butchersapron
Bring back hanging
He'd be motivated by anti-semitism. He's a bigot, a nasty bigot - i'm not saying that he's not. I think people should be allowed to be nasty bigots.
Geert Wilders in the dock.
- Thread starter TomPaine
- Start date
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
How about this, butchersapron.
In the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, they spread from the Middle East like an irresistable tide, flooding the towns and nations of Europe - in fact, the entire world.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
but you're forgetting all the benefits the Greeks brought with them, like kebabs
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
He's rewriting Der Ewige Jude but against the Muslim instead of the Jew. If we let him get away with this, his ideas to make laws ban Halal meat, or religious courts, or the Koran, then Jews in Europe will be next to lose their religious freedoms.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml
Yes, he should be tried by the courts. I hope the prosecution be a Jewish lawyer, just to really bring it home to people like you who can't see that Wilders and other hate-speakers against Islam are but one step away from Judeophobia and full-blown antisemitism.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You can quote a whole list of offensive things that i don't agreee with. It doesn't change my point.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
His ideas to "make laws ban Halal meat, or religious courts, or the Koran" don't become real by his holding them, They become real by a mass of people supporting them and enforcing them. A social problem cannot be judged away by a courts verdict - if it could there would be no racism in the whole world.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Or we could just have a First Amendment which, wonderfully, protects both freedom of speech and religious freedoms. Jewish lawyers working for the ACLU have filed suits under that to protect the speech of KKK members.
And what if Mr Wilders is an anti-semite? That doesn't change any of what I've said either.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Don't you see how close the fates are intertwined with European anti-semitism historically from early medieval times being directed against both Jew and Muslim?
This at a time when Jews are feeling that Israel is the only safe-haven against Western antisemitism and seeing that Islamophobia is also on the rise.
Our fates in Europe are intertwined and always have been. I thought you might have seen this.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
On a practical note, the purpose of these laws is to stop people "exciting emotions" and stirring up hatred.
We get a well-publicised trial, and the speech in question is usually printed in the media. People debate whether they should be allowed to say what they've said; people feel they're being bullied into silence, and get angry. Anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side.
End result: bigot in question gets massive publicity and people get angry. Seems to me these laws fail spectacularly in their stated purpose.
We get a well-publicised trial, and the speech in question is usually printed in the media. People debate whether they should be allowed to say what they've said; people feel they're being bullied into silence, and get angry. Anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side.
End result: bigot in question gets massive publicity and people get angry. Seems to me these laws fail spectacularly in their stated purpose.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I know tangentlama, i don't disagree at all. There are clear commonalities and continuities there (the BNP in this country are opportunistically rallying under a pro-Israel flag right now). I don't think it necessitates a state intervention - it neccessitates more extra state intervention if anything, civil society imposing the fact that this is unacceptable rather than a legal judgement that it's bad.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
He most definitely is, underneath his Islamophobia lurks a true antisemitism - against non-European peoples whose faiths/families originate from the Middle East. He will definitely be hiding his anti-Jewish feeling under his anti-Muslim feelings.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Again, this changes nothing I've said: hatemongering against Muslims is just as bad as hatemongering against Jews. I'm not denying the equivilance; I just think that banning speech is dangerous and ultimately ineffective. There are better ways to fight these odious people.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
They have in common their attempts to promote their idea of a European/Dutch/British monoculture that exists only in the imagination of nostalgic patriots and biased history books promoting "glory" days of colonialism.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I know and i agree that they do. Doesn't change my point.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Who says to ban him from speaking - hit him where it hurts - in his wallet. Make him pay huge sums in fines (the profits from his hate-speech*) and then donate them to inter-faith communal initiatives.
If he does it again, fine him again. He will soon give up.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
If the rich bigot makes his hate-speech and is subsequently fined enormous sums of money, thus directly funding those he professes to hate, he may think twice about becoming such a generous financial donor.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
While fines are less odious that gaol, the underlying principle is exactly the same.
And again with the pragmatism, fines are even less likely to discourage "hate speech" than existing laws. These people are usually fanatics, often sporting a martyr-complex a mile wide: noisy prosecutions feed into their hands.
As TomPaine says, however you dress it up, you're supporting censorship, which assumes the majority can't recognise and dismiss poisonous claptrap, and must be protected from themselves. Accepting that underlying assumption boosts the case for other kinds of censorship you don't want to see.
By contrast, I want to see hatemongers engaged, and exposed as the seedy collection of charlatons and misfits they are.
And again with the pragmatism, fines are even less likely to discourage "hate speech" than existing laws. These people are usually fanatics, often sporting a martyr-complex a mile wide: noisy prosecutions feed into their hands.
As TomPaine says, however you dress it up, you're supporting censorship, which assumes the majority can't recognise and dismiss poisonous claptrap, and must be protected from themselves. Accepting that underlying assumption boosts the case for other kinds of censorship you don't want to see.
By contrast, I want to see hatemongers engaged, and exposed as the seedy collection of charlatons and misfits they are.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Such a fine-system is certainly not supporting censorship.
It says 'Your hate-work comes at a price' and that price is ironically that you fund those you profess to hate.
Thus, generous donations of the proceeds made from their hate-literature against Islam, or Judaism (in the case of Duke) or both (in the case of fundamentalist writer/ranter Hagee), in the form of fines which are then given to Islamic or Jewish community charities will act as a deterrent and make them think again about publishing their hate-literature. The freedom to publish has not been removed by such an action, thus, is it not censorship.
It says 'Your hate-work comes at a price' and that price is ironically that you fund those you profess to hate.
