Britian Capitulates to Islamic Intolerance

I'm pretty sure it's just about stopping a "Riot". The problem is that if people protest about their particular religion being picked on and they get all too emotional (like they usually do), then they would claim that any repercussions for their own inability to maintain civility would be an attack on their religion, even when it's "Just keeping the Peace".

Perhaps if it went ahead, trouble makers should just be automatically Deported if they happen to be an Immigrant. ( I know this will raise complaints in regards to those that have moved here, however if they've come here just to upset the legal system and this countries way of life, then they should be deport.)

(Btw SAM, I already know how you'll respond about Briton's being in other countries etc, so you don't have to worry about trying to Educate me. After all it's not like I'm personally picketing the Cabal.)
 
I would expect the UK to do the same for anyone spreading hate for any group.


After all it's not like I'm personally picketing the Cabal

Yeah, I know, else how would they deport the BNP?

Btw, many of the "agitated" Muslims are born in Britain. Where would you deport them to?
 
Btw, many of the "agitated" Muslims are born in Britain. Where would you deport them to?

"'Blowing people up is quite cool'

Young Muslims are easy prey, Qadir told CNN, because they believe the British government crackdown has scapegoated them because of their religious beliefs. The youth also can empathize with those who castigate the Bush administration.

There are some who believe "blowing people up is quite cool," Qadir said.

Qadir asked them why that was justified.

"The answers that I got back is: When a bomb goes off in Baghdad or in Afghanistan and innocent women and children are killed over there, who cares for them? So if a bomb goes off in America or in London, what's wrong with that?" he said."

"They're into all kinds of vices -- street crime, gun crime, drugs, car theft, credit card fraud. But then now you've got another threat," Qadir said.

"The new threat is radicalism. It's a cause. Every young man wants a cause."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/
 
So they've bought into "collateral damages"? Why is that a surprise? The UK is "liberating" Iraq and Afganistan isn't it?

I recall reading a piece by Hamas, where they were surprised that suicide bombing was considered a crime against humanity.

Really? They said. It matters if its from an airplane or tied around the waist? Technology changes a crime to a "not crime"?

When a bomb goes off in Baghdad or in Afghanistan and innocent women and children are killed over there, who cares for them?

What do you think?
 
I think: usually the intollerant are blamed, especially governments. Today those governments(Ours, the europeans) tolerating such behavior should be blamed.
In such cases we should drop much of the "tolerance" or "non-discrimination" rethoric.
 
I recall reading a piece by Hamas, where they were surprised that suicide bombing was considered a crime against humanity.

Really? They said. It matters if its from an airplane or tied around the waist? Technology changes a crime to a "not crime"?

Well, when faced with that logic, why doesn't Hamas just visit maternity wards and slice the throats of newborns if they really want to justify a means to an end.
 
"If anyone had doubted the extent to which Britain has capitulated to Islamic terror, the banning of Geert Wilders a few hours ago should surely open their eyes. Wilders, the Dutch member of parliament who had made an uncompromising stand against the Koranic sources of Islamist extremism and violence, was due to give a screening of Fitna, his film on this subject, at the House of Lords on Thursday. This meeting had been postponed after Lord Ahmed had previously threatened the House of Lords authorities that he would bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if Wilders was allowed to speak. To their credit, the Lords authorities had stood firm and said extra police would be drafted in to meet this threat and the Wilders meeting should go ahead.

But now the government has announced that it is banning Wilders from the country. A letter from the Home Secretary’s office to Wilders, delivered via the British embassy in the Hague, said:

...the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/arts/3344161/britain-capitulates-to-terror.thtml

"Geert Wilders, who leads the small Dutch Freedom Party, was due to show his controversial 17-minute film at an event in the House of Lords tomorrow, but was informed yesterday by British officials that he would not be allowed to enter the country. The decision sparked an immediate diplomatic row after the Dutch Government pressed Britain to reverse the ban."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-dutch-campaigner-against-islam-1606309.html



The Free World has taken a huge step backwards by capitulating to Islamic intolerance. A sad day indeed. :(



"Just the other day, 28 Jan., there was a well written article by Johann Haris in the British Independent , "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?":

The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors."

This article was republished in India just recently and led to some rioting, etc., etc. So Haris wrote another piece in the Huffington post,"Despite the Riots and Threats, I Stand By What I Wrote".

"An Indian newspaper called The Statesman -- one of the oldest and most venerable dailies in the country -- thought this accorded with the rich Indian tradition of secularism, and reprinted the article. That night, four thousand Islamic fundamentalists began to riot outside their offices, calling for me, the editor, and the publisher to be arrested -- or worse. They brought Central Calcutta to a standstill. A typical supporter of the riots, Abdus Subhan, said he was "prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to protect the honour of the Prophet" and I should be sent "to hell if he chooses not to respect any religion or religious symbol... He has no liberty to vilify or blaspheme any religion or its icons on grounds of freedom of speech."

