or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ScumbagWatch: Wilders
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ScumbagWatch: Wilders

Poll Results: Will this complete Tosser get what he deserves?

 
  • 16% (1)
    Yes...he will go to jail where he belongs and they will throw away the key
  • 33% (2)
    No..he will win and the far-right will be handed a propaganda coup
  • 50% (3)
    Either way Netherlands will continue their joyous rush to fascism with heads held high
6 Total Votes  
post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
Far-Right scumbag Nazi wanker Geert Wilders goes on trial today. Fuck, I wish I'd trained to be a judge sometimes...

Link

What will happen?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #2 of 47
Either way free speech and individual rights take a hit over this.
post #3 of 47
Do you think Wilders was a nazi? I doubt it. he is to smart to be a dumbkopf!
post #4 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

Do you think Wilders was a nazi? I doubt it. he is to smart to be a dumbkopf!

You think he's smart? Very odd. How so?

He's clearly an idiot with very little knowledge of the things he talks about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Either way free speech and individual rights take a hit over this.

Yes, raises interesting questions: if free speech allows people like Wilders to gain power - people who will ban the free speech of others and suppress books etc - then what is it worth?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #5 of 47
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #6 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

It's a nice quote but it doesn't tell us anything.

In this case how do you approach it?

His platform is - among other things - to ban the Qu'ran and remove freedom of religion from Muslims only.

That's his running platform - when (and it is when) he gets in who knows what he will think up?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #7 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

It's a nice quote but it doesn't tell us anything.

In this case how do you approach it?

His platform is - among other things - to ban the Qu'ran and remove freedom of religion from Muslims only.

That's his running platform - when (and it is when) he gets in who knows what he will think up?

First question is how likely is he to become elected? In the US we have some nutty folks with crazy ideas to but none ever get close to getting elected. What are the probabilities in this case? I'm asking because I'm trying to gauge whether or not the concern it warranted or whether this is merely a hypothetical corner case.

Second, why not embark on a campaign against him? I don't necessarily mean that you run for office but actively campaign and lobby against him during the election?

Third, if he does get elected, does he actually have power to do what he promises. Again, in the US lots of politicians (presidential candidates in particular) make lots of promises sounding like they will dictate this or that or the other thing and then, once elected, find out that there are actually rules they need to follow and don't really get to bark out that many orders and get that many things done. This was by design I think. But whatever the cause, the reality of what they can do it often far more limited than people realize.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #8 of 47
I agree with FloorJack.

Whatever the outcome, the rights of the individual are going to be infringed. That means we all lose.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #9 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

First question is how likely is he to become elected? In the US we have some nutty folks with crazy ideas to but none ever get close to getting elected. What are the probabilities in this case? I'm asking because I'm trying to gauge whether or not the concern it warranted or whether this is merely a hypothetical corner case.

Very likely he will end up in power - most likely through a deal with the ruling party.

Quote:
A pact to allow Dutch centre-right parties to form a government with the support of anti-Islamist populist Geert Wilders has cleared another hurdle.

The Christian Democrats (CDA) ratified the deal at a meeting on Saturday by 68% in favour, with 32% opposed.

Link

Quote:
Second, why not embark on a campaign against him? I don't necessarily mean that you run for office but actively campaign and lobby against him during the election?

In the Netherlands no-one wants to. He has massive support. I think there are about 20 people protesting outside the court against him. That's pretty accurate.

He reflects Dutch Society almost 90% I would say.

But it does raise another issue that is behind this: He is merely a symptom of a deeper Islamophobic wave worldwide.

I think that many Muslims would prefer to just set up organizations that promote peace and community integration than actually oppose people like Wilders. I agree with them.

But what happens when they do? Look at the NYC Community Centre for example.....a moderate Imam providing a US-centric space for Muslims who define themselves primarily as American and work in the financial district - committed to opposing extremism.

The opposition is based on the Centre being:

A mosque
A Hamas base
An Al Qaeda recruiting ground.

And that's the response against Moderate US Muslims who want to join the fight against extremism.


Quote:
Third, if he does get elected, does he actually have power to do what he promises. Again, in the US lots of politicians (presidential candidates in particular) make lots of promises sounding like they will dictate this or that or the other thing and then, once elected, find out that there are actually rules they need to follow and don't really get to bark out that many orders and get that many things done. This was by design I think. But whatever the cause, the reality of what they can do it often far more limited than people realize.

The Dutch society is right now virulently racist and Europe is also in the throes of the same spectre that spawned the horrors of the last century. It is the European Disease. And it's back.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #10 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

It's a nice quote but it doesn't tell us anything.

In this case how do you approach it?

His platform is - among other things - to ban the Qu'ran and remove freedom of religion from Muslims only.

That's his running platform - when (and it is when) he gets in who knows what he will think up?

You see in the US there is no mechanism to ban a book. The laws you want to use against Wilder's he could use against you. The best solution is the remove the weapon of politically motivated bans on speech. Everyone wins.

