Wilders won - or did he?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Your post doesn't show how they became partly responsible.

And you went from my wish not to pay these 40 morons more attention, when they've gotten way over what they deserved already from our drooling media, to some rant about some organisation I never heard of.

Doesn't really matter what I post, does it?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Seems pretty moderate to me.

You are part of the far right Winner.

 

[Winner]

Obviously, I don't want freedom to go to hell and be replaced by sharia, which makes pretty much everybody member of the far right these days...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

*sad violins*

 

[Winner]

*sad violins*

I'd prefer some menacing music in the background instead.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I pictured you saying it slowly and regretfully.

Drinking coffee doesn't look very menacing.

 

[Truronian]

Like protesting against another Muhammad cartoon? Oh, I get it, it's much more important than distancing oneself from a band of islamofascists (for once, I'll use the term because it fits here).

To the reasonable there is no proximity between said protesters and Muslims in general, and so no need for distancing.

To anybody who's been living on the same planet as me for the past 8 years it must be clear that Muslims in Western world have a bad reputation. Perhaps if they actually tried to actively distance themselves from radicalism every single time it's needed, people would not be so prone to jumping to conclusions.

It's not their problem if bigots jump readily to conclusions.

I wonder how the British people would react if a demonstration of few dozen fascists holding banners like "Islam go to hell" or "Islam will be eradicated from UK" greeted some Muslim visitor. Something tells me there would be tons of articles denouncing them, and similar statements from leading politicians.

If I were to say nothing would you assume that I support said fascists?

When the situation is reversed, there is just this overwhelming silence. Very interesting.

Overwhelming? There are numerous examples of Muslims opposing the actions of extremists out there. If you can't find them I can only assume you're not looking very hard.

 

[Quackers]

Their is a flax headed man in the picture who is probably one of them anti-fascist tools looks very out of place.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Yes, SS-18 ICBM, several times around here such reasoning has been demonstrated that any sample of, say, 40 people as above would apply to an entire population of 200,000,000,000. More than enough for a proper normal or t-distribution, right?

Why, if we were to plot the extremism of all Muslims in the world, we would find that the standard deviation with respect to the beliefs expressed by those 40 protesters is 0. Yes, zero. It's insane.

 

[Gilder]

Maybe if you people read the article...

Despite the fact that he's a history of wanting to ban it? I somehow doubt his words now. Besides, banning the book is just the tip of the iceberg with him.

The pictures are from the Times (BBC didn't include any).

Yet you included them in the article quote as if they were. That's just a bit dishonest, wouldn't you say?

 

[Winner]

Despite the fact that he's a history of wanting to ban it? I somehow doubt his words now. Besides, banning the book is just the tip of the iceberg with him.

Eh, did you read the article? He only explained why he doesn't think there is any sort of hypocrisy in wanting to ban Koran as well as Mein Kampf, he didn't deny anything.

Yet you included them in the article quote as if they were. That's just a bit dishonest, wouldn't you say?

What's dishonest about illustrating the story with real images from another source? It would be dishonest if I included unrelated pictures from a completely different demonstration. I should have included the source, granted and edited.

 

[Gilder]

Eh, did you read the article? He only explained why he doesn't think there is any sort of hypocrisy in wanting to ban Koran as well as Mein Kampf, he didn't deny anything.

Just because he says it's not, doesn't mean it's not. Banning a book, any book, Mein Kampf, the Koran or anything else is a restriction on free speech. My original point was that he says his own entrance into the UK is a "victory for free speech," which is ironic because he wants to clamp down on it by banning a book.

Bill already explained this well enough on the last page anyway.

What's dishonest about illustrating the story with real images from another source? It would be dishonest if I included unrelated pictures from a completely different demonstration. I should have included the source, granted and edited.

It's a minor point, and I'll let it ago, but it is still dishonesty, nothing big, but it is still dishonest.

 

[Winner]

Just because he says it's not, doesn't mean it's not. Banning a book, any book, Mein Kampf, the Koran or anything else is a restriction on free speech. My original point was that he says his own entrance into the UK is a "victory for free speech," which is ironic because he wants to clamp down on it by banning a book.

Bill already explained this well enough on the last page anyway.

Obviously he believes there is a clear limit and that is incitement to violence. And since he also believe that Koran directly incites to hatred, he wants to ban it according to the existing Dutch laws.

I still don't see any hypocrisy in that, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

 

[Bill3000]

Obviously he believes there is a clear limit and that is incitement to violence. And since he also believe that Koran directly incites to hatred, he wants to ban it according to the existing Dutch laws.

Then that merely means that he's just as against freedom of speech as the rest of the stupid parts of Europe and is thus a hypocrite about talking about "freedom of speech" being a virtue when he doesn't really believe in it. In the sense that he believes that vague restrictions like this are necessary he is no different than the Brits. He doesn't have the higher ground.

Talking about "inciting hatred" like this is merely code for "I don't like this speech therefore I want to ban it" - it's really no different than the inferior protections all across Europe, including the very actions that the British did to Wilders.

