# The Netherlands raises its terror alert level to "substantial" - BBC



## Yrys (7 Mar 2008)

'Substantial' Dutch terror risk



> The Netherlands has raised its terrorism alert level to "substantial", partly due to the expected release of an anti-Islam film.
> It is the second-highest alert level, although the justice ministry said "there is no concrete evidence" that the country faced possible attacks.
> 
> The move comes as far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders prepares to air his film, which has already angered Muslims. Mr Wilders has said the film
> ...



He give me doubt about him having read Main Kampf to compare it to the Koran... 

Dutch MP warned over Islam film



> Right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been told that he may have to leave the country if he releases his film about Islam, reports say.



Dutch Muslims condemn MP's film



> The Dutch Muslim Council has attacked far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders' politics as "racist and fascist"


----------



## Richie (7 Mar 2008)

Regardless of how one feels about Mein Kampf or the Koran, the point here is Free Speech. Geert Wilders may be considered obnoxious by some but he has the right to air his views. If Muslims object, they can produce their own films, right their own editorials; this interchange of ideas, conflict of ideas if you like, is central to the functioning of any Western democracy. 

The fact that the Dutch government has had to raise it's terrorism alert level and has had to place Mr. Wilders under protection and has advised him that he may have to leave his own country for his own protection from Muslim extremists makes me wonder who is actually calling the shots in the cultural/political life of the Netherlands. I have actually been wondering this ever since Theo Van Gogh was shot dead in the street by a Muslim who stuck a warning note on a knife and left the knife in Van Gogh's back; Van Gogh was killed for co-producing a film too.

The ridiculous fuss made by Muslims over the Danish cartoons is another attempt at mob intimidation by segments of the Muslim population. I've never liked bullies and these Muslims are looking more and more like bullies with every incident such as this. Mob rule has no place in a civilized society. 

"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
-attributed to Voltaire 

Richie


----------



## Corey Darling (7 Mar 2008)

Reminds me of that south park episode. - Cartoon Wars.


----------



## Flip (7 Mar 2008)

Takes me back to Infidel by Ayan Hirsi Ali.
The book was an eye opener and I highly recomend it for back ground on all this.


----------



## Lumber (7 Mar 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> The ridiculous fuss made by Muslims over the Danish cartoons is another attempt at mob intimidation by segments of the Muslim population.



It's not so ridiculous in their eyes:



> The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorised as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed.



http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Mar 2008)

Sarkozy stated that France would stand with the Netherlands if they are attacked.


----------



## Richie (7 Mar 2008)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It's not so ridiculous in their eyes:
> 
> http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm




There have been many caricatures of political and religious figures done over the ages, muslims can claim no special status. As an atheist, I couldn't care less about "Allah", "God" or any other invisible friend in the sky that people have invented over the millennia; I _do_ care deeply about Freedom of Speech and the right to say what I want without fear of retribution by crazed fanatics (muslim or otherwise). Freedom of Speech is an absolute. 

The quote you gave about the Koran just serves to support Mr. Wilders' assertions regarding that particular book of fiction: "The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorised as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed.".

Richie


----------



## Yrys (23 Mar 2008)

Dutch Islam film website 'shut'



> A website that a Dutch right-wing politician was planning to use to release a film expected to be fiercely critical of Islam has been suspended.
> 
> The US hosting service, Network Solutions, said it was investigating complaints that it may have breached guidelines on hate language. Dutch politician Geert
> Wilders says the 15-minute film describes Islam as "the enemy of freedom".
> ...




Link


----------



## Richie (23 Mar 2008)

One thing I must give muslims credit for is their ability to act as a unit, much like the Borg from Star Trek. When muslims are told by their self-appointed leaders that there is something offensive to their beliefs, they just react automatically without thought, like a mob. This gives them the ability to bully companies like Network Solutions. I sincerely hope that the actions of Network Solutions is not a forerunner of self-censorship in the United States (don't want to offend "muslim sensibilities"!).

I've just written an email to Network Solutions at dmca@networksolutions.com and encourage anyone so inclined to do so as well. 

*“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
-George Washington*


----------



## Yrys (23 Mar 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> One thing I must give Muslims credit for is their ability to act as a unit, much like the Borg from Star Trek. When Muslims are told by their self-appointed leaders that there is something offensive to their beliefs, they just react automatically without thought, like a mob.



