His speech leaves nothing for me to say.

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2165/geert-wilders-trial-remarks

If he is found guilty it will be a blow to us all.

Once you would have been called a Patriot for this.
In France during ww2 for sure.
You and I who proudly stand with you are said to be lessor men for,,our views.
Yet it is our very freedoms and country's wish to be inclusive that will destroy us.
As more and more a fractured reality,that we are becoming not Multi Cultured but a divided one we become victims of name calling.
By those who, in time will become the very first victims of a Culture/Religion based on anything but freedom in thought speech or personal freedom.
We teach Evolution .
But bend to fantasy's.
I can be convicted and sentenced to die,for having in my country said these words there is no God, man should not in any way be ruled by one.

i couldnt..*care/less
what a mass muderer*..has to say

but i can refute the bellies lies..about god
and other things

""Once you/called/a Patriot..for this.""

thats spin...pat-rot*
murder in any other name..is murder
war..*is hell

""In France during ww2 for sure.""
yes belly globally now
fresh murders/bombing/gassings/
germ warfare..*now are everywhere

""Yet it is our very freedoms
and country's wish..to be inclusive..that will destroy us.""

convoluted..[poluted]..thinking belly

OUR very freedoms...?
or theirs..or his*?

its thoughts..of rape muder war/greed is good
that will destroy us

like taxing people..BY LIES
sending them broke..with complusory service charges
and levies..and corupt excessive govt spending..and bailing out the rich

""As more and more/a fractured reality,""

govt serving mammon..!
not the common-weal nor..*the common/wealth

""that we are becoming..*not Multi Cultured
but a divided one..we become victims of name calling.""

what is culture
or country
or flag or corpse
victim

i will stop calling names
when they..stop being vile/evil..and murdering life

""By those who,
in time..will become the very first victims""

we agree here...""of a Culture/Religion
based on anything
*but freedom in thought speech or personal freedom.""

if
its war
its out of bounds of humanity claim..[c-*lame..]

thus verbotten..!

""We teach Evolution .
But..bend to fantasy's.""

evolution
is the fantasy..!

a godless means..
for mere men/creed/greed
to claim to speak..to the war...[death/pieces]

..on behalf of the good
mercyfull..true spirit/living good..*god,..of peace

""I can be convicted
and sentenced to die,""

WHAT here is ci-vilinisation?

""for having in my country""

AUSTRALIA*

""said these words
there is no God,
man should not..in any way be ruled by one.""

have a look at the alp
its a alp god party...[is god the party?]

would you put the party
before god...then say..*there is no god?

MAN/men arnt ruled by love grace mercy
nor by charity..love of neighbour

THUS CLEARLY
ISNT RULED OVER* BY GOD/good

GOD
/GOOD:
grace mercy/love life

NOT DEATH*

god dont rule..bellie
he sustains life..by being ruled over

god is 'in' you..
sustaining you..your life
just as he is in me...suss-staining me mine

evolution is the lie*
go read my previous debates
death/dying does not serve the good of life*

UOG; What on earth are you talking about ?
Have you been smoking something ?

That doesn't surprise me at all, Bazz.

>>His speech leaves nothing for me to say.<<

I'm speechless as well.

It is so incredibly reminiscent of 1930s Europe, and their vilification of the Jews, that it beggars belief. I'm amazed that anyone gets sucked in by this pseudo-Churchillian, I'm-such-a-martyr rhetoric, that so thinly disguises a religious hatred.

As anyone who listened to Oswald Mosley's speeches in London would recall, it all sounded so noble, so heroic, to stand up to the international conspiracy of Jewry. And here is history repeating itself.

Only the target is different; the language is the same.

Pericles, reading your posts it is quite obvious that you hate somethings.

That's OK, some things have earned the hatred of others.

Kindly permit me, & others to decide what we believe has earned that hate.

The thing I hate is the stupidity of some of my countrymen who don't have enough sense to know what they should see as dangerous to themselves, & the rest of us.

When it comes to Islam, I would not waste the emotion of hating it, it is however very easy to despise.

