FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


anti-ISLAM movie WTF? (a neutral post)





J-M-site
(before you read i'm an atheistic person) edit: it means i don't believe in god but in science

you might have heard that this dutch guy Geert Wilders is making a movie about how bad the islam and mohammed are. he also want's to have all islamitic people kicked out the netherlands.. and he doesn't want any immigrants to enter holland anymore... i think he's naieve

Because the islam isn't bad it's SOME people who practice it how are doing bad things because they say they have to... but the christians have SOME people too that racicst and think they are following the bible by killing pople wich are not white.. only they don't reach the news as often as terrosrists do..

There are tons of more arguments i can give you but my english is not good enough to explain them..
(for i'm dutch and to explain other arguments i should have used so many words i don't know the translations of.. it would've sounded like nonsense)

Let your tought's go over this and give your opinion on this MOVIE thing he's says is coming out somewhere in MARCH...(2008)
Bikerman
Wilders is also extremely pro-Israel. He claims connections with Mossad and has close ties with the Israeli government. Perhaps this is an influence on his policy regarding Muslims..?
jwellsy
J-M-site wrote:
the christians have SOME people too that racicst and think they are following the bible by killing pople wich are not white.. only they don't reach the news as often as terrosrists do..


What Christian groups are actively killing non whites for being non white?
What part of the Bible do you think they are following?

Do the Dutch have a freedom of speech?
liljp617
jwellsy wrote:
J-M-site wrote:
the christians have SOME people too that racicst and think they are following the bible by killing pople wich are not white.. only they don't reach the news as often as terrosrists do..


What Christian groups are actively killing non whites for being non white?
What part of the Bible do you think they are following?

Do the Dutch have a freedom of speech?

They don't have to be a Christian group to be considered Christians. They can be individuals who practice Christianity, but still do terrible things. And there are plenty of groups who have Christian members who spread racist speech, commit violent prejudice crimes, etc. There's plenty of violence in the Bible for these people to use it as an excuse, just as there is in the Quran.

There are also multiple groups such as the WBC (Westboro Baptist Church) who do things such as protest funerals of soldiers holding up signs "Thank God for dead soldiers." We have WBC members protesting funerals of homosexual soldiers holding up signs "God hates fags." They run a website called godhatesamerica.com. They express loads of condemnation for groups like Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, Canadians, homosexuals, etc. (basically anyone who isn't like them). They have come out and clearly stated that all the world's problems are caused by homosexuality and they think it should be considered a capital crime.

You can't tell me you think they're the ONLY Christians who do insanely idiotic crap like this. But the thing is, nobody deems every Christian a horrible, prejudice person just because of a few hundred or a few thousand morons. It should be equal across the playing field. There are 1.4 billion (I believe) in the world....can you judge every single one of them based on the actions of a few thousand or even a million? And of those few thousand or million, do you really think they're following what Islam teaches? No, they're twisting the words of Islam to make it fit their political agendas and they use Islam as a backdrop and propaganda to gain support.

Yeah, they have freedom of speech. But with freedom comes responsibilities; one being you should have correct information before spewing random crap out of your mouth that will do nothing positive and much negative. Obviously people have the freedom to not do that, and so we get dumb people with a medium to influence millions of others.
MrBlueSky
liljp617 wrote:


Yeah, they have freedom of speech. But with freedom comes responsibilities; one being you should have correct information before spewing random crap out of your mouth that will do nothing positive and much negative. Obviously people have the freedom to not do that, and so we get dumb people with a medium to influence millions of others.


The last few days the Dutch government began to realize this and they appealed to Wilders' feeling of responsibility. Unfortunately this is totally lost on Wilders. He is determined to finish his stupid project (which is not very original: we had [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(film)]a movie like this one[/url] before, also created by a politician), and the Dutch government is too cowardly to stop him. They still think appealing to his responsibility will have effect.

Of course Wilders is free to think about the Islam (or anything else) what he likes. But should he be allowed to make a movie like this as a politician? When the Dutch queen talked about tolerance and respect in a public speech a few months ago, Wilders took this as an attack on his ideas (which it propably was). He was furious and reasoned that the queen should not be allowed to express opinions like this in her position as queen. So he understands that people who have a certain public function can't always do or say what they want. And that makes sense. Hence I think that Wilders, being a member of the government, should not be allowed to publish this movie.

Yes, freedom of speech is important. But freedom of speech does not mean you can do or say anything you want. In the Netherlands it is not allowed to publicly accuse people of murder without evidence. It is not allowed to deny the holocaust in public. It is not allowed to discriminate. It is not allowed to make certain sensitive information (like locations of army depots) public. When you sign a non-disclosure contract, you are not allowed to talk about stuff which is covered by this contract. So, prohibiting this movie would in no way set some sort of precedent against freedom of speech. Wilders can express his opinions. He can even express his opinions on television and in newspapers. And he makes excessive use of this possibility. He does not need a movie to do this.
thejam
well don't you think it's just one big publicity stunt of Geert Wilders? No one even knows what the exact content of this film is. I think this movie hardly is because of freedom of speach, or mr Wilder's artistic freedom. I think he just wants the publicity (which is working...)
Bikerman
MrBlueSky wrote:
Of course Wilders is free to think about the Islam (or anything else) what he likes. But should he be allowed to make a movie like this as a politician? When the Dutch queen talked about tolerance and respect in a public speech a few months ago, Wilders took this as an attack on his ideas (which it propably was). He was furious and reasoned that the queen should not be allowed to express opinions like this in her position as queen. So he understands that people who have a certain public function can't always do or say what they want. And that makes sense. Hence I think that Wilders, being a member of the government, should not be allowed to publish this movie.
I think this is the important issue. Freedom of speech means just what it says. I will support the right of anyone to say anything they like and I am against censorship. The issue here is that Wilders is a politician who is making capital out of his position. I do not think one can deny him the freedom to make any movie he likes and I am against any such attempt. If he is a member of the governing party in Holland then I am sure there must be rules about collective responsibiliy. As far as I know, however, he is not. I agree with you that the man is hypocritical and I also disagree vehemently with his politics (he is a hard-right 'Thatcherist' whereas I am a creature of the left), but I support his right to express himself as he pleases, within the boundaries and agreements of Dutch law and governmental procedures.
The question for Dutch voters must be - is this a man you wish to support?
MrBlueSky
Bikerman wrote:
I think this is the important issue. Freedom of speech means just what it says. I will support the right of anyone to say anything they like and I am against censorship. The issue here is that Wilders is a politician who is making capital out of his position. I do not think one can deny him the freedom to make any movie he likes and I am against any such attempt.


Yes, but since Wilders is allowed to express his opinions both in the parliament and in public, isn't it fair to say that when he is prohibited from publishing a movie like this, this would not be a case of denial of free speech? It would not be a denial of his right to have or express his opinion, but only the denial of the right to propagate his opinion in this particular way.
But even if one would say that, in the context of free speech, he should be allowed to do this, the point of legality you note is very important:

Quote:

I support his right to express himself as he pleases, within the boundaries and agreements of Dutch law and governmental procedures.


I personally do not think the concept of Freedom of Speech which is granted by the constitution of most western countries is equivalent with the right to express oneself as one pleases (or that it should be). But even if it does, Wilders is also violating the (Dutch) law with his movie and his propaganda in general: He is promoting discrimination (against some ethnic groups and a religion) and he is spreading hatred.

At this moment there have been about 50 complaints filed against Wilders, most of them about the spread of hatred, and the Ministry of Justice is doing research on whether it is possible to prosecute a member of the parliament according to either dutch or european law. It seems they don't question the illegal nature of his actions, but don't know whether it is possible to take action against him.

thejam wrote:
well don't you think it's just one big publicity stunt of Geert Wilders? No one even knows what the exact content of this film is. I think this movie hardly is because of freedom of speach, or mr Wilder's artistic freedom. I think he just wants the publicity (which is working...)


