Freedom of speech under attack in The Netherlands

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm glad someone else noticed this. Free speech is not just verbal conversations, it encompassases all mediums of commnunication and and artistic media, recorded or not, and those we have yet to invent.

To say its ok to abuse someone to their face but not via the medium of a newspaper is missing the point somewhat.

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Offending people and being intolerant isn't against the law.

Depends on the state it happens in.....

Bottle_of_Smoke

Is this def about fitna, that was months ago, and it would certainly be ridiculous to call that incitement

inforfun

No, Fitna is only part of it.
I dont see anyhting in Fitna that could get him into this trouble btw. It was nothing more than showing footage of terrorists attacks together with quotes from the Koran justifying such actions.

This is also about remarks he made like:
"You can compare the Koran to Mein Kampf, if you ban sales of Mein kampf, the same thing should happen with the Koran"

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Yet despite all the whining, whinging and crap about values being undermined, nobodys given a decent example of it. Are Dutch women required to cover their heads, for instance? Is the national language now Arabic? No, not a bit of it.

Funny you should mention this, since for example at NHS Lothian, certain office staff are now forbidden to eat lunch at their desks during Ramadan because it might make things difficult for Muslim co-workers.http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/16309

Canda's Thought police hears a case against a publisher critical of Islamofascism.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/postopinion/editorials/canadas_thought_police_72483.htm

Judicial recognition of barbarianism:
Italian court overturns sentence of Moroccan man who beat his daughter - for religious reasons
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/08/italy-court-discriminates-against.html
German judge refuses to allow a divorce of an abused Moroccan woman from an abusive husband
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/03/germany-judge-supports-honor-crimes.html

Mayor of Brussels bans a peaceful demonstration and 9/11 rememberance:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2312

"Three Little Pigs" deemed racist against Islam:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7204635.stm

British taxpayer liable for benefits for men with multiple wives.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23435519-details/Muslim+husbands+with+more+than+one+wife+to+get+extra+benefits+as+ministers+recognise+polygamy/article.do

National Secular Society: Demands an explanation for the West Midlands police witchhunt against the Channel 4 makers of "Undercover Mosque" (instead of arresting, imprisoning and/or deporting the nutty Imams who were found to be preaching REAL hate speech from the mosque pulpits).
http://www.secularism.org.uk/explanationneededaboutwestmidlan.html

Enough is enough.

Edit: Disclaimer. I understand full well that not all European Muslims adhere to nonsense like this, in fact the majority may not, and that this is promoted primarily by radical Islamists with the passive approval of government, media and left-wingers. My sole quarrel is with the Islamofascists, radical Islam, and our failure to recognise it. Nothing more.

inforfun

Nodin wrote: »

Yet despite all the whining, whinging and crap about values being undermined, nobodys given a decent example of it. Are Dutch women required to cover their heads, for instance? Is the national language now Arabic? No, not a bit of it.

Well, i could post a few dozen links with examples of how much influence the Islam already has in Holland. They would be all in Dutch though so i dont think it is very usefull to post hem here.

Nodin

inforfun wrote: »

Well, i could post a few dozen links with examples of how much influence the Islam already has in Holland. They would be all in Dutch though so i dont think it is very usefull to post hem here.

And of course the rest of the world has decided to pass no comment whatsover.....Shocking.

inforfun

Nodin wrote: »

And of course the rest of the world has decided to pass no comment whatsover.....Shocking.

I think i am missing your point here..... Please explain.

OhNoYouDidn't

inforfun wrote: »

I think i am missing your point here..... Please explain.

He is voicing astonishment that the evil muslims have taken over Holland and no-one outside Holland has noticed or cares enough to even write a newspaper article

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Funny you should mention this, since for example at NHS Lothian, certain office staff are now forbidden to eat lunch at their desks during Ramadan because it might make things difficult for Muslim co-workers.http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/16309
.

The political correctness bug. Used to be about Women all the time, according to the tabloids. Its nothing to do with Dutch law though, is it?

