Even if he would agree with you, I don't really think he has any other choice. Even for what he has said so far, he is being prosecuted. If he would actually say he has a problem with muslims, not just the violent and intolerant ones and Islam as an ideology, it would probably almost certainly lead to a conviction in court. Wilders is no good to us if he ends up in jail or if his political party is banned. I think the laws in my country restrict freedom of speech far too much, but as long as they are in place he'll have to do his best to speak within the boundaries of those laws.
I am however not so sure if confronting imams with the the texts of the Koran is really a good idea. He'd have to be lucky to find one who is honest. They will propably use taqiyya to make sure he ends up looking like a now-nothing hatemonger.
But I do like the idea of an offensive approach and putting Islam on trial. It would be a great way to expose Islam for what it is. If he can clearly show why there are good reasons to conclude that Islam is violent and intolerant, the judges are going to have a hard time to find him guilty. That would be like saying straight out: 'you could very well be right, but you still can't say it, no matter how true it is.'
Well, that's up to the judge to decide. The High Court recently judged on a case where a man had said that 'Islam is a cancer'. They judged that you can only insult a group of people, not a religion. If that minister (Hirsch Ballin) get's his, cases like these would probably have a different outcome. Luckily he is met with alot of opposition in the parliament. That is, if the spineless Labour party can finally show some guts and not bend over to coalition interests.
Well glad to hear that. Not that it will matter much, because my own government is trying hard enough on it's own to end criticism of Islam, or any religion for that matter. Here in the Netherlands you can already sued for (as they are doing to Geert Wilders now), insulting a group of people on the basis on their religion. It has to be a direct insult. But our Minister of Justice wants to change the law, so that even an indirect insult is punishable. So saying Islam is a totalitarion, violent and intolerant religion is going to be even more problematic if he gets his way.
So, is this the binding version of the resolution? That would be the end of free speech as we know it!
And btw, does this only count for those who are part of the human rights council? (if so, the US should be glad they're not in it) Or does it count for all UN-members?
What the hell? A DUTCH parliamentarian is sued by a FRENCH human rights organization for statements he made in NEW YORK? Is this even possible??
I found that statement a bit odd as well. Why does it matter how it fits into my vision for an ideal society? It seems to suggest they need to reject these views if they contradict that ideal, no matter how true it is. It's a commonly made flaw of the left. No matter how much evidence you provide, it all has to give way for some utopian society. On the path to that society there is no place for inconveniant truths.
We all have a vision on the ideal society. But an ideal society is just that, an ideal.
It usually doesn't have much to do with reality. The facts as I see them are often hostile to my ideal vision. I spent quite a while ignoring those facts, pretending they didn't exist. But if there's one thing I learned, your ideals should not get in the way of seeing what is so obvious.
Wow, this is very interesting news indeed. My compliments to Mr. Parker! It really takes alot of guts to admit you were wrong, especially if you've spent much of your time refuting our views on Islam.
What strikes me is that he says: "I can't lie to myself anymore" I think for alot of people that's the problem. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who defend Islam, must somehow be aware of the truth. But admitting that your whole world view was nothing more than a delusion, a view wich you may have defended for years or almost all of your life, is a very difficult thing to do.
I know how it feels. Out of some naive idealism, I mislead myself for about a year or so. Even though deep inside, I just knew that 'religion of peace' isn't all that peaceful.
Excellent article Spencer!
The interviewer actually implied she considers him just as British as anyone else. The only thing British about this guy is his English, and that's it. Everything else he says when he opens his mouth, shows his hatred for everything we value in the West. "Our dictators, our lands, our resources" He's a prime example of the fact that being born somewhere, doesn't automatically make you British/Danish/Dutch or whatever. Oh well, guess I can't blame the poor woman. Saying that calling him British is a disgrace to everything that stands for, would probably get you labelled a racist and not be good for your career.