All Comments (33)

I couldnt agree with AJ more. No one has the right not to be offended. If we had that right, speech in general would be impossibal, as the most harmless of statments is bound to be found offensive by somone. In fact the right to offend is the only way to engage in debate or show disagreement. It the most importent right we can have. So I support Wilders right to say whatever he likes. No matter how depicable the content of his speech may be. Having established that i feel Wilders has a right to his opinions I will move on to say that his opinions are a walking contradiction. He proposes banning the Koran due to intolerance. But the act of banning literature is intolerant by nature. You cant ban a belief system tolerantly and you cant ride a mantra of free speech as you argue for repressing an entire religion.

"it would seem the artist is.... and should be protectected to wonder and ask"

Under totalitarianism- no individual or institution is autonomous from the all-encompassing ideology. Because they think and wonder- the intellectual and artist are the first to be eliminated..

Don't be naive. Remember who said:

"Nobody kills the village idiot"

Theo Van Gogh

and

“My father's Jewish. My mother's Jewish. I'm Jewish.”

Daniel Pearl

If freedom of expression does not include the right to offend, then there is no freedom of expression. Almost any expression will offend someone. Frankly, if the offended cannot seek legal and peaceful means to express themselves then the offended are the problem.

it would seem in life there would be a legitimate difference beween what a people or society allows and the ways it responds to in the case of artistic expression.. it is i think universally understood that the true artist is often asking questions rather than suppying propaganda or diatribe... they like true scientist are in a quest to illuminate the truth or expose misconception... of coarse all artist have things that are personal to them... but the artist should never be confused with the polititian, or the seekers of power and wealth beyound sane constraints.... i calll these people social preditors..... they prey upon the weak and the poor... and they use every little difference to try to rub a raw wound where they can suck thier blood and misery. this is a mental illness i think. these people should be treated with compassion but not allowed to participate in politics or business or charities because in the end they always have to feed themselves first and last and continuously.... it would seem the artist is.... and should be protectected to wonder and ask... it also should be clear that if some of the political or business intrests that have ulterior agendas and want to profit should be held liable for false or misleading statements enforced by and payed for by the government since it would benifit all by keeping the social preditors from stalking thier prey..and save everyone money and heartache... it might be money well spent... please check 4 truth .. i'm just a dyslexic artist not some fancy diplomatt

Dear Imam,

I am a kafir, and your Quran curses me and mine in every other verse practically. Why do you think Islam has the right to offend the Kafirs, and those like me who do not want to be muslims any longer?

Freedom to speak is meaningless without the freedom to say what is in one's heart and on ones mind even if it is offensive to some.

If the Dutch Government takes the dire step of banning speech; it better ban both sides. The government must also ban any violent preaching against the opponents of Islam. This issue is a two way street. Radicals don't get to have their speech, then turn around and limit others'.

Dan:

"If a Muslim movie producer were to produce a movie denigrating Christianity, the probably response in the west would be "ho-hum"."

They have, and it was. Good question for Jihadist and Feisal Abdul Rauf, though.

Jihadist:

What about Darfur?

Is it all right for Muslims to commit genocide?

You are happy to question others. Can you answer the question above?

Is it all right for Muslims to commit genocide?

How about just learning to live with honest criticism of your religion? Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists seem to be able to tolerate their religions being poked fun at with a kingly disregard. If a Muslim movie producer were to produce a movie denigrating Christianity, the probably response in the west would be "ho-hum". Certianly, hordes of people wouldn't be gathering to burn the Saudi embassy to the ground.

This is the the West; not Arabia, not Malaysia, not Algeria. You can't expect people to self-sensor their opinions on your belief system simply because they make you uncomfortable. I say to you; get your own house in order before you start telling westerners to clean up theirs. Can anyone name a Muslim country where non-Muslims are not discriminated against?

For some reason, Muslims feel they have a right not to be offended. If you're right about the truth of the Qu'ran, why worry so much? I think there's a link between religious believers lack of proof on their claims and their maniacal insistance on the correctness of their beliefs.

