Xavier,
There's a timetable available online of what target populations can expect to see from Islamic colonisation, it's been posted here before, it's consistent with what's happening in Europe and parts of Africa.
Here's a transcript of Wilder's Melbourne speech, as I've the things he says about Islam and Islamic colonists are factually correct but I question his motivations for saying them:
http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/geert-wilders-melbourne-speech/

"Thirty years ago, I travelled from Israel to Egypt. This trip made a huge impression on me. Israel and Egypt are neighbours, with the same climate, the same natural riches, similar resources, the same potential. And yet Egypt is poor, while Israel is wealthy. Freedom is the key to prosperity; and Islam deprives people of it."

Cracker Geert. Better tell that to the Aga Khan. Why bother ...

How do we tolerate the views of somebody who isn't prepared to tolerate intolerant and repugnant principles of inequality and violence ?

By allowing freedom of expression, and by discussing and debating the actual issues.

Not by going off onto phony attacks on somebody for racism or inciting ethnic hatred.

Not by renting a crowd of thugs and bashing up older people.

Joe

Hear hear, Jo.

be warned...people of western european genes wont like this...

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076/

so in 1946 highest court in usa said only 'whites' eligible for citizenship...and an indian though accepted withing definition of caucasian, still in commonmans perspective not 'white' so ineligible...and legally policy eradicated and south africa probably one of the last countries to practive this...who says its eradicated in the minds of men and women...particularly when backed by a superior military/energy force and a great benefit of unbalanced wealth to self from the "non_white" parts of the world...

the geographic lines of countries of the world...who created them...yep europe at hight of its military power and they drew lines through cultures, tribes and families...british and partition of india into pakistan and bangladesh...they drew a line through punjab, the proud punjabis were hindu military tribe which in history stopped the muslim military conversion force eastwards...which effectibvly broke them and their culture...

so xavier wrote "He criticised the approach of 'tolerance' as perilous for Western society"...if he is saying all people of european origin go back to europe, and everybody else move out...I think rest of the world is increasingly favourable to this as their 'powers' increase and and can prevent another european migration and unbalanced sequestration of wealth...

the point is whatever 'tolerance' we are seeing now is not becvause we are developing to an higher social level...but there is benefit in seeing europe as a place where all types of people of the world live...one obvious benefit is so they can distance themselves from the past acts...

and nothing new, not now, not in 1946, nor during colonial years or time of hanibal whom if he won then europe causasian would be a dead race and now semitics calling themselves europeans will be in every part of europe...such is the history of earth...just accept and deal with it and move on..."the power today the slave tomorrow"...

sam

And would you believe it, Joe, I misspelt your name!!

A three-word post and a three-letter name. Sheesh, I think I'll go back to bed now!! (:> /

The protests against Wilders even being allowed to speak are extremely unfortunate. Of COURSE he should be allowed to speak, and then those who disagree with him would have every chance to respond, sensibly.

Wow, those who condemn him and vehemently don’t want him to be able to speak publicly, many of whom I would hasten to add would probably have only a very rudimentary and probably quite distorted view of what he is on about, need to be condemned themselves.

There, now I’ve shown my intolerance of the intolerant!

Wilders simply advocates that we do not tolerate the intolerable.

Islam has produced the intolerable.

The thuggish, standover tactics of those who support the intolerable were clearly evidenced, in their disgraceful behaviour, but Wilders sent out his unapologetic message, loud and clear.

We are grateful for his efforts, and dismissive of devious apologists, like Xavier, who of course, is entitled, as he does, to advocate intolerance.

Sam Said,
There's probably no point even talking to someone who quotes History Matters but here goes. "White supremacy", "Whiteness" and "Racism" are all different concepts, have different origins and were/are applied differently or not at all in the various European colonies. Your post is irrelevant, it has no currency in this debate since Wilders does not promote a racial thesis and he's promoting across the board Liberal Democracy and has no problem with multi racial societies.
You clearly don't understand anything of Wilders views,colonial history or the construction of White identity otherwise you wouldn't be trying to draw such fanciful links between Apartheid, the Raj and opposition to Multiculturalism. Understanding ethnopolitics is crucial to engagement in this debate but you have literally put the boot on the wrong foot, the people who are suffering because of Third World migration, the working classes do not now and have never benefited from White Supremacy, all along it's been detrimental to ordinary Europeans and has served only to maintain elite power
Here's a primer on White Supremacy in the American colonies, I doubt you'll be able to understand it but at least I've tried, don't feel bad, none of the people in the audience of this lecture understand it either and they prove it in the Qand A at the end:
http://politube.org/show/3732

