Dutch Anti-Islamic Film To Air March 28th

speedboatchase

If you havent heard about this story, you will very very soon. Geert Wilders is the leader of his own Party for Freedom party in Holland, and is known for his anti-Islamic views, for example calling the religion "retarded and wanting the restriction of non-western immigration to Holland. He says he is a "defender of free speech" and is reacting to two main incidents in Dutch recent history that have worsened relation between Dutch natives and Muslims - 1. when politician Pim Fortuyn was killed by a Dutch man for being a "threat" that needed to be contained and Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch film maker whose Anti-Islamic views ended up with him being killed and nearly decapitated by a Muslim on a Dutch street.

Like many with anti-Islamic views in Holland, Wilders lives under police protection 24 hours a day and is about to be behind the biggest Europe-Islamic crisis since the Danish cartoon controversey. His 15 minute film "Fitna-Arabic" denouncing Islam has been seen by no-one thus yet but will be broadcast on March 28 as part of his party's alloted public broadcasting time, and if banned, on the internet.

Already there has been protests in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, with the Dutch PM and one of the Danish cartoonists coming out in support of the film. Here's a few quotes from the last few days:

Dutch side -
"Apparently there is no room in Islam
for self-reflection and self-criticism, nor for taking responsibility and self control." Geert Wilders

"This is not acceptable. I am extremely angry about it," Dutch PM Balkenende after hearing about the anti-Dutch protests in Afghanistan

""No Danish politician would do that. They know that freedom of expression shouldn't be oppressed. Wilders should simply go ahead and broadcast his film. ... In Denmark, we criticise everything: the Queen, politicians, religion. Ten years ago I was accused of blasphemy because I had depicted Jesus descending from the cross dressed in an Armani suit. But nobody threatened me. To launch a debate is one of a paper's duties, and thus one of a caricaturist's. Muslims should accept that." Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard

Muslim side

Iran Deputy Minister Mahdi Safari and Iran's ambassador to the Netherlands Bozorgmehr Ziaran said they could not predict the reaction of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims to the film, or prevent possible violence. ‘Why would you expect us to control 1.2 billion Muslims when you cannot control one person,’ Ziaran is quoted as saying. He added Wilders sought to violate Muslim's rights by demonising them, and was a war-monger and troublemaker.


Freedom of speech is not unlimited," Tehran's ambassador to the Netherlands, Bozorgmehr Ziaran told a small group of reporters at the Iranian Embassy. The film, he added, "would just breed violence."
Wilders, Ziaran said, "is not a peacemaker, Mr. Wilders is a warmonger."

French president Sarkozy has came out and said that his country will support the broadcast of the film and I think Wilders should be allowed. The old saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it" applies here. Wilders isnt the most pleasant guy but if Europe appeases radical Islam (and yes, Pakistan and Iran would constitute that) then it sets a dangerous precedent.

There is undoubtedly going to be deaths, mass riots and violence once this film is broadcast but it still must be broadcast in my opinion. We can't let our culture and its universal rights (freedom of speech, universal suffrage etc) become supservient or requiring to be cross-checked and approved by those from dangerous, totalitarian regimes.

PS. Can we please discuss this without mentioning Israel or Bush?

gordon_gekko

lets hope that this time some fascist wont kill the film maker

SeanW

Yeah, anyone want to take bets on who will be the first person slaughtered as a result of this film? The filmmaker? A nun somewhere in Africa? A random Dutch tourist somewhere in the Middle East? A native Darfurian in Sudan (oh wait ... the Islamic government of Sudan doesn't need an excuse for that)? Or how many people will be killed or how much property will be destroyed, because we know that that is exactly what's going to happen.

Or which front of the PC police will be the first to blame the filmmaker, or our evil insensitive Western culture for resulting chaos, for not being "accomodating to Islamic sensitivities?"

kmick

Islam kills a dutch tourist and the christian right drops a missile on a house in Sudan. The Jews shoot a young mother dead and a palestinian kills 6 in a prayerhouse. its another 24 hours in an imperfect world.

I wonder would they guy be so brave if he was not under 24 hour guard. Also sarkozy should shut the deuce up - what a muppet.

SeanW

The fact that he NEEDS to be under 24 hour guard I think says all that needs to be said. And, so if a person (Sarkozy) comes out in support of free speech you tell them to shut up?

inforfun

Just to add and correct a few things here.

