The Netherlands raises its terror alert level to "substantial" - BBC

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with the right to free speech. However, I had a problem with this:
This is more than exercising the right to free speech; it is an attempt to provoke and incite rage from the world's Muslims. It's hate mongering, and ...

And that is precisely why it needs defending. The namby-pamby speech that doesn't incite rage doesn't need protecting; no one is trying to shut it down.

There's nothing wrong with hate. It may not be pleasant or useful but it's not wrong, in and of itself, and inciting hatred ought to be an antisocial act, not a crime.

Inciting violence is something else again; that is, rightfully, a crime.

Theo Van Gogh was shouting out his dismay at the actions of Muslims; he had a perfect right to do that. Equally, Ernst Zundel should have been countered with facts and humour, not police and courts. He may be a walking septic tank but unless and until he advocated violence he should have been left alone, in his sewer.

It is not established faiths we need to protect it is the kooks and crazies and, especially, the artists who are trying to provoke the strongest possible emotions - short of inciting violence.

 

[jollyjacktar]

When I saw the news clip on TV the first thing that went through my mind was "Buddy, you are going to get whacked by some friggin nutjob for this."  I hope his family has a good insurance policy out on him, they are going to need it in the long run I bet.

 

[Celticgirl]

And that is precisely why it needs defending. The namby-pamby speech that doesn't incite rage doesn't need protecting; no one is trying to shut it down.

There's nothing wrong with hate. It may not be pleasant or useful but it's not wrong, in and of itself, and inciting hatred ought to be an antisocial act, not a crime.

With this logic, I could call your wife a bunch of nasty names because I have every right to do so with this whole free speech concept. Perhaps I should insult everyone I see because I have the right to do so - why not exercise it? 

I'm not saying what Van Gogh did was a crime, I am saying it was wrong. He was provoking them; he was itching for a fight. He found the surest way to raise their ire and used it. Feel free to disagree with me (as is your right). This is only my opinion. I am actually very much in the middle of the road on this issue. However, I can see both sides and for the Muslim side, I think their outrage was justified, although their actions NOT. Similarly, after I just insulted your wife and called her everything but a white man, you would be justified in your outrage, but not in assaulting or killing me.

 

[Richie]

Keep in mind that they are allowed to express their displeasure at your "god" remarks, just as you feel it is your right to express your displeasure at their displeasure. Er....I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this... 

NOW, if your workplace implemented a policy which prohibited you from making said "god" comments so as not to offend your Muslim co-workers, I could see *that* as problematic.

Absolutely! We can all express our displeasure at each others' displeasure without measure at our leisure; that's Free Speech. 

Problem was, they didn't see it that way. The muslims at my former employer (this was about three years ago) did act like a group and it seemed to be because they felt that they had reached a critical mass needed to start "educating" non-muslims on the proper use of the word "god". I suspect that the CAIR booklets that most of them seemed to have at their desks contained instructions on how to deal with kafirs in the workplace.

My former workplace did not need to implement a policy to prevent the rest of us from making comments considered offensive by the muslims; the muslims instituted the policy themselves. I don't like people who wear their religion on their sleeve and I was a tad annoyed. Silly me, they just wanted to reeducate me ("we need a new kafir, this one's broken, he's thinking for himself!").

Perhaps the idea of my former muslim co-workers reaching critical mass and them dictating to non-muslims could be seen as a microcosm of Western society as a whole. Now isn't that a silly thought, was I thinking out loud again?  :

 

[Richie]

I agree with the right to free speech. However, I had a problem with this:
This is more than exercising the right to free speech; it is an attempt to provoke and incite rage from the world's Muslims. It's hate mongering, and I feel it is wrong. Mr. Van Gogh simply went too far. He should not have been killed for it, but certainly he should have been told by someone with some sense that this is a provocation and he should make some amendments.

So now we allow the muslims to dictate how far we are allowed to go. Fine. How will they define "too far"? Where will they draw the line? Will the line move as muslims increase in number in the Netherlands? Free Speech is just what it says; you do not respond to Free Speech with mob violence and murder. Why didn't the muslim assassin who killed van Gogh simply make his own movie? Write his own book? Make his own speeches?

