Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
No No No, it's not that "they can't refute" Wilders statements but it's how he doesn't allow them to. Let me explain.The problem we have with wilders here in Holland is that he's just saying things. Regardless of the validity of WHAT he's saying or the ethical issues with HOW he's saying it, he isn't open for debate. IE, he makes a statement and subsequently stops communicating. THAT is what irks us here and THAT is mainly why some dragged him to court. Wilders doesn't debate. Wilders isn't in a dialogue. We have NO conversation with Wilders. Not even those that might agree with him. No, Wilders just blurps out random stuff and then hides in a cave, regardless of consequence.And he DOES insult. Not so much with WHAT he's saying (because he's not intelligent enough to be of any real threat to anyone there) but more HOW he's saying it. Really, don't get me wrong, I'm a militant atheist if it comes to that, but there's a line you just shouldn't cross in public debate, and that line is where arguments break down into name-calling.Now, regardless of what Mr Wilders tries to convince the world of, this isn't about free speech. This is about people being fed up of being called nasty names without the chance to even ASK why he would use such language. This is about silly name-calling and then hiding behind the facade of free speech. I don't care much for delusional religious fools one way or the other. But calling them "rag-heads" in an official setting and then run for the hills smells like cowardice to me. And that just won't do.I agree with his arguments, most of us do, I just have a problem with his lack of accountability, as does our court.
<span>When people are saying "there's a line you just shouldn't cross in public debate" it is time you cross that line and some.</span>
Patrick,Are you saying Islam IS in dialogue? I think dialogue went out the window after the world trade centre collapsed, the demands for Sharia courts in western nations, and the murders on those who are ctitical of Islam. I might start tolerating Islam again after most muslims condemn every sinlge muslim terrorist attack , every attack on out western values, and every attempt to islamify our countries. Thus far, I haven't heard any muslim condemn anything except the western world in which we live for not being islamic enough. I've had enough. If you want to live in an islamic state, go to the middle east. There are several muslim nations there with various degrees of religious rules to suit your needs. We don't want to live under religious dogma. We did that in the dark ages. We've had enough of that shit.
it is time you cross that line and some.. Really? It can lead to this, which I guess could be considered as part of the debate then taking place.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MqmG28dhBMTaking the law to Wilders is stupid and wrong, but the guy is not a hero.
I am getting tired of all this drama, every few months, some stupid politician decides to present some law targeting muslims (ban burqa, minaret, etc) or pleasing muslims (restricting speech). All these actions make things worse, local population feels that their country is losing its values and immigrants feel that they are being victimized by anti-Islam locals. Decide once and for all what is not acceptable (any violence or threat of violence to someone who is just expressing his opinion, no matter how offensive his opinions are) and all EU countries should start implementing these laws. At least this way people who really hate important Western values and want to live exactly same way as they live in their native countries will be discouraged from coming here. This might create some problems in the short term but it will be lot better than tackling these problems 10 or 20 years from now.
Wilders is a hypocrite and Pat Condell's style got old half a year ago.Kind regards,Channelsurfing libertarian atheist
Patrick,<span> he's just saying things. Regardless of the validity of WHAT he's saying or the ethical issues with HOW he's saying it, he isn't open for debate.</span>In the USA people like that get shows on FOX News, not trials.<span> he makes a statement and subsequently stops communicating. THAT is what irks us here and THAT is mainly why some dragged him to court.</span>He doesn't have to respond; that isn't the essence of free speech. Make your counter-argument, if you have one, and the people can decide.
