ddt
Mafia Penguin
What happened to Mr. Fortuyn again?
He was murdered by an animal-rights activist. What has that to do with the discussion at hand?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Wilders' movie "Fitna" released
- Thread starter mrbaracuda
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fitna
He was murdered by an animal-rights activist. What has that to do with the discussion at hand?
mrbaracuda
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,797
mrbaracuda
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,797
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Yes, really. See wiki if you don't believe me
(but spell the name right: Fortuyn, otherwise you have a hard time finding it). Contrary to the impression the quote from Salah Edin might give, Fortuyn was not a single-minded muslim-basher. Incidentally, tonight I came across a discussion of him where he said so much as that the Dutch muslim population was secularizing at a big pace.He was outspoken about the big numbers of allochtones in general and the integration problems this posed. Of course, he referred to the biggest segment of those, the Germans -- they have proven to be a fifth column once before.
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 17,396
What question? If I air the Nazi Anti-Jew propaganda from the thirties in Jerusalem - claiming that this is the ultimate Truth about the jewish people, should I be surprised to get killed one day?
And if not: Does that mean that all jewish people are "teh evil of teh century"?
Of course not.
Also: The film[?] distorts the reality as much as the Nazi propaganda against the Jews. Now if the "Documentary" is appealing to you nevertheless, you may guess what this tells us about you.
Your ADD is acting up again? This thread isn't very long, it should be fairly easy for you to track our conversation back a few posts.
I wouldn't know. But you seem to say that this person's life is in danger, so by the same token you seem to agree that there are extreme elements within Islam who want him dead, which is kind of the point I think he's trying to make.If I air the Nazi Anti-Jew propaganda from the thirties in Jerusalem - claiming that this is the ultimate Truth about the jewish people, should I be surprised to get killed one day?
Yes, of course not, but is the movie saying all Muslims are evil?
I never said I condoned the movie, I just commented on your rather contradictory statements about it.Also: The film[?] distorts the reality as much as the Nazi propaganda against the Jews. Now if the "Documentary" is appealing to you nevertheless, you may guess what this tells us about you.
What exactly are you suggesting?
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
After all the discussion about Wilders' movie, not only here but the last two full nights on Dutch TV and all the speculation leading up to the movie, I think I have to chip in my two cents too how I feel about the movie.
I find the movie very disappointing. The quality is very low, I think we can all agree on that. A news show editor stated on TV that one of his colleagues could assemble this in one afternoon. But also, much of the material is wrong, inaccurate or misleading. Apart from earlier comments on this: Some of the Quran quotes have been ripped out of their immediate context. A Dutch muslim produced an anti-movie as a commentary on Wilders' movie. He mentions there, a.o., that of the imams shown spreading hate speech, two are serving long sentences in the US and in the UK, and a third was a Saddam mouthpiece and he held his speech in the uptake to the Iraq war.
But the first part of the movie is really old news, in a sense. We know islamic extremism exists, and it is a risk of life, just as taking part in traffic is. Everyone condemns it, muslims and non-muslims alike, except for a tiny fringe of the muslim community. The whole political spectrum agrees it has to be fought, and the police and the intelligence service AIVD monitor it vigilantly. Judges give harsh sentences: Theo van Gogh's murderer was convicted to life imprisonment (without parole), and just last week two other friends of Samir Azzouz were sentenced to 3 years for initially conspiring with him - where the DA had only asked for 1 year because they had given testimony in another case.
To put the threat of islamic extremism in proportion: more people have died in the Netherlands due to not inoculating, which is common amongst protestant fundamentalists.
The second part of the movie depicts his horror scenario how the Netherlands would look like in the future. He first shows a graph with the rise of the amount of muslims in the Netherlands, starting in 1900 - when there was no migration to speak of. That only began in the late 1960s, when the economy was booming and the extra labor was needed. Labor immigration from outside the EU has virtually ceased to exist, and family reunion, or importing a partner, has become extra hard with, e.g., minimum income rules.
The current percentage of muslims is estimated at 5.8%, and the Dutch statistics bureau CBS estimates that this will rise to 8% in 2050. So, the idea that sharia would ever be implemented is only a theoretical exercise. Leading Dutch muslims don't advocate it either; neither Ms. Albayrak, Deputy Justice Minister, or Mr. Aboutaleb, Deputy Social Affairs Minister, who recently proposed to deny welfare to women wearing burqas. Nor does Greens PM Tofik Dibi, who writes in his open letter to Geert Wilders:
I realize not all muslims think like this. I realize all versions of sharia do indeed conflict with western values on the above mentioned points. But I have never heard a Dutch muslim advocate the introduction of the sharia. And indeed, several leading muslims, such as Rotterdam University professor Tariq Ramadan, do advocate a reform of Islam.
