A court in the Netherlands has ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party, for daring to express his opinions. Wilders is the author of Fitna, a critical polemic against Islam.
The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders’s “one-sided generalisations” against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians.
“The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs,” the court said in a statement.
“The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders,” it added.
This judgement completely destroys the myth of both Dutch civil liberties and the nation’s reputed tolerance for differences of opinion. It seems you can have a difference of opinion just as long as it is not inconvenient to the state for you to express it. Yet again, the Dutch state proves that when the going gets tough, the Dutch state has a backbone of rubber.
So here is Fitna for you to watch. And to the authoritarian thugs in their court in Amsterdam… up yours.
And as a little bonus…
So, that sculpture commissioned by the czechs showing Holland covered in water with only the top of minarets appearing was pretty much spot on then…
Shouldn’t they go back to just leaving Ayaan Hirsi Ali hanging in the breeze?
One of the headlines said he was “racist”, well AFAIAA Islam is a religion not a race, and a terrible one at that. It appears that The Netherlands want to flush themselves down the same PC toilet as we do.
Yeah, that’s the word: inconvenient. If what you say is inconvenient, even if it’s true, you’re going to be hit truly hard.
And by the way, what happens with all those people who shouted “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gaz” in the Netherlands also, who were in the same demonstration as a Socialist MP who shouted “Intifada, Intifada, Palestina free”? Are they going to be prosecuted too?
Ik schaam me voor mijn vaderland.
llater,
llamas
Yeah, me too.
“The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution…because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism”
So will the Dutch courts prosecute Muslims and leftists who say Israel is worse than Nazi Germany, or say similar things about America?
llamas, you have my sympathy.
“This video is currently not available.”
Anyone got it mirrored somewhere?
Whoops, nevermind. Seems to work now.
On the other hand, Geert Wilders was advocating a government ban on the Koran, so it’s hard for me to feel too sorry for him.
Frankly, I kind of like the idea of a ban on the Koran. It’s full of hate-speak, and that’s illegal in all right-thinking countries, isn’t it?
Oh I agree that is also wrong, and he think it is ok to ban Mein Kampf, which is also egregious… but this issue is NOT actually about Geert Wilders, it is about the state shutting people up because they do not like what they are saying.
>but this issue is NOT actually about Geert Wilders, it
>is about the state shutting people up because they
>do not like what they are saying.
Yes, but Wilders apparently believes that is a laudable goal. His only complaint is that he lost the argument over which particular people are to be shut up.
Sure… and?
Wilders is a dick but Fitna is correct about Islam. Stop thinking of it as religion, it is political movement with goals incompatible with pluralistic modernity. This court action must be resisted strongly.
Being dragged before a koran-garoo court may be the least of Geert Wilders worries. If form is anything to go by, he will murdered. Most likely with the connivance of the Dutch state.
Nonsense! Hate-speech is a political tool to suppress opinion.
If you’re in favour of free speech then hate speech must be defended. To do otherwise is to cower at the feet of cultural marxists.
There are no ifs, no buts here. Its a worn out quote but Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s summing up of Voltaire’s beliefs should be absolute: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
To clarify my above comment, I should have said:
The terminology “hate-speech” is a political tool…
>Sure… and?
Well, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I’m not particularly upset because some politician had his favorite stick wrestled away and turned back against him.
So you only oppose such things when they are used against ‘good people’ then?
Consider this: if Wilders wins and the principle of Free Speech is actually upheld, then if at some point in the future Wilders gains political success and tries to ban the Koran, his own victory will have established that the state should not be in the business of banning people expressing their views.
There is no upside in the battle for liberty in not opposing attempts to silence Wilders.
And by the way, what happens with all those people who shouted “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gaz” in the Netherlands also, who were in the same demonstration as a Socialist MP who shouted “Intifada, Intifada, Palestina free”? Are they going to be prosecuted too?
It’s too bad we’ve gotten to the point where everyone knows this is a rhetorical question without even asking.
Well, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I’m not particularly upset because some politician had his favorite stick wrestled away and turned back against him.
Selective application of free speech rights is the very antithesis of free speech. By your logic, should Wilders accumulate enough political capital to ban the Koran he’s perfectly justified in doing so. A far more rational approach would be to let people like Wilders advocate the ban of the Koran and the Muslims advocate the arrest of Wilders and at the same time ignore both of them.