The Dutch PM is anything but supporting Geert Wilders. His remark about the protests in Afghanistan was the first time he said something about this matter that could be considered as support for Wilders/freedom af speech.
Till that point our PM has only be moaning about how a movie could start unrest in Holland, could bring Dutch peopel abroad in danger and so on.

And why would he support Wilders? Although not Islamic, our PM (yes, i am Dutch) is a very religious person himself. So restricting Islam could lead to having to restrict his own beliefs.
A few weeks ago our PM came with this little gem "We all know we can not function properly without our religion"
Well thank you Muppet, i guess i am not functioning then. Can i have all the tax paid while i was in Holland back now?

Furthermore, the Islamic (an i guess i should add "fundamantalists") world is making threts against a nation and its people for a 15 minute movie, no one has seen 1 second of so far. Violent threats as well as economical.
Whether there is or there is not a movie coming out, it did already proof a thing or 2.....

According to our PM we have to fear violence for only speaking our mind.
I think it is really time the civilsed world finds an alternative for oil....

905

Of course, we should all be hoping that there are no deaths.

Personally I don't like trouble-making for its own sake. I doubt that's what people have in mind when they think of freedom of speech. This isn't about appeasing Nazis, its about respecting our own ideals.

I'd wouldn't normaly mention Israel or Mr. Bush but since this is about freedom of speech... besides, ye know ye're gagging to whinge about lefty, Irish Times reading Guardianistas.

El Stuntman

905 wrote: »

lefty, Irish Times reading Guardianistas.

the best non sequitur I've read today

kmick

SeanW wrote: »

The fact that he NEEDS to be under 24 hour guard I think says all that needs to be said.

Explain?

SeanW wrote: »

And, so if a person (Sarkozy) comes out in support of free speech you tell them to shut up?

Sarkozy's comments have nothing to do with free speech. Why is he getting involved with the far right? It serves neither the interests of his country or the interests of europe. People outside of Europe assume he is speaking for the whole of France and basically what he is saying is that instaed of extending the hand of equality, fraternity etc Im siding with a fringe group.

El Stuntman

kmick wrote: »

Sarkozy's comments have nothing to do with free speech. Why is he getting involved with the far right? It serves neither the interests of his country or the interests of europe. People outside of Europe assume he is speaking for the whole of France and basically what he is saying is that instaed of extending the hand of equality, fraternity etc Im siding with a fringe group.

but they're not a fringe group, they have 9 (of 150) seats in Parliament and opinion polls put their current support at the same level as the governing party

I'm not a great fan of Sarkozy but I actually think it's laudable that he is standing up for liberal Western values. I'm not sure that he has said that he agrees with this guy, if you can prove different, I'm happy to concede the point

wes

Wilders should be able to say whatever he damn well pleases.

Just like I can say that Wilders party are full of far right nuts.

patslatt

speedboatchase wrote: »

If you havent heard about this story, you will very very soon. Geert Wilders is the leader of his own Party for Freedom party in Holland, and is known for his anti-Islamic views, for example calling the religion "retarded and wanting the restriction of non-western immigration to Holland. He says he is a "defender of free speech" and is reacting to two main incidents in Dutch recent history that have worsened relation between Dutch natives and Muslims - 1. when politician Pim Fortuyn was killed by a Dutch man for being a "threat" that needed to be contained and Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch film maker whose Anti-Islamic views ended up with him being killed and nearly decapitated by a Muslim on a Dutch street.

Like many with anti-Islamic views in Holland, Wilders lives under police protection 24 hours a day and is about to be behind the biggest Europe-Islamic crisis since the Danish cartoon controversey. His 15 minute film "Fitna-Arabic" denouncing Islam has been seen by no-one thus yet but will be broadcast on March 28 as part of his party's alloted public broadcasting time, and if banned, on the internet.

