Wilders and Levant Today, You, Me, Tomorrow
As we all know, the bravest man in Europe is on trial for telling the truth. This matter is obscene, and, according to Bruce Bawer, “surreal,” in part because Holland prides itself on its tolerance and commitment to free speech. Ah, but the Dutch do not mean “truth speech” because in the picturesque land of tulips and windmills, not all of Orwell’s pigs are equal. Truth is relative, subjective, ever-changing. Thus, if something is true but that truth offends the most reactionary Muslims — then it is not protected speech; in fact, it is criminalized.
How low can these Dutch dhimmis go?
I have been privileged to meet and hear Dutch Parliamentarian and possible future Prime Minister, Geert Wilders, speak in New York City. Together, with other invited guests of the Hudson Institute, we watched Wilders’ short film, Fitna, which shows terrorist scenes of devastation around the world — we have all seen them on the nightly news. Fitna also has real mullahs reading aloud from the Qu’ran — reading passages that in all truth are contained there. The film, accompanied by a brilliant musical soundtrack, allows us to connect the dots. It does not preach so much as “show.”
Nevertheless, just as Kurt Westergaard’s “Danish Muhammed cartoons” were hardly offensive by Western standards — that did not stop a global jihad against them which continues to this very day. Yale University Press refused to publish the cartoons in a book they themselves commissioned about the cartoons. And Canadian author Howard Rotberg had to become a publisher himself in order to have his say despite Canada’s political correctness where certain subjects are concerned.
And, “lawfare” (war by legal action) and the lawsuits do not stop coming. The same litigious Muslim-Canadian who sued Mark Steyn for telling the truth and for daring to venture his own witty opinion, (which opinion “offended” certain professional easy-to-offend Muslims), is now suing Ezra Levant. Kathy Shaidle has a good piece about this here. Shaidle quotes Levant himself about Khurrum Awan, the man who is suing him. And, by the way, Awan is a second-generation Canadian Muslim. Levant writes:
Awan is the shakedown artist who targeted Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine with three human rights complaints in 2008, for Steyn’s political offence of criticizing radical Islam. Awan lost those suits, and his demand to censor Maclean’s was rejected, but he still managed to waste a lot of Maclean’s money – and even more taxpayers’ money, too.
That’s Awan’s strategy: abuse our courts to bully his opponents. It’s a shocking thing for a lawyer to admit to, but Awan isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. As he told an anti-Semitic meeting in British Columbia a while back, he was proud to have “cost Maclean’s two million dollars in legal expenses and lost circulation.” Awan’s friend, the notorious anti-Semite Greg Felton, approvingly quotes Awan saying “we attained out strategic objective—to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.”
PJM Home
Woman's Inhumanity to Woman
The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom
Women and Madness
The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It
Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaism’s Holy Site
Letters to a Young Feminist
With Child: A Diary of Motherhood
Feminist Foremothers in Women’s Studies, Psychology, and Mental Health
Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness
Sacred Bond: The Legacy of Baby M
Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody
About Men
Women, Money & Power
As (Awan) told an anti-Semitic meeting in British Columbia a while back, he was proud to have ‘cost Maclean’s two million dollars in legal expenses and lost circulation.’…‘we attained out strategic objective—to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material’.
I think that is the point of all these kinds of actions in Canada, and it’s shameful that the judicial system there (or at the very least the so called Human Rights Councils) lets them continue to get away with it.
Really, really shameful.
American professors became very careful, exceedingly quiet on campus when the subjects of Israel, American imperialism, or Islam were raised.
Recently, I read here on PJM that The Met in NY is closeting its Islamic collection, pictures of Mohammed (Peace, or Something, Be Upon Him, and all that).
A very craven act, considering all the centuries such images and depictions have not been any particular problem in the world at large.
I read that Wilders is calling as a witness the nutcase that killed Theo Van Gogh.
Israel is the most hated country on earth, and that’s all there is to it. When Israel objected to the reports in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet about Israel’s hunting down and killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs, Israel was accused of objecting to free speech. That is not what Israel was doing at all; Israel was objecting to lies and trying to correct the disinformation. However, Israel was not allowed the right of free speech in order to establish the facts.
Similarly, Israel has sent a great deal of aid to Haiti, rescued people who had been trapped under buildings, and set up field hospitals. The amount of publicity given to Israel’s acts was minimal. Not only that, half the publicity was negative, saying Israel was just trying to show off.
Why should we expect Holland to be any different?
I READ STYENS LIGHTS OUT ……..SHOCKED PEOPLE OF CANADA PUT UP WITH ASSULT ON FREE SPEECH……… JEANNINE
This has been interesting concerning Geert Wilders, although I admit I haven’t invested much time concerning the debate on wether he has been “racist” or not. Europeans seem inclined to shoot themselves in the foot-so not surprising regarding Holland. Looks like a real can of worms that will come back to bite them.
Americans can be repelled by speech(given mucho opportunities) but generally agree to tolerate anything legal(doesn’t infringe on the rights of anyone else-doesn’t incite violence,etc.) in order to protect our own personal rights. When offended, we counter the offensive remark(s) with further speech
I am curious about the law moreso than Holland(their loss)in the case against Mark Styne. How can you sue someone, lose, and not have to pay the costs ?