Xavier, after I read a few paragraphs I realised you were not supporting the 'Religion of Peace' - you were being sarcastic. Your sarcasm is completely justified when you consider the atrocities commited under the banner of Islam - much of it Muslim against Muslim - refer http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm
It is indeed a deep question you have raised - 'How much intolerance must we tolerate?'

Hi Ludwig,

I don't agree with Wilders on a number of issues - that migrants should be repatriated(has he really said that ?), or that no more mosques should be built.

And I certainly don't agree with banning the hijab or the nikab - Muslim women should be free to get out of the house and experience the world, and banning the type of head-dress that their husbands/fathers privately demand as a condition for leaving the house, would impede that growing knowledge of the outside world.

Sam, I don't know what you are on about, apart from some rather dumb-@rse notion that if European powers at one time mistreated people in other societies, then soon it may be somebody else's turn to be the b@stard, namely the Muslims'. No. No nation has the right to be a b@stard to other people, ever. Imperialism was wrong then, it's wrong now, it will be wrong in the future, and forever.

I'm surprised how easy the apologists of Islamism, pseudo-Left and Right, slide over the human rights aspects of Islamist ideology and Shari'a, and wave the bogeyman of the wrongs of past history over all of us: the issues that Wilders seems to be on about, and correctly in my view, concern Enlightenment-derived human rights and freedoms.

It's all too easy to tar all of European thought/history/culture/society etc. etc. with the evils of past history. Don't forget that that is something we all can do - all countries, peoples, etc. have been oppressed, invaded, mistreated, at some time or other, by some other group or other. For that reason, resentment is the easiest tool for any demagogue or rabble-rouser - 'what did the Romans ever do for us ?', 'Pommy b@stards', 'Those bloody Tartars !', 'Our historic enemies the [fill in favoured hate-group here].'

I remember a huge brawl here in Adelaide between two Aboriginal groups in late 1972, very vicious and brutal, and the men were probably even worse. Analysing birth records for the two communities later, I was shocked (no, not really) to discover how closely related they all were.

[TBC

Sam,

Issues. Ideologies. It's all too easy to pretend that it's to do with racism, imperialism, histories, etc. Stick to the issues, the principles.

In this case, Islamism can be seen from an Enlightenment-oriented point of view, as intolerant - of criticism, of human equality including the rights of women, of the right to think as one wishes (ah, so that's why the WLA supports the most reactionary) and become a non-believer if one wishes - so the question becomes: how does one negotiate, or cope with, such intolerance, in order to defend those rights and values ?

From this perspective, it is impossible to tolerate the intolerant, to go quiet about it, not to criticise it. To tolerate the oppression of women ? No. To keep quiet because we might offend someone with our views ? Shove it.

It would be truly ironic if Finkelstein's recommendations - and Roxon's, now inherited by Mark Dreyfus - make it easier for Islamists to cripple debate in this country, to make it easier for such trash to call Jews the 'rats of the earth' and so on.

Not that the pseudo-Left would mind, in their arrogant believe that they can somehow co-opt and ultimately control the Islamists. In Iran in 1979, the first up against the wall, comrades, were the Leftists who had brought about the Revolution. Uzseful idiots, indeed.

So many ironies !

Joe

Hi Sam,

You mentioned the partition of India. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that Mountbatten and the Indian Congress were opposed to partition, but the Muslim League under Jinnah sort of blackmailed them into agreeing to it, causing millions upon millions of people to move out of one new country into the other, and leading to perhaps a million deaths.

A religion of peace, all right.

I wonder how the sub-continent would have developed if India had not been carved up by the Muslims. There was a time in the recent past when Pakistan had a president who had been born in Delhi, and India's Prime Minister had been born in Karachi.

A religion of free choice ? hardly.