This debate has got silly. And Stormy Dragon is talking rot. The appropriate response to Wilder’s desire to ban the Koran (and doesn’t Fitna quote the Koran?) is to ignore such silliness. He has just as much right to spout illiberal shite as to denounce Islam for shouting illiberal spite.
That’s freedom. Anything else is the freedom of the kindergarten where teacher asks everyone to “play nice” or be sent to the “naughty corner”.
For shame… another one of the cradles of liberalism going down the tubes.
Hereby a translation of some of the comments in question:
– ,,Dit boek zet aan tot haat en moord, en past daarom niet in onze rechtsorde. Als moslims willen participeren, moeten ze afstand nemen van deze Koran. Ik zie in dat dit veel gevraagd is, maar we moeten stoppen met het doen van concessies.” (de Volkskrant)
– “This book entices hatred and murder and therefore does not fit within our legal system. If Muslims want to participate, they have to distance themselves from this Koran. I see this is a great thing to ask, but we have to stop making concessions”
– Vraag: ,,Dus er is een verband tussen de islam en criminaliteit?” Antwoord: ,,Absoluut. De cijfers tonen dat aan. Een op de vijf Marokkaanse jongeren staat als verdachte bij de politie geregistreerd. Hun gedrag vloeit voort uit hun religie en cultuur. Je kunt dat niet los van elkaar zien. De paus had laatst volkomen gelijk: de islam is een gewelddadige religie.” (de Volkskrant)
– Question: “So there is a correlation between Islam and crime?” Answer: Absolutely. The numbers show that. One in five of Moroccan youths are registered as a suspect with the police. Their behaviour stems from their religion and culture. One can not separate this. The pope was absolutely right: Islam is a violent religion.”
– ,,Het zijn de feiten. De islam is een gewelddadige religie. Als Mohammed hier vandaag leefde zou de Kamer er onmiddellijk mee instemmen om hem met pek en veren het land uit te jagen.” (De Pers)
– “These are the facts. Islam is a violent religion. If Mohammed would live here today the Kamer (House of Commons) would immediately agree to chase him out of the country with tar and feather.
– ,,En de Koran is het Mein Kampf van een religie die beoogt anderen te elimineren, die die anderen – niet-moslims – ongelovige honden noemt, inferieure wezens. Lees de Koran, dat Mein Kampf, nog eens. In welke versie dan ook, je zult zien dat al het kwade dat de zoons van Allah tegen ons en henzelf begaan, uit dat boek afkomstig is.” (ingezonden brief in de Volkskrant)
– “And the Koran is the Mein Kampt of a religion which strives to eliminate others, which calls these others – non Muslims – blasphemous dogs, inferior creatures. Read the Koran, that Mein Kampf, again. No matter which version, you shall see that all the evil which the sons of Allah have done to us and themselves comes from that book.”
– ,,De kern van het probleem is de fascistische islam, de zieke ideologie van Allah en Mohammed zoals neergelegd in de islamitische Mein Kampf: de Koran.” (ingezonden brief in de Volkskrant)
– “At the centre of the problem is fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as written down in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Koran.”
– ,,Iedereen past zich aan onze dominante cultuur aan. Wie dat niet doet, is hier over twintig jaar niet meer. Die wordt het land uitgezet.” (de Volkskrant)
– “Everybody adapts to our dominant culture. Whoever does not do that will not be here in twenty years time. They will be sent out of the country.
– ,,Die Marokkaanse jongens zijn echt gewelddadig. Ze rammen mensen vanwege hun seksuele geaardheid in elkaar. Ik heb nooit geweld gebruikt.” (de Volkskrant)
– “Those Moroccan boys are really violent. They beat up people because of their sexual orientation. I have never used violence.”
– ,,Ik heb goede bedoelingen. We laten iets gebeuren waardoor dit een totaal andere samenleving wordt. Ik weet ook wel dat er over een paar decennia nog geen islamitische meerderheid is. Maar het groeit wel. Met agressieve elementen, imperialisme. Loop over straat en zie waar het toe leidt. Je voelt dat je niet meer in je eigen land leeft. Er is een strijd gaande en we moeten ons verdedigen. Er zijn straks meer moskeeën dan kerken!” (De Pers)
-“I have good intentions. We are letting something happen through which this will become a totally different society. Of course I now that in a few decades there will not yet be an Islamic majority. But it is growing. With aggressive elements, imperialism. Walk through the street and see what it leads to. You feel you don’t live in your own country anymore. A battle is taking place and we have to defend ourselves. Soon there will be more mosques than churches!”
