Geert Wilders

Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by Northman Originally posted by es_bih Well it seems that you're doing over-time trying to find a way to justify this as "freedom of speech." What must he do? Lead a march and start a public burning before he is a hate monger?   Let me return the question: What has he done that he should be punished in any way? - did he harm anyone? - did he ask others to go to holy war? - did he say he would kill someone? No - he made a film expressing his concerns and fear. Some people could find that movie hurtful or insulting - but that is not his problem.   Many people are more or less hate mongers, expressing their aversions. We may not like it, but if they keep it at that, and not advocating to harm anyone - it's their right.   Can we convict or punish anyone for what he possibly might do?    Who punished him or hurt him in return? His film was viewed in Parliament and the UK was it not? He the person could not gain entry, and as Al-Jassas pointed out plenty of people are not allowed entry. This is a UK government issue not a freedom of speech issue.

Originally posted by Northman Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by Northman Originally posted by es_bih Well it seems that you're doing over-time trying to find a way to justify this as "freedom of speech." What must he do? Lead a march and start a public burning before he is a hate monger?   Let me return the question: What has he done that he should be punished in any way? - did he harm anyone? - did he ask others to go to holy war? - did he say he would kill someone? No - he made a film expressing his concerns and fear. Some people could find that movie hurtful or insulting - but that is not his problem.   Many people are more or less hate mongers, expressing their aversions. We may not like it, but if they keep it at that, and not advocating to harm anyone - it's their right.   Can we convict or punish anyone for what he possibly might do?    Who punished him or hurt him in return? His film was viewed in Parliament and the UK was it not? He the person could not gain entry, and as Al-Jassas pointed out plenty of people are not allowed entry. This is a UK government issue not a freedom of speech issue.   His natural right to travel freely into UK was taken away from him - that is a punishment.   Yes, this is indeed an issue to ponder for the brits and their government in particular. They cater the Muslim extremists by denying him in for expressing his views - what will come next - mind control?   But it's also a Freedom of Speech issue - entering the slippery slope of limiting human rights and freedoms.

There is no such thing as a natural right to travel freely into one country where the government of that country representative of the people says that you cannot enter. Plenty of people experience that from all sides of the spectrum. His film is in the UK, it was viewed in many mediums, from political to the popular. Nothing wrong here at all. Every country has a right to decline visitor rights to a person that they deem may bring more negative than positive.

Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by Panther I think it is ridiculous. What's the point of allowing one set of views to be expressed and not another. So... what it boils down to is... free speech for thee, but not for me. Regardless of the facts behind this, i'm sure the BNP has picked up more than a few votes with this continuely growing clusterf**k of more state intervention. Either all views are expressed for public dissemination or none are except for what  the state dictates or will allow! I don't think you read the preceding posts or the news piece. They did allow his view to be shared. The UK allowed his movie Fitna to be shown in Parliament, but the UK as a country did not allow him to enter, in which they are justified of course. Furthermore, check the news piece Al Jassas brought into the conversation, too, which clearly shows a lot more people who were denied entry. Again to sum it up no one in the UK goverment actually banned his views, because Fitna was able to be shown in the UK, but they did not let him enter the country, because of reasonas they stated. What is so wrong in that? As Sparten put it, they both were allowed to excercise their freedom of speech, Wilders was allowed his freedom of speech by the UK government allowing his movie to be shown, and the UK government, too, by not allowing him the person to enter the country.

Sorry. I was thinking of an article from a different news thread about this very subject when i wrote that. The point is, every country in the west has groups spreading hate or chanting death and destruction toward the host country, regardless of whatever their affiliations are or their place of birth. And they are worried about the possibly repugnant views of this one man, a European bureaucrat  whom many in the world, most especially in the west have never even heard of until now, including me! It doesn't matter what his views are anymore, because he along with a slowly growing list of others here in the west are sure to be turned into tomorrow's posterboy of political correctness run amok by many on the extreme far right. They're stupidly making him into a free speech martyr along with thousands of others.

I'm sorry, but i don't think this has anything to do with social harmony, but more to do with a state being terrorized from within, which in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing if given a good reason. However, this doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to me at this time.

Originally posted by Northman Originally posted by edgewaters Does Fitna explicitly incite violence?   No - and thats the point. The basic message in Fitna is suggesting to tear up or ban the Quran since the Quran is inciting to violence - or rather, since the radical elements of Islam are using the scriptures to incite followers to violence. The film is very strong in its expression - maybe too emotional for my taste. However - it's just a point of view and a suggestion.   To reject Wilders entrance because of this, is just another case of proving that the radical Islamic policy is working - yet another example of caving into fear.   We sell out of the most important western values in trade for peace - blackmail.

I agree ... I think inciting violence is the test in applying free speech. 

Wilders should be allowed to demand that we ban the Quran, just as Wilders' opponents should be allowed to demand that we ban his film, but we shouldn't give in to either one of them. We should only come down on those who explicitly call for violence as a solution. It is the only thing that matters because without violence, neither of them have any practical means of imposing their anti-free speech agenda on any unwilling subject.

