Filmmaker Geert Wilders faces hatred charges.........

reply to post by blueorder

one can deconstruct anything, and when you break it down every single individual in the world is different.

Every single individual is different indeed. I believe it's more wise to try analyze a subgroup and their position in society then to demonize them as a group, based on generalized prejudices.

Now looking at things in a more adult manner, an increase in the growth of Islam in Europe will bring increasing community division, strife and oppression

I never disputed there's increasing community division, strive and oppression, in fact I stated this also. I do believe your vision holds a distortion of cause and effect though.

one can wax lyrical about morals and freedom on the internet, but I am loyal to reality, not ideas

I work on a daily basis with the most vulnerable youngsters in our society (a lot of them are immigrant children indeed), don't come talk to me about reality please. The difference is, I refuse to become cynical when confronted with our current problems in society. Therefore I prefer social analysis based on real causes above populism.

Also, we already live in a mixed society. It seems more realistic to strive towards harmonious solutions for us living together than to repatriate a significant part of our society to a land where their (grand)parents once lived.

you are demonising Wilders and his followers

I'm not. I accuse Geert Wilders of deliberately using populist statements to generate fear and strive. As for his followers: I understand why they like his message, but I also know it's a simplification of a complex social problem. I never mentioned anyone of his followers by the way (for I like all people, but not per se agree with everyones opinion).

You clearly could not deny it, and it is clearly not the only problem- our problems are varied, an increasing Muslim population will add to such problems

It's a vicious circle, wherein one aspect reinforces the other. And although it's easy to just blame Islam or Muslims, they're not the cause of our problems.
Our attitude towards them and their attitude towards Europeans: there's a problematic issue, yes.

In Britain they move into areas and colonise entire streets

Areas with the cheapest and least maintained housing, because they can't afford living in nice expensive white neighbourhoods. It's not that they choose to live in the dirtiest corners of our cities. Therefore, again, it's an economic problem in the first place. They experience the exact same problems as the lower working class did before their arrival.

It is not mainly economic, it is partially economic, but mainly cultural

If they'd gain an equal economic status as the native population you won't feel the cultural differences being such a problem.

Multi culturalism only feeds division and strife, exacerbating an already tenuous situation

Multiculturalism is a fact. if you are as realistic as you state, you should realise we have no choice but to find an efficient way to live next to each other. And then I'm not speaking about living together yet (Interculturalism).

Now you can have a discussion about WHY, you can blame intolerant locals or fundamentalist newcomers, but the reality is that it will happen- to pretend otherwise is to be a utopian day dreamer- HENCE those who dismiss Wilders as a fascist are just idealists not realists

I'm not blaming any subgroup in society nor am I pretending there are no social problems. I prefer working towards solutions for REAL problems than create new ones by stating emotionally based discours as Wilders does.

Anyway, I understand your point and I see where we agree and disagree. I have peace with that.

No, they dislike the workings of Imams and Mullahs and Clerics in politics.

The Koran is a reveal legislative and lifestyle authority.

It IS the constitution of Islamic nations.

It is the essential underlying frame work, from which all other law is judged. In a seeming mismatch of ideals, Law loses, Koran trumps.

The right to set law derives from God alone.

By this the general conepts of Jurisprudience in Islam are
the Koran, the Sunna of the Prophet Muhammad, consensus (ijma'), and legal analogy (qiyas). Notice the Koran is first and foremost. The others derive from the Koran.

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by operation mindcrime


Religion has no place in politics!!!!

There are 57 OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) that are Religious politically. Their laws are religious laws. Their citizens abide by these laws. Their citizens expect these same laws to carry over to countries they immigrate to.

Their citizens expect this? or do you expect that their citizens expect this?

I would really like you to elaborate on this a bit because i know a few Muslim people and they tell me they do not expect this. In fact the very reason they left was because of the interference of religion in their politics.