I don't think this is about publicity. Wilders has been living for years with body guards always around him and without privacy. If I remember correctly he has been living in a former prison-complex for quite a while because they could not find a safe house for him. It seems he really beliefs he is doing the right thing.

Too bad he is not only putting his own life at risk for what he thinks is a good cause. With his movie he is mostly putting other people's life at risk for his cause. Chances are, dutch employees of embassees and charity organizations will become unvolentary marters of Wilders fight against the Islam.
Bikerman
MrBlueSky wrote:
I personally do not think the concept of Freedom of Speech which is granted by the constitution of most western countries is equivalent with the right to express oneself as one pleases (or that it should be). But even if it does, Wilders is also violating the (Dutch) law with his movie and his propaganda in general: He is promoting discrimination (against some ethnic groups and a religion) and he is spreading hatred.
In which case I would argue that the problem is with the legislature, not with Wilders.
liljp617
The people we so often speak of who died for our freedoms...I honestly can't say I think they had in mind that their dying would protect people openly stating hate/prejudice/whatever else.
Bikerman
liljp617 wrote:
The people we so often speak of who died for our freedoms...I honestly can't say I think they had in mind that their dying would protect people openly stating hate/prejudice/whatever else.
So you think they died for people's right to say what they believed then? That's not a very noble thought is it? I will kill everyone who does not agree with my opinion. Hardly something to celebrate.
liljp617
Bikerman wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
The people we so often speak of who died for our freedoms...I honestly can't say I think they had in mind that their dying would protect people openly stating hate/prejudice/whatever else.
So you think they died for people's right to say what they believed then? That's not a very noble thought is it? I will kill everyone who does not agree with my opinion. Hardly something to celebrate.

He can freely say what he wants. But I refuse to defend someone's rights when he/she openly states their hate for billions of people for no apparent reason. And I won't defend someone like this for hiding behind a freedom that people died for. Not saying his rights should be taken away, but I don't see how there is justification in this regardless of freedom. It's more of a sickening feeling that people take advantage of people dying for them just so they can spread hate-speech and attempt to influence the masses that all 1.4 billion Muslims are baby killing, suicide bombing, plane crashers and terrorists. But obviously his right...I'll never defend someone of this nature however. If the government should decide to censor him, I can't say I would raise my voice in his defense.
Moonspider
I agree with Bikerman, freedom of speech is just that. I may not agree with what someone or a group of people say, but I'll defend their right to say whatever they wish without fear of censorship.

For those of you advocating some form of restriction because of "discrimination" or "hatred," be careful. What you propose may seem noble and right, but it's a very (and I can not state that emphatically enough) slippery slope.

liljp617 wrote:
If the government should decide to censor him, I can't say I would raise my voice in his defense.


That statement immediately brought to my mind the poem "First they came..." by Martin Niemöller. If you are not familiar with it, I highly recommend it as a rebuttal to your position, especially your last statement.

Respectfully,
M
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
That statement immediately brought to my mind the poem "First they came..." by Martin Niemöller. If you are not familiar with it, I highly recommend it as a rebuttal to your position, especially your last statement.
I was trying to think of that very poem.
Niemöller - on the Nazis wrote:

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time there was no-one left to speak up.

If you don't find that chilling, you should.
jwellsy
Every person that has defended Micheal Moore's rights,
should defend Geert Wilders' rights with the same ferver.
BigMo420
jwellsy wrote:

Do the Dutch have a freedom of speech?


Not when they use it to mock the holiest of holies! (PBUH)
Bikerman
BigMo420 wrote:
jwellsy wrote:

Do the Dutch have a freedom of speech?


Not when they use it to mock the holiest of holies! (PBUH)

So freedom of speech is OK as long as you don't say things you find offensive? I think not!
ThePolemistis
IMO, Freedom of speech is acceptable as long as you don't offend (by making fun of) ones race or religion.

However, wrt religion, if you want to criticise religion, it should be done in a civilised debate, where the priests and mullahs or whatever have a chance to defend their views.

With race, no one chose their colour of skin, so you shouldn't offend anyone based on skin colour.
Bikerman
ThePolemistis wrote:
IMO, Freedom of speech is acceptable as long as you don't offend (by making fun of) ones race or religion.
Why? If it is OK to criticise politics, football team, choice of clothes etc then why is religion sacrosanct?
Quote:
However, wrt religion, if you want to criticise religion, it should be done in a civilised debate, where the priests and mullahs or whatever have a chance to defend their views.
I disagree. Why should comedians and others be forbidden to make fun of religion? Religion is already over-represented in society (certainly here in the UK, with C of E non-elected 'Lords' in the second chamber) so I dissent from any view that it should be given some sort of special protection. The notion that religion is a 'special case' and should be treated with kid-gloves is, to me, entirely unjustified. Religion is a conscious choice - a belief which you choose to hold. I see no reason why that belief should be accorded some special status.
Quote:
With race, no one chose their colour of skin, so you shouldn't offend anyone based on skin colour.
Skin colour, gender, disability - these are issues over which the individual has no control and it is therefore correct that we seek to minimise any discrimination based on these factors. Religion is not the same.
ThePolemistis
Bikerman wrote:
I disagree. Why should comedians and others be forbidden to make fun of religion? Religion is already over-represented in society (certainly here in the UK, with C of E non-elected 'Lords' in the second chamber) so I dissent from any view that it should be given some sort of special protection. The notion that religion is a 'special case' and should be treated with kid-gloves is, to me, entirely unjustified. Religion is a conscious choice - a belief which you choose to hold. I see no reason why that belief should be accorded some special status.


There are simply things that MUST be protected from freedom of speech, and religion is not the only case that is. Of course, with race/nationality you have no control over so that must be protected. But other cases too are protected for instance "grossly" understating the holocaust figures.
You maybe aware that a 70 year old British historian, was sent to prison in Poland for having an opinion towards the holocaust that was not mainstream.

I agree with this, issues such as religion and things like the holocaust must be protected. And they should be challenged only in a civilised discussion. Distributing Salman Rushdies Satanic Verses, or even The Protocols of the elders of Zion, or even Henry Ford's The INternational Jews, or even a book titled Did 6 Million really die?,, does not exactly help us understand the issues, but rather breeds hate.

I think one holocaust is enough. Do you really want to see another one? The only way this will happen if we allow our society to write hate articles against a race, creed, religion ascribing them titles (most false) which they did not choose themselves but most importantly, not giving them the right to defend themselves.
Bikerman
ThePolemistis wrote:
There are simply things that MUST be protected from freedom of speech, and religion is not the only case that is. Of course, with race/nationality you have no control over so that must be protected. But other cases too are protected for instance "grossly" understating the holocaust figures.
You maybe aware that a 70 year old British historian, was sent to prison in Poland for having an opinion towards the holocaust that was not mainstream.
I am aware and I think it was wrong. The best way to deal with holocaust deniers is to expose their views to the public and refute them systematically. Banning them simply adds spice to the conspiracy theorys
Quote:
I agree with this, issues such as religion and things like the holocaust must be protected. And they should be challenged only in a civilised discussion. Distributing Salman Rushdies Satanic Verses, or even The Protocols of the elders of Zion, or even Henry Ford's The INternational Jews, or even a book titled Did 6 Million really die?,, does not exactly help us understand the issues, but rather breeds hate.
And so it starts. We start with banning books like the Satanic Verses (obviously you have not read it - I have). Soon we ban speaking on things classified as unacceptible.
Quote:
I think one holocaust is enough. Do you really want to see another one? The only way this will happen if we allow our society to write hate articles against a race, creed, religion ascribing them titles (most false) which they did not choose themselves but most importantly, not giving them the right to defend themselves.
If you cannot see why that suggestion is personally insulting then I don't really want to talk with you anymore. Nobody is more vehement than me in condemnation of the holocaust. It did not happen because there was too much free speech (or do you perhaps think that the German people are naturally anti-semitic mass murderers?).
liljp617
Bikerman wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
That statement immediately brought to my mind the poem "First they came..." by Martin Niemöller. If you are not familiar with it, I highly recommend it as a rebuttal to your position, especially your last statement.
I was trying to think of that very poem.
Niemöller - on the Nazis wrote:

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time there was no-one left to speak up.