Then, two days ago, the editor and publisher were indeed arrested. They have been charged -- in the world's largest democracy, with a constitution supposedly guaranteeing a right to free speech -- with "deliberately acting with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings". I am told I too will be arrested if I go to Calcutta.

What should an honest defender of free speech say in this position? Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth -- especially in a democracy of a billion people rivven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize."

LOL So a society that puffs itself up with pride for bravely standing up to "religions" finds it can only be "brave" by mocking and criticizing a faith of people who turn their cheeks and loves their enemies.

But when they come to a religion this is blood thirsty and brutal and with adherents who are willing to kill and die in the process if their religion is mocked or attacked, Then they end up showing what a bunch of gutless scumbags of the earth they are. Ohhh Noooo the big bad muslims will riot and kill us if we poke fun at them lets all stop attacking islam and be nice to them so we can be safe.....

Gutless scumbags. You bluff has been called, your decadent weak liberal society has just bowed its head to a culture that fully intends to destroy it. You’re finished.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Well, when faced with that logic, why doesn't Hamas just visit maternity wards and slice the throats of newborns if they really want to justify a means to an end.

Why doesn't the US? Why starve the children? Why bomb them from 10,000 feet and pretend its not criminal to do so? Why not just slit their throats?
 
Then consider if you would want your gospel banned. And what you propose should be done with anyone who advocated it with the vileness of Wilders.
Go to court. In The Netherlands, it is not allowed to incite hate or to provoke violence. I'm not quite sure Wilders is actually guilty of that, although I do think he is cutting it awfully close. Luckily, there is a fairly objective justice system in place to examine that in depth. Let both sides be heard, and let the judges make an informed decision based on that.

While he may not convince anyone to change their minds, he will generate enough poison to destabilise society.
Welcome to the free world. I'd rather take the risk of "destabilization" every now and then, than to ban every piece of information which may cause it (may it be some holy scripture, a controversial movie or a scientific publication).
 
Go to court. In The Netherlands, it is not allowed to incite hate or to provoke violence. I'm not quite sure Wilders is actually guilty of that, although I do think he is cutting it awfully close. Luckily, there is a fairly objective justice system in place to examine that in depth. Let both sides be heard, and let the judges make an informed decision based on that.

That only works if the court is fair and unprejudiced.
Welcome to the free world. I'd rather take the risk of "destabilization" every now and then, than to ban every piece of information which may cause it (may it be some holy scripture, a controversial movie or a scientific publication).

Welcome to the world of "antisemitism".

edit:
It would seem the Dutch court has reversed an earlier decision:

A right-wing lawmaker should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred with anti-Islamic statements that include calling the Quran a "fascist book," a Dutch court ruled Wednesday.

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made headlines around the world in March 2008 with his film "Fitna," which juxtaposed Quranic verses against a background of violent film clips and images of terrorism by Islamic radicals.

In 2007, Wilders called for a ban on the Quran "the same way we ban 'Mein Kampf.'" He said both Adolf Hitler's work and the Muslim holy book contain passages that contradict Western values.

The Amsterdam Appeals Court called Wilders' statements in his film, newspaper articles and media interviews "one-sided generalizations ... which can amount to inciting hatred."

The court's ruling reverses a decision last year by the public prosecutor's office , which said Wilders' film and interviews were painful for Muslims but not criminal.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/21/europe/EU-Netherlands-Hate-Speech.php


So, if his film had been about Jews, would he have been prosecuted? I recall an earlier film called "The Evil Jew" released during WWII. Is it considered as hate speech?
 
That only works if the court is fair and unprejudiced.
I can't claim the Dutch courts are exactly that... but it is the best our society has to offer. If you feel Wilders went too far, this is the place to go.
 
I can't claim the Dutch courts are exactly that... but it is the best our society has to offer. If you feel Wilders went too far, this is the place to go.

I don't know the Dutch criteria for "hate speech". What are their previous prosecutions in this regard?
 
It would seem the Dutch court has reversed an earlier decision.
So, there will be a trial. One I'd be following with interest.

So, if his film had been about Jews, would he have been prosecuted?
In theory, the subject of the movie makes no difference. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Muslims made a similar movie about Christianity.

I recall an earlier film called "The Evil Jew" released during WWII. Is it considered as hate speech?
I do not know the content of "The Evil Jew", so I can't comment on it. The title seems awfully suggestive though, and based on that alone I would guess it would be a firm candidate for being considered as hate speech.
 
I don't know the Dutch criteria for "hate speech"
Neither do I. Well, at least not to the letter. That's why I think the trial would be rather an interesting one. It is bound to generate a lot of debate in the public domain, and I, for one, would be interested to see what comes out of that.
 
Stuff gets banned in India all the time. You're free to speak, not free to offend. Even on this forum, people clamour about "hate speech" and open threads against "bigots", demanding repression of free expression. How is that any different?

