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