SeanW wrote: »

Canda's Thought police hears a case against a publisher critical of Islamofascism.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/postopinion/editorials/canadas_thought_police_72483.htm

I heard of this eejit a while back. Personally I thought he was the right wing equivalent of Howard Stern and was taking the piss, particularily as his arguments about 'breeding' echo exactly anti-slavic and anti-Jewish thought of the late 19th century.

You do realise that he essentially supported the massacres of the Yugoslav conflict in that book btw? Whether he should be prosecuted or not is another argument, but hes not being done for a simple critique of "Islamofacism".

SeanW wrote: »

Judicial recognition of barbarianism:
Italian court overturns sentence of Moroccan man who beat his daughter - for religious reasons
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/08/italy-court-discriminates-against.html

Not quite as clear cut as you make out....

.....According to the Italian judges that girl had not been beaten out of anger and it was unusual for the father, who had only beat his daughter three times in his life.

According to the prosecution Fatima had been tied to a chair and released only to be brutally beaten. However the supreme court ruled that Fatima had threatened suicide out of her fear and that she had been tied up in order to prevent her from doing so.

.....
German judge refuses to allow a divorce of an abused Moroccan woman from an abusive husband
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/03/germany-judge-supports-honor-crimes.html

Judge upholds pre-existing German law and makes ignorant statement. Rather ironically the woman could have been divorced far quicker had they allowed the woman follow Islamic custom. Context - its a great man.

.....
Mayor of Brussels bans a peaceful demonstration and 9/11 rememberance:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2312

...because of the nature of the groups involved.

.....
"Three Little Pigs" deemed racist against Islam:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7204635.stm

The book (supposed to be universal) was questioned due to the fact it may not be culturally relevant or immediately clear to some of the very young children it was aimed at. "Racism" never really came into it.

.....
British taxpayer liable for benefits for men with multiple wives.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23435519-details/Muslim+husbands+with+more+than+one+wife+to+get+extra+benefits+as+ministers+recognise+polygamy/article.do

A question of whether not marriages deemed valid in one state are to be universally recognised in another. What would be the case here of a gay couple, for instance, who relocated from where there union was
recognised?

.....
National Secular Society: Demands an explanation for the West Midlands police witchhunt against the Channel 4 makers of "Undercover Mosque" (instead of arresting, imprisoning and/or deporting the nutty Imams who were found to be preaching REAL hate speech from the mosque pulpits).
http://www.secularism.org.uk/explanationneededaboutwestmidlan.html

WestMidlands police acting like idiots? Perish the thought....

.....
My sole quarrel is with the Islamofascists, radical Islam, and our failure to recognise it. Nothing more.

Over-reacting to a few nuts really gives the wrong impression.

Nodin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

He is voicing astonishment that the evil muslims have taken over Holland and no-one outside Holland has noticed or cares enough to even write a newspaper article

'Francois, theres somebody at the door....they're wounded'
'Yes, look at the way that Scimitar is sticking out of his back....'
'He's trying to say something.....its some alien tongue....'
'He's dead...We will never know what drove him here....'

speedboatchase

"Injury to feelings" :rolleyes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2144714/Muslim--hairdresser-awarded-andpound4,000-for-'hurt-feelings'-over-headscarf.html

Fairly OT but just an example that I thought was a bit mad

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

"Injury to feelings" :rolleyes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2144714/Muslim--hairdresser-awarded-andpound4,000-for-'hurt-feelings'-over-headscarf.html

Fairly OT but just an example that I thought was a bit mad

She used pre-existing laws, that have been taken advantage by plenty of other groups.

Also, plenty of other people are sue happy, so why the hell wouldn't Muslims get in on the act? I think the problem is more to do with all sort of people being sue happy, as opposed to a single group.

ChocolateSauce

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is it OK to say "all f*cking n*ggers must be hung"? Is it OK to stand outside a primary school wearing a sandwich board saying "children are sex objects"? Doesn't that fall under the caveat you introduced above: "how you say it may certainly be open to scrutiny"?

Ok? Certainly not. If I ever heard someone say that I'd take it up with them, but it shouldn't be illegal to say. As for the sandwich board, actually hanging around could be deemed as threatening behaviour/action and doesn't fall under the category of speech. If a guy wants to start a web page arguing children are sex object, that is his right.

