Criminally Free Speech
The Netherlands is about to prosecute one of their elected officials, the courageous Geert Wilders, who's under 24-hour guard to protect him from attack by violent Muslims -- while in danger of being jailed for 16 months and fined almost $13,000 for having the temerity to criticize Islam. Pat Condell lets the Dutch and "the multicultural mafia" have it:
A few quotes from the video, from a transcription on Jihadwatch:
"If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I'd be arrested for hate speech""You're not allowed to insult anyone's beliefs in the Netherlands, even if those beliefs insult you and everything you stand for."
"Whenever we heard the words 'human rights' in connection with Islam, we're about to be confronted with another piece of ugly opportunism that spits in the face of genuine human rights and insults everyone's intelligence."
"What kind of justice system is it where the truth is inadmissible as evidence?"
"You're being chewed up and spat out, is what's happening to you people. Look at what you're doing: you're prosecuting a man who is under twenty-four hour protection from attack by violent Muslim, yet he's the criminal for expressing an opinion. Lewis Carroll couldn't have written this one any better."
"Nobody should be compelled to respect an ideology that doesn't respect them. And Islam respects nobody. It claims dominion. Respect doesn't come into it. You submit. That's the deal."
"This is a dark hour for the Netherlands. There's no doubt about that. And it's also kind of a watershed moment for the rest of Europe. We'll all be watching now to see how this turns out. If these charges succeed, we'll know the dike has been breached, and it's the beginning of the end of justice as we know it in Europe, and the beginning of creeping Sharia, or, injustice as we know it."
"The truth is sometimes offensive. There's no doubt about that. But that doesn't make it any less true."
There's a good piece in Forbes on L'Affaire Wilders by Dutchman Diederik van Hoogstraten:
...It may turn out that Wilders' constitutional freedom of speech is only guaranteed when he makes sure not to hurt the feelings of certain minorities. The right not to be offended may well overrule the right to speak.To be sure, it is problematic that he has called for a ban of the Quran. But his stupid idea does not condone the equally bad plan to silence him by law. The question is not, and should not be, whether Wilders is right. It does not matter whether his ideas are crude, offensive, ridiculous or brilliant (Wilders has a huge base of support in Holland).
The Wall Street Journal put it well, the day after the court order. "Limiting the Dutch debate of Islam to standards acceptable in, say, Saudi Arabia, will only shore up support for Mr. Wilders's argument that Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties."
The ruling was, to some, stunning in its admission of obedience to the professed offendedness of the few. But it fits into a trend. The big-mouthed politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated in 2002. The boisterous film maker Theo van Gogh was slaughtered by a Dutch-born Islamist on an Amsterdam street in 2004. The soft-spoken but clear-eyed member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali was endlessly threatened, lived behind bulletproof glass and was essentially driven out of the country in 2006; she ended up in the United States. Now Wilders will be prosecuted for speaking his mind.
It does not take a conspiracy theorist (or an "islamophobe") to see the pattern. All were, or still are, fervent critics of Islam. Two are dead, one fled when she could and the fourth--Wilders--lives with round-the-clock protection and the turned backs of most of his colleagues in Parliament.
It is not altogether clear whether most Dutch understand the dire predicament they will be in if they get into the habit of prosecuting critics of Islam. There is enough courage to go around. The writer and law professor Afshin Ellian, the novelists Leon de Winter and Joost Zwagerman, the columnist Nausicaa Marbe, and many others: They speak their minds honestly, often eloquently. Their critics routinely compare them to Nazis and fascists, which does not amount to a terribly strong argument, but so be it. They have thick skin; they should be able to take the heat.
It is crucial that they feel free and secure to speak their minds, regardless of the feelings of one group or another--free of the fear of prosecution for their ideas.
Is it hateful for me to say that if Muslims can't stand The Enlightenment, they should get on a plane back to the Dark Ages? They'll find them just over the pike in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and so many other Muslim countries, where women have the rights of dogs, gays and lesbians are put to death in most horrifying ways, and using Western technology to blow oneself and a lot of other people up is preached as a virtue.
it is hateful the way those islamic people tried to impose their hateful ugly lifestyle on us poor nonbelievers. even with all the wealth and the education that they grabbed from the west, they still do not know how to behave in a civilise manner.
