FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


'Ban Koran' is the word





Phinx
And he is back. Geert Wilders is back in UK and...well, nothing changed. The little anti-Islam Dutchman is still eager to continue to seek his goal - ban Koran.

Quote:
His plan to stage an open-air news conference around the corner on College Green had to be abandoned when about 40 protesters arrived on the scene chanting "Wilders go to hell" and waving placards saying "Sharia for the Netherlands" and "Islam will be superior


Well, people are clear about their 'love' towards Wilders and his attempts to cage up Muslims. And while all this is going on and everyone remembers his defeat in Dutch parliament, he puts forward a really nice, positive, yet controversial fraze, which makes me wonder is he really that much of a hypocrite?

Quote:
I don't agree with that at all. I want the Koran discussed very much more and I want it particularly discussed by the 98% or whatever it is of the Muslim community who are mild, peace-loving people.


So how does this work? We ban Koran first, and then start sorting things out? We continue with the ban even though we know that only minority are extremists? And why would anyone bother to 'discuss' Koran after it is banned? There would just no need.

While i know that such wish festers in heads of many UK residents, i think banning Koran, would make the situation worse by creating even greater tension between Muslims and the anti-Muslim supporters and will surely will be used as an example in other parts of the world.
lagoon
The man is an idiot. He stirs up trouble wherever he goes.
deanhills
I can't believe that a guy gets allowed into the UK, especially when they have a very good idea of what he is about to do. I thought there were laws in place for allowing people in who may disturb the peace and create violence? Sort of baffles the mind.
Roald
I don't think the man is really a hypocrite, he has just a weird view on the Islam, but his visit to England perfectly illustrated that there is extremism on both side, these protesters with their "Islam will be superior" slogans prove that they are as irrational as Wilders.

More info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8308982.stm
deanhills
Roald wrote:
I don't think the man is really a hypocrite, he has just a weird view on the Islam, but his visit to England perfectly illustrated that there is extremism on both side, these protesters with their "Islam will be superior" slogans prove that they are as irrational as Wilders.

More info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8308982.stm
Right, so more the reason for keeping him out of the country. I can't understand that he is allowed in, especially given the cost of security and keeping the peace, even without him there. Just does not make sense to me.

Thanks for the link Roald. I found the quote below quite mind boggling. I'm sure the security services in the UK must find it equally dumbfounding:
Quote:
However, on Tuesday the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled there was no evidence to suggest he represented a real and serious threat to the "fundamental interest" of society.

The judges said that even if there had been evidence, it would still have been wrong to turn him away because in the event of any trouble the police would have been able to deal with it.

The Home Office said Mr Wilders' statements and behaviour during his visit "will inevitably impact on any future decisions to admit him".

Officials say his case differs from that of a larger number of individuals - including Islamic extremists and white supremacists - who are on a list of people excluded from Britain for "unacceptable behaviour".

The power to impose such exclusions was introduced in 2005, following the London bombings, and applies predominantly to non-EU nationals who would seek to "foster hatred or promote terrorism".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8308982.stm
Phinx
It seems until you blow someone up or start a riot, you can be sure you won't banned from entering UK.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I can't believe that a guy gets allowed into the UK,

Because disallowing him would be just as bad as following his advice and banning Islam.

A free country must be free even for those who want to deny others freedom (though once they progress from wanting to doing, they have to be thwarted).
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I can't believe that a guy gets allowed into the UK,

Because disallowing him would be just as bad as following his advice and banning Islam.

A free country must be free even for those who want to deny others freedom (though once they progress from wanting to doing, they have to be thwarted).

That sounds rather idealistic, when the security of British citizens are at risk. Not to mention the risk of foreign relations with islamic countries when we are trying for international peace. And insulting a large group of Islamic citizens in the UK and through them all Islamic people of the world. That has to be very shortsighted The Netherlands hold a different opinion about this guy. He is currently awaiting trial for "fomenting hate" with his anti-Islam remarks. Which is exactly what it is.
Quote:
Mr Wilders, who faces trial at home for inciting hatred, was allowed into the UK after a ban on him was lifted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8308982.stm
What I also cannot understand is his argument that he has nothing against individuals or groups of Islamic people, but that he is against their culture, and sees it as a threat to freedom of people in society. How can he separate the two from one another? Just imagine the immediate negative sentiment about the Dutch in the Middle East. Hopefully they will note that the Dutch are not necessarily in agreement with Mr. Wilders, although it would appear the UK is OK with what he has to say.
liljp617
I respect his right to spew whatever nonsense he wants...I reserve the right to call him a moron.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I respect his right to spew whatever nonsense he wants...I reserve the right to call him a moron.
Well said! What worries me are the consequences though. They are completely predictable. There are a number of possibilities. One near the top of the list is the possibility of him being assassinated. Violence. And then putting innocent people around the crazy ones in jeopardy, people get hurt, security people have to be called in. Sort of really idiotic. If you look at the BBC article that was quoted, it said how pleased Wilders was that the British allowed him in, which between the lines I read as ammunition for his defence at his trial in the Netherlands. Can't be good for relations with the Dutch courts either. Makes me wonder how someone who is standing trial is allowed to travel abroad to make presentations about the very subject that he is on trial for. That does not make any sense either.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8308982.stm
Klaw 2
it's even worse during european elections he got a lot of votes, and he would almost be the largest party in the Netherlands if elections would be held now. Well atleast to some people but i don't believe he is a frigging disgrace to my country, (I live there).
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I can't believe that a guy gets allowed into the UK,

Because disallowing him would be just as bad as following his advice and banning Islam.

A free country must be free even for those who want to deny others freedom (though once they progress from wanting to doing, they have to be thwarted).