Peace

[edit on 2010/1/21 by Aeons]

[edit on 2010/1/21 by Aeons]

[edit on 2010/1/21 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Movhisattva
I accuse Geert Wilders of deliberately using populist statements to generate fear and strive. As for his followers: I understand why they like his message, but I also know it's a simplification of a complex social problem. I never mentioned anyone of his followers by the way (for I like all people, but not per se agree with everyones opinion).

Geert doesn't have "followers" other than those who elected him into his office in the Netherlands.
Those who have watched FITNA agree and already knew the facts about Islam for the most part. I applaud Mr. Wilders for distributing this message to those who might have been unaware.

I repeat, there is absolutely nothing wrong with kicking a badly behaved guest out of your house, or your country.

In fact, only a fool would tolerate such a guest.

reply to post by JJay55


My humble apologies Ms. JJay55.

But the fact that you resort to insults clearly shows that you not able to continue in a normal civilized debate. Kinda like the situation were most Dutch people are unable to settle their differences with their compatriots.

Back on topic......

Mr. Wilders main agenda:

1.) eradicate Muslim fundamentalism

Now if we assume all Muslims to be fundamentalist then the proposed measure make sense. But the problem with this assumption is that is not correct.

going by this train of thought :

-Native Americans: wild, primitive, uncivilized, dangerous people who continuously attack white settlers, cowboys, and stagecoaches and ululate while holding one hand in front of their mouths

-African black people: primitive, childlike, cannibalistic persons who live in tribes, carry spears, believe in witchcraft and worship their wizard.

-Irish people: quick-tempered brawlers and alcoholics

-Homeless individuals: behavior problems, substance abuse problems, being lazy, and being dirty and/or smelly.

etc. etc. etc...........

It's called Stereotyping:

A stereotype is a commonly held public belief about specific social groups, or types of individuals. The concepts of "stereotype" and "prejudice" are often confused with many other different meanings. Stereotypes are standardized and simplified conceptions of groups, based on some prior assumptions.

No matter how much you are convinced that the root of whatever problem there is is the fault of a single group, it doesn't mean you can exclude or prosecute this group based on your assumption.

In the Netherlands we have, in our constitution, article one which states that:"

Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.

"

Translated:"

Everybody within the Netherlands, will be treated equal. Discrimination on religion, belief, political orientation, race, gender or any other ground is not allowed

"

No surprise that Mr. Wilders made it his goal to change our constitution to allow the exclusion of Muslims in this law.

IMHO, the law can be scrapped from our constitution if you allow exclusions.
For now it will only exclude Muslims but if you allow one exclution then more are sure to follow. Maybe someday they will add fat people or ugly people...

Peace



[edit on 21/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]

And stereotyping and disliking Irish people isn't a CRIME.

Nor should it be.

It may be offensive. It may be unkind. It may be not nice.

But it isn't a CRIME. I don't have a right to not be disliked.


But EVEN IF I DID, being Irish is an ethnicity. Something you are born as.

Being Muslim is a CHOICE. It is a MEME. One can be born into a Muslim family, and then decide to be something else based on one's CHOICES.

No black person grows up and decides - you know I think I'll decicde to change my mind and become white. (except Michael Jackson - the obligatory joke inserted here.)

Not synonymous. Just because the clauses about discrimination tend to mention ethnicity, race and religion in the same sentence doesn't mean they are they are the same thing and should be thought of in the same manner.

reply to post by operation mindcrime


Wilders doesn't call for the eradication of fundamentalist Islam, only that it leave Holland.

Wilders isn't discriminating against Islam, he is treating those who act against the best wishes of Holland the same.

All murders, rapaists, and robbers should go to jail, and all Muslims who refuse to respect Dutch beliefs and principles should have to leave the country.

If they can not respect the culture of the nation to which they have immigrated, they should have to leave.

They are unwanted guests who have made a nuisance of themselves, and demanding that they leave is the right of the host.

The protections you are looking for, protections for groups to be protected from discrimination which impacts their ability to participate in their human rights, and in the civil structure of the nation, are already IN PLACE.

His wanting it doesn't make it a crime. His campaigning for constituational change isn't a crime.