Already there has been protests in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, with the Dutch PM and one of the Danish cartoonists coming out in support of the film. Here's a few quotes from the last few days:

Dutch side -
"Apparently there is no room in Islam
for self-reflection and self-criticism, nor for taking responsibility and self control." Geert Wilders

"This is not acceptable. I am extremely angry about it," Dutch PM Balkenende after hearing about the anti-Dutch protests in Afghanistan

""No Danish politician would do that. They know that freedom of expression shouldn't be oppressed. Wilders should simply go ahead and broadcast his film. ... In Denmark, we criticise everything: the Queen, politicians, religion. Ten years ago I was accused of blasphemy because I had depicted Jesus descending from the cross dressed in an Armani suit. But nobody threatened me. To launch a debate is one of a paper's duties, and thus one of a caricaturist's. Muslims should accept that." Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard

Muslim side

Iran Deputy Minister Mahdi Safari and Iran's ambassador to the Netherlands Bozorgmehr Ziaran said they could not predict the reaction of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims to the film, or prevent possible violence. ‘Why would you expect us to control 1.2 billion Muslims when you cannot control one person,’ Ziaran is quoted as saying. He added Wilders sought to violate Muslim's rights by demonising them, and was a war-monger and troublemaker.


Freedom of speech is not unlimited," Tehran's ambassador to the Netherlands, Bozorgmehr Ziaran told a small group of reporters at the Iranian Embassy. The film, he added, "would just breed violence."
Wilders, Ziaran said, "is not a peacemaker, Mr. Wilders is a warmonger."

French president Sarkozy has came out and said that his country will support the broadcast of the film and I think Wilders should be allowed. The old saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it" applies here. Wilders isnt the most pleasant guy but if Europe appeases radical Islam (and yes, Pakistan and Iran would constitute that) then it sets a dangerous precedent.

There is undoubtedly going to be deaths, mass riots and violence once this film is broadcast but it still must be broadcast in my opinion. We can't let our culture and its universal rights (freedom of speech, universal suffrage etc) become supservient or requiring to be cross-checked and approved by those from dangerous, totalitarian regimes.

PS. Can we please discuss this without mentioning Israel or Bush?

To place this in perspective,there are Christians who would resort to violence over perceived anti-Christian behaviour or out of sheer prejudice.

American Christian right anti-abortion groups terrorise abortion clinics.

Anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish feeling was commonplace in the US South only a few generations ago.

Homosexuality was criminalised in many democracies until about twenty years ago.

In World War II,the fascist Holacaust in Germany and Eastern Europe was facilitated by ancient Christian prejudice agains Jews.


Large proportions of people in poor developing countries regardless of religious affiliation are prone to irrational violence because so many of them live miserable lives on the edge of survival. It doesn't take much to set off violence, witness the occasional,extremely violent Hindu communal riots in India.

Poverty aside,shouldn't the few Muslim states that are rich,such as the Gulf states, be more liberal? Not necessarily,since they are only a few generations away from economic subsistence. The Saudis were nomadic tribesmen until the big 1930s oil discoveries,a way of life that remained largely unchanged since biblical times.

inforfun

El Stuntman wrote: »

but they're not a fringe group, they have 9 (of 150) seats in Parliament and opinion polls put their current support at the same level as the governing party

Here a more recent poll
Wilders and Verdonk used to be member of the liberal party in Holland, the VVD.
Verdonk left the VVD shortly after the article you link to. But her leaving the VVD gave people voring for Wilders another alternative.
Verdonk was pretty popular during her reign as minister of Immigration in the government before the current one.
For the PC army (PvdA & CDA) it was the best thing to happen, Verdonk leaving VVD because the liberals are now divided in 3 medium sized parties. They are not big friends, the 3 of them and therefor struggling to form a decent opposition against the current government.

Result: 30.000 people who were told to leave the country after it was proven that their asylum requests was based on lies are given permanent residence now.
82 taxes have been increased.
The avarage working Joe pays 42% tax on his income in Holland.

El Stuntman

wes wrote: »

Wilders should be able to say whatever he damn well pleases.

Just like I can say that Wilders party are full of far right nuts.

now we have it!!

lostexpectation

islamofascists or plain old traditional fascists which side are you on?

Lennoxschips

Somebody hit the nail on the head: Geert Wilders and Rita Verdonk should be allowed to say that they want.

That doesn't take away from the fact that they are racist scumbags. And if the latest national polls are to be believed, then the People's Republic of Amsterdam should declare independence from the rest of the Netherlands ASAP.

The funny thing is that Wilders is very popular in rural areas where muslims don't live. He plays to the fear of the unknown. The white people in Amsterdam who deal with muslims, have muslim friends and generally interact with them on a daily basis generally don't vote for Wilders or Verdonk - because they know they are talking ****e.