Free speech also cuts every which way. He can say the Qu'ran is evil and should be banned and 100 other people can make a thousand arguments about why he is wrong. In the US we don't live in fear of free speech like Europeans do.
post #11 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

You see in the US there is no mechanism to ban a book. The laws you want to use against Wilder's he could use against you. The best solution is the remove the weapon of politically motivated bans on speech. Everyone wins.

Free speech also cuts every which way. He can say the Qu'ran is evil and should be banned and 100 other people can make a thousand arguments about why he is wrong. In the US we don't live in fear of free speech like Europeans do.

I don't want to use any laws against Wilders - I am in favour of him saying whatever he wants. I am just bring attention to it and canvassing other people's thoughts.

BUT - I would say this: It does lead to aggro. I don't live in the UK anymore but when I did if the fascists tried to march in my hometown (they often did) there would be hundreds of people there to stop them and a ruck would kick off with Police ending up truncheoning everyone.

I don't mind this actually - I don't make a distinction between fighting these Nazis today and fighting them in the 30s in Berlin. In fact people should have done it more in the 30s and a lot of problems would have been avoided.

But this is my confusion: the same people who are pro-free speech are anti violence (Trumpy for example) whereas one leads to the other in these sort of cases. Not with Wilders because the Dutch have embraced Neo-Nazi ideology but certainly in the UK.

For example - today the Home Secretary banned a march by the EDL (Quasi-miltary Neo-Nazi thugs)

Link

It seems they will flout the ban and march through Muslim areas provoking people and aggro will ensue. Fair enough.

But that is what you get if you have an open policy.

It's a balancing act. And btw, I know the US does this sort of thing far better and that the lunatic Nazis have not ever gained power there or spread their hate too much on the streets but I think it's in the post...it will happen there and happen soon so the US Halcyon days (which depended on the sanity and rationality of the people) may well be coming to an end and you may well have to learn how to deal with this European stye bullshit.

Certainly looks that way from the hate I'm surprisingly seeing at various demos.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #12 of 47
The Supreme Court is taking up a similar issue. I posted this on another thread on Free Speech @
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...26#post1725626

First the Constitution of the Netherlands @
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/nl00000_.html

Quote:
Article 1* [Equality]
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances.* Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.

Article 7* [Expression]
(1) No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.
(2) Rules concerning radio and television shall be laid down by Act of Parliament.* There shall be no prior supervision of the content of a radio or television broadcast.
(3) No one shall be required to submit thoughts or opinions for prior approval in order to disseminate them by means other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.* The holding of performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age
may be regulated by Act of Parliament in order to protect good morals.
(4) The preceding paragraphs do not apply to commercial advertising.

Article 11* [Personal Integrity]
Everyone shall have the right to inviolability of his person, without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.

Article 23* [Education]
(1) Education shall be the constant concern of the Government.
(2) All persons shall be free to provide education, without prejudice to the authorities' right of supervision and, with regard to forms of education designated by law, its right to examine the competence and moral integrity of teachers, to be regulated by Act of Parliament.
(3) Education provided by public authorities shall be regulated by Act of Parliament, paying due respect to everyone's religion or belief.....
(5) The standards required of schools financed either in part or in full from public funds shall be regulated by Act of Parliament, with due regard, in the case of private schools, to the freedom to provide education according to religious or other belief........

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

Quote:
PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,......

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,....

Article 1.
\t\tAll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
\t\tEveryone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.
\t\tAll are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 18.
\t\tEveryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
\t\tEveryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
\t\t(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
\t\t(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.


As a citizen of the Netherlands, Geert Wilders may have the right to free speech, but where that speech infringes on the rights of others to practice their religion which is guaranteed in Constitution of the Netherlands and in the UN Declaration of Human Rights it goes too far. As a member of the parliament of the Netherlands, he is held to a higher standard than a regular citizen as he represents all the peoplenot just those who support his viewpoints.

Christian Science Monitor Article on 1st Amendment:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...irst-Amendment
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #13 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

The Supreme Court is taking up a similar issue. I posted this on another thread on Free Speech @
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...26#post1725626

First the Constitution of the Netherlands @
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/nl00000_.html

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

As a citizen of the Netherlands, Geert Wilders may have the right to free speech, but where that speech infringes on the rights of others to practice their religion which is guaranteed in Constitution of the Netherlands and in the UN Declaration of Human Rights it goes too far. As a member of the parliament of the Netherlands, he is held to a higher standard than a regular citizen as he represents all the peoplenot just those who support his viewpoints.

Christian Science Monitor Article on 1st Amendment:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...irst-Amendment

What are the hate-speech laws in the US?

Can you say whatever you like? Defame racial groups as part of a political platform for example?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I don't want to use any laws against Wilders - I am in favour of him saying whatever he wants. I am just bring attention to it and canvassing other people's thoughts.

BUT - I would say this: It does lead to aggro. I don't live in the UK anymore but when I did if the fascists tried to march in my hometown (they often did) there would be hundreds of people there to stop them and a ruck would kick off with Police ending up truncheoning everyone.