We should treat others with the same respect that we would like to receive (a.k.a. "the golden rule").

Could you perhaps go to my former employer's office and remind my former muslim coworkers of "the golden rule"? Darn, I keep forgetting about the double standards that are built in to multiculturalism.

 

[Richie]

With this logic, I could call your wife a bunch of nasty names because I have every right to do so with this whole free speech concept. Perhaps I should insult everyone I see because I have the right to do so - why not exercise it? 

Yes, of course, this whole "free speech concept" is nonsense; let's just scrap it and go back in time a thousand years.  :  If you want to insult everyone you see, go ahead, that's your right. It's also the right of the people you've insulted to insult you in return; if they punch you, stab you, shoot you or leave an explosives-leaden vehicle parked in front of your house, they've stepped over the line.

 

[Celticgirl]

Yes, of course, this whole "free speech concept" is nonsense; let's just scrap it and go back in time a thousand years.  :  If you want to insult everyone you see, go ahead, that's your right. It's also the right of the people you've insulted to insult you in return; if they punch you, stab you, shoot you or leave an explosives-leaden vehicle parked in front of your house, they've stepped over the line.

I think people 'step over the line' when they stop being civil and/or stop respecting others. There's a lot of it happening in the world, regardless of race, culture, or nationality. No one is advocating the 'scrapping' of free speech. Please.

 

[Celticgirl]

So now we allow the muslims to dictate how far we are allowed to go. Fine. How will they define "too far"? Where will they draw the line? Will the line move as muslims increase in number in the Netherlands? Free Speech is just what it says; you do not respond to Free Speech with mob violence and murder. Why didn't the muslim assassin who killed van Gogh simply make his own movie? Write his own book? Make his own speeches?

I agree with you. Why not take that action instead of the most violent one? I can't answer that. I'm not taking sides here, just playing the devil's advocate on a one-sided argument. I'm not condoning what happened to Van Gogh at all. Two wrongs don't make a right, and one of those wrongs was far worse than the other (murder). Don't assume I'm defending the murderer(s). I am not.

Could you perhaps go to my former employer's office and remind my former muslim coworkers of "the golden rule"? Darn, I keep forgetting about the double standards that are built in to multiculturalism.

Why don't you remind them? You work with them, not me.

 

[Shadowolf]

Not being civil is not a wrong on comparison to a stabbing.  Talk to any New Yorker, and they will tell you its a unalienable right to be able to not be civil.  Indeed, us arguing about how we should be 'civil' while the other side is killing nuns in africa because of cartoons is ridiculous.  I do have the right to call someone a nasty name, and they do have the right to insult me right back.  A 'civil' conversation is just wrapping the information you are trying to convey in politically correct terms.  An idiot is no less an idiot because you called him mildly mentally challenged instead.  Freedom of speech is the base of our society.  Freedom of speech gives us the ability to openly discuss politics and religion without worry of reprisal, without this we are not much more than slaves to the person(s) who tell us what to believe on any given day.  Celticgirl, it is my right to say that you are wrong in 'taking the middle of the road' on this issue, and so are the people who choose violence over discussion every time.  One is almost as bad as the other.  "All it takes for evil to win is for good people to stand aside and do nothing' - Someone famous.  If we do not support freedom of speech every chance we get, one day we will wake up and find it gone. 

 

[midgetcop]

My former workplace did not need to implement a policy to prevent the rest of us from making comments considered offensive by the muslims; the muslims instituted the policy themselves. I don't like people who wear their religion on their sleeve and I was a tad annoyed. Silly me, they just wanted to reeducate me ("we need a new kafir, this one's broken, he's thinking for himself!").