This aspect seems horrendously unjust. Where is it decided whether a case can be brought or if it has enough merit to win ? Justice would have been for Awan to have paid Styne’s and MacLean’s legal fees. It just seems to me that if one had the resources, these laws leave it open for that person to financially destroy anyone they like ?
Islam has affected me too, for:
1) I have not been able to find a Muslim who is not intolerant or prejudiced against others. I must confess I can’t stand Islam, and I know if affects my spiritual development. I am working on it.
2) I am acutely aware of the dire threat that Islam poses to humankind and the triumph of the Divine on earth (and yes, again, there is no moderate Islam, just Islam).
3) Evil forces of incredible power and cruelty are behind Islam today. Their goal is nothing else than to thwart the spiritual development on earth, and to finally wreck the human experiment.
4) I don’t buy not even a paper clip from any Islamic/Muslim outfit. I refuse to do so.
5) I contribute with money, time, volunteering resources, writings, and all means at my disposal to organizations that unmask, fight against, oppose, Islam and its mafia organizations like CAIR; namely and primarily, the HAF (Hindu American Foundation), the Vishva Hindu Parishad, Francois Gautier’s “Hindu Janajagruti Samitri”, contribute with funds to Geert Wilders defense.
5) I will not hesitate to fight the Islamic scourge with force of any degree even to the point of risking my life in the process.
Dr. Chesler,
Brilliant, brave, and to the point. I praise you to the sky. One change of various legal systems that should be adopted is this: whomsoever brings a civil lawsuit against another, if the verdict goes against the plaintiff, then the loser pays ALL costs. That’s poker, ma’am. Why in hell should McLean pay when they won the case and were a passive defendant? The ACLU gets away with this all the time, due to the Marxist millionaires and billionaires who donate sooooo much money.
I wish that you might consider research on a future article on these America-hating, insane, destructive elites that despise the system that allowed them prosperity and freedom.
Dr. Paul Williams, has been sued by McMaster University for investigating terrorist activity at McMaster. McMaster University is a Canadian university that has a nuclear reactor. The College of Engineering at McMaster contains an over-abundance of professors from terror-sponsoring countries. In the Division of Earthquake Engineering, 9 out of 10 faculty members are from the Universities of Cairo and Alexandria.
Earthquake engineering is important because they measure the testing underground nuclear devices.
In any event, Dr. Williams blew the whistle on the loss of 180 lbs. of nuclear material.
The lawsuit(s) then began. The money for the University’s continuing lawsuit apparently comes from Muslim country’s (Saudi Arabia if I remember correctly).
This lawsuit in a Canadian court of a U.S. citizen is possible because of the rules of NAFTA.
#3,
That is why envy is known as such a scourge on mankind and why one should never cave-in to it.
Not to worry though, George, if I ever suffer a catastrophe, I know who I would want to be johhny-on-the-spot.They could “show-off” for me and I would thank God for it. Sooo,don’t let the envious get you down.
George Jochnowitz:
Israel is the most hated country on earth, and that’s all there is to it.
For good reason, but according to the Zionist perspective, Israel was, is, and always will be an innocent victim, incapable of doing any wrong and completely blameless in all things.
And that’s all there is to it.
BTW blameless and wonderful Israel admitted to harvesting organs with permission from the families of the dead.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10616740
This court case is a good example of what is wrong with the court system in general. As a physician, I have been attacked in court for malpractice when no one did a thing wrong. Yet I do not want tort reform just for physicians. I want a system that allows one to take a problem to court, but if you lose, you pay- like for slander. We need that in the US and obviously elsewhere in the world. This applies for civil as well as criminal prosecutions.
As to Islam, why is it classified as a religion? I am certainly in favor of freedom of religion, after all according to FDR it is the only freedom he left us. But when a religion advocates harm to others, isn’t it time to treat them more like the KKK than an institution of good?
Elliot, #5
How can you sue someone, lose, and not have to pay the costs ?
I think the Steyn case & the earlier Ezra Levant case were both before those extra judicial Canadian “human rights” commissions and not in the regular court system.
I recall reading at the time that it costs the plaintiff in such actions not one red cent to bring the case, and, also, I think there is no liability for damages if they lose. (I say I think, because I’m not 100% sure)
The plaintiff in the earlier Levant case dropped the charges after the action had gone on a long, long time, costing “defendant” Ezra Levant a lot of money & achieving the goal of the Islamist/Islamic group that brought the action.
Watching tapes of the inquiries in the earlier action, I was able to ascertain that some of the individuals who sit on Canadian commissions are darn near brain dead
, not to mention heavily biased in the sense of political correctness.
I am curious about the law moreso than Holland(their loss)in the case against Mark Styne. How can you sue someone, lose, and not have to pay the costs ?
You are being confused by sloppy language. The Muslim complainant did not sue Steyn. He filed complaints with the Canadian, BC and Ontario Human “Rights” Commissions, which act as both prosecutor and Judge. If they take up a complaint they will prosecute it before their own Tribunal at no expense to the complainant. The Defendant then has to pay for his own defence.