If you don't find that chilling, you should.

How does it apply?

...
THEN THEY CAME for propaganda-spreading, racist, generalizing people
and I didn't speak up because....I believe people are wrong in spreading propaganda that pushes the belief that all 1.4 billion people of [insert group] are baby and women killers with no respect for any life but their own.

Again, I wouldn't defend the guy. There's a difference between not standing up for someone being persecuted for religion and not standing up for a guy spreading hate speech and trying to persuade the masses to see all practicing Muslims as horrible, inhumane people. There's also a difference between criticizing religion (which I'm perfectly okay with and wish there was more of) and openly stating your hate for the people who practice that religion, then making propaganda movies that are meant to persuade others to share that prejudice.

I don't think he should have his rights taken away, but that doesn't mean I'll defend him. He's simply hiding behind a freedom that people died for so he could spread his racist junk. I won't justify or defend something I find wrong in every way possible.
Bikerman
liljp617 wrote:
How does it apply?
It applies very directly.
Quote:
THEN THEY CAME for propaganda-spreading, racist, generalizing people
and I didn't speak up because....I believe people are wrong in spreading propaganda that pushes the belief that all 1.4 billion people of [insert group] are baby and women killers with no respect for any life but their own.
Whereas you, of course, are free to spread your own propoganda.
Quote:
Again, I wouldn't defend the guy. There's a difference between not standing up for someone being persecuted for religion and not standing up for a guy spreading hate speech and trying to persuade the masses to see all practicing Muslims as horrible, inhumane people. There's also a difference between criticizing religion (which I'm perfectly okay with and wish there was more of) and openly stating your hate for the people who practice that religion, then making propaganda movies that are meant to persuade others to share that prejudice.
No, there isn't really a difference at all. It's all a matter of perspective. When Blair and Bush defend the killing of several tens of thousands of people on the grounds of 'democracy' and 'freedom' then I stand up and say nonsense. When Wilders and others stand up and say what he says then I also stand up and say nonsense. There is no difference. You seem to be convinced that people are stupid or so ignorant that they can be persuaded against their will to believe propogandist nonsense - I do not share that belief. I believe that rational discussion is the best way to procede and that anything else is too dangerous. Once you have a system which decides what should and should not be 'said' then you have a potential tyranny.
Quote:
I don't think he should have his rights taken away, but that doesn't mean I'll defend him. He's simply hiding behind a freedom that people died for so he could spread his racist junk. I won't justify or defend something I find wrong in every way possible.
Nobody is asking to you justify or defend him. That is not the issue. The issue is whether he should be allowed to say what he does. You can, and should, object strongly to what he says if you feel it is wrong. That is different from advocating a ban on his right to say it, or refusing to stand up for his freedom of speech. Read the poem again.
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:

How does it apply?

As Chris said, it applies directly. You stated earlier that you would not defend his right to freedom of speech.

liljp617 wrote:
If the government should decide to censor him, I can't say I would raise my voice in his defense.


That is morally no different than those of whom (like himself) Niemöller spoke in Nazi Germany. As I said, I may disagree with someone, but I will vehemently defend their right to express their opinion, whether it be in a newspaper, on a street corner, or in film.

Respectfully,
M
ThePolemistis
Bikerman wrote:
I am aware and I think it was wrong. The best way to deal with holocaust deniers is to expose their views to the public and refute them systematically. Banning them simply adds spice to the conspiracy theorys


No, I am not saying that. I am saying you cannot say it in the mainstream media because spin is always applied on this sensitive issue.

However, if you know about the recent oxford discussion with David Irvine and David Dukes, that is the kind of civilised and constructive debate I am talking about. you need it in that kindof environment.
It was a pity to see the demonstrators trying to bring the meeting to an end.

Bikerman wrote:
And so it starts. We start with banning books like the Satanic Verses (obviously you have not read it - I have). Soon we ban speaking on things classified as unacceptible.


I have not read Satanic verses by Salman rushdie, but I have read parts of Protocols of the elders of Zion, Mein Kampf, the INternational Jew, and other books on the rothschilds, jewish bankers, jewish power and so on. Maybe I will read Salman Rushdie one day. btw, all the books i have read are for educational purposes and not to breed hate.

I did not say ban. I said distrbuting them does not help the issue, and it breeds hate. I have read it for educational purposes to understand the other view. But, AFAIK, it is illegal to own these copies. Not salman rushdies book of course, but certainly the books I stated regarding the Jews especially in countries like Germany and POland.



Bikerman wrote:

If you cannot see why that suggestion is personally insulting then I don't really want to talk with you anymore. Nobody is more vehement than me in condemnation of the holocaust. It did not happen because there was too much free speech (or do you perhaps think that the German people are naturally anti-semitic mass murderers?).


Then you do not know how the holocaust happened. The hate towards Jews did not start when Hitler decided to slay them.
the protocols of the elders of zion and the international jew existed long before this. Almost every European country's people (NOTE: I SAY PEOPLE), HATED JEWS. More hate towards jews resided in the people and not the governments of that nation. For instance, if you look at 14th century Frankfurt, the kings were happy to earn such modest taxes from Jews, but were killed by the people. And closer to England, the last Jews were burnt in 13th century by the poeple in a church, not the government.

Free speech paved the way for the holocaust to occur, because it was a biased freespeech- a free speech that was one sided. Because in free speech, the minorties are the losers because they have the lesser say. You can only attain "TRUE" free speech, if there was a civilised debate from both sides in a correct atmosphere, that way the minorities, no matter how weak in proportion to the population, will be equal in the delegation.
Bikerman
ThePolemistis wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I am aware and I think it was wrong. The best way to deal with holocaust deniers is to expose their views to the public and refute them systematically. Banning them simply adds spice to the conspiracy theorys

No, I am not saying that. I am saying you cannot say it in the mainstream media because spin is always applied on this sensitive issue.
Which is another way of applying censorship
Quote:

However, if you know about the recent oxford discussion with David Irvine and David Dukes, that is the kind of civilised and constructive debate I am talking about. you need it in that kindof environment.
It was a pity to see the demonstrators trying to bring the meeting to an end.
Yes I know about it and I agree that it should have gone ahead.*
Quote:
I have not read Satanic verses by Salman rushdie, but I have read parts of Protocols of the elders of Zion, Mein Kampf, the INternational Jew, and other books on the rothschilds, jewish bankers, jewish power and so on. Maybe I will read Salman Rushdie one day. btw, all the books i have read are for educational purposes and not to breed hate.
To put Rushdie's work in the same category is, I'm afraid, rather silly. Once you read it then we can talk intelligently about it - it is certainly not written to 'breed hate'.
Quote:
I did not say ban. I said distrbuting them does not help the issue, and it breeds hate. I have read it for educational purposes to understand the other view. But, AFAIK, it is illegal to own these copies. Not salman rushdies book of course, but certainly the books I stated regarding the Jews especially in countries like Germany and POland.
What is the difference between banning and banning distribution? I have a copy of Mein Kampf somewhere on my bookshelf. Why should I not have? It doesn't make me hate Jews. Are you supposing that only the educated 'elite' should have access to this material?
Quote:
Then you do not know how the holocaust happened. The hate towards Jews did not start when Hitler decided to slay them.
It would be helpful if you avoid assumptions of ignorance on my part. Where I demonstrate it then by all means point it out, but for the purposes of debate why not assume that I have a reasonable grounding in the matter, unless I demonstrate otherwise?
Quote:
the protocols of the elders of zion and the international jew existed long before this. Almost every European country's people (NOTE: I SAY PEOPLE), HATED JEWS. More hate towards jews resided in the people and not the governments of that nation. For instance, if you look at 14th century Frankfurt, the kings were happy to earn such modest taxes from Jews, but were killed by the people. And closer to England, the last Jews were burnt in 13th century by the poeple in a church, not the government.
OK. Let's deal, briefly, with the history of anti-semitism. Yes, it certainly goes back a long way into history. It can largely be traced back to 'Christian' anti-semitic preaching and dogma. Jews as the 'Christ Killer' is a common representation dating back well back into early history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1912
This is not an argument against free speech - rather the reverse. In Europe there was no 'speaking against the Church' if you valued your life. The anti-semitic sentiment and attitude was fostered by authority figures, rather than being a 'grass-roots' movement. It is impossible to say for sure whether such anti-semitism would have arisen had the Catholic (and later the Protestant) Church not been the major power during these centuries, but it is surely not unreasonable to suppose not.
Quote:
Free speech paved the way for the holocaust to occur, because it was a biased freespeech- a free speech that was one sided. Because in free speech, the minorties are the losers because they have the lesser say. You can only attain "TRUE" free speech, if there was a civilised debate from both sides in a correct atmosphere, that way the minorities, no matter how weak in proportion to the population, will be equal in the delegation.
Biased free-speech is not free-speech. When the authorities control free-speech then the abuses you speak of will occur. The answer is not to vest more control in the authorities by allowing censorship of speech, but just the reverse. Any attempt to restrict debate to 'civilised' fora is inevitably going to lead to censorship - who decides what is civilised or not? The best we can do is enable the minority voice to be heard and to stop any attempt to suppress it by violence or by legislation.

Minorities are not and should not be 'equal' in debate. The whole point of a democratic system is that the majority view should prevail. Minorities must, however, be given the right to voice their opinions and, perhaps, persuade others to share those views - that is the essence of a democratic system. It does not mean that they should be given equal airtime, but it does mean that minority voices , however unpallatable, must be heard, which, in turn, means that censorship of such voices is counter-productive.
Free-speech is not any easy option - it never has been, which is why it is under constant attack. It is, however, the best protection against tyranny of all kinds.

Censorship is valid in some specific areas. In science, for example, articles are 'censored' by peer-review before being published. The same applies to other professional journals and publications. This is right and proper - these areas are clearly defined and delineated.

* I would not expect a History journal of repute to publish the views of David Irving, unless they were first peer-reviewed, but I do not support the decision to imprison him in Austria. As Christian Fleck said at the time:
Fleck wrote:
"Are we really afraid of someone whose views on the past are palpable nonsense, at a time when every schoolchild knows of the horrors of the Holocaust? Are we saying his ideas are so powerful we can't argue with him?"
HalfBloodPrince
I can not insult a gay. This is being prejudicial.

I can not insult a Jew. This is being anti-semitic.

I can not insult a black. This is being racist.

I can insult a Muslim. It's freedom of speech.


Convince me that's not true.
Bikerman
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
I can not insult a gay. This is being prejudicial.
I can not insult a Jew. This is being anti-semitic.
I can not insult a black. This is being racist.
I can insult a Muslim. It's freedom of speech.
Convince me that's not true.
I don't have to convince anyone. Insulting Muslims is called being Islamophobic. People can insult gays, blacks and Jews and do so all the time. You have done so yourself on more than one occasion - I seem to remember you having a go at Christians and gays in various postings (or is my memory playing tricks?). I don't see anyone here having a go at Muslims as individuals - we are discussing Wilders who has things to say about the Muslim religion, and more specifically his right to do so. You can substitute Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or any other religion you like and I will still hold the same position - it is nothing to do with Islam in particular, it is an issue of freedom of speech.
I have lots of negative things to say about Islam, Christianity, Judaism and other religions. I will say whatever I please about any of them. The fact that I don't launch into vitriolic attacks on all of them is up to me - I prefer reasoned debate - but I resent anyone telling me that I cannot and I absolutely will NOT be bullied by rioting biggots who scream intolerant garbage about their prophet being insulted.
HalfBloodPrince
Bikerman wrote:
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
I can not insult a gay. This is being prejudicial.
I can not insult a Jew. This is being anti-semitic.
I can not insult a black. This is being racist.
I can insult a Muslim. It's freedom of speech.
Convince me that's not true.
I don't have to convince anyone. Insulting Muslims is called being Islamophobic. People can insult gays, blacks and Jews and do so all the time. You have done so yourself on more than one occasion - I seem to remember you having a go at Christians and gays in various postings (or is my memory playing tricks?). I don't see anyone here having a go at Muslims as individuals - we are discussing Wilders who has things to say about the Muslim religion, and more specifically his right to do so. You can substitute Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or any other religion you like and I will still hold the same position - it is nothing to do with Islam in particular, it is an issue of freedom of speech.
I have lots of negative things to say about Islam, Christianity, Judaism and other religions. I will say whatever I please about any of them. The fact that I don't launch into vitriolic attacks on all of them is up to me - I prefer reasoned debate - but I resent anyone telling me that I cannot and I absolutely will NOT be bullied by rioting biggots who scream intolerant garbage about their prophet being insulted.


You have some valid points; Billy Hill pissed the crap out of me at one point (and many other Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheists, just about everyone) and he was banned. For that I salute the mods.

I'm just saying that If someone were to make an anti-gay movie, they would get a LOT of crap from their superiors, their companies, and they'd get in a lot more shit than a few groups protesting with signs in front of their office. If someone made an anti-Christianity movie, they'd get in a lot of "official" shit too, same goes to an anti-Jew movie, an anti-black movie, etc.

But when an anti-Islam movie is made, it is totally accepted in other parts of the world and no "official" trouble is given. Sure, the riots and protests are a given (and I am NOT saying I support those, burning an American flag for cartoons published in Denmark is getting you nowhere, I know), but the movie is accepted and labeled "freedom of speech".
Bikerman
Well, many Jews argue that Paradise Now is anti-semitic. This film was sponsored by the Federal German Government.
(I haven't seen it so I'm not taking any position).
In the near past both anti-gay and anti-black films were extremely popular - check out films from 50s and 60s Hollywood. That has, it's true, changed in more recent times. That being said I cannot think of any major films which I would class as specifically anti-Muslim. There are many which portray Muslims in a negative light - mostly to do with American Heros, winning against the odds, against an implacable Muslim foe - but that is what you get from Hollywood. I personally get a little sick of seeing the US win WWII single-handedly, one-dimensional portrayals of communist evil, slapstick portrayals of oriental villains, sexist portrayals of dumb women and so on.
If you are asserting that there is a deliberate tendency to produce specifically anti-Muslim films, however, then perhaps you could name a few.
ThePolemistis
Bikerman wrote:

Which is another way of applying censorship


maybe so, but censorship for the better.
just like in a capitalist society, there must be at least some governmental intervention however minimal (e.g. in monopolies), the same is the case for freedom of speech.

Bikerman wrote:

To put Rushdie's work in the same category is, I'm afraid, rather silly. Once you read it then we can talk intelligently about it - it is certainly not written to 'breed hate'.