Please Support this petition for Geert.
http://www.petitiononline.com/wilders/petition.html
They have juries in Dutch trials right? We’ll find out how the average Dutchman thinks about this. I sincerely hope it goes all the way and that he is found not guilty on all counts. That would annoy them!
I think the US should give him political asylum because he has a legitimate fear of persecution upon his return to Holland. That would sit well with the Europeans. F
“We’ll find out how the average Dutchman thinks about this.”
I wouldn’t hazard a guess on that. I attended a talk by Samuel Goudsmit about his travels in
Europe after the war investigating the German atomic bomb program. In his biographical preamble he showed a picture of himself with several colleagues at a Dutch zoo in prewar Netherlands. He named one of the colleagues and the elephant in the background, but the names of the other two he “couldn’t recall.” They had become collaborators with the Nazis. So I don’t know that the Dutch should still be celebrated for the tolerance and respect for ideas as they once were several centuries ago.
The U.S. Government must impose an immediate ban on travel to The Netherlands by American citizens, saying that Americans accustomed to freedom of speech can no longer be protected there. Because Holland is nothing without tourism, this would compel the restoration of rights to Dutch citizens.
Patrick wondered, “They have juries in Dutch trials right?”
Wrong.
E Pluribus has a good point. NATO is based on the idea that we share a set of values with Europe. This is a good indication that this is no longer so.
Free speech, even for detestable people, (and I do not think Wilders is any more detestable than any other politician) is a core American value. If the Dutch and the rest of Europe do not share it, then they should be willing to do without US military protection.
Adele van der Velt
Wilders is a dick but Fitna is correct about Islam.
Irrelevant. He could be a saint and entirely wrong. I’ve not seen Fitna, and life is too short to read or view any more contrislamist vituperation, so I have no idea about his degree of dickhood. (A contingently “correct” conclusion doesn’t validate a worthless argument, by the way.)
Freedom of speech is not about respecting opinions, it is about respecting the right to have and express opinions. And the right to hear and disagree with them. Unless we can speak freely we cannot think freely.
Some strange comments: what does the fact some people 60 years ago collaborated with the Nazi’s have to do with anything? Also the notion that Holland has a tourist based economy is bizarre: it has a sophisticated and diversified modern economy.
But yes, the Dutch do ‘bench’ rather than ‘jury’ trials (usually three judges). For historical reasons trial by jury was seen as a weird and unwanted French imposition.
I am unfamiliar with Dutch law. Is truth an absolute defense there? In other words, if he can show from the Koran that his points are not an “insult”, but simply a statement of fact, would he still be guilty of an “insult” to Islam?
Dutch courts tend to be well to the left of general opinion and quite politically susceptible. Our whole system of justice is much inferior to Germany or Britain as it allows hearsay evidence, has no double jeopardy traditions at all and suffers from activist judges more.
Wilders can only win by creating enough political stink to raise political cost of this madness but many fools who oppose Wilders cannot see the issue of principle here is much bigger than Wilders. I think this will need people on the streets throwing bricks I am fearing and I will be one of those people.
And John Locke favoured the criminilisation of Roman Catholicism. A free society is built on more than artificially consistent theorising. If the growth of Islam in the Netherlands is not retarded, the Netherlands will cease to be a free, or even freeish, country.
I’ll just head off the obvious objection, which runs like this
Ah, but even suppose you are correct that once the Islamic population acquires significant political power, it makes a free society impossible, any steps we take to stop this are also inconsistent with a free society, so we lose just as badly
My answer is that we lose, but not as badly for the following reasons
1) A country, which restricts the freedom of Muslims may be free in other respects (as was England 1689-18… I forget when catholic emancipation was), wheras a society where Islam is politically dominant will be unfree in almost all respects.
2) Even if Liberty is completely taken out of the equation, Christendom is miles better than Islamic civilization.
3) A unfree state along the lines of what Wilders wants would not be a threat to European peace, an state where Islam was politically dominant would be.
4) I might want to visit the Netherlands some day, plus there are some synagogues and I’d prefer it if they weren’t all burnt down.