Joe

loudmouth and jay...your points noted...but me thinks my point has not been grasped yet...to put it another way, whatever we see think and feel now about our world now...some group in the past had their own views on which they acted, whatever we want to term it now...hence the appeal court of usa decision as an example...

rule being the most powerful got what they wanted...talking only goes so far...at the end of the day raw power rules...just the justifications differed/deceit after...hence we must never take our eyes off our history...lest it repeats itself in the same form...

so here I know Geert Wilders anti-islamic views...and even though it appeals to a select group, and offends others...at the end of the day it really means nothing but some heated debate value...at times bit more...

it about power...unless Geert manages to access real military power(like hitler and militarization of germany in 1930's) or something...as in history and the power that drove acts that affected vast populations as in my examples...he is going to disappear soon...

I suspect many of us prefer to hang a curtain over the mirror with an acceptable image when we look at ourselves...so disconnect human history as not "me"...when it was people just like us...maybe we should remove the curtain and accept what we see...and if it troubles then act effectively for some change from within...than keep our daily lives with the false image...I even admire peovple/group who take great effort create a decietful image to project of themselves to the world...at least they saw what they really are in the mirror and accepted what they saw...albeit unacceptable to civil society...maybe then this issue will be handled very differently by us...and prevent mass manipulation of the general persons...

sam

>>How much intolerance must we tolerate? >>

Good question.

How about these guys:

Dr Abdul Rahman al-Sudais

>>THE Jews of yesterday are the evil forefathers of the even more evil Jews of today: infidels, falsifiers of words, calf worshippers, prophet murderers, deniers of prophecies ... the scum of the human race, accursed by Allah, who turned them into apes and pigs ... These are the Jews - an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil and corruption ... The insult to and contempt of Arabs, Muslims ... reaches its height at the hands of the rats of the world, the violators of agreements, in whose minds abide treachery, destruction and deceit and in whose veins flow occupation and tyranny.>>

Or:

Dr Zakir Naik:

>>" ... the 44-year-old medical doctor [Zakir Naik] recommends capital punishment for homosexuals and the death penalty for those who abandon Islam as their faith.>>

Both are en route to Australia to attend a Muslim gabfest in Melbourne.

Should they be tolerated?

See also:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_wilders_is_wrong_explain_this_conference/

I suspect Wilders was finally granted a visa because the Gillard government did not have the stomach to ban the above two bozos and knew it couldn't justify letting them in while keeping the Dutchman out.

A case of the right decision for the wrong reasons. All three should be allowed to have their say.

...The real “Devil in the Detail” is the immigration policies. To flood this country with immigrants as an underhanded way of stacking numbers and controlling dissent sets the charge for future strife.

...In the 1918 Darwin Rebellion, a major part of the complexity of events which resulted in a mass-march of a thousand demonstrators on Government house, where an effigy of the chief Administrator of the NT was burnt, was a direct cause of the over represented number of Chinese competing for scarce jobs. The population of Darwin at the time was almost 50% Chinese.

...In this event Government House was sacked and the Administrator saved by the timely arrival of a destroyer, on which he fled to safety. Another timely arrival was Government intervention and the introduction of the White Australia policy, used at the time to balance the “hold” the Chines had over the commercial district of Darwin.

...I think the Muslim issue is a misnomer which deliberately or not, hides the real issue of Multiculturalism and Multiculturalism’s ability to mask inevitable problems of high levels of immigration. I also believe the very unpopular 457 visas will be the fuse that lights a social bomb of discord; Australia’s version of sectarian violence is inevitable in some future time.

Stevenimeyer:

...Yer, but you are referring to rhetorical quotes; the speeches you reference are authorised by poetic licence. It only needs half a brain to understand that the references to Jews in them are to Zionist Jews of Israel.

...There is a huge element of truth in those rhetorical speeches, especially if you are a Palestinian! I see no real problem with those speeches if looked at in a realistic context.

Dan

>>...Yer, but you are referring to rhetorical quotes; the speeches you reference are authorised by poetic licence. It only needs half a brain to understand that the references to Jews in them are to Zionist Jews of Israel.>>

So let me get this straight.

So it is because of the Zionists that Sheikh Assim Al-Hakeem (Not Indian Muslim cleric Zakir Naik as I originally wrote) is recommending capital punishment for homosexuals and the death penalty for people who abandon Islam?