Then you must know Muslims mostly by MSM . I worked with 2 Muslims once. The lady was heavily into partying, alcohol, and pot.
The man wouldn't touch anything of "altering minds" because of his religion. Neither speaks of prayer. They were far from a unit ...

Aren't all religious leaders self-appointed by that religion (except in China) ?


----------



## Adrian_888 (23 Mar 2008)

> "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
> -attributed to Voltaire


I really like that quote, what did you mean by attributed to Voltaire? Did he say that? (sorry im a bit english dumb)


About this whole "terror alert" level thing.  Its compleat nonsense if you think about it.  For one, how can you measure something like that... maby fear per cubic meter?  With one level goign to the next when it gets to the size of say... some rulers private swimming pool?  That would be great!
Even if that wasent completely idiotic, just the idea is wrong, its like "here is the level that you should be afraid, and therefore support right wing parties who will increase the defense budget and support wars that make no sense (I am NOT at all talking about Afghanistan, i mean more something like Iraq).
Its important to remember that fear is one of the most dangerous emotions, and has and is being used to control populations.  Terrorist can only be terrorist if people live in fear of them, otherwise they are just insurgents and rebels facing a hopeless unified power.

In my opinion, scales such as this were better left with Smokey the Bear and his fire alert chart.

-Adrian


----------



## Richie (23 Mar 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Then you must know Muslims mostly by MSM . I worked with 2 Muslims once. The lady was heavily into partying, alcohol, and pot.
> The man wouldn't touch anything of "altering minds" because of his religion. Neither speaks of prayer. They were far from a unit ...
> 
> Aren't all religious leaders self-appointed by that religion (except in China) ?



I've worked with muslims as well; at a company in Ottawa as well as here in Toronto. Both companies were pressured by CAIR to set up prayer rooms in which my muslim co-workers would pray, sometimes up to five times a day. They kept to themselves. If anyone referred to a piece of software as "god", as in "This new troubleshooting tool is great, it's god!" then the muslims would just quietly say "no" and remind us of our place. 

I'm glad you met a stoned muslim, it gives me hope.  :  But I'm sick to death of muslims organizing en masse to restrict Free Speech. This is just plain wrong. Free Speech is an absolute, without it we lose our heritage and our future.  If muslims can influence what I can see on the Internet, then they are infringing on my rights. I object strongly to this. 

Think of that when you think of Geert Wilders, Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Ayan Hirsi Ali...the list will go on and on as long as we allow our rights to be slowly but surely eroded.


----------



## Yrys (23 Mar 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> the list will go on and on as long as *we allow* our rights to be slowly but surely eroded.



YOU allow your coworkers to remind you of your place. Your choice...

Free speech is not an absolute, even in North America, it is restricted (when calling for crime, as an example).

We, as a society, choose what they can restrict. If we don't manifest our opposition, how can we be frustrated,
when our values are not follow ?


----------



## Richie (23 Mar 2008)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> I really like that quote, what did you mean by attributed to Voltaire? Did he say that? (sorry im a bit english dumb)



It just means that some people are not sure sure that it was Voltaire who said that, but Voltaire is the most commonly accepted source. I like it too. C'etait Voltaire probable qui l'a dit. (Je suis desole, mon francais est pauvre.) 



			
				Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> About this whole "terror alert" level thing.  Its compleat nonsense if you think about it.  For one, how can you measure something like that... maby fear per cubic meter?  With one level goign to the next when it gets to the size of say... some rulers private swimming pool?  That would be great!
> Even if that wasent completely idiotic, just the idea is wrong, its like "here is the level that you should be afraid, and therefore support right wing parties who will increase the defense budget and support wars that make no sense (I am NOT at all talking about Afghanistan, i mean more something like Iraq).
> Its important to remember that fear is one of the most dangerous emotions, and has and is being used to control populations.  Terrorist can only be terrorist if people live in fear of them, otherwise they are just insurgents and rebels facing a hopeless unified power.
> 
> ...



Terror alert levels can be used by dishonest politicians, I agree with you. I tend to ignore the current level and just try to be aware of what is happening in the world around me and form my own opinions based on that.

