Geert Wilders

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello eaglecap   Obviously you are living in a fairy land when you say people in the US "died" for the first amendment. There was never free speech in the US, not even now. There has always been limits on free speech including limits on certain political and/or religious views and since you have an MA in history you should know better. I wonder if David Duke or Ramsy Clark would get the same reception Mr. Wilders got in the Senate.   Also remember it was activist liberal judges who extended the 1st amendment definition to what it is now and they got massive opposition from the people who "died" protecting freedom of speech.   Al-Jassas

no offense Al but you do not know our history very well but criticism has always been part of our free speech and course you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre. The limits does not include criticism of any religion or political view. If you read the First Amendment it says clearly that government cannot regulate it or the exchange of ideas ,although, I can see an attempt to do this; hate speech laws- fairness doctrine. Banning criticism of Islam or any religion and political view. David Duke was a creep but he had the right to speak. I have not heard much of him lately so that is old news.

they got massive opposition from the people who "died" protecting freedom of speech

Please clarify this!!

when you say people in the US "died" for the first amendment

Boy, I would not say this in a room full of US Marines but yes many Americans believe and it is a oommon theme in our history but it is really get off thread a bit. MA, yes but mostly pre -Greek to Hellenism.
Like Kevin said he is only talking about the extremist and not all Muslims.

The second one, in your list above, try to replace the words "racist" and "Wilders" with respectively "Islamic" and "Muslims" and see if you like that scenario.   You can think up additional examples yourself - gays/lesbians, blacks/hispanic etc. etc. - free choice on all shelves.

Replacing a person with a group is not comparable in any way. But if you want to make it comparable and replace a person with a person then we have already been living in that world for years. At least Wilders actually did something, unlike many others who are refused entry.

Do you acknowledge that Britain has the right to refuse entry?

Do you understand that Britain has been exercising that right frequently for years?

Do you believe that the law must be applied equally to all?

If the answer to those questions is 'yes', then you must acknowledge that they had to block wilders & phelps. In the real world the answer to that is all 'yes'. Now ideologically you may not agree with Britain stance, I don't really agree with it either, but I understand it.

Do you think that Britain should be denying entry to people?

Do you, like edgewaters and me, think that there should be some guarenteed rights for entry into a country?

When do you think a person should be denied?

If you mentioned violence, how do you define violence? Why is violence worse than speech? Haven't you heard "the pen is mighter than the sword"? Will you allow someone to come to your country from outside and insult everything you hold dear? Do you serious think the majority of your countrymen would? I can tell you they don't now. You could be arrested as a terrorist, holocaust denial, or intimidated by the police or vigilanties.

You can't have a dual standard, you can't have free speech for some and not others. You can't have goverments encouraging people to insult and threaten muslims while they arrest people for holocaust denial.

(I don't actually know if Holocaust denial is a crime in Denmark but I am not necessarily talking about Denmark either)

Originally posted by eaglecap Ok that is fine and I respectfully disagree with some of your points.

eaglecap you have a very strange perspective of the world. Once upon a time I tried to correct your eccentricities but I gave up.
I'm not entirely sure you understand what your country is doing, let alone anyone elses. You block people more often than Britain does, despite the 1st amendment.

Two things, you want AE not A&E, and Kafir, not Kufr.
 

Cezar to say your post was full of shit after months of those other threads where you actually agreed with some things is an understatement.

Actually look at Southern France, the Cathars were eradicated and the local culture is virtually non existent in just a few decades of "Crusade." So if it really was that bad under the Ottomans you would have much bigger number of converts. Just like in Spain. Up until relatively recently there were no Jews or Muslims to speak off due to a oh so gentle treatment. Again more proof to the fact if you wanted to convert you can, and more proof to the fact that Ottomans were relatively tolerant and a much better place to live if not of the same religion than most places at that time. Otherwise the numerous Jewish settlers throughout the Ottoman Empire wouldn't have settled there after 1500s.

Basically, a decision made by a body of a soverign non-muslim country somehow reflects badly on islam? I really don't know how North and the rest (forget eaglecap, he will blame Hurricane katrina on radical muslims) can blame muslims for a decision made by a very western very non muslim woman; i.e Jackie Smith.

Originally posted by Sparten Basically, a decision made by a body of a soverign non-muslim country somehow reflects badly on islam? I really don't know how North and the rest (forget eaglecap, he will blame Hurricane katrina on radical muslims) can blame muslims for a decision made by a very western very non muslim woman; i.e Jackie Smith.

I can see why they would, because of the mention of "public security" in the refusal. I think that was a mistake (perhaps an intentional one?). I do not agree that Wilders should be excluded because he might cause some riots or such. The state should not be held hostage by radicals who are either opposed or in favour.

The "threat to community harmony" was perfectly appropriate, though. Britain is a national community. A community has the right to be free from disruption caused by outsiders. We may have a party, and say that the homeless doomsayer on the corner wearing the sandwich boards is not allowed to come in to rant and rave while we are attempting to enjoy each other's company. It does not even matter if he is physically harmless and the partygoers are all pacifists who will not threaten or injure him - security and violence are not the issue.

This does not interfere with his freedom of speech - he is free to stand on the street corner and blather all he wants, just as Wilders is free to blather away in his home community. Any community has the right to exclude disruptive persons who are not members of the community in question.

Still, in an ideal world, it would be nice if the public was of a bent such that he could not be effectively disruptive, and would be allowed to enter the country as an amusement for the populace, a parody of antiquated intolerance. Like Phelps would be, if he behaved himself and didn't attack people or picket their homes and funerals.

Edited by edgewaters - 27-Feb-2009 at 02:31

Originally posted by edgewaters Let's not get too distracted into a "whose God is better" sort of debate.

Well if you mean me, then certainly that is false, as I believe that all of them are one and the same God. If you mean my statements, they were factual evidence that proved my point as to the fallacy of this horrible Ottoman oppression and forced conversion.

So we were never having that debate so far.

Listen very carefully, I will say this only once.

Edited by Al Jassas - 27-Feb-2009 at 08:40

Originally posted by Northman I do not blame Muslims for the decision - I blame the Brits for caving in to their fear for the extreme/radical/fanatic muslims.

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi I do not blame Muslims for the decision - I blame the Brits for caving in to their fear for the extreme/radical/fanatic muslims. I'm sure you can see the difference. So the Muslims are not Brits?

Nazir Ahmed should have kept quiet. The British government should have ignored the issue unless and until Wilders actually broke some British law within British jurisdiction, in which case he should have been prosecuted, punished as appropriate, and then deported.