Geert Wilders on Trial for hate speech - closing argument

[icehorse]

Just like if we're talking about gay people and someone said "homophobia", that would "disqualify" them from the conversation, right?

I live in Columbus, Ohio. It's on my profile.

Seriously, you think homophobia and Islamophobia are equally valid concepts? "Islamophobia" is a non-sensical term. Islam is a set of ideas, and disagreeing with ideas is not a phobia.

 

[icehorse]

As anti-secular as other religious groups.

I disagree. Geert Wilders has been living under the threat of assassination of years now. Only one major religion creates such situations.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Seriously, you think homophobia and Islamophobia are equally valid concepts? "Islamophobia" is a non-sensical term. Islam is a set of ideas, and disagreeing with ideas is not a phobia.

Sure they are. Islamophobia is far more than just simple disagreement with Islam. I don't agree with a lot of things in Islam, hence I'm not a Muslim, but I'm not phobic towards Islam. Big difference.

 

[icehorse]

Sure they are. Islamophobia is far more than just simple disagreement with Islam. I don't agree with a lot of things in Islam, hence I'm not a Muslim, but I'm not phobic towards Islam. Big difference.

Perhaps we just have a semantic disagreement with the term. I completely agree that bigotry against Muslims is a real problem. I just don't think Islamophobia is a good term to use for such bigotry. It tends to protect the ideas from scrutiny.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Perhaps we just have a semantic disagreement with the term. I completely agree that bigotry against Muslims is a real problem. I just don't think Islamophobia is a good term to use for such bigotry. It tends to protect the ideas from scrutiny.

I don't see Islam being protected from scrutiny. I debate with Muslims on here, myself. But you have to ask yourself what you're scrutinizing in the first place, the actual religion or a caricature of it?

 

[icehorse]

I don't see Islam being protected from scrutiny. I debate with Muslims on here, myself. But you have to ask yourself what you're scrutinizing in the first place, the actual religion or a caricature of it?

It's quite refreshing to be able to scrutinize religions here on RF - hooray for RF!

But out in "the real world" my experience is that there is a vanishingly small amount of real scrutiny going on. For example, anytime the discussion goes to terrorism, I'd say that that discussion has just side-stepped real scrutiny. How often do you hear people comparing the UNDHR with the Cairo declaration? How often do you hear public debate on comparing actual values? What I see over and over again is obfuscation.

As for the "caricature of it". I have huffed and puffed for years, and religious apologists attempt to block every avenue of scrutiny. Can't assess the scripture. Can't assess the history. Can't assess the success of religious societies. Religion appears to occupy a special spot of being un-assess-able, which is just nonsense.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I disagree. Geert Wilders has been living under the threat of assassination of years now. Only one major religion creates such situations.

What about Christianity? The Ku Klux Klan in America?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

I am sure there are examples of violence and/or terrorism in most religions. It doesn't end or begin with religion, though. Violence is a common human trait. That's why blaming crime and violence on one particular group is problematic. We are natural killers.

 

[Sakeenah]

Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who is openly against the Islamification of the Netherlands and the west in general. At a political rally in 2014 this exchange occurred:



Largely due to this exchange he has been on trial for hate speech and racism. Here is his closing argument:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9404/wilders-trial-closing-statement

Anyone here think Geert should be convicted?

Yes I think he should be prosecuted. I've watched his racist rants on Dutch TV.His goal isn't to create a peaceful and respectful society but a divided and hateful one.

This is the video ( 1:10-1:29)in which he asked the crowd if they wanted more or less morrocans. He didn't say less criminal moroccans and illegal moroccans immigrants. The people start clapping and start shouting less. At the end he said with a smile we'll take care of that,and the people start cheering and laughing.

A week before this while visiting a market in the hague he said he was hoping the city would become a city with less burdens and if it's possible less moroccans. Again he didn't say less criminal and illegal moroccans.
Source http://www.volkskrant.nl/politiek/-...haat-en-discriminatie-en-belediging~a4259336/ ( Dutch)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's quite refreshing to be able to scrutinize religions here on RF - hooray for RF!

But out in "the real world" my experience is that there is a vanishingly small amount of real scrutiny going on. For example, anytime the discussion goes to terrorism, I'd say that that discussion has just side-stepped real scrutiny. How often do you hear people comparing the UNDHR with the Cairo declaration? How often do you hear public debate on comparing actual values? What I see over and over again is obfuscation.

As for the "caricature of it". I have huffed and puffed for years, and religious apologists attempt to block every avenue of scrutiny. Can't assess the scripture. Can't assess the history. Can't assess the success of religious societies. Religion appears to occupy a special spot of being un-assess-able, which is just nonsense.

I don't see what you're talking about, in my experience. But I don't see much public debate about anything substantial in general. However, there's nothing stopping you from talking about this stuff.

 

[icehorse]

What about Christianity? The Ku Klux Klan in America?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

I am sure there are examples of violence and/or terrorism in most religions. It doesn't end or begin with religion, though. Violence is a common human trait. That's why blaming crime and violence on one particular group is problematic. We are natural killers.