So that’s where we are, it’s sad really but there it is. It really is impossible to state just how utterly stupid European immigration policy has been for the past 40 years. But yet many want to stick their head in the sand and say “it would all be OK if we got rid of the welfare state”. Well, guess what? The welfare state is about go bankrupt and it’s not going to be OK, it’s going to be a fucking nightmare.
Bad argument. The matter is to establish political framework where neither judges or muslims can threaten freedom of speech. Make it so no one can do that with strong constitution limits so that whoever is currently screaming loudest cannot ban who they do not like, like US First Amendment.
And if freedom must be defended with force, then that is when we must take to streets and do. Banning Wilders or banning Koran is not the answer. Banning any use of state force to suppress free speech is the way and if muslims use force to intimidate state, so can we. And there are many more of us.
Since Mein Kampf is already banned in several European countries (I don’t know about Holland), it should be legal to assert that any book is as dangerous as Mein Kampf and should also be banned.
Wilders may or may not be opposed to free speech-I don’t know the man, but he seems in favor of equal treatment under the law: if one book can be banned, why not another?
tehag
And that’s rather the point.
Wilders is delusional if he actually believes that.
Can Dutch judges run as fast as British Police?(Link)
Watch the whole clip – it gets funnier the longer it runs.
Watching what’s been happening to Holland for the past 10 years has been extremely disheartening. It makes me sick to my stomach. It won’t end well.
I certainly hope the USA will welcome Dutch refugees when the end finally comes, as we have with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
And no muslims please, until your religion has had its reformation, splitting the political from the religious. The Koran may be the book by which you live, but you have no right to expect anyone else to give a damn.
As a frequent visitor to Nederland I am dismayed at these event surrounding Geert Wilders, especially as it is happening in this great land of fair play.
Kinfolk of mine died in two World Wars for the right to freedom of expression, freedom to write your thoughts, on forums like this and Facebook.
The people of Nederland are natural lovers of freedom, they supported Free Radio when I worked off the Dutch coast, they won the right to free radio, and so Veronica and private radio are ashore.
Geert Wilders troubles are more important than that, the right to free commentary must be defended.
I have signed the petition, more are coming in, and a boycott of Nederrland is on the cards if this attack on liberty proceeds.
I, for my part, would be very sad to boycott Nederland, it is my favourite land, the greatest people. Let Dutch common sense prevail, support Geert, support freedom.
Yes John, real funny, that one. Unbelievable.
Free speech is a fundamental right in a free society, but in my mind it includes a necessary element of reciprocity. Voltaire’s famous epigram “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” carries within it the unspoken caveat “. . . provided that you will do the same for me.”
The Koran is explicit in denying rights to us “infidels,” and indeed calling for our death. Given the power, Muslims would deny me my right to free speech. Accordingly, I have no compunction against abridging their “right” to espouse such views, just as I have no problem with using force to resist a mugger. It is irrational in the extreme to assert that we have any obligation whatsoever to protect the “free speech” rights of those who would deny them to everyone else. That way lies madness.
Frankly, I would far prefer to see “Mein Kampf” on library shelves than the Koran, and if either is to be banned it should be the latter. If this tarnishes my libertarian credentials, so be it; I’ve never claimed to be a pure doctrinaire libertarian.
The problems I have with that Laird is both moral and utilitarian.
Morally the state has no business deciding which are and are not acceptable books. End of story.
The utilitarian concerns are two fold: I do not trust the state, any state, to make that decision…
…and moreover as long as we have fulsome and unquestionable rights to free speech, things like the Koran are also much less of a threat as we are free to pour all the ridicule we desire on it and to shun its supporters as we see fit. If it comes down to a culture war with Islam, if the state stays out of the way with regard to expression and comes down hard on violent attempts to suppress it, Islam frankly does not have a hope in hell against us… but that is an important caveat.
I understand the argument, Perry, and agree to a large extent, but not in this case. To me that is like someone who strongly favors individual gun rights (the US 2nd Amendment) arguing that because we law-abiding citizens can own guns all dangerous felons should be permitted to own them also. Some people forfeit that right through their predatory actions, and (unfortunately, but necessarily) it is the state which disarms them. I recognize the “slipperly slope” argument here as well as you do, but I will not countenance giving someone else “rights” in derogation of mine. In my book, someone who doesn’t recognize my rights forfeits his own.
