Free Speech/Geert Wilders on Trial

S-Murph

Mr. SS wrote: »

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!

No. Take age, for example.

What is the average age of a suicide bomber or Islamic terrorist do you know?

Surely there must be a near even distribution with the general age profile of the Muslim population, seeing as the Koran causes it.

What about the class representation of jihadists?

Is there a proportionate distribution of jihadists from the various class backgrounds? - surely there must be, since the Koran is the cause.

What about urban/rural? What about time. Surely there must be a consistent level of jihad and suicide bombers over the last 100 years, since the koran causes it.

What about gender representation?

more where the perpetrators justify what they do with reference to the koran,

Its irrelevant what they use to justify it. The point is, the Koran does not make people do anything no more so than the bible makes me do anything. The bible has to make relevance to my life and situation for me to use it, and it has none. Likewise, the Koran must facilitate Jihadists social conditions for it to have any relationship to the individuals involved.

Islam does not exist outside of the minds of people. Therefore people create islam through interpretation.

What influences how one interprets a piece of text?

Thats the question.

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.

Maybe so. But whether they are Islamic or not is irrelevant to why they do it.

Mr. SS

S-Murph wrote: »

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?

good point, i dont know. Kind of the same way if anyone in the west was asked "is islam a religion of peace?" 90% would say yes, when this is simply not the case. there are of course peaceful muslims but there is no peaceful islam.

this is what Geert Wilders is against, not individuals muslims, and i must confess im starting to agree with him when i look at Malmo.

S-Murph

Mr. SS wrote: »

good point, i dont know. Kind of the same way if anyone in the west was asked "is islam a religion of peace?" 90% would say yes, when this is simply not the case. there are of course peaceful muslims but there is no peaceful islam.

And what is Islam without people to interpret the texts?

Of course there is a peaceful interpretation of Islamic texts. There are also violent interpretations.

Neither say whether Islam is peaceful or violent, rather, whatever the interpretation it refelcts those people - not Islam.

Islam does not exist as some objective entity. Islam is what people make it. Therefore, any analysis of extremism must be an analysis of people and their environment.

Mr. SS

S-Murph wrote: »

No. Take age, for example.

What is the average age of a suicide bomber or Islamic terrorist do you know?

Surely there must be a near even distribution with the general age profile of the Muslim population, seeing as the Koran causes it.

What about the class representation of jihadists?

Is there a proportionate distribution of jihadists from the various class backgrounds? - surely there must be, since the Koran is the cause.

from the richest saudis to the poorest pushtuns.
mostly young males who dont have families.

S-Murph wrote: »

Its irrelevant what they use to justify it. The point is, the Koran does not make people do anything no more so than the bible makes me do anything. The bible has to make relevance to my life and situation for me to use it, and it has none. Likewise, the Koran must facilitate Jihadists social conditions for it to have any relationship to the individuals involved.

the koran has no parallel, not even the bible. it is believed that it is the DIRECT WORD OF GOD, true for all of time. the bible simply doesnt offer that. it is open to interpretation, "the gospel according to..."

there is no interpretation to the koran as it is god himself speaking. therefore i disagree with your assertion that it is irrelevant that they use it. if i believed something was the word of god and id be saved for obeying it i probly would too.

S-Murph wrote: »

Islam does not exist outside of the minds of people. Therefore people create islam through interpretation.

unlike other religions for which your point would be true (not even the vatican uses cannon law to govern its territory!) islam is a system of government as well as a personal faith.

regardless of wether the people of saudi arabia believe in islam or not, they are still governed by islamic law. so islam most certainly exists outside the minds of people.

Mr. SS

S-Murph wrote: »

And what is Islam without people to interpret the texts?

Of course there is a peaceful interpretation of Islamic texts. There are also violent interpretations.

the koran is very clear in most of its teachings. to say violent/paeceful interpretations is misleading, violent/peaceful verses would be more accurate.

S-Murph

Mr. SS wrote: »

from the richest saudis to the poorest pushtuns.

Have you some studies to back this up? What is the representation?

mostly young males who dont have families.

But if the Koran is the cause, shouldnt it be mostly males who have families (seeing as most males have families)? Shouldnt there also be middle aged males?

the koran has no parallel, not even the bible. it is believed that it is the DIRECT WORD OF GOD, true for all of time. the bible simply doesnt offer that. it is open to interpretation, "the gospel according to..."

there is no interpretation to the koran as it is god himself speaking. therefore i disagree with your assertion that it is irrelevant that they use it. if i believed something was the word of god and id be saved for obeying it i probly would too.