Trust me, I'd be pretty annoyed if I were in your situation as well. I don't want *anyone* pushing their beliefs on me, whether they're Muslim, Christian....Vegetarian. But mby your own admission, other than being a 'tad annoyed', I don't see what all the fuss is about. You have the right to ignore annoying co-workers just like everyone else. And unless you're terminated, disciplined, or unless management puts new policy in place (rules of decorum that favour Muslims), then all you're doing is ranting about some Muslims you know and using them as a way to generalize about all of them. I've worked with many Muslims over the years, and never once did they try and push their beliefs on me.

Death threats, physical violence, terrorism, crying 'foul!' to government groups at every affront to their sensibilities...these are things we *should* be concerned with.

 

[Panzer Grenadier]

Death threats, physical violence, terrorism, crying 'foul!' to government groups at every affront to their sensibilities...these are things we *should* be concerned with.

Reminds me of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Whatever happenend to him?

 

[midgetcop]

He got eaten by the wolf..?

;D

 

[Celticgirl]

Celticgirl, it is my right to say that you are wrong in 'taking the middle of the road' on this issue, and so are the people who choose violence over discussion every time.  One is almost as bad as the other.  "All it takes for evil to win is for good people to stand aside and do nothing' - Someone famous.   If we do not support freedom of speech every chance we get, one day we will wake up and find it gone. 

How do you feel about O.J. Simpson writing a tell-all book about the murder of his ex-wife and her friend ("If I Did It")? He was exercising his right to free speech in writing it. He was also planning to profit from the sensationalistic nature of his creation, as was Mr. Van Gogh. Just because you can say or do something, doesn't mean you should.

I do support freedom of speech, but not as an absolute. Do we have absolute freedom to say anything on this website? No, we don't. There are moderators. You can have your posts locked, your words removed or edited, and your username banned if you don't stay in your proverbial lane. Similar forms of censorship exist in other venues. Some movies are kept out of the theatres. Some books are kept out of schools and libraries. And so on and so forth.

I had a Kuwaiti student once try to show me a video of a Westerner being beheaded in Iraq or somewhere on his computer. I walked away and eventually turned off his computer when he persisted in trying to get me to view it. He knew I was going to be offended and disgusted. That was his purpose. He knew that this would be a good way to 'push my buttons'. Just as Van Gogh knew that putting the verses of the Koran on the background of a naked woman would offend and disgust many Muslims and push their buttons.

(It should be noted, though, that I did not kill my student.  ;D)

 

[Shadowolf]

Celticgirl,
Just because you shouldn't do it, doesnt mean someone should say you can't.  How do I feel about O.J. Simpson's book?  He can write all he wants, i am not going to buy it.  People push each others buttons, thats life.  Someone picking his/her nose in public pushes my buttons.  Doesnt mean he/she should be banned from doing it.  I also fully disagree with the fact of banning movies and books, so on and so forth.  We are not that far away from the days of book burning, which I believe is always a horrendous mistake.  I disagree with Mein Kamph, but it shouldnt be banned.  Since time began, some people have tried to hide/destroy knowledge that goes against their beliefs.  How many scientists were called heretics for disagreeing with the church?  Who are you to say that Mr. Van Gogh is wrong for his publishing?  I believe that everyone has the freedom to worship/speak as they believe, so long as they allow everyone else the same courtesy. 

I will no longer reply to this thread as this issue 'pushes my buttons'.  But I do look forward to further posts from yourself, Celticgirl.

 

[NL_engineer]

Not being civil is not a wrong on comparison to a stabbing.  Talk to any New Yorker, and they will tell you its a unalienable right to be able to not be civil.  Indeed, us arguing about how we should be 'civil' while the other side is killing nuns in africa because of cartoons is ridiculous.  I do have the right to call someone a nasty name, and they do have the right to insult me right back.  A 'civil' conversation is just wrapping the information you are trying to convey in politically correct terms.  An idiot is no less an idiot because you called him mildly mentally challenged instead.  Freedom of speech is the base of our society.  Freedom of speech gives us the ability to openly discuss politics and religion without worry of reprisal, without this we are not much more than slaves to the person(s) who tell us what to believe on any given day. 

