Wilders' controversial "Fitna" now on web

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

So you support people being throw in jail for their speech?

Yes. IF said "free speech" is used to violate the rights and freedom of others - just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you have freedom to commit a criminal offence or 'hate crime'. Wilders can easily be demonstrated to have a long history of 'hate crimes' as it specifically relates to immigrants, Muslims, non-Dutch speakers, non-Protestants, etc. - therefore in light of said pattern of conduct and history of attacks and violations of the criminal code of the Netherlands and the EU as it relates to discriminatory and hateful speech and acts I would happily applaud Wilders being tossed in the can (or at least fined)... unfortunately it'd only play into his hands as a "martyr" and "sufferer" for the "truth".

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Yes. IF said "free speech" is used to violate the rights and freedom of others - just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you have freedom to commit a criminal offence or 'hate crime'. Wilders can easily be demonstrated to have a long history of 'hate crimes' as it specifically relates to immigrants, Muslims, non-Dutch speakers, non-Protestants, etc. - therefore in light of said pattern of conduct and history of attacks and violations of the criminal code of the Netherlands and the EU as it relates to discriminatory and hateful speech and acts I would happily applaud Wilders being tossed in the can (or at least fined)... unfortunately it'd only play into his hands as a "martyr" and "sufferer" for the "truth".

Wait.

Maybe I'm being naive. Your speech, i.e. words, are now considered hate crimes and criminal offenses?

[PhiGam]

Inflammatory? Yes
True? Yes

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Yes. IF said "free speech" is used to violate the rights and freedom of others - just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you have freedom to commit a criminal offence or 'hate crime'. Wilders can easily be demonstrated to have a long history of 'hate crimes' as it specifically relates to immigrants, Muslims, non-Dutch speakers, non-Protestants, etc. - therefore in light of said pattern of conduct and history of attacks and violations of the criminal code of the Netherlands and the EU as it relates to discriminatory and hateful speech and acts I would happily applaud Wilders being tossed in the can (or at least fined)... unfortunately it'd only play into his hands as a "martyr" and "sufferer" for the "truth".

How did this movie violate the rights of others? Is that the right to not have mean things said about you? I don't think I've ever seen the right to not have your feelings hurt mentioned in Magna Carta or the Constitution.

Instead of attacking the man, attack the movie. Attack the facts in the movie... were those not quotes from the Quran? Were those Muslim clerics misinterpreted? Were there not thousands of people cheering for the hateful speech being spewed by said clerics?

[preciousjeni]

My computer is acting up. Anyway, is this the film:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02968312745410

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Yes. IF said "free speech" is used to violate the rights and freedom of others - just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you have freedom to commit a criminal offence or 'hate crime'. Wilders can easily be demonstrated to have a long history of 'hate crimes' as it specifically relates to immigrants, Muslims, non-Dutch speakers, non-Protestants, etc. - therefore in light of said pattern of conduct and history of attacks and violations of the criminal code of the Netherlands and the EU as it relates to discriminatory and hateful speech and acts I would happily applaud Wilders being tossed in the can (or at least fined)... unfortunately it'd only play into his hands as a "martyr" and "sufferer" for the "truth".

While this line of thinking might be how you all roll in Canada, I think I'd prefer to err on the generous freedom of speech side of things like we have in the US.

When speech becomes an act, then we're talking about something different, of course, but even then, I'm not 100% sure hate crime legislation makes sense to me. Does the racial or ethnic motivation really make a brutal murder worse that a brutal murder with no racial motivation? Sometimes it seems worse; other times all brutal murders seem equally as bad.

And Wilders being a jerk doesn't really change what's presented in this film really. Aren't you kind of shifting to ad hominem here? Wilders is a hateful jerk so the claims of the film have no merit kind of thing?

How do you respond to the links made by the film? Do you think the speech and actions he connects are actually just somehow coincidental?

ETA: I don't actually see myself watching the film any time soon. But the descriptions that I read of it seem well within what any society ought to allow, especially if you are linking the words of extremist with their own actions.

[shinerbock]

RA, if I ever cease to shock you, I'm going to need to rethink my positions.

Sorry, but I'm not one who is interested either in ignoring the threat of Islamic extremism or cowering to it. Further, I don't think free speech ends when someone gets offended.

To me, far more unsettling than the film itself are those who claim that this extends free speech too far. Absolutely petrifying.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

My computer is acting up. Anyway, is this the film:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02968312745410

Yes, it is.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

While this line of thinking might be how you all roll in Canada, I think I'd prefer to err on the generous freedom of speech side of things like we have in the US.

True... up here the propagation of "hateful" literature or media in furtherance of an agenda of hate is considered a criminal act - this extends to "truthful" media or literature vetted to advance said agenda... it's why the likes of Fred Phelps or Jack Chick are banned up here basically.

