Geert Wilders, the racist, anti-Muslim, Islamophobic Dutch politician is upping the anti-Islam rhetoric in the face of his incitement to hate trial. Wilders and his supporters and patrons claim that Wilders is not a racist and that his trial is an attack on free speech. One thing for sure though is that Wilders is definitely a racist:
Recently, Wilders, in a bid to get more attention attacked the Prophet Muhammad in an article using tired and old Orientalist/Christian missionary arguments that Muhammad suffered from “schizophrenia” (Did Wilders travel back in time with a psychiatrist to evaluate Muhammad?), and other baseless claims that we have grown accustomed to from the anti-Muslim crowd.
The Telegraph (Conservative UK paper) reported on Geert Wilders’ increased anti-Islam rhetoric though they failed miserably in critiquing the haters Wilders cited in his Muhammad article, even calling them “academics”:
The leader of hard-Right Dutch Freedom Party will be prosecuted in an Amsterdam court on April 13 for previous comparisons of Islam to Nazism.
On Thursday he fuelled the controversy surrounding his anti-Muslim politics and trial by publishing an article citing academics who accuse Islam’s founder of crimes ranging from child rape to murder.
Who are some of the “academics” Wilders cites?
Ali Sina: He is familiar to most of us as a nobody, rabid anti-Muslim polemicist, a far less popular male version of Pamela Geller. He believes Muslims are “satan worshippers” who follow a “demon prophet,” and that Muslims have “sold their soul to Satan” and therefore are “destined for hell.”
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Her claim to fame is that she believes “Muslims rape children” and that Muslims are “destroying Austrian culture.”
Theophanes: Byzantine Christian from the late 8th and early 9th centuries, venerated as a saint. No bias there?
Masud Ansari: An Iranian dissident who claims to hold a BA in Law, an MA in Political Science and claims to have received his doctorate in “hypnotherapy” from what was then known as American Pacific University (now Kona University) which specializes in “distance learning.” His book “Psychology of Mohammed” carries an illustration on its cover that shows a Qur’an with a bloodied sword superimposed over it.
Not biased in the least I suppose?
These individuals are either hard core anti-Muslims with racist tendencies or ancient individuals, as in the case of Theophanes, who not only has been dead for a while but also had an axe to grind against Islam and Muslims, considering the waning power of Byzantium and the rise of Muslim power at the time.
The Telegraph goes on to mention that Wilders’ hate incitement trial will move forward:
In a ruling on Wednesday, an Amsterdam court ruled that Dutch prosecutors were entitled to indict Mr Wilders, if found guilty, he could face up to a year in jail or a £6,700 fine.
First off it does not matter to most people what Wilders says or does, they recognize that free speech, even that of a cretin such as Wilders is important and insures their own liberty, which ironically many Islamophobes hypocritically seek to curtail. Secondly, this underscores the point that Wilders is a demagogic inspiration for racists, neo-Nazis and virulent anti-Muslim groups that are a true danger to the freedom, peace and security of our societies. What Wilders is doing is similar to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater (if not worse). In this scenario, the theater is filled with mostly scared, disgruntled and angry White Europeans, neo-Nazis, EDL and SIOE types and Wilders is yelling “the Mooslims! They’re heeree!” Finally, if there is a strong argument that he is inciting violence or harm he can be tried so as to reduce the harm he potentially may inflict upon Dutch/European society.
However, as we have stated previously no matter what the outcome of any trial, Wilders is already guilty in the court of public perception.
*Update: First of all I want to express my gratitude to Danios, Rousseau, and Inconnu who graciously brought up their point of view on free speech, its value and protection. Upon revisiting my sentence, I can see how it may be misinterpreted and also how my own evaluation of the context of the case was askew.
We have to be clear that free speech is invaluable, it is something we take for granted that once lost is hard to regain. If Wilders’ trial is merely about his despicable, repellent, offensive statements and ideas then I for one think it should not go forward. I also agree with Mosizzle’s point that we don’t want to make Wilders out to be a martyr, I would add that we also wouldn’t want an unintended consequence of this case to be increased poll ratings. An important distinction however would be if the issue at hand is not concerning the above, but rather incitement to hate and violence– I believe a case can be made on these grounds.
The profound irony, as pointed out by some is that Wilders himself infringes on free speech by calling for the banning of the Quran, yet fancies himself a warrior for free speech. Lastly, I will say free speech is not absolute, and the deeper conversation (which goes beyond the space afforded here) is how do we walk the fine line of preventing harm and violence while at the same time not infringing or taking away from our civil liberties? In our increasingly complex world answers to that question are not so simple.
April 7th, 2011 at 10:31 am
Islamophobe quoting Islamophobes, very “fair and balanced”.
April 7th, 2011 at 10:41 am
LW, you guys should host this article. It’s almost as if it was written by one of you.
http://www.alternet.org/story/150444/welcome_to_the_shari'ah_conspiracy_theory_industry_?page=entire
April 7th, 2011 at 10:46 am
that’s a very light sentence.:(
April 7th, 2011 at 10:48 am
WTF???
April 7th, 2011 at 11:33 am
What a paltry sum to be fined for hate speech. They should add some zeroes to the number-
April 7th, 2011 at 11:34 am
Don’t sentence him to jail. Instead, sentence him to be dropped off right in the middle of Waziristan. He won’t last a year there.
April 7th, 2011 at 11:43 am
LOL @ Jacque, haha. I actually think he might “assimilate” to the Waziri culture. You know, whilst in Rome do as the Romans do or other such platitudes Wilders is fond of.
I am waiting for the days that his poll numbers start dipping, hopefully that happens soon enough, as people figure out that old blondie is actually full of BS…or if that doesn’t work, did you know he was part Indonesian?
April 7th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Gandhi said that the Prophet Muhammad has been “almost uniformly maligned and abused in the West”. Wilders is just carrying on this long tradition of attacking the character of the Prophet in order to “liberate” the Muslims from Islam. Medieval Christians called him the anti-Christ and said that Islam will last 666 years.