Wow those Zionists have a lot to answer for!

Then we have Saudi cleric Dr Abdul Rahman al-Sudais

>>THE Jews of yesterday are the evil forefathers of the even more evil Jews of today: infidels, falsifiers of words, calf worshippers, prophet murderers, deniers of prophecies ... the scum of the human race, accursed by Allah, who turned them into apes and pigs ….>>

So even back then, thousands of years ago, before Zionism, it was known that those evil Zionist would appear!

Presumably Abu Hamza would not be advising Muslim men to beat their wives but for the Zionists.

LOL

OK Dan

I think I've grasped your brand of "logic."

Everything bad in the world is due to the evil Zionists and never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Americans.

And of course you mean "Zionists" not "Jews."

The ral question is probably which intolerance must we tolerate rather than how much of it.

I've not seen the detail but there was mention in the article of someone being assaulted while tying to get to one of Wilders talks, I can recall violent assaults against people trying to attend One Nation meetings. Most of us have seen the threats against anyone deemed to have insulted Islam or its prophet.

The impression I get from those who would see Wilders silenced is that they are quite willing to tollerate the intollerance of those who would bash (or threaten the life of) someone listening to or saying things they don't like. The intollerance they don't like is those who say that those of a particular belief system (or culture) are not fitting in and pose a threat and we should do things differently.

I'venot listened to Wilders, I don't have much time for the more ardent if the anti-muslim crowd but I don't like selective tollerance of some. Actual violence and threats of violence are tollerated, expressing concern is not.

R0bert

Joe(loudmouth) wrote "partition of India. Correct me if I'm wrong..."

Joe yes thats the official british version which they put in their history books...but the real power was the british, they ruled a huge population with a relatively small number of them in india...'advanced weaponry' was one but not much a rifle can do agaist a mass charging horde...so they used subconscious and psychological tactics too like parading in their finest and always appearing in their finest so to substantiate their claim they were superior, their uniform created image of cool confidence with efficient logic...and constructed and kept immaculate residences etc...all very different to the local way of life...
british were in india for a long time as traders before they acted from within to take power...so by the time it had become a military action they had learnt the local strengths and weaknesses and set up their hidden frame work of control and execution of power...never under estimate the power of money and promises of power on an local individual to loyally support no matter the damaging effects it causes...talking to you gillard...

until gandhi and his mass support among the ordinary people...which then usurped british power...whom was against division of india...but at the time there was the same mass manipulation of the muslim hindu with fears and claims of what india will be after independence etc...and democracy was forced onto india...it didnt evolve by itself ...and with the constant inflaming of the created tensions at will so to say...it didnt look like post india was going to be peaceful without division...

sam

Stevenlmyer:

...Chucking in Andrew Bolt’s blog as evidence for any point of view, is no recommendation for your form of logic either Steve :)...(I laugh).

@ Sam said,

<<until gandhi and his mass support among the ordinary people...which then usurped british power...>>

LOL

Muslims through various proxies ruled India for a LOT LONGER than the British and inflicted a LOT, LOT MORE SUFFERING than anything the Brits ever did.

But funnily enough, no Gandhi was ever able to (during those earlier Muslim COLONIZATIONS) --garner "mass support among the ordinary people...[and] then usurp [Muslim]power"--why do you suppose that might have been so?

Hint: It had nothing to do with the Hindu's being joyously happy --they weren't!

Poor mis-represented Geert.

Ludwig, you seem to have an understanding of his 'intentions'. My introduction to this concept was from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Author of "Infidel" and "Nomad". If you want to gain deep insight into Geert's intention and understanding of his charters etc look no farther. Her personal experiences and professional insights explain the depths of this faith... it is unlike any other.

XAVIER: "Wilders, who spoke at venues around the country last week, labelled Islam "a totalitarian political ideology "that "aims to impose its legal system on the whole society"."

YES... this (I believe) is the point. the POLITICAL element of Islam!!

In support Wilders quotes Australian theologian Mark Durie: "Islam classically demands a political realization, and specifically one in which Islam rules over all other religions, ideologies and competing political visions. Islam is not unique in having a political vision or speaking to politics, but it is unique in demanding that it alone must rule the political sphere."