I'm off to work in a couple of hours to hang with with my Dutch-Moroccan colleagues.

30.000 people who were told to leave the country after it was proven that their asylum requests was based on lies are given permanent residence now.

That's bollix. Their requests were never "proven to be lies." The 30,000 people in question were left in limbo for years because the Dutch immigration services failed to process their application in a timely manner. Some of them had been here up to 10 years waiting for a decision, had kids born here who were at school, etc. The government decided to grant them asylum as the immigration system had failed them.

El Stuntman

lostexpectation wrote: »

islamofascists or plain old traditional fascists which side are you on?

hold on

I don't think anyone is labelling the good MP a fascist, are they?

edited to say someone above has just called him 'a racist scumbag'

using terms like this just devalues anyone's argument and is both intellectually lazy and immature

Lennoxschips

I'm not going to give Geert Wilders the time of day by talking about him.

The avarage working Joe pays 42% tax on his income in Holland.

Yup, and the average working Joe in Holland can thank his lucky stars that he won't end up in an Irish hospital if he ever gets seriously ill.

inforfun

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Somebody hit the nail on the head: Geert Wilders and Rita Verdonk should be allowed to say that they want.

That doesn't take away from the fact that they are racist scumbags. And if the latest national polls are to be believed, then the People's Republic of Amsterdam should declare independence from the rest of the Netherlands ASAP..

Pfffff... that is so pre 06-05-2002. Call everybody, who has any sort of criticism as it comes to immigrants, racists, nazis and fascists.
Where is you comparison to WW2? And dont forget Anne frank's dairy. That used to score points as well with the PC army

And about Amsterdam declaring independence ... Oh yes... please. That should happen ASAP indeed.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The funny thing is that Wilders is very popular in rural areas where muslims don't live. He plays to the fear of the unknown. The white people in Amsterdam who deal with muslims, have muslim friends and generally interact with them on a daily basis generally don't vote for Wilders or Verdonk - because they know they are talking ****e.

I'm off to work in a couple of hours to hang with with my Dutch-Moroccan colleagues.

There is only 1 person here talking ****e and i just quoted him.
You might be right about the rural arreas but why is it so funny? They dont live in an area where almost 50% is not native Dutch. And they probably would like to keep it that way.


Funny enough i always hang out with friends, i never feel the need of mentioning nationality...
You feel a better human being now, now that you let the world know you have Moroccan friends?

Lennoxschips wrote: »

That's bollix. Their requests were never "proven to be lies." The 30,000 people in question were left in limbo for years because the Dutch immigration services failed to process their application in a timely manner. Some of them had been here up to 10 years waiting for a decision, had kids born here who were at school, etc. The government decided to grant them asylum as the immigration system had failed them

Most if not all got a negative (for them) result first time of asking. Now that there is an entire industry in Holland making bucketloads of money by pampering these "refugees", i will not deny. And these pamperers were only acting in their own interest by apealing every time a negative decision was made. Dutch society wasnt helped by those appeals and the "refugees" neither
One thing always puzzled me though. If you future is so in doubt (can i stay?, do i have to go?) why on earth would you take kids??

inforfun

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Yup, and the average working Joe in Holland can thank his lucky stars that he won't end up in an Irish hospital if he ever gets seriously ill.

Ever been in a Dutch hospital recently?

berliner

wes wrote: »

Wilders should be able to say whatever he damn well pleases.

Just like I can say that Wilders party are full of far right nuts.

Wilders party is not full of "far right nuts".Dutch patriots more like.

wes

berliner wrote: »

Wilders party is not full of "far right nuts".Dutch patriots more like.

I call them like I see them. See free speech works the other way too .

**EDIT**
Oh and extreme right wing nationalist call themselves patriots all the time. This is what Wilders party is. They are referred to by the media as a far right party. I don't think they would deny that themselves even. I personally consider the far right nutty (same for the far left). There just one example of this is all. I would also consider the far right Muslim extremist to be nutty as well for example.

SeanW

kmick wrote: »

Explain?

Happy to. In Western Europe, we have (mostly) free speech. You want to criticise your Prime Minister/Taoiseach/President? Go ahead. You want to say something nasty about Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Americans, Israelis and anyone else you can possibly imagine, go right ahead. That's what free speech is all about.