I haven't read it and I am not sure about the stuff Rushdie comments on. I have read the International Jew by Henry Ford (founder of Ford) and in my personal opinion, it not is not as radical as one would think. An interesting read, you should read it too.
Nevertheless, it can be considered a form of hate literature. I never said that these should be banned, they can be sold in bookstores. However, when making a movie targetted for the unintelligent masses, it brainwashes people. These are the methods Nazi Germany would be using, not a tolerate society such as the Netherlands.


Bikerman wrote:

What is the difference between banning and banning distribution? I have a copy of Mein Kampf somewhere on my bookshelf. Why should I not have? It doesn't make me hate Jews. Are you supposing that only the educated 'elite' should have access to this material?


The media, notably cinema and television, has huge impact on our lives. And as biased as the media is, it must not breed hate (it certainly does, you just look at the pro-israel stance of it).
For instance, on friday (7 March) I was watching Sky News on the train and it was saying how a Palestinian gunmen shot down so many people in a relgious Jewish school. The irony was it did not mention the number of Palestinians killed by Israel only a few days before, which numbered over a 100 in the West Bank. Yet, all forms of Israeli aggression are reported to be in "retaliation" of Palestinian ones, but sky news made no report that the Palestinian attack was in retaliation for the over 100 killed.

Now back to the subject, Mein Kampf is banned btw (certainly in Germany, not sure in England): I think it is illegal for you to own it. I am not saying its right, but thats how our society is.
I am against banning Mein Kampf, and I am sure you are too.

Bikerman wrote:


This is not an argument against free speech - rather the reverse. In Europe there was no 'speaking against the Church' if you valued your life. The anti-semitic sentiment and attitude was fostered by authority figures, rather than being a 'grass-roots' movement. It is impossible to say for sure whether such anti-semitism would have arisen had the Catholic (and later the Protestant) Church not been the major power during these centuries, but it is surely not unreasonable to suppose not.


No, again it is the classic example of "biased" free speech. Every country has it. Remember when Iran hosted the holocaust summit, they were saying it was in the name of free speech. Now if we were to host a Muslim summit of the similar nature, they would be crying out blasmphemy.
That is what freedom of speech represents in all societies... in Europe(post 1945), you can attack all sects you like, so long as you do not attack the Jews (note Jews not Israel). It is a fact, believe it or not. Anti-semetism was a crime in Britain for several decades, and the incitement to religious hatred has only recently become a crime in Britain.

You can question 400 years of black slavery (which included extermination), or the genocide of millions in Rwanda, or the massacre at Srebrencia, but you cannot question the 3 years of the extermination of Jews. That is what Europe's freedom of speech represents.

Bikerman wrote:


Biased free-speech is not free-speech. When the authorities control free-speech then the abuses you speak of will occur. The answer is not to vest more control in the authorities by allowing censorship of speech, but just the reverse. Any attempt to restrict debate to 'civilised' fora is inevitably going to lead to censorship - who decides what is civilised or not? The best we can do is enable the minority voice to be heard and to stop any attempt to suppress it by violence or by legislation.



Again, I have addressed this issue in this post earlier on. There is no such thing as freedom of speech, in any society. There is always "biased" freedom of speech. Every society that attacks a group uses the name of freedom of speech, and thereby is permitted to do so. Yet, if we attacked another community with the same means, and titled it freedom of speech, we will be sent to prison for inciting hatred.

There is no best we can do, and there never will be. Censorship will always occur, no media is open. All media have a direction, and although they might be opposite directions, only one voice will ever win "because" of censorship. And legislation will be applied to something that is unfavourable in the eyes of our governments.


Bikerman wrote:

Minorities are not and should not be 'equal' in debate. The whole point of a democratic system is that the majority view should prevail. Minorities must, however, be given the right to voice their opinions and, perhaps, persuade others to share those views - that is the essence of a democratic system. It does not mean that they should be given equal airtime, but it does mean that minority voices , however unpallatable, must be heard, which, in turn, means that censorship of such voices is counter-productive.
Free-speech is not any easy option - it never has been, which is why it is under constant attack. It is, however, the best protection against tyranny of all kinds.


I do not see how the views towards a religion would affect the voting polls. Religion never governs the people, the government however does. There is no such thing as a Christian country, or a Muslim country or a Jewish country. There is a thing as a country favourable to Christians, or a country favourable to Muslims or a country favourable to Jews. But in each case, the Christians, Muslims and Jews are not favoured for their piety, but simply of the fact that they were born such way, so it becomes a racial thing, not a religious one.


And democracy has nothing to do with the right to promote hatred. Everyone has the right to defend themselves when accused. The accused get the same treatment in the court of law as the accusers, i.e. they are given protection, they are innocent until proven guilty, and they have every right to defend themselves. The accuser can end up as the accused and the accused as the accuser. I am not talking about equal in numbers, I am talking about equal in debating (i.e. no spin applied or biasness). That is what democracy is about, innocent until proven guilty. And yes, when you bring it in the mainstream media you have issues of airtime and customer satisfaction and so forth. And all people of all countries as a whole, are unintelligent in politics and religion. That is precisely why I want civilised debates at university rooms for instance for both sides, like the Oxford one. This is true freedom of speech, not the one you promote. The one you are promoting is biased freedom of speech. You will never get TRUE freedom of speech your way.

Bikerman wrote:

Censorship is valid in some specific areas. In science, for example, articles are 'censored' by peer-review before being published. The same applies to other professional journals and publications. This is right and proper - these areas are clearly defined and delineated.


The same should apply to religion. If we were to label people of a religion by names they themselves did not choose, then they have a right to defend themselves with protection, in the same way a man to be trialled for murder would be a in a court of law.

Bikerman wrote:

Well, many Jews argue that Paradise Now is anti-semitic. This film was sponsored by the Federal German Government.


Being anti-Israel does not mean being anti-semetic. I think Jews are too sensitive when it comes to attacking Israel. In my view, ADL is a joke.
Bikerman
ThePolemistis wrote:
The media, notably cinema and television, has huge impact on our lives. And as biased as the media is, it must not breed hate (it certainly does, you just look at the pro-israel stance of it).
I would not argue with that. Restricting freedom of speech would have little or no impact on media coverage, however, since the media have sophisticated lawyers working for them, and will always be able to reflect the prejudices and preferences of their controllers - be it government or private corporation/individual.
ThePolemistis wrote:
Now back to the subject, Mein Kampf is banned btw (certainly in Germany, not sure in England): I think it is illegal for you to own it. I am not saying its right, but thats how our society is.
I am against banning Mein Kampf, and I am sure you are too.
Nonsense. It is not illegal here and neither is illegal in either Germany or the Netherlands (though there are restrictions on reselling - it is perfectly legal to own it).
In the Netherlands
wiki wrote:
selling the book, even in the case of an old copy, may be illegal as “promoting hatred”, but possession and lending is not. Though mainly the matter is handled as a matter of copyright infringement as the Dutch state (as acclaimed owner of the translation) will not allow any publishing. In 1997, the government explained to the parliament that selling a scientifically annotated version might escape prosecution. In 2007, the discussion flared up again and the same arguments for and against as in 1997 were uttered. In 2015, the copyright on the Dutch translation becomes void.
In Germany
wiki wrote:
..sic..owning the book is not illegal...In particular, the unmodified edition is not covered by §86 StGB that forbids dissemination of means of propaganda of unconstitutional organizations, since it is a “pre-constitutional work” and as such cannot be opposed to the free and democratic basic order, according to a 1979 decision of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany. Most German libraries carry heavily commented and excerpted versions of Mein Kampf.

