Dutch Mp Tried For His Views On Islam

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1760117' date='Jan 24 2009, 11:23 AM']So you are against the principle of free speech?[/quote]

That was not the purpose of the post you were quoting, I was pointing out that MV's rather idealized version of him is a bit misplaced. I don't believe he deserved to be stabbed for making a religiously hostile movie. I understand why the above poster would say he was sort of asking for it, particularly with some of his more disturbingly anti-emetic and lewd claims (such as his claim that a Jewish women he disagreed with secretly wanted to -insert a lewd word rhyming with "duck"- Dr. Mengele or jokes about the Holocaust), but as much as he may have been "asking for it" simply being human garbage does not qualify one for execution. That was my main point, yes he was a slime ball, and no he should not have been stabbed. I think what both the other poster and I are trying to get at is that while we oppose what happened it is very difficult to feel sorry for this chap.

I don't understand your larger question about being "against the principal of free speech". My point is that while free speech is important it is not an absolute, we have laws prohibiting freedom of speech and always have, deciding the limits of freedom of speech is a careful dance each culture must engage in, and yes this is relative to their experiences. I would not support similar laws in the Unites States however Western Europe has a very different past and culture. If we ever experience a popular politician rising to power through angry rhetoric towards a religious or ethnic minority already viewed with suspicion by the larger population who then enacts the most horrific genocide the world has ever seen against that minority we may need to reconsider. Free speech laws have always been relative and in flux, they are not and never have been static, that's just a charming myth we teach young school children in the same vein as Santa.

Sorry if that came off as a bit confused and rambling

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1760260' date='Jan 24 2009, 02:45 PM']I have presented a brief argument, if there is something wrong with it you are welcome to challenge me.[/quote]

I merely pointed out my understanding of your argument. I see no reason to waste time arguing 20 plus pages. We know how it will end, you will argue liberty is relative. I will argue that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1760289' date='Jan 24 2009, 03:20 PM']I merely pointed out my understanding of your argument.[/quote]

Sure, I thought it was an attack at first, sorry.

[quote]I see no reason to waste time arguing 20 plus pages. We know how it will end, you will argue liberty is relative. I will argue that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.[/quote]

prolly

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1760278' date='Jan 24 2009, 03:01 PM']That was not the purpose of the post you were quoting, I was pointing out that MV's rather idealized version of him is a bit misplaced. I don't believe he deserved to be stabbed for making a religiously hostile movie. I understand why the above poster would say he was sort of asking for it, particularly with some of his more disturbingly anti-emetic and lewd claims (such as his claim that a Jewish women he disagreed with secretly wanted to -insert a lewd word rhyming with "duck"- Dr. Mengele or jokes about the Holocaust), but as much as he may have been "asking for it" simply being human garbage does not qualify one for execution. That was my main point, yes he was a slime ball, and no he should not have been stabbed. I think what both the other poster and I are trying to get at is that while we oppose what happened it is very difficult to feel sorry for this chap.

I don't understand your larger question about being "against the principal of free speech". My point is that while free speech is important it is not an absolute, we have laws prohibiting freedom of speech and always have, deciding the limits of freedom of speech is a careful dance each culture must engage in, and yes this is relative to their experiences. I would not support similar laws in the Unites States however Western Europe has a very different past and culture. If we ever experience a popular politician rising to power through angry rhetoric towards a religious or ethnic minority already viewed with suspicion by the larger population who then enacts the most horrific genocide the world has ever seen against that minority we may need to reconsider. Free speech laws have always been relative and in flux, they are not and never have been static, that's just a charming myth we teach young school children in the same vein as Santa.

Sorry if that came off as a bit confused and rambling[/quote]
So you think free speech standards depend on your culture and therefore the right is relative and not absolute?

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1760382' date='Jan 25 2009, 12:38 AM']So you think free speech standards depend on your culture and therefore the right is relative and not absolute?[/quote]

Sometimes I think it does depend on circumstance. When I first moved here there were times when no, I couldn't just speak my mind about things, the changes in my life and what I was undergoing, no. It would have been a sign that I wasn't doing my utmost to integrate into Dutch society - and the Dutch a BIG on integration. But they never meet you halfway. The immigrant is the one who has to do all the work.

Whether that would, in my opinion, translate into a "free speech is relative" I don't know.

