Free Speech/Geert Wilders on Trial

Mr. SS

Today a political trial began against Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. His crime is offending a group of people -the group being Muslims.

How did he do this? Well he made a short movie using sections from the Koran accompanied by acts of terror and immans also preaching said sections and inciting violence. Mr. Wilders did not use actors, it was a 100% muslim production. He is being acused of racism etc...

So the question being, should he be free to say these things or should religion in particular be set apart as sacred and protected, which is what seems to be happening?

Mr. SS

Free Speech/Geert Wilders on Trial
Today a political trial began against Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. His crime is offending a group of people -the group being Muslims.

How did he do this? Well he made a short movie using sections from the Koran accompanied by acts of terror and immans also preaching said sections and inciting violence. Mr. Wilders did not use actors, it was a 100% muslim production. He is being acused of racism etc...

So the question being, should he be free to say these things or should religion in particular be set apart as sacred and protected, which is what seems to be happening?

Scofflaw

Mr. SS wrote: »

Today a political trial began against Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. His crime is offending a group of people -the group being Muslims.

How did he do this? Well he made a short movie using sections from the Koran accompanied by acts of terror and immans also preaching said sections and inciting violence. Mr. Wilders did not use actors, it was a 100% muslim production. He is being acused of racism etc...

So the question being, should he be free to say these things or should religion in particular be set apart as sacred and protected, which is what seems to be happening?

I'm not keen on incitement, but I'm also not keen on protection of religion against criticism. This would be a tricky issue in general, but isn't really in the case of Wilders, since what he's up to is incitement, and that's his political stock in trade:

The opening scenes of Fitna - a Koranic term sometimes translated as "strife" - show a copy of the holy book followed by footage of the bomb attacks on the US on 11 September 2001, London in July 2005 and Madrid in March 2004.

Pictures appearing to show Muslim demonstrators holding up placards saying "God bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to hell" also feature.

The film ends with the statement: "Stop Islamisation. Defend our freedom."

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said at the time that the film wrongly equated Islam with violence and served "no purpose other than to offend".

Balkenende is almost certainly correct.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mr. SS

Scofflaw wrote: »

Balkenende is almost certainly correct.

I can understand the final comments perhaps, but how can he be held responsible for simply showing what some muslims are doing?

would that not be akin to blaming the whistleblowers about abuse in the catholic church for making the church look bad, rather than blaming the church itself?

View

Mr. SS wrote: »

I can understand the final comments perhaps, but how can he be held responsible for simply showing what some muslims are doing?

It is the absence of balance. Equating (all) muslims with terrorism is not being balanced.

It would be akin to someone making a film with all the attrocities from NI and using it to say "Look, this is what Christians (or "the Irish") really are".

And, as Wilders is reportedly responsible for the lack of balance, there is no reason why he should not be held responsible for intending to cause offence.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

It is the absence of balance. Equating (all) muslims with terrorism is not being balanced.

It would be akin to someone making a film with all the attrocities from NI and using it to say "Look, this is what Christians (or "the Irish") really are".

And, as Wilders is reportedly responsible for the lack of balance, there is no reason why he should not be held responsible for intending to cause offence.

A good analogy, and all the better for being historically true - English papers were very fond of the stereotypical brutish Irishman - and indeed in earlier times they were equally fond of decrying the slavish and superstitious Catholicism that led him to commit atrocities, secure in his place in Heaven.

Wilders is no different from any other man who has incited hatred under the banner of 'free speech' and 'defending our culture' - and like each of those others, he will have his defenders.

cordially,
Scofflaw

legal-eagle

Say what you like about Religions except Islam of course. The pinko Liberals will be all over it.

Zuiderzee

Geert is like a Dutch version of Robert Kilroy Silk, but he can say what he wants, he does not preach hatred, but he is stupid.
In Ireland, I think the blasphamy law could be used

Scofflaw

Please don't start threads in multiple forums.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Mr. SS

Scofflaw wrote: »

Wilders is no different from any other man who has incited hatred

Hold on now a minute, Wilders has never called for anyone to hate anyone. And in court today he again reiterated his point that he does not have a problem with individual muslims:

I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

To me this makes sense. The amount of people i can name who HATE the catholic church is vast, but they have never said they hate catholics.

