• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Tell Me This Is NOT Official Foreign Policy for The Neth

NoZed Avenger

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Messages
11,286
From here: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2243805,00.html

"Violence fear over Islam film"

The Dutch government is bracing itself for violent protests following the scheduled broadcast this week of a provocative anti-Muslim film by a radical right-wing politician who has threatened to broadcast images of the Koran being torn up and otherwise desecrated.

* * *

Dutch diplomats are already trying to pre-empt international reaction. 'It is difficult to anticipate the content of the film, but freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend,' said Maxime Verhagen, the Foreign Minister, who was in Madrid to attend the Alliance of Civilisations, an international forum aimed at reducing tensions between the Islamic world and the West.


Without getting into everything right off, can someone please tell me the following from other sources:

(1) Is this quote accurate?

(2) If so, does this quote actually represent anything like the official line from the government?


For you old-timers on the board, I realize this isn't nearly as serious as a fringe group from some US religion protesting or threatening boycotts of some failed tv program, but it still seems a bit . . .worrisome, if accurate.
 
For you old-timers on the board, I realize this isn't nearly as serious as a fringe group from some US religion protesting or threatening boycotts of some failed tv program, but it still seems a bit . . .worrisome, if accurate.
I think an official government policy/law that no one has the right to offend someone else is far more worrisome than a boycott by private parties.

In case the quoted bit was sarcasm, nvm.
 
Freedom of expression does indeed include the right to offend. It is the brutish response to being offended that must be tamed in civilized society.

I, a free individual, reserve the right to mercilessly mock you and what you think and believe. If this bothers you, then free speech is working. It is having its intended effect.
 
Freedom of expression does indeed include the right to offend. It is the brutish response to being offended that must be tamed in civilized society.

I, a free individual, reserve the right to mercilessly mock you and what you think and believe. If this bothers you, then free speech is working. It is having its intended effect.
Well said.

We must oppose this strange idea that has crept into the dialogue regarding free speech when it comes to militant religious extremists. Along with words like "Islamophobia," we're letting the enemies of freedom control the discourse. Freedom of speech includes the right to offend, the right to hurt your feelings so badly that you run home crying, and the right to challenge your beliefs to the point that you are kept up at night overcome with doubt.

I don't remember who said it, but I think it applies: "Getting upset and angry when your beliefs are challenged is a sign that you need to have your beliefs challenged."
 
As far as I know Dutch law has a few exceptions to the "freedom of speech" law. Namely you are not allowed to use "hate speech" including discrimination and putting people up to violence based on race, religion, sexual preference, looks etc. Also you are not allowed to use offending language to authorities (judges, police officers etc) or to spread lies/slander. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrijheid_van_meningsuiting

You are allowed to be offensive, use obscenities (no beeping on tv) and you are allowed to be tasteless.

Where exactly the line is crossed between "offending" and "hate speech" is often up for debate.

I can't find a direct quote (i.e did he say something in Dutch and was it translated wrong, or more probably the minister doesn't speak English well enough to explain it correctly). I would assume the quote was about the "hate speech" exception. If not he is wrong about the law.
 
Also troubling is the end of the article:

"During a visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg last week, Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, the Grand Mufti of Syria, said that, were Wilders was seen to tear up or burn a Koran in his film, 'this will simply mean he is inciting wars and bloodshed ... It is the responsibility of the Dutch people to stop him.'"

I think it's rather ridiculous that wars and bloodshed should result from a movie being made that denounces and/or desecrates a book.
 
As far as I know Dutch law has a few exceptions to the "freedom of speech" law. Namely you are not allowed to use "hate speech" including discrimination and putting people up to violence based on race, religion, sexual preference, looks etc. Also you are not allowed to use offending language to authorities (judges, police officers etc) or to spread lies/slander. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrijheid_van_meningsuiting

You are allowed to be offensive, use obscenities (no beeping on tv) and you are allowed to be tasteless.

Where exactly the line is crossed between "offending" and "hate speech" is often up for debate.


That is the bit that worries me. As soon as you put someone in charge of deciding what becomes "hate speech" and give them the authority to stop it, anything might qualify. It isn't whether the definition is good or bad, it is having the authority to make that decision in the first place that starts bothering me.