I don't mind this actually - I don't make a distinction between fighting these Nazis today and fighting them in the 30s in Berlin. In fact people should have done it more in the 30s and a lot of problems would have been avoided.

But this is my confusion: the same people who are pro-free speech are anti violence (Trumpy for example) whereas one leads to the other in these sort of cases. Not with Wilders because the Dutch have embraced Neo-Nazi ideology but certainly in the UK.

For example - today the Home Secretary banned a march by the EDL (Quasi-miltary Neo-Nazi thugs)

Link

It seems they will flout the ban and march through Muslim areas provoking people and aggro will ensue. Fair enough.

But that is what you get if you have an open policy.

It's a balancing act. And btw, I know the US does this sort of thing far better and that the lunatic Nazis have not ever gained power there or spread their hate too much on the streets but I think it's in the post...it will happen there and happen soon so the US Halcyon days (which depended on the sanity and rationality of the people) may well be coming to an end and you may well have to learn how to deal with this European stye bullshit.

Certainly looks that way from the hate I'm surprisingly seeing at various demos.

Okay so all anyone needs to do to shut down speech they don't like to to get violent and then claim they were incited. Nice trick to shut your opponent up. Often used by the left.
post #15 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Okay so all anyone needs to do to shut down speech they don't like to to get violent and then claim they were incited. Nice trick to shut your opponent up. Often used by the left.

With respect I am having an objective conversation minus any political bias (other than Fascists being total wankers but that transcends party politics) so if you want to dialogue with me you should do the same.

I can be far more partisan than you - far more extreme too. But I'm leaving it at the door so do me a favour and give it a go yourself.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #16 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

What are the hate-speech laws in the US?

Can you say whatever you like? Defame racial groups as part of a political platform for example?

There are no "hate-speech laws" like you think of them. As long as someone doesn't cross the line to advocating actual crimes and violence then they are in the clear. "I hate gays" fine, "Let beat up a gay guy" not fine. When you conspire with or direct someone to commit a crime your speech is no longer protected.
post #17 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

There are no "hate-speech laws" like you think of them. As long as someone doesn't cross the line to advocating actual crimes and violence then they are in the clear. "I hate gays" fine, "Let beat up a gay guy" not fine. When you conspire with or direct someone to commit a crime your speech is no longer protected.

Ok..it's kind of different. You can get jail for denying the Holocaust for example...many people have.

I don't know what the laws of the Netherlands are in detail but the UK seems different. He would be arrested if he said things which COULD incite violence - this does not have to be 'kill Muslims', could be enough to go to a Muslim area and say his general stuff and kick off a riot - but probably not for 'hate speech' per se.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #18 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

What are the hate-speech laws in the US?

Can you say whatever you like? Defame racial groups as part of a political platform for example?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...dment/(page)/2

Above article sums it all up. The ACLU answers below.

Quote:
Q: I just can't understand why the ACLU defends free speech for racists, sexists, homophobes and other bigots. Why tolerate the promotion of intolerance?

A: Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone's rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice. For example, in the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago, the ACLU successfully defended an ex-Catholic priest who had delivered a racist and anti-semitic speech. The precedent set in that case became the basis for the ACLU's successful defense of civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s and '70s.

The indivisibility principle was also illustrated in the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was successfully defended by the ACLU. At the time, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, whose relatives died in Hitler's concentration camps during World War II, commented: "Keeping a few Nazis off the streets of Skokie will serve Jews poorly if it means that the freedoms to speak, publish or assemble any place in the United States are thereby weakened."

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

You might remember that I cited the Skokie, Illinois case in the New York Mosque thread--and got pummeled. As I mentioned, the Supremes who opened the first day for the 2010-2011 session today will take up a 1st Amendment--Free Speech issue in the Westboro Baptist Church case.

Some Rulings from the Supremes regarding Free Speech:

Quote:
POLITICAL SPEECH

1969: The Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the First Amendment for an Iowa school district to suspend high school students for wearing black armbands with peace symbols.
1969: The First Amendment protects speech advocating criminal activity and even the overthrow of the government, the Supreme Court ruled in a case reversing the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader in Ohio. In contrast, the court said incitement to imminent lawless action by a speaker is not protected free speech.
1978: The right of a neo-Nazi group to march through Skokie, Ill., a largely Jewish community, was upheld by a federal appeals court. While hurtful, the threatened march which never actually happened was deemed a protected expression.
1989: On free speech grounds, the Supreme Court upheld the right to burn or desecrate the American flag for protest. The court said government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.
2010: The Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal campaign finance law that made it illegal for corporations and labor unions to spend money to influence federal elections. The court said corporate officials and union leaders have a free speech right to spend money for advertisements and forms of political speech during election season.