And if it IS a crime, then that crime is matched by the people who he is crowing about. They too should be brought in front of this judicial/tribunal for campaigning and speaking out in a manner which contravenes the legislative concepts laid out in that exact same constitution.

They do not protect you from people questioning you and your motives and your actions. They don't protect you from your neighbour disliking your because you look funny.

[edit on 2010/1/21 by Aeons]

reply to post by operation mindcrime


Either people have freedom of speech or they don't. If people have the right to speak freely, and it is self evident that they do, then no amount of sanctimonious self righteous indignation can change that. The fact of the matter is that you have every right to express your opinion as does the next person. What makes your own sanctimonious self righteousness any more, or less, valid than Wilder's?

It is interesting to note your signature and the Einstein quote you rely upon. Ethics is not relative, it holds true for everybody in the same way. There is no freedom of speech that states we are all free to speak as long as what we say isn't hateful, and if it is hateful then you are a criminal. To label someone a criminal for something they said is hateful. People have the right to call others a criminal, what they don't have the right to do is act upon that belief. The minute someone acts upon the belief that hate speech is a crime and attempts to imprison or punish the one they have labeled hateful, they themselves are now going beyond speech and acting, not just in a hateful way, but in a way that causes injury, thereby abrogating and derogating the right of another.

While it is no doubt distasteful to speak of any group, or individual in a hateful way, lack of taste is not a crime. The crime against the Jews in Europe in the last century was not what was said about them, but what was done to them. Every one is free to believe what they want, but they are not free to act upon those beliefs if such an action abrogates and derogates the right of another. It is for this reason that your own notions of separation of church and state prove to be a misinterpretation of the concept.

Separation of church and state does not mean that a politician is forbidden from speaking to religion or its values, that separation precludes forcing one religion upon the state over another. The state can not establish one single religion over all others as a point of law, but any person in that state, whether they be a politician, plumber or an artist, can say what they will about religion, just the same as secularists can.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

Wilders doesn't call for the eradication of fundamentalist Islam, only that it leave Holland.

That is different, i agree. I stand corrected in this comment.
Just making them leave the country sound far more civilized.

Wilders isn't discriminating against Islam, he is treating those who act against the best wishes of Holland the same.

Which incidentally happen to be only Muslims? I know of a lot of original dutch people who act against the best wishes of Holland. Deport them too?

All murders, rapaists, and robbers should go to jail, and all Muslims who refuse to respect Dutch beliefs and principles should have to leave the country.

How about other ethnic groups who refuse to adapt? Will it apply to them as well? Again, how about original dutch people that refuse to respect society's beliefs and principles?

If they can not respect the culture of the nation to which they have immigrated, they should have to leave.

Again, none of the almost 1 million Muslims living in the Netherlands have respected the traditions and they deserve a special exclusion in our constitution??

They are unwanted guests who have made a nuisance of themselves, and demanding that they leave is the right of the host.

It is not my right to demand an entire group to leave because of the behavior of some!! If anybody is gonna get kicked out it is gonna be on an individual basis.

Peace

Why not? And again, if he is guilty of a crime because it is offensive and might make people be angry - then why are not the people outside his trial with the signs that intend to aborgate the entire basis of Western law not ALSO charged? Hmmmmmm?

Here is a guy who got put up against a Tribunal for hate speech here in my province. He ran afoul of the Hate crowd when he published the infamous cartoons.

I am NOT a fan of this man. However, I do agree with him completely about these issues.

He has up nine total videos about this. Worth watching.

And again, I am not a reader of his magazine. I am not a member of the same political party. I've met this guy, and I think that time has made him slightly less annoying than when I first met him 20 years ago when he was in University and I was in High School. I wasn't a fan then, and I am not a fan now.

But he should NEVER have been brought up on some sort of stupid semi-legalistic tribunal for a rights violation that isn't a even a right.

reply to post by operation mindcrime

I know of a lot of original dutch people who act against the best wishes of Holland. Deport them too?

If they are committing acts of treason, certainly the law should apply to them.