Well said

What really pisses me off, is that said people think there is a duel standard, ie: they can insult Christianity, but you are not allowed to insult Islam.  I have no problem with Muslims as a people, just the select few who think there religion is supreme, and to them:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

    a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    d) freedom of association.

Well if you don't like it get the **** out of my country, because we all have equal rights, and just because you have a different religion doesn't make it the better one!

just my 2 cents

BTW can someone explain this to me:  If Islam is a peace full religion, why do they kill each other for suni ot shia? (don't give me the Protestant Catholic answer, as Christianity has never been a peaceful religion nor claims to be)

 

[Celticgirl]

Celticgirl,
Just because you shouldn't do it, doesnt mean someone should say you can't.   

Tell that to my daughter. 

I will no longer reply to this thread as this issue 'pushes my buttons'.   But I do look forward to further posts from yourself, Celticgirl.

Likewise. Before I depart, though, I just wanted to clarify that where I think Van Gogh was wrong was in his choice to put the verses of the Koran on the background of a naked female, not in the publication itself. I think he was "wrong" (my opinion only) because it was a clear attempt at provocation, and not just someone exercising his freedom of speech. And with that, I will go finish my Timmie's and roll up my rim. If it says "Matrix", I won't be back for a while.  8)

 

[Hibbsie]

I really like that quote, what did you mean by attributed to Voltaire? Did he say that? (sorry im a bit english dumb)

That quote is from Evelyn Hall's " Friends of Voltaire". It was used to sum up his beliefs, but is not actually said by Voltaire himself.

 

[Richie]

Trust me, I'd be pretty annoyed if I were in your situation as well. I don't want *anyone* pushing their beliefs on me, whether they're Muslim, Christian....Vegetarian. But mby your own admission, other than being a 'tad annoyed', I don't see what all the fuss is about. You have the right to ignore annoying co-workers just like everyone else. And unless you're terminated, disciplined, or unless management puts new policy in place (rules of decorum that favour Muslims), then all you're doing is ranting about some Muslims you know and using them as a way to generalize about all of them. I've worked with many Muslims over the years, and never once did they try and push their beliefs on me.

Death threats, physical violence, terrorism, crying 'foul!' to government groups at every affront to their sensibilities...these are things we *should* be
concerned with.

I agree with the last sentence in your post and I am concerned when film makers, authors and journalists feel threatened. That's what this thread started about.

To continue my rant: at my former workplace, I did ignore the situation for as long as I could (quite a while, I'm a patient man). However it seemed to me that when my employer had set aside interview rooms as muslim prayer rooms and my co-workers were being told by muslim co-workers not to call a new piece of s/w "god", things were getting out of hand. I wonder what would have happened if I had gone to my employer and said that I needed to use one of the prayer rooms a few times each day to pray to yesterday's piece of stale pizza as required by my religion. How would the muslims have reacted? With understanding, of course.  :

Maybe the muslims you worked with were in muslim countries? If so, they would have known that they were "in charge" and felt no overwhelming urge to discuss religion with you. The muslims at my former workplace had the look of a group who knew that they had just achieved enough members so that they could start affecting change on our work environment. Maybe you don't see what all the fuss was in that, but I sure as hell did! The muslim workers at that office kept to themselves, seemed to have their own hierarchy within that group and were using their power as a group to push their ideas on others. This makes them bullies and I don't like bullies. I stood up for my rights as I was a "tad annoyed"; I'm funny that way.

I stand by my original assertion: Free Speech is an absolute, without it we can kiss Western civilization good-bye.

 

[Richie]

Why don't you remind them? You work with them, not me.

As I had stated in earlier posts, this is a former employer of mine.

I've exhausted all I want to say on this thread. Thanks for the debate, folks. I have not changed my position on Free Speech by one iota but it was enlightening to see the differing viewpoints. Perhaps the fact that we could all agree or disagree without resort to ad hominem remarks is the reason I came to this forum in the first place.

Richie

 

[Richie]

That quote is from Evelyn Hall's " Friends of Voltaire". It was used to sum up his beliefs, but is not actually said by Voltaire himself.

I didn't know that, interesting. Thanks!