WLIL at January 26, 2009 2:05 AM
This will surely sound naive...
But doesn't this seem like a good time to stage a protest outside a Dutch embassy or consulate? After all, the Europeans don't hesitate to stage a protest when we execute a prisoner or arrest someone.
Is there a human rights watch organization that one could contact? Because whatever your beliefs are about Islam, even if you're all for Muslims being Muslims, most of us still believe in free speech.
On another note, this is why I think the US needs to get its immgration under control NOW. It's all very well and nice to say "We will all get along", but any large influx of an immigrant population is going to cause problems in a country.
NicoleK at January 26, 2009 4:58 AM
An email quoted in Irshad Manji's website http://www.irshadmanji.com/ :
How do people like this get from "we are saved and you are not" - which is all that any religion says - to "we will kick the fuck out of you whenever we feel like it?"
Norman at January 26, 2009 5:45 AM
Norman -
It's very simple. Islam was founded in blood. Born of conquest, it has war enshrined as its holiest sacrament.
When you create a religion whose sole purpose is to unite the various Arab tribes to conquer Europe, you want a religion that convinces people that God wants them to kill.
And so, wanting to get right with God, they become kill-bots.
brian at January 26, 2009 6:19 AM
There is self criticism that leads to personal betterment, and I think this has served the West pretty well in the past. Now the self criticism has metastasized into self destruction. It was a nice run.
doombuggy at January 26, 2009 7:06 AM
STANDING OVATION to the Pat Condell rant.
Melissa G at January 26, 2009 8:12 AM
NicoleK,
If you can find an organization that cares please let me know. Unfortunately, my experience so far with these types of organizations is that they only care about the rights of groups that they perceive to be "oppressed". If you're a white, middle class or rich guy living in N.A. or Europe, they simply do not give a shit about your rights.
Charles at January 26, 2009 8:45 AM
"This will surely sound naive...
But doesn't this seem like a good time to stage a protest outside a Dutch embassy or consulate? After all, the Europeans don't hesitate to stage a protest when we execute a prisoner or arrest someone."
It may sound naive, but it's not - it's pure common sense.
Amy, a bloody backlash is brewing. My son was visiting in Sweden, SWEDEN, and anti-Muslim hate groups are forming everywhere. The Netherlands has this happening just as much. As otyu of all people know, Europeans have horrible ways of getting rid of unwanted Middle Easterners.
Jim at January 26, 2009 9:01 AM
Hatred and anger are ugly things.
But like every human emotion, they did not come into being out of thin air.
Humans evolved the feelings of anger & hatred for a specific purpose, just like we developed the ability to love.
Love serves to bind us to one another.
Hatred & anger serve to defend ourselves against threats from those who cannot or will not "bond" sotospeak.
Out of control...or even when in control, these lead to unspeakable horror inflicted upon our fellow man. But whole societies preserved themselves in ancient times because they grew angry at threats posed to them & fought back.
If you try to show understanding to a serpent, it is still a serpent, and it will still bite you as you draw it near and attempt to show understanding and compassion.
If you import people whose way of life was defined by violence, whose religion was born of violence, war, forced conversion...who think that the one who inspired all that was the model of behavior...they're not starting over, their planting their way of life next to your own.
Put it another way, if you share a wall with your neighbor's apartment, and his religion involves setting his home on fire...it IS your concern, it IS your business, and if you do not do something about it out of respect for his beliefs, it is YOU that will burn with him.
I don't like the darker side of humanity, but every part of ourselves has a place in ensuring our survival.
Try to hold hands with someone holding a knife, and you'll just get cut.