ThePolemistis wrote:
That is what freedom of speech represents in all societies... in Europe(post 1945), you can attack all sects you like, so long as you do not attack the Jews (note Jews not Israel). It is a fact, believe it or not. Anti-semetism was a crime in Britain for several decades, and the incitement to religious hatred has only recently become a crime in Britain.
I do not think that is correct. As far as I know the only law that would apply to anti-semitism (either now or in the past) is the recent Race and Religious Hatred act and that is not specific about religion. Which specific legislation are you referring to?
ThePolemistis wrote:
I do not see how the views towards a religion would affect the voting polls. Religion never governs the people, the government however does. There is no such thing as a Christian country, or a Muslim country or a Jewish country. There is a thing as a country favourable to Christians, or a country favourable to Muslims or a country favourable to Jews. But in each case, the Christians, Muslims and Jews are not favoured for their piety, but simply of the fact that they were born such way, so it becomes a racial thing, not a religious one.
I'm not clear what you are saying here. There are clearly religious countries - Israel and Iran to name but two. They are 'religious' in the sense that legislation discriminates on grounds of religion - religion is to some extent embedded in the state, judiciary, legislature and education systems.
ThePolemistis wrote:
And democracy has nothing to do with the right to promote hatred. Everyone has the right to defend themselves when accused. The accused get the same treatment in the court of law as the accusers, i.e. they are given protection, they are innocent until proven guilty, and they have every right to defend themselves. The accuser can end up as the accused and the accused as the accuser. I am not talking about equal in numbers, I am talking about equal in debating (i.e. no spin applied or biasness). That is what democracy is about, innocent until proven guilty. And yes, when you bring it in the mainstream media you have issues of airtime and customer satisfaction and so forth. And all people of all countries as a whole, are unintelligent in politics and religion. That is precisely why I want civilised debates at university rooms for instance for both sides, like the Oxford one. This is true freedom of speech, not the one you promote. The one you are promoting is biased freedom of speech. You will never get TRUE freedom of speech your way.
I am promoting freedom of speech. Period. Full stop. Not a 'kind' or a 'type'. Freedom of speech is the right to say what you like within certain defined boundaries. Those boundaries are pretty clear - incitement, breach of confidentiality, breach of official secrets, breach of contract.
The media is generally limited and controlled by individual bodies set up for the purpose - here in the UK we have the Broadcasting Standards Agency, ITA, Press Complaints Commission, British Board of Film Classification and a few others. I will not argue that there is no inherent bias in some or perhaps all of these, but it is certainly not a simple case of 'conspiracy' - it is much more complex and diffuse than that.
When legislation is used to restrict freedom of speech in the media the results are sometimes farcical. Here in the UK, for example, at the height of the mainland bombing campaign by the IRA, Thatcher's government passed legislation which meant that Sinn Fein spokespersons could not be directly interviewed on TV. It resulted in the absurd situation where the picture would show Jerry Adams or some other SF spokesperson, and an Irish voiceover would be played instead of their real voice.

The position that 'true' free speech is, or should be, limited to debate by the intelligensia in specifically organised fora is very dangerous nonsense, as well as being elitist and patronising. The intelligensia have a way of either falling in behind, or being sequestered by, tyrannical governments. In Nazi Germany there was plenty of 'academic' debate about eugenics and anti-semitism, and plenty of academics and opinion formers who were willing to support the regime.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
Censorship is valid in some specific areas. In science, for example, articles are 'censored' by peer-review before being published. The same applies to other professional journals and publications. This is right and proper - these areas are clearly defined and delineated.
The same should apply to religion. If we were to label people of a religion by names they themselves did not choose, then they have a right to defend themselves with protection, in the same way a man to be trialled for murder would be a in a court of law.
What? I don't understand your point.
Lord Klorel
When i found out about this movie, i went nuts. That Geert Wilders is such an idiot, how can you do that?
He doesn't seem to know what can happen with people of the Netherlands in the foreign country a specially in the lands where the Islam has many followers.
Also factory's and people with high functions are in great danger. If i was in such situation i should leave immediate the country even i should lose my job, my life is more valuable then my job.

I hope that it doesn't need to come to this, but i should take precautions in case when the situation should explode.
ThePolemistis
Bikerman wrote:

Nonsense. It is not illegal here and neither is illegal in either Germany or the Netherlands (though there are restrictions on reselling - it is perfectly legal to own it).


Mein Kampf "is" banned in Germany. Read this quote:

source: http://www.ce-review.org/00/12/culik12.html wrote:
Early last week, Zítek told journalists that he felt Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf was out of copyright. He was aware of the fact that the publication of Mein Kampf is disallowed in Germany, but allegedly found that "there are no restriction on publication in other countries".


The Bahvarian authorities own the copyright except in UK and US, and they have prevented publication of Mein Kampf. So therefore, any publication of it produced in other than UK or US is illegal (the above quote says "allegedly" - maybe I should've provided a better quote?). So unless it was imported in Germany (albeit I do not know the official German position of "owning" mein kampf) from UK or US, its illegal.


Bikerman wrote:


I do not think that is correct. As far as I know the only law that would apply to anti-semitism (either now or in the past) is the recent Race and Religious Hatred act and that is not specific about religion. Which specific legislation are you referring to?


The Race Relations Act covers Jews but not necessarily Muslims.
Anti-semetism would fall under the race relation act.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/8/newsid_4457000/4457112.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4359982.stm

Bikerman wrote:

I'm not clear what you are saying here. There are clearly religious countries - Israel and Iran to name but two. They are 'religious' in the sense that legislation discriminates on grounds of religion - religion is to some extent embedded in the state, judiciary, legislature and education systems.


All countries to some degree discriminate on grounds of religion, but more discrimination is due to ethnicity rather than religion. These country's laws are favourable to those of a specific ethnicity, because for instance, with Israel you will see they favour certain sects based on their surname even though they maybe Jewish.

also AFAIK, there is no clear written constitution for Shariah law. It is not unique and ubiquitous. It is based on interpretation. Different Muslim countries implement it in different ways.

But of course, certain religions are perferable. But that is nothing new and don't blame religion for this and it means nothing. There would be discrimination in other ways (and there is e.g. ethnicity), if religion does not exist.

Bikerman wrote:

I am promoting freedom of speech. Period. Full stop. Not a 'kind' or a 'type'. Freedom of speech is the right to say what you like within certain defined boundaries. Those boundaries are pretty clear - incitement, breach of confidentiality, breach of official secrets, breach of contract.


Thats the freedom of speech I support too.
The only difference is whether hate speech is permissable or not, does incitement of religious hatred fall under incitement?

I say no (to hate speech), except in a controlled delegation where it can be true and fair.
You say yes, attack at will.

Bikerman wrote:


The media is generally limited and controlled by individual bodies set up for the purpose - here in the UK we have the Broadcasting Standards Agency, ITA, Press Complaints Commission, British Board of Film Classification and a few others. I will not argue that there is no inherent bias in some or perhaps all of these, but it is certainly not a simple case of 'conspiracy' - it is much more complex and diffuse than that.



The media is allowed to promote lies, at least in Canada (and possibly America). This is evident in teh ruling for the author of Did six million really die in which the sentence was overrulled because it was "unconstitutional".


Bikerman wrote:

When legislation is used to restrict freedom of speech in the media the results are sometimes farcical. Here in the UK, for example, at the height of the mainland bombing campaign by the IRA, Thatcher's government passed legislation which meant that Sinn Fein spokespersons could not be directly interviewed on TV. It resulted in the absurd situation where the picture would show Jerry Adams or some other SF spokesperson, and an Irish voiceover would be played instead of their real voice.


Thats news, this is a film. A film is being produced to install hate against a religion and those who follow it, which will no doubt be prone to bias and is offered to the mainstream public without the Muslims to defned their position. This is a personal attack against Muslims, and thus should be done so in a professional atmosphere.
Covering a war is different, as it is hard to be neutral. Both Ireland and Britain would report the events differently. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech where incitement to religious hatred is concerned.