Should richard dawkins have been arrested for calling people who believe in religion "dillusioned fools"?

A 13 year old girl in saudi has been sentenced to 90 lashes and TWO MONTHS in prison for brining a mobile phone to school. thats islam, not individual muslims.

Mr. SS

View wrote: »

It is the absence of balance. Equating (all) muslims with terrorism is not being balanced.

so everytime someone offers a fact they must balance it?

he never equated all muslims with terrorism and has never ever claimed so.

S-Murph

Mr. SS wrote: »

he never equated all muslims with terrorism and has never ever claimed so.

Well he must have if he's showing one side of the story. He dosnt have to overtly say "this is representative", all he has to do is make an unbalanced and biased programme which leaves a certain impression on viewers.

S-Murph

Mr. SS wrote: »

so everytime someone offers a fact they must balance it?.

What is the 'fact' presented?

Mr. SS

S-Murph wrote: »

Well he must have if he's showing one side of the story. He dosnt have to overtly say "this is representative", all he has to do is make an unbalanced and biased programme which leaves a certain impression on viewers.

Again its a 100% muslim production. only muslims are in it. so it is perfectly representative of the extremist muslim demographic, how can he be blamed for inciting hatred for showing them inciting hatred?

last time i checked free speech did not require balance.

Mr. SS

S-Murph wrote: »

What is the 'fact' presented?

In the film for which is part of what he stands trial for, he shows suras from the Koran which incite violence, and then he shows immams preaching these verses and then muslims acting upon them and justifying the acts themselves with reference to the same koranic verses.

Every bit of it is fact. those verses exist. those immams preaching them exist. and the muslims acting upon them exist. It is not a film of opinion.

What is not fact in it?

S-Murph

Mr. SS wrote: »

Again its a 100% muslim production. only muslims are in it. so it is perfectly representative of the extremist muslim demographic, how can he be blamed for inciting hatred for showing them inciting hatred?

Programs like this are framed so as to create the impression that there is a causal relationship between Islam and terrorism, when there is none.

If I show black people acting in a chaotic manner, without balancing that with how black people normally behave, then, to the audience who have little experience with black people, an impression will be made and craeted that black people behave chaotically. Even though im showing them acting chaotically.

Realistic and balanced impressions need to be created, not one sidedness.

last time i checked free speech did not require balance.

It dosnt. But free speech requires an ability to communicate that speech. So long as there is an imbalance in the means to communicate a message, then its equally valid to impose measures to balance what is being communicated.

S-Murph

Mr. SS wrote: »

In the film for which is part of what he stands trial for, he shows suras from the Koran which incite violence, and then he shows immams preaching these verses and then muslims acting upon them and justifying the acts themselves with reference to the same koranic verses.

Every bit of it is fact. those verses exist. those immams preaching them exist. and the muslims acting upon them exist. It is not a film of opinion.

What is not fact in it?

It is not a fact that the Koran, or being a Muslim, causes people to become extremists. If it were, then you would get an even distribution of extremists across Muslim populations - which you dont.

Whether or not those verses exist is irrelevant. Those verses alone do not cause people to commit acts of terrorism.

Mr. SS

S-Murph wrote: »

It is not a fact that the Koran, or being a Muslim, causes people to become extremists.
.

Mr. Wilders never said it did. but you cannot deny what i said, everything in there is fact, its up to us wether or not we want to "join the dots" so to speak.

It is the jihadists themselves who carry out the attacks that use the koran to justify why they are doing it.

If its good enough for them...

Mr. SS

S-Murph wrote: »

Programs like this are framed so as to create the impression that there is a causal relationship between Islam and terrorism, when there is none.

why do the terrorists themselves make that link then? is it because they follow his example of beheading people, like when the prophet himself beheaded 600-900 members of the jewish Quaryza tribe. or like what we see in Darfur with the hands and feet of people being cut off at opposite sides for "those who do mischief in the land" as it says in the koran.

not ONE school of islamic jurisprudence teaches against jihad, not one.