Robert at January 26, 2009 12:12 PM
I think it's now pretty safe to say that muslims are a bunch of insensitive pvssies. And they should be called out as such. In one sense, they are attempting to regulate the free marketplace of ideas, much akin to that of the conservatives (and the FCC) and liberals (and their fairness doctrine). I know this is a generalization of muslims (I have met a handful of decent muslims who only practice the cultural traditions passed down by thier parents, though I've met dozens of fire-and-brimstone muslims, too) but the truth is, thier religion sucks just as much as any other religion, only perhaps just a little more.
Thanks for posting that pat condell piece. I check him out as often as I can.
farker at January 26, 2009 1:44 PM
I may be an i-hole, but I have to agree with Alkon on the offensive, and incredibly weak-minded, censorship in The Netherlands of critics of Islam.
Alkon's takes on the excesses of feminism (not the very real concerns about true equal rights) are also entertaining.
Although I have to say, would really most women pass up a handsome guy in a Burger King uniform? I mean, really handsome?
And I have heard many, many women rule out "fat guys" for dates.
Someday, somebody, somewhere will actually date any person on the basis of character....but until then, stay in shape, and make money....
i-hole at January 26, 2009 6:07 PM
farker,
This is off point, but could you elaborate a little on how conservatives are trying to regulate the free marketplace of ideas?
Ken at January 26, 2009 6:16 PM
Thomas Mann summed up the depravity of the situation years ago when he said, "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Jay at January 26, 2009 7:12 PM
You can say what you want to say. Is that freedom of speech?
I agree that you should be able to say what you want to say.
But still you have to be sensitive to other people.
I am a Muslim and I hate muslims who use our belief to kill other people (who are not muslims)
Yes, it is true that according to the Quran, our belief should be the final and true religion. But as it was revealed a long time ago. It should be read in that context as well.
The only thing I can do is urge you to read and decide for yourself. So fellow muslims, stop blowing stuff up. As you will end up in hell for doing that! I maybe be new to the religion but I know killing other people is not part what I believe in.
Geert Wilders must NOT be jailed. But he must be more sensitive about what he wants to say. It is how you say it that will get your point across.
Che at January 26, 2009 7:29 PM
I don't know what their koran says and I certainly don't care what their koran says, as long as they don't interfere with our already suppressed freedom of speech or interfere with our nonbelievers freedom of speech excessively or attempt another brutal killing on our nonbelievers freedom or cause more confusion and more problems on this planet. and certainly we don't need their islamic people to tell us what to say or what not to say. they are not fit to teach us, nonbelievers any more nonsense. we are humans with a critical mind. we are not dummy. our life will certainly be of much better quality if we have completely separate life far away from their extremely disgusting selfish evil powercrazy greedy abusive islamic community.
WLIL at January 26, 2009 8:33 PM
"even with all the wealth and the education that they grabbed from the west, they still do not know how to behave in a civilise manner."
Um, that would be the wealth and education that WE grabbed from THEM back in the Middle Ages actually.
Principles of advanced mathematics, medicine, astronomy and engineering (to name a few) were all well in advance of anything the Europeans had prior to the Crusades.
And are you REALLY going to try and suggest that the West is a truly 'civilised' society? Really?
As for the wealth they've been 'grabbing' since the end of WW2, surely it's theirs to grab? It is their oil after all.
Just because you don't like the thought of paying the true dollar value of your gasoline, doesn't mean they shouldn't be free to ask for it should it?
Americans love to bang on about the free market economy, and how the market should set the price of a commodity, but they'll then do ANYTHING (including invading a foreign power) to ensure that the market is fixed in their favour.
James H at January 27, 2009 7:49 AM
"..our life will certainly be of much better quality if we have completely separate life far away from their extremely disgusting selfish evil powercrazy greedy abusive islamic community."
Wow, what a cohesive and well thought out....what's the word again? oh yes...rant.
Has it never occured to you that perhaps the very same opinion (in reverse) is held by most "evil" and "powercrazy" Muslims?
That, in fact, the very reason they tend to target your foreign interests is because THEY'D rather have a "completely separate life?"
You know, one that isn't constantly manipulated by the security apparatus of competing foreign powers.