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1760382' date='Jan 24 2009, 06:38 PM']So you think free speech standards depend on your culture and therefore the right is relative and not absolute?[/quote]
That's not my opinion that is fact as far as I know. I don't know of any empirical evidence or rational argument revealing some platonic archetype that "is" freedom of speech which all nation have a moral obligation to mirror. Nations negotiate the limits allowable speech within the contexts of their specific cultures and histories (not just formal limitations but informal ones as well)

I'd be happy to hear your view on this. Do you believe it is an absolute right? If so what is that absolute measure and why is the American model held to be normative? We obviously do not hold the unlimited right to free expression as absolute or innately sacrosanct, setting aside the legally institutionalized limitations on it we have plenty of implicit and informal limitation on it, witness the Catholic attempt to get Bill Maher fired for his ignorant and stupid comments about the Pope, or the absolute anathema on people who are not "of color" saying the "n-word". Any white politician who did say that word, outside of a few rural districts, would be immediately voted out of office and social ostracized, yet this is somehow more respectful of free speech than a Dutch law that simply fines the individual.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1760397' date='Jan 24 2009, 07:04 PM']That's not my opinion that is fact as far as I know. I don't know of any empirical evidence or rational argument revealing some platonic archetype that "is" freedom of speech which all nation have a moral obligation to mirror. Nations negotiate the limits allowable speech within the contexts of their specific cultures and histories (not just formal limitations but informal ones as well)

I'd be happy to hear your view on this. Do you believe it is an absolute right? If so what is that absolute measure and why is the American model held to be normative? We obviously do not hold the unlimited right to free expression as absolute or innately sacrosanct, setting aside the legally institutionalized limitations on it we have plenty of implicit and informal limitation on it, witness the Catholic attempt to get Bill Maher fired for his ignorant and stupid comments about the Pope, or the absolute anathema on people who are not "of color" saying the "n-word". Any white politician who did say that word, outside of a few rural districts, would be immediately voted out of office and social ostracized, yet this is somehow more respectful of free speech than a Dutch law that simply fines the individual.[/quote]
I think human beings have a right to voice their opinions on a wide variety of subjects without interference of the government. can I cry fire in a crowded theater - no. Can I say I think so and so politician or tradition or behaviour is rignt or wrong - ABSOLUTELY.
There was nothing wrong with attempting to fire Bill Maher, as people have a right to say this, its called free speech for a reason. If a politician uses what some people call a PC word, that again is his business, it might not be politically wise, but again its free speech. I don't have to agree with what someones says, but I will DEFEND his right to say it. Thats a concept that liberals seem to just not get.

[cmotherofpirl]

And the concept that it is relative to culture is exactly what is wrong with the Islamic and increasingly as well the European countries.

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1760405' date='Jan 24 2009, 07:31 PM']I think human beings have a right to voice their opinions on a wide variety of subjects without interference of the government. can I cry fire in a crowded theater - no. Can I say I think so and so politician or tradition or behaviour is rignt or wrong - ABSOLUTELY.[/quote]

Why? You believe it is an absolute right correct? Then how do you shift through all the possibilities and determine what is and is not a protected right.

[quote]There was nothing wrong with attempting to fire Bill Maher, as people have a right to say this, its called free speech for a reason.[/quote]

No free speech would be correcting his false claims or perhaps trying to get people to stop watching his program (which, by the way, I have in large part because of such comments and similar other ones) but rallying Catholics to petition HBO to fire him is a whole different can of worms.

[quote]If a politician uses what some people call a PC word, that again is his business, it might not be politically wise, but again its free speech. I don't have to agree with what someones says, but I will DEFEND his right to say it.[/quote]
Well done to you, I am not talking about the dispositions of individuals but rather informal, social restraints of free speech which operate through social sanctions against individuals for what they say which I assume you would admit do exist (Don Imus) I fail to see how this social sanction respects free speech than a popularly supported legal sanction.


[quote]Thats a concept that liberals seem to just not get.[/quote]


No need for the generalizations

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1760408' date='Jan 24 2009, 07:35 PM']And the concept that it is relative to culture is exactly what is wrong with the Islamic and increasingly as well the European countries.[/quote]

Please explain.

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1760408' date='Jan 25 2009, 01:35 AM']And the concept that it is relative to culture is exactly what is wrong with the Islamic and increasingly as well the European countries.[/quote]

I think there's a difference between culture and situation. Would it be ok to stand up in the middle of Mass or Adoration and speak one's mind out loud as to how great the new Argentinian education laws are?