To me, Wilders’ ramblings seem to borrow heavily from Sina’s writings. The aim is to shock and deceive. Those Westerners who know little about the Prophet will believe the baseless accusations and many Muslims aren’t prepared enough to answer back if they are asked about them.
I have mixed feelings about the trial. No one wants to see him turned into a martyr for his cause.
April 7th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
So Wilders is accusing the Prophet of being schizophrenic? My wife has been a mental health nurse for nearly a quarter of a century, and in all that time, she has never met a schizophrenic who transformed an entire society and inspired the birth of one of the great human civilizations and faith-traditions. But she has nursed people who with personality disorders, and come to the attention of psychiatric services when they get depressed, a consequence of the mayhem they generally leave in their wake. People like Wilders, in other words – except for the depressed bit.
April 7th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
“Ali Sina: He is familiar to most of us as a nobody, rabid anti-Muslim polemicist, a far less popular male version of Pamela Geller. He believes Muslims are “satan worshippers” who follow a “demon prophet,” and that Muslims have “sold their soul to Satan” and therefore are “destined for hell.”
Ali Sina was actually the precursor to madmen like hugh fitzgerald and monsters like Robert Spencer. Ali Sina comforts the anti-muslim bigots because he is the “ex-Muslim”, the insider who confirms to worst libels against Muslims. It was Ali Sina for example who began the taqqiya libel.
Ali Sina has at least the merit of being honest about his genocidal hatred for Muslims (unlike Robert Spencer), here are some choice quotes:
“I don’t see Muslims as innocent people. They are all guilty as sin. It is not necessary to be part of al Qaida to be guilty. If you are a Muslim you agree with Muhammad and that is enough evidence against you.”
“Muslims are liars by nature. Muslims are the followers of Satan and they lie instinctively. They blatantly and shamelessly lie the way Muhammad instructed them to do.”
“Are Muslims Humans? ”
This stuff is extreme but is becoming mainstream before our very eyes. Unfortunately, as happens often with anti-muslim bigots, they are not taken seriously and especially by Muslims. Case in point, there are actually Muslims still debating Ali Sina on this or that hadith!
That this is a person praised by Wilders should tell you all you need to know.
April 7th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
@Yakoub
Im glad you brought this up. I remember having a discussion with my cousin (who is a psychiatrist) about the accusations about the prophet (pbuh) being schizophrenic. I myself am a medical student and have spent time with and evaluated schizophrenic patients. We both just basically laughed at these accusations because schizophrenia is a debilitating illness and they have enough trouble functioning as a normal citizen in society. For these islamophobes to accuse the prophet (pbuh), who served as a leader, teacher, general, etc. just shows that they will say anything and go to any lengths to malign him.
April 7th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
I have a question! Is geert a giant? Or is Spencer a fat hairy dwarf?
Both clearly mental midgets. One word for plastic pam, GRAVITY.
Ali sina has been proved a liar and his pathetic challenge has been debunked!
Yet he still has it on his website and claims to be an academic!
April 7th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
I don’t care very much for hate speech laws. Prosecuting people for mere words is a tad extreme-even if what they’re saying is disgusting nonsense. Nonsense is best exposed in the public sphere through rigorous debates. The social stigma of being racist, bigoted idiot ought to be enough. Still, in the case of Wilders I’ll make an exception.
This man is politician who advocates the forcible deportation of Muslims, the opening of Guantanamo style prisons in the Netherlands. He wants to deprive Muslims of their religious freedoms and pass laws specifically designed to humiliate them. In short, he wants to treat Muslims as second class citizens.
Now if he was some Internet crackpot like Ali Sinna we’d ignore him but he could potentially form a coalition government and implement some of these policies. This is why support these hearings. Wilders poses a serious threat to the safety of Musims in the Netherlands and he must be stopped. The less people like him in politics the better.
April 7th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
That’s “surprising,” yet another anti-Islam book written by someone who has nothing but hatred and contempt for Islam and Muslims. It appears to be a rip-off of Ali Sina’s farce of a book — or is it the other way around? It’s rather creepy how these loons are increasingly sounding the same, incessantly regurgitating the same tired old stuff.
April 7th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
I console myself with the knowledge that history is moving our way. Politicians like Wilders are gaining ground and support, and eventually they will spring up all over Europe, and they will come to power. And then arrogant liars and stealth-jihadists like yourselves will be forcefully deported back to the Sharia hell-holes from whence you came. And you will have only yourselves to blame.
April 7th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Ben
You do realise not every supporter of Islam comes from a “Sharia hell-hole”, right?
April 7th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
So Ben believes that Muslims should be forcefully deported. Why am I not surprised. Often the very people that complain of the barbarity of Sharia law call for barbaric treatment of people they don’t like.
But history is moving our way Ben, because more and more people are realising that dedicated Islamophobes such as Wilders are serious loons. Soon people will mock the Islamophobes of today as they mocked the anti-Semites and racists of the last century. Some day, you too will be mocked for hating people. And you will have only yourself to blame.
April 7th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Thank you Mosizzle,
I was thinking of a way to respond to Ben. Your response is perfect. This guy is actually rejoicing in the mainstreaming of hatred. It never seems to cross the minds of these Islamophobes that many Muslims that he refers to as “arrogant liars” and “stealth-jihadists” are native born citizens of the West. Ad to that the naturalized citizens of the West. It seems he is advocating the deportation of citizens. What country do you deport a Muslim to if s/he is born in the Netherlands. I smell the advocacy of barbaric disproportionate treatment of Muslims on the part of Ben and his fellow Islamophobes such as Wilders.
Allahu A’lam
———————————
“This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant.” (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin ‘Abd al-Rahman al-’Udhri.)
April 7th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Ben the bigot! Just like Amy said not all people are as ignorant as you!
Deport people in your dreams!