That sounds rather idealistic, when the security of British citizens are at risk. Not to mention the risk of foreign relations with islamic countries when we are trying for international peace. And insulting a large group of Islamic citizens in the UK and through them all Islamic people of the world. That has to be very shortsighted The Netherlands hold a different opinion about this guy. He is currently awaiting trial for "fomenting hate" with his anti-Islam remarks. Which is exactly what it is.

If 'fomenting hate' is a crime, your country is not as free as you might think.
Freedom of speech is more important than international peace, more important than insults, and a lot more important than political correctness.

Besides that, wouldn't the government preventing someone from speaking out against a religion set a very bad precedent? You could go on from there to make an Atheist's criticism of Christianity illegal as well.
Phinx
The debate whether it is right or wrong can continue for a while. What puzzles me, personally, in this situation is tolerance towards the flaws in democracy, the goddess of today's political world, and immediate hatred towards the Islam and people supporting and upholding it.

For years we debate over what is wright and what is wrong. Politicians endlessly pick and choose which things to 'modernize' and 'improve' next (even though many of them are working fine) and debate over outdated laws, which are a burden rather then a help, without taking any action for years, beause they can't come to a single answer. Bickering and shouting rhetoric to the other side of barricades the leaders of countries continue to discuss the flaws of democracy and inequalities of today's society that leaves many in misery.

Yet now we come to something, that is alien to us. Something new, something powerful yet simple in it's nature. Somehow even primitive (as it is seen to some). But what is this? We unite to crush these people of different nature and different beliefs, because they are bringing 'chaos' in our lives.

While many political figures of today are no better: swindling, lying stabbing people in the back, they do it in a sophisticated manner so it somehow makes it better then the 'harsh' and 'animalistic' ways of Muslims. We are better, because we mess around with the world in a 'modern' way with a big smile on our faces.
ocalhoun
Phinx wrote:
The debate whether it is right or wrong can continue for a while. What puzzles me, personally, in this situation is tolerance towards the flaws in democracy, the goddess of today's political world, and immediate hatred towards the Islam and people supporting and upholding it.

For years we debate over what is wright and what is wrong. Politicians endlessly pick and choose which things to 'modernize' and 'improve' next (even though many of them are working fine) and debate over outdated laws, which are a burden rather then a help, without taking any action for years, beause they can't come to a single answer. Bickering and shouting rhetoric to the other side of barricades the leaders of countries continue to discuss the flaws of democracy and inequalities of today's society that leaves many in misery.

Yet now we come to something, that is alien to us. Something new, something powerful yet simple in it's nature. Somehow even primitive (as it is seen to some). But what is this? We unite to crush these people of different nature and different beliefs, because they are bringing 'chaos' in our lives.

While many political figures of today are no better: swindling, lying stabbing people in the back, they do it in a sophisticated manner so it somehow makes it better then the 'harsh' and 'animalistic' ways of Muslims. We are better, because we mess around with the world in a 'modern' way with a big smile on our faces.

Are you really accusing every democratic country in the world of being anti-Islam?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
If 'fomenting hate' is a crime, your country is not as free as you might think.
How can "fomenting hate" be liberating at all? How can people be free when they speak against the religions of others? That has to mean then that their freedom is to be had at the expense of the freedom of others, and also those how are in the middle, who are innocent and who are bound to be hurt, even killed, what about their freedom and right to safety and security?

Did you think the crusades, which were very much based on this premise, were liberating at all? What about the "rape" of Jerusalem? Total craziness!

I believe we need to respect the beliefs of others, as they should respect our beliefs. Work on peace, not on conflict. There is a time to speak out for freedom, such as with electronics when Governments are getting all our information on computers and cross referencing it everywhere, sometimes for purposes that we do not even know about. But with regard to religion, we really need to respect one another and treat one another with reverence. Who wants conflict, terror and war?

I'm all for "mesiahs" who preach on getting people to meet one another in their differences. But I am against "mesiahs" who preach differences, especially in this negative way.
Phinx
No, i am not. What i was trying to say is ,that i some how missed the part when we tried to discuss and even remotly understand the muslims better. Politicians might try and tell you they ae working on 'social co-operation' but in reality, how many people do you know that re in close contact with muclims? How many care about their beliefs, such as refusl to eat pork?As soon as the commotion starts, many just think (not refering to democrats, just general population) how to get rid of people of different believes and this appplies in many cases - style, music taste, religion, political beliefs.
deanhills
Phinx wrote:
No, i am not. What i was trying to say is ,that i some how missed the part when we tried to discuss and even remotly understand the muslims better. Politicians might try and tell you they ae working on 'social co-operation' but in reality, how many people do you know that re in close contact with muclims? How many care about their beliefs, such as refusl to eat pork?As soon as the commotion starts, many just think (not refering to democrats, just general population) how to get rid of people of different believes and this appplies in many cases - style, music taste, religion, political beliefs.
Good point. Guess education is the bottom line for getting to know other cultures better, and hopefully to have a greater understanding as well. You're right, so far it has been mostly lip language and more can be done. That education has obviously also have to go both ways. Muslims need to work on distancing themselves from terror groups, lots of PR needed, and society needs to educate itself so that it can work better with the differences. Rather than pointing fingers at differences, there has to be some common ground where people of different cultures can meet with one another and get to know one another.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
If 'fomenting hate' is a crime, your country is not as free as you might think.
How can "fomenting hate" be liberating at all?

It isn't. The freedom to do so is, however.
Quote:
How can people be free when they speak against the religions of others?

How can they be free when they're forced not to?
Quote:
That has to mean then that their freedom is to be had at the expense of the freedom of others,

No, there is no 'freedom of not being criticized'. Criticism, no matter how vitriolic, does not intrinsically reduce the freedom of others.
Quote:
and also those how are in the middle, who are innocent and who are bound to be hurt, even killed, what about their freedom and right to safety and security?