<p><span>"No No No, it's not that "they can't refute" Wilders statements but it's how he doesn't allow them to. Let me explain…"</span></p><p>No Patrick, you are just saying things, your wobbly explanation is ignorant and utterly wrong. The real problem is that most people don't listen and therefore don't understand a thing Wilders really says. Combine this with the fact that most people don't know a thing about Islam and apparently neither want to know, just in order to not offend anybody, they will eventually, but at that time they'll realize the consequences have become even a bit more harsh.. Instead, opposing parties and most media are very willing to distort Wilders his words and ironically calling him a racist, a danger to society, a right wing extremist and more of that nonsense. You fell for that as well. If any of all Dutch MP's should be on this trial I can name some people from D66 or SP (among others of lately) who would fit here much better.</p><p>"Wilders doesn't debate. Wilders isn't in a dialogue. We have NO conversation with Wilders. Not even those that might agree with him."</p><p>Who do you mean with 'we' Anyway? Not the MP's in De Tweede Kamer he debates all the time, right? Not the many people who've already voted and those that might gonna vote as well, or again, for his party, I assume. Not countries like America, UK (well..), Israel and others which invited him to speech and debate. Does 'we' mean you, maybe?</p><p>"No, Wilders just blurps out random stuff and then hides in a cave, regardless of consequence."</p><p>Yeah right, the man needs 24/7 strict protection against people who just can't wait to slay him. Wilders is fully aware of what he says, which I can't say of you and many others, and sadly he already has to pay the prize for several years now by losing his private life and possibly more in a supposedly free country, because of the fact he does have the courage to speak out about the dangers of Islam.</p><p>"Now, regardless of what Mr Wilders tries to convince the world of, this isn't about free speech."</p><p>Again you couldn't be more wrong, this has everything to do with freedom of speech, freedom as a whole I shall add. The way Pat Condell is spot on when analyzing this situation, zo sla jij de plank volledig mis! Maybe you should watch Wilders's speech in court again..</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/v/7ZyXkiQ-vn0&feature" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="170" height="140</p><p>And if you understand Dutch then you should definitely watch this 2008 interview with Geert WIlders by Muntz en v.d. WInt as well to get a much better perspective about WIlders and his actual viewpoints. Sorry, I don't think there's a (English) translation yet, and since the interview lasts for almost 2 hours it's a bit too much for me to make it, which is a shame because it's a worthwhile watch.</p>
<p>A hypocrite you say.. well argued, it just blows me away!</p><p>If telling the truth is 'old style' then I prefer that over whatever the 'new style' supposes to be.</p>
Wilders assertion that Islam is at right-angles to freedom unwittingly mirrors his own political philosophy. He is not a friend of free speech asserting in his political manifesto of a book, Clear Wine, that he seeks the"Replacement of the present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, by a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions."This intellectual imperialism utterly undercuts Wilders as a spokeperson for "freedom". He is little removed from the islamic idealogues he despises.However, he is now joined in this un-enlightened state by these crappy judges it would seem.Pat's rant is well directed at these court proceedings but is fatally flawed in not identifying Wilders as a hypocrite who co-opts truths for his own oppressive ends. Even if Wilders spoke no truth he should not be in court. That he speaks some truth should not be the reason to get him out of there and free.This is Pat's dumbest piece yet. Perhaps he is blinded by the very seriousness of the case which should concern us all. Wilders, must after all, be acquitted.Interestingly if Wilders is convicted then the judges must by rights move on to Islamists spouting hatred and intellectual imperialism.
this guy is as racist as it comes. I am dead against religion in all its forms but to blanket all people with comments as he does is shear stupidity. I am so sad that this great blog supposrts this fucking retard piece of racist. 'islam and terrorism as as interconnected as siamese twins'. great words idiot. by that idiot statement: all cathaolics rape babies? I have a muslim neighbour and he is the most lovely man I have ever met- the neighbour on the otherside is a white guy with 2 kids with asbos. so i guess all whites are criminals. what a piece of human shit this guy is and fuck you athiest blog for supporting him time and time again- he has nothing but hate speech.
ask your muslim neighbour what he thinks of you (non believer) as stated in the koran...theres your problem..
mlon: that was easily the most retarded thing I heard all day.
frabkWhat is at stake here is far more important than Wilders half baked politics. The right to hate speech should be defended (and the right to incitement to violence denied.)http://www.youtube.com/v/X3Hg-Y7MugU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="170" height="140But, incidentally, Islam and terrorism are connected. Your counter is as un-nuanced as Wilders. Islam is substantially political in its clearly delineated aims and its insistence that none shall leave its embrace alive, traps the great bulk of its reasonable, good thinking adherents into comparative silence. This issue of freedom to speak and think for fear of the few bullies fully licenses in my view, an attack on key tenets of an oppressive dogmatic faith. (Christianity has shrugged off some of these problems, post reformation, but its shame, and one that degrades all its adherents, is the idea of needing salvation...from birth onwards. What sneaky exploitative mind rot! Next?)