I agree that fear is one of the most dangerous emotions, look what it has done to Network Solutions or in the case of the Danish cartoons. Muslim mobs understand fear and how to use it.
But I don't live in fear of terrorists; I take the subway to work everyday, I fly when I want to and if I die in a terrorist attack, that is that. No, I don't fear terrorists, I look on them with contempt. Je considere des terroristes avec le mepris. 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are related, it's the same enemy that the West faces. En Iraq et Afghanistan, c'est le meme ennemi. 

Richie


----------



## Richie (23 Mar 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> YOU allow your coworkers to remind you of your place. Your choice...
> 
> Free speech is not an absolute, even in North America, it is restricted (when calling for crime, as an example).
> 
> ...



I did _not_ allow them to do this, believe me! They understood me better after I explained to them that I am a "freethinker" (apparently a dirty word to them). They brought their religious values to the office and offended my beliefs and the beliefs of others. Religion belongs at home. I made that quite clear to them.

Free Speech is an absolute. I can say whatever I like. If I were stupid enough to make a false 911 call, I would face the consequences of my actions. Human Rights Commissions in Canada are attempting to restrict Free Speech, just ask Ezra Levant. The "Islamic Supreme Council of Canada" (probably some guy working out of his basement) tried to use the Alberta HRC to silence Levant. If the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada didn't like what Levant published, they were free to publish a rebuttal.

Any restrictions on Free Speech should be challenged immediately. It's a slippery slope and we're right on the edge.

Print and be damned,
Richie


----------



## George Wallace (23 Mar 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> I did _not_ allow them to do this, believe me! They understood me better after I explained to them that I am a "freethinker" (apparently a dirty word to them). They brought their religious values to the office and offended my beliefs and the beliefs of others. Religion belongs at home. I made that quite clear to them.
> 
> Free Speech is an absolute. I can say whatever I like. If I were stupid enough to make a false 911 call, I would face the consequences of my actions. Human Rights Commissions in Canada are attempting to restrict Free Speech, just ask Ezra Levant. The "Islamic Supreme Council of Canada" (probably some guy working out of his basement) tried to use the Alberta HRC to silence Levant. If the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada didn't like what Levant published, they were free to publish a rebuttal.
> 
> ...



That being said, we will not derail this topic with any more on the Alberta HRC and Ezra Levant as that is already a topic under discussion.


----------



## Richie (24 Mar 2008)

Fair 'nuff. I was just using it to illustrate a point. 

It was a good debate though and I enjoyed it!


----------



## midgetcop (25 Mar 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> I did _not_ allow them to do this, believe me! They understood me better after I explained to them that I am a "freethinker" (apparently a dirty word to them). They brought their religious values to the office and offended my beliefs and the beliefs of others. Religion belongs at home. I made that quite clear to them.



Keep in mind that they are allowed to express their displeasure at your "god" remarks, just as you feel it is your right to express your displeasure at their displeasure. Er....I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this...  

NOW, if your workplace implemented a policy which prohibited you from making said "god" comments so as not to offend your Muslim co-workers, I could see *that* as problematic.


----------



## Shadowolf (25 Mar 2008)

First they went for Israel, and I said 'Its a middle east issue'.  Then they stabbed Van Gogh and I said 'He provoked them'.  Now they are coming for me...... 

Seriously, the biggest issue I have with Islam is its intolerance to free thought, free speech.  As I understand the Koran, it banned pictures of Allah as it doesn't want anything caricature to become an item of worship.  I do not believe that dutch cartoons fall under this issue, and people not of the Islamic faith are not in danger of worshiping pictures of Allah.  It is just another case of someone in a position of power rabblerousing the sheeple into a state of fear/anger, therefore giving themselves more power.  This is something political figures have done since the beginning of time.  Educating the masses into being able to think freely for themselves is the only real way to combat these issues.   


Edit:  Speeling


----------



## Celticgirl (25 Mar 2008)

I agree with the right to free speech. However, I had a problem with this:


> Mr Van Gogh's film Submission included verses from the Koran shown against a naked female body.



This is more than exercising the right to free speech; it is an attempt to provoke and incite rage from the world's Muslims. It's hate mongering, and I feel it is wrong. Mr. Van Gogh simply went too far. He should not have been killed for it, but certainly he should have been told by someone with some sense that this is a provocation and he should make some amendments.

People need to remember that even here in Canada, freedom of speech has its limits. You cannot, for example, threaten to kill your neighbour. We have to respect the rights of others. We should not incite hatred with our 'free speech' or instill fear in individuals or groups. We should treat others with the same respect that we would like to receive (a.k.a. "the golden rule"). 

