Hmm... Geert Wilders is an absolute asshole though... but Fitna wasn't really THAT bad (I wonder if it's on the sift btw). It's tempting to stand back and let him become a martyr for western culture. It would feel wrong, but so would signing a petition to help a white supremacist.

[edit]
It is!

Well that was depressing.

Religions... stupid...

This guy should be arrested for insulting political correctness.

OMFG ' the dike has been breached', poor soul. (its in the humor channel, but i dont think this is very funny, only sad)

*politics *news

Adding video to channels (News, Politics) - requested by nomino.

Pat Condell doesn't even know who the fuck Geert Wilders is or what he stands for.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Fascist-Exposed-Geert-Wilders-on-Radical-Islam

Watch Wilders squirm under questioning when interviewed by BBCs Hard Talk and expose himself as a fascist who just doesn't like immigrants.

This is not true, yes Wilders is being prosecuted, but until the judges come to a verdict we don't know the result yet. Inciting hate and violence is illegal and the prosecutor is now checking if this was the case.

Wilders is a scary retarded idiot and his xenophobia has gotten him almost 15% of the potential vote now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders#Islam

>> ^Farhad2000:
Pat Condell doesn't even know who the fuck Geert Wilders is or what he stands for.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Fascist-Exposed-Geert-Wilders-on-R
adical-Islam
Watch Wilders squirm under questioning when interviewed by BBCs Hard Talk and expose himself as a fascist who just doesn't like immigrants.


The thing is : In this case it doesnt matter if Geert Wilders eats babies for breakfast, he is being charged for making a movie that is strictly critical towards ISLAM. Period. It doesnt matter if you, me or Condell agrees or sympathizes with whatever Geert Wilders say, In this matter, he is being charged for essentially blasphemy, if anything..

I know very little about Mr. Wilders, and he might be the biggest asshole on the planet, Judging from the HardTalk interview, I certainly disagree with him on many points, For instance, he wants To use "administrative detention" to round up people who are hostile to his "Values", which essentially means that he is hostile to his own values and should be in detention himself..

The point is that in any case, its all OPINIONS, just like "Allah Ackbar, All infidels are dirt" is an opinion. Both may be good or bad or disgusting, depending on who hears them, but they shouldnt be illegal.

If a Muslim makes a movie with quotes from the Torah, and images of children being slaughtered by IDF's bombs, Many will probably find it offensive, perhaps inaccurate, but unless it ends with "Kill all the Jews", it is still entirely within our Free Speech rights. In America, it would be free speech no matter what, but most of Europe has "Hate Speech" laws, under which threats of violence or death against groups or individuals is illegal, and that brings us to the heart of the issue:

Has Geert Wilders threatened with, or encouraged violence or murder of groups or individuals?

No. (Well, not to my knowledge, and not in "Fitna", which is what he is charged for)

Case closed

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
The point is that in any case, its all OPINIONS, just like "Allah Ackbar, All infidels are dirt" is an opinion. Both may be good or bad or disgusting, depending on who hears them, but they shouldn't be illegal.

In January 2009 a Dutch court ordered prosecutors to try him for making anti-Islamic statements. "In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.

There is already a mass momentum in Europe by certain politicians that are using the foreign immigrants as a scape goat for social ills so they can incite fear and panic in the voting public. Wilders just targeted Muslims instead, or rather Morrocans and Algerians as a whole. I see this move as a way to stop his BS spilling over in Netherlands. The Netherlands has strict laws against such actions for all religions including Christianity and Judaism.

Also did we watch the same film? Fitna is constructed to be a hate piece against all Muslims. Not extremists. Not fundamentalists. Not cultural Muslims. But all Muslims. It doesn't seek to create any form of dialog, but it just wants to create fear and completely mis represent the largest single faith in the world.

Fitna wishes to demonstrate that the Qur'an, and the Islamic culture in general, motivates its followers to hate all who violate the Islamic teachings. Is this true for all Muslims living in Europe or the Netherlands?

Consequently, the film argues, Islam encourages, among others, acts of terrorism, antisemitism, violence against women, and Islamic universalism. Is this true for all Muslims living in Europe or the Netherlands?

Then it connects it back to Islam in Netherlands. The movie ends with a hand seen gripping a page of the Qur'an and a call to action from Wilders to defeat “Islamic ideology”, likening it to Communism and Nazism. I mean please is this for real?

How can you say that it is simply freedom of expression. It's not, its politically motivated to create division and sew fear in the general public against another set of people based around a religion.

You want to go rattle sabres about freedom of expression in Europe go publish anything that denies the holocaust, or print Mein Kampf (also banned in Netherlands), or make any kind of Nazi related object in Germany.

Will you go also defending freedom of expression then?

You want to go rattle sabres about freedom of expression in Europe go publish anything that denies the holocaust, or print Mein Kampf (also banned in Netherlands), or make any kind of Nazi related object in Germany.
Will you go also defending freedom of expression then?


Yes, I would, actually. I think Silencing of holocaust deniers is a bad idea.

That being said, however much you want to, could you REALLY compare Wilders views with that of a nazi, or a holocaust-denier?

If you actually listen to what he says, even in your "Fascist exposed" hardtalk interview, does he threaten violence?, encourage violence?

I would say that he has some pretty simplistic, populistic and unrealistic points of views on how to treat "non-western" immigrants, and, just like holocaust-deniers and simplistic demonizers of "jews" I would say this:

I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIM.

But, in a democracy, that is all beside the point. It is an expression of opinion.

I Dont really give a shit.

He has a democratic RIGHT to express his opinion. Feel free to disagree, as I have, feel free to call him an idiot, call him a fascist, a nazi, a racist, whatever you want.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT.