[Hassan]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1760416' date='Jan 24 2009, 07:43 PM']I think there's a difference between culture and situation. Would it be ok to stand up in the middle of Mass or Adoration and speak one's mind out loud as to how great the new Argentinian education laws are?[/quote]

Or the stripping of Heidegger's philosophy post. He was not active in the party but did make speechs making an intelectual case for the Nazi cause. Given the context of post WWII Germany was it warented to strip his teachings rights for, I think, five years, to make sure he would not use his teaching positions to preach Nazi values to his students? I think so. In America there is no rational reason to think that Nazism will ever gain a firm hold so we are generally more tolerant of individual advocating it.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1760116' date='Jan 24 2009, 11:11 AM']I've seen Fitna, and it does portray Islam in a less-then-flattering-light[/quote]

No, Islam portrays ITSELF in a less than flattering light. All the MP did was present Koranic texts side-by-side with events around the world being perpetrated by Muslims in the name of those very same texts.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1761303' date='Jan 25 2009, 02:18 PM']No, Islam portrays ITSELF in a less than flattering light. All the MP did was present Koranic texts side-by-side with events around the world being perpetrated by Muslims in the name of those very same texts.[/quote]

You probably didn't notice the 'Sarcasm Alert' at the bottom of my post.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1761303' date='Jan 25 2009, 03:18 PM']No, Islam portrays ITSELF in a less than flattering light. All the MP did was present Koranic texts side-by-side with events around the world being perpetrated by Muslims in the name of those very same texts.[/quote]

[img]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b71/yitz2k/wildersposter2.gif[/img]

[Hassan]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1761308' date='Jan 25 2009, 03:25 PM']You probably didn't notice the 'Sarcasm Alert' at the bottom of my post.[/quote]


You mean your sinister attempt to disguise your Muslim apolegitics through psuedo sarcasm?

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1760419' date='Jan 24 2009, 07:46 PM']Given the context of post WWII Germany was it warented to strip his teachings rights for, I think, five years, to make sure he would not use his teaching positions to preach Nazi values to his students? I think so. In America there is no rational reason to think that Nazism will ever gain a firm hold so we are generally more tolerant of individual advocating it.[/quote]

The reason people hold firm to the idea of tolerance of individuals is not due to a lack of fear, which just seems animalistic and reductionist, that certain ideas won't take hold, but rather because the american people understand that all ideas have consequences that should be explored and talked about openly, especially the idea that certain ideas and opinions should not be expressed.

Who has the authority to say when it is ok to speak one's opinions and when it is not alright to speak certain opinions, a mob? an outside military power? Or, is there an objective standard such that ideas always should be expressed because if they are dangerous they should be talked about so that their flaws may be pointed out and no longer hold any influence? To say certain ideas should not be spoken of seems to add to the fear and power surrounding them not to mention there seems to be no objective standards by which to regulate the censurship of ideas other than those in power wish that there are such things that should not be spoken of? How do we ensure free, rational, mature, open, frank discussion in a society and in a ruling body that is concerned with the best course of action if certain people are not allowed to speak their minds and add to the conversation no matter how "upsetting" certain ideas may be?

I think the answer is obvious, all [i]ideas[/i] should be allowed to be voiced because it seems that either all manner of opinion is allowed or there is no reason that any, save that of the organization with the most power, should or would be allowed.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Winchester]

There are only two things I hate; those who are intolerant of other people's cultures. And the Dutch.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

Nice Edited January 26, 2009 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' post='1762438' date='Jan 26 2009, 03:20 PM']The reason people hold firm to the idea of tolerance of individuals is not due to a lack of fear, which just seems animalistic and reductionist, that certain ideas won't take hold, but rather because the american people understand that all ideas have consequences that should be explored and talked about openly, especially the idea that certain ideas and opinions should not be expressed.[/quote]

I don't quite follow you here

[quote]Who has the authority to say when it is ok to speak one's opinions and when it is not alright to speak certain opinions, a mob? an outside military power? Or, is there an objective standard such that ideas always should be expressed because if they are dangerous they should be talked about so that their flaws may be pointed out and no longer hold any influence? To say certain ideas should not be spoken of seems to add to the fear and power surrounding them not to mention there seems to be no objective standards by which to regulate the censurship of ideas other than those in power wish that there are such things that should not be spoken of?[/quote]

In a republican government the populace at large should set the bounds of free speech. Perhaps not speaking certain ideas does add to their mystery, however a lack of prohibition did not protect six million Jews particularly well either.

[quote]How do we ensure free, rational, mature, open, frank discussion in a society and in a ruling body that is concerned with the best course of action if certain people are not allowed to speak their minds and add to the conversation no matter how "upsetting" certain ideas may be?[/quote]

I don't understand this. We've doing it right now. Even when we lack formal laws there are implicit social mores that no politician dare cross.

[quote]I think the answer is obvious, all [i]ideas[/i] should be allowed to be voiced because it seems that either all manner of opinion is allowed or there is no reason that any, save that of the organization with the most power, should or would be allowed. [/quote]


Well, for three hundred years we've been able to navigate those admittedly dangerous waters pretty well.