(oh, and yes, Wildcat, you called it rightly: sarcasm)
 
Is it possible that "the right to offend" was a bit of a mistranslation?

That is possible, and I hope so -- because I (If memory serves) have seen the same type of contention made by some of the Imams making noise at the UN over the limits of freedom of speech (i.e., freedom of speech must give way where it offends religious beliefs).
 
Did the world learn nothing from the Brittish response to a growing European problem just prior to W. Churchill taking the helm of the ship of State?
 
That is the bit that worries me. As soon as you put someone in charge of deciding what becomes "hate speech" and give them the authority to stop it, anything might qualify. It isn't whether the definition is good or bad, it is having the authority to make that decision in the first place that starts bothering me.

From :
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/95-815.pdf

For example, the Court has decided that the First Amendment provides no protection to obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ... where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
The Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full
protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television, and public employees’ speech.

It seems like the US courts are also making decisions as to what is allowed under free speech and what isn't. Do you also disagree with the US interpretation - and exceptions- of free speech?? And that the courts are allowed to make those decisions??
 
From :
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/95-815.pdf

It seems like the US courts are also making decisions as to what is allowed under free speech and what isn't. Do you also disagree with the US interpretation - and exceptions- of free speech?? And that the courts are allowed to make those decisions??


My remarks were limited to "hate speech."

I have not advocated complete "free speech," and I do not think that such a thing is possible. I do believe in trying to limit speech as little as possible. I am not here to defend positions that I have not taken.

I also see the vague nature of "hate speech" and "offending people" to have a potentially more disturbing and lasting effect than, for example, obscenity. It would also appear to have a greater chilling effect. If you wish to defend the regulation of hate speech, feel free. If you feel that there is no difference between your example and hate speech, I am also interested in reading it. If not, it appears that you're going into a different topic and arguing against a position that I have not taken and do not espouse.
 
Also troubling is the end of the article:

"During a visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg last week, Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, the Grand Mufti of Syria, said that, were Wilders was seen to tear up or burn a Koran in his film, 'this will simply mean he is inciting wars and bloodshed ... It is the responsibility of the Dutch people to stop him.'"

I think it's rather ridiculous that wars and bloodshed should result from a movie being made that denounces and/or desecrates a book.
Without getting into everything right off, can someone please tell me the following from other sources:

(1) Is this quote accurate?
I haven't been able to ascertain that either, sorry. I guess it's a mistranslation or a poor expression by the Dutch FM.

NoZed said:
(2) If so, does this quote actually represent anything like the official line from the government?
It is not up to the government, of course, to prosecute anyone; that's up to the DA. The government worries, of course, for the atmosphere that is building up.

NoZed said:
For you old-timers on the board, I realize this isn't nearly as serious as a fringe group from some US religion protesting or threatening boycotts of some failed tv program, but it still seems a bit . . .worrisome, if accurate.
The whole situation is quite serious, at least in the Netherlands -- a country, normally known for its tolerance. On the one hand, we have some 5% muslim immigrants - who are, for the most part, of course no extremists. On the other hand there is Geert Wilders, who broke away from the conservative party and ran with his own list November 2006, garnering 6% of the vote.

At every occasion, Wilders attacks the Islam and calls the Quran a violent and hateful book. It's his only issue. He didn't even bother to do a decent discussion on the state budget in parliament.

A week ago, an advertisement appeared in the major newspapers, on the initiative of a former christian trade unionist, against Wilders' intolerance. Just tonight, he described this in a TV interview as a "fatwah".

As to this film: he has been touting now for months on end that he's going to make this film. Some have even speculated that it's all hot air and that no film is forthcoming. We'll have to see.

That is the bit that worries me. As soon as you put someone in charge of deciding what becomes "hate speech" and give them the authority to stop it, anything might qualify. It isn't whether the definition is good or bad, it is having the authority to make that decision in the first place that starts bothering me.

Someone has to do it; the DA. And in general, he won't prosecute hate speech unless someone files a complaint. And then, he has to convince three judges that the prosecution has a valid case.