Perhaps they'd have preferred that the US didn't prop up their old oppresive dictators (the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein pre-9/11, the Saudi Royals, the Kuwaiti Royals, General Musharraf etc etc).
Perhaps they'd have preferred that the CIA DIDN'T supply weapons to the Taliban in order to fight a proxy war with Russia in Afghanistan.
Perhaps they'd have liked their villages and cities left intact, not bombed and invaded on the pretext of a bald-faced lie.
Perhaps they'd have preferred to let their own domestic industries and crop-growers compete on a level playing field against the large agro-industrial giants, rather than be swamped.
Perhaps they'd have preferred that their cultures and way of life be respected, rather than fall victim to "McDonaldisation."
The truth is that your (our) way of life depends on swamping and controlling THEIR way of life. Your sub 2 dollar gasoline comes at a price - it's just that you're not the ones paying it.
James H at January 27, 2009 8:09 AM
Um, that would be the wealth and education that WE grabbed from THEM back in the Middle Ages actually.
Principles of advanced mathematics, medicine, astronomy and engineering (to name a few) were all well in advance of anything the Europeans had prior to the Crusades.
Yeah, the Romans and the Greeks had nothing to do with any of that. Arab and Persian traders and armies didn't bring any Greek or Roman ideas back with them. The Roman Army didn't leave any lasting monuments or ideas in the Middle East. Nope, Arab intellectual superiority just sprouted right there in the desert.
And let's leave the Chinese and the Africans out of this discussion. 'cause they didn't know nothin'.
Civilizations learn from each other. Through invasions (both invading and being invaded) as well as through trade and cultural assimilation.
Muslim (and pre-Muslim Near Eastern) societies learned plenty from the Greco-Roman Europe. Just as Renaissance Europe learned (and re-learned) a great deal from the the East.
Conan the Grammarian at January 27, 2009 12:00 PM
Perhaps they'd have preferred that the CIA DIDN'T supply weapons to the Taliban in order to fight a proxy war with Russia in Afghanistan.
I believe most of the Muslim world was with us on that one. In fact, I believe they were begging us to supply weapons to the Mujahadeen.
The power vaccuum after the Russians retreated gave rise to the Taliban as the more militant (and fundamentalist) elements of the resistance began exerting control.
Conan the Grammarian at January 27, 2009 12:08 PM
James - Um, that would be the wealth and education that WE grabbed from THEM back in the Middle Ages actually.
Actually, Europeans may have learned from the Arabs (though what we now call "arabic" numerals actually originated in India, as far as I know) but that did not deprive the Arabs of their learning. *Education* just gets spread about to everyone's benefit. It's not a zero-sum game. What *wealth* did Europeans grab?
Yup, Muslims did a good job back then. But that was before the clerics took over the show. Islam before the clerics was a whole different beast to Islam now. Did the Muslims burn the library at Alexandria in 642, because the only book that was necessary was the Koran? We may never know for sure. But the fact that it is entertained as a possibility says a lot.
Norman at January 27, 2009 2:06 PM
"*Education* just gets spread about to everyone's benefit. It's not a zero-sum game"
I was replying (slightly sarcastically) to an earlier comment at 2.05am (first comment on the thread). I happen to agree with you.
As for the wealth side, the first commentator seemed to be referring to more recent times (ie to the fact that Arab nations are prospering at the 'expense' of Western ones).
I was merely trying to point out the error in his thinking and the hypocrisy of many free-market Americans.
But, as you've asked, when you remove Cities, territory and access to trading routes from one party (the Arabs / Muslims) and keep them for yourself (the Crusaders / Europeans) then you are, by definition, taking wealth.
That applies equally in reverse, where the Ottoman Empire and its predecessors had successfully invaded third-party territory.
James H at January 28, 2009 3:17 AM
"Yup, Muslims did a good job back then. But that was before the clerics took over the show. Islam before the clerics was a whole different beast to Islam now"
That's just as easily flipped over to apply to the Catholic church / Christianity. 'Our' clerics were quite happy to sanction book burnings, torture and kill 'heretics,' and encourage the mass slaughter of the adherents of an alien religion too.