Feisal Abdul Rauf:

While we are talking about Islam being offended, what did the dying people of Darfur do to offend Islam?

NATO stopped a genocide against Muslims by Serbs in Kosovo, so why can't The Arab League stop the genocide in Darfur?

That would show the world what is "Right with Islam."

Hello J Thorn,

Thanks for your response.

If you are not an African-American, or Jewish, would you make an African-American or Jewish jokes to your African-American friends or even strangers?

It would seem that an African-American or a Jewish joke is best made by African-Americans and Jews themselves so we can laugh with them instead of at them.

The true test of a sense of humour is the ability to laugh at ourself instead of just at others.

Thanks and regards

"J"

Jesus never said resist not evil you pagen! Why don't you read the Bible for yourself before you even think about something you don't even believe in.Your probaly a muslim anyways.REPENT and Recieve Jesus Christ as your LORD and personal Saviour!!!

JIHADIST types-

"Some of us Muslims do take some works of arts (articles, acts, books, etc) as "fighting words" and reacted back with expressions of their own "fighting words"."

Once again- you show your true colours. May I suggest some of you- muslems should learn tolerance:

Destruction of the Buddha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1MbdQi3D24&NR=1

Anonymous:
In your March 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM you say
“If Islam is religion of peace and it indeed is, why Muslims tend to be so violent?”

Maybe because your religion is not as peaceful as you would like it to be. Check out the following

" Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Qur'an:9:88 "The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with
their wealth and lives in Allah's Cause
Qur'an:9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
Qur'an:9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."
Ishaq:325 "Muslims, fight in Allah's Cause. Stand firm and you will prosper. Help the Prophet, obey him, give him your allegiance, and your religion will be victorious.
Qur'an:8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

There are still a lot more of the same in the following link:
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html
Does that seem peaceful to you?

Jihadist,

While I respect your right to have your own point of view on this, I think you've got things a little wrong.

If a cartoon is considered to be 'fighting words,' but an Iranian President saying that Americans are the scum of the earth, or that we are the Devil himself, does not, then there is a disconnect here.

A cartoon is a cartoon. If you don't like it, fine. You can voice your own opinions on it. But taking to the streets over it just shows a lack of a sense of humor, or at the worst a complete and utter disregard for human life over something trivial.

The Teddy Bear incident was the same thing. It wasn't even the teacher's fault. The students chose the name. But the teacher was actually getting death threats over it. I think you'd be hard pressed to show that naming a teddy bear constitutes 'fighting words.'

And until Muslims stand up and complain over actual fighting words coming from their own leaders, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that a political cartoon is more 'fighting words' than anything coming from their mouths. Yet, the Muslim community seems to stay silent on those issues. And yes, not every Muslim takes to the streets in a riot over a cartoon or a teddy bear, but the fact that I don't see any large-scale protest over actual fighting words from the leaders of their own community shows that this is nothing more than a complete lack of a sense of humor, and nothing else.

Political cartoons from the Western World make fun of the Chinese, North Koreans, Mexicans, Canadians, Russians, Indians, the Swiss, etc., and that isn't seen as xenophobic. But you poke fun at the Muslim world, and all of a sudden you've gone too far.

Fine, you can feel that way, but don't be surprised when the rest of the world just rolls their eyes at you, because most of the civilized world doesn't take a simple political cartoon to these kinds of extremes.

Here in America, I have the full right to walk up to someone, and call them a jerk, or worse. I have the right to offend someone. Now, if they hit me back, they're the ones breaking the law (assault) and they'd probably go to jail over it, because it wasn't justified. It was just a word. Why does this principle not carry over into a large part of the Muslim world? We have freedom of speech, and yes, that translate into our right to poke fun of anyone we see fit to. You can either learn to deal with that, and develop a sense of humor and behave like adults, or you can continue to flip out over something that was in no way akin to 'fighting words.'

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Again there is nothing offensive in the truth. So again the truth about Islam and its many flaws starting with the first four:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

When the Muslims of the world to include yourself finally see the flaws in Islam, then there will be peace. Until then the following famous quote says it all:

"NO ONE IS SAFE UNTIL THE KORAN IS DEFLAWED!!!!!"

