Maker of religiously critical film shot dead

[path]

That may be fine with western audience. Will not work for folks for whom nudity is 'unmodest'.

Should we be curtailing expression, setting up guidelines etc or only for certain audiences? Like a ghettoization of the public sphere.

It is well known that christians are not allowed to react violently, they can pray for them for forgiveness!
It is also well known that with muslims such silly symbolism would not work but would evoke a different response ranging from strong protest to killing. The purpose of conveying the message (if that was his intention) is already lost since he misfired, it hit muslims at a different but more sensitive place. He could have done that in a different manner.

How many people were forced to watch this? Obviously there was a message that DID hit home enough that someone felt justified in taking a human life.
Is this the future face of europe? Should there be the formation of a morality and decency watchdog organization to watchout for things like this? Who gets to decide what is offensive or non-offensive?

Hasn't europe already been through this once.

 

[fadeaway humper]

He could have done that in a different manner.

Swell. He could also have spent his life sucking fucking allah's balls.
What is your point, something like "don't go offending muslims, because they are particularly sensitive and are entitled to kill you as they see fit?"

In fact, is there anything that doesn't offend muslims one way or the other?

 

[fadingCaptain]

Sounds like a good flick. Maybe I'll give it a download.

Anyone that would kill because of a movie is a sick psycho nutbag. He should be strung up and made an example to other crazies.

 

[Thersites]

No it is called a very grave insult to the core of a believe of some individuals that take their religion very very seriously.

...and other peoples' lives very unseriously.

 

[Thersites]

Given that muslims take criticism or satire of their superstitions so seriously that it is worse than torture or death, perhaps the merciful thing to do would be to kill them all. That is the islamically logical solution, not my opinion, of course.

 

[surenderer]

Am I missing something? besides the mention of the man wearing a Jallaba I dont see where that article says anything about a Muslim murderer or if the film was the motivation?

 

[Repo Man]

Well Surender, the killer had Dutch/Moroccan nationality, was wearing the Jallaba, and Van Gogh had received death threats because of the film. Circumstantial evidence, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

Hey Bruce Wayne, ISLAM SUCKS! Come and get me. You know, I think I'll get a T shirt made that says just that. I suppose you felt Salman Rushdie's death sentence was justified? Thank you for revealing the "religion of peace" as a hopelessly backwards bundle of superstitious nonsense that is fundamentally incompatible with the civilized world.

 

[everneo]

Should we be curtailing expression, setting up guidelines etc or only for certain audiences? Like a ghettoization of the public sphere.

Freedom of expression comes with a cost. In his case the cost was too much.

How many people were forced to watch this? Obviously there was a message that DID hit home enough that someone felt justified in taking a human life.

Message could be conveyed without giving any justification for a nut to kill.

Is this the future face of europe? Should there be the formation of a morality and decency watchdog organization to watchout for things like this? Who gets to decide what is offensive or non-offensive?

If you give freedom of religion (islam) it would be at the cost of 'freedom' of such type of expression. Given that, balancing these two freedoms is the key to have a peaceful society, else you have to live with clash of civilizations.

I don't justify the killing, just trying to say the things as such.

 

[everneo]

Swell. He could also have spent his life sucking fucking allah's balls.

He could not bring in 'intended' change in muslim society in this way either.

What is your point, something like "don't go offending muslims, because they are particularly sensitive and are entitled to kill you as they see fit?"

Something like "don't go offending X, because they are particularly sensitive and are 'provoked' to kill you as they see fit", just to save your own ass.

In fact, is there anything that doesn't offend muslims one way or the other?

You have to ask them only.

 

[path]

Freedom of expression comes with a cost. In his case the cost was too much.

Yes this cost was paid for in blood throughout european history it is not the individual who decides what limits are put on freedoms or rights that people have. That is why we have governments and laws Does this really need to be explained to you?

Message could be conveyed without giving any justification for a nut to kill.

I seriously doubt it for him probably ANY criticism of islam would have been justification.

If you give freedom of religion (islam) it would be at the cost of 'freedom' of such type of expression. Given that, balancing these two freedoms is the key to have a peaceful society, else you have to live with clash of civilizations.

Wrong christianity, judaism etc have adjusted themselves to be able to tolerate criticism grudgingly or not. There are protests articles editorials etc that come from christians and jews to make it known when they are offended that is the way it is supposed to work. We are not talking about a theocracy here everneo.

I don't justify the killing, just trying to say the things as such.

Apoligetics are worthless. Tolerate the crime and you encourage more of the same.

The really tragic thing for muslims is that they cannot make the connection between this kind of social tyranny and the flourishing despots in their own lands.