Bikerman wrote:


The position that 'true' free speech is, or should be, limited to debate by the intelligensia in specifically organised fora is very dangerous nonsense, as well as being elitist and patronising. The intelligensia have a way of either falling in behind, or being sequestered by, tyrannical governments. In Nazi Germany there was plenty of 'academic' debate about eugenics and anti-semitism, and plenty of academics and opinion formers who were willing to support the regime.


Man was born to be free and independant. We are not criticisng that here. You talk plenty of academic debate in Nazi Germany, yet those who opposed the view of the government were shot dead. Pure and simple. Yes, we can voice our opinions, but what will the consequence of that be if we live in a society of hate? The voices of hate should be contained and challengedso that the power of reason wins over the power of the guy with the loudest mouth. And that cannot be done thru the mainstream media.
Bikerman
Quote:
Mein Kampf "is" banned in Germany. Read this quote:
You said it was illegal to own it – it isn’t (either in the UK or Germany). Publication is banned - that's different.
Quote:
The Race Relations Act covers Jews but not necessarily Muslims. Anti-semetism would fall under the race relation act.

But you said that
Quote:
you can attack all sects you like, so long as you do not attack the Jews (note Jews not Israel).
The race relations act applies to all races and ethnic groups (though I have yet to see a satisfactory definition of an ethnic group). It was primarily aimed at the Black and Asian population of Britain and so covered most Muslims by default.
Note that it did not cover religion at all so discriminating against the Jewish religion was not covered (neither was the Muslim religion). The difficulty comes with defining whether Jews are a race or not. The general agreement would be that they are not, but clearly Jews are a borderline case unlike other religions (with the possible exception of Sikhs), and I think that, for the purposes of the 1976 act Jews (and Sikhs) were defined as an ethnic group and therefore covered (I might be wrong).
If this was the case then I would concede that you have a point. I would say, however, that the legislation was not intended to be specific to anti-semitism and the fact that it applied would have been a later interpretation. It certainly did not cover Jews to the exception of all other groups.
Quote:
All countries to some degree discriminate on grounds of religion, but more discrimination is due to ethnicity rather than religion. These country's laws are favourable to those of a specific ethnicity, because for instance, with Israel you will see they favour certain sects based on their surname even though they maybe Jewish.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘ethnicity’ – perhaps you can define it. I do know that Israel and Iran discriminate on grounds on religion and that the discrimination is enshrined in law. *
Yes, to a minor extent some western countries discriminate on religious grounds. Here in the UK, for example, we still have a blasphemy law that only applies to C of E. (I can’t think of any other examples). It’s a minor throwback, however, not used and hardly relevant, unlike Israeli land law. I think it will soon be abolished (at least I hope so).
I don’t know how Israel discriminates on surname – can you provide an example?
* http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801088.html
Quote:
also AFAIK, there is no clear written constitution for Shariah law. It is not unique and ubiquitous. It is based on interpretation. Different Muslim countries implement it in different ways.
But Sharia law (however it is applied) is based on Islam and countries which operate it are therefore clearly religious states.
Quote:
Thats the freedom of speech I support too. The only difference is whether hate speech is permissable or not, does incitement of religious hatred fall under incitement?

I say no (to hate speech), except in a controlled delegation where it can be true and fair.
You say yes, attack at will.
No – I say that the individual should be free to say what they like within boundaries. Incitement would generally be incitement to violence, not hatred. Incitement to religious hatred (as in the new law here) is bad legislation and has been substantially revised so that it now means:
Quote:
"A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred"
(Threatening is generally defined to mean threats of physical violence).
I still think it is a bad law (how do you show intent?). The consensus amongst lawyers is that it will probably never be used.
I’m also pretty sure it would not apply to Wilders’ film since Wilders (to the best of my knowledge) makes no threats to Muslims.
Quote:
The media is allowed to promote lies, at least in Canada (and possibly America). This is evident in teh ruling for the author of Did six million really die in which the sentence was overrulled because it was "unconstitutional".
It certainly is – I never said otherwise. Here in the UK, however, it would not be allowed to promote religious hatred overtly.
Quote:
Thats news, this is a film. A film is being produced to install hate against a religion and those who follow it, which will no doubt be prone to bias and is offered to the mainstream public without the Muslims to defned their position. This is a personal attack against Muslims, and thus should be done so in a professional atmosphere.
Covering a war is different, as it is hard to be neutral. Both Ireland and Britain would report the events differently. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech where incitement to religious hatred is concerned.
We were talking about freedom of speech generally and it certainly counts under that heading.
As for Muslims not being able to defend their position – there is nothing, as far as I know - to stop a Muslim from making a film which defends Islam in the Netherlands. All films (except documentaries and, arguably, even them) are biased. That is the nature of the beast – a director puts over a partial view – either his own, or one from a novel, or scriptwriter.
Quote:
Man was born to be free and independant. We are not criticisng that here. You talk plenty of academic debate in Nazi Germany, yet those who opposed the view of the government were shot dead. Pure and simple. Yes, we can voice our opinions, but what will the consequence of that be if we live in a society of hate? The voices of hate should be contained and challengedso that the power of reason wins over the power of the guy with the loudest mouth. And that cannot be done thru the mainstream media.
I agree that the voices of hate should be challenged – that is my whole point. I spend much of my time doing just that. I do not agree, however, that you can limit them to some sterile academic forum, or ‘contain’ them in some way. Once you try to limit freedom of speech then you immediately run into problems - as the new Religious Hatred law in the UK clearly demonstrates. You have the same problem when you try to limit the media - although, as I said, there are already limitations in place for most media in most countries.

The central issue is should religion be given the same protection that race, gender and disability already enjoy. In issues of discrimination it already is (under the EEC Human Rights legislation).
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/right-to-recieve-equal-treatment/index.shtml
In issues of free speech I say it should not. Religion is a choice - race, gender and disability are not. I should be free to say nasty things about religion if I want to as long as I make no threats or incitement to violence (which is a bit of a red herring anyway since threatening behaviour and incitement to violence are already covered under common law).

As far as I know, from reports, Wilders' film advocates banning the Quran and stopping further Muslim immigration into the Netherlands. As far as I know, he does not advocate beating Muslims up or other acts of violence. If he did then I would support a ban on the film on the grounds of incitement. Simply presenting a negative and partial view of Islam is not, to me, something which can or should be banned - challenged yes, banned no.
I take exactly the same position for all religion - not just Islam.
ThePolemistis
Sorry, I haven't replied to your post. Haven't had the time lately.

Also, I think we are diverting from the topic at hand a little. Forgive my reply to your last post. Our discussion although fruitful, is beginning to miss the main focus, and that is the video.

