http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258473846504459.html
This will fly in their face like a deus-ex machina from hell. Silly lefties :2thumbsup:
Printable View
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258473846504459.html
This will fly in their face like a deus-ex machina from hell. Silly lefties :2thumbsup:
' The Dutch MP and leader of the Freedom Party, which opposes Muslim immigration into Holland, will stand trial soon for his harsh criticism of Islam. '
I support free speech and there are limits. When such comments come from a Nazi sympathizer Anti-Arab Anti-Muslim their motives are to the least suspicious and therefore should be thrown into the bin of history...
...surprise surprise he has the same unconditional love of Israel like you.
Fragony, since you yourself are an Anti-Arab without a cause do you really think we need to go through another twenty pages of what happened through the Gaza thread? You are practically quoting a real life troll and nothing good can come out of it.
Not Good!
There are so many ways liberties come under assault and for political extremes (left or right) control of speech is very significant.
It is scary what control hate speech laws have, and what it may lead to.
Interesting perspective, Rasoforos. Opinions with which you disagree, even outright trolls as you claim this gentleman to be, aren't entitled to protection? Any chance you could publish a list of 'approved thought-speak' for the rest of us? :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
It's kinda cute how you think that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
Let him speak freely , his much hyped "masterpiece" was widely acclaimed as a pathetic joke .
Let the :daisy: show himself for what he is a widely as possible .
Though I would suggest he change the parties name , maybe follow the example of somewhere like N.Korea and call it the intelligent nice honest non-bigot freedom democracy party
That was the idea to begin with, and yes I know I dated his secretary. Wilders never asked for any publicity at, movie was never supposed to be that much. And it didn't do much, what's the problem, nobody cares here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Wilders is a Nazi sympathizer? Then why would he compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and mean it as an insult?:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
Because if you can't make a real arguement about someone, its much easier to call them a nazi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Silencing islam critics?
I do believe this is a case of silencing the deranged.
Not that I am a fan of that though. Insane people have a lot to offer society too, and as long we're aware of that insanity, all should be well.
Hey! You should really apply for a PR-job for the Israeli government, Dave! :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Wilders never asked for any publicity
Yes Frag , Wilders made a film that he didn't want the public to see , he also sought lots of screening so the public couldn't see , he also makes speeches that he doesn't want the public to hear , he even had to change his film and rerelease it because of some really silly mistakes and breaches of copyright which unchaged would have meant the people couldn't see his film .:dizzy2:
So in Frags book someone who (even without the making of a film to publicise his views) took up public office and started his own political party to express his views to a national and international audience doesn't want publicity
Oh I get what you mean though , he did refuse one screening because the people that were offering to show his film insisted that he had to take part in a debate .
Unfortunately for the public Wilders doesn't like real debate , which is funny for someone who thinks its good to talk .
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to insult.
He has stated that "it [Islam] is a totalitarian ideology", and thus in his eyes all Muslims are a threat to the West. Pathetic.
It may very well be pathetic, but is it criminal? Over here in the U.S. it would not be. And I kind of wonder if criminalizing distasteful speech is a super-duper bad idea.
It is criminal indeed. He is discriminating muslims, which goes directly against Article 4 of the Dutch Constitution which states that every single person has freedom of religion. He is pushing the Muslims in a corner.Quote:
It may very well be pathetic, but is it criminal? Over here in the U.S. it would not be. And I kind of wonder if criminalizing distasteful speech is a super-duper bad idea.
"Tear out half of the Koran if you wish to enter this country"
Idiots say dumb things. It's not a crime.
If he had said the same about christians there would be nary a peep. See thats why I like France. At least they keep everything equal instead of catering to the group thats the most "scary" .
Noooo….that wouldn’t be a bad idea…so long as it is your side who gets to say which is good or which is bad…Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
But you may not like it too much if the other side gets to pick and choose!
Once you outlaw one kind of speech it gets easier to silence the opposition…good for the government twerps, but bad for the people!
:thumbsdown:
I haven't read the article.... may have been the silly lefties line that put me off slightly...
But completely free speech doesn't work, inciting violence for example...
People should have the right to say whatever they want, and you should the right to ignore or laugh at them whenever you want.
So are you advocating banning the Quran then?:idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Ba Dum Tish
So are you advocating banning the Bible then?Quote:
So are you advocating banning the Quran then?:idea2:
Where does it tell us to kill infidels in the Bible? :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Have you read either? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
How is a random guy yelling "Islam is totalitarian" preventing another random guy to be a Muslim?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
:inquisitive:
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand how he's doing this. He is criticizing Islam, yes, and he's being unfair and kind of dickish about it, but how is that discrimination? How is that infringing on anyone's right to religion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Are you allowed to say that the Catholic Church went out of its way to protect pedophile priests? Or is that pushing Catholics into a corner? Are you allowed to say that Scientology is frickin' insane? Are you allowed to say that Jewish girls are super-freaks in bed?