Yes hasbeen in fact this time we agree it must be understood.
The very left is drifting and always has.
It is unsure of its wants and needs defends the very thing that it branded the Opium of the masses.
And brands those who ask questions .
OUG?
Questions have to be asked , not just about that post but a hundred of them.
My reference clearly, A CHILD could see it, was to French underground printing and distributing news letters on pain of death.
I charge the righteous of us with pure bigotry.
My concerns about every EU country being victims to a culture that is demanding so much and giving so little is truly held.
A culture that includes welfare existence funded by the very people it condemns.
That include unharnessed hatred of those country's by those using their freedoms to white ant them.
Bigotry that refuses to see the reality of ceding our freedoms to a living moving acting Culture/religion that has no basis in the Modern world.
Most ignore OUG I have had far too much regard for him, in understanding he needs a platform as a form of expression.
Sites such as this attract such as OUG most ignore I should but the increasing nature of his ranting is disturbing.
I except criticisms,we all do but just what is he on about.
[well stunned by the rubbish Ired again, lookalike OUG thinks I wrote about Christianity,any thing is possible]

Ummm... like, what, Hasbeen?

>>Pericles, reading your posts it is quite obvious that you hate somethings.<<

I do not hate.

What I do, in fact, is to object strongly to people who use hate to project their own fears, as is so often and so amply demonstrated on this forum.

Geert Wilders speech was scripted for him as a politician, to use the court as a platform from which to make a political speech, in order to achieve political ends. It represents a cynical manipulation of the concept of free speech, to project his own political agenda, which is to remove an entire section of the population from The Netherlands.

Highly reminiscent of the tactics of many politicians, in many countries, in the 1930s, when their targets were Jewish instead of Muslim.

>>The thing I hate is the stupidity of some of my countrymen who don't have enough sense to know what they should see as dangerous to themselves, & the rest of us.<<

As far as I am concerned, the greatest danger we face in this country is our fear of "the other" and "otherness", a fear which is nurtured and fostered, daily, by shock jocks and self-aggrandizing sensationalists.

Banjo,Hasbeen, and me,we swim against the tide in a river of PC.
It drags us down,trys to blind us and its owners to simple truths.
We most of us, read those placards and signs, the ones calling for the death of a cartoonist.
Every day the God our folks follow is seen in far worse.
We demand no MURDER we call for not death to those who do not believe.
We see the Gods of our ancestors slipping away.
But the God of this group growing in power, soon to be by far the biggest one in our world.
We see, read and understand its holly book, and know both good and evil lives within its heart.
Just like any Gods group.
How many of us marched demanding the death of Christians for the very real Sins of past and present Catholic Church, or any other?
I have words of hope.
Here in the net the words of the few have far more impact than in the real world, most see our world not Pelicans.
And consider this, we from within our Church's and political party's, constantly unmask those within for not being the good folk they claim.
Tell me of one who supports this man defending his own country.

Does anyone on OLO know or can get info on when the court is to hand down its verdict in this case?

I think my posts here have been edited !
I had made comment to the effect;
"I may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it !"
I also commented that the speech sounded "Churchillian".
That comment also disappeared but was referred to by Pericles.

After I originally posted the item it was as I sent it.
It is now different.
This is the first time I have noticed editing taking place.
Is there a policy of political correctness setting in ?

As Pericles says, there's no need to add to Wilders' self-serving hate rant. Indeed, given that he's just regurgitating the fascist fear and loathing that worked so well for his ideological predecessors, there is no need or place for such venomous rubbish in political discourse in the 21st century.

@Banjo: according to Wikipedia, the verdict is expected to be handed down on 23 June this year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Geert_Wilders

Bazz I am unaware of much editing,some posts have been removed of late without any note it has taken place.
I am aware on this subject our views are on shaky ground.
Not that we hold them but that we could without intending to bring problems for OLO I willingly let my posts be deleted if that is the case.
Morgan is again mounted on the high moral horse but I question the other sides actions too.
NOW not every one ,on ANY side,but who highlights without some contempt filled mud being thrown at them.
Those who condemn us from within our western country's.
As hurtful as it is for Christians, and the best of them are among the best of us, should we, ANY COUNTRY be subject to control in every walk of life by what truly is a fantasy.
Remember please it is much more than probably the worlds biggest religion is not Christianity.