S-Murph wrote: »

If I show black people acting in a chaotic manner, without balancing that with how black people normally behave, then, to the audience who have little experience with black people, an impression will be made and craeted that black people behave chaotically. Even though im showing them acting chaotically.It dosnt. But free speech requires an ability to communicate that speech.

true. but i would argue that your example would show that some black people act chaotic, just as wilders' film shows some muslims have a tendency for koranic literalism.

S-Murph

Mr. SS wrote: »

Mr. Wilders never said it did. but you cannot deny what i said, everything in there is fact, its up to us wether or not we want to "join the dots" so to speak.

It is the jihadists themselves who carry out the attacks that use the koran to justify why they are doing it.

If its good enough for them...

Yeah, and people cant "join the dots" when adequate, realistic and balanced information is not communicated.

People end up joining the dots that the film maker wants people to join.

Why dosnt the film maker provide a realistic overview of the topics involved? Is he afraid people might 'join the dots' the wrong way?

If he's attempting, or has an agenda, overt or otherwise, to get people to join certain dots then yeah, that is tantamount to inciting hatred.

jimmycrackcorm

S-Murph wrote: »

Well he must have if he's showing one side of the story. He dosnt have to overtly say "this is representative", all he has to do is make an unbalanced and biased programme which leaves a certain impression on viewers.

Shouldn't that imply that when primetime were doing an expose on the catholic church sex abuse scandal via they should have balanced it with the positive aspects of the churchs role?

Mr. SS

S-Murph wrote: »

Yeah, and people cant "join the dots" when adequate, realistic and balanced information is not communicated.

People end up joining the dots that the film maker wants people to join.

Why dosnt the film maker provide a realistic overview of the topics involved? Is he afraid people might 'join the dots' the wrong way?

If he's attempting, or has an agenda, overt or otherwise, to get people to join certain dots then yeah, that is tantamount to inciting hatred.

so the guys in the video should also stand trial then?

If he hadnt stated continuosly that the film was about jihadists then the point would be valid, but he has. everyone knows jihadists want to destroy the west as thats what they keep telling us! wilders was really just playing mr obvious.

jimmycrackcorm

S-Murph wrote: »

Programs like this are framed so as to create the impression that there is a causal relationship between Islam and terrorism, when there is none.

Seems to of that it's a quite distinct link rather than being casual and correctly so as he points out. After all what other religion is as intolerant as islam?

S-Murph

Mr. SS wrote: »

why do the terrorists themselves make that link then?

Why not study the demographics of it. There you will find the answer, - not in the Koran.

not ONE school of islamic jurisprudence teaches against jihad, not one.

Im guessing your an expert on Islam. As far as I am aware, Jihad means many things to many people. What you believe it to be may not be how it is understood amongst most Muslims.

It comes down to subjective interpretation. An interpretation formed by social, political and cultural conditions.

Its in black in white that women who have 'lewd thoughts' are to be stoned in the Koran. How widely is this practiced do you know?

true. but i would argue that your example would show that some black people act chaotic, just as wilders' film shows some muslims have a tendency for koranic literalism.

How would it show that some people act that way when the audience have no other frame of reference?

Mr. SS

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Shouldn't that imply that when primetime were doing an expose on the catholic church sex abuse scandal via they should have balanced it with the positive aspects of the churchs role?

good example. as he said himself, someone who is unfamiliar with the catholic church would be left with an opinion that they are peadophiles and child beaters.

all sides of every story cannot be portrayed. it is up to the indiviual to inform him/herself. this is why free speech is so important so the individual can actually do this.

S-Murph

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Shouldn't that imply that when primetime were doing an expose on the catholic church sex abuse scandal via they should have balanced it with the positive aspects of the churchs role?

Dont they? Dosnt Joe Duffy present a religious programme on RTE?

Dont people have a frame of reference for the Catholic Church? Dont most people have their communion? Confermation?

Havnt a substantial portion of people in ireland attended a CBS? Mass?

