Anti-Muslim backlash in Holland

[kimmy]

A week ago, Dutch film-maker

Theo van Gogh was murdered. Van Gogh had made a film critical of the treatment of women under Islam. The suspect, a Morroccan immigrant, was captured after a chase and gun-fight with police. He had also left a death-threat on the body, directed towards a Dutch member of parliament.

Since then, 8 extremists have been arrested in connection with the murder.

Now, an anti-Muslim backlash is underway. It started with vandalism, but it has turned violent.

-kimmy

[August1991]

This event troubles me tremendously.

In 1944, Canadians landed in the Eastern part of Normandy and then liberated the northern part of liberated Europe. Canadians threw the Nazis out of Holland.

Holland is a fascinating country. It is both Catholic/Protestant (like Canada) yet practical. The Dutch are honest but pragmatic (like Canada). We are tolerant and polite.

We differ in the space we live in. I like to believe that good Canadians (or Quebecers) could live in such close quarters with such tolerance.

----

I had a long chat with an Amsterdam taxi driver about Pim Fortuyn's murder. This event, and the reaction to it, forces me to wonder what Voltaire would write.

[maplesyrup]

It's the start point of every debate about free expression – is it an abuse of free speech to shout ‘fire' in a crowded theatre? Maybe the same applies to shouting ‘goatfucker' at a Muslim on TV? It needs to be discussed.

Whatever you think it is I think abuse hardly counts as ‘constructive' debate. It marginalises and silences those who cannot shout as loudly.

Theo van Gogh was murdered by an enemy of free speech, but you can't discuss Theo van Gogh without considering the other results of how he chose to use his own free speech rights while he was alive.

We can only hope to retain our rights to free expression if we are prepared to understand this. No right can be absolute, especially if exercised at the expense of others. That's one of the most fundamental of the UN's list of fundamental human rights.

The Netherlands: Death of Theo van Gogh

The above quote is from this website. There is some wisdom in the author's comments.

[kimmy]

Theo van Gogh was murdered by an enemy of free speech, but you can't discuss Theo van Gogh without considering the other results of how he chose to use his own free speech rights while he was alive.

We can only hope to retain our rights to free expression if we are prepared to understand this. No right can be absolute, especially if exercised at the expense of others. That's one of the most fundamental of the UN's list of fundamental human rights.

Garbage!!

If the right to free speech extends only to the point where it makes people uncomfortable or where people don't like what you're saying, then it's completely worthless.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

What is that expression: "You live by the sword, you die by the sword".

You know that old espression "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me".

Well it's obviously bullshit.

People need to think before, not after, they put their mouth in gear!

[The Terrible Sweal]

You don't support free expression, I guess. You prefer censorship, it seems.

Do you support that Salman-Rushdie-must-die fatwa?

[maplesyrup]

Stop twisting what I said.

I said I do not condone violence.

[maplesyrup]

Do you consider van Goth a peaceful person? I don't. And van Goth probably would have been charged in Canada under our hate crimes legislation. There are limits to freedom of expresssion.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Stop twisting what I said.

I said I do not condone violence.

I haven't twisted what you said at all. Be careful with your accusations.

I'm asking you what you believe.

Do you support the Rushdie fatwa?

Do you really believe that van Gogh brought murder on himself by exercising free speech?

How about witnesses who testify against organized crime? Do they 'bring it on themselves' when they are gunned down in the streets?

Do homosexuals who march in gay pride parades bring gay-bashing on themselves?

For the record, here is your comment on the other thread which makes me wonder these things:

I am not condoning the murder of the dutch van Goth, but unfortunately he brought it on himself with his disgusting descriptions of Muslim behaviour.

[italicization added.]

[maplesyrup]

Do you consider van Goth a peaceful person? I don't.  And van Goth probably would have been charged in Canada under our hate crimes legislation. There are limits to freedom of expresssion.

Why don't you address what I stated above instead of going off on absurd tangents, eh!

[The Terrible Sweal]

It's you who is not addressing what I said, despite your obviously false claim on the other thread to have done so. What about answering my questions instead of engaging in these pathetic evasions?

[maplesyrup]

All this Muslim vs Christian talk is a diversion set up to avoid what is always being avoided, discussing the exploitation of the poor by the rich. And if you look close enough, it is always engineered or organized by the wealthy. That is why I would always be a conscientious objector to any armed combat, at least off Canadian soil, and would welcome any US citizens to Canada, who wish to escape their defacto draft.

I wonder if our holier than thou attitude in Canada about staying out of the war in Iraq would have been the same, if we did not have an abundance of our own oil in Canada. I doubt it!

/67

[maplesyrup]

And I feel very sorry for the sincerely devout religious people, on both sides, Muslim and Christian, who are being used, or will get used, in these emotional situations.

[caesar]

wonder if our holier than thou attitude in Canada about staying out of the war in Iraq would have been the same, if we did not have an abundance of our own oil in Canada. I doubt it!

You seem to have a low opinion of Canadians. I don't think we are at all like that.