Free speech: Some First Amendment landmarks
By Leigh Montgomery, Staff Writer / October 2, 2010--lost link
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Okay so all anyone needs to do to shut down speech they don't like to to get violent and then claim they were incited. Nice trick to shut your opponent up. Often used by the left.

and the Right---right?
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Ok..it's kind of different. You can get jail for denying the Holocaust for example...many people have.

I don't know what the laws of the Netherlands are in detail but the UK seems different. He would be arrested if he said things which COULD incite violence - this does not have to be 'kill Muslims', could be enough to go to a Muslim area and say his general stuff and kick off a riot - but probably not for 'hate speech' per se.

The difference is when speech becomes conduct targeting an individual or group.

Quote:
Q: Does the ACLU make a distinction between speech and conduct?

A: Yes. The ACLU believes that hate speech stops being just speech and becomes conduct when it targets a particular individual, and when it forms a pattern of behavior that interferes with a student's ability to exercise his or her right to participate fully in the life of the university.

The ACLU isn't opposed to regulations that penalize acts of violence, harassment or intimidation, and invasions of privacy. On the contrary, we believe that kind of conduct should be punished. Furthermore, the ACLU recognizes that the mere presence of speech as one element in an act of violence, harassment, intimidation or privacy invasion doesn't immunize that act from punishment. For example, threatening, bias-inspired phone calls to a student's dorm room, or white students shouting racist epithets at a woman of color as they follow her across campus -- these are clearly punishable acts.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

Quote:
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- United States Constitution
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #21 of 47
Thread Starter 
Updates: Wilder tried to get the judge removed and petulantly refused to speak until that happened.

A conclave found no evidence the judge was biased and so the trial continues with Wilders still silent. Shame he hasn't been for the last years. Still he may have some time to think if he gets banged up which still seems highly unlikely.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Updates: Wilder tried to get the judge removed and petulantly refused to speak until that happened.

A conclave found no evidence the judge was biased and so the trial continues with Wilders still silent. Shame he hasn't been for the last years. Still he may have some time to think if he gets banged up which still seems highly unlikely.

So the best thing to do is to keep the judge on the case and keep asking for continuances to delay the trial as long as possible.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #23 of 47
By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 4, 10:31 am ET
Quote:
AMSTERDAM Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders appealed for freedom of expression Monday as he went on trial for alleged hate speech at a time when his popularity and influence in the Netherlands are near all-time highs.

Prosecutors say Wilders has incited hate against Muslims, pointing to a litany of quotes and remarks he has made in recent years. In one opinion piece he wrote
Quote:
"I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate," adding "I've had enough of the Quran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book."

Wilders argues he has a right to freedom of speech and that his remarks were within the bounds of the law.

Quote:
"I am a suspect here because I have expressed my opinion as a representative of the people," Wilders told judges at the start of the trial.

"Formally I'm on trial here today, but with me, the freedom of expression of many, many Dutch people is also being judged," he said, referring to more than 1.4 million voters who made his party the country's third-largest in June elections.

If convicted he could face up to a year in jail, though a fine would be more likely. He could keep his seat in parliament regardless of the outcome.

The trial was adjourned until Tuesday shortly after Wilders' opening remarks, when he declined to answer any questions from the three judges, invoking his right to remain silent.

Presiding judge Jan Moors said Wilders is known for making bold statements but avoiding discussions, and added that "it appears you're doing so again."

Wilders' lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz, said the remark showed Moors is biased against Wilders and moved to have him substituted. The move delayed the trial for at least a day as a separate panel considers the request.

The move to delay comes at a delicate moment in Dutch politics, when Wilders is close to seeing many of his policy goals realized.

Wilders' Freedom Party has agreed to support a new right-wing Dutch government set to take power with a tiny majority in parliament this month. The deal is not certain because several conservative lawmakers are hesitant to work with Wilders.

In return for Wilders' support, his political allies have promised to turn away more asylum-seekers and cut immigration from nonwestern countries in half.

They also plan to force new immigrants to pay for their own mandatory citizenship classes.
Immigration-related issues have dominated politics in the Netherlands and much of Europe over the past decade. Wilders has drawn comparisons with populists such as the late Jorg Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France.


His stances resound deeply with Dutch voters, who have reconsidered their famous tolerance amid fears their own culture is being eroded by immigrants who don't share their values. Around six percent of the Dutch population is now Muslim.

Mohamed Rabbae, chairman of the moderate National Moroccan Council, said outside the court that he hoped judges would force Wilders to issue an apology for his past remarks.

Quote:
"We are not for getting Mr. Wilders in prison. We are for correcting him," Rabbae said.
The formal charges are insulting a group on the basis of its religion and inciting discrimination and/or hatred.

Convictions for discriminatory remarks are frequent in the Netherlands, but penalties are rarely greater than a small fine.

Prosecutors were initially reluctant to bring Wilders' case to court, saying his remarks appeared directed toward Islam as an ideology rather than intended to insult Muslims as a group.
But they were eventually ordered to do so by a judge.

Prosecutors won't rule out dropping some or all charges or demanding no sentence when the trial comes to its concluding phase.

