I just picked this out as a potential SQOTD:
Political professionals have little time for activist true believers and their pesky principles. Freedom of speech is one of those fundamental principles in a free democracy. It requires that you especially defend the rights of those with whom you disagree. Guido has gone to the trouble of watching the Fitna video, it contains no call to violence, in fact it condemns violence.
In the past and at great cost diplomatically, a Conservative government defended Salman Rushdie’s freedom of speech. It is therefore profoundly disappointing that the Tories have chosen to be officially agnostic about Geert Wilders. The decontamination strategy has turned into moral cowardice.
However, follow that last link and you will learn that the Conservative Party, in the person of Chris Grayling, may be retreating, a bit, from its former public position of craven retreat, so the Conservative bit of this story is not over yet. Yes, ban Wilders, says Grayling, but ban lots of others also. The Conservatives may well split on this, and I for one do not give a damn.
Two further quick thoughts:
First, I find all this elaborate condemnation of Geert Wilders by the Right-On tendency rather nauseating. We abominate what he says, but free speech is sacred and therefore he should be allowed in rather than being given the oxygen of publicity, but if he has broken the law then, blah blah blah, he should not be allowed in. This seemed to be the default position on Question Time last night, which I semi-watched. Usually there is only one but in these kind of weasel statements, but in this case there have often been two buts, with the second but being the but that craps all over everything before it, including whatever less ignoble turds emerged from the first but. But according to Guido, Wilders has not broken the law. And what Wilders says is that Islam is a huge problem because it preaches violence to those who do not submit to it. Which it does. Read the Koran, like this guy did. It is a vile piece of writing. People who grumble and splutter about statements like that are either Muslims or cowards or both. They just do not want to have to think about it because if this is true, which it is, it is all just too depressing.
Second: democracy. What we are witnessing here is democracy, not some perversion of it. If enough voters threaten violence, then the state will cave in, and nothing like fifty percent is required. Half a percent threatening to dig up pavements or set fire to things is more than enough, provided another five or ten percent, sprinkled around all those marginal or potentially marginal constituencies, are willing to back, defend, not condemn, such threats with their votes. Votes, in other words, are violence. I fondly remember an ancient black and white movie telling of how, towards the beginning of the nineteenth century, the plebs of Britain got votes. A key moment was when a brick came crashing through the window of a room where some political toffs were discussing it all. Either we get this organised, they told each other, in other words either we have more democracy, or the bricks will keep on coming. I am still for democracy, for the usual Churchill reason of it being better than the alternatives, but it is messy.
Personally, I am grateful to Geert Wilders, and even a little bit grateful to whichever coven of scumbag politicians it was who banned him from coming here. Some life has consequently been breathed into an argument which, while being just as important as ever, looked like it was becoming, what with all these Credit Crunch dramas, a bit passé.
Shouting fire in a theatre:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4dxE8hhNuA
I see that one of the contributors to the Spectator’s Coffee House blog, Clive Davis, is in favour of banning Wilders from entering the country. Way to go Clive! (sarcasm alert).
First, I find all this elaborate condemnation of Geert Wilders by the Right-On tendency rather nauseating.
Me too. The affair Mo Toon was heavy with this sort of weasling. “Of course they’re not very good but…” It’s code for”don’t shoot, I’m not with them” and lily livered fence sitting. Maybe they’re not very good, maybe they are, regardless that’ not the point.
It seems that issues like Wilders’ visit need to be pushed into causing confrontation in order to have the obvious demonstrated, in this case, that the Left is really the illiberal side inviting a storm of ‘bricks.’ Someone should smuggle Wilders into Parliament and force the issue.
It seems that Johann Hari of the Independent has become the latest target of pious wrath, in India.
I view this ban with a sense of deja vu – so-called right wingers have been banned before and no doubt this will happen again. That nauseating so-called *Lord* Ahmed wins hands down in demonstrating the appalling two faces of current politicians. I hate thew lot of them!
Ive seen it, it is a series of images of Islamic terrorist attacks backed by section of the Quran that can be seen as legitimising the terrorists actions.
