I agree, but you seem to forget that most victims of muslim terrorist extremists still are muslim *and* that the nutters are a small minority. To keep things in perspective: According to our National Intelligence Department (AIVD) about 5% of the religous moslims is susceptible for extremism and about 10% of those 5% will become radicals. That is 0,5% of the 5.7% muslims in the Netherlands which is... 0.003% of the Dutch population that becomes extremist - and only a small percentage of them will go violent because most aim at creating radical islamitic enclaves in which they can follow their strict religious rules (like the Haredim communities do).

If Geert Wilders wanted freedom of speech he wouldn't want to take THEIR freedom of speech (and religion) away. He even proposed to ban our worldwide dutch news channel because they made a (rather amateuristic, but so is the fitna movie) 9 minute movie to 'explain' fitna the movie. Made before Geert released it, so it doesn't comment upon the content.

If Geert Wilders wanted dialogue with our muslim community, he would accept some of the numerous invites for debates muslim organisations sent him - which he never does.

It it is not to protect freedom of speech or start a debate, what IS the use of the film?

What happens when the Muslims reach majority status in Europe?
this is the religion map of the Netherlands in 2003. these are the European percentages in 2003. By the time they are a majority my descendents might live on the moon.

You can see my post about Wilders' Fitna at http://www.culturalcubo.com

Bit made the point that citizens should not have to fear for their lives in the first place because of their hard talk against a religion, nor have to have protection because of threats, such as from Fatwas decreeing their death. The very existence of such threats to lives speaks of the evil we are dealing with--sooner or later--from "overzealous" Muslims.

We are rapidly becoming overzealous ourselves in the West, or so hemmed in by well-meaning but fundamentally flawed laws, or to be so tolerant of evildoers, that we become nakedly and stupidly vulnerable, and forgetful of our duty to defend the people. Yes, even at the cost of some decrease in our freedom and liberty. I personally would not want to sacrifice my nation on the anvils of excessive tolerance and merely convenient and temporary assimilation.

I thought the Dutch were very bright people, but they seem to be outsmarting themselves against a dedicated evil, and are making themselves all the more vulnerable. But, that is their choice, their freedom, and their funeral.

What happens when the Muslims reach majority status in Europe? What happens if they do that in France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Sweden and the UK? Poor little Holland will be like Israel: besieged on all sides. Not soon, perhaps, but in this century.

I wish them good luck, those Nederlanders.

TZ

yeah, we have records in emigration at the moment. If you are really interested: the latest report (analyses the figures incl. 2005) can be found in this Dutch pdf. They don't register religions, but two thirds of the emigrants is either not born in the Netherlands or has at least one parent who is not born in the Netherlands. Of the one third that is born in the Neterlands out of parents who are born here too almost 40% emigrates to Germany and Belgium. Those are our neighbouring countries but the have more room and thus significantly lower prices for houses. Not everybody realizes that you cannot drive for three hours in the same direction and still stay in the Netherlands, not matter where you start.

Point being, need one be killed to be a victim?
Or does victimhood only apply to Muslims in that part of the world?

So how are we a victim?

As Dred Scott proved, the fastest way to make a whole new class of victims is by means of governmental fiat.

Really? Dredd Scott made a whole new class of victims?
It was a bad decision from a civil rights perspective, but the victims of Dredd Scott were victims already. It was a later government fiat that ended their bondage and another government fiat that ended their legal forced segregation. So you see government fiat can do good. In both of those cases it was done despite strong opposition from social conservatives.

I’m applying their standards. You really have a problem with that?

I have a problem to you applying different standards to different groups of people, particularly when you claim that you are outraged because they are using a double standard. Do you really fail to see your own hypocrisy in making that argument?

There’s an exodus of sorts going on, there, as I hear. Someone oughta post a sign: The last non-muslim out, turn out the lights.

Where do you get your news?

Wilders acts as a parakeet in a coal mine.

canary? I guess any small bird will do.
Wilders is neither though.
Some quotes from Wilders,

The core of the problem is fascistic Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as it is set out in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Koran.

Ban that wretched book (the Koran) like Mein Kampf is banned!

I have had enough of Islam in Holland: Not one more Muslim immigrant should be let in. I have had enough of the reverence for Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands: There should not be even one more mosque. I have had enough of the Koran in the Netherlands. Ban that wretched book.

Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture.

He wants it to be illegal for Dutch citizens that immigrated from Morocco to be elected representatives in parliament, he wants the Koran banned, immigration to the Netherlands from Muslim countries banned, Muslims paid to leave the Netherlands, and any Dutch Muslim convicted of a crime (regardless of where they were born) to be stripped of their citizenship and "shipped back where they came from."

Have I missed muslims killing anti-muslim people in the Netherlands? Did it happen more than once?

There's an exodus of sorts going on, there, as I hear. Someone oughta post a sign: The last non-muslim out, turn out the lights.

Point being, need one be killed to be a victim?
Or does victimhood only apply to Muslims in that part of the world?

Bithead: Oh, come… you’re not going to try and pass this off as an isolated incident, are you?

Have I missed muslims killing anti-muslim people in the Netherlands? Did it happen more than once?

Yeah, you have groups hating others and sometimes a nut kills someone. That is not muslim specific though. I don't agree that we have a muslim problem in the Netherlands. We have many problems with many different groups, and there is a group of muslims who feel as if they ought to force their environment to live by their rules, or destroy if they cannot get their way. But simplifying it to 'they who follow the islam are bad' will most definately not make a difference. Should the US curtail the bible-belt because some religious idiots kill folks they disagree with? Should the US paint male adolescents black because some of them go crazy and start shooting fellow students?

Manning: Wilders acts as a parakeet in a coal mine. If the parakeet gets sick or dies, it is a sure indication that there is a poisonous, deadly atmosphere surrounding the good citizens. How many death threats has Wilders received so far?

You imply that Wilders is a good citizen. I disagree. Which doesn't mean that I think he deserves the threats. Nobody should fear for their lives because of what they say. But the fact that he should have the freedom to say what he wants to say (up to a certain limit) does not mean that what he says isn't stupid.

In view of the emphasis on free speech: you do realize that Wilders advocated that the Koran will be prohibited in the Netherlands? You do realize that you have no idea what he actually says about muslims in the Netherlands? Things like "moslims are allowed to live together or marry, but not in the Netherlands". "Religous schools may exist, but not islamic ones". Problems with housing and infrastructure can be directly attributed to muslims". As I said, someone made a brochure with some of the quotes, but with Jews instead of Muslims - and got arrested after handing out 11 pamphlets.

Our muslim tv-channel offered to broadcast his film, he had several invites from muslim organisations to come and discuss his viewpoints, but he never says yes. He is not a parakeet in a coal mine, testing the oxygen. A more appropriate comparison for Americans would be that he is like the first communist, testing the waters to see if he can persuade society to spread his ideology whilst taking away freedoms from the groups he wants to damage.

Such an argument is endless, futile, and, in fact, asinine, since the terms will shift in every case that appears to justify the right position. This is moral relativity in action, which is to be expected from Leftists.

Wilders acts as a parakeet in a coal mine. If the parakeet gets sick or dies, it is a sure indication that there is a poisonous, deadly atmosphere surrounding the good citizens. How many death threats has Wilders received so far?

The words sound like Alan Colmes in action, who finds rediculous defenses all the time for Leftwing silliness.

Muslim actually, it was only one.

Oh, come... you're not going to try and pass this off as an isolated incident, are you?

Using your rather restrictive criteria, the same can be said of any number of conservative politicians and Hagee, Parsley, Robertson, Falwell, Bob Jones University, etc.

No, it cannot, because in no case was the Republican in question sitting in the pews every Sunday for 20 years, in no case is the Republican in question calling the pastor his mentor and friend, in no case is the republican in question enabling the pastor with money time and talent.

I suspect that nothing anyone can say will dissuade you from thinking that that blacks, gays, women, and atheists make up a privileged class and the white Christian man is the real victim in our society with liberals and the media conspiring to bring him down.

As Dred Scott proved, the fastest way to make a whole new class of victims is by means of governmental fiat.

So you admit to your double standard, applying one set of rules to people you feel are using hateful rhetoric and an entirely different standard for Wilders using hateful rhetoric against Muslims and you have the gall to say the reason you are upset at Wright et al is their double standard. You truly are amazing.

I'm applying their standards. You really have a problem with that?

Oh, well... this is also the kind of thing that happens when we consider all cultures morally equal.

There is no resolution, once it gets to that stage… mostly because the Muslims, for example in this case...