Edited by edgewaters - 13-Feb-2009 at 09:44

Originally posted by Reg Quite, but the crime lies entirely with those who first resort to violence and it's a simple matter of prosecuting them like other criminals.

No, it doesn't.
Depending on the situation of course, the crime quite often lies equally with the one who provoked the violence.

The irony here is that Wilders is denied entry to Britain for fear of the very tendencies he warns against. I suppose he must find some confirmation in this.

No, Wilders is denied because he is a shamless racist, and he promotes hate, fear, and xenophobia.

Originally posted by Reg Indeed, this is the only feasible solution if freedom of speech is to be anything more than a tool for extremists.

Indeed. Extremists like Wilders are hiding behind free-speech to spread their message of hate, what must be done is not to silence them or the equal & opposites, but to denouce them loudly and by all communities.

Every community has its extremists, there is only a problem when the moderate majority side with the extremists in their community rather than siding with the siding with majority moderates in other communities.

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 13-Feb-2009 at 10:55

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim No, it doesn't. Depending on the situation of course, the crime quite often lies equally with the one who provoked the violence.

It can if the violent response is harmless enough, but no insult is equal to murder.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim No, Wilders is denied because he is a shamless racist, and he promotes hate, fear, and xenophobia.

This is your take on him, many British voters may disagree or even claim it is warranted.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Indeed. Extremists like Wilders are hiding behind free-speech to spread their message of hate, what must be done is not to silence them or the equal & opposites, but to denouce them loudly and by all communities.

Those who disagree with Wilders will denounce him, those who do not will either be supportive or ignore him. None of us can expect all communities to to work with our own agenda, nor can we speak for them.

Who cares if they had or not had a dutchman in mind when they made it? Point is they have it and are using it within their own right and conscious thinking... whether or not that will be negative or positive is a different matter, but fact remains that they have that right as a independent state, and he does not have a natural right in the real world, but rather in a more harmonious non-governmental world, which sadly does not exist nor will ever. Thus a government has a right, if the majoirity of citizens of representatives in Parliament decide to get rid of it then of course that is different. 

Just to be clear, as a an EU citizen you do NOT have the right to travel freely per se, your country and others have an agreement that citizens can cross borders after showing a valid and acceptable proof of identity, it is not a right, it is a reciprocal agreement between members of the EU  by virtue of various treaties countries can and routinely do prevent movement.

Originally posted by Dolphin This is just another example of what is becoming the most police minded country in Europe. CCTV cameras watching everybody from every angle, without their knowledge, attempts to put everybody on a massive DNA database in the presumption of guilt, which disgusts me, a "Section 5" public disorder ac that gives the police the legal right to arrest ANYBODY for anything they can think of, and a massively over-budget ID card scheme that is completely against people's rights to privacy. It didn't surprise me at all when I heard this. Wilders is a democratically elected politician, he should be allowed to enter a fellow country of the EU. His views are not the issue, his right to express it is. I don't agree with what he has to say, but what right does the government have to decide what is potentially dangerous for their citizens to hear or be exposed to. It is their right to listen to him, to denounce him, to ignore him. It is not the government's right (or responsibility) to decide their course of action for them. This sort of trend really worries me, and is the reason I would not like to live in the UK. Ireland is getting as bad, but not quite yet. And at the end of it all, Wilders is getting a lot more publicity for his video than he would ever have got without this debacle, so even the motivations of immigration are wholly questionable.

I agree and the only violence I see is when a certain group is angered by what he says. When the Crucifix was put into a jar of urine and called art it made some Christian angry, especially Catholics, but where were the riots and killings? I am glad the vast majority of Muslims are sensible and would not go to this extreme. When he says he does not like Islam he only means the extreme end of this religion that is behind the violence. When he says he like Muslims I think he acknowledges the Muslims who are peaceful. Immigration. I agree Britain has the right to turn him away like Holland and the USA have the same right to regulate immigration- another issue. Let not turn ADD and keep on his right to enter Britain and even though the UK has that right I still have the right to condemn them for it.

I agree a few yahoo uneducated red necks might take his message to a hateful extreme but I have never learned to hate from him or others.

I put this link up so you can judge this debate for yourself.

Debate in House of Lords on the UK government's justification for barring Wilders from the country


http://news.parliament.uk/2009/02/geert-wilders/

Free speech is being threatened in the USA as well, even with our First Amendment.

David Horowitz- freedom center

Seven Muslims have put an restraining order on a reporter in Texas named Joe Kaufman and it seems free speech has been hamstrung in Europe and Canada but now they are trying to do it in the USA. If you want google it but I would make it another thread under free speech or whatever.

Edited by eaglecap - 13-Feb-2009 at 18:52

No Northman, I am not on the wrong page. The right to move around in the EU is based on the free movement of workers, Article 39. I know I am a just a swarthy, stupid Paki, who has no idea of "Western Values", but I would have thought three years of EU Law at the Uni of London LLB, and then at post graduate level would give me at least an idea of what the law is about.