Also, it is becoming clear that we are losing the “fulsome and unquestionable rights to free speech” upon which you rely, as least as it relates to Islam. Any criticism, however meritorious, is decried as “racist”, “fascist”, or whatever “-ist” is in vogue. Quote the wrong part of the Koran, or the ravings of some deranged Imam, and you are branded an “Islamophobe.” Throw out all the “hate speech” statutes, the campus “speech codes”, eliminate the fawning deference granted by authorities at every level to any Muslim with a purported grievance, and I might agree with you. But as things stand now we are unilaterally disarming ourselves in this culture war. As I said above, this way lies madness (and defeat).
Actually I would argue it is you who is arguing for us to be ‘disarmed’ by conceding to the state the power to ban books. Our weapon should be the absolute non-negotiability of the principle and we simply cannot do that if we do not apply it to everyone. Once that is conceded, we are more or less saying “Dear Enemies, here are the tools to ban our books too when the ebb and flow of politics favours you at some point”.
No, the only defence against that threat is to put the weapon out of reach of everyone, to put the notion beyond the pale. Banning Mein Kampf or the Koran is madness as it opens up a battleground that by its very nature friends of liberty cannot not profit from fighting on by arguing for a ban. Even from a purely utilitarian view it is unwise because, in this internet age, it is not as if it would actually keep the works out of anyone’s hands who wishes to read them, so what exactly is the point? It is a huge huge mistake.
In answer to those who think that Wilders’ own views on banning the Koran mean that his is not the case in which to take up the general right to free speech, bear in mind the words of H L Mencken (I think – sorry if I am wrongly attributing).
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
On Laird’s gun ownership v free speech point – is there not a qualitative difference in that guns are widely used in variety of criminal contexts that are unarguably wrong, which justifies certain state restrictions on ownership, whereas the scenarios in which speech/thought can (or should) legitimately said to be criminal are extremely restricted (i.e. direct incitement to violence) and justify no such restrictions by government, even against those who would so restrict us?
“Actually I would argue it is you who is arguing for us to be ‘disarmed’ by conceding to the state the power to ban books.”
A fair point, and it does trouble me. I would like to agree with you on the “absolute non-negotiability of the principle”, but what are we to do when the principle has already been lost? We live in an age when “absolute” free speech no longer exists; when speech deemed “hateful” is a criminal offense; when expressing opinions at variance with the dominant leftist paradigm can get you expelled from certain elite universities; when a Geert Wilders can find himself in the dock for quoting some of the more objectively offensive passages of the Koran. How do you propose to change that?
I agree with you that the proper defense should be to “pour all the ridicule we desire on it [the Koran] and to shun its supporters as we see fit.” But what are we to do when that isn’t permitted? Geert Wilders tried ridicule, and we all see where it got him. (Will Pat Condell be next?) If I tried to “shun its supporters” by overtly refusing to hire them, or to do business with them, I would be charged with religious discrimination. So I put it back to you: How are we to defend ourselves when certain people use the rights and freedoms which our society recognizes as fundamental, to deny those same rights and freedoms to others? When our own “goodness” is used as a weapon against us? Truly free speech is already denied to us. That being the case, I see no alternative to using our enemies’ own weapon against them. It’s ugly, but to me it seems that’s the least bad alternative available at this point in history.
The analogy breaks down quickly.
Whatever “reasonable” firearms restrictions you can name, they quickly become no more than a foot in the door for other restrictions that defy reason. A narrowly-written prohibited person or prohibited place rule, for instance, may be justifiable. I don’t see the moral argument against a law that says “own machine guns without paperwork if you want, but don’t bring them into courthouses,” or “People convicted for violent felonies don’t get guns.” However, the current state of the law in (even the free parts of) the US is rather well beyond that, to say nothing of the current law in the UK (would be gorram ridiculous were it not so tragic).
As for the speech argument: Laird correctly points out that we’ve been losing bits and pieces of speech and press freedom for decades. The mere fact that we’ve been losing battles for a century, however, is not a reason to start conceding rather than fighting. Quite the opposite, IMHO.
Let me put it this way: Over the last few years in the US, the Administration has been trying to carve out what amounts to a “terror exception” to the Fourth Amendment. In other words, an expansion of the government’s power to search, seize, arrest, eavesdrop, or otherwise intrude into private life, with watered-down or no judicial oversight. The justification being that the monster in the closet will kill us all if we don’t let the NSA listen to our phone calls and the FBI hide under the bed. And of course, this hole in the right to be “free from unreasonable search and seizure” will ONLY be used against the terrorists.