I absolutely oppose any law that makes religious defamation a crime or implies it as a hate crime- and that has been overwhelmingly what Wilders has been careful to stick to in debates about Islam/Muslims.

Oh, really, King Hazza?

>>I absolutely oppose any law that makes religious defamation a crime or implies it as a hate crime- and that has been overwhelmingly what Wilders has been careful to stick to in debates about Islam/Muslims.<<

Free speech is immensely important, and extremely valuable to a fair and just society.

Using the concept of free speech as a defence for Wilders' actions and words is a travesty.

Here is what the fuss is about:

"[Fitna] the movie shows selected excerpts from Suras of the Qur'an, interspersed with media clips and newspaper cuttings showing or describing acts of violence and/or hatred by Muslims. The film attempts to demonstrate that the Qur'an motivates its followers to hate all who violate Islamic teachings. Consequently, the film argues that Islam encourages — among other things — acts of terrorism, antisemitism, violence against women, violence and subjugation of "infidels" and against homosexuals and Islamic universalism." (from Wikipedia).

If you don't believe Wikipedia, watch the movie for yourself, it is on the Internet.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4vj81_fitna-english_news

This is not the sort of "free speech" that we should be defending.

It is merely purposeful nastiness, designed to incite and inflame hatred by one group of people of another. Calling it "free speech" debases the concept itself, and the knee-jerk reaction "he must be allowed to say what he thinks" is pure expedience.

Apart from all that, he should also be locked away for sporting one of the worst hairstyles in history.

That hair, just in case anyone was wondering...

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/media/images/medium2/afp20110523185006575.jpg

Iam not getting into how one defines "free speech" Geert Wilders is standing up for what he thinks.....and once religion gets a full legal stances on your lives, dont come crying to me. Religion is not consider as truth in any-shape-or-form.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly62n36nn0k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASqJAT1W3r0&feature=related

People take religion like its true or something. The world is tearing its self apart over religion..lol.....and I just sit here and watch......Iam telling you.....its better than cable:)

Go! and fools of yourselves, I wont mind:)

but the rest of the normal people are watching you.

Peace and all that jazz.

LEA

Pericles, that was what I was talking about:

Fitna's insinuations are directed at the religion and its text itself; and this makes it a case of defamation of religion; and this act of criticizing and highlighting abhorrent passages and doctrines in a religion most definitely should not be illegal in Western society.

If Wilders were to explicitly make these statements about Muslims, it would indeed make a credible ethnic vilification case;

The fact that he would most likely be attacking Muslims through criticism of the Quran and tiptoeing along the line of legal free speech to get away with it; doesn't change the fact that what he is doing is legally legitimate unless:
1- defamation of religion be itself a crime
2- the author is to be judged on their motive for criticizing it (and therefore we separate Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Geert Wilders and Pat Condell's right to say the same thing based on if the judge considers an ethnic prejudicial motive along with a theological motive.

What! Nothing to say:) Pericles, I don't know who you are, and I wont second guess you. You don't need any defending, and with-out me saying a word, your who you are by what people say your not. The world is such a small place, and I find it hard that the most intelligent people don't see what there doing. IQ? what is that? Is it seeing the whole world as it is, or is it a pissing contest of who can put the best bull.... together......I don't know....do you:)

I believe if its false or deliberately directed for miss-use, this must be brought to the attention of the law on the planet, and that's you/all of the species we are:)SEE I find intelligents not were it should be, and if Iam wrong, please put me into sum kind of prospective that agrees with modern human thinking's:) sorry! Iam not very IQ,ed.

Jokes aside, if the Dutch want to hang this man for speaking his mind, then religion is still your master.

Bitch:) is not the word i would use.

Thanks.