Norrie Hoyt : "Fortunately in the U.S. freedom of speech includes the right to offend, as our Supreme Court has frequently held.

Free speech includes hate speech or there is no free speech."

Hello my friend. I am not to sure about this "fighting word" thing in US that would also mean incitement to hatred and such methinks. May have been considered by the Supreme Court.

Some of us Muslims do take some works of arts (articles, acts, books, etc) as "fighting words" and reacted back with expressions of their own "fighting words".

Yes, being flippant on a serious and real gap in communication and cultural divide here.

The Dutch movie was seen by some to to designed to promote a specific view of a specific political leader of a specific political party in the Netherlands, and thus raising questions for some. The Dutch government is aware of this, and hence saying, by their actions, that it is not the Dutch government's official position, or the views of all Dutch people, but the view of one or some.

I won't kid that European Muslims are not highly alert to this sort of politicised thing by some of their politicians in Europe, but are learning to distinguish some.

E.g. the issue of a German opera house director who decided to take one of Mozart's lesser known operas and spiced it up with the heads of Jesus, Moses, Buddha and Muhammad rolling on stage. He said he did so because he is anti-religion. And in the name of art and artistic licence one presume. Never mind what Mozart would have thought.

It was initially fussed up a bit by some German Muslims, and even the German Chancellor made some "freedom of expression" remarks and to stand by it etc.

But it seemingly receive no apparent reactions from the Muslim world in spite being widely discussed in Muslim blogs. Not because of what the German Chancellor said, or that German Muslims themselves step back, but because it became a sort of michievious, unkind and dismissive joke in light of their, er, culture and history in the last hundred years - They are Germans!

Apart from Theo van Goth, the Dutch has had the experience of the murdered Wim Fortyn too, a politician (if I remember and spelled his name correctly). And they are rightly wary.

Preventive and pre-emtive measures indeed. Race and religion are still emotional and divisive issues. Or Mr. Obama would not be making headways as people are also weary of both in the US and want someone to bring all together.

Being a right winger is hazardous. In the west, they hold public office. In the Muslim world, they are terrorists.

Thanks and regards

"J"

"outbreaks of xenophobia"?

This started with an "outbreak of toonphobia" -so let the cartoons themselves tell the story of the whole danish episode, very craftfully composed of real cartoons published during and after the incident

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2VEBE-qX8&NR=1

The article contained the statement, "...the freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend."
How absurd!
Of course freedom of expression includes the right to offend - it's the personal, adult, and civic responsibility of one who feels offended to enforce self-control in the spirit of tolerance for others' ideas. That's what "free speech" MEANS to anyone who truly believes that political liberty is an inalienable right of each human being.
I may not agree with what you say in your political speech, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!

Wilder talks of violence in the Koran; let’s see what he has to say in his 15-minute movie. Today it is widely known that honor killing, stoning women to death, public lashing, cutting off hands, beheading humans, men killing their daughters for suspicious behavior, men killing their daughters for not wearing Islamic clothes, Islamic human bombs, censorship, torture, an insatiable hatred for Jews ALL of this can be very easily traced back to the Koran.

Strange that Muslim writers want to silence Wilders. They really should be working towards the evils in Islam that Wilders talks about.

I really, really hope the Dutch will lead the way and air the movie. If not it surely will come out on the internet and those who want to watch it will.

Muslims you will one day have to face the facts, these questions about your prophet’s character and your religion being “peaceful” will not go away.

SAUDI ARABIA SHOULD ATTACK PERSIA/IRAN just like MU-HAM-MAD's "ABDUL MALIK did in 637 etc.. And expanded all the Way To Afghanistan.

Great work Feisal you and others like you have now demonstrated conclusively that Greet was right to condemn you all for freedom stealing paranoids you are. I hope you are happy. For my money this just brings us one step closer to the day when the choice will have to be made between freedom and kowtowing to the insane forces of people like Osama bin Laden.