Basically, my two questions to you are:

1. Do you really want to see another holocaust in our lifetime or your childrens against the Muslims? And no, this time it won't simply be against Muslims in Europe, nor restricted to a few million. It will be a holocaust against East and West, against Muslims and Christians and encompass billions. It most likely be a nuclear war.
Actually I think it will be much more than that. It would be against any minorities in Europe. Against blacks, against Muslims, against anyone who looks brown. Most immortantly, against non-White immigration. Probably even against Jews for round 2.

and my final question:
2. the Jews were blamed for doing too little to prevent Hitler (as famous childrens author Roald Dahl put it), will the Muslims be blamed for doing too much?
Bikerman
ThePolemistis wrote:
1. Do you really want to see another holocaust in our lifetime or your childrens against the Muslims?
Do you not think that is an insulting question? I do.
Quote:
And no, this time it won't simply be against Muslims in Europe, nor restricted to a few million. It will be a holocaust against East and West, against Muslims and Christians and encompass billions. It most likely be a nuclear war.
I see nothing that would make me believe that is a possibility. Who are the nuclear powers that you think will be fighting this war?
Quote:
Actually I think it will be much more than that. It would be against any minorities in Europe. Against blacks, against Muslims, against anyone who looks brown. Most immortantly, against non-White immigration. Probably even against Jews for round 2.
I see no reason to believe that is true. The most likely scenario for that sort of conflict is, in my opinion, migration due to food/water shortages, which is a real possibility in the future. That has nothing, however, to do with the portrayal of Muslims in the film in question.
Quote:
2. the Jews were blamed for doing too little to prevent Hitler (as famous childrens author Roald Dahl put it), will the Muslims be blamed for doing too much?
Who is the Hitler figure you refer to? A Dutch politician making an anti-Muslim film is hardly the same as Hitler - or do you think otherwise? I can't speak for the Netherlands but I do know the UK pretty well and I can tell you that, although there is some inherent racism (as there always has been), there is no 'generalised' anti-Muslim feeling sufficient to allow the rise of another Hitler figure. I was on the anti-war march in London against the Iraq war, where almost 2 million people came out to protest.
What I see is people questioning Islam. I believe those questions are right and need answering.
I don't condone or condemn the film that this guy is making - I haven't seen it. I do support free speech however and that applies to all sides.
To get hysterical and start throwing 'Hitler' comparisons around and talking about the end of the world as we know it, seems to me to be a huge over-reaction.
ThePolemistis
And also I like to ask, where was Britain at Srebrenica? It was the worst fighting in Europe since WW2.


"Britain must share the blame with France and the United States for failing to stop the massacre in 1995 of 8,000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces in the United Nations safe area of Srebrenica, according to a French report released yesterday. "
source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/lessons/serb.htm


Edit: I dunno how it got posted here... my post below this post was written before this post... loll.. crazy stuff Razz

Edit2: Damn... I jus realised... I post over my initial response to ur statemnts. Sorry... I will post against tmr maybe,, ned to grab some rest now though.. take care [/b]
ThePolemistis
bikerman wrote:

but I do know the UK pretty well and I can tell you that, although there is some inherent racism (as there always has been), there is no 'generalised' anti-Muslim feeling sufficient to allow the rise of another Hitler figure. I was on the anti-war march in London against the Iraq war, where almost 2 million people came out to protest.


And the anti-war march was before 7/7, before 21/7, before the bombing in glasgow, and so on.
I agree, Europe is different to views shared in America. But that is only because Europe hates America also.
And also rememeber that the Iraq war was not Britains war, it was Americas war. So just like any war, in which interests are mainly towards another nation than your own, their would be profound anti-war protests.

I know it slightly of a "stupid/vague" comparison, but weren't the British public overwhelmely in support of the falklands war?


bikerman wrote:

What I see is people questioning Islam. I believe those questions are right and need answering.
I don't condone or condemn the film that this guy is making - I haven't seen it. I do support free speech however and that applies to all sides.


This goes back to our previous discussion Smile... As I said, I agree to asking questions, but they must be done in a "mature" fashion.

bikerman wrote:

To get hysterical and start throwing 'Hitler' comparisons around and talking about the end of the world as we know it, seems to me to be a huge over-reaction.


The media is a VERY powerful tool. See how many people in America were deceived into believing Iraq had WMDs? that Iraq was linked with alQaeda? In one statement, Bush said, that Saddam Hussein was a "DIRECT" threat to the United states of America and in another he said, there is no greater threat to America, her people and her allies than Saddam Hussein (or words to that effect).

Were not the British also fooled by this? I mean, despite the 2 million protesters, the approval ratings for war were >50%. I think around 60% of the British public were in favour (or was this the US)?
Bikerman
ThePolemistis wrote:
And the anti-war march was before 7/7, before 21/7, before the bombing in glasgow, and so on.
I agree, Europe is different to views shared in America. But that is only because Europe hates America also.
And also rememeber that the Iraq war was not Britains war, it was Americas war. So just like any war, in which interests are mainly towards another nation than your own, their would be profound anti-war protests.
I know it slightly of a "stupid/vague" comparison, but weren't the British public overwhelmely in support of the falklands war?
Yes that is true but I don't see how it is relevant. The Falklands war (which I opposed) was a consequence of a foreign invasion of British territory. We could debate the rights and wrongs but I don't see it as comparable.
Quote:
The media is a VERY powerful tool. See how many people in America were deceived into believing Iraq had WMDs? that Iraq was linked with alQaeda? In one statement, Bush said, that Saddam Hussein was a "DIRECT" threat to the United states of America and in another he said, there is no greater threat to America, her people and her allies than Saddam Hussein (or words to that effect).
I agree but that has always been the case. Would you ban the Rambo films? How about James Bond? What about 'Black Hawk Down'?
There is a difference between a Government lying to the people through the media (as happened before the Iraq war) and a single individual (allbeit a politician) making a film. There is a difference between watching the news and watching a movie - most people are mature enough to know the difference and treat the two differently.
Quote:
Were not the British also fooled by this? I mean, despite the 2 million protesters, the approval ratings for war were >50%. I think around 60% of the British public were in favour (or was this the US)?
I don't have the figures but I would agree that public opinion was split. This was because of a concerted campaign of misinformation by Blair however, not a movie. The BBC tried to report the truth and were hammered for it. The truth is that many current politicians were guilty in this regard and they have, since, conspired to stop any proper enquiry into the war. Journalists must also take some blame for the craven behaviour they displayed. The coverage before the war and the whole notion of 'embedded reporters' was an obscenity. You will find nobody who feels stronger than I about the Iraq war - but I do not see a comparison with a Dutch MP making a film.
Bikerman
ThePolemistis wrote:
"Britain must share the blame with France and the United States for failing to stop the massacre in 1995 of 8,000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces in the United Nations safe area of Srebrenica, according to a French report released yesterday. "
source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/lessons/serb.htm

Yes, the whole thing was shameful. My understanding, however, is that it resulted largely because the rules of engagement were not set properly and the politicians didn't have a proper strategy, not because of some inherent anti-muslim feeling by the troops..
paul_indo
Has anyone actually seen "Fitna"?

I have and I think this is all a storm in a teacup.

The film is a poor rehash of news footage showing muslim violence and hate speeches by mullahs etc alongside verses from the koran. At the end he suggests that muslims should remove these verses that incite violence.

Throughout the whole 15 minutes or so there is actually very little opinion given.

It is obviously aimed at stirring controversy, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
To be honest I think it hardly rates comment let alone this level of debate.
Mind you the debating of free speech is an interesting point.
I don't see how you can have free speech without the risk of insulting someone. If they are insulted they are probably immature, if they were mature they would counter your argument rather than getting in a huff.

"Fitna" is actually rather boring.
achowles
It's the extremists that are bad. If you take anything to extremes, ultimately all you're left with is the extremity of your 'beliefs'. If you look at Islam and look at those who condone suicide bombings, you'll see a conflict of interests on multiple counts.

It would seen like Geert Wilder is one such extremist.
Related topics
Europeans and Americans, your thoughts on "Eurabia"
Upcoming Games to Movie Adaptations
islam is...
the earthquake in pakistan
Why do you all hate God?
Iran shelling Kurdish villiages in Iraq again
the crossaders come back to fight muslims?
Christian radical says Amish girls deserved to be murdered
France prepares 50,000 riot police for attacks
IF Islam is the fastest growing religion, this is why...
Outrageous: Denmark re-publish Mohammud cartoons
Is there a heven and a hell???
Dutch MP Posts anti-Islam film online
Does the existence of God even matter?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

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