Major concnern! Geert is potentially revealing a reality that just may bite every on the bum one day. But I'm not here to convert everyone's views... only to ask that you look deeper at Geerts point!

All it seems that he managed to do in his visit here, was allow the Aussie Polly's to reinforce their (votes) on our 'multicultural' Australia. i.e focus on the 'Intolerance' point, rather than the actual reality of what Geert wanted to share.

His parties methods of eradicating the (actual) issue may seem harsh and I don't know what the best answer is... but it's damn serious and real.

Racial I am not, never ever have been. Tolerant, I most certainly am.
...but this is irrelevent to the (actual) issue!

I strongly recommend that those who haven’t read Wilders’ Melbourne speech, do so: http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/geert-wilders-melbourne-speech/

Thanks Jay of Melbourne for putting up this link in the first post.

I’m with you, MotherXpectingAMiracle.

<< His parties methods of eradicating the (actual) issue may seem harsh and I don't know what the best answer is... but it's damn serious and real >>

I can’t see anything harsh about it. What he is saying is that we need to 1 understand the nature of Islam, 2 stop Islamic immigration, 3 deport those recent immigrants who break the law and 4 for goodness sake, be able to talk about this issue freely and fully and debate it and nut out a strategy for dealing with it, and to totally denounce those who strive for the suppression of messages of Wilders’ type.

From his speech:

< “In each one of our cities, there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” >

< In my country, the Netherlands, 56 percent of the population see Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity.
In Britain, a survey last month showed that the public regard immigration as the biggest issue facing British society.
In Germany, 64 percent hold that Islam is violent and 70 percent that it is fanatical.
In France, 74 percent are convinced that Islam is intolerant and not compatible with French society. >

Hi Ludwig,

Yes, having to defend the right not to tolerate what we may regard as abhorrent is a bit of a red herring - we should be asserting, without equivocation, that the Australian political system rests on equal rights for men and women, for believers and non-believers, and the rule of law.

All Wilders seems to be suggesting is precisely this - that in a modern, enlightenment-based society, those principles of equality are not negotiable. So no matter who lives here, they are to comply with those principles.

This has nothing to do with race or nationality, and not much to do with culture, except insofar as many cultural practices are based on inequality, and have to be fought against in any progressive society.

So the Left has a choice: support progressive measures such as equal rights, or support reactionary ideologies and backward cultural practices. They can wave their irrelevant banners around all they like, but sooner or later they will have to face up to the real issues.

Cheers,

Joe

Ludwig - Agreed, with all you said.

Note: I don't personally see it as 'harsh'... I see it as ESSENTIAL. I just knew that to 'fresh eyes,' it 'may seem harsh,' until one understands all of the context.

I haven't reviewed all of the Charters ... I don't follow this issue routinely, I am just aware of it, and sat squirming recently at some of the ignorant questions asked of Geert on tv, in the name of 'tolerance'! Frustrating!

No body is out to ridicule anyones beliefs or stop them practicing their religion; it's not about that.... but if such beliefs contain a doctorine that demands to bring horrific harms to it's followers and death to those (who do not follow), then scrutiny and severe safeguards are needed. There is no room for ignorance.

I don't know of a religion that contains within it, demands for such control of lives and countries and calls for harm to 'others'? (infidels).

It is so comforting to be critical of Wilders in Australia which has not seen the mass murders of London or Madrid, the honour killings in Europe, the taking up of public space by Muslims or the riots on the banliues or the high rate of criminality or the of incidence of rape by people of non-European descent. But the people of Europe have experienced all those and they have seen that the tolerance of the political elites, who live is safety, far away from the victims of islamic intolerance.

The PC enforcers of our society who support multiculturalism even with a cohort that demands monoculturalism, the Muslims, smear any dissenters of their political ideal. They ignore, and demand that we ignore, the disproportionate involvement of Muslims in rapes, car rebirthings, drugs and gun violence. There is a proportionately larger percentage of Muslims in jail. There are any number of them preaching hate against mainly Jews but also against Christians.

Tolerating the intolerant by a tolerant society is intolerable. We tolerate those who take advantage of us to gain power and to rule us through intimidation at our peril. Time to assert the values of our society and to ensure that those who oppose those or exploit them will be subject to social or criminal sanctions