As for the Danish cartoon, my Turkish students were in a rage over it. My Saudi students barely flinched. So it could be said that some Muslims had a problem with it, but not all. The ones who did have a problem...well, I'm not Muslim myself, but I kind of see their point. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't have run, and I am glad I was not the editor of that publication because that would not be an easy decision to make (and ultimately "free speech" would likely reign in any case). I'm just saying that I *can * see what the fuss was all about.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> I agree with the right to free speech. However, I had a problem with this:
> This is more than exercising the right to free speech; it is an attempt to provoke and incite rage from the world's Muslims. It's hate mongering, and ...



And that is precisely why it needs defending. The namby-pamby speech that doesn't incite rage doesn't need protecting; no one is trying to shut it down.

There's nothing wrong with hate. It may not be pleasant or useful but it's not wrong, in and of itself, and inciting hatred ought to be an antisocial act, not a crime.

Inciting violence is something else again; that is, rightfully, a crime.

Theo Van Gogh was shouting out his dismay at the actions of Muslims; he had a perfect right to do that. Equally, Ernst Zundel should have been countered with facts and humour, not police and courts. He may be a walking septic tank but unless and until he advocated violence he should have been left alone, in his sewer.

It is not established faiths we need to protect it is the kooks and crazies and, especially, the artists who are trying to provoke the strongest possible emotions - short of inciting violence.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Mar 2008)

When I saw the news clip on TV the first thing that went through my mind was "Buddy, you are going to get whacked by some friggin nutjob for this."  I hope his family has a good insurance policy out on him, they are going to need it in the long run I bet.


----------



## Celticgirl (25 Mar 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And that is precisely why it needs defending. The namby-pamby speech that doesn't incite rage doesn't need protecting; no one is trying to shut it down.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with hate. It may not be pleasant or useful but it's not wrong, in and of itself, and inciting hatred ought to be an antisocial act, not a crime.



With this logic, I could call your wife a bunch of nasty names because I have every right to do so with this whole free speech concept. Perhaps I should insult everyone I see because I have the right to do so - why not exercise it?  

I'm not saying what Van Gogh did was a crime, I am saying it was wrong. He was provoking them; he was itching for a fight. He found the surest way to raise their ire and used it. Feel free to disagree with me (as is your right). This is only my opinion. I am actually very much in the middle of the road on this issue. However, I can see both sides and for the Muslim side, I think their outrage was justified, although their actions NOT. Similarly, after I just insulted your wife and called her everything but a white man, you would be justified in your outrage, but not in assaulting or killing me.


----------



## Richie (25 Mar 2008)

the_midge said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that they are allowed to express their displeasure at your "god" remarks, just as you feel it is your right to express your displeasure at their displeasure. Er....I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this...
> 
> NOW, if your workplace implemented a policy which prohibited you from making said "god" comments so as not to offend your Muslim co-workers, I could see *that* as problematic.



Absolutely! We can all express our displeasure at each others' displeasure without measure at our leisure; that's Free Speech.   

Problem was, they didn't see it that way. The muslims at my former employer (this was about three years ago) _did_ act like a group and it seemed to be because they felt that they had reached a critical mass needed to start "educating" non-muslims on the proper use of the word "god". I suspect that the CAIR booklets that most of them seemed to have at their desks contained instructions on how to deal with kafirs in the workplace.

My former workplace did not _need_ to implement a policy to prevent the rest of us from making comments considered offensive by the muslims; the muslims instituted the policy themselves. I don't like people who wear their religion on their sleeve and I was a tad annoyed. Silly me, they just wanted to reeducate me ("we need a new kafir, this one's broken, he's thinking for himself!").

Perhaps the idea of my former muslim co-workers reaching critical mass and them dictating to non-muslims _could_ be seen as a microcosm of Western society as a whole. Now isn't that a silly thought, was I thinking out loud again?   :


----------



## Richie (25 Mar 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> I agree with the right to free speech. However, I had a problem with this:
> This is more than exercising the right to free speech; it is an attempt to provoke and incite rage from the world's Muslims. It's hate mongering, and I feel it is wrong. Mr. Van Gogh simply went too far. He should not have been killed for it, but certainly he should have been told by someone with some sense that this is a provocation and he should make some amendments.



