Death to Free Speech in the Netherlands

Remove all ads!

I live in Helsingborg and that was the first I heard of that.

 

That may not be politically correct and of course will inflame Muslims, but is it hate speech? Does he say that Muslims should be killed, tortured or gassed? Not by my reading of it. He is simply saying that the ideology espoused by some Muslims is dangerous and that government support for it should be curtailed. I don't see that as hate speech. I mean, if someone had a school open in the US that was teaching that the US government should be destroyed, wouldn't it be incumbent on someone to blow the whistle and ask for that school to be closed? And even if his request is ridiculous once the facts are in, he advocated the use of government and laws, not riots, suicide bombers, and murder.

 

LKD,
by some Muslims? Wilders says 'Islam', not a 'radical interpretation of Islam'. That isn't politically incorrect, but defamatory towards all Muslims. It includes peaceful, non-observant and indifferent Muslims with the zealots. I think you really miss the mark there.

Exchange Mohammed with Jesus, Islam with Christianity and Koran with Bible. Would you come to the same conclusion and call it 'politically incorrect'?

 

Even if I did make that exchange, neither I or any of the Christians I know would start making death threats or trying to take him to court and stifle his speech. We might issue a rebuttal and try to work through legal frameworks, but we sure as hell wouldn't try to get him extradited to the Vatican where he could be killed.

Defame away -- none of it incites violence against Muslims. None of it gives the radical Muslims the right to start committing crimes -- they can print what they want about him too as long as they don't encourage anyone to commit an unlawful act against him.

 

No, it does not incite for violence against but it certainly has the potential to disturb the public peace. Speech that leads to riot disturbs the public peace.

Imagine Wilders stood in front of your church to tell everybody that Christianity is a violent, imperialistic and fascist ideology - how would you see the odds that a pissed off member of your congregation goes and shuts him up? Would you be surprised? Would it be predictable? Is it a desirable outcome?

 

If his book 'The God Delusion' is any indication Richard Dawkins comes pretty close to saying just that, and more, and got/gets death threats.

That said, the problem of the disturbance of public peace inherent in Wilders defamatory and inflammatory statements remains.

 

No, Ragusa. I remember having this very debate with a Muslim friend of mine, with whom I worked for many years. That was his exact response to freedom of speech. We were debating the issue of the _Satanic Verses_, (I told him I would give him a copy for Christmas ) and his comment was,"What if someone shouted blasphemies against your Jesus Christ in the middle of the street? Wouldn't you want to punish that person?" My response was, as someone who believes in freedom of speech, "Of course not! That's his opinion. What do I care?" He really didn't understand my response, because to him "the religion is everything," as he would often comment. So, you either let people say what they want. Or you start down the road of deciding who can say what, and what they can say, and when they can say it. Sorry, that's just not freedom.

 

If I have to monitor legal discourse for fear of the actions of others, I am not free. Those others hold me hostage with their choices. I am not responsible for their actions if I am adhering to the law. Should they break the law, the onus lies entirely on them.

And Ragusa, if someone did get up and say something antithetical to my religion in a church meeting, he would be escorted off the premises. Peacefully. I've seen it happen. No death threats, no violence, no criminal charges except perhaps for trespassing, which is a far cry from an accusation of attempted genocide.

 

Sadly, dmc, not most people on this continent are as logical or fair as you would like. Mark Steyn (whose articles I have posted before) is an arrogant, vicious and uncompromising right wing firebrand. He has never to my knowledge advocated violence against a discernible group or suggested that vigilante violence is a desireable thing. Yet he has been hauled up in front of Canadian human rights commissions several times (each time at his own expense) to answer specious charges made by radical Islamicist bastards (who do NOT have to pay for the charges they incur even if their charges are found to be groundless.)

Why? Because he dares to comment that Islam is not perfect and that the behaviour of some radical Muslims is a threat to Canadian society and national security, not to mention that some of the crap they spew most assuredly IS hate speech.