As Dutchmarbel correctly points out; a Muslim, not the Muslims. I see why you have little problem with Wilders, it appears you are of like mind.

So, government gets to say which of our thought can be legally expressed, thereby de-legitimizing our free speech rights.

Not our rights, their rights; unless you are living in the Netherlands. As previously stated you have nothing to worry about here unless you are inciting people to violence, participating in violence, or damaging property. Those are all crimes in and of themselves with or without hate crimes statutes increasing the penalties.

Amusing, but unavailing, because the issue was that if it really bothered him, he’d have not been associated with the place.

Using your rather restrictive criteria, the same can be said of any number of conservative politicians and Hagee, Parsley, Robertson, Falwell, Bob Jones University, etc. Do you want virtually all of the Republican leadership tarred with their outlandish and offensive statements and policies?

Hardly. In fact, I’ve gone to some length to identify that purpose...

All three cases you mentioned where Christians were targeted due to their religion* should be eligible for prosecution under standing hate crimes legislation. All three of those rather conservative states have hate crimes legislation though it is rather vague, weak, and rarely used. It would be up to the, probably conservative, DA in these jurisdictions to choose to utilize the hate crimes statutes in these cases. It is rather difficult to believe that in Ft Worth, TX; Paducah, KY; and Columbine, CO that law enforcement is prejudiced against Christians.
I suspect that nothing anyone can say will dissuade you from thinking that that blacks, gays, women, and atheists make up a privileged class and the white Christian man is the real victim in our society with liberals and the media conspiring to bring him down.

Correct. Because I’m judging him the way the likes of Wirght, Sharpton, CAIR, etc, etc, judge themselves.

So you admit to your double standard, applying one set of rules to people you feel are using hateful rhetoric and an entirely different standard for Wilders using hateful rhetoric against Muslims and you have the gall to say the reason you are upset at Wright et al is their double standard. You truly are amazing.

* I am taking your word for this because it does not matter whether these are actual or apocryphal cases for purposes of this discussion.

What should have been done is cultural assimilation.

Muslim actually, it was only one. And the 'danger' usually isn't in the unassimilated ones. Mohammed B. was born in the Netherlands, spoke Dutch, had close to the equivalent of a bachelor degree. He was pretty assimilated before he became extreme.

We probabely have more muslim politicians than you have. Our youngest member of parlement is a 21 yo boy who fled Afghanistan in 1997 with his parents.

At the same time; if I look at this ABC fragment the assimilation in the US doesn't really work well either.

Pim Fortuyn got killed by a very Dutch animal protection nut. How do you stop those?

So, government gets to say which of our thought can be legally expressed, thereby de-legitimizing our free speech rights. A destructive solution, at least.

Any society sets rules. We are slightly more strict than the US about hate speech, a lot more strict about guns, we are less strict about nudity, soft drugs, prostitution. In Israel Wilders probabely would be jailed, they are even more strict there.

As a society we set limits to freedoms and have to be very careful about where we set those and why. Setting those borders is the task of the government and in our part of the world the population has a say in how that government works. Though you have a more limited choice and less people have an actual say in government, you still believe that those policies are set 'for the people, by the people'. There just happen to be a lot of different people.

That is why I mentioned police. How do you think it could have been resolved better?

There is no resolution, once it gets to that stage... mostly because the Muslims, for example in this case, are not interested in resolution, but of domination.

What should have been done is cultural assimilation.

That is why it is not HATE that is prohibited, but HATE SPEECH. As I teach my young sons: you cannot help how you feel, but you are responsible for what you DO with those feelings.

So, government gets to say which of our thought can be legally expressed, thereby de-legitimizing our free speech rights. A destructive solution, at least.

Obama would have likely reacted in much the same manner if Rev Wright’s inflammatory statements had come out 2 years ago or 2 years from now.

Amusing, but unavailing, because the issue was that if it really bothered him, he'd have not been associated with the place.

To argue as you do ignores the origin of these laws.

Hardly. In fact, I've gone to some length to identify that purpose:

The pattern is well established. Politicians and others have frequently blamed “hatred” for headline making crimes, particularly when in the act of pandering to so-called Minority groups..

