Dutch Anti-Islamic Film To Air March 28th

speedboatchase

If you havent heard about this story, you will very very soon. Geert Wilders is the leader of his own Party for Freedom party in Holland, and is known for his anti-Islamic views, for example calling the religion "retarded and wanting the restriction of non-western immigration to Holland. He says he is a "defender of free speech" and is reacting to two main incidents in Dutch recent history that have worsened relation between Dutch natives and Muslims - 1. when politician Pim Fortuyn was killed by a Dutch man for being a "threat" that needed to be contained and Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch film maker whose Anti-Islamic views ended up with him being killed and nearly decapitated by a Muslim on a Dutch street.

Like many with anti-Islamic views in Holland, Wilders lives under police protection 24 hours a day and is about to be behind the biggest Europe-Islamic crisis since the Danish cartoon controversey. His 15 minute film "Fitna-Arabic" denouncing Islam has been seen by no-one thus yet but will be broadcast on March 28 as part of his party's alloted public broadcasting time, and if banned, on the internet.

Already there has been protests in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, with the Dutch PM and one of the Danish cartoonists coming out in support of the film. Here's a few quotes from the last few days:

Dutch side -
"Apparently there is no room in Islam
for self-reflection and self-criticism, nor for taking responsibility and self control." Geert Wilders

"This is not acceptable. I am extremely angry about it," Dutch PM Balkenende after hearing about the anti-Dutch protests in Afghanistan

""No Danish politician would do that. They know that freedom of expression shouldn't be oppressed. Wilders should simply go ahead and broadcast his film. ... In Denmark, we criticise everything: the Queen, politicians, religion. Ten years ago I was accused of blasphemy because I had depicted Jesus descending from the cross dressed in an Armani suit. But nobody threatened me. To launch a debate is one of a paper's duties, and thus one of a caricaturist's. Muslims should accept that." Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard

Muslim side

Iran Deputy Minister Mahdi Safari and Iran's ambassador to the Netherlands Bozorgmehr Ziaran said they could not predict the reaction of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims to the film, or prevent possible violence. ‘Why would you expect us to control 1.2 billion Muslims when you cannot control one person,’ Ziaran is quoted as saying. He added Wilders sought to violate Muslim's rights by demonising them, and was a war-monger and troublemaker.


Freedom of speech is not unlimited," Tehran's ambassador to the Netherlands, Bozorgmehr Ziaran told a small group of reporters at the Iranian Embassy. The film, he added, "would just breed violence."
Wilders, Ziaran said, "is not a peacemaker, Mr. Wilders is a warmonger."

French president Sarkozy has came out and said that his country will support the broadcast of the film and I think Wilders should be allowed. The old saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it" applies here. Wilders isnt the most pleasant guy but if Europe appeases radical Islam (and yes, Pakistan and Iran would constitute that) then it sets a dangerous precedent.

There is undoubtedly going to be deaths, mass riots and violence once this film is broadcast but it still must be broadcast in my opinion. We can't let our culture and its universal rights (freedom of speech, universal suffrage etc) become supservient or requiring to be cross-checked and approved by those from dangerous, totalitarian regimes.

PS. Can we please discuss this without mentioning Israel or Bush?

gordon_gekko

lets hope that this time some fascist wont kill the film maker

SeanW

Yeah, anyone want to take bets on who will be the first person slaughtered as a result of this film? The filmmaker? A nun somewhere in Africa? A random Dutch tourist somewhere in the Middle East? A native Darfurian in Sudan (oh wait ... the Islamic government of Sudan doesn't need an excuse for that)? Or how many people will be killed or how much property will be destroyed, because we know that that is exactly what's going to happen.

Or which front of the PC police will be the first to blame the filmmaker, or our evil insensitive Western culture for resulting chaos, for not being "accomodating to Islamic sensitivities?"

kmick

Islam kills a dutch tourist and the christian right drops a missile on a house in Sudan. The Jews shoot a young mother dead and a palestinian kills 6 in a prayerhouse. its another 24 hours in an imperfect world.

I wonder would they guy be so brave if he was not under 24 hour guard. Also sarkozy should shut the deuce up - what a muppet.

SeanW

The fact that he NEEDS to be under 24 hour guard I think says all that needs to be said. And, so if a person (Sarkozy) comes out in support of free speech you tell them to shut up?

inforfun

Just to add and correct a few things here.

The Dutch PM is anything but supporting Geert Wilders. His remark about the protests in Afghanistan was the first time he said something about this matter that could be considered as support for Wilders/freedom af speech.
Till that point our PM has only be moaning about how a movie could start unrest in Holland, could bring Dutch peopel abroad in danger and so on.

And why would he support Wilders? Although not Islamic, our PM (yes, i am Dutch) is a very religious person himself. So restricting Islam could lead to having to restrict his own beliefs.
A few weeks ago our PM came with this little gem "We all know we can not function properly without our religion"
Well thank you Muppet, i guess i am not functioning then. Can i have all the tax paid while i was in Holland back now?

Furthermore, the Islamic (an i guess i should add "fundamantalists") world is making threts against a nation and its people for a 15 minute movie, no one has seen 1 second of so far. Violent threats as well as economical.
Whether there is or there is not a movie coming out, it did already proof a thing or 2.....

According to our PM we have to fear violence for only speaking our mind.
I think it is really time the civilsed world finds an alternative for oil....

905

Of course, we should all be hoping that there are no deaths.

Personally I don't like trouble-making for its own sake. I doubt that's what people have in mind when they think of freedom of speech. This isn't about appeasing Nazis, its about respecting our own ideals.

I'd wouldn't normaly mention Israel or Mr. Bush but since this is about freedom of speech... besides, ye know ye're gagging to whinge about lefty, Irish Times reading Guardianistas.

El Stuntman

905 wrote: »

lefty, Irish Times reading Guardianistas.

the best non sequitur I've read today

kmick

SeanW wrote: »

The fact that he NEEDS to be under 24 hour guard I think says all that needs to be said.

Explain?

SeanW wrote: »

And, so if a person (Sarkozy) comes out in support of free speech you tell them to shut up?

Sarkozy's comments have nothing to do with free speech. Why is he getting involved with the far right? It serves neither the interests of his country or the interests of europe. People outside of Europe assume he is speaking for the whole of France and basically what he is saying is that instaed of extending the hand of equality, fraternity etc Im siding with a fringe group.