Punish the people who hurt and kill them. Don't punish people who are exercising their rights (however misguidedly they may be doing so).
Quote:

Did you think the crusades, which were very much based on this premise, were liberating at all? What about the "rape" of Jerusalem? Total craziness!

Of course not. The Crusades were not pursued by 'free countries' though. Really, I don't see what the Crusades have to do with any of this.
Quote:

I believe we need to respect the beliefs of others, as they should respect our beliefs. Work on peace, not on conflict. There is a time to speak out for freedom, such as with electronics when Governments are getting all our information on computers and cross referencing it everywhere, sometimes for purposes that we do not even know about. But with regard to religion, we really need to respect one another and treat one another with reverence. Who wants conflict, terror and war?

I want conflict, terror, and war. Because the price of getting rid of those things is too much to bear.
Quote:

I'm all for "mesiahs" who preach on getting people to meet one another in their differences. But I am against "mesiahs" who preach differences, especially in this negative way.

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of being against something but not thinking that the government should ban it.

For example: I'm against smoking, but I don't think the government should ban it.
Similarly, I'm against the kinds of things this man is saying, but I don't think the government should ban it.
deanhills
@ocalhoun. This sounds exactly the equivalent of what is happening with health care. Everyone is free to smoke cigarettes, get obese, abuse themselves, and then they feel they have the right too to expect health care for all. Ditto safety and security. People have to be killed first, before their freedom is perceived to have been compromised and then also expect Government to cough up comprehensive safety and security services. There has to be something really wrong with this picture? Why wait for wars to happen, and then go through the rediculous motions of killing one another, fighting one another, and then someone gets to work on a peace treaty? Why not exercise a little bit of preventive care?
truespeed
There is a freedom of speech debate in the Uk at the moment with Nick Griffin (The BNP leader) appearing this week on Question Time. (A high profile political debate programme on the BBC)

See Story.
sheedatali
Interesting discussion going on here, I agree with the points made here. There are benefits to freedom of speech and say what you want however you have to consider the perceived benefits/dangers of that freedom. Of course the extremists on either side are looking for a reason to explode, however the general public which is in the middle must not be given the wrong impression. People talk about the millions of peace loving muslims and millions of peace loving non-muslims who do not care, but the fact is that is that it does affect our day to day lives. I being a Muslim have experienced this first hand and seen it happening over and over again. People just do not open up to you regardless of either they are against Islam or not, if you do not drink, people will be reluctant to socialize with you. You don't eat pork and people will make comments consciously or unconsciously.

Obviously it is a matter of education and understanding but you do not see or feel this until you experience this. I can tell you how hard Muslims try to integrate in the society and culture, I have done so my entire life but each day you are reminded that you are not really part of this society. And when people like Wilders are so destructive to society and culture.

On a positive note I am very proud that at least in the west there is some acknowledgement of the problem and people do talk about it at least. If this was the other way around, it would be terrible in Muslim cultures and countries.
Bikerman
truespeed wrote:
There is a freedom of speech debate in the Uk at the moment with Nick Griffin (The BNP leader) appearing this week on Question Time. (A high profile political debate programme on the BBC)

See Story.

Yes, this is very much a 'live issue' here.
My own opinion is that Griffin should indeed appear. The BNP did win 2 seats in the European elections and they therefore have a right to 'be heard' on the BBC - which has in its charter the obligation to provide for democratic parties to be represented/broadcast. The real issue will be how his statements are challenged by the other panellists and by the Chairman. Griffin is quite a smooth operator and he will do his homework before the show. He has already (just now) been on one major news programme (Radio 4 1pm news) speaking about the letter which appeared today from 'military chiefs' abhorring the fact that the BNP use military imagery (particularly the famous Spitfire poster) in their electioneering documents. Griffin has to be thoroughly challenged. He will make reasonable sounding proposals which are not in themselves overtly racist. The other panellists have to challenge him on his record (former National Front, convicted of racial incitement, holocaust denier), his documented views and the BNP documentation in the public arena. That means they must do their homework and I would suggest the wiki entry as a good starting point.
truespeed
I don't normally watch Question time as i am not really that interested in politics,but i will try to make a point of watching it on Thursday.

I think all the panellists will be prepared,not just Nick Griffin. I doubt they will throw anything at him he hasn't heard before and hasn't got an answer for.

The danger in having him on, is giving his views a platform,and potentially gaining more support,though the assumption with the BNP is that the only people who vote for them are the uneducated,so not the type of people who will be watching Question Time anyway,the downside (for him) could be that he and his views are made to look stupid.

I expect him to stick with the moderate BNP views and steer clear (like all politicians) of anything controversial.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Why not exercise a little bit of preventive care?

Preventive diplomacy- yes.
Preventive apologizing for the crazies- yes.
Preventive censorship and banning of the crazies- no.

If we have to fight wars to stay free, then let's fight wars.
Phinx
Education might be important, BUT it has secondary importance in my opinion. Why? Well, let's see, where does this hatred for Muslims come from? Mostly parents and relatives.