LEA

From what I have read and seen of his criticisms, they were aimed at
the beliefs and practices of islam and the actions of moslems under
those beliefs.
It seems that the action against Wilders was purely to protect islam
from criticism. As far as I am aware no one specific person was the
target of Wilders statements.
The protection of an organisation is the sole purpose of the case.
Did Wilders aim his comments at moslems of a particular race ?

That seems to be the crux of the matter.

People living in Victoria are subject to similar restrictions that
seem to have been applied to Wilders.

Bazz people living in the western world are subjecting them selves to those same laws.
This morning, if you look,NSW on line newspapers informed me, we paid $800.000 to a refugee for pain and suffering while in custody.
You me and tens of hundreds of injured motorists or workers, even having lost both legs, would get nothing like that.
Do we remember the Gentle man Trad works for,the dead meat comment about our women?
He has offered, read all about it,to work for our foreign affairs in Lybia and Egypt.
Now why did I publish that , in this thread? bet you last dollar some who defame this threads subject will not support my views this is wrong.

pericles, does your idea of free speech include the right to draw cartoons of allah and mohammed?
Or will you join with your fellow islamophiles and torch an embassy?

As for hating, I reckon you hate whites, christians, and especially white christians. There's no place for you and your kind in this country.

How sweet of you to ask, Ms Powerless.

>>pericles, does your idea of free speech include the right to draw cartoons of allah and mohammed?<<

Actually, I thought some of the cartoons that caused such a fuss quite amusing. Especially the one where heaven had run out of virgins.

The point being, though, not their fun-factor, but that they were far distant from the sort of hate-harangue that Mr Wilders enjoys.

>>Or will you join with your fellow islamophiles and torch an embassy?<<

You mean like those delightful Christians who bomb and burn abortion clinics? According to Wikipedia...

"Since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid"

Like this one:

"December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday"

Cute, eh? Happy Birthday, Jesus.

And don't forget the Reverend Paul Hill, who murdered two men in cold blood, and who then "expected a great reward in Heaven" for doing so.

>>As for hating, I reckon you hate whites, christians, and especially white christians. There's no place for you and your kind in this country.<<

And in the same vein, I reckon that you yourself are a really nice and gentle person, who is kind to baby kittens and likes dunking your choccy-bikkies in your warm milk at bedtime.

Happy now?

Have to agree with Pericles –it’s all about FEAR.

I mean, how else can you explain the paradox:

The Dutch authorities want to crucify Geert Wilders .

Yet turn a blind eye to others who print & circulate books that says things like:
"The Jews are devoid of sense. There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so they will end up in Hell."Qur'an 59:14
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

Pretty clearly they’re either in bed with the other or fear them

Alas, here I was hoping I would get Pericles' thoughts on my analogy of the legalities of defamation of religion with detectable hate tones, and instead everyone jumped on him about our civilization/white race/stereotypes.

Because I think the issue of implicit and explicit demographic hate messages contained within a different from of expression is critical to this debate.

pericles, I never pretended to think that christian fundamentalists were any better or worse than muslims. But at least the PC crowd doesn't shout down any criticism of them. There's a message there.

As you acuse Wilders of hatred, how do you view the muslim mind-set with its 'convert or kill' philosophy to 'infidels'? The very post following yours, from SPQR, details some of the muslim hate-mantra from their odious koran.

I see that you never denied your hatred of whites, christians, and especially white christians. Instead, you resort to an infantile comment involving baby kittens and chocolate biscuits. Great debating from an intellectual giant! I suppose if you can't argue with logic, stupidity is your fall-back position. How pathetic.

I'm sorry I can't measure up to your high standard of debate, Ms Powerless.

>>I suppose if you can't argue with logic, stupidity is your fall-back position. How pathetic.<<

How does it go again, this logic of yours?

>>I reckon you hate whites, christians, and especially white christians. There's no place for you and your kind in this country.<<

Ah yes. With such superhuman mental processes lined up against me, no wonder I resorted to personal references.

But I was right about the choccy-bikkies, wasn't I?

C'mon, you can admit it. You're among friends.

"Atheists heart Muslims"
That's what should be on a t-shirt/bumper sticker.