In the final part of the movie, Wilders comes with an anti-climax. He calls on the muslims to rip out the offending pages of the Quran. How's that then with his earlier claim that the Quran should be banned? Is that not necessary anymore?
To be frank, I find both claims ludicrous. Christians have not ripped the offending pages out of the Bible that also say that, e.g., gays should be killed; most have just declared them "inoperative". And we can live with them, most of the time. But when hearing a speech of a preacher like John Hagee, I get an equally uneasy feeling as when hearing the imams Wilders shows. And, above all, banning a book is as much an infringement on freedom of expression as censoring Wilders' film is - and as unrealistic, in this internet age.
All in all, Wilders tries to paint all of Islam with a broad brush - the brush of Islamic extremism. After the movie was released, Wilders said in an interview he now wanted to have a debate with muslims. That's just plain disingenious. The movie hasn't added anything of content, only the statement that Wilders thinks all of Islam is extremism, which in fact makes any debate meaningless. Moreover, he had the chance to have a debate all along. He has been an MP for ten years now, of which the last 1.5 year as leader of his own party and 2 years before that as independent. He had the chance to have a debate for years; in fact, all kind of muslim organizations have expressly invited him to do so, but he declined all the time. I don't see this materializing this month, or even this spring or this year.
More seriously, Wilders' way of operating stifles the real, needed, debate on integration: integration of Islam into our society, and the integration of immigrants in general and muslim immigrants in particular into our society. For there are enough challenges with that, which not only have to do with religion, but also simply with a big socio-economic disparity. As far as Wilders has identified problems, he has not yet proposed any solutions to them - or it should be the silent implication that we should throw out all muslims.
Lastly, when discussing this movie, we have to ask ourselves: who the messenger is and what he wants to accomplish?
Wilders' goals are hardly democratic or secular either. He wants to ban the Quran. He wants to abolish article 1 of the constitution, which states freedom of religion, and replace it with one that says that the judeo-christian and humanist traditions are "dominant" (source). He wants to abolish muslim schools - but not protestant or catholic ones. He has said that the Israeli system of "administrative detention" - detention without legal recourse - is a great idea for Holland too.
In his own party, he isn't democratic either. Unprecedented, his Partij voor de Vrijheid ("Freedom Party") has no members but himself. This newspaper article gives the picture: he first founded a foundation, "Stichting Groep Wilders", and together with this foundation, founded the party as an association, the "Vereniging Groep Wilders". Even his fellow MP's are not member of their own party - Wilders is the sole Leader.
With his saying it's five to twelve for turning islamic domination, he's just fearmongering among the disenfranchised parts of the Dutch population to garner votes. If everything he claimed were true, it were more like five past twelve, to quote that famous last-century, moustached, populist Leader. Fortunately, the Dutch population hasn't bought it: in the last poll, Wilders lost two seats. I hope it's five past twelve for Wilders now, and that we can really tackle the problems facing society and solve them. Both politicians and representatives of the Dutch muslim communities said they were brought closer together through this movie release - to end with the only positive note I can think of it.
I find the movie very disappointing. The quality is very low, I think we can all agree on that. A news show editor stated on TV that one of his colleagues could assemble this in one afternoon. But also, much of the material is wrong, inaccurate or misleading. Apart from earlier comments on this: Some of the Quran quotes have been ripped out of their immediate context. A Dutch muslim produced an anti-movie as a commentary on Wilders' movie. He mentions there, a.o., that of the imams shown spreading hate speech, two are serving long sentences in the US and in the UK, and a third was a Saddam mouthpiece and he held his speech in the uptake to the Iraq war.
But the first part of the movie is really old news, in a sense. We know islamic extremism exists, and it is a risk of life, just as taking part in traffic is. Everyone condemns it, muslims and non-muslims alike, except for a tiny fringe of the muslim community. The whole political spectrum agrees it has to be fought, and the police and the intelligence service AIVD monitor it vigilantly. Judges give harsh sentences: Theo van Gogh's murderer was convicted to life imprisonment (without parole), and just last week two other friends of Samir Azzouz were sentenced to 3 years for initially conspiring with him - where the DA had only asked for 1 year because they had given testimony in another case.
To put the threat of islamic extremism in proportion: more people have died in the Netherlands due to not inoculating, which is common amongst protestant fundamentalists.