I personally have had and indirect comments about my origin. For my sentences to make sense from now on, i need to say a few thing about myself. I live in UK, but originally i am from Lithuania, so i am an immigrant and a full-time student. I'm currently in a relationship with a girl of British origin (kind of). And here where it begins. I had people say once to me about one of the family weekend meetings for a barbecue, when a talk began about our future house (i'm now 2nd year, so we had to move out of the university accommodation to privately rented place) and who is living where. And when it came to attention of one of the aunts that me, a Lithuanian, not an English person got the biggest room, comments such as 'But why him? English should get the best living conditions and biggest financial support. Immigrants should get the lesser part' flew my way. My girlfriends grandfather openly hates black people for god's sake! On the bright side i had a laugh after finding out that they are all from Ireland Very Happy

Now you can see a small pattern here. Grandfather, being oldest has the strongest negative feelings for people of different origin, specifically race, one of the most apparent traits. Aunt is slightly more accepting by not being divisive in terms of race, but rather being more specific in terms of nationality (why wouldn't she when so many people of African origin are English. You can't really get away from this fact). On the other hand, this aunt has little education, so +1 point to the theory about effect of lack of education. Yet i am studying while being surrounded by people from more than 12 different countries, which are scattered around the world and no hatred occurs in or outside the university nor in the town itself except for usual brawls and mostly drunken fights. You see couples where the guy and girls are of different origins, for example, one is Caucasian and the other is Asian. So what's going on?

Well i think majority of this hatred comes from the older generation, that is not as acceptable as current teenagers are.. While some are resilient to these views full of hate, those people are usually, but far from always more educated, while 'haters', if you notice, are mostly antisocial, not rarely felons and from families that are worse off. Though exceptions from the rule occur. Such parents, willingly ensure that the flame of hatred continues to burn in some of us.

This is why i think that hatred towards our differences can only be slowed down and maybe halted by education. While this will sound harsh, the only true way for this process of accumulation of negativity to truly reverse is for the older generation to 'die out'. Only after 1-2 generations will we truly be able to see that there is a change. So far things remind me of a roller-coaster. More money for education, more speeches and talks and people start thinking that things are getting better, but then you turn on TV and see that another student was attacked/injured/killed, apparently on racial/national basis. Just the other day i saw a program, where a couple of Iranian origin, but born in UK will English citizenship were moved to north of country for 8 weeks to live and show the country how big is the problem of racial hatred. They managed to get assaulted 9 times. They got rocks and bottles thrown at them, while day after day they heard abusive replicas shouted at them. Guess who were these felons? Kids and teenagers, while multiple adults were helpful and supportive.

In my opinion those are the roots and they can only be removed by time and education, while being helpful, will only stop 'the wound from festering, but will do little to heal it'.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Why not exercise a little bit of preventive care?

Preventive diplomacy- yes.
Preventive apologizing for the crazies- yes.
Preventive censorship and banning of the crazies- no.

If we have to fight wars to stay free, then let's fight wars.
I'm not war averse, but I'm all for preventing unnecessary wars. We have a rich history of warfare that shows how much we could have done in order to avoid wars from happening. Wilder is not of the UK. Why allow him in as a "guest" when quite a number of the citizens in the UK can be upset by his talks to the detriment of other citizens to the point of bodily harm with safety and security concerns? Also quite a number of citizens in the UK who are anti-Islam, may feel justified in cheering Wilder on. Imagine their kids bullying kids of the Islamic faith at schools, etc etc. This is hate mongering during really sensitive times with regard to terrorism threats, etc. etc. Like flying a red flag in front of a bull. Makes no sense to me.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Why allow him in as a "guest" when

Because closing off your borders to people you don't like is, well, isolationist... and it could just escalate until you have a new iron curtain. Nobody should get special treatment at the border crossing (positively or negatively) because of their beliefs, or because of what they talk about.
BinahZ
This gentleman also had some interesting things to say about the UN council and its Israel policy / bias. People are anti Israel, anti Islam, anti USA and anti anything else u can think of. Freedom of speech is just that, until it becomes a weapon. Freeom of expression does not = freedom to cause harm.
Phinx
ocalhoun, i disagree. You can be banned from entering UK for braking VISA laws, yet if you are responsible for stirring up trouble between races and beliefs, you can still enter? freedoms apply to everyone. Wilders might be free to express his beliefs up until the moment his beliefs become harmful to others. What about the people, that this situation will directly affect? Don't they have the right to be safe and unharmed?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Why allow him in as a "guest" when

Because closing off your borders to people you don't like is, well, isolationist... and it could just escalate until you have a new iron curtain. Nobody should get special treatment at the border crossing (positively or negatively) because of their beliefs, or because of what they talk about.
This is hardly about "people you don't like". This is about a person that has a proven record of hate mongering. He is standing on trial in the Netherlands for this. His presence has a great potential for triggering violence among people who are anti-islamic and islamic. There is a definite potential risk here of violence and threatening safety and security of innocent people.

It is pretty amazing that all of us have to go through the strictest scrutiny when we go through customs, for all kinds of sharp instruments or devices that could possibly create bodily harm to others, but then a guy like this is allowed into the country that can do much more harm than those sharp instruments. Again, none of this makes sense to me.
ocalhoun
Phinx wrote:
ocalhoun, i disagree. You can be banned from entering UK for braking VISA laws, yet if you are responsible for stirring up trouble between races and beliefs, you can still enter?

Yes. Breaking laws = bad. Talking = not bad. Simple.
Quote:
freedoms apply to everyone.

Rolling Eyes Unless they might potentially cause trouble, right?
Quote:
Wilders might be free to express his beliefs up until the moment his beliefs become harmful to others.

How is it determined if his beliefs are harmful to others? Can I shut up anybody I don't agree with by harming someone in his/her name? Can the government shut up anybody they don't like by claiming (falsely or truly) that they might cause harm?
Imagine the USA's government in the 60's determining that Martin Luther King Jr's speeches might lead to people getting hurt (and indirectly, they did). Should they have shut him up in order to save a few lives and prevent a few beatings?
Quote:
What about the people, that this situation will directly affect? Don't they have the right to be safe and unharmed?