El Stuntman

kmick wrote: »

Sarkozy's comments have nothing to do with free speech. Why is he getting involved with the far right? It serves neither the interests of his country or the interests of europe. People outside of Europe assume he is speaking for the whole of France and basically what he is saying is that instaed of extending the hand of equality, fraternity etc Im siding with a fringe group.

but they're not a fringe group, they have 9 (of 150) seats in Parliament and opinion polls put their current support at the same level as the governing party

I'm not a great fan of Sarkozy but I actually think it's laudable that he is standing up for liberal Western values. I'm not sure that he has said that he agrees with this guy, if you can prove different, I'm happy to concede the point

wes

Wilders should be able to say whatever he damn well pleases.

Just like I can say that Wilders party are full of far right nuts.

patslatt

speedboatchase wrote: »

If you havent heard about this story, you will very very soon. Geert Wilders is the leader of his own Party for Freedom party in Holland, and is known for his anti-Islamic views, for example calling the religion "retarded and wanting the restriction of non-western immigration to Holland. He says he is a "defender of free speech" and is reacting to two main incidents in Dutch recent history that have worsened relation between Dutch natives and Muslims - 1. when politician Pim Fortuyn was killed by a Dutch man for being a "threat" that needed to be contained and Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch film maker whose Anti-Islamic views ended up with him being killed and nearly decapitated by a Muslim on a Dutch street.

Like many with anti-Islamic views in Holland, Wilders lives under police protection 24 hours a day and is about to be behind the biggest Europe-Islamic crisis since the Danish cartoon controversey. His 15 minute film "Fitna-Arabic" denouncing Islam has been seen by no-one thus yet but will be broadcast on March 28 as part of his party's alloted public broadcasting time, and if banned, on the internet.

Already there has been protests in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, with the Dutch PM and one of the Danish cartoonists coming out in support of the film. Here's a few quotes from the last few days:

Dutch side -
"Apparently there is no room in Islam
for self-reflection and self-criticism, nor for taking responsibility and self control." Geert Wilders

"This is not acceptable. I am extremely angry about it," Dutch PM Balkenende after hearing about the anti-Dutch protests in Afghanistan

""No Danish politician would do that. They know that freedom of expression shouldn't be oppressed. Wilders should simply go ahead and broadcast his film. ... In Denmark, we criticise everything: the Queen, politicians, religion. Ten years ago I was accused of blasphemy because I had depicted Jesus descending from the cross dressed in an Armani suit. But nobody threatened me. To launch a debate is one of a paper's duties, and thus one of a caricaturist's. Muslims should accept that." Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard

Muslim side

Iran Deputy Minister Mahdi Safari and Iran's ambassador to the Netherlands Bozorgmehr Ziaran said they could not predict the reaction of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims to the film, or prevent possible violence. ‘Why would you expect us to control 1.2 billion Muslims when you cannot control one person,’ Ziaran is quoted as saying. He added Wilders sought to violate Muslim's rights by demonising them, and was a war-monger and troublemaker.


Freedom of speech is not unlimited," Tehran's ambassador to the Netherlands, Bozorgmehr Ziaran told a small group of reporters at the Iranian Embassy. The film, he added, "would just breed violence."
Wilders, Ziaran said, "is not a peacemaker, Mr. Wilders is a warmonger."

French president Sarkozy has came out and said that his country will support the broadcast of the film and I think Wilders should be allowed. The old saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it" applies here. Wilders isnt the most pleasant guy but if Europe appeases radical Islam (and yes, Pakistan and Iran would constitute that) then it sets a dangerous precedent.

There is undoubtedly going to be deaths, mass riots and violence once this film is broadcast but it still must be broadcast in my opinion. We can't let our culture and its universal rights (freedom of speech, universal suffrage etc) become supservient or requiring to be cross-checked and approved by those from dangerous, totalitarian regimes.

PS. Can we please discuss this without mentioning Israel or Bush?

To place this in perspective,there are Christians who would resort to violence over perceived anti-Christian behaviour or out of sheer prejudice.

American Christian right anti-abortion groups terrorise abortion clinics.

Anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish feeling was commonplace in the US South only a few generations ago.

Homosexuality was criminalised in many democracies until about twenty years ago.

In World War II,the fascist Holacaust in Germany and Eastern Europe was facilitated by ancient Christian prejudice agains Jews.


Large proportions of people in poor developing countries regardless of religious affiliation are prone to irrational violence because so many of them live miserable lives on the edge of survival. It doesn't take much to set off violence, witness the occasional,extremely violent Hindu communal riots in India.

Poverty aside,shouldn't the few Muslim states that are rich,such as the Gulf states, be more liberal? Not necessarily,since they are only a few generations away from economic subsistence. The Saudis were nomadic tribesmen until the big 1930s oil discoveries,a way of life that remained largely unchanged since biblical times.

inforfun

El Stuntman wrote: »

but they're not a fringe group, they have 9 (of 150) seats in Parliament and opinion polls put their current support at the same level as the governing party

Here a more recent poll
Wilders and Verdonk used to be member of the liberal party in Holland, the VVD.
Verdonk left the VVD shortly after the article you link to. But her leaving the VVD gave people voring for Wilders another alternative.
Verdonk was pretty popular during her reign as minister of Immigration in the government before the current one.
For the PC army (PvdA & CDA) it was the best thing to happen, Verdonk leaving VVD because the liberals are now divided in 3 medium sized parties. They are not big friends, the 3 of them and therefor struggling to form a decent opposition against the current government.

Result: 30.000 people who were told to leave the country after it was proven that their asylum requests was based on lies are given permanent residence now.
82 taxes have been increased.
The avarage working Joe pays 42% tax on his income in Holland.

El Stuntman

wes wrote: »

Wilders should be able to say whatever he damn well pleases.

Just like I can say that Wilders party are full of far right nuts.

now we have it!!

lostexpectation

islamofascists or plain old traditional fascists which side are you on?

Lennoxschips

Somebody hit the nail on the head: Geert Wilders and Rita Verdonk should be allowed to say that they want.

That doesn't take away from the fact that they are racist scumbags. And if the latest national polls are to be believed, then the People's Republic of Amsterdam should declare independence from the rest of the Netherlands ASAP.