The second part of the movie depicts his horror scenario how the Netherlands would look like in the future. He first shows a graph with the rise of the amount of muslims in the Netherlands, starting in 1900 - when there was no migration to speak of. That only began in the late 1960s, when the economy was booming and the extra labor was needed. Labor immigration from outside the EU has virtually ceased to exist, and family reunion, or importing a partner, has become extra hard with, e.g., minimum income rules.
The current percentage of muslims is estimated at 5.8%, and the Dutch statistics bureau CBS estimates that this will rise to 8% in 2050. So, the idea that sharia would ever be implemented is only a theoretical exercise. Leading Dutch muslims don't advocate it either; neither Ms. Albayrak, Deputy Justice Minister, or Mr. Aboutaleb, Deputy Social Affairs Minister, who recently proposed to deny welfare to women wearing burqas. Nor does Greens PM Tofik Dibi, who writes in his open letter to Geert Wilders:
I realize not all muslims think like this. I realize all versions of sharia do indeed conflict with western values on the above mentioned points. But I have never heard a Dutch muslim advocate the introduction of the sharia. And indeed, several leading muslims, such as Rotterdam University professor Tariq Ramadan, do advocate a reform of Islam.
In the final part of the movie, Wilders comes with an anti-climax. He calls on the muslims to rip out the offending pages of the Quran. How's that then with his earlier claim that the Quran should be banned? Is that not necessary anymore?
To be frank, I find both claims ludicrous. Christians have not ripped the offending pages out of the Bible that also say that, e.g., gays should be killed; most have just declared them "inoperative". And we can live with them, most of the time. But when hearing a speech of a preacher like John Hagee, I get an equally uneasy feeling as when hearing the imams Wilders shows. And, above all, banning a book is as much an infringement on freedom of expression as censoring Wilders' film is - and as unrealistic, in this internet age.
All in all, Wilders tries to paint all of Islam with a broad brush - the brush of Islamic extremism. After the movie was released, Wilders said in an interview he now wanted to have a debate with muslims. That's just plain disingenious. The movie hasn't added anything of content, only the statement that Wilders thinks all of Islam is extremism, which in fact makes any debate meaningless. Moreover, he had the chance to have a debate all along. He has been an MP for ten years now, of which the last 1.5 year as leader of his own party and 2 years before that as independent. He had the chance to have a debate for years; in fact, all kind of muslim organizations have expressly invited him to do so, but he declined all the time. I don't see this materializing this month, or even this spring or this year.
More seriously, Wilders' way of operating stifles the real, needed, debate on integration: integration of Islam into our society, and the integration of immigrants in general and muslim immigrants in particular into our society. For there are enough challenges with that, which not only have to do with religion, but also simply with a big socio-economic disparity. As far as Wilders has identified problems, he has not yet proposed any solutions to them - or it should be the silent implication that we should throw out all muslims.
Lastly, when discussing this movie, we have to ask ourselves: who the messenger is and what he wants to accomplish?
Wilders' goals are hardly democratic or secular either. He wants to ban the Quran. He wants to abolish article 1 of the constitution, which states freedom of religion, and replace it with one that says that the judeo-christian and humanist traditions are "dominant" (source). He wants to abolish muslim schools - but not protestant or catholic ones. He has said that the Israeli system of "administrative detention" - detention without legal recourse - is a great idea for Holland too.
In his own party, he isn't democratic either. Unprecedented, his Partij voor de Vrijheid ("Freedom Party") has no members but himself. This newspaper article gives the picture: he first founded a foundation, "Stichting Groep Wilders", and together with this foundation, founded the party as an association, the "Vereniging Groep Wilders". Even his fellow MP's are not member of their own party - Wilders is the sole Leader.
With his saying it's five to twelve for turning islamic domination, he's just fearmongering among the disenfranchised parts of the Dutch population to garner votes. If everything he claimed were true, it were more like five past twelve, to quote that famous last-century, moustached, populist Leader. Fortunately, the Dutch population hasn't bought it: in the last poll, Wilders lost two seats. I hope it's five past twelve for Wilders now, and that we can really tackle the problems facing society and solve them. Both politicians and representatives of the Dutch muslim communities said they were brought closer together through this movie release - to end with the only positive note I can think of it.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Article 1 doesn't say that. You may be confused with the US Bill of Rights. Article 1 of the Constitution of the Netherlands is the "anti-discrimination" article (which Fortuyn also railed against) that states the people should be treated equally under equal circumstances, regardless of religion, philosophical views, race, sex, or anything else. Wilders claims that "Islamisation" is a threat to women, homosexuals and Jews, but he himself argues for abolishing their constitutional protection.