Doesn't that fall under the caveat you introduced above: "how you say it may certainly be open to scrutiny"?

Perhaps. He said it in a movie which people must actively pursue to watch, something I don't believe is obtrusive of threatening. Now, if he yelled the contents of Fitna through a megaphone at a home of a Muslim, that would be different.

Donegalfella, that's an extremely well balanced and considered approach. I commend you, and am somewhat envious of your charm! I think "slippery slope" is a very accurate analogy.

Originally Posted by ChocolateSauce
Offending people and being intolerant isn't against the law.
Depends on the state it happens in.....

Very true. It's perfectly okay to be intolerant in Arabia, for example, but in Britain it's becoming difficult to get away with.

"You can compare the Koran to Mein Kampf, if you ban sales of Mein kampf, the same thing should happen with the Koran"

His logic is impeccable, really. I happen to think Mein Kampf and the Koran should be legal, but banning one while allowing the other is hypocritical, as both call for and have successfully incited mass murder. I've got a copy of Mein Kampf, and it is unadulterated madness, the rantings of an insane failed painter.

Nice list of evidence SeanW, I've bookmarked this thread page.

nodin wrote:

Not quite as clear cut as you make out....

Well, I suppose he did tie his child to a chair a beat her only once, and for her own good. Lets forgive him and have the law treat him differently from a Christian or atheist. After all, that's what tolerant, multi-cultural people do. People who defend this kind of stuff sicken me more than the people who do it; after all, they were raised to believe it's ok to beat women and subjugate them as chattel. We should know better.

OhNoYouDidn't

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

could be deemed as threatening behaviour/action and doesn't fall under the category of speech.

This is where your anaylsis unravels. You are claiming that freedom of speech should be invioable, but the bits you acknowledge should be limited you claim are not actually speech.

Surely you see the paradox in that reasoning?

Leon08

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Only by ensuring that all ideas, all walks of life, and all governments can be criticised strongly in the public domain can one ensure that those same powers do not gain a controlling state in society.

+1

People should also remember that in some Islamic States criticism of Islam and Governments is most definitely not common because perhaps, and I might be wrong on this one, its not allowed.

So as long as you do not incite hatred, what is the problem with someone arguing against a concept that a lot of people perceive to be unjust?

OhNoYouDidn't

Leon08 wrote: »

So as long as you do not incite hatred, what is the problem with someone arguing against a concept that a lot of people perceive to be unjust?

But isn't that the entire point. A prosecuter has decided it might be incitement and is prosecuting.

The arguments so far seem to be that they are not entitled to do so. Whether he is found guilty or not is essentially irrelevant to the topic in hand.

Leon08

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But isn't that the entire point. A prosecuter has decided it might be incitement and is prosecuting.

The arguments so far seem to be that they are not entitled to do so. Whether he is found guilty or not is essentially irrelevant to the topic in hand.

I agree, let the courts decide that. Personally I do not think that he has. But that is my opinion, dare i say it

But another thing to consider on the side is that if you agree with me that Islam and Islamic regimes do not allow criticism of themselves, then they are in fact pursuing oppressive policies. And as a member of a democratically elected government, Wilders has a duty to oppose such policies.

Your thoughts?

oscarBravo

Leon08 wrote: »

And as a member of a democratically elected government, Wilders has a duty to oppose such policies.

Parliament, not government. Unless I'm mistaken.

OhNoYouDidn't

Leon08 wrote: »

I agree, let the courts decide that. Personally I do not think that he has. But that is my opinion, dare i say it

100% agree.

Leon08 wrote: »

But another thing to consider on the side is that if you agree with me that Islam and Islamic regimes do not allow criticism of themselves, then they are in fact pursuing oppressive policies. And as a member of a democratically elected government, Wilders has a duty to oppose such policies.

Your thoughts?

Ireland doenst allow drugs and whores, can he skin up and head down the red light and get pumping and justify it under the grounds that Ireland opressess us?

Slippery slope argument Leon

asdasd

Criticism of the Koran, and/or of any religion should be free. Societies where people are jailed for such crimes are not free. That's pretty simple.