These need to be considered.

ynotdu

Mr. SS wrote: »

Mr. Wilders never said it did. but you cannot deny what i said, everything in there is fact, its up to us wether or not we want to "join the dots" so to speak.

It is the jihadists themselves who carry out the attacks that use the koran to justify why they are doing it.

If its good enough for them...

My worry due to terrorists causing Govts to water down the tone of 'free speech' is either that Countries will become cowardly and settle for less{i am not talking about deliberate provocation by trouble making authors}than 'free speech.

or if this war of cultures/religions with brainwashed suicide bombers prepared to kill who knows how many,might it reach the stage were the use of tactical nuclear weapons might be tried as a solution at some time in the future?.much like it took two atom bombs to 'finish' WW2 at some point rather than losing civilions and soldiers forever might a nuclear power try this stategy?

The present situation cannot and will not continue.IMO if all faiths do not jaw jaw,an attempt will eventually be made by a frustrated power to achieve a quick-fix.

S-Murph

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

After all what other religion is as intolerant as islam?

Depends on where you are no? Depends on what Muslims you talk to no?

Or is Islam just one big homogeneous collective to you?

Mr. SS

S-Murph wrote: »

Why not study the demographics of it. There you will find the answer, - not in the Koran.

the demographics are interesting. of course the over-over whealming majority of muslims are peaceful people who have no intent on acting on anything in the koran. the problem is the numbers. if 1% of muslims world wide are radicalised (which is greatly underestimating the figure) that equates to 12 million people!

most germans werent nazis, most russians werent stalinist, most muslims arent terrorists but it each case the peaceful majority were irrelevant as the extremists carried out their actions.

with regard to conflict however, it goes from mali in the west right down to the spice islands where the christians are literally fighting for survival. philipines, east timor, thailand, malaysia, nigeria (jos just yesterday), somalia, egypt and many more where the perpetrators justify what they do with reference to the koran, its the same wether in the arab world or outside of it.

S-Murph wrote: »

Im guessing your an expert on Islam. As far as I am aware, Jihad means many things to many people. What you believe it to be may not be how it is understood amongst most Muslims.
It comes down to subjective interpretation. An interpretation formed by social, political and cultural conditions.
Its in black in white that women who have 'lewd thoughts' are to be stoned in the Koran. How widely is this practiced do you know?

no im certainly not an expert! well in every religion there is a broad spectrum of belief. it just happens to be true that the fundamentalist end in islam is particularly violent and intolerant towards non-believers.

S-Murph wrote: »

How would it show that some people act that way when the audience have no other frame of reference?

in this day and age while watching a video only availible on the internet, i would find it shocking if a viewer couldnt find another point of reference.

S-Murph

Mr. SS wrote: »

it is up to the indiviual to inform him/herself. this is why free speech is so important so the individual can actually do this.

And what liberal utopia does this result in realistic and factual results/attitudes?


But one example:

Similarly, 70% perceive the administration as currently saying Iraq “gave substantial support to al-Qaeda” (43%) or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks (27%). - http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/100.php

Totally without basis. How are these unbalances between realty and fiction created do you know?

Mr. SS

ynotdu wrote: »

My worry due to terrorists causing Govts to water down the tone of 'free speech' is either that Countries will become cowardly and settle for less{i am not talking about deliberate provocation by trouble making authors}than 'free speech.

or if this war of cultures/religions with brainwashed suicide bombers prepared to kill who knows how many,might it reach the stage were the use of tactical nuclear weapons might be tried as a solution at some time in the future?.much like it took two atom bombs to 'finish' WW2 at some point rather than losing civilions and soldiers forever might a nuclear power try this stategy?

The present situation cannot and will not continue.IMO if all faiths do not jaw jaw,an attempt will eventually be made by a frustrated power to achieve a quick-fix.

very interesting take on that. i mean iran has said time and time again that it wants to irradicate israel, people dismiss admedinijad as a loony, but people did the exact same when hilter (ironically a great admirer of islam) called for the wipe out of the jews, they dismissed him. i really dont know, it is certanly becoming more radicalised though, and i agree that wilders should be allowed to highlight it.