A verdict is expected Nov. 4, though if the current panel of judges is replaced, the trial will be delayed for months.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101004/...ds_hate_speech
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #24 of 47
Any chance that the Dutch will prosecute Osama Bin Laden for inciting hatred of muslims?
post #25 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Any chance that the Dutch will prosecute Osama Bin Laden for inciting hatred of muslims?

No..no chance.

The US weren't telling the truth when they swore to bring him to justice so...no....he'll be safe in his cave while the sheep will keep parroting their anti-Islam rhetoric and blindly follow their leaders till the next demonized minority comes along.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #26 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 4, 10:31 am ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101004/...ds_hate_speech

Freedom of expression for a fascist who wants to ban a 'fascist' book

Equal rights for all - I have the right to punch you in the face and you have the right to be punched!!
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #27 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Freedom of expression for a fascist who wants to ban a 'fascist' book

Excerpted from Free speech: Westboro church Supreme Court case tests First Amendment @ http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...dment/(page)/5

Quote:
[T]he First Amendment's free speech clause is intended to be broadly permissive. Mere offense is not enough to trigger government censorship.

Quote:
"The problem is, once you start prohibiting speech that is offensive there is no limit to how far you can extend the concept of offensiveness," says Richard Parker, professor emeritus of communication at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff and editor of the 2003 book "Free Speech on Trial."

The history of the first amendment is populated by a rogues' gallery of provocateurs, crusaders, ra*cists, and assorted scoundrels. These tend to be the kinds of people who exist at the outer edges of public discourse where the boundaries of constitutional protection of offensive speech may not be entirely clear.

Consider the case of Frank Collin. In 1977, he was the leader of a Nazi group that wanted to conduct a protest march through Skokie, Ill., a Jewish community with a significant population of Holocaust survivors. The group sought a permit to parade through the village in their storm trooper uniforms displaying swastikas.

Village officials objected, and the courts agreed to block it, ruling that such a march would be a blatant provocation, a form of fighting words, unprotected by the First Amendment.

But the US Supreme Court had a different view. It reversed the lower courts and sent the case back. Ultimately, the dispute was decided by a federal appeals court in Chicago that found that free speech rights are broad enough to cover even a group of Nazis wearing swastikas marching through a community of Holocaust survivors.

Quote:
"If these civil rights are to remain vital for all, they must protect not only those society deems acceptable, but also those whose ideas it quite justifiably rejects and despises," the appeals court said.

The case would not have been easy for any lawyer, but it was particularly tough for a Jewish lawyer defending a Nazi pitted against Holocaust survivors. "Some folks threatened to shoot me," he says.

The ACLU lost members and financial support over the controversial case. But Mr. Goldberger, who has since retired after a career as a law professor at Ohio State's Moritz College of Law, says it was a battle well worth fighting.

Quote:
"It was important that a group identified as a liberal organization with a Jewish legal director would say the First Amendment doesn't turn on the offensiveness of the speech or the noxiousness of the political philosophy that drives the speech," he says.

Another important figure in the development of free speech protections in America is Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg. In 1964, he was filmed delivering a speech in full white-robed regalia in the glow of a burning cross during a KKK rally in rural Ohio.

Quote:
"We're not a revengent [sic] organization," Mr. Brandenburg declared, "but if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengence [sic] taken."

Brandenburg was charged with breaking an Ohio law by advocating violence during his speech. He was convicted and sentenced to serve one to 10 years in prison and pay a $1,000 fine.

On appeal, the US Supreme Court reversed his conviction, announcing in a landmark decision that mere advocacy of unlawful action was fully protected by the First Amendment. What wouldn't be protected, the court said, was an intentional effort to incite imminent lawless action, like whipping a crowd into a riotous mob and sending them on a rampage.

That 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio established a high standard for the protection of free speech. But, by necessity, it leaves unresolved the critical question of precisely where the line falls between unlawful incitement and mere impassioned advocacy.

It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who in 1919 first gave voice to the task of separating speech deserving protection from dangerous speech that did not.

Quote:
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent," Justice Holmes wrote. "It is a question of proximity and degree."

This "clear and present danger" test was used for decades to uphold the arrest of perceived government opponents and suspected communists, who in retrospect never posed much of a threat to the nation. Over time, the standard evolved, beefing up free speech protections. The evolution eventually led to the 1969 Brandenburg landmark ruling protecting the advocacy of unlawful action.

Behind it all is a conviction expressed by various members of the Supreme Court through the years that what is being protected in the First Amendment's free speech clause is the free flow of ideas the lifeblood of a democracy. It is the principle that the best way to counter a stupid idea, a hateful idea, a dangerous idea, is through the expression of better ideas.


Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis identified this dynamic in a 1927 case.

Quote:
"To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion," Justice Brandeis wrote.

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education," he said, "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

[QUOTE=segovius;1729316Equal rights for all - I have the right to punch you in the face and you have the right to be punched!![/QUOTE]

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as having the right to punch someone's lights out--unless it is in self defense. If you decide to exercise your belief as having "the right to punch you in the face," for no other reason than your perceived right to do so, you will be arrested for an assault and battery charge and will be sued for personal injuries for the assault and battery.

