It's ok to say the unpleasant truths.

Rev Hellfire · 23-06-2011 12:34PM #1

Excellent news from the Netherlands, its good to see the courts push back against increasing attempts by some to seek censorship of any criticism of their views.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13883331

cosmicfart · 23-06-2011 12:36PM

maybe they can show the cartoon of Muhammad now without getting all hot and bothered like a bunch of to year olds

robindch · 23-06-2011 01:01PM

A frightful guy, but good to see the Dutch stand up to militant islam.

23-06-2011 01:06PM

interesting

Even during the trial, the prosecutors had called for Mr Wilders to be acquitted, saying that while his remarks were offensive they should be part of legitimate political debate

magicbastarder · 23-06-2011 01:09PM

what the hell was the court case about so?

It is believed the plaintiffs may attempt to make their case before a European court or the UN.

Their lawyer, Ties Prakken, was quoted by Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf as saying they were "deeply disappointed" and believed the right of minorities to be protected against hate speech had been violated.

CiaranMT · 23-06-2011 01:28PM

robindch wrote: »

A frightful guy, but good to see the Dutch stand up to militant islam.

The only side with militant leanings in this case seems to be Mr Wilders.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 23-06-2011 01:29PM

Great decision. The race card is always so easily pulled but its clear Wilders is against Islam because of Islam and not because he's a racist(wheareas the likes of Nick Griffin definitely is), and the Dutch courts obviously recognised this.

robindch · 23-06-2011 01:49PM

CiaranMT wrote: »

The only side with militant leanings in this case seems to be Mr Wilders.

These guys might disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn (murdered, 2002)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29 (murdered, 2004)

strobe · 23-06-2011 03:36PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Great decision.

Agreed, free speech ftw.

The race card is always so easily pulled but its clear Wilders is against Islam because of Islam and not because he's a racist(wheareas the likes of Nick Griffin definitely is), and the Dutch courts obviously recognised this.

I'm not so sure. His policies completely across the board are basically identical to the BNP's in every single way.

Nodin · 23-06-2011 05:34PM

robindch wrote: »

These guys might disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn (murdered, 2002)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29 (murdered, 2004)

Why is Pim Fortuyn in there?

Rev Hellfire · 23-06-2011 05:45PM

Nodin wrote: »

Why is Pim Fortuyn in there?

Because he was murdered due his views of Islam and how he expressed them.

Nodin · 23-06-2011 05:58PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Because he was murdered due his views of Islam and how he expressed them.

He wasn't killed by a muslim, "militant Islam" or indeed for those views of his alone.

robindch · 23-06-2011 06:03PM

Nodin wrote: »

He wasn't killed by a muslim, "militant Islam" or indeed for those views of his alone.

He wasn't, but the question was whether or not Wilders was the only guy with "militant leanings".

recedite · 23-06-2011 06:07PM

Fitna by Geert Wilders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQdZgojOFI

Nodin · 23-06-2011 06:16PM

robindch wrote: »

He wasn't, but the question was whether or not Wilders was the only guy with "militant leanings".

The sequence of comments

A frightful guy, but good to see the Dutch stand up to militant islam.

(my bold)

The only side with militant leanings in this case seems to be Mr Wilders.

(my bold)

These guys might disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn (murdered, 2002)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_va...lm_director%29 (murdered, 2004)

Fortuyn was not killed by a muslim, so its hardly pertinent.

Furthermore, the film itself does not target "militant Islam" but essentially seeks to tar all muslims with the same brush by selective quotes etc. It's techniques are not unsimilar to that used in Der Ewige Jude.

recedite · 23-06-2011 06:20PM

Even during the trial, the prosecutors had called for Mr Wilders to be acquitted

magicbastarder wrote: »

what the hell was the court case about so?

Our legal system descends from the UK system where the Plaintiff and the Defendant argue it out in court.

Most Continental countries derive their system from the Napoleonic Code, whereby the plaintiff makes a complaint, and that is investigated by a State Prosecuter. So the prosecuter starts out neutral, but after making investigations, he presents the evidence and may come out with recommendations in favour of one or other side.

robindch · 23-06-2011 06:26PM

Nodin wrote: »

The sequence of comments

Yes, but the "islamic" bit was dropped between my post and Ciaran's -- the debate was widened.

Nodin wrote: »

Furthermore, the film itself does not target "militant Islam" but essentially seeks to tar all muslims with the same brush by selective quotes etc.

As above, I don't like Mr Wilders and I suspect I wouldn't like Fitna if I had the time or inclination to watch it.

However, the Dutch court case distinguished between attacking ideas and attacking a person or group and it decided that, for the comments for which he was prosecuted, he was (just about) attacking ideas. And that's fine by me.

If, on the other hand, he's going around the place saying obnoxious things about people instead of the religion they hold, then he should be immediately prosecuted for incitement to hatred - a prosecution which I hope and trust would be successful.

recedite · 23-06-2011 06:28PM

Nodin wrote: »

Furthermore, the film itself does not target "militant Islam" but essentially seeks to tar all muslims with the same brush

Eh... the muslims in the film are waving swords and shouting for the unbelievers to be killed....

Nodin · 23-06-2011 07:10PM

recedite wrote: »

Eh... the muslims in the film are waving swords and shouting for the unbelievers to be killed....

....many are. Others are calling for various deaths etc and so on. there are no Sufis, no moderates, not a thing. Extremism is portrayed as the norm. Hence the problem. Its like grabbing Ariel Sharon, a few settler rabbis and making a movie called "Heres Judaism"

Rev Hellfire · 23-06-2011 07:17PM

Nodin wrote: »

Fortuyn was not killed by a muslim, so its hardly pertinent.

He might not have been killed by a Muslim, but he was killed in the name of Muslims.
Volkert van der Graaf stated his goal was to stop Mr Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" and targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" to try to gain political power.

Seems pretty pertinent to me since the issue is the stifling of speech either through threats, legislature or in the previous cases actual violence.

recedite · 23-06-2011 08:46PM

Nodin wrote: »

Its like grabbing Ariel Sharon, a few settler rabbis and making a movie called "Heres Judaism"

That would be more like "Here's Zionism". The film title "Fitna" translates as purification through fire, or civil war. It derives from the older arab word for the smelting or purification of metal, which came to be applied whenever the expansionist Mohammedan armies "cleansed" an area of infidel tribes.

The film quotes various passages from the koran which recommend killing unbelievers, then superimposes the text onto video of militant bitter old clerics urging these kinds of actions, and finally shows the angry young men actually carrying out the actions.

Then the film urges moderate muslims to tear out the objectionable pages from their own copies of the koran.

Of course I am well aware that there are plenty of bloodthirsty passages in the old testament relating to the "smiting" of enemies, but generally these are kept out of sermons. Anyway, I'm not here to defend Christians or Jews.

Nodin · 23-06-2011 10:20PM

recedite wrote: »

That would be more like "Here's Zionism". ...............

O theres plenty of stuff that can be used to make a more general stab than that.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

He might not have been killed by a Muslim, but he was killed in the name of Muslims. ...............

Not by one, somebody involved with them, asked by them, or in any way connected. Funny enough, I wasn't aware that the case against extremism was so poor it had to stretch connections in such a manner just to prop up the argument.

Rev Hellfire · 24-06-2011 04:58AM

Nodin wrote: »

Not by one, somebody involved with them, asked by them, or in any way connected. Funny enough, I wasn't aware that the case against extremism was so poor it had to stretch connections in such a manner just to prop up the argument.

You feel killing someone because you disagree with their views isn't extreme... interesting...

kiffer · 24-06-2011 08:06AM

So only one of the linked men was murdered by 'militant islam'?
Sure that's 50% less murder!

Nodin · 24-06-2011 12:17PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You feel killing someone because you disagree with their views isn't extreme... interesting...

'the case against Islamic extremism'. As I referred to stretched connections, I fail to see how you got that meaning out of it.

sensibleken · 24-06-2011 12:41PM

I can still headbutt the guy if i meet him in international waters right?

recedite · 24-06-2011 01:12PM

Yes, the fatwa has been issued against him.

Nodin · 24-06-2011 02:20PM

sensibleken wrote: »

I can still headbutt the guy if i meet him in international waters right?

I can't condone that kind of violence.

If you shave off his crap hairdo though,and clip off an ear in the process accidentally, thats just a manly jape between men.

Rev Hellfire · 24-06-2011 02:24PM

Nodin wrote: »

'the case against Islamic extremism'. As I referred to stretched connections, I fail to see how you got that meaning out of it.

What meaning is this ?

Nodin · 24-06-2011 02:30PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

What meaning is this ?

The one you posted below -

You feel killing someone because you disagree with their views isn't extreme... interesting...

Rev Hellfire · 24-06-2011 02:36PM

Nodin wrote: »

The one you posted below -

So your saying a vegan killing someone because they disagree with them is OK since they're not an Islamic extremist.

Ohh I see, my apology's that makes perfect sense now.

Nodin · 24-06-2011 02:47PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So your saying a vegan killing someone because they disagree with them is OK since they're not an Islamic extremist.

Ohh I see, my apology's that makes perfect sense now.

It was perfectly clear what I meant. You tried to imply that the statement below

Funny enough, I wasn't aware that the case against extremism was so poor it had to stretch connections in such a manner just to prop up the argument.

meant that I didn't regard the killing as extreme. Now you seek to distort the meaning of my further clarification (which rather foolishly allowed that you may have had genuinely misread what I typed). Why you feel the need to try and needle away over a perfectly straight forward statement I do not know.

Rev Hellfire · 24-06-2011 02:53PM

Nodin wrote: »

I didn't regard the killing as extreme.

Are you seriously saying murdering someone because you disagree with their views isn't extreme, the mind boggles.

Nodin wrote: »

Why you feel the need to try and needle away over a perfectly straight forward statement I do not know.

You know you're on the internets right ?

Nodin · 24-06-2011 06:50PM

hillarious.

robindch · 24-06-2011 10:38PM

^^^ ok folks, back on topic, please!

It's ok to say the unpleasant truths.

Comments