The funny thing is that Wilders is very popular in rural areas where muslims don't live. He plays to the fear of the unknown. The white people in Amsterdam who deal with muslims, have muslim friends and generally interact with them on a daily basis generally don't vote for Wilders or Verdonk - because they know they are talking ****e.

I'm off to work in a couple of hours to hang with with my Dutch-Moroccan colleagues.

30.000 people who were told to leave the country after it was proven that their asylum requests was based on lies are given permanent residence now.

That's bollix. Their requests were never "proven to be lies." The 30,000 people in question were left in limbo for years because the Dutch immigration services failed to process their application in a timely manner. Some of them had been here up to 10 years waiting for a decision, had kids born here who were at school, etc. The government decided to grant them asylum as the immigration system had failed them.

El Stuntman

lostexpectation wrote: »

islamofascists or plain old traditional fascists which side are you on?

hold on

I don't think anyone is labelling the good MP a fascist, are they?

edited to say someone above has just called him 'a racist scumbag'

using terms like this just devalues anyone's argument and is both intellectually lazy and immature

Lennoxschips

I'm not going to give Geert Wilders the time of day by talking about him.

The avarage working Joe pays 42% tax on his income in Holland.

Yup, and the average working Joe in Holland can thank his lucky stars that he won't end up in an Irish hospital if he ever gets seriously ill.

inforfun

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Somebody hit the nail on the head: Geert Wilders and Rita Verdonk should be allowed to say that they want.

That doesn't take away from the fact that they are racist scumbags. And if the latest national polls are to be believed, then the People's Republic of Amsterdam should declare independence from the rest of the Netherlands ASAP..

Pfffff... that is so pre 06-05-2002. Call everybody, who has any sort of criticism as it comes to immigrants, racists, nazis and fascists.
Where is you comparison to WW2? And dont forget Anne frank's dairy. That used to score points as well with the PC army

And about Amsterdam declaring independence ... Oh yes... please. That should happen ASAP indeed.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The funny thing is that Wilders is very popular in rural areas where muslims don't live. He plays to the fear of the unknown. The white people in Amsterdam who deal with muslims, have muslim friends and generally interact with them on a daily basis generally don't vote for Wilders or Verdonk - because they know they are talking ****e.

I'm off to work in a couple of hours to hang with with my Dutch-Moroccan colleagues.

There is only 1 person here talking ****e and i just quoted him.
You might be right about the rural arreas but why is it so funny? They dont live in an area where almost 50% is not native Dutch. And they probably would like to keep it that way.


Funny enough i always hang out with friends, i never feel the need of mentioning nationality...
You feel a better human being now, now that you let the world know you have Moroccan friends?

Lennoxschips wrote: »

That's bollix. Their requests were never "proven to be lies." The 30,000 people in question were left in limbo for years because the Dutch immigration services failed to process their application in a timely manner. Some of them had been here up to 10 years waiting for a decision, had kids born here who were at school, etc. The government decided to grant them asylum as the immigration system had failed them

Most if not all got a negative (for them) result first time of asking. Now that there is an entire industry in Holland making bucketloads of money by pampering these "refugees", i will not deny. And these pamperers were only acting in their own interest by apealing every time a negative decision was made. Dutch society wasnt helped by those appeals and the "refugees" neither
One thing always puzzled me though. If you future is so in doubt (can i stay?, do i have to go?) why on earth would you take kids??

inforfun

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Yup, and the average working Joe in Holland can thank his lucky stars that he won't end up in an Irish hospital if he ever gets seriously ill.

Ever been in a Dutch hospital recently?

berliner

wes wrote: »

Wilders should be able to say whatever he damn well pleases.

Just like I can say that Wilders party are full of far right nuts.

Wilders party is not full of "far right nuts".Dutch patriots more like.

wes

berliner wrote: »

Wilders party is not full of "far right nuts".Dutch patriots more like.

I call them like I see them. See free speech works the other way too .

**EDIT**
Oh and extreme right wing nationalist call themselves patriots all the time. This is what Wilders party is. They are referred to by the media as a far right party. I don't think they would deny that themselves even. I personally consider the far right nutty (same for the far left). There just one example of this is all. I would also consider the far right Muslim extremist to be nutty as well for example.

SeanW

kmick wrote: »

Explain?

Happy to. In Western Europe, we have (mostly) free speech. You want to criticise your Prime Minister/Taoiseach/President? Go ahead. You want to say something nasty about Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Americans, Israelis and anyone else you can possibly imagine, go right ahead. That's what free speech is all about.

But if you do anything to criticise Islam or its position in Europe, well, you should want to put your final affairs in order. Theo Van Gogh made a movie that said Islam was violent. Then he was murdered. By a muslim. Draw from that what you will. Then in Denmark, Jylland's Posten issued a contest to prominent cartoonists to draw a concept of Mohammed. One of the cartoons submitted depicted a cartoonist drawing a picture, looking over his shoulder and cringing in fear. Another, the infamous Bomb-In-A-Turban picture, sparked a worldwide frenzy of rioting and murder.

Every reprint, or attempt to reprint, those cartoons, worldwide, has been met with acts of terrorism or legal action by fundamentalist, mainly Saudi funded, Imams.

Most recently, police in Denmark stopped an organised attempt to murder the author of that particular cartoon. As a result, 17 Danish newspapers reprinted the cartoon, if only to defy the Islamofascist terrorists and assert their rights, and our rights as a people, to say, question, or write about whatever we damn well please.

Salman Rushdie, the Sudanese teddy bear, the Spanish train attacks which curiously happened only days before that country's election ... I could go on and on.

Either we are free to live a Western lifestyle, replete with full and absolute freedom of speech and freedom of expression, or we must judge everything we do - and I mean everything - against Islamic sensitivites and the consequences of offending same.

Sarkozy's comments have nothing to do with free speech. Why is he getting involved with the far right? It serves neither the interests of his country or the interests of europe. People outside of Europe assume he is speaking for the whole of France and basically what he is saying is that instaed of extending the hand of equality, fraternity etc Im siding with a fringe group.

Mr. Sarkozy has been quoted here as saying: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it"

I thought that was fairly clear. You don't have to agree with someone to respect their right to say their piece.

inforfun

wes wrote: »

IOh and extreme right wing nationalist call themselves patriots all the time. This is what Wilders party is. They are referred to by the media as a far right party.