 

Some of the laws, policies, and politicians out there really make me want to tear my hair out. Since when was it the cost of the innocent to defend themselves from specious charges, even after proven? In the US, the case would be dismissed, and the plaintif (the muslims in this case) would have to pay court costs.

 

I'm going to have say that isn't entirely true. I know here in Massachusetts we have MCAD which stands for the Mass commission against discrimination. It is a psuedo government body and if someone feels they have been discriminated against they can file a complaint with MCAD. They are then summonded to a MCAD hearing which can be very expensive as the defendent brings lawyers, witnesses, expert witnesses etc. If they lose they are assessed monetary fines, which I believe can be appealed to a full court. This doesn't cost the accuser anything as the government pays for it.

That to me is one of the major issues with this story. It is the government and therefore taxpayer monies that are being used to silence him. I would have a different opinion if some cleric sued in an open civil court. Here we are talking about a criminal court and I just can't wrap my brain around how the citizens allowed laws which restricted their free speech and basically created "thought and speech police". I am also very worried about Canada for the same reasons. I seem to recall some stories about Steyn and it seems like harrassing him with criminal complaints has become a "sport" for some religious organizations.

 

I'm trying to imagine a society in which one doesn't have to monitor one's own legal discourse for fear of the actions of others. I'm failing. You already live in such a society. If you don't agree, consider going up to your local gangsters and suggesting they obtain carnal knowledge of their mothers. Doesn't sound very appealing, does it? Partly this is because you're a decent guy and you don't say that sort of thing to random strangers, even if they're criminals. But partly it is due to the high probability that such a statement would be very, mmm, detrimental to your long-term health.

Or, for a more relevant thought exercise, consider that I with my very own eyes observed, courtesy of usenet, a Hollywood prima donna getting pissed off because some random guy using the internet in London asserted that one of the HPD's statements was, shock, racist. HPD proceeded to retain a lawyer and sue the crap out of RGUtIiL. Now, don't you feel eager to antagonize rich people possessing fragile egos?

To be clear, I am most certainly not suggesting either situation is in any way analogous to Marky Mark's situation. I am not in any way defending the reactions to Marky Mark's behavior. I am suggesting that this particular line of attack is best abandoned in favor of more tenable positions.

 

I do not think anyone is defending the wacky wacky muslims. I think what they are saying is that Wilders may be breaking one set of laws and that the people who are threathening are breaking a whole other set of laws.

Now, I am in favour of pissing of religious people as much as possible if only to let them show their nastier sides but I can see why a society do not want to have people running around offending and inciting various groups left right and center. I know of several cases here in Sweden where muslims have been convicted for this very crime over hate speech directed towards jews.

I also find it funny, and have done so for quite some time to see how Americans and other non-Western europeans have a completely different view of our "muslim/arabic" problem than us who live there and see it first hand. Have the immigration during the last 20 years of middle eastern people led to some problem and the integration policies failed? More or less yes. Are we hostages to rabid islamofascists? Not quite. The people who suffer hte most due to these failed policies are these "islamofasicsts" themselves when they live in what more or less amounts to ghettos without jobs and without futures with children who turn to crime and drugs. The problems have more to do with poverty and other sociological reasons than with religion or ethnicity.

 

A sociological aspect as poverty, often is a cause for discontent and sometimes crime. This is independent of culture.
The problems discussed here have nothing to do with that.
In a lot of cases radical Islamists have its roots in wealthy circumstances.
Just right out of my memory, there is the case of the PhDs of Pakistan origin who attacked the Glasgow airport.
I have experienced radical islam opinions from both, Muslims of poor and moderate circumstances.
Thus it is wrong,imho, to reduce the problem to mere social aspects.
It has a lot to to with ideology based aspects, though.

By the way I find it a bit funny how you use the word 'us' implying that you think that all Western Europeans think as you:
"Americans and other non-Western europeans have a completely different view of our "muslim/arabic" problem than us".
I as a fellow Western European don't feel as a part of your 'us' .

P.S.:
I know you will again hate me for saying this, but I hope we can keep this civil .