Thats not inciting violence in my book, its exposing where the fanatics get their legitimacy from. Either there is a debate in which moderates de-legitimise the fanatics by “taking back” their religion, or there is frightened silence, both within the Islamic community and the outside world.
Lord Ahmad has a weasel in the Guardian where he complains he recieved nasty phone calls. Wilders is under constant police guard.
I think its safe to make an assumption about whos claims are more credible.
Islam is a perfect police state, noone who values individual freedoms should be comfortable with its denial of freedoms.
I did a little post on a blog I am in, its main thrust was “The single greatest threat to radical Islam is privacy.”
http://tizona.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/what-is-to-be-done/
Nothing threatens the fanatics more than open debate. To hear large groups of Muslims stand up and say “Thats not how I see those verses” and DEBATE Wilders on their other possible meanings is a huge threat to the beardie weirdies.
I might also add I dislike turds like Tobin and Farrakhan being banned as well, They tend to look like fools when they speak, and lose all of the “mystique” banning gives them.
Mole…
It is inciting violence. It is inciting Muslims to violence because it is calling them on their depraved belief system which they believe is supreme…
Our shitty Lords and Masters are deliberately twisting *who* is being incited.
Islamists truly believe they are bringing about peace. They really do. But it is the peace of surrender and not of justice and that is (a) the same kind of peace our Lords and Masters want from us and (b) our Lords and Masters are scared…
What I find more depressing than the widespread acquiesence to the ban, is the number of people who seem to be taking the view that it is wrong to ban him because ‘he is right and telling the truth about a threat to civilization’ and/or it is wrong to ban him because ‘it is giving in to Muslim pressure’ . Sometimes these is dressed up by replacing the ‘because’ with an ‘and’, but the foaming diatribes that follow give the game away.
There seem to be very few people who are really willing to defend the freedom of people they don’t like, except maybe in order to upset other people they don’t like.
It is wrong to ban him on the grounds of anything he thinks, or anything he has said in the past. He ought to be able to come here and say anything he likes, provided only that he may be prosecuted if he incites criminal offences. And the same goes for all the world’s self-publicists and nutters and “extremists”: Islamist preachers, Farrakhan, neo-Nazis and Scientologists, too.
One of them might just be right. But nothing reinforces the idea that something you have to say is important and worth listening to, than that someone is trying to ban it. If they don’t get to hear you, it is really hard for your target audience to conclude that you are an irrelevant twit.
BTW, no way will the Tories split on it, Brian. Parties split when their activists have incompatible views strongly held and clearly expressed as such. Tory activists don’t much care about what’s done to some foreigner.
guy,
I am perfectly happy to defend the freedom of speech of those I disagree with. Whether they be Green doom-mongers, Commie asshats or Islamist cocktrumpets.
I’m happy to do the same with Wilders. But the difference is I actually by-and-large agree with him. So I can’t in all honesty say “Mr Wilders is ‘orrible but I respect his right to be horrible.” And I think most people outraged by this feel the same.
OK, guy. I don’t like Wilder’s hair but I respect his right to look like a very odd ponce. That d’ya.
And your last paragraph says elucidates precisely one very good reason why the Tories are about as relevant as Mercury rising in the seventh house to anything. Face it. The Tories want the Islamic vote which has dropped Labour over Irag and the ‘stan. Cameron will spout some cock-waffle about “family values”, “faith in society” and supporting small business to that end. Hell, he’d rim an ayatollah if it meant votes! He is an unprincipled suit full of bugger-all and complete piss bugler.
The Tories want the Islamic vote which has dropped Labour over Irag and the ‘stan
There I think you are wrong. The Tories don’t want an “Islamic vote”, which doesn’t really exist. (As MPAC, which would like it to, will attest.) The Tories are happy if Labour’s Asian-community (by no means exclusively Muslim) voting machines break down a bit, but taking slimy lines on issues such as this will not move a single machine-vote to the Tories, and it won’t affect a general election by an effect on Muslims.
