Didn't see a specific thread on the Geert Wilders religious situation in the UK; The Wall Street Journal has an excellent summary article on today's opinion page that sums up the issue and contrasting beliefs => Geert Wilders Is a Test for Western Civilization If Rushdie should be defended, why not the Dutch pol? The Wall Street Journal - Opinion FEBRUARY 17, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123483168531395775.html Twenty years ago, Andres Serrano put a plastic crucifix in a glass of urine, photographed it and called it art. Conservatives in particular weren't pleased: not with Mr. Serrano, not with his picture, and not with the National Endowment for the Arts, which had forked over $15,000 in taxpayer money to support this uretic gesture. Also 20 years ago: On Valentine's Day, 1989, the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie, condemning him to death for supposedly blaspheming Islam in his novel, "The Satanic Verses." Iran later upped the ante by severing diplomatic ties with Britain and putting a bounty on Mr. Rushdie's head. The fatwa remains in effect today by order of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. These twin anniversaries come to mind following the British government's decision last week to ban Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders from British soil as an "undesirable person." Mr. Wilders is also being prosecuted for hate speech in his native Holland, where he faces up to 16 months in prison if convicted. His alleged crime involves making a short film called "Fitna," which draws a straight line between Quranic verses and acts of Islamist terror. Mr. Wilders has also called for banning the Quran, which he labels a "fascist book" on a par with Hitler's "Mein Kampf." Whatever else might be said about Mr. Wilders's travel ban and prosecution, it helps put into context the events of 1989. In the case of Mr. Serrano, liberal Americans went into a lather about defending his rights to artistic expression and freedom of speech against the parochial leaders of the religious right, men like Jesse Helms and Pat Robertson. Never mind that the worst of their threats involved withholding public funding; fundamental things were said to be at stake..." Later in the text comes the real 'red meat' quote of this opinion that I like and what makes the Geert Wilders situation relevant => "...For liberals, the issue is straightforward. If routine mockery of Christianity and abuse of its symbols, both in the U.S. and Europe, is protected speech, why shouldn't the same standard apply to the mockery of Islam? And if the difference in these cases is that mockery of Islam has the tendency to lead to riots, death threats and murder, should committed Christians now seek a kind of parity with Islamists by resorting to violent tactics to express their sense of religious injury?"
I'm not going to defend either instance, but I would love to hear how mockery equals hate speech. If that were the case, Stephen Colbert would be celebrating at least his second anniversary in Gitmo right now.
Is he seriously suggesting that Christians start rioting? Good God. If that happens, I'm going to submit a couple desecrated rosaries next time my county art museum puts out a call for their biannual show. Also, does the article establish that "routine mockery" of Christianity occurs in Europe? I don't know if it does or not. I'm not even sure what grounds there are for comparison, either, since the US has constitutional guarantees for certain rights regarding speech (for artists and for artists' detractors), and several European countries don't.
Poltical correctness is often simple cowardice. Christians, in mass, don't blow things up as the religion of "peace" does. This sort of self censoring is common in Europe where courage of one's convictions seems to be rare. It won't get any better until the left stands with the right against it.
Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders was on FoxNews' Glenn Beck Show last evening previewing his 2008 documentary, "Fitna," on Islamic hatred and violence. Wilders expressed his thanks for the freedom here in America that Britain seemed to lack and extolled an International First Amendment he champions. Wilders and the International Free Press Society are in New York and Washington to announce a global initiative to protect free speech from laws that criminalize any criticisms of Islam or the doctrines of Sharia as is regrettably common now in Britain and many parts of Europe.
This is great. But I have this bookmarked for the next time your panties get tied up in knots over some perceived slight directed at Christianity.
If you check that other thread about Wilders on the international board I listed precisely what exactly he is prosecuted for. Mockery it ain't.
I read through that thread but you don't seem to address the aspect of free expression that is being denied Geert Wilders in many parts of Europe; I do realize you may not like his view and/or you disagree with his depiction of Islam but having a viewpoint, as Wilders does, should not be made illegal by the Islamofascist sympathizers calling for jihad against him! When viewpoints become illegal that is when you have totalitarian regimes and dictatorial policies against democratic freedoms... Exactly what would you prosecute Wilders for if not having a viewpoint?