Examples, of course. But there are important statistical differences. There have been something like 20,000 Islamic terrorist attacks in the last 15 years. What are the numbers for the other religions that you mentioned?

 

[icehorse]

I don't see what you're talking about, in my experience. But I don't see much public debate about anything substantial in general. However, there's nothing stopping you from talking about this stuff.

I believe that western media and western politicians largely avoid real scrutiny of religions and especially of Islam. They pay lip service to scrutiny. What would the media have done if they discovered that a government or corporation was guilty of widespread pedophilia? Much more than they did when faced with such an issue due to the Catholic church.

I'm clearly and openly in the anti-theist camp, and so I welcome Wilders. Imperfect as he is, he's attempting to expose some uncomfortable statistical realities.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I believe that western media and western politicians largely avoid real scrutiny of religions and especially of Islam. They pay lip service to scrutiny. What would the media have done if they discovered that a government or corporation was guilty of widespread pedophilia? Much more than they did when faced with such an issue due to the Catholic church.

I'm clearly and openly in the anti-theist camp, and so I welcome Wilders. Imperfect as he is, he's attempting to expose some uncomfortable statistical realities.

I think anti-theism is just as ridiculous as any other binary/dualist ways of thinking. It's just more reactionary nonsense, imo. I don't see Islam getting a pass, especially in the US. I think Christianity definitely gets a huge pass in our culture, but Islam is often held as suspect or outright demonized.

 

[Notanumber]

Pat nails it again!

Is he a modern day prophet?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I don't know that that was his intention. Do you have a citation for that? (This is sincere.)

I'm sorry, I got a bit carried away with your hypotheical scenario. I'm not sure that Wilders wants Moroccans deported specifically so he can deny them due process. I don't even know if 'Moroccans are x times more likely to commit crimes than native Dutch' is one of his arguments but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

My point is that he is stereotyping a whole group and not just criminal elements of that group. I've got a Yahoo link to some of the prosecution has been saying in its arguments if you're interested?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is he a modern day prophet?

Sure, if prophets are morons with YouTube channels.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Just like if we're talking about gay people and someone said "homophobia", that would "disqualify" them from the conversation, right?

The difference being:

• 'homophobia' actually has a recognised definition that doesn't shift with the wind;
• 'Islamophobia' can mean anything from anti-Muslim violence to merely saying 'I don't think Islam is a peaceful religion' to refusing to succumb to Islamic tenets like 'do not draw Muhammad' depending on who is using it;
• of the two terms, homophobia is not (ab?)used to stifle debate or criticism;
• People have plenty of reasons to worry about Islam but not about LGBTs doing them harm so calling it a 'phobia' is meaningless.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The difference being:

• 'homophobia' actually has a recognised definition that doesn't shift with the wind;
• 'Islamophobia' can mean anything from anti-Muslim violence to merely saying 'I don't think Islam is a peaceful religion' to refusing to succumb to Islamic tenets like 'do not draw Muhammad' depending on who is using it;
• of the two terms, homophobia is not (ab?)used to stifle debate or criticism;
• People have plenty of reasons to worry about Islam but not about LGBTs doing them harm so calling it a 'phobia' is meaningless.

I'm more worried about Christianity, and with reason.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

Speaking from observation - I would say Islam is for sure a relative new comer in terms of European culture....Certainly it played no part at all as I grew up - was not even aware such a religion existed - had no idea at all what it was about - I thought it was a christian sect formed around mecca and that was it back then...It had ZERO influence in UK culture until perhaps 20 years ago or so - and what influence it has had here is mostly negative Im sorry to say... In fact I would say that Islam was not a factor at all in the western world until the first gulf war - that seems to have sparked it all off as far as I can see - shown us a huge divide and gap between us - and Islam has grown in western influence since then...

In my lifetime at least, though obviously I didnt grow up in the free information internet age, so my early viewpoint was limited but for sure I never knew Islam properly EXCEPT after that war and other similar conflicts started - which all soon became a matter of "us vs Islam exxtemism" as presented to the western peoples - and THAT was the only influence it had here, purely negative at first....Only much later did ordinary people start to investigate Islam for themselves, and i doubt they would have even bothered at all EXCEPT for the issue of conflict which kin do forced its awareness upon us...

 

[icehorse]

I'm sorry, I got a bit carried away with your hypotheical scenario. I'm not sure that Wilders wants Moroccans deported specifically so he can deny them due process. I don't even know if 'Moroccans are x times more likely to commit crimes than native Dutch' is one of his arguments but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

My point is that he is stereotyping a whole group and not just criminal elements of that group. I've got a Yahoo link to some of the prosecution has been saying in its arguments if you're interested?

For the sake of argument only, let's say that Wilders has stereotyped. So what? Even if they're inaccurate stereotypes (which I suspect they are not), are you proposing we censor them? (And yes, links are always welcome)

 

[icehorse]

Sure, if prophets are morons with YouTube channels.

Love him or hate him, Condell usually makes a lot of specific claims and provides a lot of citations. So those claims ought to stand or fall on their own, correct?