Right wing? No doubt about it. Far right? Not really.
Dont let the (Dutch) media fool you. Independent research showed 80% of journalist vote left of the centre.

Little example:
A few days ago there was a somewhat unfair fight in a train in Holland.
6 teens vs 2 teens
The 6 were (mainly) Moroccans, the 2 were skinheads.

Headline in newspaper: Fight in train between 6 teenagers and 2 skinheads...

kmick

SeanW wrote: »

Mr. Sarkozy has been quoted here as saying: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it"

I thought that was fairly clear. You don't have to agree with someone to respect their right to say their piece.

I agree with you as regards the sentiment that we cant bow to religious pressure however we have to pick our battles. All Im saying is this is not the right battle for Sarkozy to pick. and you can be sure as hell Sarkozy could not give a fcuk either way. He is all about the soundbite. The guy is the french Blair in that respect.

wes

inforfun wrote: »

Right wing? No doubt about it. Far right? Not really.
Dont let the (Dutch) media fool you. Independent research showed 80% of journalist vote left of the centre.

Its not just the dutch media btw. In fact I don't read the Dutch media, there referred to (Wilder party) as such by the BBC and others.

What I have seen from them (Wilders etc) confirms this in my opinion. I see no reason, why I should not call the far right what it is.

There is also the simple fact that he is a hypocrite, when he is calling for the Koran to be banned. If he believes in free speech he wouldn't be calling for books to be banned. His position here seems as I said earlier, to be well nutty to me.

As for the example of the story you cite. Well "Skins heads" aren't a race, the term tends to refer to far right "foot soldiers" or gangs. They tend to be associated with white supremacists movements, but not always. I can see why them being "Skin Heads" might be pertinent to the article.

If they referred to them as "white", then I would agree with your point. They didn't mention the "Skin Heads" race, but I think mentioning a group affiliation is perfectly valid. If the Moroccan teens belonged to a similar group, then I would see how the media were being unfair, but from the information you provided that doesn't seem to be the case.

SeanW

kmick wrote: »

I agree with you as regards the sentiment that we cant bow to religious pressure however we have to pick our battles. All Im saying is this is not the right battle for Sarkozy to pick. and you can be sure as hell Sarkozy could not give a fcuk either way. He is all about the soundbite. The guy is the french Blair in that respect.

Fair enough. I might have misinterpreted your original post.

inforfun

wes wrote: »

Its not just the dutch media btw. In fact I don't read the Dutch media, there referred to (Wilder party) as such by the BBC and others.

What I have seen from them (Wilders etc) confirms this in my opinion. I see no reason, why I should not call the far right what it is.

There is also the simple fact that he is a hypocrite, when he is calling for the Koran to be banned. If he believes in free speech he wouldn't be calling for books to be banned. His position here seems as I said earlier, to be well nutty to me.

I am not a huge fan of Wilders, i was a fan of Fortuyn though. The only thing i admire Wilders for is that he is about the only one who tries to protect the values of Dutch society.
He pays a pretty high price for that as he has to be protected 24/7 against people who can't deal with criticism too well.
About the Koran he said: Half of what is written in there is as bad as what is written in Mein Kampf. We ban Mein Kampf in Holland, you can own Mein Kampf but it is forbidden to print it. Something that isnt printed you can not own.

wes wrote: »

As for the example of the story you cite. Well "Skins heads" aren't a race, the term tends to refer to far right "foot soldiers" or gangs. They tend to be associated with white supremacists movements, but not always. I can see why them being "Skin Heads" might be pertinent to the article.

If they referred to them as "white", then I would agree with your point. They didn't mention the "Skin Heads" race, but I think mentioning a group affiliation is perfectly valid. If the Moroccan teens belonged to a similar group, then I would see how the media were being unfair, but from the information you provided that doesn't seem to be the case.

My point there was, 1 group is called "teenagers" and the others are called Skinheads. Call both groups teenagers and i am fine with it. Give specifics of one group, then do it for the other as well.
The Moroccans do belong to some kind of group, they form some kind of a rap group and their song texts don't leave much space for interpretation
If i hadn't seen a video recording of the incident than i would not have known what really was going on.
Things being said in that clip makes it a racist attack on the 2 white teenagers. I could post the link but since what is said is in Dutch....

Lennoxschips

inforfun wrote: »

Ever been in a Dutch hospital recently?

Yes, to visit my sister. She was in her own room with private bathroom. All through standard health coverage.

I also visited my grandfather in Ireland. He was in a room with 35 other beds and about 1 meter between each bed.

My point there was, 1 group is called "teenagers" and the others are called Skinheads. Call both groups teenagers and i am fine with it. Give specifics of one group, then do it for the other as well.

The Dutch press almost always calls second and even third generation immigrants "Turks" an "Marrokaans". 99% of the time I'd say.

Most if not all got a negative (for them) result first time of asking. Now that there is an entire industry in Holland making bucketloads of money by pampering these "refugees", i will not deny. And these pamperers were only acting in their own interest by apealing every time a negative decision was made. Dutch society wasnt helped by those appeals and the "refugees" neither

If you had read the pardon law you will note that it only applies to people who arrived before 2001 and had not yet been processed. That means people who had been waiting some six years in limbo. Some of them had Dutch born five year olds at school. The Dutch government couldn't run a proper immigration system, acknowledged this and granted asylum to people who were forced to suffer under it. That's what the pardon was about.

Funny enough i always hang out with friends, i never feel the need of mentioning nationality...
You feel a better human being now, now that you let the world know you have Moroccan friends?

I'm just trying to point out the difference between political scaremongering and everyday reality.

To be honest, the most problems I've had growing up in Holland have been with white people. Being at the playground and told to **** off back to Ireland while getting rocks thrown at you, that kind of thing. But despite that I have no issues with "the Dutch." I have the ability to seperate the actions of a few scumbags from their nationality/ethnic background at large.

eoin5

Is this just another secular versus theocratic society problem or is it more than that? Is it a war with a history now in some peoples view since its not the first time the dutch have ignored the tricky business of Muslim belief in favour of outright free speech?

I think theyre playing a risky game but its one I fully support. Free speech is paramount to the human species as we move forward, to deny it as a nation is wrong imo.