As soon as your concern for safety overrides your concern for freedom, you're doomed to loose that freedom, which will eventually lead to the loss of your safety as well.

deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Why allow him in as a "guest" when

Because closing off your borders to people you don't like is, well, isolationist... and it could just escalate until you have a new iron curtain. Nobody should get special treatment at the border crossing (positively or negatively) because of their beliefs, or because of what they talk about.
This is hardly about "people you don't like". This is about a person that has a proven record of hate mongering. He is standing on trial in the Netherlands for this. His presence has a great potential for triggering violence among people who are anti-islamic and islamic. There is a definite potential risk here of violence and threatening safety and security of innocent people.

It is pretty amazing that all of us have to go through the strictest scrutiny when we go through customs, for all kinds of sharp instruments or devices that could possibly create bodily harm to others, but then a guy like this is allowed into the country that can do much more harm than those sharp instruments. Again, none of this makes sense to me.

Again, see the comment about what happens when safety overrides freedom.

If bodily harm happens, go after the people committing the crimes, and don't try to use potential violence as a reason to shut up someone who is found to be offensive by various groups.

Might I bring up another example, the Muhammad cartoons? Would you prevent them from (re)publishing those cartoons to avoid the likelihood of violence?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Might I bring up another example, the Muhammad cartoons? Would you prevent them from (re)publishing those cartoons to avoid the likelihood of violence?
Yes I would. The people of Islamic faith are citizens of the country and are entitled to respect of their culture and religion. I don't agree with violence, but violence was definitely on the cards when the cartoon was published. It was an act of irresponsiblity in my view, not only for the citizens of the country, but for citizens of the world, as acts of lack of respect for other cultures, ripple through to other countries as well. Why rock the boat when it is not really necessary to do that. I have not seen a single cartoon mocking the religion and faith of expats in the Middle East. They are treated with respect, and are free to have their own beliefs along the lines of do onto others. The Islamic people in the UK are citizens of the UK. There are already problems with discrimination against them on the basis of their religion and great efforts are made by the UK Government to sort things out. So why bring someone like Wilder into the country, when efforts are ongoing to get rid of bias in cultures? Again, this does not make sense at all to me.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Might I bring up another example, the Muhammad cartoons? Would you prevent them from (re)publishing those cartoons to avoid the likelihood of violence?
Yes I would. The people of Islamic faith are citizens of the country and are entitled to respect of their culture and religion. I don't agree with violence, but violence was definitely on the cards when the cartoon was published. It was an act of irresponsiblity in my view, not only for the citizens of the country, but for citizens of the world, as acts of lack of respect for other cultures, ripple through to other countries as well. Why rock the boat when it is not really necessary to do that. I have not seen a single cartoon mocking the religion and faith of expats in the Middle East. They are treated with respect, and are free to have their own beliefs along the lines of do onto others. The Islamic people in the UK are citizens of the UK. There are already problems with discrimination against them on the basis of their religion and great efforts are made by the UK Government to sort things out. So why bring someone like Wilder into the country, when efforts are ongoing to get rid of bias in cultures? Again, this does not make sense at all to me.


No personal offense meant by this, but I think your priorities on this particular issue are completely backwards. In the end it comes down to why someone's culture or religion is off limits to criticism, regardless of the degree of criticism (assuming it doesn't incite physical violence against them, which I don't think the cartoons or Wilder do). Why can't I criticize religion or culture the same way I criticize someone's shoes or someone's political ideas?

What you've portrayed here seems to be the opposite extreme of the spectrum that Wilder spews. And neither extreme is optimal to society at large.
Phinx
ocalhun, it's still makes little sense. You are telling me Wilders has the right to criticise Koran and Islamic beliefs as this is his freedom. Correct?

But he is not just criticising, he is attempting to ban it. Isn't he then trying to take away the freedom of Muslims for their own belief and religion?
ocalhoun
Phinx wrote:
ocalhun, it's still makes little sense. You are telling me Wilders has the right to criticise Koran and Islamic beliefs as this is his freedom. Correct?

Correct.
Quote:

But he is not just criticising, he is attempting to ban it. Isn't he then trying to take away the freedom of Muslims for their own belief and religion?

He is trying. Trying to do so is legal. Succeeding is illegal. I'm not sure about how UK politics would handle it, but I would hope that if it happened in the US, the courts would quickly overturn the law as unconstitutional.

Bottom line: neither Muslims' religious beliefs, nor the agitator's rhetoric should be banned.

What I see here is two diametrically opposed beliefs going head-to-head in a free society. Banning either would be a horrible precedent, so the government's only choice is to force them to tolerate each other. (Tolerate, as in not destroy each other; criticizing each other is still fine.)
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Why can't I criticize religion or culture the same way I criticize someone's shoes or someone's political ideas?
The consequencdes would be totally different. I doubt that if you criticize someone's shoes that they would necessarily be offended by it. Religion goes much deeper than shoes, and history has taught us how religious wars have happened. My criticism is not of the idealistic kind, more of the pragmatic kind. It has been proven a million times over that if you show lack of respect to a person's culture, religion and beliefs, that there may be negative consequences, and in this specific example the consequences could threaten the safety and security not only of those who are being criticized, but those innocent people who happen to find themselves in the environment of those being criticized, such as bombs, or shooting etc. It increases the burden of cost of safety and security services, as well as social services, as who gets to deal with the daily intolerance of religious groups at schools for example? It also makes cultural differences more pronounced. People feel more justified in criticizing, and making the divides deeper.
truespeed
Nick Griffin on Question Time (Short youtube overview - there are lots more snippets down the side in related videos)

I watched it last night,and although he got a hard time,i don't think it was bad publicity for the BNP,in fact i think it may of gained them some support.