This is the issue : Should Geert Wilders bet PUNISHED, by the COURT of the Netherlands, for what he has said and done?

My answer is :

NO.

Argued against?
YES

Scorned?
PERHAPS,

Disliked?
Perhaps

Challenged?
YES

As I wrote in some of my previous posts, I disagree with many o our fellow opponents, but do I think Mr. fjordman should be punished For his views? NO. Challenged? Yes opposed? Yes ridiculed? Yes.

But not punished.

Sorry, double post

I'm with BRM on this one, as long as he's not inciting violence he should not be punished for using his freedom of expression, even if he is a racist bigot.

Mein kampf ought to not be banned as well.

The problem is that this hits on the freedom of expression and hate speech debate, that is still ongoing.

I believe this constitutes hate speech because it defames a set of people based around their beliefs, and in Wilders case their ethnicity as well.

There are sticky points in this debate, I mean if we are to protect freedom of expression should the word nigger be allowed to be used as well in reference to black people?

Various nations have differing view points on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

I think "hate speech" is a dumb thing. If we have to make laws about "offensive" speech, then no one would be allowed to speak at all.

I also don't think religion (or beliefs) deserves the same status as race, gender or sexual orientation. I think it interesting that religions, and especially Islam, has begun to be incredibly offended about stupid things, like cartoons or Richard Dawkins' website. Why can't the rest of us be offended by all the drivel that's in the quran (and the bible)? If there ever were hateful books, those would be at the top.

Well, I'm not really comfortable with anyhing that limits freedom of expression. On the other hand, allowing so-called Hate-speech is a rather bitter pill, I would admit.

Still, How does "Fitna" (Which I remind you is the only relevant issue in this discussion) fit the description "Hate Speech"? Take the Wikipedia defenition:

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion,

Do you see that? It is insulting/degrading PEOPLE, not religions. Hate speech is something very specific, it has to be directed at someone or some group in particular.

Fitna is critical towards the teachings of Islam. How does that "degrade, intimidate or incite violence" against Muslims?

I'm critical of Communism. So, was "Animal Farm" hate-speech against the sovjet union and everyone living in it? Or atleast against everyone who followed Stalin?

In these matters, one has to be vary careful in defining "hate speech" which is one of the reasons I dislike the whole concept. I say free speech all the way, and if people are offended, degraded or insulted then so be it. Talk back. That's all I can say.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
... Fit the description "Hate Speech"? Take the Wikipedia defenition:
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion.

Did you read the entire description on Wiki? Read it again. Carefully.

Fitna is factually wrong and misconstruction of the religion via picking and applying certain aspects. Had it been accurate I would agree with you. But it's not. So I disagree with you.

Look I don't agree that being offensive is the same as being free to express yourself.

It's a slippery slope either way.

Look I don't agree that being offensive is the same as being free to express yourself.

Its not the same, but its part of it.

At the same time, YOU have the right to speak out against Wilders. Feel free to describe to people how Fitna is distorting, quote-mining and misinterpreting the Quran, I'm sure it does. But thats not the point. I am defending Wilders right to critize Islam and the Qurans teachings.Not without being argued against , but without getting sent to JAIL for it. If Wilders next film is called "Kill all the muslims" I probably wont be so eager to defend him, because that really would be inciting and encouraging violence against a group of people.

People have the right to criticize Islam, they even have the right to get all the facts wrong while doing it. Islam, after all speaks of us non-belivers as if we were second-rate citizens, and its getting all the facts wrong. About everything. But thats OK, its just a dusty old book to me. I happen to think that people should take it a little less seriously, and I feel free to say that, but I cant, and wont, force people to.

sadam hussein knew human nature. kill!

"Islam, after all speaks of us non-belivers as if we were second-rate citizens"

What religion doesn't?

Oh please I think you people have your panties in a twist because you are all rampant atheist idealists who believe that criticizing a religion will somehow make people stop falling it and enlighten them overnight.

Thus you defend Wilders over this point, had Wilders come out and said Black people steal and kill and all should be called the n word you would not so readily defend his airing of this opinion.

I mean look at the 180 Gwiz did on the sift talk when banning Sean Hannity.

Furthermore even without Islam, Christianity, Judaism and every other religion out there people would still kill, maim, destroy each other because that's what people do. Stop trying to make it seem that dismantling a religious entity will achieve nirvana in the whole world.

How many wars and conflicts have occurred over politics? over borders? over race? People are stupid in general not simply because they follow any kind of faith.

What religion doesn't?

That wasnt my point, You know I dont like any religions. My point was merely that you look at Fitna, YOU see a film that should be classified as "hate-speech" Well, I cant say I see the same thing. However, I do kinda feel that way about the Quran. You probably dont see the Quran that way. Fine. But I wouldnt dream of saying "You cant publish this book, because its hate-speech" I'm completely fine with people publishing, reading and even believing in the Quran, as long as I and anyone else, can criticize the Quran and its teachings in any way we please.

What I am asking you is not whether or not you disagree with, or feel offended by Fitna, And I am not trying to remove your right to criticize it(quite the opposite, actually), the question is if Wilders should be punished for making and releasing it. Do you think he should?

And if so, Why cant I say the same thing for the Quran? Should we just ban that too and get it out of the way?

is islam the "largest single faith in the world?"

i thought it was still christianity... and by a comfortable margin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

or is the statement based on sub-dividing christianity by denomination, but considering all shi'as, sunnis, kharijites, sufis, etc, inclusively?

do we ever see videos that are openly scornful of christianity? misrepresentful? hateful?

thicker skins may be the only solution