Where do you draw the line? As far as I can read, this guy wasn't saying, "Please kill a muslim!" which would be incitement to violence. He's just criticizing the religion itself. Where are you gonna go if you ban that? What kind of discourse can you have if you criminalize criticism?
Remember, the law is a blunt instrument, and while this guy may be an unsympathetic character, who else will such a law be used on? How about the weed-smoking dude who teaches comparative religion 101? If he says something critical about Islam, should he be imprisoned?
Umm . . . why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Ajax
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Have you read either?
Verily the lord did order his followers to do lots of slaughter and mightily did a fair few genocides himself .
So the question is..... Have you yourself read either ?
Well being a Muslim has something to do with following scripture doesn't it , since this idiot wants to ban the scripture then he is intending banning the religion isn't he which kinda prevents some random guy being a Muslim .Quote:
How is a random guy yelling "Islam is totalitarian" preventing another random guy to be a Muslim?
Actually Dave its very easy to make a real arguement comparing Wilders to a Nazi .Quote:
Because if you can't make a real arguement about someone, its much easier to call them a nazi.
Crazy nationalist .
Banning books .
Wants internment without trial .
Wants citizenship removed from citizens on the grounds of their religion .
Removal of human rights from some humans .
Blames all the ills of his country on a religiously specific group , a degenerate poilitical ideology that is part of a worldwide conspiracy and an erosion of the true teutonic culture...sorry that last bit should be dutch culture .
Beware the nutty Wilders or we shall have clog booted nationalists marching along the canalside .... or alternatively you could just laugh at the idiot for being a pillock .
My apologies, I spoke rashly and semi-angrily.
I will step down from this discussion for a while.
:bow:
2 Kings 11: 18-30Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Probably other spots....
Looks like an angry mob killing a priest to me, which is rather different from the overt commands of 9:123, 9:73, and 48:29.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Come on be fair Seamus , sometimes killing the unbelievers just ain't enough . For example even after Josiah had done the big slaughter and then burnt the unbelievers bones on the altars god still wasn't happy because the unbelievers had really made god very very angry .
Evil_Maniac From Mars probably should have specified New Testament. Of the big 3, only Jews and Muslims should be killing people for religious purposes. ~D
Ya.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
This mia muca's is what we call political prosecution, and this mia muca's will earn him at least 5 more seats in the parlement. I don't agree with Wilders he is blaming the wrong people, but he got me vote, because things like this. The lefties are doing exactly what I want them to do, abusing the system. It has been noted. http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mod_pe....cgi?wilders&1
Oh, and actually calling for violence, here is PM Harry van Bommel, naturally a member of the socialist party, actually calling for violence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23bM...eature=related
Of course not prosecuted.
Try Samuel: Saul gets into trouble with God for not killing everyone.
What about the New Testament, as mentioned above? If anyone knows, it will be you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Oh, and actually calling for violence, here is PM Harry van Bommel, naturally a member of the socialist party, actually calling for violence.
Come of Frag last time you said he was calling for gassing the jews .:dizzy2:
at least this time you actually got him saying something instead of a couple of other muppets shouting at the back of a crowd .
So tell me oh wise one what does intifada mean ?
It really doesn't matter. Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Because the sane christians focus on "the good parts", ie. the parts that tell you to be nice, and not kill others. Just like the sane muslims focus on the parts that tell them to be kind, and ignore the violent stuff.
The nutters do the opposite though, in both religions.
Well, if you have faith, then it should matter, you have to follow scripture you see and so it must be interpreted to the best of one's ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yes, but as I said, you pick and choose. The sane focus on "the good parts", and explain away the brutal stuff. The insane focus on the brutal stuff, and explain away the good parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
No I didn't that are the people on the background cheering, he said he didn't hear it. Which is of course a lie it can easily be heard. Do bear in mind that Janmaat was succesfully prosecuted for exactly the same thing, people on the background. Why isn't van Bommel prosecuted for calling for violence? Some imam's call for violence. Aren't prosecuted. Wilders never called for violence. Yet Wilders is prosecuted. Double standard, activist judges screw the law we crave. It's fine really, Wilders absolutely annihilates lefties when they actually have to debate each and every time. People see that. Lefties may have the media and the law but Wilders got the point and this will gain him a lot of additional votes, nobody likes bullies. Goodbye Lenin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
So are you advocating banning the Quran then?
No, nor the bible either... though you raise a good point dave should we allow these religious books filled with hate and violence, i think yes but obviously some people think differently...
I meant the "being allowed to say what you want" thingie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Wilders should be allowed to say that Islam is a totalitarian religion that should be banned. He should be allowed to say whatever he wants.
Simplified example:
Andres : "Tribesman should not be allowed to drink beer!"