There is an interpretation of it. Thats why the overwhelming majority of Muslim men dont stone their wives for having lewd thoughts. It is why there exists both extremist and moderate Muslims. It is why every Muslim you ask will have a different opinion on aspects of their faith.

There must be an interpretation of it, since Islam does not exist outside of human consciosuness.

unlike other religions for which your point would be true (not even the vatican uses cannon law to govern its territory!) islam is a system of government as well as a personal faith.

regardless of wether the people of saudi arabia believe in islam or not, they are still governed by islamic law. so islam most certainly exists outside the minds of people.

No. Put it this way. Rather than Islam structuring the government, how about the government structures Islam?

Rather than the Saudi Monarchs having their vast wealth because of what an interpretion of Islam has entitled them to, - how about that interpretation of Islam is used to justify that privileged 'entitlement'?

How can something which does not exist outside the interpretation and subjectivity of peoples minds (passages from the Koran) cause them to do anything?

S-Murph

Mr. SS wrote: »

the koran is very clear.

In your subjective viewpoint it is clear. What if I have a Koran on front of me in French, but I dont speak or read French. Would it be clear to me then do you think?

Why?

sceptre

Mr. SS wrote: »

if 1% of muslims world wide are radicalised (which is greatly underestimating the figure)

How do we know that it's greatly underestimating the figure?

Mr. SS

sceptre wrote: »

How do we know that it's greatly underestimating the figure?

cia reckons 15-20%

nesf

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?

Not really no. The Prime Time show at no time went "Catholicism = Child Abuse." It focused on specific cases and specific failures within the hierarchy of the church at that time yet did not at any point generalise from this dealing of specifics to a statement about the religion as a whole.

Very, very different to trying to link Islam to militancy in general. If a show tried to link Catholicism in general, including the lay people, to child abuse then we'd have something better to compare to Wilders' show about Islam.

Mr. SS

S-Murph wrote: »

Have you some studies to back this up? What is the representation?

membership of the muslim brotherhood would indicate rich and poor sections or chapters on it. they are obviously not very willing to co-operate with infidels! so difiniative studies are hard to come by.

S-Murph wrote: »

But if the Koran is the cause, shouldnt it be mostly males who have families (seeing as most males have families)? Shouldnt there also be middle aged males?

i never said it was the cause, i said they themselves use it to justify their actions. as i said before there is a wide spectrum of beliefs in any religion, and as is the case with most things radical, the youth are usually the most radical.

S-Murph wrote: »

There is an interpretation of it. Thats why the overwhelming majority of Muslim men dont stone their wives for having lewd thoughts. It is why there exists both extremist and moderate Muslims. It is why every Muslim you ask will have a different opinion on aspects of their faith.

ive said that several times already.

S-Murph wrote: »

No. Put it this way. Rather than Islam structuring the government, how about the government structures Islam?

Rather than the Saudi Monarchs having their vast wealth because of what an interpretion of Islam has entitled them to, - how about that interpretation of Islam is used to justify that privileged 'entitlement'?

How can something which does not exist outside the interpretation and subjectivity of peoples minds (passages from the Koran) cause them to do anything?

when something reaches state level, it goes beyond personal opinion. if that is all you've ever known. the saudi media is the only you've ever heard, if you have never seen a woman unveiled except your wive, you've never heard of another way to punish a thief but amputation, you know of nothing else...

how can one interpret something that is outside his/her realm of consciousness???

Mr. SS

nesf wrote: »

Not really no. The Prime Time show at no time went "Catholicism = Child Abuse." It focused on specific cases and specific failures within the hierarchy of the church at that time yet did not at any point generalise from this dealing of specifics to a statement about the religion as a whole.

wilders at no time went "Muslims=Terror"

wilders linked specific verses with specific immams with specific acts. he did not say all muslims were bad at any point. there can be no bias as no commentary or actors were used.

Nodin

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?

last time i checked free speech did not require balance.

So you'd have no problem with 'Jude Suss', for instance?

nesf

Mr. SS wrote: »

wilders at no time went "Muslims=Terror"

wilders linked specific verses with specific immams with specific acts. he did not say all muslims were bad at any point. there can be no bias as no commentary or actors were used.

Ah, but if I went specific verses of the Bible are linked causally with child buggering I'd be blaming the religion not the individual for the action since I'd be claiming that the verse is the cause of the individual's actions and without the existence of this verse the actions would not have occurred.

Alcatel

Considering that "we" (Europe, the west, etc) allow radical Muslim's to protest and spew plenty of hatred before we arrest them and put them on trial, I'd say that Wilders ought to be let loose on this one.

At the end of the day, the right to free speech is greater than any religion's right to avoid criticism. I stop at the point of incitement, but we allow radical Muslim's plenty of freedom, we ought to be allowed the same in reverse, no matter how many flags they burn in the middle east in this week's "Let's be angry at..." demonstration, ala the cartoon row.

In the end, we defeat radical Islam by having a better, free system.

Scofflaw

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?

What is not fact in this?

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the U.S. military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.

The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.

Source

So we can equally well take a Christian company from a Christian country, and show it inscribing religious material from the Christian Bible on guns used by Christian soldiers occupying a Muslim country.

As for "verses inciting violence" - have you read the Bible?

cordially,
Scofflaw

wes

Islamic groups are getting banned for the stuff they say all the time, for example in the UK recently Islam4UK were banned. So its not like Wilders is being picked on here, plenty of people are running afoul of incitement laws. Free speech was limited a long while ago in a lot of Europe, due to various extremists, be they of the far right ultra nationalist variety or of the Islamist extremist variety.

Now, ultimately I think Wilders should be able to say as he please, but then so should the likes of Islam4UK. However, at least the incitement laws are at least in some EU countries being applied to everyone. If the law is good enough to prosecute Islamist extremists, then it good enough for the far right imho.

It should also be pointed out that the likes of Wilders and Islam4UK are very much against free speech themselves.

djpbarry

Mr. SS wrote: »

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.

No, that’s Saudi Arabia.

Mr. SS wrote: »

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.

But Muslims have never been the victims of violence? In India perhaps? Sri Lanka? How about Bosnia?

Mr. SS wrote: »

there are of course peaceful muslims but there is no peaceful islam.

Sufism?

Mr. SS wrote: »

the koran has no parallel, not even the bible. it is believed that it is the DIRECT WORD OF GOD, true for all of time. the bible simply doesnt offer that. it is open to interpretation, "the gospel according to..."

Now, it’s been a very long time since I was inside a church, but I distinctly remember priests frequently using the phrase “this is the word of God”. No?

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

the koran has no parallel, not even the bible. it is believed that it is the DIRECT WORD OF GOD, true for all of time. the bible simply doesnt offer that. it is open to interpretation, "the gospel according to..."

Now, it’s been a very long time since I was inside a church, but I distinctly remember priests frequently using the phrase “this is the word of God”. No?

I think if Mr SS were to take that up in the Christianity forum, he would find that the Bible is indeed regarded as the inspired Word of God. In both cases he will also find that there are those who believe you can interpret God's word for yourself, or have it interpreted by priests.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think if Mr SS were to take that up in the Christianity forum, he would find that the Bible is indeed regarded as the inspired Word of God. In both cases he will also find that there are those who believe you can interpret God's word for yourself, or have it interpreted by priests.

cordially,
Scofflaw

....not to mention the numbers of different readings that results in....

Its a ridiculous argument of his anyway, in that there are a number of muslim sects with widely varying readings of the Koran etc.

ChocolateSauce

Although I'm not fan of Geert Wilders by an means or measure, and find his particular brand of "free speech" to be highly hypocritical, I do none the less believe his trial represents freedom of speech on trial, and his conviction will be capitulation to Islam and the confirmation that it is more important not to offend people than it is to be allowed to offend them.

Importantly, if I had only a choice of voting for him or for the type of politician who tells me I can't criticise religion, I'd vote for him in a heart beat.

Free speech isn't negotiable.

nyarlothothep

Utterly ridiculous. I might find Triumph of the Will or Mein Kampf to be repugnant, I might find BNP or KKK marches to be disgusting, but everyone has the right to freedom of expression. The second you start to censure that you're on a slippery slope. Its the most fundamental right, no one has the authority to take it away, unless they give it to themselves in which case they should be ignored or undermined, in an ideal world.

Brown Bomber

Mr SS I'd be interested to know if you would defend the free speech of holocaust deniers do keenly?

SLUSK

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Mr SS I'd be interested to know if you would defend the free speech of holocaust deniers do keenly?

Denying the holocaust should obviously not be illegal. Being stupid should not be illegal.

Sand

Seems a little ridiculous.

Wilders is at worst hanging the concept of Islam with the rope provided by its most extreme adherents. Its clearly a fallacy to claim Islam is uniquely violent/fanatical (Christianity was much the same, as are all reglious groups who feel accountable only to an imaginary, pititless inhuman master, but Western society is definitly post-Christian) but if the Netherlands government are unable to win that particular argument without silencing a man as harmless as Wilders it doesnt say much for for their argument or their ability to present it.

Maebh

The thing is, the issue of Free Speech boils down to a lot more than Mr Wilders' being crazy.

Yes, people should be allowed to say whatever they like. If it leads to acts of violence, that's where the law steps in.

If it can be proved that Mr Wilders incited any acts of violence, obviously that should not be condoned.

However, just stopping him from saying what he wishes digs a great big hole.

The problem with Mr Wilders is not the things he says, or the programmes he distributes, it's the motives behind them. He wishes to eradicate Islam in the pursuit of a Christian world. Neither a Muslim nor a Christian world, in my view, would be free. So both are as bad as each other.

If you silence him, though, you only make him a martyr. If you let him have his say, and he is fought against (with words), and is proven wrong, then you can say free speech has won out.

If you get wishy-washy with words, and say he's right cuz he says so, or he should be shut up because you say so, then you don't have any recourse.

Logic, reason, truth. These are the foundations of free speech. Mr Wilders doesn't know much about any of them.

That's why we should condemn him. Not for his bias, not for his hatred, but for his lack of integrity.

View

There are limits on Free Speech in our society. For instance, the laws on slander and libel are there to protect people's reputations. They do this by ensuring that Free Speech is not abused - i.e. by limiting it.

The OP claimed that the trail of Geert Wilders was a "political trial" because "His crime is offending a group of people". By that standard, should we classify the recent court case in Limerick where Willie O'Dea was held to account for slander (or was it libel?) because he had "offended someone" - the injured party - as being a "political trial"?

Personally, I have difficulty in seeing Willie as a "political martyr", but maybe we should start a campaign for him.

Sand

The OP claimed that the trail of Geert Wilders was a "political trial" because "His crime is offending a group of people". By that standard, should we classify the recent court case in Limerick where Willie O'Dea was held to account for slander (or was it libel?) because he had "offended someone" - the injured party - as being a "political trial"?

Slander and libel is where you attack the character and reputation of a person.

Attacking a concept, an idea, a political or social view ( all of which describe Islam), even badly, even in a mistaken fashion, even if it causes offence is not slander. Ideas should not be above criticism.

Mr. SS

djpbarry wrote: »

No, that’s Saudi Arabia.
But Muslims have never been the victims of violence? In India perhaps? Sri Lanka? How about Bosnia?
Sufism?
Now, it’s been a very long time since I was inside a church, but I distinctly remember priests frequently using the phrase “this is the word of God”. No?

Yes its saudi arabia. is saudi arabia not a theocracy no? one based on islamic law.

of course they have, what's that got to do with anything? it doesnt excuse them from commiting terrorism now.

ok well i will let you look it up. the koran has no paralell.


i have already said this. in every religion, there is a broad spectrum of belief. of course not all muslims are terrorists. yes the bible has violent verses but show me a terrorist group commiting terrorist acts and justifying them with reference to the bible? i have no problem with individual muslims, but in nations where islamic law exists it is life threatening for outsiders such as gays, women and non-muslims.

am i that militant that i constantly have to explain myself!???

Mr. SS

Maebh wrote: »

The thing is, the issue of Free Speech boils down to a lot more than Mr Wilders' being crazy.That's why we should condemn him. Not for his bias, not for his hatred, but for his lack of integrity.

he has consistantly stated that a society based on christianity/judaism and humanism is better than one based on Islam.

I have never heard him say he wants a society based solely on christianity, i have never heard him say he wants to erradicate islam from europe. he has never said he hates muslims or any other group of people.

He is on trial for less than the slander you have just stated.