Blasphemy is still a crime…

…in the Netherlands:

A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.
Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
“In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line,” the court in Amsterdam said.
Mr Wilders said the judgement was an “attack on the freedom of expression”.

It certainly is. Mind you, Wilders himself doesn’t quite understand this whole “freedom of expression” thing himself:

A year earlier, Mr Wilders described the Koran as a “fascist book” and called for it to be banned in “the same way we ban Mein Kampf”, in a letter published in the De Volkskrant newspaper.

Via Charles Johnson, who rightly notes, “this prosecution is disgusting and wrong, but it’s difficult to cast Wilders as an icon of free speech when he explicitly advocates taking away the rights of others.” That goes for many free-speech martyrs.
Damian P.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Blasphemy is still a crime…

  1. Damian, i think you and others are missing the point in your attempts at being egalitarian.
    Mr.Wilders uses the Islamofacist’s own words and deeds to illustrate why they are a threat to the Netherlands and to the world in General.
    Should it be a crime to expose those who would harm us, by showing how Islam is a motivating force behind the violence? Some of his friends have been murdered for expressing their views on this very subject.Why would anyone want to support the silencing of his voice?
    Already the U.N. has moved to suppress criticism of Islam.The Netherlands look to be next.
    Is the truth no longer allowed to be spoken when criticizing Islam? I find it curious that more people find fault with Wilders by way of moral equivalency ( i.e. finding fault with his efforts to suppress hate literature) then with the Imams who wish our defeat and to see the rise of a new Islamic caliphate in Europe and beyond.
    There are those who seek to discredit Wilders because he is from a right wing nationalist party.It should be remembered that if not for the nationalist movements in many European countries, there would be no bulwark against the rising tide of European Islamification.

  2. Free speech is not a reciprocal right. Even those who would take it away from others — say, those law students who were trying to take over Maclean’s — should still enjoy it. Someday the irony just may occur to them.

  3. As well, I fully agree with the above points by Kursk … very well put.
    As to Johnston, he is one to talk. He is a dictatorial twit who uses PJ media like a hammer to quash free-speech among conservatives. Try so much as linking to sources he doesn’t like, and you are off of PJ media. Compared to most of our Blogging Tory blogs, he runs his LGF like a boot camp where only the echo-chamber is allowed. It’s his right, but he sets a pathetic example and destroys all his credibility on this issue.
    He should take his own advice.
    As well, so many of “us” North Americans are completely ignorant of European realities, demographics, and politics, branding as “white supremacist” groups who are merely trying to preserve European culture. These people are in the late stages of cultural clash where their situation is desperate. Europe is already seeing the first signs of balkanization within its urban centers … it is on the edge of the cliff. I ask, is there anything supremacist or racist about trying to save one’s own culture … especially from a barbaric all devouring onslaught by Islamists, aided by socialist utopians.
    Even many North American conservatives can’t grasp the reality, even though they blog and write about it. And strangely, they are all for our troops blasting the crap out of Afghan peasants who happen to be Taliban … but tisk tisk Wilders and others for being “supremacist” for simply defending their culture … our culture from a barbaric onslaught. One problem is that North America is full if immigrants of all races who crave and cherish our culture … so many North Americans can’t grasp the Eurabian reality. Imagine if even 20% of all immigrants to Canada hated us, and wanted to do away with our institutions.
    I find the smug attitude among some conservatives toward the likes of Wilders, Saltan, Falacci, Spencer, Hirsi Ali and others to be sad. While these heroes are fighting against cultural destruction … some conservatives are still fighting the war on terror … as stupid a concept as fighting a war on blitzkrieg.
    These conservatives don’t understand that our culture has liberal-democracy embedded in it … it is who we are and what makes those who come here part of us. Not so in Europe.

  4. According to today’s National Post (Agence France-Presse agency), the court ordered Dutch prosecutors to charge Wilders although prosecutors stated the film did not give rise to a punishable offense. So much for the idea of an impartial judiciary. Barbara Hall must be green with envy.
    BTW – nice post Kursk.