As offensive as Wilders is, he does have a right to express his opinions. I do take issue that this is an elected official and he might have therefore overstepped his bounds. Of course he is under the laws of the Netherlands and I have posted their Constitution earlier in this thread.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #28 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as having the right to punch someone's lights out--unless it is in self defense. If you decide to exercise your belief as having "the right to punch you in the face," for no other reason than your perceived right to do so, you will be arrested for an assault and battery charge and will be sued for personal injuries for the assault and battery.

As offensive as Wilders is, he does have a right to express his opinions. I do take issue that this is an elected official and he might have therefore overstepped his bounds. Of course he is under the laws of the Netherlands and I have posted their Constitution earlier in this thread.

You missed my irony...let's leave punching out of it...I'll rephrase:

I have the right to stop you having the right to read a book you choose to.

Or if you prefer:

Freedom of expression means I am free to stop your expression.

Whose freedom trumps whose?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

You missed my irony...let's leave punching out of it...I'll rephrase:

I have the right to stop you having the right to read a book you choose to.

Or if you prefer:

Freedom of expression means I am free to stop your expression.

Whose freedom trumps whose?

Your rights stop when it infringes upon my rights. I should be able to read any book of my choosing. No you are not free to stop me from expressing my opinions--that's censorship.

Along with freedoms comes responsibility. By allowing freedom of speech or of the press, you hope that people will act responsibly and avoid hate speech or hate mongering, unfortunately this is not the case. But to place limitations upon freedom of speech or of the press, you start down a slippery slope that you don't want to happen.

Please don't get me wrong--I really hate what Wilders is doing to the Netherlands. I still have a problem understanding why there's so much hatred out there against Muslims. My only guess is that this hatred is based upon fear and ignorance---but what's new in this???
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #30 of 47
Daniel Makosky on October 16, 2010 11:51 AM ET

Quote:
The Dutch Public Prosecution Service (OM) [official website, in Dutch] on Friday concluded its case [prosecution materials, in Dutch] against right-wing politician Geert Wilders [personal website; JURIST news archive] by asking for Wilders' acquittal on all charges [materials, PDF]. The prosecutors' request is based on a determination that the politician's statements were directed at Islam and not Muslims themselves, and that they were within the realm of public debate as commentary on matters such as immigration. Additionally, prosecutors noted that the available evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Wilders intended to incite violence or create divisiveness amongst the Dutch population. Wilders, whose trial began earlier this month [AP report] before the Amsterdam District Court, frequently calls Islam "fascist," has compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf and advocates barring Muslims from immigrating to the Netherlands. The defense is scheduled to begin presenting its case [AP report] next week, and a verdict is expected next month. Wilders faces up to one year imprisonment or fines if convicted.

Wilders' trial was suspended [JURIST report] earlier this month after a lawyer representing him accused one of the judges of bias. Days prior, Wilders announced [JURIST report] that the Dutch government will attempt to ban the burqa [JURIST news archive] and other full Islamic veils to secure the support of Wilders' Freedom Party [party website, in Dutch] in forming a coalition government. An Amsterdam trial court ruled in February that it had jurisdiction to try Wilders for anti-Islamic statements, rejecting [JURIST report] Wilders' claim that, as a member of parliament, he should be tried by the Supreme Court. That court found that his alleged crime was committed outside his capacity as an MP. Last year, the OM announced that they would prosecute Wilders following a January 2009 court order [press releases, in Dutch] by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals. Much of the controversy stems from Wilders' 15-minute film, Fitna, which shows images of the Quran alongside images of violence and says democratic values are threatened by the increasing number of Muslins in Europe.

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/10...statements.php
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #31 of 47
By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer 23 mins ago

Quote:
AMSTERDAM Muslim witnesses said Monday that a Dutch lawmaker's anti-Islamic comments had led to attacks and intimidation, and they pleaded with judges to convict him and give him a symbolic fine of one euro ($1.40).

Geert Wilders is facing charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims for statements that include comparing Islam with Nazism and calling for banning the Quran and taxing Muslim scarves, which he calls "head rags." His trial has been seen as testing the limits of free speech.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101018/...ds_hate_speech
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #32 of 47
22 October 2010 Last updated at 11:46 ET

Quote:
Judges in the hate speech trial of Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders have been ordered to step down by an independent appeals panel.

The move follows a request by Mr Wilders' lawyers who said they feared the judges were biased against him.

The legal process that began in January must now begin again with new judges. The trial itself started in October.

Mr Wilders faces five charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.

If found guilty, he faces a maximum sentence of one year in jail.

Mr Wilders' lawyer Bram Moszkowicz had argued that the bench at Amsterdam District Court had created "an impression of partiality" by putting off a decision on the defence's request to recall a witness.