Would anybody in his right mind have trusted Hillary Clinton or The Most Holy, The One, The Obamessiah (Peace be upon him) with a legal excuse to sidestep the limitations on government power?)
So I think I have to agree with the guy who quoted Mencken. Both Wilders and Mohammed are shitheads in their own way, but that’s a door that really needs to not be opened.
Perry, I’m going to ask you a question and I promise not to fly off the handle, I just genuinely want a reasoned respoonse.
Would you in this country prefer
a) The Muslim religion to be practised freely without legal interference
b) To have a Jewish community living free from violence.
Now for you lot, fine, you can take the long route of ridicule and cultural war, but for us, synagogues are being firebombed. It’s not as bad as France, yet, but it will be unless something changes soon. And if that happens, we won’t bother with culture war, we’ll just leave. Would I be safer in Israel? Perhaps not, but at least I know there I can fight back. It’s all very well to say that in a free society no-one can be absolutely secure, but the fact is we were basically secure here 15 years ago and now we’re not. Now, it’s not your community under attack so I don’t expect you to care exactly (it’s your right either way), but I do expect you to be honest about what you’re dealing with.
So, what’s it to be (a) or (b)? Because, however much you may wish it were otherwise, however unfair you may think it is to have to make this choice, however much it doesn’t fit your metacontext, you can’t have both. One or the other. Choose and explain. Please.
Gabriel, if I may jump in: why cannot the firebombings be taken care of by regular means, regardless of whether these are synagogues or say, libraries that are being targeted, and regardless of whether it is Muslims or neo-Nazis who are the perpetrators? I realize that this is not being done, but that is a rather different problem, isn’t it? There is a large Muslim population in the US, and yet there you don’t see these problems, in large part because there law and order is still taken seriously (unlike in that video John linked to). And, BTW, if you think that in Israel you will be able to defend yourself, you might have another thing coming. It’s not as bad as Europe here, but not nearly as good as the US.
Those are simply not the available choices Gabriel. Islamic terrorism should be treated like any other terrorism… with whatever force is required to suppress it. As you know I am not a pacifist and have no problem with the rozzers stamping on thugs who fire bomb synagogues with great ferocity.
The problem is the state is not fulfilling one of its few legitimate functions. That is the problem.
Try option (c): If someone attempts to firebomb an occupied building, poke a third eye in his forehead.
That this may not be legal in the UK is a problem beyond this thread. I don’t know what to tell you. (I do know it’s legal to use deadly force to prevent the arson of an occupied building here, and reasonable non-deadly force to protect an unoccupied building, with no duty to retreat. That’s part of why I live here.)
But if your attitude is one of “If you don’t make all of these other people go away, most of whom have nothing to do with me, then I’m leaving” then don’t let the door hit your ass on your way out. There’s no legitimate reason to interfere with someone else’s peaceful enjoyment of his religion just because some of his co-religionists are nasty pieces of work.
FWIW, we have pretty large and insular Muslim communities in Minneapolis and in one of the Detroit suburbs (Dearborn?). However, as Alisa mentioned, we don’t have quite these same sorts of problems. The guy who slugs his wife and tells the judge that the Koran told him to is going to spend some time as a guest of the sheriff. It’s just that simple. (And if you think that one of my brothers in MN or MI might balk at arresting someone for assault/DV because the suspect is a Muslim, well, I got nothing.)
I saw that same video. Someone needed a hickory shampoo for that. Whichever ACPO stroke jagball nutless wonder decided to cede the street to the rioters needs a stiff drink, a pistol, and some alone time.
As Sunfish notes, Dearborn MI has the largest Arab population anywhere outside the Middle East. The Middle-Eastern vibe in that city completely dominates all other cultures. Al-Ajami for lunch, across the street to Shatila for baklava, and away home we go . . .
And yet the amount of this sort of Islamic fundamentalism is miniscule – a few dozen troublemakers, who have to bus themselves to West Bloomfield (which has a large Jewish population) in order to wave their silly signs on a street corner and get some coverage on the 6 o’clock news. West Bloomfield PD polices these things seriously and there’s no trouble. Personally, I enjoy seeing those 75-year-old Jews roll down their windows and cuss these idiots out – in Yiddish.
