Dutch MP denied entry to the UK - his presence on British soil might offend Islam

[BirraImperial]

BirraImperial, what exactly would a democracy be in essence if people with opposing views did not exist? Many people in many democracies preach hatred against others. Is it not true that many of our own Democratic governments are spreading hatred in one form or another? If Geert Wilders was assaulting Democracy, he would produce a film about the injustices of Democracy. He is actually by all accounts of what a democracy is, engaging within one.

Opposing views are fine, you are entitled to your own opinions. Again, the problem is if those views are aimed to destroy the very basis of democracy, which is freedom and tolerance for other groups of people that think differently from you. Some goverments do spread hatred, that also undermines democracy.

This nearly contradicts your previous statement. The very fact that Neo-Nazis are allowed to exist within a Democracy is proof enough that they are not a threat to democracy.

Neo-Nazis don't exist as a political entity in Germany. Their parties are banned. And it should stay that way.
What do you think would happen if the Nazis gain 30% of the votes on the next German elections or if they get a certain amount of representation in the Bundestag? These people don't want democracy, they want to go back to the old Third Reich...

We are about to discover that you are fine with people expressing their ideas so long as they are not inflammatory, bigoted, or discriminatory.

Of course, because these views could lead to what I said before, widespread discrimination and eventual breach of the rights of a minority.

You are confusing Geert Wilders film with Geert Wilders.

What ? I'm not criticizing just his film, but his stance on Islam as a whole.

Geert Wilders is bigoted and discriminatory. He has the right for better or worse within the democracy we cherish to be like that. You claim he is undermining a Muslims right to live in a tolerant and democratic society. That is very true if we was capable of passing any legislation whatsoever, but the fact is he has merely at this point severely angered a group of people.

Tell me, What do you think would happen in the Nederlands if Wilders' ideas start picking up on some other politicians and they do eventually start banning the Koran, and expelling Muslims out of the country? That's right, discrimination.

Anyone could have produced the film Fitna and arrived in Britain to discuss it. It was because Geert had prior sentiments towards Muslims that problems arose on the scale they did. This is why I insist we differentiate between Geert Wilders and a film that essentially only quotes the Koran. The anger is not directed towards the film but Geert Wilders himself.

The film is just a part of the problem, the outrage is because of all of his bigoted ideas and his beliefs.

 

[Captain Planet]

Opposing views are fine, you are entitled to your own opinions. Again, the problem is if those views are aimed to destroy the very basis of democracy, which is freedom and tolerance for other groups of people that think differently from you. Some goverments do spread hatred, that also undermines democracy.

You've mentioned qualities of a Democracy Birra but you've yet to provide evidence of how Geert Wilders is undermining Democracy.

I don't even think the Muslims are taking it as far as Geert is a threat to Democracy. Indeed, how could they? By silencing Geert they're performing a similar disservice to democracy in their own rite.

Neo-Nazis don't exist as a political entity in Germany. Their parties are banned. And it should stay that way.

I understand your sentiments, just realize I never mentioned anything about neo-nazis other than the fact that they EXIST within a democracy. You believe their inability to participate has castrated their cause? By all accounts there are as many Neo-Nazis in the world today as there were yesterday.

Of course, because these views could lead to what I said before, widespread discrimination and eventual breach of the rights of a minority.

I don't want to debate possibilities. It seems these arguments against Geert Wilders involve possibilities. The possibility he will infringe on minority rights, the possibility if his wild ideas ever came to fruit violence would occur against Muslims.

You already recognized Neo-Nazis coming to power in Germany as an impossibility. Just like Geert kicking Muslims out or banning the Koran is an impossibility.

What ? I'm not criticizing just his film, but his stance on Islam as a whole.

What is wrong with this belief that Islam is a religion full of hatred? Is he not entitled to that belief?

Tell me, What do you think would happen in the Nederlands if Wilders' ideas start picking up on some other politicians and they do eventually start banning the Koran, and expelling Muslims out of the country?