April 7th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Thank you Mosizzle,
I was thinking of a way to respond to Ben. Your response is perfect. This guy is actually rejoicing in the mainstreaming of hatred. It never seems to cross the minds of these Islamophobes that many Muslims that he refers to as “arrogant liars” and “stealth-jihadists” are native born citizens of the West. Add to that the naturalized citizens of the West. It seems he is advocating the deportation of citizens. What country do you deport a Muslim to if s/he is born in the Netherlands? I smell the advocacy of barbaric, disproportionate treatment of Muslims on the part of Ben and his fellow Islamophobes such as Wilders.
Allahu A’lam
———————————
“This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant.” (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin ‘Abd al-Rahman al-’Udhri.)
April 7th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Deport where Ben?? We are at home! You silly man you!
April 7th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
‘I was thinking of a way to respond to Ben. Your response is perfect. This guy is actually rejoicing in the mainstreaming of hatred. It never seems to cross the minds of these Islamophobes that many Muslims that he refers to as “arrogant liars” and “stealth-jihadists” are native born citizens of the West. Add to that the naturalized citizens of the West. It seems he is advocating the deportation of citizens. What country do you deport a Muslim to if s/he is born in the Netherlands? I smell the advocacy of barbaric, disproportionate treatment of Muslims on the part of Ben and his fellow Islamophobes such as Wilders.’
It doesn’t matter which plot of land you are born on, it doesn’t make you Dutch because you happen to born in Holland. It’s whats in your heart that counts. And Islam is the complete antithesis of the West. If you haven’t noticed, Islam has been attempting to invade Europe for the past 1400 years. Just because our cowardly leftist politicians have opened the doors to the Muslim invasion does not make you European. I saw an excellent video of a French woman living in a Muslim slum in France. She had been verbally abused, spat on, attacked, had acid thrown in her face, and raped. But she refuses to budge from her little shop. Why? Because in her own words, she was living in occupied territory. Our cowardly politicians may give you jihadists citizenship but you are no more European than I am a Chinaman by moving to China.
April 7th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
So what you’re saying is Ben, that every Muslim is a Jihadist? Oh wait, I forgot you support people like Wilders. Needless to say, you’re an absolute fool.
April 7th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Ben, “It’s whats in your heart that counts”
What if a Muslim loves his country, has no intention of taking it over, intends to abide by its laws and live side-by-side with non-Muslims. Oh yes, according to you he would be doing taqiyya …
Whatever. But the haters and bigots will lose again as they have done throughout the ages. You can cry all you want but that will not change.
I have a tissue if you need it.
April 7th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Ben ia an absolute coward! His frustration cones from the fact he has not got the bollocks to say that to another person in real life. So he expresses the hatred over the net.
I was born in the uk from an immigrant family, ben is not man enough to say what ge typed to a British Muslim!
April 7th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Ben, Muslims aren’t going anywhere. Soon we’ll have your jobs, your women, your house, your kids…better hide under the bed! Muahahahaha…
April 7th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Ben, if you have Dutch citizenship, you’re Dutch. Religion has nothing to do with it. Let me ask you the same question as Muhammad, where do you deport native-born citizens of the Netherlands to?
April 7th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
It doesn’t matter which plot of land you are born on, it doesn’t make you Dutch because you happen to born in Holland. It’s whats in your heart that counts. And Islam is the complete antithesis of the West. If you haven’t noticed, Islam has been attempting to invade Europe for the past 1400 years. Just because our cowardly leftist politicians have opened the doors to the Muslim invasion does not make you European. I saw an excellent video of a French woman living in a Muslim slum in France. She had been verbally abused, spat on, attacked, had acid thrown in her face, and raped. But she refuses to budge from her little shop. Why? Because in her own words, she was living in occupied territory. Our cowardly politicians may give you jihadists citizenship but you are no more European than I am a Chinaman by moving to China.
- Then you obviously don’t know anything about citizenship nor what makes you part of a country, if you think it’s “in the heart”. Citizenship has nothing to do with the heart, and it never did.
Also, being “Dutch” is an ethnicity, not a citizenship, and not something that is “in the heart”. Being a citizen of a country, simply means you are either a legal immigrant, or a natural-born citizen. None of this has anything to do with your values or beliefs, as there are people who are ethnic Dutchman and natural-born citizens that have converted to Islam.
Do you think changing immigration policies is going to stop people from converting to Islam? If so, then you are wrong. You can’t control what people believe nor what religion they choose to follow, and you have no right to do so.
Wilders is a fool and he, together with his followers, are on the wrong side of history.
April 7th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Ben is basically saying that in order for him to accept us as equals, we Muslims have to convert away from Islam (probably preferably to Christianity). Otherwise, we should be subject to his final solution, i.e. ethnically cleansing Western countries of Muslims. He seems to take comfort in believing that one day radical, rightwing politicians will carry out his plans and have us “forcefully deported back to the Sharia hell-holes.” Unlike Spencer, he makes no effort to hide his bigotry, but instead lets it all hang out for the world to see. In his own words, “It’s whats in your heart that counts.”
“And Islam is the complete antithesis of the West.”
The “West” is not a static, monolithic entity. Westerners a few hundred years ago would likely be disgusted at the freedoms enjoyed in modern Europe (although they might have support the recent anti-Islam legislation). Similarly, few Western Europeans, both Jewish and Christian, would have used the term “Judeo-Christian” positively until relatively recently in history. Yet the term has become synonymous with the West, and only because of the Holocaust. Saying something as absurd as “Islam is the complete antithesis of the West” displays a profound ignorance of history, Islam, and the West.
If you haven’t noticed, Islam has been attempting to invade Europe for the past 1400 years.
Is there any Muslim-majority country that is currently invading Europe? Nope.
Muslim polities have made both war and peace with non-Muslims “for the past 1400 years.” Christian states did the same for an even longer period of time. The first Muslim invasion of continental Europe was triggered by Christian Europeans, not Muslims. Visigoth princes encouraged the Muslims to invade Spain for political reasons. Similarly, a Byzantine admiral encouraged the Muslims to invade Sicily. Again, you are displaying your ignorance of history.
