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.