I'll stop you there Birra, it's an impossibility. There is nothing to be afraid of. Do not fear Geert Wilders.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What is wrong with this belief that Islam is a religion full of hatred?

What's wrong with any bigotry or racism?

 

[Captain Planet]

What's wrong with any bigotry or racism?

I've finished discussing with you. Your best bet is to exit this thread now before your false hopes and beliefs are further pummelled by myself (if i cared enough) or others. And think twice next time before you try to tell people how to gain friends and the acceptance of others in these forums.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Like I really care what your opinion may happen to be about me.

Once again, freedom of speech has given you the opportunity to show how prejudiced you actually are. See how well the First Amendment works when given half a chance?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Are there other portions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that you would like to remove because you say so?

 

[Great Librarian]

Formaldehyde, he's not American. He doesn't live in a country where there's a legislated separation between church and state and he doesn't live in a country where free speech is a right. He lives in Canada where there's no official church state separation and where the right is freedom of expression and not free speech.

So, actually, American freedom of speech has done no such thing for him, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has. And our hate speech laws would see him prosecuted for advocating violence against others. But he's not. Even if he is prejudiced, you are too. It's not effective as a point of argument to level the claim of prejudice at someone else.

Further, he's not said anything about removing clauses from the American Constitution or Bill of Rights. Where did you find that load of bull?

 

[Formaldehyde]

He lives in Canada...

Ah. Another one. Thanks for clarifying that. It would sure help if there was a mandatory tag denoting your country. I'm going to set the location tag to specify that right now so there's no confusion about me.

Further, he's not said anything about removing clauses from the American Constitution or Bill of Rights. Where did you find that load of bull?

I contend that any American trying to ban Islam is clearly violating the First Amendment to the Constitution. Would you disagree?

 

[Higher Game]

I contend that any American trying to ban Islam is clearly violating the First Amendment to the Constitution. Would you disagree?

You're wrong there. Arms are legal in the US, but you can't own a rocket launcher. Gun control is fine, as is religion control. Many "religions" that were de facto excuses to use drugs are illegal. It would be well within the Constitution to ban a religion that promotes illegal activities like pedophilia, genocide, and slavery. The thing is, that founding document is unfortunately rarely enforced now.

And our hate speech laws would see him prosecuted for advocating violence against others.

Funny, those hate speech laws are never applied to religions. You can criticize a religion for being violent and intolerant, and you are the one who is imprisoned. Hate speech laws today are no different from blasphemy charges of the Inquisition.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, and weak atheists still don't have a belief in god.

They also don't have a belief in no deity.

 

[Great Librarian]

Funny, those hate speech laws are never applied to religions. You can criticize a religion for being violent and intolerant, and you are the one who is imprisoned. Hate speech laws today are no different from blasphemy charges of the Inquisition.

That's not so. They are and have been applied to religions. They don't have a free pass in Canada to say criminal things and not be prosecuted for it. Don't you know that the KKK are banned there? That Phelps and his ilk can't enter Canada to say the things they do in America?

Not that I think the hate speech laws are wholly good or reasonable. I have my own contentions with Canadian hate speech laws and specifically with the CHRC (aka, the inquisition).

I contend that any American trying to ban Islam is clearly violating the First Amendment to the Constitution. Would you disagree?

As has been written, that's not necessarily true. If the religion didn't break any laws, then it would be. Does Islam in America break any laws? Not to my knowledge.

But now that I've answered your question how about you answer mine and the others I've posed to you when you pull stuff that people have, according to you, implied, presupposed or otherwise outright said that they never actually did?

Here's another one, albeit a repeat: Further, he's not said anything about removing clauses from the American Constitution or Bill of Rights. Where did you find that load of bull?

So, will you be answering that directly?

They also don't have a belief in no deity.