<p>"I have a muslim neighbour and he is the most lovely man I have ever met-"</p><p>Wilders repeatedly stated that he has nothing against Muslims as people, but he despises the Islamic ideology as preached in the Koran, the Hadith and the Sharia. If Muslims feel offended by that it can only mean they support just that ideology. Enlightened Muslims should not feel offended by Wilders, but they should feel offended by the religilous extremists who claim to handle in the name of their Imaginary Friend. Of course one should realize the Koran is the unchangeable word of Allah and all of it is true, which makes things a bit more complicated, if you'd be better informed about the contents of this book you'd understand why.</p><p><span>"what a piece of human shit this guy is and fuck you athiest blog for supporting him time and time again- he has nothing but hate speech."</span></p><p><span>Ah well, and you sound like a friendly person then..? By posting about WIlders and the trial this blog isn't necessarily supporting him, that's called journalism, providing information, freedom of speech and religion have something to do with it as well.. And if you would've read the comments you'd realize plenty of visitors don't support him at all.</span></p>
Islam is not a race, cultural imperialist perhaps, culturalist? Racist, no, can't be as muslim culture does not come in skincolor or genetic code.
<p><span>"Wilders assertion that Islam is at… …Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions." </span></p><p>I also do not agree with Wilders's viewpoint to change Article 1 like that if at all, but what you forgot to mention is why he thinks it should be changed. He thinks Article 1 prevents him (and others) from speaking freely about Islam and obstructs solutions for immigration issues. Statistics show that issues with criminality, unemployment, Dutch-language-control and domestic violence occur a lot more within the non-Western foreign community than any other community in The Netherlands. A "principle of equality syndrome" prevents measures to fix those problems in his view. Where the situation with a group of people is not equal with the situation of other groups they shouldn't be equally dealt with. He might has some kind of a point there after all.</p><p>The Netherlands <span>has</span> had a society with a dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist culture which has proven to work quite fine, many other cultures are present and welcome there too, including an enlightened Islam, but it's a shame that the Islamic culture usually has the <span>tradition</span> goal, as stated in the Koran, to dominate, completely. On top of that, the Dutch constitution and leading parties provide religious people with enough tools to (ab)use the laws of freedom of religion (including some silly anti-blasphemy laws) in a manner they were never meant to be, give Islam one finger and It <span>takes</span> chops off your whole hand if your not careful.</p><p>Again, I don't think the suggestion to make such a clause as a solution to protect the free and used to be open and tolerant society is the right one, but instead of calumniating Wilder's person and his viewpoints, this shameless prosecution and constantly looking away from the real problems, the other Dutch parties and MP's should, for a change, start listening to Wilders (and his, and their own voters!), acknowledge the mentioned problems, debate and work together on better solutions, that's one of the reasons there's a Parliament in the first place. I guess they've forgotten all about that.</p><p><span>"Even if Wilders spoke no truth he should not be in court. That he speaks some truth should not be the reason to get him out of there and free."</span></p><p>You contradict yourself here, what do you mean? In your view (wether Wilders speaks the truth or not), should he or shouldn't he be on trial?</p><p><span>"Interestingly if Wilders is convicted then the judges must by rights move on to Islamists spouting hatred and intellectual imperialism."</span></p><p>So you do understand they've brought the wrong person to court? A fair and properly functioning justice system would already have started doing that a long time ago, after all Article 1 alone provides enough ammunition to do so. However the religious do have some bonus tools for their use, as I mentioned earlier, so don't be too surprised if that outcome would be a little different than you might expect.</p>
<p>Mlon's comment actually does make sense, your non-comment, not really.</p><p>Oh, and..</p><p>*yAwn*</p>
well...did you aks him? :) the koran and the bible for that matter are hate speech..wilders is christian too, so whatever good (in a bad way yes..) he says about muslims..he will not get my vote..
Sorry, zZz, but you muddle these issues up too much for my liking. I'll answer by making a series of statements and try to tease things out.1. That Wilders and I have a common enemy in disliking (specifically) the seemingly totalitarian political dogma of an ancient religion does not make him my friend.2. His view of freedom needs fighting because it is based on his love of a way of life that he wishes to preserve rather than his love of a principle of freedom.3. That we both (more or less) love the same way of life we currently enjoy does not make him my friend. Societies adapt and grow to be strong. Extreme conservatism fails to see the need for this. It mindlessly conserves.4. Wilders should not be on trial at all. The merit of what he says is irrelevant. This is only a freedom of speech issue.5. Wilders will use this court case as a political platform to promote his views. (He has every right to....but)6. He will not do the most important thing and fight for freedom for freedoms sake. He will fight to conserve a way of life.7. Societies founded on dirigiste principles, proscribing thoughts ideas and freedoms such as Wilders intends may look shiny and wholesome to us but they are rootless shams.
I should have said in 7....proscribing SOME thoughts ideas and freedoms...
A truth that's told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent
What the hell is going on in europe? and why isnt there any outrage from the media???