Being denied the opportunity to recall the witness would "make it impossible for the defence to substantiate a crucial part of its case", he added.

A hastily convened panel said on Friday that it found the trial judges' decision to be "incomprehensible in the absence of any motivation".

They said that, as a result, Mr Wilders' fear of bias as a result was "understandable".

"Under the circumstances, the request (for the judges' removal) is granted," said a statement from the panel.

"Another chamber will handle the rest of the case."

Party success

Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops, an international criminal law professor at Utrecht University, told Reuters that the ruling meant there would be new judges and a new date.

"This means that the trial has to start all over again. Not the investigation phase, but the court sessions as the new judges will not have been present at the hearings," he said.

Under scrutiny in the trial are statements Mr Wilders made between 2006 and 2008, including calling Islam "fascist" and likening the Koran to Hitler's book Mein Kampf.

Mr Wilders' Freedom Party is the third biggest in the Netherlands after elections in June, and is expected to play a key role in the next parliament.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11609589
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #33 of 47
Thread Starter 
The EDL - fresh from beating up some women and kids in a restaurant in Leicester after returning from an Islamophobic demo in NYC - have hotfooted it over to Amsterdam to support Wilders.

Probably some aggro will ensue (you'll see that in the States soon as they've joined forces with leading Tea Party representatives) and that's maybe the only thing that prompted Wilders to distance himself from them.

Rank hypocrisy actually - his is te very hate that inspired them. Why not just embrace it?

Link
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #34 of 47


Not wild about Wilders? Populists' anti-Islam message has European Jewish leaders worried
By Toby Axelrod
Published: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:14 AM EDT

Quote:
BERLIN (JTA) -- Geert Wilders, the rock star of European politics, is riding the crest of a populist tsunami.

As the pro-Israel founder of Hollands Party of Freedom lets loose recently in Berlin, shouting that Islam is a threat to Germanys identity, democracy and prosperity, his audience of 500 reacts with an evangelical zeal, offering big-time applause and standing ovations.

Stand by the side of those who are threatened by Islam, like the State of Israel and its Jewish citizens, he exhorts the crowd.

This isn't a Jewish event, though a guest speaker is former Israeli Knesset member Eli Cohen of the nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu Party.

Ethnic Germans comprise much of the crowd Oct. 2 at the Hotel Berlin. Their chief bugaboo? The failure of Muslims to fit in to mainstream society.

Someone, in this case Wilders, has allowed them to vent their frustration (critics would say racist views). And for the crowd, having an Israeli join them seems to make things more kosher, as the anti-immigrant rhetoric has been associated typically with far-right extremists.

Wilders dismissal of so-called Islamophobia, as he calls it, also supports those who say the real problem is Muslim anti-Semitism.

In recent weeks several populist parties -- including Wilders -- have gained parliamentary seats or ministry positions in European countries. Even mainstream leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel have decided to weigh in on the Muslim integration problem.

Pure politics, critics say.

So why are so many Jewish leaders in Europe not wild about Wilders and his ilk?

Populists want a Sweden for the Swedes, France for the French and Jews to Israel, says Serge Cwajgenbaum, secretary general of the European Jewish Congress.

Quote:
Islamism certainly is a danger to the Jews and to Western democracy, offers Stephan Kramer, secretary general of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. The way to fight [Islamists] is not, however, to demonize and ostracize all Muslims.

Ron van der Wieken, the chairman of Amsterdams liberal Jewish congregation, says that perhaps more Jews support Wilders than they openly admit, but when his party fiercely opposes halal slaughter, kosher butchering will not exist much longer as well. And if headscarves would be forbidden, how about yarmulkes? And circumcision?

In Germany, emotions also run high over another purveyor of populism, author Thilo Sarrazin, who was fired from the board of the German Central Bank because of his comments about Muslim inferiority and Jewish superiority.

Jewish leaders condemned Sarrazins remarks, but some Germans on the street, including some Jews, seem more forgiving. Meanwhile his book, "Germany Undoes Itself, is a major best-seller.

Quote:
"His analysis of the socio-political situation in Berlin is 110 percent correct, retiree Georg Potzies, 64, says at Bleiberg's kosher dairy restaurant here. A large part of the Muslims -- and he never said all of them -- have no interest in integration. Just open your eyes in Berlin and you will see it."

As for the supposedly higher Jewish IQ, "I found that very good," Potzies adds, laughing.

Quote:
"What he said was a provocation designed to wake people up," says restaurateur Manuela Bleiberg, 56. Muslims living here don't have to totally assimilate, but they should keep German law."

But Sarrazin is not really interested in integration, counters Jan Aaron Voss, 46, who runs a Jewish Internet portal.

Quote:
What he is really doing is pitting people from different groups against each other to incite them," Voss says, "and that's simply wrong."

Populist doomsayers like Wilders predict a Muslim take-over of Europe, but experts says a gradual demographic shift is more likely. A 2005 study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life showed that about 5 percent of the EU population is Muslim, with the percentage growing because of higher birthrates among migrants and low birthrates among native Europeans.