What? Can you rephrase that? It looks like you're saying that weak atheist don't have a belief in no god. Should I spell out for you the logical implication of that in sentential logic or do your realize that you've just written that they have a belief in god?

Oh never mind, I don't want to have the argument. Sure, weak atheists don't have a belief in no god. Christ!

 

[Formaldehyde]

You're wrong there. Arms are legal in the US, but you can't own a rocket launcher.

So you are trying to claim that all Muslims have rocket launchers?

Gun control is fine, as is religion control.

According to you, and contrary to the First and Second Amendments...

Many "religions" that were de facto excuses to use drugs are illegal.

Which you claim Islam does?

It would be well within the Constitution to ban a religion that promotes illegal activities like pedophilia, genocide, and slavery. The thing is, that founding document is unfortunately rarely enforced now.

Once again, as Islam does?

And how about Mormons? Do you think that religion should be banned because some of their adherents still believe it is perfectly acceptable to have arranged marriages between 13-year-olds and middle-aged men, even though such practices were quite acceptable just 40 short years ago?

Funny, those hate speech laws are never applied to religions.

That's not particularly funny. And once again, it's called freedom of speech and religion. It gives them the right to practice their own religion as they see fit within the boundaries of the law. And fortunately, there's nothing you can do to stop them.

You can criticize a religion for being violent and intolerant, and you are the one who is imprisoned.

Oh yeah? Show me an example where anybody in the US was imprisoned for falsely claiming that Islam teaches hatred?

Hate speech laws today are no different from blasphemy charges of the Inquisition.

Of course they aren't. Because you say so.

As has been written, that's not necessarily true. If the religion didn't break any laws, then it would be. Does Islam in America break any laws? Not to my knowledge.

How can a religion possibly break any laws?

But now that I've answered your question how about you answer mine and the others I've posed to you when you pull stuff that people have, according to you, implied, presupposed or otherwise outright said that they never actually did?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. But I'm certainly not under any obligation to respond to your posts. If it interests me, I will. If I htink it is just another repeat of the same old stuff over and over again, don't hold your breath.

Here's another one, albeit a repeat: Further, he's not said anything about removing clauses from the American Constitution or Bill of Rights. Where did you find that load of bull?

That's exactly what I mean. Why should I respond to that question again after I already answered it.

 

[Higher Game]

So you are trying to claim that all Muslims have rocket launchers?

You're acting stupid now. You know I mean rocket launchers:arms as Islam:religion. The latter are generally allowed as rights, but regulations belong to the former. I hope you don't think unrestricted, fundamentalist Islam is acceptable in the 21st century.

According to you, and contrary to the First and Second Amendments...

What the Constitution actually says, is different from what 9 old fools say it says. At one time, forced sterilization was "Constitutional".

Which you claim Islam does?

No, drugs is just an example.

Once again, as Islam does?

Yes.

And how about Mormons? Do you think that religion should be banned because some of their adherents still believe it is perfectly acceptable to have arranged marriages between 13-year-olds and middle-aged men, even though such practices were quite acceptable just 40 short years ago?

That was never acceptable, and any fringe that practices that should be and is banned. Rural compounds in Texas and Utah are raided all the time when that stuff goes on.

That's not particularly funny. And once again, it's called freedom of speech and religion. It gives them the right to practice their own religion as they see fit within the boundaries of the law. And fortunately, there's nothing you can do to stop them.

There's the rub. Islam promotes illegal activities. Many Muslims ignore much of the Koran, though. They're the moderates, not fully Muslim at all and not representative of the pure religion. I'm not talking about them.

Oh yeah? Show me an example where anybody in the US was imprisoned for falsely claiming that Islam teaches hatred?

First of all, I was referring to the Canadian hate crime laws. Second of all, it's anything but false to make such a claim.

Of course they aren't. Because you say so.

They are the same. Attacking someone's religion can get you in trouble just as much today as 1000 years ago, in countries without free speech like Canada and the Netherlands.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You're acting stupid now.