I din't think outrages are very popular in Europe.He's been complaining about being demonised by the press and the elite (probably political) but has no problem demonising Islam and others who oppose him.One thing which might not be very clear is that Wilders is not sued by the state, but by 20-30 people. And it is for a few remarks, which are marked as hate speechOne is "We have to stop de Islamising Tsunami. It hurts us in our hearts, identity and culture''.The other ''Make this book illegal as Mein Kampf is illegal''.Personally, I think he has said things which are more hatefull, but maybe he did so in a later stage.Pat Condell's love for Wilders and Hirschi Ali is actually beyond me.
"Sorry, zZz, but you muddle these issues up too much for my liking. I'll answer by making a series of statements and try to tease things out."Odd, but if that pleases you better.."1. That Wilders and I have a common enemy in disliking (specifically) the seemingly totalitarian political dogma of an ancient religion does not make him my friend."Good for you, did I say you are or should be? Oh no, this is just a statement of course, next."2. His view of freedom needs fighting because it is based on his love of a way of life that he wishes to preserve rather than his love of a principle of freedom."You just make stuff up here, if there's one person who'll cherish freedom it'll be Wilders, after all, most of his own personal freedoms have been taken away from him a couple of years ago. What he does want is to preserve a way of life as known in the FREE Western-Societies as The Netherlands uses to be. Not only that, he wants to protect it, and that sure seems needed before there won't be a free Western-Society left at all to preserve.But maybe you actually meant to say "principle of equality" instead of "principle of freedom"? Then this statement would have been somewhat related to my post, however in that case you're just neglecting the nuances I gave you earlier, but doing so doesn't mean they're not there. And if you're Dutch and you really feel the need to 'fight' his viewpoints then just don't vote for his party, that's how it's done in a democracy."3. That we both (more or less) love the same way of life we currently enjoy does not make him my friend. Societies adapt and grow to be strong. Extreme conservatism fails to see the need for this. It mindlessly conserves."What's up with that friend thing anyway? Ok, now you assume Wilders is extremely conservative? At some point arguments for your assumptions would be welcome. By the way, extremely conservative countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt seem to have pretty 'strong' societies.."4. Wilders should not be on trial at all. The merit of what he says is irrelevant. This is only a freedom of speech issue."Ah, an actual answer to my reply. Though if you think this is only a freedom of speech issue, then I'm afraid you are a bit short-sighted, which would explain one and another."5. Wilders will use this court case as a political platform to promote his views. (He has every right to….but)"But what? For his defense he has to justify his sayings and thus his viewpoints. Since truth-finding belongs to the kernel of a (proper) justice system his conceptions should indeed be thoroughly examined, but don't forget he was put on that platform as that's usually the case when you're brought to court, therefore the words "use" and "promote" are in this context not appropriate."6. He will not do the most important thing and fight for freedom for freedoms sake. He will fight to conserve a way of life."You basically say the same thing at point 2, see my answer there."7. Societies founded on dirigiste principles, proscribing thoughts ideas and freedoms such as Wilders intends may look shiny and wholesome to us but they are rootless shams."And there you go again, see my answer on point 2."I should have said in 7. ...proscribing SOME thoughts ideas and freedoms…"Oh right, I'll just muddle that in then.. see my answer at point 2.Well, a bunch of statements alright and one actual answer related to my reply. Next time try to argue a bit more, instead of just assuming your way around using seemingly empty statements, eventually you might make [...]
<p>"wllders is christian too…"</p><p>Actually he isn't. Wilders says he doesn't believe in a God in this earlier mentioned Dutch interview. (23:50).</p>
zzz I was talking about pat- not wilder.mlon- I did and he said its equal to christians being told to stone unruly kids to death or for all its followers to give up all their belongings. if you missed my point- you cant call all muslims terrorists- which pat does in the same way you cant call all priests child rapists. its fucking dumb and its hate speech.i am more friendly than this guy who has made a living from spouting this nasty shit day in day out forming large groups of nationalist parties about him saying things like 'multiculturalism will not work- this is my warning'. he is a fucking hitler for the dumb asses
and then I said "<span>and that line is where arguments break down into name-calling</span> ". So, you think name-calling solves things? You think when you call a whole group of people "rag-heads" that gives you the moral high ground?Funny because I'm trying to teach my kids this ain't so...
<p>Oh ok, sometimes a 'he' can get mixed-up, right.. Cider, Fabk, Asam, Bill.. Martin? The main contents of my (and Mats's) reply still apply though. ^^ </p>