  5. I think Paul takes his attack on Charles Johnson a bit far – the guy does have a reputation to protect, and he only calls out and/or bans folks who have demonstrated clear white supremacist leanings or keep beating dead horses (such as the question of Obama’s birthplace). LGF does have an impact on the larger political scene and media, and this would be blunted if its reputation got sullied by racialists and blackhelicopterspotters.

  6. Wilders had done nothing except quote Islam’s core texts.
    I think this drive is being spearheaded by both radical Islamists and Dutch business elites fearful of Muslim threats of a boycott.
    When this film was first released, the president of Unilever insisted it be banned, fearful as he was that Muslims the world over would boycott Unilever products.
    Imagine if I were to quote hate-filled passages from Mein Kampf, and then be dragged into court by irate nazis and a few boardroom fellas fearful the nazis will organise a boycott of their products, and then charged with incitement to hatred?
    What makes this so depressing and appalling is that only last week a Dutch Muslim politician, and one always described as ‘moderate’ by Dutch pols, suggested that part of Amsterdam be reserved exclusively for Muslims. In other words, he is asking that a parcel of Dutch territory be ceded to Islam.
    My dad faught to liberate Holland.
    And as for C. Johnson’s observations? Well, I used to sometimes comment at LGF, but stopped doing so several years ago because his postings never went anywhere. Also, I can’t remember the number of times Muslims were referred to in the comboxes as either ‘muzzies’ or ‘sand ni**ers’. Mr Johnson never removed those comments, and nor did he ever warn the people making them.

  7. “…it’s difficult to cast Wilders as an icon of free speech when he explicitly advocates taking away the rights of others.”
    Reminds me of an exchange from a G.K. Chesterton short story:
    “‘For forms of faith let graceless zealots fight; he can’t be wrong whose life is in the right.’ Eh, Father Brown?”
    Father Brown stirred. “I don’t believe that, anyhow,” he said shortly. “How can a man’s life be in the right, if everything he believes is wrong? That was a clause adopted by Christians dealing with other Christians, who didn’t realize how widely people really could differ over what was right and wrong.”
    Islam as a movement explicitly asserts there is no right to freedom of belief for its own sake, only a legal tolerance extended to Jews and Christians for tax purposes, and no right to freedom of expression that contradicts or criticizes the Koran. The reality of this belief is simply and flatly incompatible with Judeo-Christian beliefs about human rights and freedoms. No society can operate without in practice choosing one stance or the other, and therefore precluding the mutually exclusive opposite.
    Wilders would probably argue that he doesn’t want to take anyone’s rights away; he’s only pointing out that we cannot grant what Muslims demand as their rights without sacrificing what we hold to be our own, and that it is Islam itself which defines the retention of our rights as the denial of theirs and eliminates any possible middle ground. So long as this Catch-22 persists, the likelihood of a sustainable mutual peace seems remote.

  8. John P.
    “Well, I used to sometimes comment at LGF, but stopped doing so several years ago because his postings never went anywhere. Also, I can’t remember the number of times Muslims were referred to in the comboxes as either ‘muzzies’ or ‘sand ni**ers’. Mr Johnson never removed those comments, and nor did he ever warn the people making them.”
    I stopped wasting my time with LGF comments a long time ago – far too many people posting a “me first” or other drivel passing for a comment. Given each of Johnson’s postings usually draws hundreds of comments, it would be difficult to review them all. Perhaps Glenn Reynolds or Michelle Malkin have the best idea, no comments.

  9. John B
    “I stopped wasting my time with LGF comments a long time ago – far too many people posting a “me first” or other drivel passing for a comment.”
    Yeah that got tiresome as well. People writing two sentence comments is hardly engaging. Also I’ve never seen Mr Johnson even once express the remotest notions of what to do about radical Islam; not even the slightest hint of a coherent action plan to battle this. He just ‘seethes’ and ‘whines’ like the Islamists he denounces.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s