But if you do anything to criticise Islam or its position in Europe, well, you should want to put your final affairs in order. Theo Van Gogh made a movie that said Islam was violent. Then he was murdered. By a muslim. Draw from that what you will. Then in Denmark, Jylland's Posten issued a contest to prominent cartoonists to draw a concept of Mohammed. One of the cartoons submitted depicted a cartoonist drawing a picture, looking over his shoulder and cringing in fear. Another, the infamous Bomb-In-A-Turban picture, sparked a worldwide frenzy of rioting and murder.

Every reprint, or attempt to reprint, those cartoons, worldwide, has been met with acts of terrorism or legal action by fundamentalist, mainly Saudi funded, Imams.

Most recently, police in Denmark stopped an organised attempt to murder the author of that particular cartoon. As a result, 17 Danish newspapers reprinted the cartoon, if only to defy the Islamofascist terrorists and assert their rights, and our rights as a people, to say, question, or write about whatever we damn well please.

Salman Rushdie, the Sudanese teddy bear, the Spanish train attacks which curiously happened only days before that country's election ... I could go on and on.

Either we are free to live a Western lifestyle, replete with full and absolute freedom of speech and freedom of expression, or we must judge everything we do - and I mean everything - against Islamic sensitivites and the consequences of offending same.

Sarkozy's comments have nothing to do with free speech. Why is he getting involved with the far right? It serves neither the interests of his country or the interests of europe. People outside of Europe assume he is speaking for the whole of France and basically what he is saying is that instaed of extending the hand of equality, fraternity etc Im siding with a fringe group.

Mr. Sarkozy has been quoted here as saying: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it"

I thought that was fairly clear. You don't have to agree with someone to respect their right to say their piece.

inforfun

wes wrote: »

IOh and extreme right wing nationalist call themselves patriots all the time. This is what Wilders party is. They are referred to by the media as a far right party.

Right wing? No doubt about it. Far right? Not really.
Dont let the (Dutch) media fool you. Independent research showed 80% of journalist vote left of the centre.

Little example:
A few days ago there was a somewhat unfair fight in a train in Holland.
6 teens vs 2 teens
The 6 were (mainly) Moroccans, the 2 were skinheads.

Headline in newspaper: Fight in train between 6 teenagers and 2 skinheads...

kmick

SeanW wrote: »

Mr. Sarkozy has been quoted here as saying: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it"

I thought that was fairly clear. You don't have to agree with someone to respect their right to say their piece.

I agree with you as regards the sentiment that we cant bow to religious pressure however we have to pick our battles. All Im saying is this is not the right battle for Sarkozy to pick. and you can be sure as hell Sarkozy could not give a fcuk either way. He is all about the soundbite. The guy is the french Blair in that respect.

wes

inforfun wrote: »

Right wing? No doubt about it. Far right? Not really.
Dont let the (Dutch) media fool you. Independent research showed 80% of journalist vote left of the centre.

Its not just the dutch media btw. In fact I don't read the Dutch media, there referred to (Wilder party) as such by the BBC and others.

What I have seen from them (Wilders etc) confirms this in my opinion. I see no reason, why I should not call the far right what it is.

There is also the simple fact that he is a hypocrite, when he is calling for the Koran to be banned. If he believes in free speech he wouldn't be calling for books to be banned. His position here seems as I said earlier, to be well nutty to me.

As for the example of the story you cite. Well "Skins heads" aren't a race, the term tends to refer to far right "foot soldiers" or gangs. They tend to be associated with white supremacists movements, but not always. I can see why them being "Skin Heads" might be pertinent to the article.

If they referred to them as "white", then I would agree with your point. They didn't mention the "Skin Heads" race, but I think mentioning a group affiliation is perfectly valid. If the Moroccan teens belonged to a similar group, then I would see how the media were being unfair, but from the information you provided that doesn't seem to be the case.

SeanW

kmick wrote: »

I agree with you as regards the sentiment that we cant bow to religious pressure however we have to pick our battles. All Im saying is this is not the right battle for Sarkozy to pick. and you can be sure as hell Sarkozy could not give a fcuk either way. He is all about the soundbite. The guy is the french Blair in that respect.

Fair enough. I might have misinterpreted your original post.

inforfun

wes wrote: »

Its not just the dutch media btw. In fact I don't read the Dutch media, there referred to (Wilder party) as such by the BBC and others.

What I have seen from them (Wilders etc) confirms this in my opinion. I see no reason, why I should not call the far right what it is.