Thus, generous donations of the proceeds made from their hate-literature against Islam, or Judaism (in the case of Duke) or both (in the case of fundamentalist writer/ranter Hagee), in the form of fines which are then given to Islamic or Jewish community charities will act as a deterrent and make them think again about publishing their hate-literature. The freedom to publish has not been removed by such an action, thus, is it not censorship.
There is no "vile stuf" in Al Qur'an but I see what you mean, as outsider.
Serious acacemics are never afraid of anything and will approach their subject with the needed insight knowledge. That is not "challenging" anything and serious academic research is not aimed at or intertwined with politics.
From legal point of view: What Wilders did was very directly making abuse of his position as polititican to relentlessly drive home his own personal agenda of bigotry and hate. Can't be done in my view. We will see what the Dutch Court rules about it. They would have ground in Dutch Law and would have weighted the perceived infractions against international human rights law.
From purely societal point of view: I find it throwing oil on a fire that was extinct long ago and giving more publibcity to htis political lightweight and his dodgy party. He will gloriously be put in the center of attention once more, debates will ensue, media will write about it... and his silly "movie" will pop up on the internet circuits and stirr again any sort of silly debate it is not worth of having.
salaam.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
All good points, Aldebaran.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
...and the window shuts that little bit more. Only serious academic criticism is to be allowed. Certificates provided by the powerful and those being criticised.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you there, it is no different to many other religious texts. By today's standards there is some vile stuff in the Koran. I understand that these books are a product of a bigone era where morals and ethics where different. But ethics and morals are human constructs and they change with time.
I'm not discounting the effect religious texts have had upon society, I think it is important for people to understand for example the affect the bible had on western literature and music and the Koran on middle Eastern, Central Asia and India for example. That however should not stop us from criticising the actions in some of the fables and stories located in scripture, and criticise people who believe these to be moral ways to act.
Edit: Just to clarify, I am also aware that obviously Muslims do, do this. I would imagine the vast majority of Muslims reject slavery or warfare etc. and intepret the Koran in a way that is compatable with modern moral and ethical standards, at least in the West.
However Islam like Christainity will be continued to be read however the individual/sect wishes and used to justify all sorts of things, as long as individuals take the books to be "the word of god" rather then a set of allagories, fables, tales and insights and in some cases utter rubbish.
I agree, the Wilders guy should have been sidlined and ignored, and when he took to the public podium challenged on his views. However the Dutch have done exactly as you said, and people will now go and read his stuff where as before they may not have cared.
tangetlama>
No it doesn't it says, "we decide what is acceptible and will fine you if we disagree". It is going about things in throughly the wrong way. A fine is not voluntary.
That is censorship, as you are simply using a method to bankrupt people into shutting up rather then imprisoning them.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
It punishes you for expressing an opinion: it's designed to silence people. To all intents and purposes, it's censorship. (Unless we're defining censorship narrowly as prior restraint.) If you support censorship, why not just come out and say so like untethered did?
Aldebaran, I quite agree that Mr Wilders should be sidelined. Calling for the Koran to be banned is asinine. Stick him on view, ask him if he wants the Bible and the Talmud proscribed, and expose his views as an incoherent rant. Prosecute Mr Wilders, let him play the martyr, and he gets far more credit than he deserves.
Frankie Jack
Not a bloke..
Geert Wilders refused entry to UK
Dutch populist politician and controversial anti-Islam campaigner Geert Wilders has been refused entry to the United Kingdom despite being invited to visit by a member of the House of Lords, the British parliament's upper chamber.
Copy of the letter to Mr Wilders
Dear Mr Wilders
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.
The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.
You are advised that should you travel to the UK and seek admission an Immigration Officer will take into account the Secretary of State’s view. If, in accordance with regulation 21 of the immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, the Immigration Officer is statisfied that your exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy and/or public security, you will be refused admission to the UK under regulation 19.
You would have a right of appeal against any refusal of admission, exercisable from outside the UK.
Yours sincerely,
Irving N. Jones
On behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department
The Sec of State for the Home Dept is --- Jacqui Smith.
Dutch populist politician and controversial anti-Islam campaigner Geert Wilders has been refused entry to the United Kingdom despite being invited to visit by a member of the House of Lords, the British parliament's upper chamber.
Copy of the letter to Mr Wilders
Dear Mr Wilders
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.
The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.
You are advised that should you travel to the UK and seek admission an Immigration Officer will take into account the Secretary of State’s view. If, in accordance with regulation 21 of the immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, the Immigration Officer is statisfied that your exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy and/or public security, you will be refused admission to the UK under regulation 19.
You would have a right of appeal against any refusal of admission, exercisable from outside the UK.
Yours sincerely,
Irving N. Jones
On behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department
The Sec of State for the Home Dept is --- Jacqui Smith.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Not (unsurprisingly) from me. I'd be happy for Mr Wilders never to set foot in the same country as me, but governments should not have the power to ban people from entering the country because they don't like their views. But that's an issue of free movement, not free speech (although it's related, obviously).
But I think this thread has little left to run: either you support the censorship and exclusion of people like Mr Wilders or you don't. I think all the relevant arguments have been covered here.
Frankie Jack
Not a bloke..
I don't support censureship.. I believe in freedom of speech.. I believe Mr Wilders should be able to express his views without having to run the gauntlet of intimidating threats.. I don't think authorities should ban him because of what they believe those in opposition to his views may be capable of doing to stop his expression of those views..
Which lines do we draw and where do we draw them.. ????
Which lines do we draw and where do we draw them.. ????
Similar threads