'We' were just as happy to promise entry to Heaven, and the expurgation of all sins, as the reward for fighting as Muslim clerics were/are.
'We' had the Reformation and Enlightenment to temper our bloodlust (but there was an awful lot of blood still spilled in the name of God even so) and God was invoked by both sides during WW1, 2 and the Cold War conflicts ("goddless Commie's anyone?).
You'll still hear fundamentalist Christians invoking Him these days, and Bush was willing to use the word "Crusade" (with all the loaded connotations it contains) when describing the "War on Terror (TM)"
James H at January 28, 2009 3:34 AM
James - cities, territory and access to trading routes - sounds just like the ordinary to-and-fro of competing imperialist expansion. Whether the books show a net profit or a net loss depends on which date you choose as the starting point.
'Our' clerics were quite happy ... - quite so. The point is that Islam is still in the 'clerics' stage. The reformation, protestantism, etc took most of the wind out of Xian clerics' sails.
God was invoked during world wars but they were not religious wars. And "godless commies" was specific to the US. I don't think that phrase ever caught on in the UK for example (except as a parody). The cold war was not primarily a religious war, unless you call free market capitalism and centralised communism religions.
Bush's use of the word "crusade" was, I think, just monumental ignorance on his, or his speech-writers', part.
But all this is rather removed from the OP which is about the prosecution of Geert Wilders (that may well backfire on the prosecutors) and whether Islam is taking over Europe (it may be trying to, but it may be changed into something unrecognizable in the process).
Norman at January 28, 2009 4:04 AM
Whether Islam is great or horrible is irrelevant to freedom of speech. We have the right to criticize institutions, be they awesome or terrible.
Yes, people SHOULD be sensitive to the feelings of others, Che. But actually, in a free society, you DON'T have to be sensitive to anyone.
Being insensitive might make you hated. It might make other people say mean things about you. It might prevent you from getting re-elected. But in a free society, it does not get you arrested or fined.
What we need is an organization like the ACLU, but international.
NicoleK at January 28, 2009 4:26 AM
NicoleK - What we need is an organization like the ACLU, but international.
Well, don't count on the UN if this draft is adopted at Durban II in Geneva, April 2009:
-- http://www.assistnews.net/STORIES/2008/s08110121.htmNorman at January 28, 2009 6:25 AM
... and again: http://ejpress.org/article/34109
Two journalists from the French-German cultural channel ARTE were asked to leave a meeting room at the UN's European headquarters during a public session of a human rights body preparing for a racism conference in Geneva later this year.
(emphasis added)
Norman at January 28, 2009 6:49 AM
Damn, I go to Geneva twice a year, why the hell can't these things ever be when I'm there and could protest?
NicoleK at January 28, 2009 6:55 AM
In my search for an org who could stage a protest, I contacted my sup. at the ACLU who was shocked, and recommended PEN. I'll write to PEN later. I wrote to Amnesty US this morning. Maybe I'll write to Amnesty NL.
I'm in a protesting sort of mood. How DOES one organize one? Most of the ones I've been to have been organized by well-established orgs...
NicoleK at January 28, 2009 6:57 AM
NicoleK - "How DOES one organize one?" - I don't know. First, you'd have to do some research to establish the facts and be sure of your ground. Then, if it was me, I'd write to papers, to MPs, to TV and radio shows, organizations like Amnesty, or local political parties. I'd set up a website (Google Sites perhaps?), organise a petition ... it all takes a lot of effort, so I'd be looking for helpers too. If you want a demonstration on the streets, you will certainly need a lot of organization.
Norman at January 28, 2009 8:17 AM
...God was invoked by both sides during WW1, 2 and the Cold War conflicts ("goddless [sic] Commie's [sic] anyone?).
I'm pretty sure "both sides" didn't invoke God during the Cold War conflicts ("Godless Commies" anyone?).
Conan the Grammarian at January 28, 2009 8:32 AM
Leave a comment