There is also the simple fact that he is a hypocrite, when he is calling for the Koran to be banned. If he believes in free speech he wouldn't be calling for books to be banned. His position here seems as I said earlier, to be well nutty to me.

I am not a huge fan of Wilders, i was a fan of Fortuyn though. The only thing i admire Wilders for is that he is about the only one who tries to protect the values of Dutch society.
He pays a pretty high price for that as he has to be protected 24/7 against people who can't deal with criticism too well.
About the Koran he said: Half of what is written in there is as bad as what is written in Mein Kampf. We ban Mein Kampf in Holland, you can own Mein Kampf but it is forbidden to print it. Something that isnt printed you can not own.

wes wrote: »

As for the example of the story you cite. Well "Skins heads" aren't a race, the term tends to refer to far right "foot soldiers" or gangs. They tend to be associated with white supremacists movements, but not always. I can see why them being "Skin Heads" might be pertinent to the article.

If they referred to them as "white", then I would agree with your point. They didn't mention the "Skin Heads" race, but I think mentioning a group affiliation is perfectly valid. If the Moroccan teens belonged to a similar group, then I would see how the media were being unfair, but from the information you provided that doesn't seem to be the case.

My point there was, 1 group is called "teenagers" and the others are called Skinheads. Call both groups teenagers and i am fine with it. Give specifics of one group, then do it for the other as well.
The Moroccans do belong to some kind of group, they form some kind of a rap group and their song texts don't leave much space for interpretation
If i hadn't seen a video recording of the incident than i would not have known what really was going on.
Things being said in that clip makes it a racist attack on the 2 white teenagers. I could post the link but since what is said is in Dutch....

Lennoxschips

inforfun wrote: »

Ever been in a Dutch hospital recently?

Yes, to visit my sister. She was in her own room with private bathroom. All through standard health coverage.

I also visited my grandfather in Ireland. He was in a room with 35 other beds and about 1 meter between each bed.

My point there was, 1 group is called "teenagers" and the others are called Skinheads. Call both groups teenagers and i am fine with it. Give specifics of one group, then do it for the other as well.

The Dutch press almost always calls second and even third generation immigrants "Turks" an "Marrokaans". 99% of the time I'd say.

Most if not all got a negative (for them) result first time of asking. Now that there is an entire industry in Holland making bucketloads of money by pampering these "refugees", i will not deny. And these pamperers were only acting in their own interest by apealing every time a negative decision was made. Dutch society wasnt helped by those appeals and the "refugees" neither

If you had read the pardon law you will note that it only applies to people who arrived before 2001 and had not yet been processed. That means people who had been waiting some six years in limbo. Some of them had Dutch born five year olds at school. The Dutch government couldn't run a proper immigration system, acknowledged this and granted asylum to people who were forced to suffer under it. That's what the pardon was about.

Funny enough i always hang out with friends, i never feel the need of mentioning nationality...
You feel a better human being now, now that you let the world know you have Moroccan friends?

I'm just trying to point out the difference between political scaremongering and everyday reality.

To be honest, the most problems I've had growing up in Holland have been with white people. Being at the playground and told to **** off back to Ireland while getting rocks thrown at you, that kind of thing. But despite that I have no issues with "the Dutch." I have the ability to seperate the actions of a few scumbags from their nationality/ethnic background at large.

eoin5

Is this just another secular versus theocratic society problem or is it more than that? Is it a war with a history now in some peoples view since its not the first time the dutch have ignored the tricky business of Muslim belief in favour of outright free speech?

I think theyre playing a risky game but its one I fully support. Free speech is paramount to the human species as we move forward, to deny it as a nation is wrong imo.

Lennoxschips

Eoin5, his film hasn't been banned at all. Wilders' free speech is not under threat in the Netherlands. In fact, every breath that man utters is plastered all over the media. Anybody who lives here knows that. Wilders is a master of playing the media. The "PC liberal left-centre" agenda against him is a figment of people's imagination. That man has the Dutch press eating out of the palm of his hand.

Free speech is under threat in other ways. Last month protesters (inlcuding a member of parliament for the GreenLeft party) were arrested for displaying pickets that said "WILDERS=EXTREMIST". The Police said they were slogans of an insulting nature. Even Wilders himself (again, a master of playing the media) said they shouldn't have been arrested.