Because in india if you dont leave you disapear, and if you leave you still disapear.
 
So, there will be a trial. One I'd be following with interest.


In theory, the subject of the movie makes no difference. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Muslims made a similar movie about Christianity.


I do not know the content of "The Evil Jew", so I can't comment on it. The title seems awfully suggestive though, and based on that alone I would guess it would be a firm candidate for being considered as hate speech.

Just checked it. Its not Evil Jew, its The Eternal Jew. I thought Ewige meant Evil, lol

The movie is done in the style of a documentary, the central thesis being the immutable racial personality traits that, according to Nazi doctrine, characterize the Jew as a wandering cultural parasite. Throughout the film, these supposed traits are contrasted to the Nazi state ideal: while Aryan men are shown to find satisfaction in physical labor and the creation of value, Jews are depicted as finding pleasure in money and a hedonist lifestyle. While members of the Aryan race live healthily, rich Jews are shown as living in bug-infested and dirty homes, even though they could afford better. The footage to convey this was actually captured in ghettos, where living conditions were very poor and unsanitary surroundings were virtually inevitable. While Germanic/Nordic man has an appreciation for Northern culture and imagery, Jews are alleged only to find satisfaction in the grotesque and decadent. Many things that run contrary to Nazi doctrine are associated with Jewish influence, such as modern art, cultural relativism, anarchic and socialist movements, as well as sexual liberation. The film criticizes Jewish religious practices and criticises kosher slaughtering (shechita) in which animals bleed to death, as inhumane, contrasting it with Nazi laws requiring that animals be anaesthetized prior to slaughter.

It was a Nazi propaganda film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew
 
It was a Nazi propaganda film
The Eternal Jew basically equates Jews to rats. In present day, such a movie would most likely be banned, yes. But you can't possibly compare that with Fitna, can you? Fitna targets the Quran and those who preach the violent bits from it. Wilders, as far as I can see, does not seem to make a racial classification of any kind.
 
The Eternal Jew basically equates Jews to rats. In present day, such a movie would most likely be banned, yes. But you can't possibly compare that with Fitna, can you? Fitna targets the Quran and those who preach the violent bits from it. Wilders, as far as I can see, does not seem to make a racial classification of any kind.

Have you seen Fitna? If thats not inciting racial hatred, I don't know what is.

Its equivalent to projecting Geert Wilders speeches as the point of view of the Dutch people.

In fact, I know many Muslims who think this is the opinion of the Dutch people about Muslims.
 
Have you seen Fitna? If thats not inciting racial hatred, I don't know what is.
In fact, I have. Nothing in it seems to suggest racial hatred to me. Would you mind pointing out the bits where it does?

It does put Islam, a global religion, in a negative light. No racial prejudice there. Whether he incites hate towards those followers, I do not know. Personally, I'm inclined to say that Fitna does not. That's not to say Wilders never crossed the line. The trial will determine that.

On a side note, the day after Fitna, I awoke in a country that wasn't much different than before its release. No riots, no uprisings, no violence. Most Dutch Muslims seemed to find the movie rather mild and didn't care too much about it... which, in my opinion, was a very rational response to the whole affair. Here you can find the relevant BBC news article about it.

Its equivalent to projecting Geert Wilders speeches as the point of view of the Dutch people.
I do hope that most understand that within the Netherlands people can and do have different opinions. Many agree with Wilders, and many do not.

In fact, I know many Muslims who think this is the opinion of the Dutch people about Muslims.
They'd be wrong.
 
In fact, I have. Nothing in it seems to suggest racial hatred to me. Would you mind pointing out the bits where it does?

Perhaps religious bigotry would be a better word, although the end results are similar.
It does put Islam, a global religion, in a negative light. No racial prejudice there. Whether he incites hate towards those followers, I do not know. Personally, I'm inclined to say that Fitna does not. That's not to say Wilders never crossed the line. The trial will determine that.

You need a trial to tell you if Geert Wilders promotes hatred?
On a side note, the day after Fitna, I awoke in a country that wasn't much different than before its release. No riots, no uprisings, no violence. Most Dutch Muslims seemed to find the movie rather mild and didn't care too much about it... which, in my opinion, was a very rational response to the whole affair. Here you can find the relevant BBC news article about it.

Maybe the Netherlands is not the place to gauge reactions to the Dutch. Perhaps places where Dutch troops are spreading democracy by military force with NATO might be more educational.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/04/18/48527.html

I've often wondered if the Dutch see any cognitive dissonance in expecting immigrants to assimilate to their culture, while sending troops to enforce their culture on other peoples.

I do hope that most understand that within the Netherlands people can and do have different opinions. Many agree with Wilders, and many do not.


They'd be wrong.

Lets hope the Dutch have similar realisations about Muslims.
 
Back
Top