Eh? I literally said he can say whatever he likes as far as I'm concerned. I think it's silly that he's denied entry into the UK as well and Dutch government thinks it's silly too. As for extremist muslims - they're as despicable as he is. But extremist muslims aren't Dutch members of parliament. Wilder is and as such has greater responsibility for what he says in public. When he says, for example, 'there already are more mosques than churches in the Netherlands' that is simply not true and while you would expect your typical rightist twat on a drunken night out in the pub to say idiotic stuff like that, it is not to be expected from a Dutch member of parliament. Interesting from a freedom of speech point of view is that Wilders himself tried to stop a visiting American muslim leader from giving a speech in the Netherlands. I guess he only wants free speech for people he agrees with then eh? These are the exact quotes that Wilders is being taken to court for: "De kern van het probleem is de fascistische islam, de zieke ideologie van Allah en Mohammed zoals neergelegd in de islamitische Mein Kampf: de Koran.” (ingezonden brief in de Volkskrant) Translation: "the core of the problem is the fascist islam, the sick ideology by Allah and Mohammed as writen down in the islamic Mein Kampf: the Koran" (letter to the editor in the Volkskrant, a national and very serious Dutch paper) En de Koran is het Mein Kampf van een religie die beoogt anderen te elimineren, die die anderen - niet-moslims - ongelovige honden noemt, inferieure wezens. Lees de Koran, dat Mein Kampf, nog eens. In welke versie dan ook, je zult zien dat al het kwade dat de zoons van Allah tegen ons en henzelf begaan, uit dat boek afkomstig is.” (ingezonden brief in de Volkskrant) "Translation: "And the Koran is the Mein Kampf of a religion that targets the elimination of other people, that labels others - non-muslims - as unfaithful dogs, inferior beings. Read the Koran, read Mein Kampf agan. Regardless of what version you read, you will see that all the evil the sons of Allah commit to us and to themselves are derived from that book." (another letter to the editor in the Volkskrant) Like I said on that other thread, I don't know what Wilders wanted to achieve with saying these things other than to incite hatred against the muslim population of the Netherlands. He will likely get a slap on the wrist for it from the judge and rightly so as far as I'm concerned.
Since when are "words" criminal deeds eh? Wilders is hardly the first to note the extremists in the Muslim faith that are sponsoring violence and death against the infidels that do not share their belief. Far more interesting that Europe is not calling for prosecution of these Muslim leaders extolling violence... Can we now not speak about Islamofascist violence? Is that your view? Are the Muslims so juvenile they cannot handle criticism of their faith for extolling violence against disbelievers? Most of those advancing jihad misunderstand Allah... That message needs to be spread. I see nothing illegal about that... it's a viewpoint. Deal with it. A few years ago, Bill Mahre developed a documentary against religion and specifically harsh against Christianity... I detested every bit of this documentary but in a free society having an opinion is paramount...You want to railroad Wilders simply because he has one.... There is quite a bit of evil and violence being done today in Allah's name... if you deny that you have blinders on. But beyond that, I see nothing here that is more than a viewpoint and nothing that is illegal... it's a viewpoint. Deal with it. "Having an opinion" and "sharing that opinion" is not inciting hatred; we call it free speech over here... Respectfully, if the Muslims can't take criticism without going on jihad I submit that it is their problem not Wilders... Simply because someone makes a documentary on the more radical elements of Islam does not constitute "inciting hatred" ...
OK so let's swap the Koran for the word Torah. If Wilders had said those things about Jewish religion, what do you think the international reaction to a Dutch member of parliament saying such things be? Well? By the way the NL has a very long tradition of free speech. Just check our Amnesty International ranking. Wilders not only can say what he likes, he indeed does say what he likes, and the government pays for his 20,000 Euros a day protection. What more does he sodding want from us?
I'd likely say he was a crazy loon and acknowledge that I did not share his opinion and leave it at that... the core of free speech is acknowledging that others hold differing opinions... a few years ago these same Muslims now against Geert Wilders called for jihad and death against a teddy bear developer! Her crime? The teddy bear was "blasphemous"! Wilders has an opinion... deal with it. Direct you attention to those actually committing violence in their religion's name... They are not hard to find...
Sigh. The point is that no-one (in his own country) is denying him his right to free speech. I've no idea what he's complaining about. Anyone can take anyone to court here. If he feels offended by muslims, Wilders too can take them to court. That's his democratic right. By the way it's not muslims who are taking him to court. It's a group of right wingers. And the point I was trying to make to you earlier is that there is such a thing as common decency for a member of parliament. You don't pick your nose, stare at breasts, spit, or swear in public as a member of parliament as you're sat there as a representative of the people and those actions may offend a good portion of those people. Just like likening the Koran to Mein Kampf may offend them. According to the Dutch secret service there are not more than 500 active muslim extremists in the Netherlands. There are more christian fanatics in the NL than muslim fanatics. So simply put it's a load of bollix for him to single out the muslim point of view on homosexuality, for example. Etc etc etc. He's a one issue politician and a lot of people in the Netherlands are sick and tired of it. That has probably inspired him to take his message abroad mind as we're all so bored with listening to it.