The cause of Tory equivocation here is their desperate desire not to let Labour accuse them of supporting someone who can be portrayed as a racist demagogue. They don’t really care what northern Muslims think, but they are terrified of offending the demographically dispersed right-on middle-class, whom Labour wants to reactivate as Tory-haters.
We are approaching the annual ‘beware the rise of the racist right’ campaign that Labour uses to get out its vote in local elections.
Yes right on Brian – do you “abominate” Richard Dawkins as well?
Pathetic
Giles
I am genuinely baffled by your comment. Are you under the impression that I abominate Wilders?
No, I greatly admire Dawkins. Whatever the relevance of that might be.
Please explain. And in particular who or what is pathetic.
In general I am as pessimistic about things as the rest, but I do feel that something is starting to happen. Even a Guardian poll was 84+% in favour of letting Wilders come here when I last looked.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2009/feb/12/netherlands-islam
Many of these might be motivated by the wrong reasons, as you have noted above, but nevertheless, a very substantial proportion will be those who want to see the truth about Islam out in the open.
And a Times poll mid-January had distinct majorities in favour of a common-sense approach to the paki and sooty affairs. Following the Carol Thatcher gollywog affair, I reckon these figures will have risen, (5th and 6th questions from the bottom):
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pollresults.htm
Tomorrow night the radio 4 schedule has been altered so that at 21:00 Michael Buerk’s interview with Geert Wilders is being broadcast again. Now why would the BBC do that? To demonstrate their impartiality?
Pretty much all religious texts promote intolerance and war Christianity and Judaism are not much better than Islam.
You have to be pretty dim to think that the entire universe was created by an omnipotent being. You have to be even more stupid to think this omnipotent being would even give a fraction of a toss about whether people worship it or not.
The creation origin of the Transformers is more believable than the Christian one, by a big margin.
I know plenty of nice people who are religious, they are usually the ones who don’t ram it down your throat.
I have no problem with them, despite their naivety.
Its the evangelical, fundamentalist sort who are a plague on humanity.
Relugus,
So when was the last terrorist attack by evangelical Christians? There is nothing in the NT to compare with the Sword Verses of the Qu’ran. Then there’s some pretty nasty Hadiths as well. Relugus, evangelicals might piss you off by going on and on but give ’em a break because they are not going to want to chop your head off.
When a Christian does a terrible thing he has gone against both the New Testiment and against the life of Jesus.
When a Muslim does a terrible thing has he gone against either the Koran or the life of Mohammed?
Anyone who says “yes” should read the Koran (their several English tranlations) and look into the life of Mohammed.
As for Richard Dawkins – he refutes William Paley well. However, this is a limited achievement as Paley’s inovations (and they are inovations) were rejected by most theologians before Darwin came along.
For example, see John Henry Newman on Paley.
Almost, but not quite, needless to say……
The above does NOT prove either the existance of God or the truth of the Christian religion – it is just points at Dawkins spending his time attacking straw targets.
See “Dawkins’ God” for further details.
On Mr Wilders:
I do not agree that the Koran should be banned (or any book for that matter) – however free speech only when I agree with it is no free speech at all.
As for Mr Wilders generally – he is not a “racist” as that liar Denis McShane (or however Mr Euro spells his name) called him on the B.B.C.
And many of the things Mr Wilders says are quite true – he is also a very brave man (considering that other Dutch people have been murdered for opposing Islam).
By the way Guy Herbert is mistaken.
I know of no ordinary member of the Conservative party who is not angry with the way Mr Wilders has been treated.
Of course please note the word “ordinary” – the leadership in London is a different matter.
You also have to be pretty dim to make statements that can be empirically disproved by anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of world history.
On Mr Wilders himself:
I do not agree with him on everything (for example on the idea that the Koran should be banned), but he is a brave and honourable man.
Especially considering the Dutch people who have been murdered for making a stand against Islam.
By the way Guy Herbert is mistaken.
I can think of no ordinary Conservative party member who is not angry about how Mr Wilders has been treated.
Of course the leadership down in London……….