Folks with Middle Eastern roots are just woven into society around here. And yet there’s no separation, and precious little identity politics that gets played. You can’t be too insular when your kids are playing in the church softball league, your party store sells liquor and your daughters are dating Caucasians and African-Americans. The Middle Eastern folks in Dearborn don’t play games with their religion or their ethnicity for a simple reason – it doesn’t get them anywhere in this society. And they know that the sorts of things that go on in Europe simply will not be tolerated here – not in the sense of law enforcement (you can say or do just about anything in public here, and the police will look on with an amused resignation and count their overtime) but in the sense that that sort of public expression will immediately marginalize you and make you ridiculous in the eyes of the great majority. It’s like when the Klan makes one of their infrequent attempts to rally support – most people just laugh at them, and there are always robust counter-demonstrations.
‘Hickory shampoo” – geat line. I’m going to steal that.
llater,
llamas
Sunfish, thankyou for your answer. Perry, you’re incorrect, these are the only available choices. You can either have a Jewish community or you can have a large Muslim community, one or the other. You don’t necessarily have to prohibit Islam, you could just stop importing it.
Once Muslims become a large proportion of the population, there’s no point in worrying about whether the police take a hard or soft line on Islamic terrorism. They will take no line, because the government will have told them not to. If Muslims ever reached a level of political hegemony, (in this country, 35% of the electorate), the police wouldn’t have to worry about anyone else firebombing synagogues, because they’d be doing it.
FYI: The reason why America has less of a prooblem with Muslims is because Muslims make up a far smaller proportion of the population of America (Link). I’ll take claims that the U.S. is far better at integrating with a pinch of salt. As usual, I suspect we’re all on the same road to hell and the U.S. is just 15 years behind. On the other hand, apparently you guys think it’s a good idea to import millions of people from a country in a drug fuelled civil war, so Islam may not be your no. 1 migration related issue.
P.S. What seems to be implied here is that we allow Islam to grow and then start a Beirut style civil war when they get violent because that’s the Libertarian thing to do. Even if you think there’s only a 10% chance that will be necessary, why do you want to risk it? But it’s your country, do with it what you will.
I was a bit shocked when I saw that video of the police running away last week but I think there could be more to it. I read on a forum that the police will not always arrest people in large crowd situations like that simply because of the logistics involved. Instead they will photograph them and then hunt them down later.
Gabriel:
True, the reason being that fewer Muslims choose to immigrate to the US than to Europe, one of the big differences between the two being the degree of welfare state.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you on this.
And in that at least I think you are quite correct.
What pure unadulterated tosh. Any sane society should demand zero tolerance, backed by whatever violence is needed, for any sectarian thuggery. THAT is the issue. The root issue. The problem is is ‘Islam’ per se, it is that any tolerance for intolerance is accepted socially and any acceptance of sectarian violence is tolerated politically. Waiting until the place looks like Beirut is not ‘libertarian’, it is deranged enervated and suicidal multiculturalism.
Although I am truly loath to quote Hans Herman-Hoppe, of whom I am not a great fan, I suggest you read Democracy: the God that failed(Link), if you really want to know what a whole lot of ‘libertarians’ think about ‘awkward’ self-identified groups. Hint: zero tolerance involved.
The problem is the state not doing the one thing is actually should legitimately do. THAT is what has to change and if the consequences of that change make some Muslim ‘uncomfortable’ and ‘unwelcome’ and might induce them to piss off, not really a problem. Any other battle is just playing with the symptoms.
Perry de Havilland,
“Our weapon should be the absolute non-negotiability of the principle and we simply cannot do that if we do not apply it to everyone. Once that is conceded, we are more or less saying “Dear Enemies, here are the tools to ban our books too when the ebb and flow of politics favours you at some point”.”
I agree with the non-negotiability of the principle, (and here it comes) but you must know that our dear enemies are more than capable of crafting these tools all by themselves when the ebb and flow of politics favours them at some point. You must also know that if this where to occur we can all kiss the tides goodbye, for political Islam makes a point of it of sticking around, until they’ re kicked out, Al-Andalus comes to mind.
So, on the one hand we have this non-negotiable principle and on the other the fact that Islam is diametrically opposed to so many of the principles the western world holds dear, principles all interlinked, principles all non-negotiable. Something has got to give or otherwise a slow death awaits us. Not through war, natural catastrophe or sheer strength of philosophical arguments, but by demographic shift and the unwillingness of our political classes to affirm our shared identity, culture and history.