The final question was,"Is appearing on Question Time an early christmas present for the BNP" I think it was,the BNP couldn't of bought the amount publicity they got from his appearance,the BBC didn't do too badly either as it secured the programme its highest ever audience of more than 8 million. (Source)


Wether or not he should of been allowed on there will be debated for some time to come,but as per the BBC rules,and as a elected member of the European parliament,he was there by right,also ,rightly or wrongly,his views are representative of a lot of British people,and probably more than the PC media like to admit,as those views are rarely given a voice.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
Wether or not he should of been allowed on there will be debated for some time to come,but as per the BBC rules,and as a elected member of the European parliament,he was there by right,also ,rightly or wrongly,his views are representative of a lot of British people,and probably more than the PC media like to admit,as those views are rarely given a voice.
Completely agreed. I also think this is a completely different case than that of Wilders. Griffin is a legal citizen of the UK, also a leader of a legally registered party in the UK. Wilders is not a citizen of the country, he is a visitor, who has a very specific agenda of speaking out against Islam. No doubt part of his mission is also to strengthen his position in his court case in the Netherlands, i.e. if the British have no objection allowing him into the country, why should there be a court case against him for inciting religious hatred. None of Wilders makes sense to me. In my experience UK immigration is usually very careful in who they allow into the country.
ocalhoun
[quote="deanhills"]
liljp617 wrote:
It has been proven a million times over that if you show lack of respect to a person's culture, religion and beliefs, that there may be negative consequences,

And, therefore, 'respect' should be mandatory?

Mandatory tolerance is fine. I can tolerate someone annoying, but mandatory respect is something else entirely. Being forced to respect (or at least pretend to) someone I have no respect for is unreasonable. Besides that, it brings up scary notions of 'thought police', or perhaps 'respect police'.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Why can't I criticize religion or culture the same way I criticize someone's shoes or someone's political ideas?
The consequencdes would be totally different. I doubt that if you criticize someone's shoes that they would necessarily be offended by it. Religion goes much deeper than shoes, and history has taught us how religious wars have happened. My criticism is not of the idealistic kind, more of the pragmatic kind. It has been proven a million times over that if you show lack of respect to a person's culture, religion and beliefs, that there may be negative consequences, and in this specific example the consequences could threaten the safety and security not only of those who are being criticized, but those innocent people who happen to find themselves in the environment of those being criticized, such as bombs, or shooting etc. It increases the burden of cost of safety and security services, as well as social services, as who gets to deal with the daily intolerance of religious groups at schools for example? It also makes cultural differences more pronounced. People feel more justified in criticizing, and making the divides deeper.


It has also been proven a million times over that nonsensical beliefs which go unchecked and are immune from criticism lead to negative events and oppressive societies.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Why can't I criticize religion or culture the same way I criticize someone's shoes or someone's political ideas?
The consequencdes would be totally different. I doubt that if you criticize someone's shoes that they would necessarily be offended by it. Religion goes much deeper than shoes, and history has taught us how religious wars have happened. My criticism is not of the idealistic kind, more of the pragmatic kind. It has been proven a million times over that if you show lack of respect to a person's culture, religion and beliefs, that there may be negative consequences, and in this specific example the consequences could threaten the safety and security not only of those who are being criticized, but those innocent people who happen to find themselves in the environment of those being criticized, such as bombs, or shooting etc. It increases the burden of cost of safety and security services, as well as social services, as who gets to deal with the daily intolerance of religious groups at schools for example? It also makes cultural differences more pronounced. People feel more justified in criticizing, and making the divides deeper.


It has also been proven a million times over that nonsensical beliefs which go unchecked and are immune from criticism lead to negative events and oppressive societies.
Also very true. There is quite a lot of evidence for that too. This particular example however has a very clear and proven history of consequences. Either society should ban Islam where they are, or if they allow freedom of religion, they should respect people who are Islamic, and allowing a person into the country who is obviously going to talk Islam down just sends signals that will have proven negative consequences. It's almost hypocritical if one can really think about it. On the one hand people in the UK society go round and defend discrimination against Islamic people, and then next thing the authorities allow someone into the country who preaches against Islamic people. I'm repeating myself here, but this totally does not make sense to me.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
and allowing a person into the country who is obviously going to talk Islam down just sends signals that will have proven negative consequences.

*sigh*
Not allowing it has worse consequences. Gradually, more and more things are 'not allowed' to be talked about, and before you know it, criticism of the government is 'not allowed'. Once that happens, the government can carry out whatever abuses of power it wants, and anybody who speaks out against it can be 'not allowed'.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
and allowing a person into the country who is obviously going to talk Islam down just sends signals that will have proven negative consequences.

*sigh*
Not allowing it has worse consequences. Gradually, more and more things are 'not allowed' to be talked about, and before you know it, criticism of the government is 'not allowed'. Once that happens, the government can carry out whatever abuses of power it wants, and anybody who speaks out against it can be 'not allowed'.
The situation we are talking about is on the extreme side. From a common sense of view it requires great caution. What would happen if a member of El Qaeda applied for a visa to visit the United States to talk in defence of Islam and how really bad christianity is for the world? Do you think the US customs would permit someone like that to enter the United States freely? Or would they immediately put shackles on him/her?
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
and allowing a person into the country who is obviously going to talk Islam down just sends signals that will have proven negative consequences.

*sigh*
Not allowing it has worse consequences. Gradually, more and more things are 'not allowed' to be talked about, and before you know it, criticism of the government is 'not allowed'. Once that happens, the government can carry out whatever abuses of power it wants, and anybody who speaks out against it can be 'not allowed'.
The situation we are talking about is on the extreme side. From a common sense of view it requires great caution. What would happen if a member of El Qaeda applied for a visa to visit the United States to talk in defence of Islam and how really bad christianity is for the world? Do you think the US customs would permit someone like that to enter the United States freely? Or would they immediately put shackles on him/her?