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 17,396
Nothing is acting up again - I'm more interested about the UHC-costs issue than this rather lousy attempt by Wilder to cultivate his "Islamophobia".
About the danger aspect: Yes, I wouldn't wonder if he gets killed for his dishonesty when even humor [caricatures] can upset people that much.
It wouldn't be more surprising than a white supremist getting killed in the Bronx for hanging up nooses or getting killed for slaughtering holy cows in India.
Same thing.
Nope, the Movie isn't saying that all Muslims are evil - but it somehow misses to portray a realistic picture. This leads to the conclusion that it wasn't his intention to portray such a picture.
Now even if radical Islam is real - which I never doubted in any way, his well known view of Islam perfectly fits to the way the movie is presented.
On the other - more factual side, he will have a hard time to compare the presented cases as anything that threatens to undermine the dutch democracy. And this despite the fact that already 1,000,000 Muslims live in this country.
Unfortunately, neither Turks nor Moroccans are very famous for their Sharia tirades - most probably thanks to close relations to our western cultures, which - by the way, is the reason why I always prefer diplomacy over some coward high-tech bombings of a third-world country.
I know that there are some anti-muslim and some racistic sentiments among the 80% of dutch people thanks to the fact that 20% of the netherlands population does belong to other ethnic groups, but this is true to nearly every european country or every country with mixed ethnic groups.
The murder of Theo van Gogh surely was a dragic case, but comparing one murder to a population of 1,000,000 dutch muslims is pretty far-fetched in any possible way. On the other Hand, Theo was famous for extra-ordinary controversial statements like "I suspect that Ms. Gans [Jewish historian] gets wet dreams about being ****** by Dr Mengele". Could've cost his life as well - hitting the wrong jewish person. No surprise here either.
Anyway: I don't see how Wilders could make any case against Islam in the Netherlands by mainly focusing on some parts of Islam in third-world societies. The fact is that Islam at least was getting closer to the western way of life - even if I suspect that interference in the Middle-East, especially violent interferences, rather drastically brake or even reverse those developements and therefore play into the hands of radicalism.
All in all, the movie was a cheap shot concerning the reality in the Netherlands and most parts of the Muslim world as well. Maybe he should've make a documentation about the Hofstad Network to make a valid point, I don't know.
So if you ask me - a lot of hot air, despite all the muslim terrorism in Canada.
Thanks Ollie, that's a pretty good and thought out response, I appreciate you taking the time to articulate your thoughts for once instead of throwing strawmen at me.
You're probably right, and as ddt has said earlier, this movie, which I have only seen a couple of minutes of, is probably just meant to stur up trouble.
I also appreciate you recognizing that there is radical islamists out there, even though you're still making jokes about it.
You're probably right, and as ddt has said earlier, this movie, which I have only seen a couple of minutes of, is probably just meant to stur up trouble.
I also appreciate you recognizing that there is radical islamists out there, even though you're still making jokes about it.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Yes, and I think it is a must read. I had no idea just how oppresive Muslim societies could be.
I'll try tomorrow.Your Podcast-Audio, both the download and the embedded Quicktime-audio don't work for me; maybe you can upload this Podcast somewhere like rapidshare?
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
What evidence is questionable? Until I read infidel and started to get more information I had no idea how pervasive this problem is. It's not simply Muslim extremism. People really go out of their way to minimize this problem and I'm not sure I understand why. Is fear of offending so strong that folks won't open their eyes? No one was worrying about red necks when they took on their patriarchal anachronistic views and red necks are tame when it comes to Muslims.
It's ok to criticize religion.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
What is the realistic picture?
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Thanks for the correction; I was just sloppy
Of course, those who think Wilders' case is great, you can donate money
. On this page he asks for money, because the movie "has cost him a lot of money". I wouldn't know why, but what the hell... He also claims thatbut the matter of fact is that his strange party structure does not comply with the Dutch law for party support.
And well, I warned you: you have absolutely no say how he spends the money.
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 17,396
Of course I'm making jokes about making an "elephant out of a mouse", as we use to say over here. The view of Islam as being portrayed in Wilders film seems to be conform to the same view some republicans hold, like those who believe in phrases like Romney's "Islamofascists are the threat of the century".
For me this is a dangerous mindset since it's alienating both sides rather than coming to some productive senses. Nor is it very true in light of europes experiences with the muslim world, especially here in Germany and their close relations to Turkey. And those relations are comparable in the Netherlands as well, despite the opposition Mr. Wilders belongs to.