 

[path]

Am I missing something? besides the mention of the man wearing a Jallaba I dont see where that article says anything about a Muslim murderer or if the film was the motivation?

from NYT international

Before fleeing, the man left a note on the body of the victim, said Eric Vermeulen, a spokesman for the Amsterdam police. The police declined to describe the contents of the message. The Dutch news media reported that it contained passages from the Koran

.

here

We shall see the details of it soon I am sure. The police are probably trying to keep a lid on it to prevent the angry backlash that is sure to follow.

 

[everneo]

Yes this cost was paid for in blood throughout european history it is not the individual who decides what limits are put on freedoms or rights that people have. That is why we have governments and laws

Practically, Govt & laws can punish the killer, but cannot prevent his intention that has deep twitched roots in his faith, though can prevent the killing with more vigilant security. How Salman Rushdie got that? Rushdie too paid too high a price, living like a prisoner for his 'freedom of expression' that too in a free society fearing mostly foriegn mercenaries.

You said that it is not the individual who decides what limits are put on freedoms or rights that people have. This is applicable either way. Are muslims expected to live with deeply hurt sentiments under humiliation to save an invidual's freedom of expression who decides their limit by his own standards? Someone of offended muslims decided to show their limit beyond which they cannot be hurt sentimentally. Both the film maker & the killer tried to draw limits for other people.

Wrong christianity, judaism etc have adjusted themselves to be able to tolerate criticism grudgingly or not. There are protests articles editorials etc that come from christians and jews to make it known when they are offended that is the way it is supposed to work. We are not talking about a theocracy here everneo.

Thats why i mentioned islam in bracket.

Apoligetics are worthless. Tolerate the crime and you encourage more of the same.

No apologetics. I was just wondering who is nuttier, the film maker or the killer.
Both acted upon their own standards of freedom & tried to limit other poeples' freedom and right.

The really tragic thing for muslims is that they cannot make the connection between this kind of social tyranny and the flourishing despots in their own lands.

Those despots cunningly hide their interests behind the religion, would not dare to go against it. Just look at any such despot and see how bloodier his hands are that would tell the amount of resistance he faced,facing.

 

[path]

20,000 gather to protest murder of filmmaker

"The freedom of speech is a foundation of our society and that foundation was tampered with today," Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen said, after the deafening noise had subsided.

"Theo van Gogh picked fights with many people, myself included, but that is a right in this country," he added to cheers from the crowd.

Here

Liberal VVD parliamentary party leader Jozias van Aartsen also said there was an extreme hardening of the climate in the Netherlands and it was unacceptable that a person could be killed for his beliefs.

"If we can't speak freely anymore that is terrible for democracy," he said.

 

[path]

Practically, Govt & laws can punish the killer, but cannot prevent his intention that has deep twitched roots in his faith, though can prevent the killing with more vigilant security. How Salman Rushdie got that? Rushdie too paid too high a price, living like a prisoner for his 'freedom of expression' that too in a free society fearing mostly foriegn mercenaries.

Again the same perpetrators commiting the crime so in the final analysis is this your argument "say something I find offensive and I am justified in killing you"? What world are you living in Everneo?

You said that it is not the individual who decides what limits are put on freedoms or rights that people have. This is applicable either way. Are muslims expected to live with deeply hurt sentiments under humiliation to save an invidual's freedom of expression who decides their limit by his own standards?

If you can't see the difference between criticism or expression and murder then we have a problem.

Someone of offended muslims decided to show their limit beyond which they cannot be hurt sentimentally. Both the film maker & the killer tried to draw limits for other people.

Wrong, not the killer nor any muslim was forced to watch this (a freedom they have) they could have answered in kind and made a film or written an article editorial or book showing islam which countered submission. You have the right to make a film or write something that someone may find offensive, you do not have the right to MURDER someone. Please tell me you can see the difference.

No apologetics. I was just wondering who is nuttier, the film maker or the killer.

If you really need to wonder about that then you need more help than I can give

Both acted upon their own standards of freedom & tried to limit other poeples' freedom and right.

Those despots cunningly hide their interests behind the religion, would not dare to go against it. Just look at any such despot and see how bloodier his hands are that would tell the amount of resistance he faced,facing.

It is just a political expression of this same mentality oppress kill or jail dissenters. Shut them up one way or another.

You are painting yourself into quite a nasty little corner here aren't you

 

[everneo]

Again the same perpetrators commiting the crime so in the final analysis is this your argument "say something I find offensive and I am justified in killing you"? What world are you living in Everneo?

I am from that part of world where someone would find it offensive enough to kill me if i say something bad about his mother. Damn with my democratic freedom, it does not really change certain sentiments.

If you can't see the difference between criticism or expression and murder then we have a problem.

Can't you see still there are people who can't see the difference between murder and criticism on their belief?