I posit the following as a maxim which should be use to assess the validity of any religion.
Any religion that attempts to impose civil or criminal sanctions on anyone who criticizes its practices or dogma is, on that account alone, illegitimate.
“Canadian” Moslem?? I bet this guy has been in Canada for a whole 5 minutes. The ironic thing is that prior to 9/11, there were very few Moslems in Canada. I certainly never met any and never saw hijabs anywhere. It doesn’t take these professional victims long to learn about our freedoms and use them against us. What a bunch of suckers we are!
Geert Wilders is one of the greatest heroes of all time! Wonderful Mr. Wilders risks his life fighting for the human rights of ALL non-Muslims. G-D bless and protect him always!
It is evil for any country to allow haters to wage financial jihad in court against innocents for telling the TRUTH.
Turkey’s Prime Minister, Erdogan, publicly read an Islamic poem: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…”
When Geert Wilders is wickedly and unjustly prosecuted for warning the Free World of our great danger from murderous Islamics, it reveals that the authorities are on the side of the murderous Islamics. ALL non-Muslims are horribly betrayed.
In October, 2009, the Obama administration co-sponsored a UN resolution with Muslim police state Egypt to ban speech that defames religion (Islam). A massive attack that threatens the freedom and safety of every non-Muslim on earth.
The UN/U.S. do not oppose defaming and insulting Judaism and Christianity:
Obama Mocks & Attacks Jesus Christ And The Bible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w&NR=1
Great piece and very scary. Stealth Jihad but it is not so stealthily done. We can not tire to speak out against this. Political correctness will lead to a political death.
E.Bo.:
You infandous antisemites will stick at nothing.
“BTW blameless and wonderful Israel admitted to harvesting organs with permission from the families of the dead.”
Duh! In the US and everywhere else in the damn world organs are harvested with the family’s consent.
As usual, Phyllis, you are an eloquent and impassioned voice for
freedom and human rights. Thank you for all that you do, and for linking to my new book, TOLERism and Mr. Solway’s new book, Hear O Israel!
The struggle is a hard one. At the end of December, Canada’s
“national” newspaper, The Globe and Mail, published a long piece by
their “tolerist” European bureau chief, Doug Saunders, summarizing the
important events and themes of the first decade of this millenium.
Unbelievably, the war by Radical Islam, the grievous terrorist
attacks, the censorship of voices for freedom, the submission by our
universities, the nuclear program of Iran, its terrorist proxies
surrounding Israel, the “home-grown” terrorists, NONE of these were deemed important enough to
mention. The only mention of Islam at all was to allege that
Pentacostal evangelical Christianity was spreading faster than Islam.
Not another word in the article about the crisis in our world caused
by Islamism.
See
http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20091224.escenic_14113
27/BNStory/DOUG+SAUNDERS
With this world view, it is not surprising that the Globe and Mail has
never published any of my articles and refuses to review any of my
books.
Best wishes from the Canadian front …..
Howard Rotberg
www,howardrotberg.ca
Thanks Tanstaafle and Terry. That is absolutely outrageous. Actually, it is insane for Canadian citizens, or anyone anywhere, to put up with this.The first mistake is to sanction extra judicial bodies-justice is not being served.
And, Terry, I have to agree. Everyone else has had to learn to live with criticism of their respective beliefs or disbeliefs.
#15,
Toronto Girl, don’t feel alone. We have all been epic suckers.
We are doomed, period, unless something stops those in the Western world from commiting suicide by PC. It has come to this: offense to Islam is a crime, while murder, mayhem and terror are justifiable response to imperialist and zionist oppression.
Now, will a major possibly nuclear terror attack wake these people up, or will it cause further dhimmification of our society? I feel the latter is much more likely.
It seems that a bizarre consequence of 9/11 has been that the legal jihad has accelerated and thought crimes about Islam are being purged from society. It is only logical that more attacks will be successful in bringing shariah law to the west. You can bank on that (in a shariah-compliant way of course).
What those guys do it’s called “lawfare” and it works very well – the Western World has manged to tie up itself in imaginary guilt and self-destructive benevolence and now these two traits, cynically abused by radicals, are used as tools -
How about encouraging “loser pays” the legal costs?
Well, I think #6 Miamaman pretty much said it all. And honesty is something to be respected. I am sure that most muslims probably feel the same toward us. Will anything ever change or remain the same? Probably not in our life time…but who knows…..
Dr. Chelsler, your post is thoughtful and pointed. I just sent $25 through paypal to help Ezra beat KRA with his own lawfare bat! As this tragi-comedy unfolds, I’ll be crossposting the details on my site as well. Go get ‘em, Ezra!
E.B.: Israel considers itself innocent and blameless in all things? Where did you get this idea? You certainly didn’t get it from Israeli media, which is raucous, critical, open, and combative. You might check the websites for Yediot Aharanot, Ha’Aretz, and the Jerusalem Post, which are freely available on the internet. There you will find heaps of criticism of Israel.