Yet again, we have atheists (Pericles) defending Muslims, then jumping to another page to attack Christians!

I've seen this hypocrisy-topped-with-a-double-standard-cherry a lot lately and it boggles the mind.

If someone made a film that quoted the Bible, over images of witch-hunts and inquisitions, would this be "vilification" or just a presentation of FACTS?

Pericles, comparing Wilders with the vaguely-alluded-to-but-not-named Hitler?
Hitler made stuff up about Jews.
You don't need to with Muslims.
Wilders and other critics refer to the real words, real actions of real people.

Real scriptures, real speeches, real murders, real massacres, real riots.
No need to make stuff up.

Wilders is defending freedom.
Many Muslims have no interest in doing so.
If they don't openly reject liberal values, they remain silent in the company of those that do.

No, not *every* Muslim is going to be a threat.
But there is clear enough evidence of a widespread anti-Western-ism in the Islamic world, that those people should be off-limits for immigration, at least until signs of *reform* are seen.

Islam has never been wanted in our civilisation, and for an atheist to run to their defence is utterly absurd.

You need to ask yourself what your values really are, and what kind of society you want our descendents to inherit from us.

Shockadellic this is by far the dumbest stereotype I have yet read;
"Atheists heart Muslims"

Might I point out that I am an atheist and *I* have been defending Mr Wilders in this debate).

In fact, I would have much more grounds to say "Christians heart Muslims" as far more Christian representatives keep wanting to find some kind of theological common ground with Muslims, while most atheists speaking on behalf of atheism are staunchly in opposition to Islam (as the common ground between a practicing Muslim and an atheist are far less than between two practicing religious people).

Your stereotype is so horribly flimsy and false you only make yourself look bad by introducing it to the thread.

That's simply an indication of how confused you are, Shockadelic

>>we have atheists (Pericles) defending Muslims<<

If you care to read what I wrote, instead of what you think I wrote, I was addressing the point at which a defence of "free speech" is actively employed to further the political ambitions of a white supremacist.

>>If someone made a film that quoted the Bible, over images of witch-hunts and inquisitions, would this be "vilification" or just a presentation of FACTS?<<

Depends how it was done. You couldn't exactly categorize Wilders' work as documentary, could you. So it is a matter of degree. In my view he went way over the line, into pure rabble-rousing territory.

I think this part of the discussion can be summed up this way;
If an atheist has a discussion with a Christian he should put aside some time, he may need it.

If an atheist has a discussion with a moslem he should put on a bullet proof vest.

As an anti Allah person, he could be at risk.

King Hazza "Shockadellic this is by far the dumbest stereotype I have yet read; "Atheists heart Muslims""

Tell me about it!
Yes, it is ludicrous, yet I've encountered this type of thing a lot lately.

Atheists, ironically for people who pride themselves on not believing in fairytales, tend to base their entire societal outlook on idealisations, not on anything in the real world.
I guess everything contains its opposite after all.

Atheists will defend Muslims, under the premise of "liberalism".
Well, liberal principles don't exist in a vacuum.
If they aren't supported by the *people*, they don't exist.

Muslim immigration *changes* who those people are, the people who will constitute our "liberal" society.

If Muslims don't themselves support liberal principles, then those principles are threatened by this change.

Again, shockadellic that is itself an outright fairytale based on nothing more than ignorance. Merely observing a handful of people that stand by Muslims and *assuming* they are atheists.
(and then there are cases where Pericles distances himself from an anti-Islamic commentator on the primary grounds of percieved similarities of 1930s race-hate propaganda- and this is somehow "Muslim loving" because he is not actually going to make an exception to not liking it because its directed at "That" demographic this time)

I don't suppose you would actually bother to look at an atheist/secularist internet forum to clarify your silly stereotype- because the overwhelming majority of members of sites like Rational Skepticism have little love for Muslims indeed (or at least, varying less degrees of love for Muslims than for Christians- in correspondence to how un-secular the people in question are).

