After all, what does Geert Wilders have to do with freedom of speech?
Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated a couple of articles about the controversy. First, a report from the PVV website:
Wilders calls for increased freedom of expression
In the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Geert Wilders proclaims himself in favor of increasing freedom of expression in Europe. In an article in regard to his possible participation in a Danish conference on Islam and freedom of expression, Wilders declares that — should he be invited — he will argue for a freedom of expression of “almost one hundred percent”.
“Everything should be possible, with the exception of calls to violence. Any prohibitions against hateful expressions and blasphemy articles must as soon as possible be removed from European legislation.”
In the article the PVV leader says that he finds the conference an excellent idea. He encourages the organization to offer a stage to voices coming from all sides of the political spectrum.
See also the article in Jyllands-Posten: Wilders: “Jeg er dybt skuffet over Fogh” (Danish) and the article in the Dutch newspaper Trouw: “Danish political tug-of-war on inviting Wilders”.
And here is more information on the same topic from Thursday’s Trouw:
- - - - - - - - -
Danish political tug-of-war on inviting Wilders
It is uncertain whether Geert Wilders will get an invitation to a Danish congress on Islam and freedom of speech in April. There is a quarrel about his possible participation.
A congress on freedom of expression is one of the activities against extremism and radicalization among young people, a goal that Denmark this year will spend nearly three million euros on. The plan is to invite foreign speakers such as Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Geert Wilders.
The driving force behind this idea was Naser Khader, until two years ago one of the most popular Danish politicians and founder of an association for moderate Muslims. In 2007 this social liberal founded his own party, the Liberal Alliance, as a counterweight to the nationalist Danish People’s Party. But by his bungling as party leader and internal quarrels, soon only two of the five MPs remained: Khader and one colleague. And a few weeks ago, to everyone’s surprise, he left the party himself.
His position as organizer for the Congress in April, in the meanwhile has been taken over by the Minister for Integration, Birthe Rønn Hornbech (Liberals), who cooperates in this with the Danish People’s Party and the Liberal Alliance. But those last two disagree on Wilders: The Liberal Alliance believes it is inappropriate that Wilders should participate in a congress that seeks to promote a dialogue. The People’s Party demands, however, that the Dutch politician be invited. According to them, Wilders is an experienced expert who can highlight what it means to fight for freedom of expression.
In the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten Wilders says that if he is invited to the conference, he will plead for a freedom of expression of almost one hundred percent.
“Everything should be possible, with the exception of calls to violence. Any prohibition against blasphemy and articles on hateful expressions must as soon as possible be removed from European legislation.”
Wilders accuses the Danish Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen of ‘changing course’. “He maintained his stand in the cartoon affair, but he condemned my film [Fitna] and called it ‘offensive’.”
At the same time the PVV leader calls on the Danish organizers to let all voices be heard at the conference. “Invite also a radical imam.”
10 comments:
I can think of only one rational reason not to invite Geert Wilders to the conference, and that is that he doesn't support full freedom of speech, in the sense that he wants to outlaw the Qu'ran.
However, this is not the argument used by those that wants him to stay away, and even if it was it wouldn't hold water, if every participant was held up to such close scrutiny very few people would indeed be invited, if any.
This keeps coming up but, the truth is, he didn't actually want to ban the koran. He was speaking in context of the ban on Mein Kampf, and asking why a comparable book (the koran) wasn't also subject to the same standard and banned. His comments were meant to reveal the double standard in treatment of these two books by the government but people have latched onto a fragment of what he said, and used it as part of this smear campaign against him. "Geert wants to ban the koran" is the popular accusation amongst leftists and useful green idiots, but it's not true.
Well, what better person to invite than Wilders?????? If they don't it's just a mock conference, not worth taking seriously.
Speak now, or Islam will make you forever hold your tongue.
Until they excise it.
EU-muchs.
Oops...
EU-nuchs.
Typo...
Of course Wilders should be invited. A conference on freedom without the most prominent victim being there? Bullocks.
I see, however, a different motivation for not inviting Geert Wilders. It's a public secret that the Danish PM is a prime candidate to be chairman of NATO, head of the EU or something very noble and highbrow. Inviting controversial persons with integrity and courage to say things against the EU elite might become difficult to handle.
It's part of the Anders Fogh career plan. He cares crap about civil liberties and democracy.
Zonka: I can think of only one rational reason not to invite Geert Wilders to the conference, and that is that he doesn't support full freedom of speech, in the sense that he wants to outlaw the Qu'ran.
Archonix, thank you for the important clarification regarding Wilders being taken out of context.
The simple fact remains that the Qu'ran still needs to be banned on the basis that it clearly and intentionally incites its followers to violence.