However, apparently you want to throw them in jail for exercising their rights to free speech. Could it be that you are the one who is prejudiced?

Other ethnic groups that refuse to respect Dutch culture and beliefs should also be asked to leave as well. Not any and all behavior should be tolerated.

The Dutch are what creates the culture of Holland, so no, they have a right to work towards change in their own country, including the right to call for the expulsion of an immigrant populations who refuses to respect them.

There is no exclusion of the constitution. Does Holland's constitution state that they must accept any and all immigrants?

I agree, they should be kicked out on an individual basis. I am sure that there are plenty of Muslims who are willing to share in the Dutch culture.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

I know of a lot of original dutch people who act against the best wishes of Holland. Deport them too?

If they are committing acts of treason, certainly the law should apply to them.

However, apparently you want to throw them in jail for exercising their rights to free speech. Could it be that you are the one who is prejudiced?

poet1b,

Thanks for your eloquent reply. I do believe however that you either misinterpreted what i was trying to say or you are pulling this line out of context. I was merely trying to be sarcastic (poorly obviously).

I know of a lot of original dutch people who act against the best wishes of Holland because i am an original dutch person who acts frequently against the best wishes of Holland..... I just don't happen to agree with everything people around me say. In fact it is the very reason i attend this website!!

I am all for the freedom of speech and i believe you will not find a better example of this than my own country, in all modesty. It is very important but one has to realize that a person as Geert Wilders not only expresses his opinion when he speaks out on certain groups. But he also represents a promise to the future for a lot of people because of his status as politician.

And that weighs a little heavier then your voice or mine....

We are free to speak because it will not effect another without their consent but when the majority is free to speak it leads to change and ultimately to exclusion of the minority if we do not respect that nobody should be excluded based on their religion, belief, political ideas, race, gender or any other ground.

And apart from that you can ask any Dutch person on this site (there are a few) if they have a problem with 1st generation immigrants. I'll bet you anything that you will not hear so much complaints about those people. They are usually hard working people who stick to their own kind and are generally friendly. The real problems we are having over here with our "non-western" immigrants is with the so called 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.

But to be honest, i see an increase in violence and intolerable behavior from non-Muslim kids as well. In fact i think both are equally as bad. Maybe the problems Mr. Wilders sees are not only caused by Muslims but maybe by non-Muslims as well....................and i am not prepared to go and run after every idiot how says some group is to blaim.

Let's see everybody prove that the current situation our society is in right now (whatever that may be) can be ascribed exclusively to the Muslim society. If indeed proven fact then i might reconsider but i suspect the moral lessons our own government and banking system have shown us certainly attributed to the moral decay of modern day society.

I am done ranting and i am off to see the earthquakes.....

Peace

double post.....sorry

[edit on 21/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]

So you are saying that politicians aren't allowed to talk about politics if you find it against your personal values. And you think this is REASONABLE.

And you don't find it ironic in view of this particular discussion.


[edit on 2010/1/21 by Aeons]

reply to post by Aeons


They shouldn't be allowed to talk about excluding certain groups based on religion, gender, believe etc etc......

Is really that hard to understand?

Peace

[edit on 21/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]

So freedom is based on what you find FASIONABLE.

That's fascinating. And still ironic.

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by Aeons

 

They shouldn't be allowed to talk about excluding certain groups based on religion, gender, believe etc etc......

Is really that hard to understand?

Peace

[edit on 21/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]

Yes, it is very easy to understand and what is easily understood is that you declare yourself free to exclude other points of view, as long as those views disagree with yours. You've made it clear that you do not at all advocate freedom of expression, and instead advocate a political correctness.

Originally posted by Aeons
So you are saying that politicians aren't allowed to talk about politics if you find it against your personal values. And you think this is REASONABLE.

And you don't find it ironic in view of this particular discussion.


[edit on 2010/1/21 by Aeons]

Not my personal value....our constitution!!!!

Do you read? It is has nothing to do with my personal opinion but the fact that what Wilders is trying to do goes against the 1st line of the dutch constitution.

Peace