By the way, if I should die in an auto accident some hospital will be harvesting my organs–I have a little sticker on my license that permits it. The assertion was that Israelis were killing Palestinians and taking their organs for transplants–a barefaced lie if only because organs taken in such a manner are useless as transplants.
#5 As others have pointed out, these cases did not come before a legitimate court in Canada that dealt with defamation – which requires actual data evidence or a court that dealt with hate crimes, which also require actual data evidence of a direct violent result.
They went before the notorious Human Rights Commissions, which are pseudo-courts that were originally set up to deal with discrimination in housing and employment. Finding nothing to do in these area, they moved on to speech and subjective emotions. Their members are political appointees not specialists in law and 100% socialist elitists.
The key article is #13-1,
“It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
This includes email, the internet, blogs, etc.
NOTE: The key phrase is ‘Likely to expose”. Note this well. This means that there need be NO ACTUAL RESULT of ‘being hated or viewed with contempt’. None. Got that?
The focus is on the future. And the focus is totally speculative…your speech might be ‘likely to expose’.
Not actually DID expose. Just ‘likely’. And who decides? Why this unaccountable commission, according to no due process, no rules of evidence. Nothing. Just their own subjective opinion.
Furthermore, the plaintiff can just write a handwritten letter to the Commission – and needs no lawyer, no funding. The govt pays it all! But the defendant pays his own legal fees. And if found ‘not guilty’ – he’s still out of luck.
Oh, and truth is not a defense. You might indeed have stated that Mr. X is a member of a group that preaches violence against whites (who are NOT a ‘protected group) but, if it’s deemed that your statement might, just might, ‘expose’ him in the future to ‘contempt’..well..
There’s a recent case, where a Christian minister wrote a letter to a newspaper, stating that homosexuality was against his religion. Well, by golly, someone complained to the Human Rights Commission…and he was fined, and told to apologize in that newspaper (which refused to print such an apology) and also told to never, ever again, even in PRIVATE emails, talk this way again.
He took it too a REAL court, which blasted the Human Rights and said these commissions had no right to such a conclusion.
But we have, in Canada, some people making complaints quite frequently despite not being affected, not being personally insulted or ‘viewed with contempt’..and they get financial awards!
It’s quite the scandal in Canada – and the conservative govt, which is a minority, would like to get rid of it. But the Liberals (Democrats) want to keep hate alive and want to keep them
This is what happens when socialism and multiculturalism take over.
I seem to recall that barratry is allowed in Canada, though I confess I cannot now find evidence of it via a cursory web search. My recollection is that if someone abuses the legal system, they can be barred from using the legal system to initiate actions in the future. That would certainly be the least of all proper results for those who harass via law suits.
5, 7, 12, 23 and any others I missed:
This idea of charging people if they lose a lawsuit is very wrong-headed and unjust. It is also unconstitutional because you cannot take property from someone without a fair trial, and in a civil trial they are the plaintiff not the defendant. This would only make big corporations, who have all the legal aid money can buy, virtually immune from civil suits. The real problem is thus: 1) judges are too lenient in letting cases in – they are supposed to be the gatekeepers; 2) special interest groups like Greenpeace, etc. are given “standing” to sue when this is utterly ridiculous. You could not find half a dozen suits in which such groups have really been damaged, which is the only reason they should be given legal standing; 3) there are no limits on awards, or the limits are too high which is unjust and encourages frivolous lawsuits, frauds and even criminal gangs perpetrating frauds. This came about due to the ridiculous notions that companies are rich anyway so help the little guy, and if they are at fault a small (reasonable) award would mean nothing to them so make the awards insanely huge. We’ve seen what this has gotten us. All of this could be avoided if we would just focus on writing just laws and not on trying to “get justice”. The solution is: pay attention to judicial elections and get good judges in there, repeal the law that gave special interest groups the right to “claim” standing on behalf of someone else (or even no one else) and relegate them to there proper place: filing friend-of-the-court briefs, and change tort law to reflect reasonable awards for injuries caused not “justice” for the little guy and a “lesson” for the Big Evil Corporation. Also, if someone perpetrates a scam: prosecute them criminally! Then you can sue for damages and win.
From logos1j1: “This idea of charging people if they lose a lawsuit is very wrong-headed and unjust.”
That is pure crap. Not only should the loser pay be instituted, if the loser cannot pay, his attorney needs to make the winner whole. The legal system is ripe for being used as a shakedown device. Let the churns within the legal system bear the responsibility for its conduct. Suits that are worthwhile and legitimate will get through and all this bleeding heart BS about the little guy will be shown to be just that.
The principal abusers of the system are not the plaintiffs but the attorneys and they get a free ride.
Mrs. Chesler is exactly right, especially about the cowardice of academics. Two years ago I was attacked during an academic job interview for my writings, which document the violence inherent in literal readings of the Qur’an: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/3646
Islam is imitating corporate SLAP suits used to silence critics of agri business. Remember Oprah Winfrey’s suit by the meat industry? Read what the US is doing to fight SLAPS and join the movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
As long as truth is mutable, in other words, changeable, because my interests are paramount, and to hell with anyone else – the fight against as Patriarch Kirill put it in his Christmas Greetings, “Truth is the fundamental value of existence, and The light of truth is the Divine Light; it is the righteousness of God. It is immutable and eternal, and does not depend upon whether we accept it or not”, the fight continues.