But to understand that, you should look up how the muslim community will react to the movie itself. I doubt that there will be large demonstrations and crowds of muslims burning down the dutch parliament.
And I disagree with Jsiv's view that Governments shouldn't take a position at all - especially if parts of the countries in question do have large groups of muslim citizens. Quite the opposite: It wouldn't be fair not to adress their citizens.
The realistic picture is that there isn't a threat for any western country to get assimilated by a radical muslim ideology.
Why? - Because most Muslims over here honestly think that those by western societies critizised practices, mindsets, traditions and ideologies are indeed antiquated. Plus they feel comfortable with our western freedoms once they see themselves as accepted and helpful part of the society.
A problem in all western countries is that people may distance themselves from the society they live in - or that people are excluded from the society itself. In this case people may listen to extremist ideologies to find their place within a society that failed to integrate them - which at least partly seems to be the case in the Netherlands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_Netherlands#Housing.2C_education_and_employment
And funny enough, in 2006 Minister of Justice Piet Hein Donner provoked an outcry when he suggested the Netherlands might accept Sharia law in a constitutional manner.
"It is a sure certainty for me: if two thirds of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce Sharia, then this possibility must exist. Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say 'this isn't allowed!".
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
And now we look forward to the next movie
On April 20, another anti-Islam movie will be released in the Netherlands. This time an animation movie, and the producer is Ehsan Jami.
Mr. Jami came as a child of Iranian fugitives to Holland. He didn't have a muslim upbringing, though he makes contradictory statements whether he ever was a muslim. He started studying the Quran after 9/11. He serves as a city councillor for the Labor Party in a The Hague suburb. Last year, he started writing several pieces for Dutch newspapers which were highly critical of Islam: comparing it with Nazism, calling Mohammed a pedophile, etc. Moreover, he came up with the idea of starting a committee for ex-muslims, after the German example. He found a partner to do this in the liberal party. He got beaten up on the street during this period, though protection had already been authorized for him.
However, to top it off he decided to kick off the committee on September 11. Thereupon, his partner decided to quit the project. A group of other ex-muslims openly spoke out against him. Needless to say, after all the commotion, nothing really has been heard of the committee. The only web-presence is from the support committee.
This week, he showed some work in news show Netwerk. He shows a picture featuring Mohammed with an erection, hand in hand with Aisha, on the way to the mosque where he will deflower her. The mosque features a swastika on one of its minarets.
Oh, and did I already mention why he chose the release date of April 20? Because it's Hitler's birthday.
On April 20, another anti-Islam movie will be released in the Netherlands. This time an animation movie, and the producer is Ehsan Jami.
Mr. Jami came as a child of Iranian fugitives to Holland. He didn't have a muslim upbringing, though he makes contradictory statements whether he ever was a muslim. He started studying the Quran after 9/11. He serves as a city councillor for the Labor Party in a The Hague suburb. Last year, he started writing several pieces for Dutch newspapers which were highly critical of Islam: comparing it with Nazism, calling Mohammed a pedophile, etc. Moreover, he came up with the idea of starting a committee for ex-muslims, after the German example. He found a partner to do this in the liberal party. He got beaten up on the street during this period, though protection had already been authorized for him.
However, to top it off he decided to kick off the committee on September 11. Thereupon, his partner decided to quit the project. A group of other ex-muslims openly spoke out against him. Needless to say, after all the commotion, nothing really has been heard of the committee. The only web-presence is from the support committee.
This week, he showed some work in news show Netwerk. He shows a picture featuring Mohammed with an erection, hand in hand with Aisha, on the way to the mosque where he will deflower her. The mosque features a swastika on one of its minarets.
Oh, and did I already mention why he chose the release date of April 20? Because it's Hitler's birthday.
Last edited:
mrbaracuda
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,797
Yes, really. See wiki if you don't believe me
Not fast enough it seems, when you got people like Hirsi Ali, Kurt Westergaard and Wilders living under protection 24/7.
What a dickhead that van der Graaf is.
Hm, interesting though. I didn't remember Fortyun forming his own party and being a right-winger while also being openly gay. My guess is that's a rare breed. Shame.
He was outspoken about the big numbers of allochtones in general and the integration problems this posed. Of course, he referred to the biggest segment of those, the Germans -- they have proven to be a fifth column once before.
Oh my, you are right! But of course! Why haven't I seen it before? It all makes sense now!
And damn your usage of allochtones! Silly Dutch, coming up with new words all the time!