Well, for one, Wilders isn't head or part of an organization blowing themselves up in the middle of market squares. Nor did he send two airliners into skyscrapers. I'm not sure he's done anything illegal, although I'll admit I'm not too knowledgeable on his past (mainly because I don't care about anything he could possibly say). I can't say the comparison/analogy fits that well.

Anyway...do I think US officials would allow an open member of Al-Qaeda to legally enter the US? In reality, probably not. The risks of that member doing something more than just using words is too great. We're also kind of in an unprecedented historical struggle to combat the forces of Al-Qaeda and those like them (well, that's what I'm told).

Theoretically, if this member could legitimately be trusted to do absolutely nothing but make a couple of outrageous, dumb speeches or comments and then go home, I have no problem with him coming here and criticizing Christianity/defending Islam. If people want to get angry about it and start lighting junk on fire in fits of rage, we'll have to handle those people. The speaker is not breaking the law, and is in fact very much protected by it if the government chooses to extend those rights to him; those vandalizing and causing physical damage/violence are breaking the law and are subject to the consequences.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
and allowing a person into the country who is obviously going to talk Islam down just sends signals that will have proven negative consequences.

*sigh*
Not allowing it has worse consequences. Gradually, more and more things are 'not allowed' to be talked about, and before you know it, criticism of the government is 'not allowed'. Once that happens, the government can carry out whatever abuses of power it wants, and anybody who speaks out against it can be 'not allowed'.
The situation we are talking about is on the extreme side. From a common sense of view it requires great caution. What would happen if a member of El Qaeda applied for a visa to visit the United States to talk in defence of Islam and how really bad christianity is for the world? Do you think the US customs would permit someone like that to enter the United States freely? Or would they immediately put shackles on him/her?


Well, for one, Wilders isn't head or part of an organization blowing themselves up in the middle of market squares. Nor did he send two airliners into skyscrapers. I'm not sure he's done anything illegal, although I'll admit I'm not too knowledgeable on his past (mainly because I don't care about anything he could possibly say). I can't say the comparison/analogy fits that well.

Anyway...do I think US officials would allow an open member of Al-Qaeda to legally enter the US? In reality, probably not. The risks of that member doing something more than just using words is too great. We're also kind of in an unprecedented historical struggle to combat the forces of Al-Qaeda and those like them (well, that's what I'm told).

Theoretically, if this member could legitimately be trusted to do absolutely nothing but make a couple of outrageous, dumb speeches or comments and then go home, I have no problem with him coming here and criticizing Christianity/defending Islam. If people want to get angry about it and start lighting junk on fire in fits of rage, we'll have to handle those people. The speaker is not breaking the law, and is in fact very much protected by it if the government chooses to extend those rights to him; those vandalizing and causing physical damage/violence are breaking the law and are subject to the consequences.
Why would you think that all individual members of El Qaeda would be guilty of blowing up skyscrapers? The only information we really have about those guys are the ones that we have been fed with. But I'm almost certain they won't be allowed into the United States, even if they were to make "dumb" speeches, as they would be regarded as just too controversial.

But yes, Wilders is probably not really Al Qaeda material. More like a loose cannon waiting for a disaster to happen. Someone may think of throwing more than just a shoe at him. for example and that is what I have been worried about, as there are always innocent bystanders who may hit by the "more than a shoe" disaster.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

But yes, Wilders is probably not really Al Qaeda material. More like a loose cannon waiting for a disaster to happen. Someone may think of throwing more than just a shoe at him. for example and that is what I have been worried about, as there are always innocent bystanders who may hit by the "more than a shoe" disaster.

So, in order to prevent the risk of a few innocent bystanders, we're going to invite the government to become totalitarian?

And ditto on the Al Qaeda analogy. The Al Qaeda member wouldn't be arrested or turned away because of opinions expressed, but because that person would be likely to directly commit terrorism, and is also likely to already be guilty of conspiracy to commit terrorism.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
and allowing a person into the country who is obviously going to talk Islam down just sends signals that will have proven negative consequences.

*sigh*
Not allowing it has worse consequences. Gradually, more and more things are 'not allowed' to be talked about, and before you know it, criticism of the government is 'not allowed'. Once that happens, the government can carry out whatever abuses of power it wants, and anybody who speaks out against it can be 'not allowed'.
The situation we are talking about is on the extreme side. From a common sense of view it requires great caution. What would happen if a member of El Qaeda applied for a visa to visit the United States to talk in defence of Islam and how really bad christianity is for the world? Do you think the US customs would permit someone like that to enter the United States freely? Or would they immediately put shackles on him/her?


Well, for one, Wilders isn't head or part of an organization blowing themselves up in the middle of market squares. Nor did he send two airliners into skyscrapers. I'm not sure he's done anything illegal, although I'll admit I'm not too knowledgeable on his past (mainly because I don't care about anything he could possibly say). I can't say the comparison/analogy fits that well.

Anyway...do I think US officials would allow an open member of Al-Qaeda to legally enter the US? In reality, probably not. The risks of that member doing something more than just using words is too great. We're also kind of in an unprecedented historical struggle to combat the forces of Al-Qaeda and those like them (well, that's what I'm told).