Which says a lot about the enemies. On the one hand, you have those who want truth to be mutable, and you have those who want to go back to the 7th. century.
“This idea of charging people if they lose a lawsuit is very wrong-headed and unjust”.
Really? But the idea of bankrupting people with their legal costs due to baseless charges (moreover ones which FAIL the test of a trial) is right headed and just, eh? In most of the rest of the world the ‘loser pays’ system works just fine, regardless of how much the Trial Lawyers of the United States might claim otherwise.
#10 E.B., why is it that you resort to sarcasm? I had a wise teacher who used to say: “Sarcasm, sarcasm, the devil’s weapon.” The truth will set you free.
Also, I thought we were to believe that America was the most hated country in the world.
Dear Phyllis
This is another brilliant and provocative piece/. The truth, alas, is that each time such things happen–the calling of a spade a spade, the crossing of the ts and the dottings of the is–it is clear that we cannot hide from the facts: the war against civilization, the jihad in progress against the West, the merging of anti-Americanism, anti-Israel and anti-Semitism.
For those who want to take part in a project to expose the mechanisms and the consequences of this process, please contact me. Outrigger Puboishers is preparing a special number of Mentalities/Mentalites to expose the phenomena. So far we have nine top contributors, and more are welcome.
Norman Simms
#35 – You really want to use “In most of the rest of the world..” as an indicator of your attitudes and a guideline for the behavior of others? “In most of the rest of the world…” Muslims are not considered bad people and Israel is thought of as an aggressor nation. Do you want to reconsider your guidelines?
i am weary of moslems exposing themselves in public places. they do it, because we have in the wh someone who is weak as a string, with manlove for islamists.
we should check this guy’s underwear for sh*t stains.
I find this article and some of the comments made above very offensive and more than a little disturbing (although I would never advocate censorship, no matter how ignorant or philosophically bankrupt an opinion appears).
You readily mock and insult the eminent Muslim faith under the auspices of ‘Freedom of Speech’, but are first to stifle any criticism of Israel by playing the ‘Antisemitism’ card, even when this is clearly absurd.
When the Nazis began a cruel and degrading campaign of hatred towards the noble German Jewry, one of their most successful propaganda operations involved publishing cartoons, not dissimilar to the deliberately degrading Danish ones. Go check on Google, they look pretty much the same to me! So why is one an indisputable moral outrage, and the other “just a cartoon”?
The hypocrisy of this argument betrays your fundamental lack of reasoning, and I fear that no number of ‘Friendly Muslims’ would ever change your minds.
You must drop the hatred if you wish to join the rest of humanity, and I fear those educated by Hollywood and Fox News may simply not have the capacity to achieve this.
As we say in the Middle East, peace be upon you.
My Solidarity to 6. + 25.
Then: here around Communists are clearly supporting Islam, showing off their Support,
The Greens allied with Islam-ism/-ists, demonizing anyone who criticize it,
Liberals (Economists) favour Islam, through their Medias.
There is a more or less hidden Support of Islam by … Jews, too.
Shortly: I think there is a main Anti-christianity/-ans Feeling driving above mentioned Alliances. Then People fear Islamic Violence/Brutality (therefore don’t oppose it), and eventually Politicians aim to Islamic/-ist Wealth.
Questions: why do The Greens ally with Islam-ism/-ists? Why Communists support Islam (it already happened in Iran before ‘79)? Why do Economists favour it? Why do Jews support Islam?
It is no Wonder that Geert Wilders is on Trial – another Question is rather: what did the World (Black, Jellows, Whites; Westerners, Middle Easterners, Southerns, Northerns; Men, Women, Transgenders; Everyone, Everywhere) against/in favour of “Resolution against Defamation (Critic) of Religion(s)” (and their Practices)?
40. Lao Tzu’s best friend:
[You must drop the hatred if you wish to join the rest of humanity, and I fear those educated by Hollywood and Fox News may simply not have the capacity to achieve this.]
Sure Lao, no problemo.
Talking about hatred, I thought it was Islam and the Islamists who were eminent at hatred, or you have forgotten the recent affairs in Mumbai, the beheading in New Jersey, the honor killings, the acid on girls’ eyes, the execution of homosexuals in Iran, and on, and on.
Lao you have a case of amnesia. You are verily Lao Bourne.
It is Islam, my dear, that must change if it wants to survive.
We call that in the US, freedom of speech. Here we have had cartoons like that and worse for centuries. Comparison with Nazi Germany is an invalid and fallacious attempt. Good try.
It’s one thing to allow commenters with an alternative point of view from most of us here, but I don’t see why we need a vile skunk like E.B. who’s only contribution is to spew anti-Semitic venom. You can find enough of these creatures crawling out of the woodwork on huffington post, dailykos and like-minded websites. It would be nice to keep this place free of anti-Semitic vermin.
“On Trial for Telling the Truth”
No, I don’t think he is. We argue about whether he should BE on trial (I’m agree that he shouldn’t be), but lets not misrepresent him as a reasonable, sane, measured speaker of the truth. He’s anything but.