Iraq still remains the correct gamble. Either Democracy will eventually serve to pacify Islam as it once did Roman Catholicism or there will come a war between Islam and the West that will make Islam's high water mark outside the gates of Vienna in 1683 seem as innocent as a child's picnic.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0

Ms. GABBY is Correct.

Them Islamic Sharia Nations SCENSOR OUR RELIGION , with Prison & other corporal Punishment, and so WHY do they get respect here & there!

They should Have All Musloms in Europe & America , for Example, and Pat a Special ISLAMIC TAX so we could use it to Off-Set Their Terrorist Exportation & Islamic Nut Pretex's.... Yada Yada!

The zionists, misleading and perverting the innocent Christians — to some extent even taking over Christianity — have manipulated the West to launch the “Clash of civilisation”, meaning war on Islam, China and the Black Africa. To set right the global order and restore peace in the Middle East there is no way-out except to cut the zionist Israel to size.

Mr. Rauf: which xenophobic behavior are you saying should be counteracted with fervor - the behavior of the bigots who stereotype people of the Islamic faith and their prophets, or the bigots who react to one author's work by condemning an entire nation, and the entire non-Islamic west, to death? You should be referring to both, as both are caused and fueled by ignorant xenophobia, and both are equally destructive of the lives they hurt. Your bias seems to be showing here.

You also forgot to demonstrate how the ignorance of the British teacher in the Sudan was more xenophobic - and more dangerous - than the reaction of all the people in the Sudan and elsewhere calling for her execution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlV-6-FihFg

Kill The KAFFIR! Kill The Non-MuslomS! HATWE HATE HATE THEM KUFFURS.......!

"The Netherlands now know that outbreaks of xenophobia must be treated as any other pandemic threatening a population."

It is pathetic that freedom of speech is suppressed because the Muslims have an uprising every time some says anything they perceive as derogatory. If Muslims censor free speech in their own countries, so be it. But to censor other countries is not acceptable.

Is it really matter of freedom of opinion or something else, which is not spelt out? If one examines things closely it will become obvious that there is much more than freedom of press or even freedom of conscience. It is a multi layered and multi-causal phenomenon. It would be really simplistic to reduce it to freedom of press though it might appear to be so. We would like to throw some light on this.

One cannot deny that throughout western world there is tension between westerners and Muslims. In every European country Muslims are seen as not only outsiders but also as a menace, a threat, to their values and their culture. In many countries this tension is quite palpable and in some countries it remains subdued. The fact is that for Western world pluralism is a very new phenomenon and they are finding it very hard to digest it. Their democracy has been monolingual, mono-religious and mono-cultural.

As far as political democracy is concerned it is well established but freedom of opinion and differences of opinion are confined merely to political sphere and within the frame- work of mono-religious and mono-cultural situation. For Asians, on the other hand, pluralism has been the way of life. They have lived and co-existed with different religions harmoniously. Even in the absence of political democracy tolerance towards other religions and cultures has been their way of life. We do not find bloodshed in Asian countries between followers of different religions throughout medieval ages.

In the West, on the other hand, though there has been political democracy and tolerance for political differences, its record on religious and cultural tolerance has not been very glorious. Since political democracy demands tolerance and freedom of opinion, they tried to apply it to religious and cultural field too but I am afraid, not with very great success. Below the skin they remain mono-religious and mono-cultural.

There is one more dimension to this problem. West has never been very comfortable with Islam and Muslims. It was always seen as a religion of the alien, and hostile alien, at that. France with all its democratic and secular values interpreted secularism within a very narrow French framework it became very uncomfortable with hijab worn by school girls and at last the Central Government banned it. How the hijab worn by schoolgirls could be a threat to French secularism, we fail to understand.

In fact hijab was only a symbol. Behind it they saw Islam as a threat. In all European countries, Muslims are recent migrants and are perceived as double threat – as migrant and as Muslim. All migrants make natives uncomfortable and more so if they belong to a religion or culture perceived to be hostile. Prof. Huntington of Harvard had given vent to the western feelings when he wrote Clash of Civilizations.

Western countries were compelled to allow Asian and African migrants as they were experiencing acute shortage of human-power after Second World War but once migration reached saturation point and economic downturn began tensions began to surface and in many countries racial riots broke out.