I agree with Guy that what needs to be defended is free speech per se, not whether or not Mr Wilders is right or not. It is the failure of so many politicians to take that stance that is so spineless.
Relugus,
Us believers have the last laugh, because we live longer! A recent article by ‘Time’ magazine looks at Faith, and points out studies showing believers live longer. you have a short, happy, life, and I’ll have a long happy life. Unless you use your brain to enhance your life, and join up. See you in Church?
As I wrote on another comments area here:
As an Imam and a translator of the Qu’ran, I know that this is not a constitutional issue. It is an issue regarding the Believers and the non-believers.
Islam will purify us all.
Geert Wilders will go the way of all flesh.
Allah is Great.
NJDawood, it is indeed quite simple… the Christian and nominally Christian secular majority, not to mention Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and whatever, simply ain’t interested in what you are trying to sell.
Who do you think will be moved by your remarks? In what way will uttering ‘God is great’ impress people who either think God is a figment of your imagination, a meaningless delusion (which is my view) or who see God utterly differently? Yes Geert Wilders will go the way of all flesh and so will you. So what? Fitna will still be on the internet regardless.
Perry,
You are wrong!
Going to Church adds years to your life. Even if God is not a personal being, being religious does have rewards. Therefore, it CANNOT be meaningless.
See you in Church!
Nuke-
Dude, trying to get Perry into church will probably work as well as standing on the roof caterwauling about “I testify that prayer is better than sleep! I testify that there is no God but God and a mass-murdering kiddy rapist is his profit!” tomorrow morning at sunrise.
Jeez, I’d rather start my day with the neighbor who ran his alarm clock through his stereo and shared Men Without Hats with the entire neighborhood.
Getting back to Democracy and Islam, the country that has both seems to be Indonesia, and that is functioning nicely. The next country that springs to mind is Turkey. Has anyone visited that country to tell us what they are up to? Is democracy doing well there, or failing?
NG, Indonesia is not functioning nicely. As to Turkey, it has (or maybe had until the last elections) a total separation of state and religion, enforced by the very secular (and powerful) military. And it has been functioning OK.
Nicely put! I have my own take on the whole sorry mess here.
Alisa, Australia lives next door to Indonesia, And it looks to be functioning well- not perfect, but they don’t have riots in the streets, and they have elections, and the army is in the background. It also helps that they have a mixed-religion society- it was never 100% Islamic.
When are you going to give yourself a more 21st century name. I used to be boring ‘Nick’, but I feel that ‘Nuke’ is more me, for this new millenium. Perhaps Halisa, in honour of HAL’s computing skills?
No way!
Christianity isn’t much better than Islam with regard to smiting, and “bringing not peace but a sword” the one good point in Islam which strikes me as an atheist, is the refusal to charge interest on loans.
arguing about whose sky-ghost is the best, or whether the Jewish Zombie or the paedophilic soldier is the best mouthpiece for their particular mythology is neither here nor there. the only Muslims i’ve met seem to me to be good people, keen workers, and helpful. whether this is because or in spite of Islam, i don’t know.
in any case, spouting shite (or freedom of speech) should be a sine qua non of any free society. banning people from saying stuff is a very bad thing. if there is a direct exhortation to kill, arrest the individual, otherwise if you don’t like it, no-one’s twisting your arm to make you listen.
Secularism in Turkey is under attack. No-alcohol zones are spreading in Istanbul – the most liberal part of Turkey. Secularism is fragile and shallow, and maintained only by the presence of the army.
http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2008/09/alcohol-ban-promts-turks-to-resist.html
Dear Richard,
You are wrong.
Time magazine reveals that scientific studies show that church-goers live longer. Exercise increases life, moderate habits increase life, and church attendance increases life. So going to church does matter.
Us believers will always have the last laugh, simply because we’ll live longer!
Alisa, how about AI15a? Or Hal’s sister from the sequel, Sal? (Salisa?)
Nick, stop wasting your time, will you. Don’t you have to go to church or something?:-P
Quite right, AliSAL! Hope to see you there!