Wrong, not the killer nor any muslim was forced to watch this (a freedom they have)

Do you say it is my 'freedom' not to hear if you call me by names?!

they could have answered in kind and made a film or written an article editorial or book showing islam which countered submission.

I fully agree with you. But it is not they who killed, it is 'he'.

You have the right to make a film or write something that someone may find offensive, you do not have the right to MURDER someone. Please tell me you can see the difference.

Path, I know the difference.
Also, it depends on how 'offensive' is that 'offensive'. Some offensives are more than murder for some people. Your concept of freedom or your laws don't have any effect on their belief.

It is just a political expression of this same mentality oppress kill or jail dissenters. Shut them up one way or another.

I am more interested in the dissenters who too were muslims we are talking about, right?

You are painting yourself into quite a nasty little corner here aren't you

You are in the heat of the situation there in NL. You think about it when it is normal back there.

PS : Path, you posted reply, while i was modifying this post.

 

[path]

I am from that part of world where someone would find it offensive enough to kill me if i say something bad about his mother. Damn with my democratic freedom, it does not really change certain sentiments.

Anyone would kill you or a NUTTER would? Would he be prosecuted as a criminal?

Can't you see still there are people who can't see the difference between murder and criticism on their belief?

Which is why we have arrived at the system and resulting freedom of expression we have in the west, it was earned with blood and needs to be guarded jealously. You either live under the laws of the land or you are a criminal in the land.

Do you say it is my 'freedom' not to hear if you call me by names?!

It is your freedom not to listen or to call names back but not to kill simple as that otherwise we gradually shut down the free arena.

I fully agree with you. But it is not they who killed, it is 'he'.

Am I reading this right?

Path, I see the difference.
Also, it depends on how 'offensive' is that 'offensive'. Some offensives or more than murder for some people. Your concept of freedom or your laws don't have any effect on their belief.

No, then you do not see the difference you are abiding by vendetta not law. And you got this VERY wrong it should be "Your concept of belief or your faith don't have any effect on our LAWS". If you are arguing that vendetta is a viable option for a free society (which you seem to be) then you need to explain why.

 

[path]

I am more interested in the dissenters who too were muslims we are talking about, right?

Like Hirshi Ali?

You are in the heat of the situation there in NL. You think about it when it is normal back there.

When is it back to normal in the NL....when people aren't killed for expressing an opinion, read the quotes from dutch politicians I posted above. No matter what the climate you can try all you like to justify murder it doesn't change the fact that it is murder and indefensible.

 

[everneo]

Anyone would kill you or a NUTTER would? Would he be prosecuted as a criminal?

Someone, soon if keep on doing that mistake. He might get life term or death sentence ofcourse. But i would not be alive to see my 'freedom' is honoured.!!!

Which is why we have arrived at the system and resulting freedom of expression we have in the west, it was earned with blood and needs to be guarded jealously. You either live under the laws of the land or you are a criminal in the land.

You would keep on guarding the nuts, and you would keep on prosecuting reacting nuts.

It is your freedom not to listen or to call names back but not to kill simple as that otherwise we gradually shut down the free arena.

You said mulims are not 'forced' to watch the movie & they are 'free' not to watch it, hence i replied what sort of freedom it is?

No, then you do not see the difference you are abiding by vendetta not law. If you are arguing that vendetta is a viable option for a free society (which you seem to be) then you need to explain why.

Who said 'vendetta' is a viable option? In the name of free society you will end up presecuting muslims for the sake of freeloading nutters like von gogh.

 

[path]

Someone, soon if keep on doing that mistake. He might get life term or death sentence ofcourse. But i would not be alive to see my 'freedom' is honoured.!!!

So is his killing you right or wrong?

You would keep on guarding the nuts, and you would keep on prosecuting reacting nuts.

So you think Van Gogh was a nut? Apparently most Dutch disagree with you, again murder is a crime making a film isn't How many times do I have to explain this for you?

You said mulims are not 'forced' to watch the movie & they are 'free' not to watch it, hence i replied what sort of freedom it is?

Freedom of choice

Who said 'vendetta' is a viable option? In the name of free society you will end up presecuting muslims.

You are defending murder in the name of honor what else do you call it. Are you also for honor killings?

 

[everneo]

Like Hirshi Ali?

I don't know whether Ms.Ali opposed any despot. What about who opposed tyranny of Saddam, Khadhfi, Saud &co.?

No matter what the climate you can try all you like to justify murder it doesn't change the fact that it is murder and indefensible.

I don't justify murder, path. It is indefensible. The killer would get the capital punishment. We won't regret his death. So are future killers. Do you have a pill, that would prevent them from killing & turning them into going along with future Von Goghs in a 'free democratic way'?