And then of course you can type "Pat Condell" into google and watch one of his speeches to see his obviously lop-sided Muslim love and Christian hate (in case you won't even bother doing this, I'll point out now that most of his speeches are overwhelmingly anti-Islam).

All in all I'd say the majority of atheists are pretty balanced when weighing Islam and Christianity.

I'm having some difficulty untangling this one, King Hazza.

>>then there are cases where Pericles distances himself from an anti-Islamic commentator on the primary grounds of percieved similarities of 1930s race-hate propaganda- and this is somehow "Muslim loving" because he is not actually going to make an exception to not liking it because its directed at "That" demographic this time<<

Perhaps it is because you misunderstood the parallel that I was drawing.

Back in the mid-thirties, my grandfather was one of Oswald Mosley's blackshirts, and attended a number of the rallies that were held in the East End of London. He gave us kids first-hand information on the manner in which Mosley was able to motivate the crowd.

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/images.htm

He was a master of instilling "fear of the other". Britain was an economic mess at the time, with mass unemployment. Mosley convinced these folk that their wretchedness was caused by the great Jewish conspiracy - and for a time, this was a line that was also promoted by a mainstream newspaper, the Daily Mail.

The headline of its 8 July 1934 edition was "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", describing "Sir Oswald Mosley's huge and magnificently successful meeting at Olympia", at which hecklers were "brutally beaten" by Mosley's supporters.

Bring the scene up to date, with the communication capabilities upgraded to modern usage, and you have Geert Wilders' actions echoing those of Mosley.

The fact that it is now anti-Muslim, rather than anti-Semitic, is irrelevant to the point I was trying to put across.

Indeed Pericles I was explaining that context to Shockadelic who can't tell a person with reservations about race-hate propaganda to a gigantic Muslim/atheist/socialist/left-wing alliance.

On the note of Wilders, it boils back to the point that he always avoids explicitly identifying the demographic as a problem than the religion or its texts and doctrines.
Which means that as far as any law is concerned (and as Mr Wilders well knows- Dutch law); his speech is defamation of a religion.
A court would either have to ban this too, or individually 'judge' speakers on their potential motives for making this speech to differentiate that anti-demographic with the anti-theological.

And the difference is that Mosley blames social ills on Jews- while Wilders projects actions by fundamentalists and passages in the Quran on Islam in general.

pericles

when a poster resorts to personal references, as you admit to doing, and remain so, it usually means that they cannot logically debate the subject. Sadly, this is how leftists try to get their message across, which is swallowed by the gullible supporters.

Pity you never inherited your grandfather's qualities. He must be turning in his grave.

I see you 'addressing the point at which a defence of "free speech" is actively employed to further the political ambitions of a white supremacist'. Do you think it's OK for a muslim to use 'free speech' to march down the street carrying anti-west banners threatening death to infidels?

If this is your idea of 'superhuman mental processes', what chance the rest of us? Pathetic.

pericles has left the building.

I suspect that you are right, King Hazza.

>>A court would either have to ban this too, or individually 'judge' speakers on their potential motives for making this speech to differentiate that anti-demographic with the anti-theological.<<

I anticipate that the court will clear Wilders, in order to avoid doing exactly that - delving into his motives for the vilification, given that "free speech" needs to be protected.

But that doesn't make it morally or ethically acceptable. It merely makes it legal. Wilders is a political animal, and knows when and how to trade on the people's fear of others.

Exactly as Mosley used to do.

Using the concept of "free speech" in order to further a political agenda that requires people to feel fearful of their neighbour, is a base act.

And the problem is that if you continually chip away at the boundaries of what hate-speech you can employ under the banner of free speech, the concept itself becomes debased. Which - sadly - will result in an increasing number of laws which define, and eventually curtail, what you are allowed to say, and about whom.

This has already started to happen, of course.

And it is largely the Wilders of this world who are to blame, as they protest that it is their "free speech" that is being oppressed, when in fact it is just being used as a ticket for a free kick at people they fear.

Oh, I nearly forgot. Ms Powerless. Here is a message from Geert, especially for you:

http://www.nashvillescene.com/images/blogimages/2011/05/12/1305222634-24697_geert_wilders.jpg

King Hazza "Merely observing a handful of people that stand by Muslims and *assuming* they are atheists."