So now we allow the muslims to dictate how far we are allowed to go. Fine. How will they define "too far"? Where will they draw the line? Will the line move as muslims increase in number in the Netherlands? Free Speech is just what it says; you do _not_ respond to Free Speech with mob violence and murder. Why didn't the muslim assassin who killed van Gogh simply make his own movie? Write his own book? Make his own speeches?




> We should treat others with the same respect that we would like to receive (a.k.a. "the golden rule").



Could you perhaps go to my former employer's office and remind my former muslim coworkers of "the golden rule"? Darn, I keep forgetting about the double standards that are built in to multiculturalism.


----------



## Richie (25 Mar 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> With this logic, I could call your wife a bunch of nasty names because I have every right to do so with this whole free speech concept. Perhaps I should insult everyone I see because I have the right to do so - why not exercise it?



Yes, of course, this whole "free speech concept" is nonsense; let's just scrap it and go back in time a thousand years.  :  If you want to insult everyone you see, go ahead, that's your right. It's also the right of the people you've insulted to insult you in return; if they punch you, stab you, shoot you or leave an explosives-leaden vehicle parked in front of your house, they've stepped over the line.


----------



## Celticgirl (26 Mar 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> Yes, of course, this whole "free speech concept" is nonsense; let's just scrap it and go back in time a thousand years.  :  If you want to insult everyone you see, go ahead, that's your right. It's also the right of the people you've insulted to insult you in return; if they punch you, stab you, shoot you or leave an explosives-leaden vehicle parked in front of your house, they've stepped over the line.



I think people 'step over the line' when they stop being civil and/or stop respecting others. There's a lot of it happening in the world, regardless of race, culture, or nationality. No one is advocating the 'scrapping' of free speech. Please.


----------



## Celticgirl (26 Mar 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> So now we allow the muslims to dictate how far we are allowed to go. Fine. How will they define "too far"? Where will they draw the line? Will the line move as muslims increase in number in the Netherlands? Free Speech is just what it says; you do _not_ respond to Free Speech with mob violence and murder. Why didn't the muslim assassin who killed van Gogh simply make his own movie? Write his own book? Make his own speeches?



I agree with you. Why not take that action instead of the most violent one? I can't answer that. I'm not taking sides here, just playing the devil's advocate on a one-sided argument. I'm not condoning what happened to Van Gogh at all. Two wrongs don't make a right, and one of those wrongs was far worse than the other (murder). Don't assume I'm defending the murderer(s). I am not.



			
				Richie said:
			
		

> Could you perhaps go to my former employer's office and remind my former muslim coworkers of "the golden rule"? Darn, I keep forgetting about the double standards that are built in to multiculturalism.



Why don't _you_ remind them? You work with them, not me.


----------



## Shadowolf (26 Mar 2008)

Not being civil is not a wrong on comparison to a stabbing.   Talk to any New Yorker, and they will tell you its a unalienable right to be able to not be civil.  Indeed, us arguing about how we should be 'civil' while the other side is killing nuns in africa because of cartoons is ridiculous.  I do have the right to call someone a nasty name, and they do have the right to insult me right back.   A 'civil' conversation is just wrapping the information you are trying to convey in politically correct terms.  An idiot is no less an idiot because you called him mildly mentally challenged instead.  Freedom of speech is the base of our society.   Freedom of speech gives us the ability to openly discuss politics and religion without worry of reprisal, without this we are not much more than slaves to the person(s) who tell us what to believe on any given day.  Celticgirl, it is my right to say that you are wrong in 'taking the middle of the road' on this issue, and so are the people who choose violence over discussion every time.  One is almost as bad as the other.  "All it takes for evil to win is for good people to stand aside and do nothing' - Someone famous.   If we do not support freedom of speech every chance we get, one day we will wake up and find it gone.


----------



## midgetcop (26 Mar 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> My former workplace did not _need_ to implement a policy to prevent the rest of us from making comments considered offensive by the muslims; the muslims instituted the policy themselves. I don't like people who wear their religion on their sleeve and I was a tad annoyed. Silly me, they just wanted to reeducate me ("we need a new kafir, this one's broken, he's thinking for himself!").