Just go watch fitna. It would be pretty easy to produce a similarly warped polemic against christianity (or judaism, for that matter – much more recent, graphic footage to use these days), it would be very compelling, it would raise all the same fear and anger responses that wilders sought to achieve, but it wouldn’t be “the truth”.
The islamic world has big problems. Mostly, IMHO, they’re political. The nuts have been running that asylum for decades, possibly even more than a century. The attacks on 9/11 and on madrid weren’t (also, IMHO) religiously inspired – they were politically inspired. They sought political goals (which were arguably achieved, in the case of spain). The people who did them DON’T have the popular support of muslims, or they wouldn’t have to lurk in the shadows and attack civilians – they’d have real power instead. Does islam need a reformation? Probably. Clearly, the wrong people have had power in muslim nations for far too long. When that changes, when the hitlers are properly dealt with, we won’t be threatened by militant islam any more. I don’t see how anything geert wilders has said is useful to that outcome.
“You readily mock and insult the eminent Muslim faith under the auspices of ‘Freedom of Speech’, but are first to stifle any criticism of Israel by playing the ‘Antisemitism’ card, even when this is clearly absurd”.
………………………………………
“eminent muslim faith” Ha ha
No one is trying to stifle criticism of Israel. What they try to do is confront the LIES and SLANDER against the Jewish state. And clearly comments about “stealing organs”, being a “nazi”, “racist” “apartheid” state, committing “genocide” etc. are clearly not “criticisms” of Israel but are slanderous blood libels.
“When the Nazis began a cruel and degrading campaign of hatred towards the noble German Jewry, one of their most successful propaganda operations involved publishing cartoons, not dissimilar to the deliberately degrading Danish ones.”
You mean like the ones which are a daily staple in Arab newspapers to this day? Those cartoons? Your horse is a little high, there.
Free speech is absolute. If you’re offended… grow a pair.
BTW, what has your “eminent muslim faith” done for the people of Haiti? I’ll answer that question myself, zilch. On the other hand, JEWISH Israel and CHRISTIAN America have come to Haiti’s aid. This tells us all we need to know about who is morally superior.
“You must drop the hatred if you wish to join the rest of humanity, and I fear those educated by Hollywood and Fox News may simply not have the capacity to achieve this”.
…………………………………..
This is rich coming from someone representing the most hateful and bloodthirsty ideology on Earth.
George Jochnowitz:
“BTW blameless and wonderful Israel admitted to harvesting organs with permission from the families of the dead”
Er, I think you should have written “WITHOUT permission”.
Bohemond:
“Duh! In the US and everywhere else in the damn world organs are harvested with the family’s consent.”
Yes, but G.J. made a typo – as it turns out, organs were being removed without any sort of permission at all, and steps were being taken to cover up the fact. I.e. it was being done in secret on people who would not have consented.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580701,00.html
Alex Bensky:
“The assertion was that Israelis were killing Palestinians and taking their organs for transplants–a barefaced lie if only because organs taken in such a manner are useless as transplants”
Not exactly. That was ONE of the assertions made in the article, and it definitely can’t be proven (and is probably untrue, IMHO). But the author got most of the story right. Much of the testimony he relied on that came from palestinians could actually be correct, based on what’s come to light since the fuss. If he had left out the claim of deliberate killing (and I think he tried to link it to the recent prosecutions in the US as well) then he would have been basically on the mark.
The original story struck me at the time as straightforward blood-libel drivel. I only found out about the other side of the story from the link that G.J. posted above – and I’m frankly astonished by it. The guy who was doing the operations should have (IMHO) gone to prison. The fact that he’s still in any position of authority shows a breathtaking lapse of judgment.
The author of the swedish article was correct – the allegations deserve more investigation.
In the propaganda game, israel really did hand the opposition an own goal with this business. The original story got a lot of attention because of the controversy, but the followup admission seems to have been pretty low-key. I didn’t even know about it until now.
I rest my case…
canuck 31:
You added nothing of value to the discussion. You could have left off after the first four words and been better off.
I addressed the fact that the system is being used for shakedowns. The corporations are as much to blame for this as anyone because they treat each case as unique and want to end it as cheaply as possible. This is very short-sighted and in the long-run has ended up costing everyone much more. Had they fought the weaker cases and won instead of just settling it would have cost more initially but there would be far less of this garbage now.
“The principal abusers of the system are not the plaintiffs but the attorneys and they get a free ride.”
This cannot possibly be true. So we’re agreed that some hypothetical case is fraudulent and shouldn’t be brought: how can the person who brings it be less culpable that the one they hire? That doesn’t make any sense.
Perry de Havilland 35:
“But the idea of bankrupting people with their legal costs due to baseless charges (moreover ones which FAIL the test of a trial) is right headed and just, eh?”
No. First of all, two wrongs don’t make a right. Obvious. Second: I addressed this. Judges are the gatekeepers, and they should be good gatekeepers. And if someone perpetrates a fraud on another the victim has free access to both the civil and criminal courts for redress. FREE access. This is my whole point. Don’t you see that what you’re supporting will not at all prevent evil people from being evil? but that it WILL prevent good people from getting justice?