April 7th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
“It doesn’t matter which plot of land you are born on, it doesn’t make you Dutch because you happen to born in Holland. It’s whats in your heart that counts.”
What kind of convoluted nonsense is that? The question is about what to do with native born Muslims in the Netherlands. Where do you deport them to? Some of these Dutch Muslims are ethnic Dutch who either were born Muslim or converted to Islam. What happened to rule of law, and religious liberty, and freedom of conscience, ostensibly Western values?
“And Islam is the complete antithesis of the West.”
Absolute nonsense. Maybe if you are unwittingly admitting that Western Civilization is evil
Not that I think it is but that is the only way to make sense of your statement.
In my University there is a mandatory course called “The History of Western Civilization”. Maybe you should find a similar course to take. One of the pillars upon which Western Civilization is built is the contributions of Islamic civilization: The University system you need to enter,the coffee that you drink, the game of chess Westerners love so much, the mathematical science of algebra we send our children to school to learn, all wouldn’t be possible without Islamic Civilization. There are countless more contributions from Islamic Civilization.
“If you haven’t noticed, Islam has been attempting to invade Europe for the past 1400 years.”
What’s your point? Western nations have been invading countries from the inception of Western Civilization. In fact the entire civilization is the result of invasions and appropriations. Which Muslim nation has invaded another nation in the last 100 years. Iraq? A secular(Ba’athist) nation governed by a totalitarian regime. Which majority-Muslim nation has currently and invade a European nation. Every modern Western nation in existence exists as a former or current colonizer( Britain, U.S.,and yes The Netherlands) or as the result of colonization(Australia, New Zealand,etc..)
“Just because our cowardly leftist politicians have opened the doors to the Muslim invasion does not make you European.”
This isn’t about invasions. This is about native born ethnic Dutch Muslims, reverts and born Muslims. Are they citizens or not? Are they to be deported as well? Where should they be deported too?
“I saw an excellent video of a French woman living in a Muslim slum in France. She had been verbally abused, spat on, attacked, had acid thrown in her face, and raped. But she refuses to budge from her little shop. Why? Because in her own words, she was living in occupied territory.”
Very anectodal, but bears very little relevance to the discussion. And makes no sense to boot.
“Our cowardly politicians may give you jihadists citizenship but you are no more European than I am a Chinaman by moving to China.”
I don’t know who you are calling a jihadist, but that painting one group with a broad brush because of the actions of its minority is just the beginning of your thought crimes. Your racialist, culturalist nonsense aside, please address the issue of native born citizens. And while we’re at it please address the rationale behind abandoning all of the West’s cherished values(freedom and justice, religious liberty, freedom of conscience)in order to save it. And, I got news for you buddy, if you move to China and acquire citizenship, it makes you a Chinese national.
You are a perfect example of why Islam and the Prophet Muhammad(saw)disapproved of nationalism. Look what it leads to. Defense of outright evil to preserve your perceived nationality.[Yes, please note that the modern nation-state is a human invention, a recent one at that.]
All this to avoid dealing with the article and the tendentiousness of Wilder’s view of Prophet Muhammad, based as it is on his reliance on fake scholars?
And of course Awesome has the 1 million dollar question question: “Do you think changing immigration policies is going to stop people from converting to Islam?” This goes to the issue of native born ethnic Dutch, who are either reverts or born-Muslims.
And NassirH has reiterated what many Muslims and Non-Muslims who fight Islamophobia have come to understand clearly:
“Ben is basically saying that in order for him to accept us as equals, we Muslims have to convert away from Islam (probably preferably to Christianity). Otherwise, we should be subject to his final solution, i.e. ethnically cleansing Western countries of Muslims.”
“He seems to take comfort in believing that one day radical, rightwing politicians will carry out his plans and have us “forcefully deported back to the Sharia hell-holes.”
As I said:”He is actually rejoicing in the mainstreaming of hatred. I smell the advocacy of barbaric disproportionate treatment of Muslims on the part of Ben and his fellow Islamophobes such as Wilders.”
Allahu A’lam
———————————
“This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant.” (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin ‘Abd al-Rahman al-’Udhri.)
April 7th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Ben-hur:
“I console myself with the knowledge that history is moving our way. Politicians like Wilders are gaining ground and support, and eventually they will spring up all over Europe, and they will come to power. And then arrogant liars and stealth-jihadists like yourselves will be forcefully deported back to the Sharia hell-holes from whence you came. And you will have only yourselves to blame.”
I doubt it will lead to deporting.
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/storage/Wilders%20as%20Nazi.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1298630440378
April 7th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
For a detailed rebuttal of Ali Sina, just google “Ali Sina Challenge” and go to the fifth item down, which should be defend the prophet dot com.
April 7th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
lol Ali Sina is still relevant? I doubt that joker even has 50k to give away.
April 7th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Ben I have family members currently in the US Military…. They have been in the military for long time and now is a commissioned officer. I know people muslim’s who also served in the military that include the MC (corp) and army… I am not sure what more they have to do for you to accept them as US patriotic Americans but i think that is enough for me Please tell how many years did you serve again…..
April 7th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
At 2:18 It look like Wilder had on a skull cap as in he was giveing that speech at a jewish synagog now if muslim invited David Duke to give speech about Jews at a mosque anyone want to guess how much attention that would get from ADL and others… and Anyone care to guess if that will be in the media Bill O’Rilly Shawn Hannity , Mark Levine as way show how all muslims are evil
April 8th, 2011 at 12:42 am
Hello Ben. Look: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers
Just look at those white savages eh? If this doesn’t prove Ghandi’s dictum that Western civilization is an oxymoron I don’t what will. What’s that? Not all whites enjoy killing their fellow humans for fun? Why should I believe you? You clearly believe that Osma Bin Laden is the pinacle of Islamic culture. If you’re allowed to think most Muslims like to spit on women why can’t I indulge in a bit of stereotyping?