And of course this is both an attack on liberties and specifically a surrender to Islam. Nobody ever gets arrested for any criticism of the Pope, which is a lucky break for Guardian leader writers and columnists. Take for instance the non-story about the Catholic attitude to homosexuality over Christmas. Badly researched nonsense published in a country with a strong anti-Catholic past. They were wrong, probably influenced by anti-Catholicism in a country with centuries of it, but even that is no hate crime.

Once again the PC types prove themselves to be illogical, self-important unreliable appeasers - the Pope can be criticised for a non-Statement about homosexuality, the bible can be accused of being violent ( which it is), the rituals of Christian religions can be pathologized or mocked ( piss-Christ) as they should be - but when it comes to the most atavistic backward modern religion they demand a student deferment, compare attacks on religion to attacks on blacks, and use the typical debating tool - the tired and dull tactic of throwing the toys out of the pram shouting RACIST at the top of their voices.

This is the way it goes: Catholic attacks on homosexuality are hate crime, homosexual ( Fortuyn) attacks on Islam are hate crime. We is always wrong. Westerners bad. Whitey racist. Everybody else good.

The PC dullards need a simple script, for they are a simple people.

ChocolateSauce

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This is where your anaylsis unravels. You are claiming that freedom of speech should be invioable, but the bits you acknowledge should be limited you claim are not actually speech.

Surely you see the paradox in that reasoning?

Not really.

People should also remember that in some Islamic States criticism of Islam and Governments is most definitely not common because perhaps, and I might be wrong on this one, its not allowed.

Not only there, but in state-sponsored atheist China you're not free to practice your religion and in Europe until recently criticism of Christianity was illegal. Indeed, most countries still have blasphemy laws, although no judge would entertain them.

Whether he is found guilty or not is essentially irrelevant to the topic in hand.

You haven't read the article. It isn't a prosecutor bringing him to court, a court ordered a prosecutor to prosecute, after the public prosecutor had already decided he wasn't guilty of a crime! This means the court has already decided his guilt, and need a trial to sentence him.

Leon08

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Ireland doenst allow drugs and whores, can he skin up and head down the red light and get pumping and justify it under the grounds that Ireland opressess us?
Slippery slope argument Leon

Well according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which most European countries have accepted and endeavour to uphold, every person has the right to freedom of speech (non hatred-inciting etc).

Also, and I am not being condescending, if you read the UDHR in full, there are many basic human rights which Islam and the Quran actively and willfully oppose, according to Geert Wilders movie Fitna and the video clips shown therein of preachers of Islam advocating attacks on homosexuals etc.

Therefore, I fail to see how a democratically elected Member of Parliament of a democratic nation which, as stated above, seeks to abide by the UDHR, does not have a responsibility to oppose threats to breaches of the UDHR and the Dutch Constitution etc.

I mean, if you read every article in the UDHR, you will find an equal statement by those who preach Islam (in Wilder's film) advocating the breaches of the particular right.

From having researched the above, it seems intuitive and reasonable to me that not only do democratically elected MP's have a moral obligation to oppose those extremist Islamic views, but there must surely be some LEGAL clause when they are sworn into office that they are going to uphold democracy?

Does anyone get what im on about or is it all nonsense?

Leon08

oscarBravo wrote: »

Parliament, not government. Unless I'm mistaken.

You're right, sorry about that.

Ive drawn a few comparisons between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what I saw Islamic preachers saying in Wilder's film. Now I may be wrong, but they dont seem compatible!

UDHR: Article 1.

• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

I think we all agree that this is not in line with certain Islamic beliefs...


UDHR: Article 4.

• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

A certain clause about women being a man's property or something to that extent springs to mind....


UDHR: Article 18.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Considering Islam states that it is the ONLY worthy religion in the world
and that everyone must sign up to it or die, I can forsee some problems here...

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Again, coming back to my point about allowing criticism.


I could go on and on and on, but you get the point. If I was to do it for each article I would actually end up going in circles because for most of them, if you breach one you are in fact breaches others at the same time.

Your thoughts?

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well, I suppose he did (....)know better.

Its not at all clear that was the logic behind it. Nor was that the logic behind the German decision. You seem in a rush to latch onto what concurs with your beliefs.