There is yet another factor: these Asian and African migrants soon realised they are condemned to remain on margins of western society. They do not get opportunities for better and well paid jobs and their children, out of frustration, take to drug or crime or to violence further reinforcing the images of violent outsider. The rejection becomes more intense leading to more tensions. Recent disturbances in France, which continued for several months between the police and young Africans, proves the point.

Since there is so much hostility between Western Christians and migrant Muslims, it erupts in different ways. The recent cartoons and caricature of the Prophet should also be seen in this light. The events of 9/11 have only aggravated the whole situation. Be it Salman Rushdie affair or the cartoons published in the Newspaper of Denmark, it is part of same phenomenon. Deep prejudices against Islam and Muslims spring up in different forms and are defended in the name of press freedom.

Many Western leaders like Bush and Kofi Annan have admitted that one cannot disregard religious sensibilities in the name of freedom of opinion. I need not say that freedom of opinion cannot be absolute as many Westerners maintain. One cannot defend right to abuse others or caricature founders of religion in the name of freedom of press or freedom of opinion.

One can concede that west is much more secularised and Muslim world is not. Let us not forget that West has taken more than three centuries to secularise and this process of modernisation and secularisation has begun only in last few decades. Cultural differences are there but these differences should not be depicted as hostile resulting in clashes. Muslim world is still far behind in the field of science and technology. As pointed out above when west with all its progress has not been able to shed its prejudices and hostile perceptions, how can one expect it from the Islamic world?

The Muslim intelligentsia also needs to cultivate more tolerance. Well one has right to protest but right to protest should also be exercised peacefully. As there are some limitations to right to freedom of press, there are certain well-defined limitations to right to protest in democracy. The Muslim intelligentsia and leaders should reflect deeply as to why their demonstrations tend to be violent? Are they not playing in the hands of those leaders who have their political agenda?

If Islam is religion of peace and it indeed is, why Muslims tend to be so violent? Let us realise that no one can live in this multi-religious world on ones own terms. It was not becoming for Muslims to tear flags of Denmark or set to fire their embassies or become so violent while demonstrating that police be compelled to fire and kill demonstrators. This leads to more fury and more violence.

A silent and peaceful demonstration is far more telling than a violent one. Since these demonstrations are on religious issue the demonstrations should also be with religious dignity and religious values. Violence serves the purpose either of some anti social elements or of some politicians who want cheap publicity. Some politicians may be wanting to seize this opportunity to have show down with western countries but common Muslims should exercise restraint and dignity.

According to the Qur’an, a believer is one who restrains his anger and pardons (see 3:133). What kind of believers are we that we always talk of killing and punishing rather than restraining and pardoning. It hardly brings any glory to Islam and Muslims. We become even more fanatics and intolerant in their eyes. Also Qur’an lays great emphasis on wisdom and says that “whoever is given wisdom, he indeed is given great good” (2:269)

How can the facts of history be offensive???

The facts:

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/ hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" aka "pretty wingie thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

These facts should be posted on the walls of every mosque in every country of the world and should be followed by "pink slipping" of every imam and cleric for preaching falsehoods for the last 1400 years.

We must be tender of Muslim sensibilities, because we know they can be expected to riot and commit murder if they are offended in the slightest way

I do not share the anti-Muslim bigotry of Wilders, but freedom of expression DOES mean the right to offend. That's why it's called freedom. I reject even the concept of restrictions on freedom of expression, especially to protect someone's or some group's feelings. Without the right to offend, there is no freedom of expression.

'At the highest levels of government, the preemptive media response was palpable and powerful. The Dutch Foreign Minister stood by the right to free speech while putting reasonable parameters on the proviso, saying "freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend".'

Fortunately in the U.S. freedom of speech includes the right to offend, as our Supreme Court has frequently held.

Free speech includes hate speech or there is no free speech.

Once again, a European country has sold out Western values in hopes of placating implacable Islam.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Letter from the Pennsylvania Legislature to the Governor, November 11, 1755.