“In most of the rest of the world the ‘loser pays’ system works just fine
This is the most wearisome argument I know of. It’s juvenile; the equivalent of a second-grader’s whine, “All the other kids get to!” So what! And as I pointed out: the issue is a constitutional one as well. The success of the US Constitution speaks for itself.
The author actually admitted he had no evidence, it all was based on hearsay. And the arab family that he claimed the organs were taken from actually said no organs were removed from their son.
The scoundrel published the blood libel anyhow because he was looking to stir up a frenzy of rage against Israel and Jews from the world’s barbarians and losers. I don’t even like to dignify such slander with a response.
Meanwhile as Sweden looks to stir up Jew hatred, the country is being engulfed by islamic jihadis. It’s third largest city has seen many nights of riots and car burnings.
Lao: you forgot the Anti-everything-Non-Islamic carried on in Islamized Countries, very Hitlerian Nazist alike? Critics of Islam criticize that, too.
Matthew: there already is a Movie about Christianity, Fitna alike.
Anyway you might see the Difference between Koran and the Gospel, and Muhammad’s and Jesus’ Example.
Another Detail: did you notice that Critics of any Religion (or Party) can freely walk on the Streets, while Critics of Islam either have to live with Bodyguards, or have to use NickNames?
A Movie about Christianity (the Church) can be about its very Beginning (Jesus’ Life), or about Middle Ages, or about Present Times (considered that there is a Difference in the Way Americans and Europeans live it), and it will be a different Movie each Time. A Movie about Islam will be the same, from its Beginning to Today.
Islam is Mosque and State, it is a Totalitarianism, while Christian Communities aren’t Totalitarian.
44. Matthew:
Do you remember what happened to Theo Van Gogh in Holland, and who did it, and why he said he did it?
Isn’t Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that brave Dutch woman still in hiding in her own country?
Isn’t Geert Wilder in hiding with police protection in his own country?
Now, finally:
Is that what you want for us here? Because it is coming if we do not do something about it.
You wrote: [The attacks on 9/11 and on Madrid weren’t (also, IMHO) religiously inspired – they were politically inspired.]
You confuse me here. If this was politically inspired, not religiously:
a) Why all September 11 terrorists constantly yelled “Allahu Akbar”? Tamil Tigers suicide bomber don’t do that, you could say they are politically motivated.
b) In the papers of Mohammed Atta, that luckily went with his luggage to another city, the FBI found a torrent of religious quotes from the Quoran justifying the coming act, he wanted to be clean, his dead body not touched by women, besides that horrible passage about treating your animal fairly (the animals were the female flight attendant they slaughtered in cold blood to inspire initial fear). Does this look to you as politically motivated?
Two words that have solved problems like this every. single. time. have been adopted: ‘Loser pays’
Matthew,
My post was #3. #10 was a response to #3.
D’oh! 55:
Ooooh …. Yes! I get it now. After this clear, logically valid and supremely well documented argument I see my mistake and concede.
(Wow!)
56. George Jochnowitz:
“My post was #3. #10 was a response to #3″
Oh. Sorry
MiamaMan:
“Do you remember what happened to Theo Van Gogh in Holland, and who did it, and why he said he did it?”
Yep. From reading what he’d written I’d tend to describe him as a violent hyper-nationalist, except that his “nation” was a warped version of religion.
“Isn’t Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that brave Dutch woman still in hiding in her own country?”
No, I think she lives in the US now.
“Isn’t Geert Wilder in hiding with police protection in his own country?”
Hiding?!??! Hardly.
But yes, there are real people who have real police protection because of real threats from muslim extremists. They do exist, and we do have to take them seriously. But that’s no reason not to criticize any group or religion. There are plenty of people who do criticize islam in much more meaningful and useful ways than wilders does – and I applaud them for it. Hitchens is one, Dawkins is another. I also highly recommend checking out Jay Smith on youtube – he regularly goes toe-to-toe with muslims on speakers’ corner in london on theological and cultural issues. He’s aggressive, he’s loud, he takes no prisoners and unlike wilders he actually has something interesting and useful to say.
“Is that what you want for us here? Because it is coming if we do not do something about it.”
What do you propose?
“You confuse me here. If this was politically inspired, not religiously”
Religion is quite obviously used as a prop by these nuts – just as other religions have been used as a prop for violence in the past. If KSM or OBL are devout, committed religious men, then I’m donald duck. They’re thugs. They hate the US for very well-known reasons. For them, islam is just a convenient way to organize and fund their groups.
“Tamil Tigers suicide bomber don’t do that, you could say they are politically motivated”
And iranians would shout “death to america”. Whatever works, I guess. I’ve read that australian troops in WWII were known to shout “up there cazaly” (obscure, I know – look it up. A better reflection on cultural differences, I could not imagine)
“Does this look to you as politically motivated?”
Yes.
Matthew 59:
“Religion is quite obviously used as a prop by these nuts – just as other religions have been used as a prop for violence in the past.”
