opinions on the matter.

Do you have a better source for Geert's beliefs? God, perhaps?