Lennoxschips

Eoin5, his film hasn't been banned at all. Wilders' free speech is not under threat in the Netherlands. In fact, every breath that man utters is plastered all over the media. Anybody who lives here knows that. Wilders is a master of playing the media. The "PC liberal left-centre" agenda against him is a figment of people's imagination. That man has the Dutch press eating out of the palm of his hand.

Free speech is under threat in other ways. Last month protesters (inlcuding a member of parliament for the GreenLeft party) were arrested for displaying pickets that said "WILDERS=EXTREMIST". The Police said they were slogans of an insulting nature. Even Wilders himself (again, a master of playing the media) said they shouldn't have been arrested.

wes

inforfun wrote: »

I am not a huge fan of Wilders, i was a fan of Fortuyn though. The only thing i admire Wilders for is that he is about the only one who tries to protect the values of Dutch society.
He pays a pretty high price for that as he has to be protected 24/7 against people who can't deal with criticism too well.
About the Koran he said: Half of what is written in there is as bad as what is written in Mein Kampf. We ban Mein Kampf in Holland, you can own Mein Kampf but it is forbidden to print it. Something that isnt printed you can not own.

While death threats against Wilders are abhorrent. It still doesn't change what he represents.

He is still a huge hypocrite I am afraid. If he is such a big believer in free speech, he would criticize the Koran and not call for a ban. Also, the Koran is hardly the only holy book which has violent themes, why hasn't he called for there banning also? I would at least expect him to be consistent. He is not the defender of free speech he claims to be, if he was he would be defending people right to read/print the Koran. He is just another hypocritical right winger, he wants free speech for himself and not for others.

inforfun wrote: »

My point there was, 1 group is called "teenagers" and the others are called Skinheads. Call both groups teenagers and i am fine with it. Give specifics of one group, then do it for the other as well.
The Moroccans do belong to some kind of group, they form some kind of a rap group and their song texts don't leave much space for interpretation
If i hadn't seen a video recording of the incident than i would not have known what really was going on.
Things being said in that clip makes it a racist attack on the 2 white teenagers. I could post the link but since what is said is in Dutch....

Well I haven't see the report and can't make a judgment either way.

Also, one example of this type of reporting doesn't amount to much. Unless, the entirety of the media makes a habit of it and from I am seen it tends to be the other way around, at least in the reports I read in the BBC etc.

eoin5

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Eoin5, his film hasn't been banned at all. Wilders' free speech is not under threat in the Netherlands. In fact, every breath that man utters is plastered all over the media. Anybody who lives here knows that. Wilders is a master of playing the media. The "PC liberal left-centre" agenda against him is a figment of people's imagination. That man has the Dutch press eating out of the palm of his hand.

Free speech is under threat in other ways. Last month protesters (inlcuding a member of parliament for the GreenLeft party) were arrested for displaying pickets that said "WILDERS=EXTREMIST". The Police said they were slogans of an insulting nature. Even Wilders himself (again, a master of playing the media) said they shouldn't have been arrested.

I'm not saying theyre denying it, I'm praising them for doing it. What I meant was that other nations seem to lack the conviction of their morals. What I'm worried about is that the dutch might be making a target of themselves as from the other side of the fence it looks like theyre trying to start a fight.

inforfun

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Wilders is a master of playing the media. The "PC liberal left-centre" agenda against him is a figment of people's imagination.

I guess you also said that about Pim Fortuyn?

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Free speech is under threat in other ways. Last month protesters (inlcuding a member of parliament for the GreenLeft party) were arrested for displaying pickets that said "WILDERS=EXTREMIST". The Police said they were slogans of an insulting nature. Even Wilders himself (again, a master of playing the media) said they shouldn't have been arrested.

Ok, so if Wilders defends freedom of speech by saying that those protesters shouldnt have been arrested, he is playing the media?

Let me ask you one thing? You pay rent?

inforfun

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Yes, to visit my sister. She was in her own room with private bathroom. All through standard health coverage.

I also visited my grandfather in Ireland. He was in a room with 35 other beds and about 1 meter between each bed.

So you compare 1 hospital in Holland and 1 in Ireland and that justifies 42% tax.
Health care in Holland, despite the 42%, is really not better than in Ireland. It used to be much better but where Ireland must have improved, health care in Holland is on a ride down hill.
I dont care if i have my own room in an hospital or not, it is nice, i agree. But the difference here is most likely in which hospital you end up than it is a general thing.
But what is important to me is waiting lists. And they are in Holland just as bad as in Ireland.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The Dutch press almost always calls second and even third generation immigrants "Turks" an "Marrokaans". 99% of the time I'd say.

And i'd say only 1 newspaper is doing that, De Telegraaf. The rest of them is too busy being PC.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

If you had read the pardon law you will note that it only applies to people who arrived before 2001 and had not yet been processed. That means people who had been waiting some six years in limbo. Some of them had Dutch born five year olds at school. The Dutch government couldn't run a proper immigration system, acknowledged this and granted asylum to people who were forced to suffer under it. That's what the pardon was about..

People who entered the country before 2001 had had their cases dealt with.
That the asylum process allowed them to keep appealing to the same decision time and again is because the process was crap. 1x appeal i can live with but if you are denied permanent residence 4 or 5 time i think you should take the message.
I like to point out that i have nothing against refugess coming in because they are in real danger in their own country. At 1 point though 85/90% of "refugees" were just coming in for economical reasons. And that is not what asylum is meant to be for.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

To be honest, the most problems I've had growing up in Holland have been with white people. Being at the playground and told to **** off back to Ireland while getting rocks thrown at you, that kind of thing. But despite that I have no issues with "the Dutch." I have the ability to seperate the actions of a few scumbags from their nationality/ethnic background at large.

You mention "growing up" so i suppose you were still a kid. Kids go for what they think are your weaknesses. If you would happen to be wearing glasses they probably would have told you "to "**** off 4-eyes"
Now i take it you are an adult, how many times does it happen a grown up native dutch (or white guy if you like) tells you to feck off because you are Irish?

Lennoxschips

inforfun wrote: »

So you compare 1 hospital in Holland and 1 in Ireland and that justifies 42% tax.
Health care in Holland, despite the 42%, is really not better than in Ireland. It used to be much better but where Ireland must have improved, health care in Holland is on a ride down hill.
I dont care if i have my own room in an hospital or not, it is nice, i agree. But the difference here is most likely in which hospital you end up than it is a general thing.
But what is important to me is waiting lists. And they are in Holland just as bad as in Ireland.