I'm acting stupid? Now there's some irony...

You know I mean rocket launchers:arms as Islam:religion. The latter are generally allowed as rights, but regulations belong to the former. I hope you don't think unrestricted, fundamentalist Islam is acceptable in the 21st century.

I certainly do. I happen to believe in the First Amendment to my Constitution. I'm no hypocrite - or least I try to minimize it as much as possible...

And no, I think your analogy is completely absurd. Islam is no rocket launcher unless you are irrationally afraid of them.

What the Constitution actually says, is different from what 9 old fools say it says.

By "9 old fools" I assume you are referring to the Supreme Court, which now has a very dangerous tilt to the right thanks to the worst leader the free world has ever seen?

At one time, forced sterilization was "Constitutional"..

Yeah, well. Live and learn. So was slavery. So was the genocide of countless Indians. You don't have to point out the rampant hypocrisy to me. You are preaching to the choir on that one.

Yes.

Well, there you go. You are one of those who think Islam is 'evil' because of a few passages in religious texts that hardly anybody follows anymore, and virtually nobody actually practices. And I bet you also refuse to use the same 'logic' to find both Christianity and Judaism equally as guilty. Right?

That was never acceptable, and any fringe that practices that should be and is banned. Rural compounds in Texas and Utah are raided all the time when that stuff goes on.

Nowadays. But 40 short years ago, it happened all the time before it became not PC to do so. It's amazing how fast morals can change so even the most commonly accepted practices suddenly become 'evil'.

There's the rub. Islam promotes illegal activities..

Once again, there's the 'rub'. Both Christianity and Judaism do too if you interpret it literally. But it still won't stand up in a court of law. You see, thought crimes are not real crimes yet. And they likely never will be.

Many Muslims ignore much of the Koran, though. They're the moderates, not fully Muslim at all and not representative of the pure religion. I'm not talking about them.

Ah. So there are good Muslims and not-so-good ones. The good ones don't want to kill you? Is that your distinction? You are actually limiting your hatred towards a few thousand extremists instead over 1 billion peace-loving people?

Second of all, it's anything but false to make such a claim.

So you don't limit your hatred to a few thousand after all?

They are the same. Attacking someone's religion can get you in trouble just as much today as 1000 years ago, in countries without free speech like Canada and the Netherlands.

Um, no they certainly are not.

And don't you know I find it reprehensible that this could occur in what are supposedly free and enlightened countries? See this thread for further details...

 

[Great Librarian]

That's exactly what I mean. Why should I respond to that question again after I already answered it.

You never answered that question.

I asked, 'Where did you find that load of bull?' regarding your post to Captain Planet wherein you wrote, '... portions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that you would like to remove because you say so?'

The thing is that Captain Planet never said anything about removing portions of the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.

And to my question you responded

I contend that any American trying to ban Islam is clearly violating the First Amendment to the Constitution. Would you disagree?

So, you'll understand if I don't think that you've answered the question, because you haven't.

What you've done is made a statement regarding any American trying to ban Islam. Captain Planet isn't any American and he's not trying to ban Islam. So, once again, where was it that you found that load of bull?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Before I knew he wasn't an American. Oops. Too bad.

I happen to believe in the First Amendment to my Constitution. I'm no hypocrite - or least I try to minimize it as much as possible...

 

[HannibalBarka]

@HannibalBarca: intolerance of race/religion and such is not well defined in some cases. For example, what about Israel's immigration law? Allowing Jews immigration and virtually allow none out of Jews (except some Palestinian Arabs) to gain their citizenship. What about some unitary country where 99% of its population is one nation?

This is not the same thing IMHO. "Only jews can become Israeli" is not the same
thing as as "Only muslims can't become israeli" the rule include just one religion
and does not exclude one, it is inclusive not eclusive and in the case of Israel it does have obvious reasons. I don't see it as discrimination, no more than let say allowing Muslims only into a Mosque or Catholic only into a Church.