Tribesman : "Bollox!" ***drinks another beer and ignores the yelling muppet***
Some people in The Hague are going to have to come to grips with this freedom of opinion thingy and pass a better law, regardless of their view of mr Wilders.
The Amsterdam court ruling is ridiculous. It is not the court's duty to defend any particular political view on integration. Most ridiculous of all is the passage in the ruling where it says that 'parts of the Muslim creed are at odds with Dutch and European values'. Who the hell are these judges to pass a verdict on an entire religion?
Our blasphemy law (privileged protection from criticism for all religions) should be scrapped, our laws against incitement should be rewritten to focus on incitement to violence and scrap any allusion to incitement in the wider sense.
So long as the “lefty judges” (your term not mine) don’t ignore his words and lock him up, a good long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It is hard to say you are the rhetorical winner when you loose your liberty.
I do not see either side as being RIGHT.
They both are trying to limit the freedom and liberties of the other to one extent or the other.
Two wrongs still don’t make a right!
But I suppose you will get stupid solutions for stupid problems…
Appeasement will not stop militantisam and stifling free speech will not assure liberty or justice.
Glad I’m not Dutch!
Good luck Fragony…
The feeling is mutual, probably. We don' t usually lock up people for their views or hair-do's and I like to think that we want to keep it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
and some how I do????:inquisitive:
It is just a tough situation that I am glad we don’t yet face in the country I am in…
Now that is a law I could support!Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
5 years in the slammer for hair like this seems more than appropriate to me.
Good grief! That looks more like ten years of hard labour to me..Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Keep in mind that the court only ruled that Wilders ought to be prosecuted. Public prosecution refused to waste time on this, so a couple of people who didn't like Wilders decided to go court to force it. The judges probably figured that since it's not an actual conviction, caving in to sentiments from a rather vocal minority couldn't possibly hurt.
Our legislation seriously needs to be rewritten to rule out such idiotic prosecutions in the future.
I thought you wanted Wilders locked away for a 'good long time'. If I misunderstood you, I apologise. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Errrrrrr.....Because he didn't .Quote:
Why isn't van Bommel prosecuted for calling for violence?
Errrrrr....was Wilders prosecuted for calling for violence ?Quote:
Wilders never called for violence. Yet Wilders is prosecuted.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Wilders absolutely annihilates lefties when they actually have to debate each and every time.
What you mean is people like you who describe themselves as far right nationalists see that because his silly views mesh with theirs so they think he is right with his arguements , even though anyone else who doesn't have your muslims muslims muslims fixation who is actually looking at his debates sees a silly idiot on a rant .Quote:
People see that.
Sorry if how I expressed my feelings was confusing to some…or all.:smash:
:sweatdrop:
What I meant was:
No one should be locked up just for holding a particular view.
Activist Judges pushing a particular political agenda are a danger to all, no matter what their views.
Just because you happen to support the same thing today is no guarantee that it will be so tomorrow.
Taking a short sighted view for political expediency bodes ill for your future.
Stifling decent is not exactly a hallmark of liberty and freedom.
It is not something that can waite to be corrected. If not done at once the dammage may be irreparable.
Wilders is no extremist not his fault that the press only wants to talk about the islam. And yes he absolutely annihilates his opponents in debate, Wilders doesn't play within the framework makes their brain malfunction. So all they can do is demonising him and hoping that another carrotmuncher will snap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Thats funny , I just watched one of his exchanges and he was easily ripped apart on just about everything he said during the 20 minute discussion .Quote:
And yes he absolutely annihilates his opponents in debate,
yep, uh-huh. islamphobe islamphobe islamphobe ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
How come you speak dutch by the way?
Intriguing question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
By the way, for all the criticism of Wilders' film, the anti-Wilders-films are just as foolish. It seems as if everything he gets into contact with turns into excrement, even his critics.
Don't say you haven't been warned, guys.. :wink3:
Is there a law against it ?Quote:
How come you speak dutch by the way?
Perhaps a genius like Wilders can invent one .
Then again according to him for every new law made two laws must be abolished right because the Netherlands has too many laws :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The concept of eliminating two ill-considered laws for each new one is not bad!
The trouble comes when politicians decide which two to abolish!!!:smash:
:laugh4:
Oh common gimme, it's so unusual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Van Bommel did call for an intifada. His declaration afterwards that he took intifada to mean "civil disobedience" wasn't taken seriously by anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I think Fragony already mentioned Janmaat. About 10 years ago he was convicted because other people yelled xenophobic stuff in a march. The reasoning was that since he didn't distance himself from it, he could be held responsible for it as if he had said it himself.
While Van Bommel was shouting "intifada" in that march, there were people behind him yelling that jews ought to be gassed. He claimed he didn't hear it, wich I find hard to believe because the camera in front of him recorded the chanting behind him perfectly fine.
It's less certain wether Janmaat would have been convicted for the same thing today, and I certainly don't think Van Bommel will be.
Very heavy mistranslations, the movie completely misinterprated the Qur'an and so did Wilders.
Movie is just a compilation of images that were filmed by people who apparently misinterpetated the Qur'an as well. Maybe they do maybe they don't not my problem either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
The potential for improper translation is the reason why, if I recall correctly, it is Islamic doctrine that the Qur'an should not be translated, but that a seeker of knowledge should acquire the language skills necessary to learn from it in the original form. Am I right in suggesting this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
Not necessarily. The Qur'an can be translated in any language, as long as the translations are accurate and precise, with no fabrications and snippets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Which means it can't be translated. Or more likely, it depends on the how many soldiers are controlled by the person evaluating the translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
What does intifada mean ?Quote:
Van Bommel did call for an intifada.
So simple:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
He claimed he didn't hear it, wich I find hard to believe because the camera in front of him recorded the chanting behind him perfectly fine.
the camera was in front of him and it recorded what was behind him .
errrrrr......which way do a humans ears point ? what were the people next to his ears shouting ?
So Fenring what do psychoacoustics and auditory masking mean ?
If you find something hard to believe you must have some basis for it eh
If you have no basis then you are just pissing into the wind .:yes:
Almost Seamus , its not that it shouldn't be translated its that translations have no real standing .Quote:
The potential for improper translation is the reason why, if I recall correctly, it is Islamic doctrine that the Qur'an should not be translated
Another, academic, point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
What is more important: The literal definition of a word; how it is perceived; or the actions that result from it?
Jihad!
An important point .Quote:
Another, academic, point.
Since he condemned violence both by the Israelis and Palestinians does his use of the word mean he supports the violent version of intifada which he had just condemned or the non-violent version of intifada ?
He wasn't wrong of course, IIRC it means "uprising" or something along those lines. But the vast majority of people associate the word with violence. He claims that he didn't intend that particular meaning, and instead claims to have been an incredible jackass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Yes, I'm aware of the argument. I just think it's far, far more probable that he did hear and didn't care.Quote:
So simple:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
the camera was in front of him and it recorded what was behind him .
errrrrr......which way do a humans ears point ? what were the people next to his ears shouting ?
So Fenring what do psychoacoustics and auditory masking mean ?
If you find something hard to believe you must have some basis for it eh
If you have no basis then you are just pissing into the wind .:yes:
It was nice to see Gretta Duisenberg again in the news though, and without putting her own foot in her mouth this time.
EDIT: to clarify, I don't think anything Van Bommel did is worthy of punishment.
The ignorance surrounding it. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
If freedom of speech does not extend to and past the speech used by Wilders, to protect that which everyone may consider vulgar, improper, and offensive, it is meaningless.
CR
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
As long as we can ban certain hair-do's, I'm all OK with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Like Bill Maher once brilliantly put it: "I always say that Islam is a religion of peace, otherwise they'll kill me."
If that's true then he can build a case for the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Ignorance is the enemy of us all, my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
An important lesson Vlad .Quote:
If that's true then he can build a case for the latter.
When a certain person makes claims concering some politicians , police , laws and religions it is fairly safe to work on the assumption that what they have written probably is not really true , also when they provide a link to a news story and tell you what it says it is better to read it because there is a high probability that it doesn't actually say what they claim it does .
His video is at the end.
http://ezralevant.com/2009/01/hollan...cide-note.html
Very tame. Oh well such is appeasement.
I read your article Strike, and have a couple of points:
Absolutely not. Wilders has many views wich have nothing to do with liberalism, the foremost being that he wants to ban books. The man is a reactionary populist.Quote:
Wilders is a....radical liberal
This is a reasonable point, sort of. It's about time a court establishes in an actual criminal procedure that what Wilders did isn't punishable, one of the benefits being that it actually sends out a signal unlike simple non-prosecution. If only I were so confident.Quote:
(from the court publication) According to the Court of Appeal the instigation of hatred in a democratic society constitutes such a serious matter that a general interest is at stake in order to draw a clear boundary in the public debate.
It's extremely unlikely that if punishment follows, it will be worse than a fine of maybe a couple of hundred bucks. Wilders would go on as he were but with a badge of "martyrhood". I expect that he's very happy with the way things are going so far.Quote:
What a disgusting victory for fascism and censorship and Muslim fundamentalism.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Perhaps they're trying to run him out of town like they did Ayan Hirsi Ali.
(and I'm not laughing because it's a witty comparison)
Wilders' prosecution is perfectly justified. To compare a natural disaster with the immigration of people who want to build up a future in this country is disgusting.
Think about this one: if I said that social-democracy is a vile ideology, would I be prosecuted? Would enough people feel personally insulted to make that happen?