Trust me, I'd be pretty annoyed if I were in your situation as well. I don't want *anyone* pushing their beliefs on me, whether they're Muslim, Christian....Vegetarian. But mby your own admission, other than being a 'tad annoyed', I don't see what all the fuss is about. You have the right to ignore annoying co-workers just like everyone else. And unless you're terminated, disciplined, or unless management puts new policy in place (rules of decorum that favour Muslims), then all you're doing is ranting about some Muslims you know and using them as a way to generalize about all of them. I've worked with many Muslims over the years, and never once did they try and push their beliefs on me. 

Death threats, physical violence, terrorism, crying 'foul!' to government groups at every affront to their sensibilities...these are things we *should* be concerned with.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (26 Mar 2008)

the_midge said:
			
		

> Death threats, physical violence, terrorism, crying 'foul!' to government groups at every affront to their sensibilities...these are things we *should* be concerned with.



Reminds me of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Whatever happenend to him?


----------



## midgetcop (26 Mar 2008)

He got eaten by the wolf..?

 ;D


----------



## Celticgirl (26 Mar 2008)

Shadowolf said:
			
		

> Celticgirl, it is my right to say that you are wrong in 'taking the middle of the road' on this issue, and so are the people who choose violence over discussion every time.  One is almost as bad as the other.  "All it takes for evil to win is for good people to stand aside and do nothing' - Someone famous.   If we do not support freedom of speech every chance we get, one day we will wake up and find it gone.



How do you feel about O.J. Simpson writing a tell-all book about the murder of his ex-wife and her friend ("If I Did It")? He was exercising his right to free speech in writing it. He was also planning to profit from the sensationalistic nature of his creation, as was Mr. Van Gogh. Just because you can say or do something, doesn't mean you should. 

I do support freedom of speech, but not as an absolute. Do we have absolute freedom to say anything on this website? No, we don't. There are moderators. You can have your posts locked, your words removed or edited, and your username banned if you don't stay in your proverbial lane. Similar forms of censorship exist in other venues. Some movies are kept out of the theatres. Some books are kept out of schools and libraries. And so on and so forth. 

I had a Kuwaiti student once try to show me a video of a Westerner being beheaded in Iraq or somewhere on his computer. I walked away and eventually turned off his computer when he persisted in trying to get me to view it. He knew I was going to be offended and disgusted. That was his purpose. He knew that this would be a good way to 'push my buttons'. Just as Van Gogh knew that putting the verses of the Koran on the background of a naked woman would offend and disgust many Muslims and push their buttons. 

(It should be noted, though, that I did not kill my student.  ;D)


----------



## Shadowolf (26 Mar 2008)

Celticgirl,
Just because you shouldn't do it, doesnt mean someone should say you can't.   How do I feel about O.J. Simpson's book?  He can write all he wants, i am not going to buy it.   People push each others buttons, thats life.  Someone picking his/her nose in public pushes my buttons.  Doesnt mean he/she should be banned from doing it.   I also fully disagree with the fact of banning movies and books, so on and so forth.  We are not that far away from the days of book burning, which I believe is always a horrendous mistake.  I disagree with Mein Kamph, but it shouldnt be banned.  Since time began, some people have tried to hide/destroy knowledge that goes against their beliefs.  How many scientists were called heretics for disagreeing with the church?  Who are you to say that Mr. Van Gogh is wrong for his publishing?  I believe that everyone has the freedom to worship/speak as they believe, so long as they allow everyone else the same courtesy.  

I will no longer reply to this thread as this issue 'pushes my buttons'.   But I do look forward to further posts from yourself, Celticgirl.


----------



## NL_engineer (26 Mar 2008)

Shadowolf said:
			
		

> Not being civil is not a wrong on comparison to a stabbing.   Talk to any New Yorker, and they will tell you its a unalienable right to be able to not be civil.  Indeed, us arguing about how we should be 'civil' while the other side is killing nuns in africa because of cartoons is ridiculous.  I do have the right to call someone a nasty name, and they do have the right to insult me right back.   A 'civil' conversation is just wrapping the information you are trying to convey in politically correct terms.  An idiot is no less an idiot because you called him mildly mentally challenged instead.  Freedom of speech is the base of our society.   Freedom of speech gives us the ability to openly discuss politics and religion without worry of reprisal, without this we are not much more than slaves to the person(s) who tell us what to believe on any given day.



Well said

What really pisses me off, is that said people think there is a duel standard, ie: they can insult Christianity, but you are not allowed to insult Islam.  I have no problem with Muslims as a people, just the select few who think there religion is supreme, and to them:



> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> 
> a) freedom of conscience and religion;
> b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
> ...