[kimmy]

Do you consider van Goth a peaceful person? I don't.  And van Goth probably would have been charged in Canada under our hate crimes legislation. There are limits to freedom of expresssion.

Have you actually seen this movie, Syrup? If not, then how did you decide it would be considered hate literature?

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

It's the start point of every debate about free expression – is it an abuse of free speech to shout ‘fire' in a crowded theatre? Maybe the same applies to shouting ‘goatfucker' at a Muslim on TV? It needs to be discussed.

Whatever you think it is I think abuse hardly counts as ‘constructive' debate. It marginalises and silences those who cannot shout as loudly.

Theo van Gogh was murdered by an enemy of free speech, but you can't discuss Theo van Gogh without considering the other results of how he chose to use his own free speech rights while he was alive.

We can only hope to retain our rights to free expression if we are prepared to understand this. No right can be absolute, especially if exercised at the expense of others. That's one of the most fundamental of the UN's list of fundamental human rights.

Think about it.

[kimmy]

Think about it.

Yes, I read the editorial the first time. I did indeed "Think about it."

Did you think about it?

I understand that the author of the editorial didn't like the movie, but that alone doesn't make it hate literature.

I understand that the Muslim community didn't like the movie, but that doesn't make it hate literature either.

I'm not prepared to take their word for it that it's hate literature. It could easily be a case of "the truth hurts."

Suppose somebody made a documentary about sexual abuse by Catholic priests. Is that "hate literature", or is it "the truth hurts"? You can't answer that question without watching the movie. And you can't tell me that making that movie is an abuse of free speech just because it makes Catholics angry.

Sometimes important messages are controversial. Sometimes important messages make people upset. That's the whole point of free speech. Speech that nobody objects to doesn't need to be protected. Speech that is controversial needs protection.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Maybe the same applies to shouting ‘goatfucker' at a Muslim on TV?

If you are going to make comments like this, you run the risk of retalialation. I am not condoning violence however when you play with fire........

Once again though, my understanding is that in Holland there were religious services conducted in a foreign language that preached violence. I do not think that is acceptable behaviour in Holland nor in Canada.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Maybe the same applies to shouting ‘goatfucker' at a Muslim on TV?

If you are going to make comments like this, you run the risk of retalialation. I am not condoning violence however when you play with fire........

What is the objection here? The term 'goatfucker'? The fact that it was on TV? Or that it was directed at a Muslim?

Now you've said you don't condone violence, but what seems to be an open question is whether you condone censorship in the service of those who may engage in violence. If so, it seems to take you down the road of incentivising violence. If someone doesn't want certain ideas expressed, all they have to do is be ready and willing to gun someone down in the streets, and Lo! Maplesyrup will forestall it with a prohibition.

[maplesyrup]

It might be wise and prudent to know violent ideas are being expressed in the first place. What is that expression: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Sorry but in today's world it is not on to wait for the bombs to start falling.

I notice that the Dutch are reassessing their situation:

Netherlands Ponder Tougher Line on Islamic Terrorists

[The Terrible Sweal]

It might be wise and prudent to know violent ideas are being expressed in the first place. What is that expression: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Sorry but in today's world it is not on to wait for the bombs to start falling.

I notice that the Dutch are reassessing their situation:

Netherlands Ponder Tougher Line on Islamic Terrorists

We see you equating ideas or words with actions. Unfortunately that equation is both faulty and harmful. Indeed, what even is a "violent idea" or a "violent speech" in the absense of a violent deed? Violence by its very nature is comprised of deeds, not words, not thoughts.

[maplesyrup]

You have no idea what you are talking about. There are societial norms. In Canada there is something called hate speech, and there are criminal laws to punish those that do it. I am not familiar with the laws in the Netherlands but if they do not have hate speech legislation, they had better get some in a hurry.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You have no idea what you are talking about. There are societial norms. In Canada there is something called hate speech, and there are criminal laws to punish those that do it. I am not familiar with the laws in the Netherlands but if they do not have hate speech legislation, they had better get some in a hurry.

I am very well aware of what I am talking about. I am talking about the very old and well surveyed question of censorship vs. free expression. Personally, I think that the legislation you refer to is wrong-headed and goes too far, to the point that it violates the Charter of Rights.

BTW, here is Canada's law on promotion of hatred:

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

( if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

© if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41491.html

[maplesyrup]

The sentences are too lenient.

If van Goth were still alive and living in Canada, and he made those derogatory comments about Muslims, such as calling them goatfuckers, he should be charged under Canada's hate crimes legislation. It is not complicated, it is basic societial norms we are talking about here. He exceeded them and brought the violence upon himself, and I have no sympathy for him.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The sentences are too lenient.

If van Goth were still alive and living in Canada, and he made those derogatory comments about Muslims, such as calling them goatfuckers, he should be charged under Canada's hate crimes legislation.  It is not complicated, it is basic societial norms we are talking about here. He exceeded them and brought the violence upon himself, and I have no sympathy for him.

Rather than expatiate pointlessly, how about we look at some actual facts. Do you have a transcript of van Gogh's alleged hate-speech?

BTW, do you feel that death is the appropriate penalty?