One's legal rights to freedom of speech can't be used to violate another's right to live free from ethnic or religious persecution.

When speech becomes an act, then we're talking about something different, of course, but even then, I'm not 100% sure hate crime legislation makes sense to me. Does the racial or ethnic motivation really make a brutal murder worse that a brutal murder with no racial motivation? Sometimes it seems worse; other times all brutal murders seem equally as bad.

I'd say that it is worse - simply because the attacker chose the victim more or less at random from a group, not for interpersonal or criminally profitable reasons... which is more troublesome and frightening as it applies to the victim and victimized group.

And Wilders being a jerk doesn't really change what's presented in this film really. Aren't you kind of shifting to ad hominem here? Wilders is a hateful jerk so the claims of the film have no merit kind of thing?

Wilder's motivation plays heavily into the treatment and consideration of the film - he is a politician with strident anti-Islamic views... so if he funds, writes, directs, and produces a film on the subject of Islam, the views and motivations of the writer/producer/director should of course be considered when viewing the 'product' shouldn't it?

How do you respond to the links made by the film? Do you think the speech and actions he connects are actually just somehow coincidental?

Not at all - Wilders carefully selected the quotes and actions for the greatest impact, and to portray both Islam in as negative a light as possible. As for how I respond to them? The same way I'd respond to any other carefully constructed hate propaganda - the best propaganda carefully manages the 'truth' to present it in a way that is as supportive as possible to the ideological 'message'.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Instead of attacking the man, attack the movie. Attack the facts in the movie... were those not quotes from the Quran? Were those Muslim clerics misinterpreted? Were there not thousands of people cheering for the hateful speech being spewed by said clerics?

It's impossible to separate the man and the movie, so the point is moot about 'attacking' one but not the other - like I stated in the post above it IS Wilders' film: he provided the funding, he wrote it, he directed it, he produced it, and he distributed it.

The film is nothing more and nothing less that 'hate' propaganda, no different from the shit produced by Hamas, Hezzbollah, the Aryan Nation, the Nazis, etc.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by RACooper

It's impossible to separate the man and the movie, so the point is moot about 'attacking' one but not the other - like I stated in the post above it IS Wilders' film: he provided the funding, he wrote it, he directed it, he produced it, and he distributed it.

The film is nothing more and nothing less that 'hate' propaganda, no different from the shit produced by Hamas, Hezzbollah, the Aryan Nation, the Nazis, etc.

I didn't see anything in the film implying that entire ethnic groups are subhuman, which is often the case with groups like Hamas or Nazis. Instead, I saw a compilation of actual footage involving Islamic terrorists committing horrific acts of violence and others justifying those actions.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't recognize the threat Islamic extremism poses. I fear what the end result of that will be.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I didn't see anything in the film implying that entire ethnic groups are subhuman, which is often the case with groups like Hamas or Nazis. Instead, I saw a compilation of actual footage involving Islamic terrorists committing horrific acts of violence and others justifying those actions.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't recognize the threat Islamic extremism poses. I fear what the end result of that will be.

Agree with Shinerbock on this.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by RACooper

It's impossible to separate the man and the movie, so the point is moot about 'attacking' one but not the other - like I stated in the post above it IS Wilders' film: he provided the funding, he wrote it, he directed it, he produced it, and he distributed it.

The film is nothing more and nothing less that 'hate' propaganda, no different from the shit produced by Hamas, Hezzbollah, the Aryan Nation, the Nazis, etc.

Whats hard about separating the two? A man is a living, breathing person and the film is a compilation of movie clips and text.
call it whatever you want, it was all real footage and those were actual quotes from the Quran.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Whats hard about separating the two? A man is a living, breathing person and the film is a compilation of movie clips and text.

Because the film is a reflection of the views and ideology of the man, literally a picture of how he sees Islam... and how he wants others to see Islam. I don't see why I should abandon reason, in addition to forgetting context, when evaluating this piece of propaganda.

call it whatever you want, it was all real footage and those were actual quotes from the Quran.

Yes they were - like I said the best propaganda is the skillful manipulation of the truth to place it all in the context you want... which is exactly what Wilders does here, and I'm at a loss to try and understand why some here are so willing to buy into the carefully managed and constructed "truth" he pieces together. But then again some people are more apt to believe what they want to believe if the past decade of media and politics is any indication...

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Whats hard about separating the two? A man is a living, breathing person and the film is a compilation of movie clips and text.
call it whatever you want, it was all real footage and those were actual quotes from the Quran.

The quotes are taken way out of context, ala Emerson and Daniel Pipe style.

He gets big publicity no matter what happen.

If nothing happen, he can claim that he is happy about maturity of the debate.

If riots and stuff happen, he can say, "see, we can't trust those Muslims."