 

[Winner]

Then that merely means that he's just as against freedom of speech as the rest of the stupid parts of Europe and is thus a hypocrite about talking about "freedom of speech" being a virtue when he doesn't really believe in it. In the sense that he believes that vague restrictions like this are necessary he is no different than the Brits. He doesn't have the higher ground.

Freedom of speech in European sense really doesn't include saying things like "Let's exterminate Jews" or "Infidels must die". If yours does, it's your problem.

In this case, he couldn't be on higher moral high ground - he came to Britain (in his view) to criticize violence caused by Islam, but gets denied entry because a bunch of Muslims threaten to cause mayhem in the streets. It looked as if the British gov. was caving to threats of violence, which is why the whole thing was such a big deal.

Talking about "inciting hatred" like this is merely code for "I don't like this speech therefore I want to ban it" - it's really no different than the inferior protections all across Europe, including the very actions that the British did to Wilders.

Inciting hatred is multiculturalist nonsense designed to suppress opposition to this ideology. Wilders is, at least he says so, opposed to inciting violence, which is a very different thing.

 

[Bill3000]

Freedom of speech in European sense really doesn't include saying things like "Let's exterminate Jews" or "Infidels must die". If yours does, it's your problem.

Other than the fact that just means that your own speech that you have said on this forum would be illegal, since you've endorsed ethnic cleansing, you're banning speech that doesn't harm anyone. Saying that "Jews ought to be exterminated" is quite different than ordering people right this moment to go out into the neighborhood and cause another Kristallnacht. Same applies to "infidels must die".

In this case, he couldn't be on higher moral high ground - he came to Britain (in his view) to criticize violence caused by Islam, but gets denied entry because a bunch of Muslims threaten to cause mayhem in the streets. It looked as if the British gov. was caving to threats of violence, which is why the whole thing was such a big deal.

Then that's inciting violence by the stupid European definition - you're saying something and it vaguely incites people to commit violence, therefore it ought to be banned.

This is why there are a multitude of problems of banning speech that does not directly cause violence. It is extremely easy to abuse and tends to run into the same exact problem that most speech bans run into - speech is banned not because of actual harm, but because people don't like the speech.

Inciting hatred is multiculturalist nonsense designed to suppress opposition to this ideology. Wilders is, at least he says so, opposed to inciting violence, which is a very different thing.

It's not "multiculturalist" nonsense, it's European nonsense. Wilders is merely using the guise of "Freedom of speech" to spew his hatred (Which I feel that he has the right to, being a superior American!) - when fundamentally speaking, he doesn't believe any different than the British.

 

[Theige]

Those who oppose the freedom of speech should have theirs taken away!

 

[Winner]

Other than the fact that just means that your own speech that you have said on this forum would be illegal, since you've endorsed ethnic cleansing, you're banning speech that doesn't harm anyone. Saying that "Jews ought to be exterminated" is quite different than ordering people right this moment to go out into the neighborhood and cause another Kristallnacht. Same applies to "infidels must die".

It's a direct call for violence, and that's not acceptable.

Then that's inciting violence by the stupid European definition - you're saying something and it vaguely incites people to commit violence, therefore it ought to be banned.

...aaaand that's not the case, sorry. Or at least, it's not what Wilders seems to be arguing for.

It's not "multiculturalist" nonsense, it's European nonsense.

Nope. Variants of the so called incitement to hatred laws exist mostly in countries which embraced multiculturalism. In the rest of the continent, the restrictions are mostly related to Nazism and violence.

Wilders is merely using the guise of "Freedom of speech" to spew his hatred (Which I feel that he has the right to, being a superior American!) - when fundamentally speaking, he doesn't believe any different than the British.

And wrong again, I already told you why so I am not going to repeat myself.

 

[Bill3000]

It's a direct call for violence, and that's not acceptable.

You really can't get more indirect than a out of context quote from a 1400 year old book, sorry.

And no, it's not direct. Direct would be what I said - a person telling people to go out to the streets and kill all the Infidels right now. This is different because it is directly causing violence. This is quite different from an ideology whose goal is to exterminate all the Infidels - the best cause to fight that is condemnation and ostracism, not oppression.

...aaaand that's not the case, sorry. Or at least, it's not what Wilders seems to be arguing for.

Eurotrash use the flimsiest excuses to get whatever speech they dislike banned. This is the case for Wilders as it is for the UK. This is possible because they do not have a coherent view of freedom of speech.

Nope. Variants of the so called incitement to hatred laws exist mostly in countries which embraced multiculturalism. In the rest of the continent, the restrictions are mostly related to Nazism and violence.

No, the same fundamental restrictions applies across the continent - what differs is merely what is acceptable and what is not. There is no difference between banning Nazi speech and banning Wilders' speech outside of what precisely they preach and the degree to what people find acceptable.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

He would be a much more ironic character if he was a Christian.