I think hate speech for religion has only been prosecuted three times in the 20th C. in the Netherlands. The last case was against Theo van Gogh, renowned for calling muslims "goat ****ers" and for the film "Submission". Earlier in his career, he had written some anti-semitic things, for which he was successfully prosecuted.

The Dutch newspaper NRC has an article stating that the police has received instructions to be lenient with people who want to file complaints, so they have the chance to blow off steam. Then it's still up to the discretion of the DA to prosecute or not.

The reactions of the muslim community thus far are that of moderation.

Policenaut said:
"During a visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg last week, Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, the Grand Mufti of Syria, said that, were Wilders was seen to tear up or burn a Koran in his film, 'this will simply mean he is inciting wars and bloodshed ... It is the responsibility of the Dutch people to stop him.'"
The TV footage in the Netherlands added, that he called upon the Dutch muslims to only verbally criticize or debate Wilders, and to refrain from any kind of violence.

The Turkish muslim association Milli Görüs, according to the same paper NRC, has called on moderation, and that its members don't let themselves provoke by Wilders.

According to the Volkskrant newspaper, the Moroccan muslim council has announced that the day Wilders releases his film, they will have an "Open Day" where all their mosques will be open to the public. They also call on their members to remain calm.

PS. Sorry for the Dutch links; that's what happens when you discuss a Dutch topic. :)
 
Last edited:
PS. Sorry for the Dutch links; that's what happens when you discuss a Dutch topic. :)

Not at all -- I was hoping someone closer to the events might be able to shed some extra light on it. That was exactly what I had wanted. The explanation and extra links were very useful -- although my understanding is extremely limited for the latter.
 
Last edited:
Freedom of expression does indeed include the right to offend. It is the brutish response to being offended that must be tamed in civilized society

For me, freedom of expression is less whether or not we 'assert the right to do as we please' and more how we 'accept responsibility for doing as we ought'

I, a free individual, reserve the right to mercilessly mock you and what you think and believe

Fair enough

If this bothers you, then free speech is working. It is having its intended effect.

So... how do you reconcile exercising your "right to mercilessly mock" with the effects a suicide bombing?



What's Really in the Mind of the Suicide Bomber?
They are not mad


Would you blow yourself up just to "get" 72 virgins? You may not, but others will.

Still, do not think that suicide bombers are mad or somehow mentally affected: they can actually be very rational in their pursuit of the 'benefits' of being part of a strict and close-knit religious organization, as found by Dr David Stevens, of the School of Politics and International Relations, of the University of Nottingham...

<snip/>

...Statistically, then, finding one or two people willing to make such a sacrifice is incredibly rare. However, given the nature of suicide bombing, it only takes one or two...
 
The explanation and extra links were very useful -- although my understanding is extremely limited for the latter.

It's all double Dutch to you, I guess :D I'm sorry I can't provide English links; I think no Dutch newspapers have English editions or English websites.
 
It's all double Dutch to you, I guess :D I'm sorry I can't provide English links; I think no Dutch newspapers have English editions or English websites.


I'm working on it, but I'll admit it's rough sledding. I appreciate the context added by your explanation, though.
 
So... how do you reconcile exercising your "right to mercilessly mock" with the effects a suicide bombing?

I'm not sure I am following what you are saying here. Can you restate your point to be a bit more direct? (It's been a long day)
 
Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.
Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy! I've got to do something!
Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.
Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor.

- Family Guy, "A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas"
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
Beerina said:
If this bothers you, then free speech is working. It is having its intended effect.
So... how do you reconcile exercising your "right to mercilessly mock" with the effects a suicide bombing?
I'm not sure I am following what you are saying here. Can you restate your point to be a bit more direct? (It's been a long day)

My point is that in the RealWorld™ (as opposed to Utopia), rights entail responsibilities, one of which is to balance
  • the 'worth' of enlightening the neighbours via freedom of expression
against
  • the 'cost' of some ('innocent') neighbours being killed by others as a consequence of freely expressed views

Censorship and Ignorance-fueled hatred are intertwined problems

Merciless mocking is rarely (if ever?) an efficient solution
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom