The Geert Wilders trial

Holland prefers to ignore its violence in dealing with its colony. It does not ignore a pied-noir complex in one of its communities, which simply does not exist

Yes this is true. It's a nice collection of syllables Louis, nothing more. The Netherlands has a pretty complex colonial history and you are to accuse us if being ignorant of our past you get a 'hell yeah' from here, but when it comes to this trial and Wilders there is simply no context. It's just not there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ah, Harry 'antifada now' van Bommel (socialist party) and Gretta '6 million autographs' Duisenberg (labour party member) are not prosecuted, that puts the prosecution in an even more dire position. Saying that the radical Islam has no place in Europe isn't the same thing as leading a procession with muslims and leftists shouting 'Hamas Hamas all jews on the gas'.

---

Wim Duisenberg was a labour member. Gretta is member of the SP, I believe.

I can't be sure, but I don't think either of those should be considered anti-semetic...just too stupid to know wich people to avoid being seen with.

and opinions that chimes with me:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/do...ing-the-truth/

Geert Wilders: on trial for telling the truth

There is nothing hyperbolic in stating that a trial which has just started in Holland will have unparalleled significance for the future of Europe. It is not just about whether our culture will survive, but whether we are even allowed to state the fact that it is being threatened.

The trial of Geert Wilders has garnered hardly any attention in the mainstream press here. Fortunately the blogosphere can correct some of this.

Wilders is a Dutch MP and leader of Holland’s fastest-growing party, the Party for Freedom. Just a few years ago he was the sole MP for his party. The latest polls show that his party could win the biggest number of seats of any party in Holland when the voters next go to the polls.

His stances have clearly chimed with the Dutch people. They include an end to the era of mass immigration, an end to cultural relativism, and an end to the perceived suborning of European values to Islamic ones. For saying this, and more, he has for many years had to live under round-the-clock security protection. Which you would have thought proves the point to some extent.

Now the latest attempt of the Dutch ruling class to keep Wilders from office has begun. Last week, apparently because of the number of complaints they have received (trial by vote anyone?) the trial of Wilders began.

The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.

I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.

Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.

If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.

Now some people liked Fitna and some people didn’t. That’s a matter of choice. But by any previous interpretation it is not the job of courts in democratic countries to become film-critics. In fact it would create a very bad precedent. I thought the latest Alec Baldwin film stank. But I don’t think (though the temptation lingers) Baldwin should go to prison for it.

I’ve seen Fitna a number of times. Recently in the House of Lords, at a meeting Wilders couldn’t attend because our then Home Secretary temporarily decided he shouldn’t even come into this country. And I’ve just watched it again. And you can do so, too. It keeps getting pirated on YouTube but I think this is a good link here.

Parts of Fitna – which is a compilation of documentary footage – are very disturbing. And very offensive indeed. The clips of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels. Very offensive. The clips of Muslims holding banners saying ‘God bless Hitler’. Very offensive. The clip of a three-year-old Muslim girl indoctrinated and brain-washed to describe Jews as ‘Apes and Pigs’. Very offensive. The passage of the Koran, Surah 47, verse 4: ‘Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.’ Very offensive.

Just to confirm – I find all these things very offensive. But Wilders didn’t say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some – in some cases many – Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders.

There are quotes from Wilders in the summons, though. It states for instance that he has said, and he has (I love the detective-work the court implies when citing op-eds from national newspapers): ‘Those Moroccan boys are really violent. They beat up people because of their sexual orientation. I have never used violence.’ This is true. As a number of gay Dutch men and women can attest, Muslim youths are behind a rise in homophobic attacks in what used to be the most gay-friendly country in the world. Bruce Bawer and others have written about this at length. It is very disturbing. It is also a fact. There is no sanity at all in a court trying a man for saying something true.

Wilders is also being tried for saying things which some Muslims deem to be rude about the Koran. Another dangerous precedent. Will the Dutch courts now come after Ricky Gervais for the rude things he says about the Bible in his show Animals (on sale in Holland)? Why the special laws for hurt Muslim feelings? Just wait till the others get on the band-wagon! There won’t be room in the courts to prosecute the murderers and muggers. They’ll be too full up with the religious. Dutch Calvinist pastors madly petitioning for the extradition of Billy Connolly.

The whole thing is so farcical that it would be funny. If it weren’t for the fact that it is real. The most popular elected politician in Holland is on trial for saying things which the Dutch people are clearly, in large part, in agreement with. Things which, even if you don’t agree with them, must be able to be said.

Whichever way the verdict goes, it can’t do anything but good for Wilders’s poll ratings. But it is a terrible day for democracy. A political class so intent on criminalising the opinions of its own people cannot last very much longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Wim Duisenberg was a labour member. Gretta is member of the SP, I believe.

I can't be sure, but I don't think either of those should be considered anti-semetic...just too stupid to know wich people to avoid being seen with.

---

Oh believe me, her dad was my grandma's second husband I know Gretta Duisenberg alright.

Quote:

---

They include an end to the era of mass immigration, an end to cultural relativism, and an end to the perceived suborning of European values to Islamic ones.

---

~:mad

European values do not coincide with wanting to ban books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

~:mad

European values do not coincide with wanting to ban books.

---

But that is just sophism

And what exactly is wrong with sophism?

Wilders says he wants to protect "Freedom". You do not protect freedom by banning books.

Hax, you don't understand, if you disagree with banning books you're a godless, freedom hating commie. Paradoxal, isn't it?

Reminds me of the Indiana Jones, Last Crusade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMeesE4Nlhg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

And what exactly is wrong with sophism?

---

well sophism is only about winning an argument, whatever that argument might be. Sophists don't care, it's a sport. They were bashed for that in the past, for having a complete lack of morality.

I agree, reminds me of the PVV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

I agree, reminds me of the PVV

---

Really, how

Ah luigi, I got another thing for you to chew on, the PVV isn't really extreme right but new-right radical. A scientific study from of oh who gives a crap. One of many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ah luigi, I got another thing for you to chew on, the PVV isn't really extreme right but new-right radical. A scientific study from of oh who gives a crap. One of many.

---

Of course the PVV isn't really extreme right. The PVV is a single-issue party, and this issue is 'Islam'. This is, to my knowledge, unique in Europe. Extreme right parties are anti-immigrant, the PVV is not. It is solely anti-Islam. Of course, considering that all the members of this party are mixed-race Indo immigrants, this should come as no surprise.


And gives us that link! I am already looking forward to it being rubbished by the claim that 'some of my best friends are radical and they don't vote Wilders'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

And gives us that link! I am already looking forward to it being rubbished by the claim that 'some of my best friends are radical and they don't vote Wilders'.

---

Radical doesn't automatically say Right Wing radical, also, neonazis don't like Wilders either, because Wilders is a zionist, which makes left-right in the Netherlands even more complicated.

Wilders is a populist and an opportunist, not left or right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The PVV is a single-issue party, and this issue is 'Islam'.

---

Not really, the PVV is just the only one that isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Of course the PVV isn't really extreme right. The PVV is a single-issue party, and this issue is 'Islam'. This is, to my knowledge, unique in Europe. Extreme right parties are anti-immigrant, the PVV is not. It is solely anti-Islam. Of course, considering that all the members of this party are mixed-race Indo immigrants, this should come as no surprise.

---

Patently untrue, but you seem to be hell-bent on ignoring that. As an aside, the party is generally anti-immigrant. You should hear these clowns talk about Antillians. Skullheadhq has the gist of the matter, really.

Here's teh link in English. :whip:

Quote:

---

Wilders' party is 'new radical right'

Thursday 28 January 2010
Geert Wilders' political movement PVV is not an extreme right wing party but contains some radical right wing elements, according to a report into radicalisation in the Netherlands by Tilburg University research group IVA.
PVV statements on 'islamisation' and non-western immigrants appear to be discriminatory and the party organisation is authoritarian rather than democratic, the researchers say.
The researchers, who were looking into polarisation and radicalism across the Netherlands, describe the PVV as 'new radical right', a party with a national democratic ideology but without extreme right wing roots. In particular, the party's pro-Israel stance shows it is not neo Nazi, the report states.
Nevertheless, the PVV has a preference for 'the familiar' and turns against things which are 'foreign' and its political opponents, the report said. This, coupled with an authoritarian tendency show it leans towards a national democratic ideology. And on the internet, for example, the party is a magnet for extreme views, the researchers point out.

Scandalous
Wilders told news agency ANP the report is 'scandalous' - in particular the link between defending the national interest and the radical right. And he attacked the decision to publish it now, just as he is on trial for discrimination and inciting hatred.
An earlier version of the report, leaked to the Volkskrant in November, said Wilders' party is an extreme right wing grouping and a threat to social cohesion and democracy. The paper claimed at the time the researchers were under pressure to water down the conclusions because of their political sensitivity.
Home affairs minister Guus ter Horst, who commissioned the research, has denied exerting any influence on the report.



http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive..._radical_r.php

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Patently untrue, but you seem to be hell-bent on ignoring that. As an aside, the party is generally anti-immigrant. You should hear these clowns talk about Antillians. Skullheadhq has the gist of the matter, really.

---

No, I am afraid I am exactly right again. All of the members of the PVV are of mixed-race immigrant ancestry.

Quote:

---

well sophism is only about winning an argument, whatever that argument might be. Sophists don't care, it's a sport. They were bashed for that in the past, for having a complete lack of morality.

---

Acknowleding that there is no ultimate truth does not equal immorality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

No, I am afraid I am exactly right again. All of the members of the PVV are of mixed-race immigrant ancestry.

---

You are right... considering there's only one member :sweatdrop: Which, of course, is a technicality and by no means reflects the way the party makes policy. Its MPs may not be members (which, I might add, is very worrying) but I sincerely doubt they don't formulate PVV positions. Besides that, even if Wilders made all policy alone, Saddam-style, then he still doesn't make the least attempt to rein in his lackeys when they bash on other minorities in this country. Which once again brings me back to my point, namely that this party is anti-immigrant in general. And weakens yours, namely that it is strongly informed by Wilders's half-Indo background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Acknowleding that there is no ultimate truth does not equal immorality.

---

Morality is an absolute, unless you are a sophist, prior to Protagoras and the invention of Sophistry morality was considered to be an unquestioned fundamental of the universe. As sophists revise the definition of morality they are immoral under the original definition.

From What I can gather.

1. Wilders is a mixed race man who has roots in Indonesia
2. He doesn't like rampant immagration or the insulation of minorty groups in Holland

Thats where I get confused.

The anti immagrant party is made up of mixed race people, ok and?

STFS, his party has only one member: Geert Wilders himself (who has a mother of mixed race). Its constituency, however, is overwhelmingly ethnically Dutch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

STFS, his party has only one member: Geert Wilders himself (who has a mother of mixed race). Its constituency, however, is overwhelmingly ethnically Dutch.

---

In that case I'll agree with Louis.

Quote:

---

Morality is an absolute, unless you are a sophist, prior to Protagoras and the invention of Sophistry morality was considered to be an unquestioned fundamental of the universe. As sophists revise the definition of morality they are immoral under the original definition.

---

I challenge you to a debate, good sir, but not in this thread. We could make a seperate thread for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I challenge you to a debate, good sir, but not in this thread. We could make a seperate thread for this.

---

You will lose, I would first look up what sophism exactly is before considering a dual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Wilders says he wants to protect "Freedom". You do not protect freedom by banning books.

---

Does Wilders want to ban the Koran because he wants to ban things he doesn't like, or does he want to ban it because Holland bans books that he thinks are as bad as the Koran and he feels the ban should be applied equally, even though he also believes that in an ideal world there shouldn't be a ban at all?

Just wondering, perhaps Frag could explain.

Holland has banned Mein Kampf, so Wilders argues that the holy book of a billion people is the same as that book and deserves to be banned as well. The banning of Mein Kampf is ludicrous and wrong, as is Wilders's claim.

He compared it to mein kampf as a book that preaches hate, and he said if muslims would tear out the hateful passages out of the Quran what would remain wouldn't be thicker then the Donald Duckhehemyboy

Mein Kampf actually isn't banned, just about every library has it, there is just nobody who wants to sell it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Holland has banned Mein Kampf, so Wilders argues that the holy book of a billion people is the same as that book and deserves to be banned as well. The banning of Mein Kampf is ludicrous and wrong, as is Wilders's claim.

---

Who cares it's the holy book of a billion people? It could be the holy book of 99% of the earth population, or the holy book of 3 nutjobs, it wouldn't change a thing.

And there we have it, yet another scientific rapport from a knowologue, Wilders is not extreme right, but new-right radical. wut? Release of the rapport has nothing to do with the trial of course, but once again they turn out to be to stupid and made a mistake, if you are going to release a months old rapport at the right time and claim it wasn't done yet (minister of internal affairs who ordered the rapport said so and proudly presented it yesterday IT IS DONE), at least change the dates on the adobe-documents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I challenge you to a debate, good sir, but not in this thread. We could make a seperate thread for this.

---

Pointless, as I am talking about a moral absolute, and you are talking about the perception of morality. The concept of authentic morality excludes relativism, as does the concept of genuine truth.

But, I feel I should say something about Wilders. His closest cognate in Britain is probably the Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Roschester. Nazir-Ali is a Pakistani immigrant to the UK from a mixed Christina/Muslim family and, to be frank, his distane for Islam borders on the openly hostile.

What he shares with Wilders is a colonial background and an identification with his country's culture rather than ethnos. Here's the ting though, that actually makes quite a lot of sense, in that a people should be defined by their cultural identity rather than merely by genetics.

The other thing these men have in common is a high level of intergration into their host culture, something they both clearly think other immigrants should have as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

What he shares with Wilders is a colonial background and an identification with his country's culture rather than ethnos. Here's the ting though, that actually makes quite a lot of sense, in that a people should be defined by their cultural identity rather than merely by genetics.

---

:wall:

If he would identify with anything other then the Netherlands it would be Israel, he lived there for years, also find that a lot more likely candidate as a reason why he isn't absolutely in love with the Islam. That, and unlike his enemies who live in 100% white neighbourhoods and put their children on 100% white schools he also lived for years in a neighborhood that was enriched with culture, he knows of the problems first hand.

Quote:

---

You will lose, I would first look up what sophism exactly is before considering a dual.

---

So yeah, apparently I did not pay attention at philosophy class at all. The way the word "sophism" gets thrown about when it comes to political debate is sickening, especially when we equalise it with immorality. It's not comparable, as the greatest sophist of them all (Socrates) was also the greatest moralist. After all, he directly influenced Plato, who had a major impact on the Christian theology and philosophy.

PS. I dislike Plato, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

So yeah, apparently I did not pay attention at philosophy class at all.

---

Must be, in sophism the best argument wins not the most moral morality has no place, that is why it became an insult when philosophy got an ethical dimension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

So yeah, apparently I did not pay attention at philosophy class at all. The way the word "sophism" gets thrown about when it comes to political debate is sickening, especially when we equalise it with immorality. It's not comparable, as the greatest sophist of them all (Socrates) was also the greatest moralist. After all, he directly influenced Plato, who had a major impact on the Christian theology and philosophy.

PS. I dislike Plato, though.

---

Clearly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Must be, in sophism the best argument wins not the most moral morality has no place, that is why it became an insult when philosophy got an ethical dimension.

---

...because Socrates was not a Sophist. Fragony is quite correct, Protagoras said that the better argument is the most "moral" even if the position being argued was the weaker one. Sophistry is merely rhetorical. It has no genuinely moral dimension.

Socrates' thought is only transferred through Plato and (to a much lesser extent) Xenophon. All we can be reasonably confident he said is that "the only wisdom is to know that you know nothing". Socrates was a diadactition and a sceptic, not a sophist or a relativist.

Xenophon of the Anabasis? I never read anything he said.

Sophistry, in its basic essence, is the acceptance of the fact that everything is relative. Socrates did not undermine this; Plato did. Or tried to, at least. Of course, I'm pretty biased because I automatically reject just about anything Plato says, so I might not be the best person to defend sophism in an good way.

However, I do agree with you that sophism is rhetorical; as such, nothing is absolute. I think that might be the difference with what you said to be perception of morality and morality itself.

There is something else I would like to say; morality without rhetoricism is not morality at all, criticism of morality should not be seen as immoral but rather as a part of morality.

Quote:

---

Must be, in sophism the best argument wins not the most moral morality has no place, that is why it became an insult when philosophy got an ethical dimension.

---

More interpunction, please.

This is pretty much depending on the subject that you are discussing, is it not? After all, that's exactly what politics is all about (turning back the argument back to the Wilders trial). When it comes to the Wilders problem, it's not about taking a moral stance and just saying "You're wrong": it's about refuting his points by analysis of what he is saying and thus "winning" the debate.

However, as Wilders refuses to go into debate, there's not much that can be done, is there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Who cares it's the holy book of a billion people? It could be the holy book of 99% of the earth population, or the holy book of 3 nutjobs, it wouldn't change a thing.

---

As far as it should never be banned, yes. Just like the holy book of 3 nutjobs, aka Mein Kampf.

The thing is, Wilders never said the same thing about the Bible. And there are quite a few hate-filled passages in there, too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Mein Kampf actually isn't banned, just about every library has it, there is just nobody who wants to sell it.

---

To answer Meneldil's question: well then, even more proof that he is an Islam-hating bigot. He's not even basing himself on some flimsy legal premise, just on his bias against a particular religion and culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

What he shares with Wilders is a colonial background

---

No, he doesn't. As I pointed out to Louis at length, there is very little reason to believe Wilders is strongly informed by a colonial background in his actions. By a Dutch nationalist background, yes, though, so I agree with the rest of that paragraph.

EDIT: And friend, he is not "integrated", as he was raised by a Dutch family in an overwhelmingly Dutch rural area. He is an ethnic Dutchman and is perceived as such by all Dutchmen. This is what informs him, regardless of whatever Louis and his anthropologist claim. Wilders is in no way comparable to a first-generation immigrant from a third world country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

To answer Meneldil's question: well then, even more proof that he is an Islam-hating bigot. He's not even basing himself on some flimsy legal premise, just on his bias against a particular religion and culture.

---

Isn't like Mein Kampf isn't bestseller in Islamic countries, and Hitler isn't seen as a hero :juggle2:

Also isn't like teachers avoid the subject of the holocaust or the rascals go nuts :juggle2:

So why does that justify banning the Qur'an again? Right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

So why does that justify banning the Qur'an again? Right.

---

spreading hate obviously, it's impossible though and he knows it, but it's fun watching them fall on their swords.

Quote:

---

Isn't like Mein Kampf isn't bestseller in Islamic countries, and Hitler isn't seen as a hero

---

Define Islamic countries. Certain things will sell better in Indonesia than in Morocco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

spreading hate obviously, it's impossible though and he knows it, but it's fun watching them fall on their swords.

---

Might as well ban the PVV too, then, while we're at it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Define Islamic countries. Certain things will sell better in Indonesia than in Morocco.

---

You are right the Middle East my bad

Might as well ban the PVV too, then, while we're at it...

Really, how come

'Cause if the Qur'an is spreading hate, then so are Wilders and his gang :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Xenophon of the Anabasis? I never read anything he said.

---

You should, he was a great thinker.

Quote:

---

Sophistry, in its basic essence, is the acceptance of the fact that everything is relative.

---

No, it is about the ostensible teaching of wisdom. Relativism is abohorrant to moralism anyway, which is the point.

Quote:

---

Socrates did not undermine this; Plato did. Or tried to, at least. Of course, I'm pretty biased because I automatically reject just about anything Plato says, so I might not be the best person to defend sophism in an good way.

---

This is impossible to know, as not a single Socratic work survives; only Platonic ones.

Quote:

---

However, I do agree with you that sophism is rhetorical; as such, nothing is absolute. I think that might be the difference with what you said to be perception of morality and morality itself.

---

Morality is like truth, an absolute, whether or not they really exist is a seperate question from their nature. If you ascibe to a relativistic world view then you can only talk about individual perceptions of morality, not morality itself.

Quote:

---

There is something else I would like to say; morality without rhetoricism is not morality at all, criticism of morality should not be seen as immoral but rather as a part of morality.

---

Morality is morality, criticism of someone's perception of morality is different. A badly argued moral good is still a moral good.

Quote:

---

This is pretty much depending on the subject that you are discussing, is it not? After all, that's exactly what politics is all about (turning back the argument back to the Wilders trial). When it comes to the Wilders problem, it's not about taking a moral stance and just saying "You're wrong": it's about refuting his points by analysis of what he is saying and thus "winning" the debate.

However, as Wilders refuses to go into debate, there's not much that can be done, is there?

---

The first question to ask is whether what Wilders says has any truth in it, then where he intends to take his conclusions. The structure of his argument is a semantic question, not a relevant one. The use of rhetoric to refute his points is a question of technical proficiency, not morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

'Cause if the Qur'an is spreading hate, then so are Wilders and his gang :laugh4:

---

why

However, as Wilders refuses to go into debate, there's not much that can be done, is there?


What do you mean, can't just decide that, he does nothing other then debating, in the parliament where it belongs, he won't go to Paul & Witteman no.

http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments < there is your debate, they don't want it so they do this. Little adition, if Wilders wouldn't debate there wouldn't be any debate because of the suffocating social control in the leftist church, Fortuyn broke the taboo and look what it got him, ridicule, insult, OMGHITLER, threats, and ultimately a bullet. They say they learned their lessons but it is worse then ever, ANYTHING BUT DEBATE PLEASE psst Hitler

one man against the red machine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

'Cause if the Qur'an is spreading hate, then so are Wilders and his gang :laugh4:

---

Zing

a song

Quote:

---

What do you mean, can't just decide that, he does nothing other then debating, in the parliament where it belongs, he won't go to Paul & Witteman no.

---

He debates in parliament on the basis that what he says is a hard truth: Islam is evil. He refuses to debate with Islamic scholars, scientists or Islamic organisations about what Islam is.

What do you mean he has close contact with the Arabist Hans Jansen and Afshin Ellian, as well as multiple foreign experts, he is well informed enough. Actual theological debate is useless, what's there to discuss about imaginary friends.

http://www.arabistjansen.nl/Arabist/cv_eng.html no lightweight

http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Auteur.ht...peofpage=71806 neither is he

Not theological debate but debate on the historical and contextual nature of the Qu'ran and Islam. He takes Qu'ran verses out of context without citing in what context such verses were used. This is immensely important.

So Wilders went to London today...



https://img706.imageshack.us/img706/...ct16182713.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Not theological debate but debate on the historical and contextual nature of the Qu'ran and Islam. He takes Qu'ran verses out of context without citing in what context such verses were used. This is immensely important.

---

No it isn't, what is important is that it's also a political system with it own set of laws, and that neighborhoods slowly transform in sharia-enclaves with the subsequent consequences for jews gays blacks and women, it's called islamization and it must be stopped.

So Wilders went to London today...

Now muslims in the Netherlands are nowhere like these guys mind you.


pssssssssssssst Haxie http://www.trouw.nl/opinie/podium/ar...t_debat__.html

This is a good analyses of his tactics, and it shows the traps his opponents keep falling into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

So Wilders went to London today...



https://img706.imageshack.us/img706/...ct16182713.jpg

---

how wonderful that we have such fruit-cakes in this country.

At least you aren't in France, these guys are only holding signs

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...machete477.jpg

Oh dear oh dear. There are only nine of them though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Oh dear oh dear. There are only nine of them though.

---

sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nqxP2bpF7I

I see at least 30, cops that is, running

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nqxP2bpF7I

I see at least 30, cops that is, running

---

That was a free palestine march, so slightly different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Oh dear oh dear. There are only nine of them though.

---

Looks more like 20, really. Still, it makes Wilders look significantly less loopy, doesn't it.

Why? Because there are 20 stupid people out of 60,000,000? Oooh, save us from the Islamofascist horde Wilders! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

That was a free palestine march, so slightly different.

---

No, it isn't. Well ok it wasn't a cartoon or teddy-bear this time. Radical islamists are hostile towards us (well everything also moderate/ex muslims, ever thought about that, how much intimidation they have to endure, they are terrified and with good reason). Comes down to this;

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...y/rublind2.jpg

Oooh, save us from the Islamofascist horde Wilders!

It is normal leftist try to ridicule instead of debate and we are not impressed, that is because they are usually from well of family's who can't know what life is for people at the receiving end, they live in 100% white neighborhoods and put their children on 100% white schools. You are probably one of these.

Quote:

---

It is normal leftist try to ridicule instead of debate

---

Because going ad hominem is something Wilders never does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Because going ad hominem is something Wilders never does.

---

He doesn't have to, and he wouldn't be able to do so anyway. You need friendly redactions and airtime from state television for being able to play that game. We have the digital democracy at our side. The latest trick;

http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments <- that one

That scam was cracked in 14 minutes. It's outdated, it's most of all cheap, and it's most of all completely useless because as politicians look away more people get affected by their refusal to do something about a very real reality. They used to insult only a few who saw things were not going absolutely superduper-ok from the go, but now they are insulting hundreds of thousands of people, ironically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Looks more like 20, really. Still, it makes Wilders look significantly less loopy, doesn't it.

---

Considering Wilders is their equal, why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Considering Wilders is their equal, why?

---

Oh read up for please sake.

Quote:

---

He doesn't have to, and he wouldn't be able to do so anyway.

---

Because calling a fellow member of parliament insane isn't ad hominem at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Because calling a fellow member of parliament insane isn't ad hominem at all.

---

Not as much as 'we are millions' , het kereltje, and countless other examples.

Hans Jansen is a loner in the world of Arabic studies when it comes to his views on Islam. Moreover, his views on the culture and religion are considerably more moderate than those of Wilders, even if he is on the (far) more critical side of his field, and he rarely agrees with our little peroxide-loving populist. Doesn't stop Wilders from using his words out of context, of course, but then what does? It's Wilders's specialty.

Afshin Ellian has a known bias, but again, he is not Wilders and does not agree with the guy regularly. He's more a CDA slave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

So Wilders went to London today...

https://img706.imageshack.us/img706/...ct16182713.jpg

---

You realize, I hope, that these people belong to a crackpot fringe movement, right? There are, like, 5 of them and three times as many journalists :laugh4:

Afshin Ellian has a known bias, but again, he is not Wilders and does not agree with the guy regularly. He's more a CDA slave.


Maybe he is a little bit biased, I guess being tortured does that to a person, but a CDA slave huh, how would you react if I called the left Islam-lovers, I would be closer to the truth then you are. Full agreement isn't a necessity anyway, do you agree with everything the party you vote does, I agree with 50% or so of the PVV, that is more then I agree with the other party's.

just for flavor (to non-dutchies 'gast' means something like 'dude' even if it means guest linguistically)
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments

You are jewish if I remember correctly, this is what you are defending.

geenstijl, that's your source?!

Source for that very clip, but Geenstijl is much more reliable then newspapers at least they dig instead of typing over what the ANP gives them. I take my news from Geenstijl and Elsevier yeah. De Volkskrant has improved though, I'll give them that, took them only two weeks to write something about climate-gate while the others are still having a writers-block.

Geenstijl is just fun, the stijllozen are smart, well informed and well educated, when you look past the juvenile style of the team you will find great discussions in the comments.

I'm not defending anything. Rather, I'm opposing this ludicrous man and his insane plans.

EDIT: GeenStijl was intelligent 5 years ago. I don't know how you put up with all the idiots on the site today as well as the Telegraaf-copy the editors have since created. It's pretty much a worthless site these days. And to say newspapers "copy ANP"... :laugh4: Read something intelligent like the NRC will ya

awesome opinion piece on the foolishness of trying a man for speaking the truth:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ed...not-far-right/

Geert Wilders is not 'far Right'

By Ed West World Last updated: January 30th, 2010

Like my colleague Douglas Murray, who has already written an excellent post on the show trial of the century, I’ve been surprised by the lack of British media interest in Geert Wilders’s martyrdom in Amsterdam. An American minor celebrity only has to fart to receive blanket coverage in the British press, but when a major politician next door faces jail on trumped-up charges – in a case that will have implications for our freedom of speech – there seems to be little interest.

For those who haven’t visited these parts, Wilders is a Dutch politician on trial for “insulting” Islam by comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf, and for saying that Moroccans commit many street robberies in the Netherlands. Yes, put on trial – not fisked or twitter-lynched or condemned by the Equality Gestapo, but actually brought to court. Wilders calls it “surreal”, and it certainly seems strange that in a city where a gentleman can smoke Morocco’s most famous export and view half-naked women in shop windows, he can go to jail for criticising a religion.

What Americans – or anyone else who’s somehow missed Europe’s slide towards diversity authoritarianism – will find so strange is that it’s not even the truth of Wilder’s statement on trial. Comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf is daft – the Koran can be used for evil intent, and does justify violence in many passages, but it can, and has, also inspired much good; Mein Kampf is just plain evil. But this is a country with a long tradition of robust public debate, often of a comically abusive nature, and especially so about religion. It is part of the Dutch tradition of freedom that makes it such a pleasant society.

As for what he says about Moroccans, it is factually correct, but as one of the prosecutors said before the trial: “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.

How can the country that produced Spinoza have become so retarded? It all began with the Nazis, or more specifically with Holocaust denial, which was criminalised by France in 1990. It was an absurdly stupid law, since the number of Europeans who don’t believe the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews could probably fit inside David Irving’s living room, but it was the thin end of the wedge. Laws gagging neo-Nazis were soon extended to views that were unpleasant, bigoted or, increasingly, just unfashionable and offensive, as the band of acceptable opinions in Eutopia became ever smaller. Wilders is unfashionable, certainly, but his ideas are not beyond the pale.

Alongside the criminalisation of thought crime, those within the consensus have made their opponents’ views verboten by labeling dissenters as “racist” or “Islamophobic” or comparing them to Hitler, as the Dutch media did repeatedly with Pim Fortuyn up until the day he was murdered.

Another abused term is “far-Right”, a label that the British and American media routinely apply to Geert Wilders.

The European far-Right has certain characteristics – as well as being obsessed with race, it is anti-big business, pro-state intervention, pro-worker’s rights but anti-Communist, nostalgic about the countryside and often sentimental about animals, politically paranoid and prone to conspiracy theories, anti-gay, anti-American and, most of all, anti-Semitic Zionist (just as it used to be against “cosmopolitans” and “foreign intellectuals”).

The British National Party, for instance, though not “fascist” in any meaningful sense, is undoubtedly far-Right, which is most clearly demonstrated by its attitude to America and capitalism. The extreme Right is economically closer to the Left than it is to the centre-Right, but, whatever several of my colleagues believe, it is still Right-wing (not that most BNP voters give a monkey’s either way).

Wilders’ Freedom Party is not in any sense ‘far-Right”, as its own policy statement makes:

The Party for Freedom combines economic liberalism with a conservative programme towards immigration and culture. The party seeks tax cuts (€16 billion in the 2006 election programme), de-centralization, abolishment of the minimum wage, limiting of child benefits and government subsidies. Towards immigration and culture, the party believes that the Judeo-Christian and humanist traditions should be treated as the dominant culture in the Netherlands, and that immigrants should adapt accordingly. The party wants a halt to immigration from non-western countries. It is skeptical towards the EU project, is against future EU enlargement with countries like Turkey and opposes the presence of Islam in the Netherlands. The party is also opposed to dual citizenship.

The ambiguity of the penultimate sentence is disturbing, but otherwise the party comes from the European mainstream, specifically the centre-Right tradition. Wilders simply believes that becoming a minority in one’s major cities because everyone is too embarrassed to offend anyone by raising the issue is taking northern European shyness a bit far.

Now even the Dutch establishment has downgraded him from “far-Right” to “radical Right”, barely less loony-sounding, but a start. According to Dutch News:

Geert Wilders’ political movement PVV is not an extreme right wing party but contains some radical right wing elements, according to a report into radicalisation in the Netherlands by Tilburg University research group IVA.

PVV statements on ‘islamisation’ and non-western immigrants appear to be discriminatory and the party organisation is authoritarian rather than democratic, the researchers say.

The researchers, who were looking into polarisation and radicalism across the Netherlands, describe the PVV as ‘new radical right’, a party with a national democratic ideology but without extreme right wing roots. In particular, the party’s pro-Israel stance shows it is not neo Nazi, the report states.

Nevertheless, the PVV has a preference for ‘the familiar’ and turns against things which are ‘foreign’ and its political opponents, the report said. This, coupled with an authoritarian tendency show it leans towards a national democratic ideology. And on the internet, for example, the party is a magnet for extreme views, the researchers point out.

Wilders himself called the new description “scandalous”, and I hardly blame him, since Encylopaedia.com describes “radical Right” in unflattering terms:

The radical right is a term applied in the United States to sociopolitical movements and political factions and parties that develop in response to supposed threats against American values and interests. Such backlashes usually stem from rapid social or economic change that sparks a reaction among groups seeking to maintain or narrow lines of power and privilege.

They justify their actions by discounting the legitimacy of their opponents, seeing them as agents of an un-American conspiracy not deserving of political respect or constitutional protection.

Discounting the legitimacy of their opponents and viewing them as not deserving of respect or legal protection – sounds awfully familiar from this side of the Atlantic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Read something intelligent like the NRC will ya

---

I have the Herald Tribune and Le Figaro for that thank you very much, they have a slant but dutch newspapers are a joke, Telegraaf is the only one that does journalism and it does it very very poorly. I will gladly continue to get my news from Geenstijl and Elsevier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

or twitter-lynched...Equality Gestapo...Eutopia

---

wat

The Telegraaf... you gotta be kidding me. Shiny color pictures and screaming headlines for those with a short attention span. You disappoint me, reading that. The Volkskrant has a clear bias, that much is obvious, but the NRC is basically the country's best newspaper, hands down.

GeenStijl used to be a witty and funny place with an opinion entirely its own where ordinary journalism was satirized in an intelligent way, but that hasn't been the case in many years. Now it's just your average Telegraaf ripoff, it even has the ALLCAPS headlines these days. And then the patrons... ugh. No thanks. At least I read something interesting in my daily papers every now and then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

wat

---

Get an audience that cheers for that or get the hell out of my thread, I have no use here for what is absolutely normal.

"The Volkskrant has a clear bias"

They have improved, much more balanced lately. NRC is good for book and movie reviews I'll give them that.

edit; read some French or English/American newspapers and you will see the difference, soooooooo poor here.

edit, are you the same person that posted there by the way

Just watched that video about the zany lefty folks and the crazy Moroccan dude who loves us Jews so much.

I still don't see why stuff like this warrants a ban on the Qur'an, a stop to all immigration, extremely stringent policy only to certain groups of people (*cough*Muslims*cough*) and other retarded things Wilders has blurted out over the years. You see, that's the difference between me and Wilders, and I gather between you and me, Frag. I don't see this and go "oh my that must mean every last one of them is an antisemite with the IQ of a Brussels sprout" let alone that I conclude from that that we need to act right now and in an repressive way to save an extremely limited view on Dutch/Western culture.

EDIT: In short, I pick option E, 'cause that's what'll happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Just watched that video about the zany lefty folks and the crazy Moroccan dude who loves us Jews so much.

---

Trust me I know a lot of them, and they don't exactly look kindly upon you lot, I had a Maroc girl for a while, nice people until you scratch the surface, and then it turns really really ugly. They hate your guts, also the moderate ones.