After all few civilizations can boast to producing creatures like Hitler, Stalin and the genocidal British Empire- these people must surely have a special penchant for violence? What’s that? These people are not representative of ‘the West’? Stereotyping is ignorant and stupid? Hmmm…Ok I agree. I hope you’ll find it in your heart to apply this open mindedness to Muslims. Try to treat them as human beings rather potential terrorists next time eh?
April 8th, 2011 at 9:51 am
@ben: Fine, if your logic is “It doesn’t matter which plot of land you are born on, it doesn’t make you Dutch because you happen to born in Holland. It’s whats in your heart that counts.” Then I guess we better start deporting whites out of the Americas, South Africa, Australia, and Palestine. Because let me tell you, they sure are doing a piss poor job of assimilating into Native American, Native South Afican, Australian Aborigine, and Palestinian cultures. Oh and speaking of INVADING, those western, non-Muslim armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands which REALLY ARE invading foreign countries (and committing the most vile of atrocities) should also go back to where they came from.
Your (lack of) knowledge of history is second only to your ignorance of Islam. It is not Muslims who have been invading western lands for the past 1400 years. It is europeans and thier ilk in the Americas who have been invading OUR lands. The crusades, the brutal “colonization” of Asia and Africa, and the current wars of aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and numerous other skirmishes. It has always been you warmongers trying to invade OUR lands. Furthermore, the very reason so many Muslims migrated to western countries is because those same western countries screwed up our countries to the point our grandparents/parents had to relocate. If you really want to quell the tide of foreign immigration, stop invading other countries!
Also, assault and rape are sins in Islam. So why do you hold the faith or its adherents responsible for these actions? That’s ridiculous.
Finally, history is not “moving your way” at all. Unless you consider more people being Muslim than ever before. According to the Guiness Book of World Records, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Even the World Christian Database gives Islam the highest growth rate of any major religion. Get with the times. Someday soon (Inshallah) being Muslim WILL be synonymous with being european or American. And Mosizzle put it beautifully; that one day the majority of people will view bigots like yourself in the same way they view the Nazis today.
April 8th, 2011 at 9:54 am
Interesting how light the sentence is likely to be when you compare the uproar and penalty against another Hate Monger (This time against Jews) the revisionist historian David Irving. It would seem that inciting hate against Muslims is not viewed as severely as inciting hatred against other groups!
April 8th, 2011 at 10:13 am
His punishment if foung guilty should do something to help him, rather than pay his way out of something.
I think the punishment should be he has to live in the community of the ones he is using hate speech against for one year.
April 8th, 2011 at 10:43 am
“Furthermore, the very reason so many Muslims migrated to western countries is because those same western countries screwed up our countries to the point our grandparents/parents had to relocate. If you really want to quell the tide of foreign immigration, stop invading other countries!”
That’s it!!!Hatethehaterz, my parents who are devout life long Christians say this. The Islamophobes think Muslims leave Muslim-majority countries because they are Shari’ah hell-holes, that something is wrong with Shari’ah and Islam. Why would Muslims leave a Shari’ah hell-hole to come to the West and impose Shari’ah on non-Muslims. The ‘phobes can’t come up with a consistent story. If the problem for Muslims is Islam, why migrate to the West and CONTINUE practicing Islam. Something is wrong in those majority-Muslim countries alright, but it a’int Islam. Think!
Allahu A’lam
———————————
“This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant.” (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin ‘Abd al-Rahman al-’Udhri.)
April 8th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Ben, grow up. Citizenship is not defined based on your whims and desires and this business about what’s in the heart is irrelevant; rather it’s what on paper that matters and no one has to meet your criteria for citizenship.
Islam has been in Europe since the 8th century and despite the Spanish Inquisition of the 14th century, Muslims have lived in peace with their neighbors in Europe. Unfortunately, bigotry has been the order of the day in Europe when it comes to ethnic differnces, more often than not and now you have raised its, bigotry/racism, ugly hand against Muslims again.
America was formed because people who grew tired of the restricted and racist nature of European eccentricity struck out to form a land that would minimize religious differences and it is that experiment despite its flaws and tweaks which offers hope to a misguided Europe that it could get it right if it wanted.
Unfortunately, two world wars, not to mention the Crusades have been, fought because Europeans could not quite figure out how to live and coexist with people of different faiths. It’s equally unfortunate America is being led by the nose by the likes of such bigots as Wilders et.co who seem destined to repeat Europe’s fate of fratricide at the expense of world peace.
April 8th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
As a LoonWatch writer, I would like to proclaim my disavowal of this article. LoonWatch is comprised of many different writers and we all have a variety of views on specific issues. Certainly on this particular issue I *strongly* differ with Garibaldi. I would like to make it abundantly clear that this is *his* view and should not be superimposed on all LW writers, especially myself.
Gert Wilders is free to say, write, or draw whatever he wants–as hateful or vitriolic as it is. If a country penalizes this with a fine or jail time, then that government does not uphold freedom of speech, its claims to doing so notwithstanding.
In the words of Glenn Greenwald:
“…many people purport to believe in free speech but don’t…If you’re someone who wants to vest the state with the power to punish the expression of certain views on the grounds that the view is so wrong and/or hurtful that its expression should not be permitted — as European countries and Canada routinely do — then you’re someone who does not believe in free speech, by definition.”
Read the rest of Glenn’s article, which I agree with 100% (including the right to burn Qurans):
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/04/free_speech/index.html
As for the claim that it is like yelling “fire” in a building, this is a weak argument. This is a very slippery slope, and through such logic the government could restrict any speech it wants by deeming it dangerous. For example: voicing approval of XYZ group is dangerous–even more than yelling “fire!”–so it should be prohibited.
I suspect that Garibaldi–whose writing I normally enjoy a lot–didn’t really think out this argument, and is letting his/our dislike for a bigot like Gert Wilders to cloud his better judgment.