By the way, is radical Muslims a potential threat for you, a former Muslim and now an atheist?

some of them certainly are. I won't travel to a Taliban run city in Afghanistan for example. But I also know many fundies (devout believers at least) who just think that I lost the true path but we tease ech other about believing and not believing in Allah

 

[Yeekim]

No it can't, discrimination based on religion/ideology can't be justified in any way. Well at least not in the Western world. I am surprised you consider that discriminating against Catholics, Jews or Muslims to be sometime justified

If the religion or ideology is criminal, it is. Say my religion involves belief that every devout believer should sacrifice a baby to Baal every equinox - would you still say it's cool?

You are basically saying Islam is not peaceful and is more warlike and it spreads by the swords, no? you are retracting your words?

...and you said that it was more about political dominance and that other religious minorities were sometimes allowed to remain - now how do these two statements contradict each other?

So now in a given country if you do not support your GOVERNMENT foreign policies you are a source of trouble and you are no more part of the West and you perceive it as the enemy ???? If you do not condone the UK support to Israel you are anti-UK ???!!!! Many PM do not support the UK foreign policies, are they now a source of trouble and enemy of the West??

If their idea of expressing "disagreement with their government's foreign policy" is terrorism, then yes. There is a subtle difference of simply being a citizen who casts a vote for opposition and someone who joins an effing Jihad and I believe you understand this. So please don't talk about apples when I talk about oranges.

Dutch will always be the majority in the Netherlands. Those muslims in the Netherlands are Dutch as much as Wilders himself.

...and to this day, there are no others than Byzantines living in Constantinople Got it.

Unless you have a racialist vision on nationhood, do you? do you consider russian-estonians in your country as much estonians as you or no?

...and please stop abusing word "racism" as well. To answer your question, no. A number of them have assimilated. Majority never has. This would take several generations minimum, if it is even possible due to proximity of Russia.

Well in that case the UK has every right to let Wilders get in or not than

Obviously. It would just go to show that he was too late to come anyway.

Now more seriously, It is no more right for the Netherlands to discrimante againt Muslims in terms of immigration than it is for Saudi Arabia to do the same against Jews!!! would you considers it OK if Saudi Arabia for example banned ever american jew to visit the country when allowing other american in???

Saudi Arabia’s government is keen to protect the status quo and doesn’t want to compromise its cultural values or standard of living by allowing foreigners to become a permanent part of society. Your only route to becoming a naturalised citizen is by marriage to a national; even this, however, doesn’t guarantee citizenship, particularly for non-Muslims.

Children of foreigners born in Saudi Arabia don’t have rights of local citizenship and automatically assume the nationality of the parents.

http://www.justlanded.com/english/Saudi-Arabia/Saudi-Arabia-Guide/Visas-Permits/Citizenship

Note that foreigners working in Saudi Arabia must have a certificate to show that they’re in good general health and free from HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, although tests are usually also carried out locally. Your sponsor will advise you what’s required.
Note also that any visible connection with Israel, e.g. an Israeli passport or an Israeli entry stamp, will disqualify you from entry.

http://www.justlanded.com/english/Saudi-Arabia/Saudi-Arabia-Guide/Visas-Permits/Introduction
Apparently, that's what they do. And yes, I consider it entirely OK. Also, please do not attempt to confuse "immigration" (as in: obtain citizenship") and "entering the country" (as tourist, for example).

 

[Dachs]

...and Constantinople is still full of Byzantines, got it.

oo i am an equatism

Turkish military superiority did not rely on prewar infiltration of Anatolia by their ethnic or religious compatriots.

 

[aelf]

I have an idea. Put militant atheists and fundamentalists in an arena, give them pitchforks and let them sort it out! Iugula!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I agree. With one adjustment. The fundies pray for victory but can't use any science while the atheists get to use science and can't pray.

Game on!