great article in wsj on how muslims are altering europe for the negative

[sameer]

this is a followup to my other thread about how muslims moving to the west should be the ones who have to adapt to the west's acceptance of religious mockery rather than trying to scare westerns into not mocking/criticizing islam. see http://forums.ratedesi.com/showthread.php?t=190971

An Ordinary Dutch Life
By DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL
November 18, 2006; Page A8

THE HAGUE -- When Geert Wilders rose from his desk, his head almost touched the narrow ceiling. The tiny corner office underneath the parliament's roof wasn't selected for space but security. Possible assassins can only come from one direction, making life easier for the two bodyguards outside.

Mr. Wilders has been living under 24-hour police protection ever since the assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh two years ago. The Dutch-Moroccan who stabbed and shot van Gogh in Amsterdam left death threats behind against him and the Netherlands' other, more famous critic of Islam: Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Like the Somali-born politician, Mr. Wilders has had to take refuge in army barracks, safe houses, even a prison cell.

The lawmaker's life is in danger because of his criticism of radical, or, as he calls it, "mainstream" Islam. In Mr. Wilders's view, Islam hasn't been "hijacked" by radicals. Rather, radicalism is embedded in the faith. "It's a violent religion, an intolerant religion," he said matter-of-factly in an interview.

This Wednesday, the Dutch go to the polls and Mr. Wilders's Party for Freedom is expected to pick up about six seats in the 150-seat parliament. His provocative thesis and calls for a five-year moratorium on non-Western immigration make it easy for his political opponents to dismiss him as a racist. But he will have none of that. "I make a distinction between the religion and the people. I believe in the people, I believe that Muslims can integrate in society. But I don't believe in a European, moderate Islam to come in the next 10,000 years."

Thus accused of violent tendencies, radical Muslims are calling for his head. "Videos on Islamic Web sites show my picture and name to the sound of what appears to be knives cutting through flesh while a voiceover says I will be beheaded," Mr. Wilders said calmly. "You never get used to it but you learn to live with it." Harder to accept is that his wife is suffering as well. "Everything I do, even if people strongly disagree with me, I do within the boundaries of democracy. And even though I know that I'm not responsible [for this situation], I know it's the result of the things I say, the things I do. It's not, though, the result of what my wife does. She often even doesn't agree and still she is in the same situation. I find it difficult to bear that everything is happening to her as well."

Is there outrage in the Netherlands about his situation? He first avoids a direct answer. "This is now, today, my problem but in a larger sense it is also a problem for democracy, the rule of law," he said. When pressed on the point, his response paints a troubling picture. "Real outrage? No. There was more outrage when a major paper once wrote how much the security for Ayaan and me costs," he said. "There were times when Ayaan and I said to one another and sometimes to the public, 'In what country do we live that things that are clearly not normal are almost being seen as normal or more or less ignored in public discussion and public life?'"

You don't have to share Mr. Wilders's views to realize that the threats against his life also threaten Dutch democracy. And yet the Dutch seem indifferent to his plight. Wednesday's elections in the Netherlands will choose the first new parliament since van Gogh's murder and the start of Mr. Wilders's ordeal. You'd expect these events to feature high on the national agenda. But the most remarkable aspect about the major parties' campaign is the absence of any serious discussion of terrorism, Muslim integration, or the Dutch troops in Afghanistan. It's mostly about tax breaks, pensions and health care. Quite rightly, the economy is always on voters' minds -- but to the near-exclusion of national security? According to a survey from this summer, terrorism is only the fifth-most-important issue for the Dutch. The country's antiterror coordinator recently warned of the continuing radicalization of young Dutch Muslims. Just two weeks ago, six people were arrested on terrorism charges.

Any sense of urgency the Dutch may have had after van Gogh's murder is lost. Back then, Deputy Prime Minister Gerrit Zalm declared "war" on radical Islam. Van Gogh's murder was even referred to as "our Sept. 11." Visitors to the Dutch "Ground Zero" will search in vain, though, for even a simple sign indicating the spot of van Gogh's near-decapitation. The second anniversary of his murder a couple of weeks ago passed without any official ceremony. Antiterrorism and immigration laws may have been tightened, but the latter measures in particular often lack the necessary finesse to address the country's real threats.

Understandably, the Dutch long for the days when their small country only consumed international news without making any. The rest of the Continent is not much different. Each terror attack or death threat briefly fills the airwaves before Europeans again pretend everything is normal. Meanwhile, the list of dissidents like Mr. Wilders is growing. Recent additions include Robert Redeker, a French philosophy teacher, in hiding since his September op-ed criticizing Islam, and Ekin Deligöz, a German member of parliament of Turkish descent. She has been put under police protection last month after receiving death threats for suggesting that Muslim women abandon the veil.

Europeans can keep pretending all this is normal. But only until the day they find their names on that dissident list as well.

[chakdephute]

I somewhat agree with Wilder's bold statements. I mean, the day non-muslims are allowed to set foot in Mecca is the day the rest of the world can open up to Islamic people.
However, limiting all non-western immigration is a poor decision, economically. I'm almost positive a large number of immigrants to the Netherlands are non-western, and those non-westerners are a valuable asset to workforces and overall well being to the state of its economy.

Also, I don't agree with what he says about how Muslims can integrate within European society and that Islam cannot. I believe it to be completely the opposite. There are a lot of cultural forces at work when it comes to Muslims and violence, and sometimes culture completely takes over what religion teaches. Happens quite a bit.

My point is that Wilder's main point should be to differentiate between Muslims and people coming from "violence-prone" areas or places where violence is inbred into culture.

[Cunard]

limits should be placed on muslim immigrationfrom certain countries, and the expulsion of radicals should be made much easier...its that simple

[rex_maximus]

height of hypocricy....

the day non-muslims are OKed to shout out in the public for their christian/hindu/sikh/buddhist rights in any of the 30 sum islamic countries.....that very day muslims can demand any rights in return in Europe.....

imagine non muslims going to any of the 30 sum islamic countries, and demanding for equal public mass/pooja/gurbani/whatevertheheckelse rights.....they'd get slaughtered like chicken

when in rome...do like the romans do....or else go back to your shariah enforcing countries....and STFU!

[rex_maximus]

only in the US and India do you see muslims behaving with any respect towards non-muslims....

in all of the arab countries, and even in Europe, you see muslims with the exclusive 'us vs them' attitude...then they wonder why the whole western world is seemingly singling them out...and then muslims play the victim like the whole world is against them...

perhaps muslims in western countries should give some consideration the the fact that western countries have their OWN culture/tradition/history....and when one is living there, one is expected to blend into the mold of the host country...JUST as it would be expected off non-muslims in islamic countries.

[Z4K5T4R]

Urrm can i critisize the Jews and about the Holocaust because i don't agree about the figures of the amount of Jews that died in the Holocaust? This is my freedom of speech. Am not mocking it but just asking questions on the Holocuast - will i be arrested for this?

^^ We're not allowed to go against the Holocaust - i didn't even witness it so how do i know every aspect is correct as they say it is? I mean it is afterall freedom of speech to ask questions and say what i think right? I am merely asking questions NOT critising so why did that writer (whats-his-name?) get arrested for questing the FIGURES of the jews that died?

If i was to mock the Hindu Gods and you were a religious person would you like it? Would it hurt your feelings that your religion cannot be accepted in the society?

After all the shit people went through, throughout the century to get accepted for your colour of skin i get so suprised that those are the people who cannot understand that people different isn't a bad thing. People who WANT to practise their religion and have their own culture isn't a bad thing.

Why do you have RateDESI? Why can't it be for every coloured person? Why are you differentiating this from the white community? So why can't a Muslim person go without being mocked?


By the way i didn't read the whole of the text as i am known to be unemployed and uneducated as most non-muslims think. So i have a problem with reading.

[..::Bobby::..]

Sameer,
freedom of expression (free speech) doesn't give you the right to hurt someone* or to distort others reputation**.

Article 10 of "The European Convention on Human Rights" states the following:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health* or morals, for the protection of the reputation** or the rights of others , for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

See the bold part? the caricatures that were published were abusing the basic human rights of Muslims. Now I will elaborate on this a little for the learning impaired see the part where it says: "...for the protection of health..." right this means that freedom of expression doesn't give you the right to hurt someones health, the caricatures did just that they hurt some Muslims health* (mentally via the stress the caricatures created). Now see the part where it says "...for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others..." this means that freedom of expression doesn't give you the right to distort facts, the caricatures did exactly that, they implied that prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was a terrorist and/or that Muslims follow in the footsteps of a terrorist. The caricatures attack the reputation of Muslims**.

ARTICLE 14 States:

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

P.S, Samaar, I also happen to think you're just peddling some partisan bullshit. How many Muslims have recently tried to behead you from RD? How many Muslim members do you have on RD? you out of all should be aware of this partisan bullshit Ayan and her cohorts are pedaling. A woman who lied about her situation and name to get a visa is highly unlikely to hold an unbiased opinion about Islam. She was about to be deported for lying, so she started attacking Islam, and then claimed her life was in danger in Somalia where 99% of the population are fundamentalist Muslims. It doesn't take a rocket expert to work out why she said what she said!


Cite

[bigkid]

Originally Posted by Cunard

limits should be placed on muslim immigrationfrom certain countries, and the expulsion of radicals should be made much easier...its that simple

dude it is that simple i completely agree with you. I dont understand why they let muslims come into this country for schooling after 911 attacks, or new immigrants in general. They arent giving Americans enough peace of mind, instead they want to allow the possibility of attack to completion so that they can continue to spread the American rule across the globe.

the ppl in power arent really concerned about being attacked and threatened thier concept is to establish frivilous reasons to go parading around the world spreading democracy, not that im against it but ppl shouldnt be forced.

the lines need not be crossed islam and america should be seperate from one another. its not going to work imo not with the way things are going down.

[Irreligious Left]

Originally Posted by ..::Bobby::..

Sameer,
freedom of expression (free speech) doesn't give you the right to hurt someone* or to distort others reputation**.

Article 10 of "The European Convention on Human Rights" states the following:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health* or morals, for the protection of the reputation** or the rights of others , for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

See the bold part? the caricatures that were published were abusing the basic human rights of Muslims. Now I will elaborate on this a little for the learning impaired see the part where it says: "...for the protection of health..." right this means that freedom of expression doesn't give you the right to hurt someones health, the caricatures did just that they hurt some Muslims health* (mentally via the stress the caricatures created). Now see the part where it says "...for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others..." this means that freedom of expression doesn't give you the right to distort facts, the caricatures did exactly that, they implied that prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was a terrorist and/or that Muslims follow in the footsteps of a terrorist. The caricatures attack the reputation of Muslims**.
[/url]

I've read and researched ECHR cases dealing with Article 10 violations and none have made the argument that religiously offensive speech is harmful to the mental health of those whom the speech was directed. I doubt the Court would be receptive to those arguments, since that is not a validly recognized state regulatory interest in curbing free speech.

Generally a state's best argument that the Court accepts in curbing free expression is that the curbs are necessary for the prevention of disorder.

And, what you're not realizing is that Article 10(2) is not implicated unless the state, in this case, the Netherlands, takes some affirmative action against the publisher. Here, the government declined to punish the publisher criminally or civilly. So this is really a non-issue.

[..::Bobby::..]

Originally Posted by Irreligious Left

I've read and researched ECHR cases dealing with Article 10 violations and none have made the argument that religiously offensive speech is harmful to the mental health of those whom the speech was directed. I doubt the Court would be receptive to those arguments, since that is not a validly recognized state regulatory interest in curbing free speech.

Generally a state's best argument that the Court accepts in curbing free expression is that the curbs are necessary for the prevention of disorder.

And, what you're not realizing is that Article 10(2) is not implicated unless the state, in this case, the Netherlands, takes some affirmative action against the publisher. Here, the government declined to punish the publisher criminally or civilly. So this is really a non-issue.

We can debate this until the cows come home. The point is, if you go out of your way to offend people in the name of free speech, and that person who is offended decides to fuck you over for it, don't expect me to feel sorry for you.

[foreverconfused]

Originally Posted by ..::Bobby::..

We can debate this until the cows come home. The point is, if you go out of your way to offend people in the name of free speech, and that person who is offended decides to fuck you over for it, don't expect me to feel sorry for you.

If the offended person decides to fuck the other person over in the name of religion, they are an extremist.

People need to discuss religious matters openly for the welfare of future generations. If that means offending people, so be it. I cannot feel sorry for anyone who would retaliate unnecessarily instead of just sucking it up like a normal person.

People should be able to say what they want without the fear of someone throwing a bomb on their head.

[sameer]

Originally Posted by ..::Bobby::..

We can debate this until the cows come home. The point is, if you go out of your way to offend people in the name of free speech, and that person who is offended decides to fuck you over for it, don't expect me to feel sorry for you.

the point isnt to offend. the same types of mockery are applied to other religions more often... namely christianity (and especially mockery of jesus) and you don't see the same reaction

[Irreligious Left]

Originally Posted by ..::Bobby::..

We can debate this until the cows come home. The point is, if you go out of your way to offend people in the name of free speech, and that person who is offended decides to fuck you over for it, don't expect me to feel sorry for you.

I won't feel sorry for the person who decided to go apeshit over some words when he's carded off to jail for attacking someone he disagrees with.