April 8th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
@Muhammad Abd Al Haqq – That’s a really good point brother. If Shariah is the alleged reason our homelands are “so rotten,” then why would we be trying to start sharia here? But let’s face it, the whole “anti-Sharia” thing is just a smokescreen. What they really want to outlaw is being Muslim and practicing Islam. It is not *Muslim* extremists the world needs to worry about. Its the ones who are attacking Islam, Muslims, and want to replace western secular constitutions with their own judeo-biblical laws.
The haters blame everything on Islam. They never consider that people are angry because of western aggression, wars, atrocities, puppet dictators, and hundreds of years of crippling “colonization” that will take generations to fully recover from. I don’t condone any sort of extremism or anything, but I truly beleive that it has little/nothing to do with religion. It has far more to do with the *actions* (i.e. oppression and injustice) of western countries towards others. I mean c’mon. If you bomb and abuse a bunch of people, jack their resources, and force your will (via puppet tyrants) on them unprovoked, what do you think will happen? They’re not going to friend you on facebook that’s for sure.
April 8th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
@Danios: With all due respect, Geert Wilders wants to limit the freedom of religion of Muslims. He wants to “outlaw” the Quran, stop the building of Mosques, and stop any immigration ONLY from Muslim countries. Hate speech is not the same as free speech. His “freedom of speech” is used towards the ultimate goal of denying freedom towards millions if not billions of Muslims. Given his views, he himself does not beleive in free speech – for Muslims. Freedom for him but none for us? Free speech only if you agree with him? His speech is geared towards inciting dicrimmination, bigotry, fear, and ultimately violence. Hate speech and propaganda can be very dangerous.
Do you also feel that Hitler should have been free to incite the hate and violence he did? Remember that words have consequences too. Freedom of speech does not mean “freedom from consequences.” How many hate crimes have resulted from all the hatred, slander, and bigotry being leveled at Muslims currently? So words do have power to move people.
Do you also then support the free speech rights of all those who have sent him death threats? I beleive one Dutch woman actually served time for sending him over 100 threatening e-mails. What about her right to free speech? I mean if he is “free” to incite hatred and bigotry (and ultimately violence) towards Muslims, why aren’t others free to do the same against him?
And Danios, please don’t take this as a personal attack or an insult or anything. I really respect the work you do on this site and enjoy reading the articles you contribute. However, I have to disagree with you about the free speech issue here. I beleive, like most things in life, there need to be some guidelines and rules to follow. Hate speech is not free speech in my eyes. Without any rules at all, it would just be anarchy. And anarchy is not freedom either. It is the rule of the strong – who ultimately oppress the weak. That is why we have rules in society. They are meant to protect the weak, the less fortunate, and the minorities. They are meant to bring equality and fairness. Hate speech is the antithesis of all this.
April 8th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
As another LoonWatch writer, I would like to voice my disagreement as well.
Reading what Danios had to say, I am in agreement with Danios that Wilders – while a bigot – should be free to say whatever he wants about Islam and Muslims. He should not be tried. As Glenn Greenwald said, this is not true freedom of speech. By definition, freedom of speech provides citizens of a state with the right to say whatever is on their minds, even if it offends others.
The proper response is not to try bigoted fools like Wilders and his ilk, but to engage their arguments with truth and logic and show the public the faults in their arguments. At LoonWatch, this is what we strive to do on a daily basis. Instead of trying Wilders, I would be much happier to see him humiliated in public by having his arguments against Islam and Muslims be refuted and shown to be the lies that they are.
April 8th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
“Ben, “It’s whats in your heart that counts”
What if a Muslim loves his country, has no intention of taking it over, intends to abide by its laws and live side-by-side with non-Muslims. Oh yes, according to you he would be doing taqiyya …
Whatever. But the haters and bigots will lose again as they have done throughout the ages. You can cry all you want but that will not change.
I have a tissue if you need it. ”
There is no point trying to appeal to reason with Ben or people like him. He is blinded by hate just as his Fascist predecessors were. It is certainly sad to see how confused they really are when they say things like. “Muslims are violent criminals. The only language they understand is force”, and to prove that they are different than the “evil Muslims” they advocate violence and force against peaceful Muslims. Can somebody say “projection?” Most of these people are know-nothing hooligans who pride themselves on ignorance, because too much knowledge is a “liberal elitist trick.”
April 8th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Danios and Rousseau are free to forward their opinion on this matter anyway they like, in fact I enjoy such disagreement, though IMO they have certainly jumped the gun.
Taking a serious look at this issue, lets recognize that “free speech” is not a panacea. My gripe is not with mere “criticism” of Islam, or with “offensive speech” (such speech should of course be protected), but with “incitment to hate” and there is a case to be made, especially in accordance to the law in the Netherlands that Geert Wilders is in violation of that. If anyone looks at my articles since I began writing with LW they will certainly see my consistent support of free speech.
Furthermore, superimposing an absolutist US understanding of “free speech” on the rest of the world is IMO a utopian pipe dream, it doesn’t even exist in the US. The doomsday “slippery slope” scenario is not the necessary outcome simply because there are checks, balances and standards at our disposal to ensure that offensive or even hateful speech remain protected.
That said, our readers I am sure would appreciate a divergence of opinion and the plethora of views represented by the writers.
April 8th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Danios Let bigots say what every they want is what led Millions of Jews to gas chambers and there deaths for many years remember a few guys named Hitler, Julius Streicher, … There is freedom of speech but when u incite hate free speech goes out the door .. Just as it is law of USA you have freedom but if you use it to incite hate that leads to injury or death of another person your responsible just as some KKK leader is held responsible when he give speech of hang n##ers and Jews as the guy who listens to him and does it
April 8th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
*I have updated the piece after reflecting on some of the words of our LW writers and fam. I definitely see that my inarticulate wording in that particular sentence gave way to some misinterpretation of intent, and could be misconstrued and misused.