I am not assuming anything.
These are people who *openly state* on their blogs and youtube accounts that they are atheists.

They will then attack anyone who questions Islamic immigration as 'illiberal', conveniently ignoring the fact that Islam itself is 'illiberal'.

This is Wilders point, immigration is changing the *population* itself.
Maybe Dutch people are liberal, maybe Australian people are liberal.

But these people are *not* Dutch or Australian.
They have probably never known 'liberalism' and probably don't want it.
Why take the risk?

Pericles; That is basically what it boils down to.
For Geert to be able to project successfully the content of the Quran onto Muslims boils down to the simple fact that western audiences assume the Quran IS uniformly applicable to Muslims. If he quoted similar verses from the Bible (such as the Chaser's comical example of killing sons for cursing their father) nobody would think twice about it because we know our Christians well enough to know that they really don't follow the Bible much at all and don't take much of its content seriously.
The necessary step must be to show people that Muslims are just as capable of not really caring about their holy texts as Christians are; so far we really don't have any strong examples of this being promoted by anyone to a mainstream outlet. Often cases of a secular Muslim are strongly painted as the exception to the rule often "trying to escape the shackles of his/her community".
(this should start sounding familiar).
Usually the best arguments for inclusion is the rather unsatisfying distinction that not ALL Muslims would commit bombing attrocities.

And free speech is only curtailed when everybody sits by and lets a government do this. It's as simple as that. There is nobody to blame for this except anyone who allows this change to happen and does nothing.

Shockadelic;
Unfortunately that still doesn't impress;
I can happily show you plenty of atheists who hate Muslims much more than Christians do too;
It's a meaningless distinction built on an insecure stereotype.

great comeback, Pericles, what a debater you are.

Meanwhile, you never denied that 'you hate whites, christians, and especially white christians'. You never commented on 'the muslim mind-set with its 'convert or kill' philosophy to 'infidels'.

I suppose your last message to me was the best you can do. At least I know if you're typical of the islamophiles, you'll lose in the end.

Well of course I didn't, Ms Powerless.

>>Meanwhile, you never denied that 'you hate whites, christians, and especially white christians'. You never commented on 'the muslim mind-set with its 'convert or kill' philosophy to 'infidels'.<<

You never asked. All you did was to state a personal view.

>>I reckon you hate whites, christians, and especially white christians. There's no place for you and your kind in this country.<<

Which is merely your opinion. To which you are perfectly entitled. And if your idea of debate is to insult others anonymously, while under the protection of a pseudonym, then be my guest. You obviously get some kind of thrill out of it.

But don't expect such over-excited dribble to be dignified with a response.

still avoiding it, Pericles?
You can't deny a statement unless it's asked as a question? Come on, be serious.
As for giving out insults while using the protection of a pseudonym, isn't that a quaint idea for this site? And aren't you as guilty as any? So is Pericles a pseudonym or your real name?

I did ask one direct question, ' Do you think it's OK for a muslim to use 'free speech' to march down the street carrying anti-west banners threatening death to infidels?' What's your excuse for not answering that one, eh?

Why, so you did, Ms Powerless

>>I did ask one direct question, 'Do you think it's OK for a muslim to use 'free speech' to march down the street carrying anti-west banners threatening death to infidels?' What's your excuse for not answering that one, eh?<<

I must have missed it amongst all the garbage.

My answer is no, there should be no free speech protection for banners threatening death, to anyone.

Next?

peurile excuse, Peniscles. See, I can play with names too to get down to your level.

Geet Wilder has been found not guilty on all charges.

Predictable.

>>Geet Wilder has been found not guilty on all charges.<<

As someone earlier on this thread said wisely...

>>I anticipate that the court will clear Wilders, in order to avoid doing exactly that - delving into his motives for the vilification, given that "free speech" needs to be protected.<<

Oh. It was me.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/wilders-acquitted-in-hate-trial/story-e6frg6so-1226081233590
Justice and truth still lives