The waiting list for an endoscopy in Ireland can be as much as 8 months. In the Netherlands it's 24 hours. If you had been following the Irish news then you would know that Ireland has some of the longest waiting lists in Europe. According to the latest EHCI report, the Netherlands has the second best health service in Europe.

If you are trying to argue that public services in Ireland are just as good as in the Netherlands then you are really on to a non-starter. Public transport, water supply, waste disposal, health services, roads, driving testing services, whatever, it's all better in the Netherlands and that's down to better taxation.

And i'd say only 1 newspaper is doing that, De Telegraaf. The rest of them is too busy being PC.

NRC Handelsblad has a whole section devoted to it

Het Parool, Volkskrant, Trouw, AD, the TV news is all the same. Seriously, I wonder if you read the papers at all. Second or third generaton people born and raised in the Netherlands are referred to as "Turkish" or "Moroccan". Never "Dutch-Turkish" or "Dutch-Moroccan." And people wonder why these people feel alienated...

People who entered the country before 2001 had had their cases dealt with.
That the asylum process allowed them to keep appealing to the same decision time and again is because the process was crap. 1x appeal i can live with but if you are denied permanent residence 4 or 5 time i think you should take the message.
I like to point out that i have nothing against refugess coming in because they are in real danger in their own country. At 1 point though 85/90% of "refugees" were just coming in for economical reasons. And that is not what asylum is meant to be for.

You have absolutely no proof that these people were denied residence "4 or 5" times. None at all. But, even if they did, they are in entitled to their due process and the fact of the matter is that the Dutch immigration services were unable to process them in a timely manner.

You also have absolutely no proof that "85/90%" came for economical reasons. None at all.

You mention "growing up" so i suppose you were still a kid. Kids go for what they think are your weaknesses. If you would happen to be wearing glasses they probably would have told you "to "**** off 4-eyes"
Now i take it you are an adult, how many times does it happen a grown up native dutch (or white guy if you like) tells you to feck off because you are Irish?

Oh, if I mention that the weather is miserable today then sometimes I get told to go to Ireland if I don't like the Dutch weather. Stupid snide comments like that.

As a child or as a grown up, I've never had negative treatment from a Moroccan, only from white Dutch. I'm not saying that this is indicative of an overall trend, it's just my experience.

bill_ashmount

speedboatchase wrote: »

and is known for his anti-Islamic views, for example calling the religion "retarded

He makes a good point, he should have just added all other religions in there as well.

inforfun

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The waiting list for an endoscopy in Ireland can be as much as 8 months. In the Netherlands it's 24 hours. If you had been following the Irish news then you would know that Ireland has some of the longest waiting lists in Europe. According to the latest EHCI report, the Netherlands has the second best health service in Europe.

Did you read what i said? Ireland is trying to improve whereas Holland is in decline as it comes to health service.
Senior citizens, the ones who built up the country after WW2, who are in need of daycare, are getting bathed once a week, if they are lucky.
It might still be better in Holland but it all started with you pointing out that 42% tax on your salary is fine because there is such great health service in Holland. On top of that 42% tax on your income, you have to have health insurance and pay an awfull lot for that.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

If you are trying to argue that public services in Ireland are just as good as in the Netherlands then you are really on to a non-starter. Public transport, water supply, waste disposal, health services, roads, driving testing services, whatever, it's all better in the Netherlands and that's down to better taxation.

Public transport in Holland is changing and again, it is goign downhill. Last time i checked i still had to pay for it too, doesnt come out of the 42%

Water supply, everybody has to pay for their water, doesnt come out of the 42%

Waste disposal is indeed better in Holland.

Driving test in Ireland are a joke. But it is also not exacly free in Holland. Doesnt come out of the 42%

So far i havent seen anything you mention that justifies having to pay 42% of my income to the tax office. Why i have to pay 1,50 for a liter of petrol, why i have to pay tax on tax when i buy a car.
I dont know about you, you might like to work more than 3 hours of the day for absolutely nothing but i dont like it.

Going rather off topic here though

Lennoxschips wrote: »

NRC Handelsblad has a whole section devoted to it

Het Parool, Volkskrant, Trouw, AD, the TV news is all the same. Seriously, I wonder if you read the papers at all. Second or third generaton people born and raised in the Netherlands are referred to as "Turkish" or "Moroccan". Never "Dutch-Turkish" or "Dutch-Moroccan." And people wonder why these people feel alienated...

Since these people themselves say they are Turkish and Moroccan even after being born in Holland, why would i bother calling them Dutch-Turkish and Dutch-Moroccan?

Lennoxschips wrote: »

You have absolutely no proof that these people were denied residence "4 or 5" times. None at all. But, even if they did, they are in entitled to their due process and the fact of the matter is that the Dutch immigration services were unable to process them in a timely manner.

You also have absolutely no proof that "85/90%" came for economical reasons. None at all.

100.000 people came in every single year from everywhere in the world and you are telling me that those were genuine refugees?
It always amazed me how people, more often than not without any education at all, were capable of finding that ****ty little country in western europe. Maybe you can explain that?

Here is 20 eurocent, go call reality please.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Oh, if I mention that the weather is miserable today then sometimes I get told to go to Ireland if I don't like the Dutch weather. Stupid snide comments like that.

Arent we a little sensitive?
If i don't like something here and people tell me go back to Holland, they are right.
But i thin kthey are right... Being Irish you shouldnt complain too much about Dutch weather ;-)

Lennoxschips wrote: »

As a child or as a grown up, I've never had negative treatment from a Moroccan, only from white Dutch. I'm not saying that this is indicative of an overall trend, it's just my experience

Well.... when i was groing up and in school i had 1 Chinese guy, a girl from Surinam, a guy from pakistan and a yugoslavan girl in my classroom and maybe 1 or 2 from Indonesia. we are talking 6 out of 25/30 kids.That for me is acceptable.
The place i lived wasnt exactly a village.
Nowadays, certainly on VMBO, we see classrooms of 80% turkish and moroccan kids. And believe me, the few dutch kids in those classes have it way harder than you ever had for being Irish in Holland.