April 8th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Sorry, I meant to say that our country has allowed haters to go overboard with their hate speech causing much damage (i.e. hate crimes)
April 9th, 2011 at 6:33 am
It’s interesting to see the opinions
1.freedom of speach with no checks or balances.
2.freedom of speech with checks and balances.
I agree with option 2. Sure you can have freedom of speach with a degree of responsibility.
Just because you can say something doesn’t make it right to say it!
Geert can say what he likes but when that results in bigotry and hate towards a select population then I feel it’s not right!
April 9th, 2011 at 6:37 am
So I agree with garibali on the free speach issue!
However I agree with danios’s point that maybe charging him under a specific law may not be the most effective way, destroy his argument then you have destroyed geert. That is a better long term solution.
April 9th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Glenn Greenwald succinctly explains my response:
“It demonstrates how many people purport to believe in free speech but don’t. The whole point of the First Amendment is that one is free to express the most marginalized, repellent, provocative and offensive ideas. Those are the views that are always targeted for suppression. Mainstream orthodoxies, harmless ideas, and inoffensive platitudes require no protection as they are not, by definition, vulnerable to censorship. But as has been repeatedly seen in history, ideas that are despised and marginalized are often proven right, while ideas that enjoy the status of orthodoxy prove to be deeply erroneous or even evil. That’s why no rational person trusts the state — or even themselves — to create lists of Prohibited Ideas. And those who endorse the notion that ideas they hate should be forcibly suppressed inevitably — and deservedly — will have their own ideas eventually targeted by the same repressive instruments.
“If you’re someone who wants to vest the state with the power to punish the expression of certain views on the grounds that the view is so wrong and/or hurtful that its expression should not be permitted — as European countries and Canada routinely do — then you’re someone who does not believe in free speech, by definition; what you believe is that one is free to express only those viewpoints which the majority of citizens (and the State) allow to be expressed. Many of the most important views throughout history have been, at some point, hurtful, dangerous and even violence-engendering. The whole reason for free speech protections is to safeguard such ideas — despised by the majority — from suppression. Burning the Koran is despicable, but it’s every bit as much core political speech as burning the American flag or an effigy of a hated political leader, or tearing up a picture of — or publishing cartoons unfavorably depicting — a religious leader.”
April 9th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
“If there is a strong argument that he is inciting violence or harm he can be tried so as to reduce the harm he potentially may inflict upon Dutch/European society”
There are laws against hate speech in many European countries. Garibaldi, it seems you believe the trial to be justified if there is a case that he is inciting violence. But there is no evidence that he is calling for violence. Maybe he might create an environment of suspicion against Muslims that will end badly but he cannot be punished for it as he won’t be directly involved.
He is being tried for calling Islam a “fascist religion” and comparing the Quran to Mein Kampf. Not for inciting violence but for insulting Muslims. As a European Muslim, I am quite insulted and worried about the future, but I do not believe he should face trial for what he said. Possibly you think this trial is an easy way of finishing his career now so that he doesn’t incite violence against Muslims in the future, but he will come back stronger than ever. And above all, he is innocent until proven guilty.
If the prosecution did have evidence that his statements had led to anti-Muslim violence, then I would be with you. But all he did was insult Muslims and I don’t think you can both believe in free speech and agree with someone being punished for simply offending someone else.
April 9th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Garibaldi,
“If Wilders’ trial is merely about his despicable, repellent, offensive statements and ideas then I for one think it should not go forward.”
That is exactly what it is about:
“The Court of Appeal determined that statements equating Islam to Nazism were a punishable insult to Islamic worshippers and therefore constituted ground for criminal prosecution. The court considers this so insulting for Muslims that it is in the public interest to prosecute Wilders. By attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion, he also insulted Muslim believers. In a democratic system, hate speech is considered to be so serious that it is in the general interest to draw a clear line.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6994396.ece
April 9th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
I find it curious that the Quran and also the Bible are not thought of as hate speech. Both books divide people into “believers” (who are eternally rewarded) and “non-believers” (who are eternally punished in a fire). I suppose the difference is that the punishment for “non-believers” happens in an after life whereas the punishment for Jews,homosexuals and gypsies in the hate speech book “Mein Kampf” was in the gas chambers and very much in this life.
April 9th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
its ironic how people like ben say that muslims are invading the west when we all know whats going on in the world now (who’s invading who?)
also, just pick up a history book (written by a scholar, not robert spencer types) and look up the wests history of colonialism.
April 9th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
I might be inclined to agree with the unfettered free speech issue IF (and this is a big if) there really were such a thing as free speech in the west; but there isn’t. Why is it always a “free speech” issue when hatemongers like Wilders are insulting and slandering Islam and Muslims; but it is a “national security” issue when Muslims or our supporters defend ourselves, Islam, or criticize western policies? Why was Helen Thomas forced to resign? Why are anti-western clerics targetted for assassination? Why was CAIR declared a “unindited co-conspirator” and criticized as a “terrorist organization” during the King hearings? Why are so many Muslims on “no fly” lists who have never DONE anything wrong; their only crime is to speak out against the west. I don’t agree with violence or extremist notions, but if you beleive so strongly that EVERYONE should have free speech, then why aren’t all those actual extremist “Muslim terrorists” allowed to peddle their vitriol in the same way the Islamophobes are?
Free speech is one thing. However, anti-Muslim hatemongers want to silence our (Muslims’) speech, spread hatred and lies against us, reduce and violate our rights, and pave the way for violence against us. That is what they use their “free speech” for. These are thier goals. This is why it makes no sense to group hate speech under the banner of “free speech.” That would be self-destructive. Their hate speech is aimed at SILENCING free speech. They do not want Muslims or our supporters or supporters of fairness, equality, and/or coexistance to have free speech. In fact, they don’t beleive in the free speech of anyone who disagrees with them. That is why hate speech should NOT be protected under free speech.