There is no need to pursue any allegations of "hate speech" which, incidentally, the Qu'ran is chock full of. It is a handbook of sedition and military aggression against all non-Muslim cultures.
In an even more important sense, Islam needs to be regarded as a de facto "state". Since there can be no separation of church and state in Islam, it is undeniably a political entity. This basic fact should serve as the principal reason for denying Islam all religious protections. If any extra justification is needed, the massive human rights violation known as shari’a law should fill the bill.
There is simply no reason for civilized Western nations to tolerate such ideological filth. Were any American or European group to put forth such a pseudo-religious platform it would be roundly denounced and banned forthwith. How is it then that Islam enjoys such totally unjustified immunity from these same strictures?
I would venture that there are few underlying mechanisms at work. Postmodern obsession with its fantasy of the Noble Savage has led to some truly grotesque developments. As with much of the art world, the primitive is somehow viewed as more authentic. This has prompted a swift irrational elevation of unrefined and backward cultures as being “closer to nature”, one of Postmodernism’s most lunatic tenets. As if this planet’s nearly SEVEN BILLION people could magically revert to a hunter-gatherer subsistence and survive for more than a few months.
Another Postmodern distortion is that the unsophisticated is somehow more genuine. Inarticulate expression is awarded more authority and viewed as untainted by such artifices as introspection or critical analysis. Those whose percepts rely upon magical thinking abhor any clarity of thought. Reason is held hostage to incoherent emotions and “feelings” that frequently are morally or ethically unsustainable.
Most obscene of all in Politically Correct Postmodern dogma is how “hate speech” laws are being used to protect a tome of genuine and unmitigated hate speech. Namely, the Qu’ran and its related body of works. Islam’s barbaric and backward culture is somehow immune to the dictates of modern law solely because it survives as an archaic artifact and, therefore, possesses greater authenticity.
This allows Islam to be elevated over such modern contrivances as Constitutional Law, elected representation and the other core tenets of Western civilization.
I agree with Wilders that ALL “hate speech” and blasphemy “laws” need to be abolished. Current constitutional law provides adequate protect for all persons of every type so long as those laws are properly enforced. For instance, it is only because of police forces turning a blind eye to attacks upon homosexuals that “gay bashing” laws came into existence. So it is with the rest of hate speech legislation. If there are any laws being broken, enforce them. But DO NOT create all sorts of preferential Band-Aid legal patches to shore up shoddy legal enforcement.
The logical conclusion of such stopgap thinking is what we see today. The legal protection and political sanctioning of this world’s most violent and intolerant ideology, Islam.
Henrik R Clausen: It's part of the Anders Fogh career plan. He cares crap about civil liberties and democracy.
I agree and would further stipulate that careerist politicians represent a huge conflict of interest for their respective electorates. The EU is a rank example of this and even America's two-party system has been all but destroyed by its addiction to the campaign financing provided by special interests.
Once upon a time this sort of blatantly malign self-interest was named for what it was ... TREASON.
Zenster,
The simple fact remains that the Qu'ran still needs to be banned on the basis that it clearly and intentionally incites its followers to violence.
I disagree. If the Koran was banned than Robert Spencer's site Jihadwatch would also have to be banned and Mr. Spencer potentially jailed for dissecting it.
As Hugh Fitzgerald of JW said recently in defense of Mr. Wilders, it is not possible to ban the Koran in the age of the internet anyway.
As with much of the art world, the primitive is somehow viewed as more authentic...Another Postmodern distortion is that the unsophisticated is somehow more genuine.
Any normal person can look at a painting by Turner or Constable and see that it is a great work of art but it takes a very special person to look at a pile of bricks or a crucifix in a jar of urine or whatever and appreciate it.
islam o' phobe: If the Koran was banned than Robert Spencer's site Jihadwatch would also have to be banned and Mr. Spencer potentially jailed for dissecting it.
Ummm ... no. Jihadwatch is not exclusively committed to decorticating the Qu'ran. It has plenty of other subject matter to slog through.
Nor is there any reason why the illustrious Mr. Spencer should be jailed for examining passages of the Qu'ran.
My larger point is that if "Hate Speech" laws are to have any meaning, then they should result in banning of the Qu'ran. Clearly, these laws are without meaning.
While your point about the Internet is true, eliminating a terrorist handbook still has some face value to society.
Any normal person can look at a painting by Turner or Constable and see that it is a great work of art but it takes a very special person to look at a pile of bricks or a crucifix in a jar of urine or whatever and appreciate it.
Serrano's "Piss Christ" and his larger body of work scream to me, "I'm being controversial because I'm not able to be truly creative!"
Art, by its very definition, is the pursuit of capturing beauty in a masterful way that evokes the finest of human sentiments. For myself, Serrano fails on all counts.
If you liked "Piss Christ", you'll love these guys.
Post a Comment