Well if you don't like it get the **** out of my country, because we all have equal rights, and just because you have a different religion doesn't make it the better one!

just my 2 cents

BTW can someone explain this to me:  If Islam is a peace full religion, why do they kill each other for suni ot shia? _ (don't give me the Protestant Catholic answer, as Christianity has never been a peaceful religion nor claims to be)_


----------



## Celticgirl (26 Mar 2008)

Shadowolf said:
			
		

> Celticgirl,
> Just because you shouldn't do it, doesnt mean someone should say you can't.



Tell that to my daughter.  



			
				Shadowolf said:
			
		

> I will no longer reply to this thread as this issue 'pushes my buttons'.   But I do look forward to further posts from yourself, Celticgirl.



Likewise. Before I depart, though, I just wanted to clarify that where I think Van Gogh was wrong was in his choice to put the verses of the Koran on the background of a naked female, not in the publication itself. I think he was "wrong" (my opinion only) because it was a clear attempt at provocation, and not just someone exercising his freedom of speech. And with that, I will go finish my Timmie's and roll up my rim. If it says "Matrix", I won't be back for a while.   8)


----------



## Hibbsie (26 Mar 2008)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> I really like that quote, what did you mean by attributed to Voltaire? Did he say that? (sorry im a bit english dumb)



That quote is from Evelyn Hall's " Friends of Voltaire". It was used to sum up his beliefs, but is not actually said by Voltaire himself.


----------



## Richie (26 Mar 2008)

the_midge said:
			
		

> Trust me, I'd be pretty annoyed if I were in your situation as well. I don't want *anyone* pushing their beliefs on me, whether they're Muslim, Christian....Vegetarian. But mby your own admission, other than being a 'tad annoyed', I don't see what all the fuss is about. You have the right to ignore annoying co-workers just like everyone else. And unless you're terminated, disciplined, or unless management puts new policy in place (rules of decorum that favour Muslims), then all you're doing is ranting about some Muslims you know and using them as a way to generalize about all of them. I've worked with many Muslims over the years, and never once did they try and push their beliefs on me.
> 
> Death threats, physical violence, terrorism, crying 'foul!' to government groups at every affront to their sensibilities...these are things we *should* be
> concerned with.



I agree with the last sentence in your post and I _am_ concerned when film makers, authors and journalists feel threatened. That's what this thread started about.

To continue my rant: at my former workplace, I did ignore the situation for as long as I could (quite a while, I'm a patient man). However it seemed to me that when my employer had set aside interview rooms as muslim prayer rooms and my co-workers were being told by muslim co-workers not to call a new piece of s/w "god", things were getting out of hand. I wonder what would have happened if I had gone to my employer and said that I needed to use one of the prayer rooms a few times each day to pray to yesterday's piece of stale pizza as required by my religion. How would the muslims have reacted? With understanding, of course.  :

Maybe the muslims you worked with were in muslim countries? If so, they would have known that they were "in charge" and felt no overwhelming urge to discuss religion with you. The muslims at my former workplace had the look of a group who knew that they had just achieved enough members so that they could start affecting change on _our_ work environment. Maybe you don't see what all the fuss was in that, but I sure as hell did! The muslim workers at that office kept to themselves, seemed to have their own hierarchy within that group and were using their power _as_ a group to push their ideas on others. This makes them bullies and I don't like bullies. I stood up for my rights as I was a "tad annoyed"; I'm funny that way.

I stand by my original assertion: Free Speech is an absolute, without it we can kiss Western civilization good-bye.


----------



## Richie (26 Mar 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Why don't _you_ remind them? You work with them, not me.



As I had stated in earlier posts, this is a _former_ employer of mine. 

I've exhausted all I want to say on this thread. Thanks for the debate, folks. I have not changed my position on Free Speech by one iota but it was enlightening to see the differing viewpoints. Perhaps the fact that we could all agree or disagree without resort to ad hominem remarks is the reason I came to this forum in the first place. 

Richie


----------



## Richie (26 Mar 2008)

Archilochus said:
			
		

> That quote is from Evelyn Hall's " Friends of Voltaire". It was used to sum up his beliefs, but is not actually said by Voltaire himself.



I didn't know that, interesting. Thanks!


----------