In Islam religion and politics are inseparable. This is what sets it apart from every other religion. Islamic doctrine is clear: the entire world must be brought into “submission” to the Koran and Sharia law, and Sharia law is all that is allowed and all that is necessary. It is enforced by the caliph. Islam imagines the entire world as one united caliphate ruled by Sharia alone. Failure to “submit” to this makes one worthy of death. No other religion is like this or has ever been like this. This is why Islam is irredeemable and must be utterly abolished.
59.: 60. is right, and above all Immigrants like the Criminal who murdered Theo Van Gogh (supported by his bloodthirsty Community as a whole) have to respect the Country they immigrate in and its Laws and its Civilization, otherwise they have to remain in the Hole they come from.
Note: the above mentioned Criminal was living on the Shoultern of the State he immigrated in, thanks to its Social Welfares’ Policy – and this is the Way he thanked the Community he joined and which helped him!
“Submission” was a Movie against Violence on Women, heavenly ordered in Islam, and it is the Cause why Theo was murdered and Ayaan Hirsi Ali was Death-threatened.
How many “radical Priests or Gurus” are there, who preach Hate and Violence against Others? Almost none: how many Imams are there, who do so? Many, and they have whole Communities following them, and most of their Members do not even report their “Guides” to Justice. Of course, they follow their bloodthirsty Shari’a, which recognizes Rights just to Islam and to Islamic/-ist people, and denies them to Everything and Everyone else [Internationally, check Islamic/-ist "Cairo Declaration", compared to Others' "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".]
59. +: are you jocking or don’t you really understand what did MiamaMan mean by “living in Hiding”?
For Wafa Sultan it is the same, this doesn’t mean that she does Nothing to still carrying on her Message, despite the harsh ISLAMIC/-IST Threats.
Same goes for Wilders. Ayaan Hirsi Ali left The Netherland right because there she couldn’t live as safely as she can in The United States.
The Fact is that Islamic/-ist people and CRIMINALS can go Anywhere, say Whatever they want, and they are still free (thanks to Western Policy/Democracy), while Critics of Islam constantly risk their own Lives to uncover Islamic/-ist Ideology and its Mafia (- up to now – protected in the Name of “Freedom of Religion”).
Islam is Politics, not “a Religion”, the Way we Westerners are used to understand it (more like Ethics or Spirituality).
59. Matthew:
1)[If KSM or OBL are devout, committed religious men, then I’m donald duck.]
No, these 2 are not devout, but still are religiously motivated. Of course, you can always find a political motive behind everything these groups do.
Mohammed Atta a thug? Hardly. High marks as a student, an architect, studied English in American University in Cairo, continued to study in Germany. Then comes the Al-Quds mosque in Cairo. It was this mosque and religiosity what hardened him and made possible his fanatical religious convictions, a man without these qualities could not have pulled 9/11. To believe all this at the end to be politically motivated is a serious mistake, one for which we will pay dearly.
2) [Religion is quite obviously used as a prop by these nuts]
Religion here is not a prop, but the centerpiece of their behavior. Not these people are nutter than many of us on this side of the fence. They are religious zealots, propped by the Quoran and its tenets.
You could say that, for the Arabs leaders of the cold war, Nasser, Sadat, and the last of them, Saddam Hussein, it was a prop, but not for the new Ayatollah Khomeini generation.
Correction above: Al-Quds mosque in Hamburg (not Cairo)
62. HellenoChristian:
1) [Islam is Politics, not “a Religion”, the Way we Westerners are used to understand it (more like Ethics or Spirituality).]
Please, allow me to disagree. Islam is 100% a religion. Religions can be classified in 2 main groups:
a) Fixed: Usually depend on one scripture (Bible, Quoran), or a few (Torah, Talmud).
b) Inner call, experience-based: Uses the scriptures as guidelines for inner change and as a recipe to obtain these experiences. (Baghavad Gita, Vedas, 108 major Upanishads, etc).
The problem with Islam, is not whether it is religion, no, but that it is a religion that allows for evil.
Do people think that what is known about the so-called prophet Mohammad is untrue?
Can we compare Jesus the Christ, the Prince of Peace, with Mohammad? In deference to Matthew, then I am Mickey Mouse.
One cannot always deal in a civilized way with people who are dedicated to exhausting every possible means to destroy you.
The western elites are likely to create a situation in which the Awans of this world will be subjected to popular justice, which tends to be quite rough.
Either we get our elites under control, or we will have to deal with the half-anarchy/half-police-state conditions that are likely to result.
And we will have nobody but ourselves to blame, as it is clear that our elites WILL NOT initiate appropriate action on their own.
The silence of the American media on the subject of Wilders trial is unforgivable, literally. I will never forgive them for this.
Not that they had much credibility with me at this point anyway, but they still had a chance to get some back.
That’s over now.
They are tools and nothing but.
===========
I will note that I usually make exception for the people over at Fox, most of whom are honest, professional, competent and decent.
That said, even Fox has been silent on this subject.
And I suspect that it may be the sizable stack of Arab money they’ve taken that is the reason.
It is beyond miserable.
It’s down to us now.
If you are reading this here pass the word on Wilders to everyone you know!
There’s no reason to expect Phyllis to carry the burden for all of us.