Theoretically, if this member could legitimately be trusted to do absolutely nothing but make a couple of outrageous, dumb speeches or comments and then go home, I have no problem with him coming here and criticizing Christianity/defending Islam. If people want to get angry about it and start lighting junk on fire in fits of rage, we'll have to handle those people. The speaker is not breaking the law, and is in fact very much protected by it if the government chooses to extend those rights to him; those vandalizing and causing physical damage/violence are breaking the law and are subject to the consequences.
Why would you think that all individual members of El Qaeda would be guilty of blowing up skyscrapers? The only information we really have about those guys are the ones that we have been fed with. But I'm almost certain they won't be allowed into the United States, even if they were to make "dumb" speeches, as they would be regarded as just too controversial.


I don't think it's far fetched to assume the people who avidly despise our way of life, despise our diplomatic and military actions in the Middle East, and are currently in militant opposition against us had at least some tie to 9/11 and other attacks around the world. But whatever, it's a somewhat irrelevant topic for what we're discussing.

The Al-Qaeda member wouldn't be barred from entry into the US on the basis of what he says in controversial comments/speeches or his views towards Christianity. He can have whatever views he wants. He would be barred on the basis that he is already an established threat to security (Wilders is not to my knowledge), given that he is part of an organization that openly kills civilians and US troops and doesn't seem to show any signs of wanting to stop.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
The Al-Qaeda member wouldn't be barred from entry into the US on the basis of what he says in controversial comments/speeches or his views towards Christianity. He can have whatever views he wants. He would be barred on the basis that he is already an established threat to security (Wilders is not to my knowledge), given that he is part of an organization that openly kills civilians and US troops and doesn't seem to show any signs of wanting to stop.
Point taken. So Wilders would probably then be acceptable for the United States?
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
The Al-Qaeda member wouldn't be barred from entry into the US on the basis of what he says in controversial comments/speeches or his views towards Christianity. He can have whatever views he wants. He would be barred on the basis that he is already an established threat to security (Wilders is not to my knowledge), given that he is part of an organization that openly kills civilians and US troops and doesn't seem to show any signs of wanting to stop.
Point taken. So Wilders would probably then be acceptable for the United States?


Theoretically, and in my view, he should be. Realistically, I can't really determine much of what the US government is going to do in any case.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
The Al-Qaeda member wouldn't be barred from entry into the US on the basis of what he says in controversial comments/speeches or his views towards Christianity. He can have whatever views he wants. He would be barred on the basis that he is already an established threat to security (Wilders is not to my knowledge), given that he is part of an organization that openly kills civilians and US troops and doesn't seem to show any signs of wanting to stop.
Point taken. So Wilders would probably then be acceptable for the United States?

Personally, I would be outraged if he was turned away at the border because of his views.
If he was turned away because of security risk, they should need to show past incidences of him causing security problems.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Personally, I would be outraged if he was turned away at the border because of his views.
If he was turned away because of security risk, they should need to show past incidences of him causing security problems.

How about the fact that he is currently standing trial in the Netherlands? Would that perhaps be a factor against him?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Personally, I would be outraged if he was turned away at the border because of his views.
If he was turned away because of security risk, they should need to show past incidences of him causing security problems.

How about the fact that he is currently standing trial in the Netherlands? Would that perhaps be a factor against him?

It shouldn't. Innocent until proven guilty, after all.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Personally, I would be outraged if he was turned away at the border because of his views.
If he was turned away because of security risk, they should need to show past incidences of him causing security problems.

How about the fact that he is currently standing trial in the Netherlands? Would that perhaps be a factor against him?

It shouldn't. Innocent until proven guilty, after all.
Well ..... immigration officials usually have quite a leeway of discretion, if they should have their own doubts, they may decide differently. In my experience the US Immigration is more strict than that in the UK. A "whiff" of "trouble maker", and I'm sure they may decide differently, unless this guy could come up with a special invitation from a very bona fide Government or public organization in the United States that can vouch for his credentials.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Personally, I would be outraged if he was turned away at the border because of his views.
If he was turned away because of security risk, they should need to show past incidences of him causing security problems.

How about the fact that he is currently standing trial in the Netherlands? Would that perhaps be a factor against him?


Not to me. He's on trial for comparing the Quran to Mein Kampf and juxtaposing the Koran with 9/11 and the London attacks. They're idiotic comparisons, but he shouldn't even be on trial. If he wasn't a politician, I'm fairly certain he wouldn't be on trial. He would just be seen as another moron making stupid analogies and comparisons, which is how he should be viewed.

What he says is controversial. What he says are things that are truthfully unnecessary and...well just plain dumb. What he says, for the most part, is irrational crap for lack of a better phrase.

However, the practice of free speech and expression must be extended even to people who say stupid, controversial things (there are arguable limits, I just don't think Wilders has met them) or else that nice ideal of freedom of speech is nothing but a flowery, meaningless "punch line" on a 200 year old piece of paper.

Now if you're asking how the US would really act if he attempted to enter the US and speak...I can't say. I wouldn't put it past them to bar him from entry. I can't exactly figure out a damn thing the US government bases their decisions on these days.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
What he says is controversial. What he says are things that are truthfully unnecessary and...well just plain dumb. What he says, for the most part, is irrational crap for lack of a better phrase.
Right, we know it. But for a very large number of people who are very devoutly Islamic, they may look at this differently. Their reaction is probably what is feeding most of the controversy. Perhaps all of it is really nonsense, and for that reason people should encourage him to find another hobby. Perhaps 2012?
Related topics
PHP IP Ban
Bumper Stickers
better hosting system
Another (almost) worst Word problem. Ever ;)
convert ur PDF files to word documents
Problem with opening a word doc from site hosted in frihost
Internet and Homework
Posting Guidelines / Guidelines to Make Quality Posts
Suggestion :giggles:
Censorship-Are free forums a good choice for hosting guilds?
Frihost on Wikipedia
English smoking ban.
Things only a Republican could believe
Burn a Quran day.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.