And John Locke was wrong Gabriel.
If you want practical evidence of his wrongness (rather than “just theory”) then I point to the many places in Europe that tolerated Roman Catholic worship without Roman Catholics taking over.
Neither Wilders or the Koran should be banned.
People should be allowed to covert to Islam if they so choose – but the law or insitutions should not be changed one inch to appeal to their desires.
If they do not like living in a nation whose customs and laws are “hostile to Islam” then they can leave – or (in the case of immigrants) never arrive.
To give practical examples.
People must be allowed to say that Mohamed was a murderer, invader, enslaver and child rapist – because all these things are true.
But people should also be allowed to say that Islam is a front for the Vogons, and that Mohamed was a angent of the Ice Warrior Empire on Mars – even though these things are not true.
If Muslims feel uncomfortable or insulted by living in a country that allows such things to be said – then they can go.
The point about German law is correct.
German laws may be unjust (they may violate libertarian principles), but at least German judges do not tend to make things up. When a German judge “interprets” he is normally applying the principles of German law to a particular care – applying them faithfully. He is not applying his own political opinions (as an American judge tends to do).
Examine the great code of 1900 (in many ways a very impressive piece of work indeed) and the legislative acts since that time – and you can reason out what a German court will rule.
It is all very well to talk about “judge made law” – but in the United States and Britain this does not mean law that is closer to libertarian principle, it just means one can go into court without a clue as to what the result of the case will be.
It is often arbitrary.
AsYouLikeIt, you seem to be under the impression I am arguing for a ‘soft option’, but I am not.
The non-negotiability principle means exactly that. Free speech is not just politically non-negotiable, articulated threats to it must be robustly and aggressively confronted culturally and whenever needed, forcibly, be that via politics or by throwing bricks. The whole point is to attack threats, not defend against them. The essential things is to create an environment that is reflexivity hostile to illiberal demands. Never apologise for defending liberty.
No retreat, no surrender.
Perry de Havilland,
The non-negotiability principle has already been negated by the fact it has been codified within our legal systems to mean this, that or the other, more often than not to the detriment of the dominant culture. It has been made politically negotiable, and, being the merchants in waiting that they are, they, the political class, will always go for the soft sell.
What I am saying is that the “weapon” you talk of has already been conceded in an absolutist sence, we never actually had it to begin with to think of it, but what we did have is quickly being eroded, and more often than not with the silent approval of our blisfully meak christian brethren.
To gain it, it has to be placed into the hands and mouths of us all, the “common people”, us of all denominations and none, to be used by our hearts and minds, and left alone by the law and the ones legislating it. Our conscience to be the measure of things, if you like. I’m being a bit dramatically prozaic, I’m afraid.
To gain it we have to be able, have to be allowed, have to be free to quote from “our books” as a justification as to why this, that or the other should or shouldn’t be allowed. But whatever our reasons, never disallow any or anything…. I suggest a parthenon.
Apologies.
P. S. No retreat, no surrender!
First, it doesn’t necessarily mean “taking over”, all I’m talking about is severe social problems, mob violence etc.
As it happens, there is one concrete example of a country that escaped the authority of Rome, allowed full tolerance and ended up under the thumb again. Namely the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. I’d be genuinely interested to hear of a 17th or 18th century counter-example (because that is what I’m talking about it).
So, a Test Act for Islam, I’d go for that.
I think I prefer an America which invades, conquers, and over throws governments that prosecute people for irreligion than Obama’s America which supports this evil. Holland should be expelled from NATO.
‘And John Locke was wrong Gabriel.
If you want practical evidence of his wrongness (rather than “just theory”) then I point to the many places in Europe that tolerated Roman Catholic worship without Roman Catholics taking over.’
Tolerance is a luxury that a nation can easily afford providing some other nation, namely England(Link), is keeping the Papists in line.
The Dutch first introduced laws of religious toleration in the 16th century but they were not spared the price of enthusiasm then(Link) and they are not being spared the price of enthusiasm now(Link).
Since England today is neither willing nor capable of fighting enthusiasm I expect we will witness a global trend towards the political blessings(Link) of Europe in the 1930’s.
John Locke was right – and he has my everlasting gratitude.