The report concluded that the successful integration of European Muslims is crucial to the future of Europe.

Indeed, reports have shown there are serious challenges: language acquisition, unemployment, forced marriage, rare but horrific honor killings and anti-Semitism, especially among young men.

But reports also show that most foreigners contribute to society, and only a tiny minority of Muslims in Europe is thought to identify with banned extremist movements, like the German al-Qaida cell that spawned the 9-11 terrorists. Yet some "native Europeans" persist in labeling, observers say.

Quote:
"Youth of Turkish origin who were born here and have studied here feel they are being typecast," said Cicek Bacik, a board member of the Turkish Association of Berlin-Brandenburg. "They sometimes have the feeling that they will always be considered foreign, that they will never be at home.

They shouldn't get too comfortable, Yisrael Beiteinus Cohen suggests at the Wilders event, which launched a new Freedom Party in Berlin.

Quote:
Muslims seem to be about to take over Europe, Cohen says, stoking the audience. Is that what you want?

Increasing numbers of Europeans are embracing the message. And some Jewish leaders are worried.

Quote:
We are quite upset about having a party [in the Parliament] that says they are only addressing Muslims and immigration, says Lena Posner, president of the Official Council of Swedish Jewish Communities. History has taught us about where this can lead, and this is not necessarily good for the Jews.

But whats wrong with a pro-Israel party that highlights Muslim anti-Semitism, asks Kent Ekeroth, 29, a new legislator with the right-populist Swedish Democrats.

Ekeroth, whose mother is a Polish Jewish emigre, admits that his partys opposition to circumcision of minors and to the import of halal or kosher meat is a sticking point. But few Jews are observant, he says, And we feel that if those adaptations are too much to handle, then Israel is an alternative.

Europe's Jews aren't all about to move to Israel, but should they be a little more forgiving?

Quote:
Its akin to the evangelical Christians, says Abraham Foxman, national director of the New York-based Anti-Defamation League. On one hand they loved and embraced Israel. But on the other hand, we were not comfortable with their social or religious agenda.

Quote:
Our goal has to be to build and help with the development of a moderate Islam that [Wilders] says doesnt exist and cant exist, Daniel Pipes, a U.S. conservative pundit, says in a telephone interview. So we are allies, but there is a significant difference.

Maybe Wilders needs less treble and more bass, suggests Leon de Winter, a prominent Dutch Jewish novelist who publicly defended Wilders right to compare the Koran to "Mein Kampf."

Quote:
What I like about [Wilders is that] he is a true friend of Israel and a true friend of America, de Winter says in a call from his home in California. His opponents call him a racist and a Nazi, all of these things that he is clearly not. Still, often his ideas are over the top and I hope he will soften the way he expresses himself because the themes he touches on are really serious.

Pipes hopes populist parties will drop their neo-fascist conspiratorial ideas, strange economic ideas, anti-Semitic and racist ideas and develop broader platforms.

Quote:
What is serving them [now] is to talk about Islam and related subjects, he says. "And they are attracting votes because ... established parties are not dealing with the issues that are on peoples minds.

Police arrest 34 at pro-Wilders demo in Amsterdam

Sunday 31 October 2010

Quote:
A small group of around 50 members of the English Defence League took part in a demonstration in support of anti-Islam campaigner Geert Wilders on the outskirts of Amsterdam on Saturday, the Parool reports.

The demo had been moved to the edge of the city because police were concerned about the risk of clashes with anti-Wilders demonstrators.

There was a very heavy police presence and the nearest metro station to the event, where anti-Wilders demonstrators had gathered, was sealed off by riot police with horses and dogs.

Police arrested 34 people. Eighteen were picked up for not having id and were released after being fined. Fourteen were arrested for public order offences and were held overnight in custody. Five of those arrested were English, the Parool said.

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #35 of 47
Scandals plague Wilders' party

Disciplining of right-wing Dutch MP avoids crisis for fragile government
Quote:
AMSTERDAM Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders disciplined a party member yesterday over a sex scandal but stopped short of expelling him from the party, avoiding a crisis for the minority government it supports.....
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #36 of 47
Wilders steps up attacks on Islam ahead of trial
Quote:
GEERT WILDERS, the Dutch far-right politician, stepped up his rhetoric against Islam and immigration at preliminary hearings before a trial for incitement to hatred and discrimination.

He claimed yesterday that Islam was a totalitarian ideology that distinguishes itself mainly through murder and killing. Mr Wilders is facing a retrial on charges that his anti-Islamic remarks have led to discrimination against Muslims in the Netherlands.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #37 of 47
[QUOTE=edit out spmr
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #38 of 47

Ummm, The guy you are responding to is a spammer. Look at his signature and his topic title.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Ummm, The guy you are responding to is a spammer. Look at his signature and his topic title.

Forum awareness FAIL!
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Ummm, The guy you are responding to is a spammer. Look at his signature and his topic title.

thanks
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ScumbagWatch: Wilders