Lennoxschips

Water supply, everybody has to pay for their water, doesnt come out of the 42%

Holland is under sea. The government has to build dykes and keep out the sea. That comes out of your tax money. Water has to be taken from polluted rivers and heavily purified. This process is heavily subsidised. The metering of water in the Netherlands doesn't reflect the real cost, surely you know that.

Compare that to Ireland, where there is an abundance of clean, fresh water, yet the government still manages to get human excrement into the water supply.

Public transport in Holland is changing and again, it is goign downhill. Last time i checked i still had to pay for it too, doesnt come out of the 42%

Don't play the fool, public transport in the Netherlands has been and is heavily subsidised. Public transport in Ireland is virtually non-existant in many areas.

How is Dutch public transport going downhill? On my bus route the buses couldn't have been more than 10 years old, yet they've replaced all the buses again with brand new ones. And they're building a new metro line. And just doubled the number of train tracks going to Utrecht. Train delays are being reduces again. Once again, the difference between your political view and reality come home to roost.

Since these people themselves say they are Turkish and Moroccan even after being born in Holland, why would i bother calling them Dutch-Turkish and Dutch-Moroccan?

I hear that lame excuse a lot. If people aren't accepted, then they will act as if they are not accepted, so they won't be accepted, and the vicious cycle goes on. It's a chicken and egg situation. But if nobody is willing to do anything about it then you'll never get anywhere, will you? Blame everyone else, I guess that's the easiest way.

djpbarry

inforfun wrote: »

People who entered the country before 2001 had had their cases dealt with.
That the asylum process allowed them to keep appealing to the same decision time and again is because the process was crap. 1x appeal i can live with but if you are denied permanent residence 4 or 5 time i think you should take the message.
I like to point out that i have nothing against refugess coming in because they are in real danger in their own country. At 1 point though 85/90% of "refugees" were just coming in for economical reasons. And that is not what asylum is meant to be for.

I seem to recall you bringing this up on another thread, quoting similar figures and failing to back it up with any sources.

bill_ashmount wrote: »

He makes a good point, he should have just added all other religions in there as well.

+1

inforfun wrote: »

Nowadays, certainly on VMBO, we see classrooms of 80% turkish and moroccan kids. And believe me, the few dutch kids in those classes have it way harder than you ever had for being Irish in Holland.

Do they? In what way?

inforfun

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Holland is under sea. The government has to build dykes and keep out the sea. That comes out of your tax money. Water has to be taken from polluted rivers and heavily purified. This process is heavily subsidised. The metering of water in the Netherlands doesn't reflect the real cost, surely you know that.

Compare that to Ireland, where there is an abundance of clean, fresh water, yet the government still manages to get human excrement into the water supply.

You are confusing 2 things, Water supply and water management. The dykes are water managemnt, you were mentioning water supply.

Dutch government should go after the poluters of the rivers in Europe in stead of again come up with some stupid tax for the working guy.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Don't play the fool, public transport in the Netherlands has been and is heavily subsidised. Public transport in Ireland is virtually non-existant in many areas.

How is Dutch public transport going downhill? On my bus route the buses couldn't have been more than 10 years old, yet they've replaced all the buses again with brand new ones. And they're building a new metro line. And just doubled the number of train tracks going to Utrecht. Train delays are being reduces again. Once again, the difference between your political view and reality come home to roost.

Reality is that lines are being cut, where there used to be 4 buses in 1 hour, now there is 2 in 90 minutes.
Really, what you experience is not the standard in Holland. Go tell my sister that there is brilliant public transport in Holland when she had to travel for 3 hours for a check up in the hospital, a trip that by car would have taken her 25 minutes. Unfortunately she was banned from driving due to illness.
Those so called improvements you mention are all in your local area. YOUR situation might improve, in general it is going down.
I can tell you that Irish public transport is absolutely fantastic..... for me. I get where i need to be in short time.
But, unlike you, i realise that my situation is not the general situation. So i know PT is bad in Ireland. The way the buslines are set up in Dublin is an absolute joke.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

I hear that lame excuse a lot. If people aren't accepted, then they will act as if they are not accepted, so they won't be accepted, and the vicious cycle goes on. It's a chicken and egg situation. But if nobody is willing to do anything about it then you'll never get anywhere, will you? Blame everyone else, I guess that's the easiest way.

And i am getting tired of being blamed for the fact that these people dont feel accepted. Why would i keep making efforts while they dont even take on the most basic skill requiered to get along, the language.
40 years in Holland and still not being able to speak Dutch? Tell me... where is that my fault? Where did i make them feel not accepted?
Being able to communicate in your "new" country is the minimum of affort a person can do when living somewhere else.
I think that if i would be speaking Dutch here in Ireland life would not be easy. I even might feel as if i am not accepted. But i guess i should be blaming the Irish in that case according to your logic.

"No one gives us a job" or No one gives us internships" i hear and read a lot
Well.... i dont know about you, but no one has ever given me a job either. I had to make an effort for it.
These people make no effort whatsoever the become part of the Dutch society. They want to start their own little society within a society, go to their own mosques that are currently being built on about every free street corner.
The islam is a religion that is intolerant to other eligions or people who dont beleive in religion at all. Women are treated as 2nd rate, gays should be thrown of a flat with their heads down. It is ok for a muslim to lie to non-believers and i can keep going on with this.

Do you mind if i dont want that in my back garden? Do you mind that i tell these people that if they want to live according to medieval rules they should do that in a country where the majority like living like that?

Memnoch

I find all this talk about defending free speech to be severely hypocritical. The truth is that there are certain boundaries that are not crossed, specifically those that can lead to unrest and violence and amount to incitement.

In the UK for example, if someone wants to peddle pro-terrorist chants and encourage people to become suicide bombers, it is (rightly in my view) illegal and indeed criminal for them to do so, because they are trying to incite a criminal act and cause harm to others.

Similarly Nazi propaganda is illegal in Germany.

I won't even start on the U.S. and their version of "freedom" and "free speech."

The comments and the film by Mr. Wilders also should fall into this category. He is making a very personal and opinionated generalisation that demonises a large section of society and encourages division and hatred. Granted he isn't directly calling for violence, but he doesn't need to. Creating hate is more than enough. His actions constitute incitement to racism and violence and should not be tolerated in a supposedly secular society.