What the anti-Islam bigots propose and advocate are not merely “marginalized, repellant, provocative, ideas.” They present a danger to the well being, livelihood, and safety of millions (if not billions) of Muslims. The lies and slander these bigots try to present as fact have already caused numerous hardships to Muslims accross the world; not only in the form of hate crimes, but also attempts to block Mosque constructions, as well as discrimmination, bans on what Muslim women can wear, etc… Their lies have done damage. So no, I do not beleive they should be protected under “free speech.” Hate speech harms and results in discrimmination and violation of our rights.
Furthermore free speech is a joke in the west. Its just free speech for the Islam haters. Muslims are immediately silenced due to “national security” concerns or accused of being “terrorists” should they disagree too strongly with their words with the west.
April 9th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
If you want to argue that the Netherlands’ hate speech law in general should be revoked, that is one thing. However, to argue that Wilders should not be tried under it is another matter; and an unfair one at that. As long as the hate speech laws there exist he should definitely be tried under them. If his hatemongering isn’t supposed to incite fear and hatred, what is it meant to do? Make friends? Create harmony?
Under the hate speech laws in the Netherlands, it is a criminal offense to deny the holocaust. Why? Is denying the holocaust inciting violence? No. It is offensive to many people, especially Jews, but not directly tied to violence. Yet it is a crime. As long as that and other hate crime laws make it a criminal offense to incite hatred, I feel that Wilders and others like him should be prosecuted for violating it. Unless those of you against this prosecution believe its ok for him to incite hatred and fear against Muslims, but it is a crime (protected under the hate laws) to incite hatred against other groups? Bit hypocritical isn’t it?
Furthermore, what “free speech” value is here in undertaking such offense actions such as burning the holiest book of a quarter of the world’s population? Why should this be “protected” under free speech? Is there some sort of awsome profound message here? The answer is no. Such actions are only meant to shock, provoke, and create dischord in society.
Finally, in any society with the rule of law, individuals and groups are not allowed to violate the rights of others. For example, I can’t run around punching people for no reason. That would be violating their rights and thus a criminal offense under the law. Why should speech be any different? Do you believe you can never violate anyone’s right through speech and display? Don’t Muslims and other groups have a right not to have their holiest book burned? Don’t they have a right and protection against slanderous speech aimed at inciting hatred against them JUST AS OTHER GROUPS DO under the law?
April 10th, 2011 at 2:29 am
I’m not saying that we should make Wilders an exception to the hate speech laws in the Netherlands. I just offered Garibaldi some information to help him decide whether to support the trial or not.
The Court claims that Wilders’ comparing the Quran to Mein Kampf is against the law, so fine it is against the law. But is it okay for someone outside the country to claim to believe in freedom of speech whilst also believing the trial to be justified, bearing in mind that he is only being tried for something he said.
April 10th, 2011 at 3:11 am
Farlowe’s post about Quran being “hate speech” made me realize that Hate Speech can be subjective. If we call someone’s speech a “hate speech”, then that someone can also call our Quran a “hate speech” by taking our verses out of context. Next thing you know, our Islamic books won’t be allowed in the library. Unfortunately, this is what the Islamophobes are trying to accomplish. I think that’s why we have to be careful what we say and take advantage of our Freedom of Speech right.
People can call CAIR’s statements “hate speech” but they are protected thanks to our 2nd amendment. However, it’s the so-called PATRIOT ACT that seems to supercede this amendment and that’s why we have people on the no-Fly zone just because they spoke out against Obama’s foreign policies. This Patriot Act is what’s unconstitutional and really unAmerican. We need a President that has guts enough to end this sham that falsely claims to “protect our national interest”.
disclaimer: This is my opinion and not the opinion of LoonWatch.
April 10th, 2011 at 4:34 am
Yes sorry I was only pointing out how many religious texts can be superficially interpreted in terms which could be seen as hateful to some members of the population. The Quran , The Bible, the Bhagavad Gita even the pyramid texts etc etc .
Mostly this type of interpretation is due to insufficient learning on the part of the interpreter.
This is of course completely different to a real hatespeech text which calls for action to be done to people in this life in the here and now. e.g. a text which calls on people to commit crimes against other racial or religious groups for no reason except hate.
April 10th, 2011 at 10:03 am
^Exactly! Quran telling people to commit violence against Non-Muslims is what Islamophobes are trying to prove. Ofcourse if people go directly to the source (Quran), instead of these hateful sites, they’ll know that these bigots(ex. Nonie Darwish) are lying. Thanks for clarifying.
April 10th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Ah, good to see that also outside the Netherlands there are people who understand who and what Wilders is. Greetings from Krapuul.nl!
April 18th, 2011 at 10:55 am
Why so much racism against neo-nazis? Neonaziphobia runs rampant, that’s so sad.
Farlowe posted:
“Yes sorry I was only pointing out how many religious texts can be superficially interpreted in terms which could be seen as hateful to some members of the population. The Quran , The Bible, the Bhagavad Gita even the pyramid texts etc etc .
Mostly this type of interpretation is due to insufficient learning on the part of the interpreter.”
BS. Many religious texts, not only Islamic, are outright demanding of violence. This is not a matter of “insufficient learning on the part of the interpreter”, is just plain reading of what is there. What is deemed to be the “right interpretation”, according to humanistic values, is often a really something on the verge of charlatanism, not being quite that just because the person often really believes that it must be the “true” interpretation somehow, instead of being an actual act of deceit.
Often, the more moderate someone, the *less* one knows the religious texts of one’s own religion. They just assume a superficial hippie version of the whole thing, and claim that quotes that contradict this peaceful and loving version are “out of context”, never bothering to check if it’s really that. In reality, they’re not, they’ve just being largely ignored as time passed, for the luck of humankind.
How come people never ask themselves why would be so that these “crazy”, “ignorant”, hateful interpretations only occur with religious texts, and are not something more usual? How come, outside religion, people were able to “get” that in order to not “confuse” readers into killing other people, they can simply not command the readers/followers to kill people, but instead just say more literally whatever they really mean, without “metaphors” of manslaughter to mean “love”, “challenge on intellectual grounds” or whatever?