If tomorrow someone walked around the streets of Ireland calling for all the Bibles in the world to be burned he'd at the very least be dismissed as a nutjob. Why should Mr. Wilders' actions then recieve preferential treatment?

If you are going to defend his "right" to demonise Muslims, then you should defend the "right" of extremist Muslims to call for terrorists acts against westerners also.

Or is this another case of, hey if he's demonising Muslims, us white folk won't have to worry about being knifed in an alley by a racist scumbag who didn't have the sense to think for himself and was influenced by his polarised polemic?

knipex

wes wrote: »

Wilders should be able to say whatever he damn well pleases.

Just like I can say that Wilders party are full of far right nuts.

Someone buy that man a pint.

That is the entire argument in a nutshell.

Lemming

djpbarry wrote: »

I seem to recall you bringing this up on another thread, quoting similar figures and failing to back it up with any sources.

just to add a point here off the top of my head; the Irish government figures around the turn of the 21st century when the asylum issue was gaining momentum was that 90-something % (can't remember exactly what the 'something' was; maybe 4?) of all applications processed to that date had been rejected as not falling under the UN charter on refugees. In otherwords they were found to be economic migrants. I would imagine those figures have not deviated much (give or take 5-10%) in the intervening years.

I'd need to go digging for the details and tbh, I can't be arsed. If someone else wants to; you're more than welcome. My point is that I see little stretch of the imagination between the Dutch figures & Irish figures. Both small, fairly insignificant countries on the western peripheries of Europe, surrounded by lots of other well developed nations.

inforfun

djpbarry wrote: »

I seem to recall you bringing this up on another thread, quoting similar figures and failing to back it up with any sources.

Here you go
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/table.asp?STB=T&LA=nl&DM=SLNL&PA=37970ned&D1=a&D2=a,!0-24&HDR=G1

(Sorry, only able to get on this side via webproxy, i cant make nice looking links)

Unfortunately this is only going back till 2000. The 100.000 refugees a year era was mid 90's
But i hope you can see that if out 45000 in 2000 only 1810 got the A-status (definately a refugee in danger)
Then some 8500 more got a permit to stay
So 10.000 out 43000 if you like to see all of those 10.000 as refugees. 1800 only who got the real refugee staus.
You do the maths

And before you dismiss this link, as you seem to do a lot, this link is from CBS.nl
The link i couldnt find in english, lots of other stuff on that side is in english and i am sure there must be an "about cbs" link ther as well.
As said, because of awkward ways to get here, linking is not advised for me.

SeanW

Memnoch wrote: »

I find all this talk about defending free speech to be severely hypocritical. The truth is that there are certain boundaries that are not crossed, specifically those that can lead to unrest and violence and amount to incitement.

In the UK for example, if someone wants to peddle pro-terrorist chants and encourage people to become suicide bombers, it is (rightly in my view) illegal and indeed criminal for them to do so, because they are trying to incite a criminal act and cause harm to others.

Then try explaining this. Or indeed, this.

All gives rise to legitimate question about the role of Islam in modern Western society.

Similarly Nazi propaganda is illegal in Germany.

Which I don't think is right, tbh. After all, logic and circumstance today tells modern Germans that they have no quarrel with the Jews. So banning Mein Kampf doesn't really achieve anything except to give it a certain mystique. Banning something critical about Islam when its clear some senior figures and a lot of ordinary Muslims have a serious problem with the West and our lifestyles, that's another matter altogether.

I won't even start on the U.S. and their version of "freedom" and "free speech."

Why not? The likes of the KKK, as well as groups like the Black Panthers all have their full rights to speak, march or write whatever they like. There is a full and open exchange of ideas, even if those ideas are worthless.

The comments and the film by Mr. Wilders also should fall into this category. He is making a very personal and opinionated generalisation that demonises a large section of society and encourages division and hatred.

I don't know anything about him or his work, granted, but he should still be free to speak his piece without fear of repression or murder.

Granted he isn't directly calling for violence, but he doesn't need to.

With Islamic sensitivities in the balance, merely asserting your right to freedom of expression is enough to spark off a wave of madness and savagery, as Kurt Westergraad, Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh all found out to their peril. We all know this. What is your point?

If tomorrow someone walked around the streets of Ireland calling for all the Bibles in the world to be burned he'd at the very least be dismissed as a nutjob. Why should Mr. Wilders' actions then recieve preferential treatment?

Because I would defend his right to SAY that, but would have no part in any actual bible burning. Merely protecting his right to say what he feels is what is required.

If you are going to defend his "right" to demonise Muslims, then you should defend the "right" of extremist Muslims to call for terrorists acts against westerners also.

They have, but IMHO they should all be deported if they hate us so much.

inforfun

Memnoch wrote: »

If you are going to defend his "right" to demonise Muslims, then you should defend the "right" of extremist Muslims to call for terrorists acts against westerners also.

Right, so you think it is ok to start killing when someone verbally critisizes you?
For me, the way the Islamic world is reacting on this movie only proofs Wilders has a point.
Flag burning, calls for killing Wilders while there has not been a single second of that movie made public.....

djpbarry

inforfun wrote: »

The 100.000 refugees a year era was mid 90's

Here is the official data on asylum applications for the 10-year period from 1990 - 1999; it's a long way off 100,000 per year.

inforfun wrote: »

Right, so you think it is ok to start killing when someone verbally critisizes you?

He didn't say anything about killing. If Wilders can say whatever the hell he wants, then surely the same privilege has to be extended to everyone else, Muslim or not, no?

El Stuntman

djpbarry wrote: »

He didn't say anything about killing. If Wilders can say whatever the hell he wants, then surely the same privilege has to be extended to everyone else, Muslim or not, no?

(Western headbanger) Wilders demonises Muslims; nobody gets killed

Muslim headbanger demonises van Gogh: he gets stabbed to death in the street

spot the difference?

djpbarry

El Stuntman wrote: »

(Western headbanger) Wilders demonises Muslims; nobody gets killed

Muslim headbanger demonises van Gogh: he gets stabbed to death in the street

spot the difference?

I never said I agreed with what Memnoch said.

El Stuntman

djpbarry wrote: »

I never said I agreed with what Memnoch said.

stop twisting it, I never said that you did

I'm talking about the difference between inflammatory speech on both radical sides and the consequences

I'm suggesting that there's a massive disparity, surely you have to acknowledge this?