*After the April 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, President Clinton named G. Gordon Liddy among the conservative talk-show hosts he called “purveyors of hatred and division,” saying they were “encouraging violence.” The liberal press, who has long been willing to prostitute itself to the end of defeating anyone who holds views to the right of say, Fidel Castro, gleefully agreed with him. There was serious talk of McVeigh being charged under “Hate crimes’
laws, but I’ve forgotten if he ever was prosecuted under those laws. I suspect though, that he was so charged.

*’Concerned’ over arson attacks on black churches in 1996, (You recall, the ones Mr. Clinton lied about) civil rights leader Joseph Lowery accused the Christian Coalition of fostering an “extremist climate.” The non problem was followed up as a group of hate crimes.

*When avowed homosexual Matthew Shepard was killed in Wyoming last year, Homosexual-extra-rights advocate Joan M. Garry suggested it was the result of a conservative anti-homosexuality campaign she said “fuels the fires of bigotry.”, and his killers were subject to and convicted under Hate Crime statutes.

*Following the shootings at a Jewish community center in California, the leftist media and politicians jumped onto the hate crime bandwagon, labeling those episodes of violence “hate crimes”..

*In Texas, the dragging death of a black man has brought two white men to conviction and the death penalty. These were reported by the press, most notably CBS and CNN (who forever shill for big government ) as hate crimes.

Yet there is another pattern, also well established… a more disturbing one.

#When a gunman spouting blasphemous rhetoric burst into a youth service at a Fort Worth Baptist church this week, and fatally shot seven persons, the liberal’s war on hate crimes was nowhere to be seen. Nor were there endless lines of liberal leaders, making as much out of the situation as possible.

#When in 1997, a kid who had been known as anti-Christian shot up a high school prayer group in Paducah, KY where were the people protecting us from ‘hate crime’? They must have hidden behind the folks who want to remove the second amendment from the books. It’s the oddest thing; these looked just like the folks who had been
screaming about hate crimes in my first examples.

#When the April murders of Christian students at Columbine High School in Colorado, made the front page… where the shooters specifically picked out Christians to shoot at by asking them for professions of faith and then killing them for their answer, we saw no crying and wailing from the usual suspects about ‘hate crime’. Yet, there can be no question that these crimes too, were motivated by hate.

Such discrepancies alas constitute legal life in America today. And with our over dependence on law, and on government, such nonsense penetrates every aspect of our day to day lives. The obvious question is why such double standards are permitted to exist. The answer, I fear, goes directly to the heart of the motive behind the hate crime laws.

Understand; “motive” is not an idle choice of a word.. I consider the laws and the motive behind them, criminal. Why?

Well, in answer, it doesn’t pass my notice, and I hope it doesn’t pass yours, that there are many who scream loudly to the populace for hate crimes laws when certain groups… groups whom they have historically favored… are targeted. Yet, these same people keep stony silence when other groups that they don’t favor are. You should also take note, of which are which. This disparity, (along with the disparity in the implementation of hate crime laws themselves) sends the message that hate itself isn’t the real issue… but rather WHOM you hate… that it’s OK to hate certain people. And of course, by passing hate crime laws and selectively implementing them, the government sends the clear message of which we shall and shall not hate.

Yet you conspicuously fail to apply that standard to Wilders and you even support his hateful rantings.

Correct. Because I'm judging him the way the likes of Wirght, Sharpton, CAIR, etc, etc, judge themselves. They have no moral legs to stand on, until they start practicing what the preach.... literally. We're supposed to accept hate against the west, and not return it, or even label it as such? I don't think so, Tim.

It's that simple.

Oh, please….let’s be honest enough to admit that the only reason Obama did that was because...

and again what politician has publicly condemned the speech of one of his supporters prior to there being a public outcry?
Obama would have likely reacted in much the same manner if Rev Wright's inflammatory statements had come out 2 years ago or 2 years from now. In this respect he is like most other politicians, his current rivals included.

To what point and purpose? Clearly, the existence of mere laws didn’t help matters.

By that logic we should have no laws whatsoever since no law eliminates the crime it addresses.

But they both contradict your claim that such laws don’t exist, which was the point of my posting them. You may want to do some better research in future.

The CA law is a hate crimes law, not a hate speech law. It attaches further penalties to activities that are already crimes (incitement to violence, violence, and property damage) based on intent of the perpetrator and its effect on a community. A hate speech law prohibits speech intended to provoke hate based on ethnicity, religion, etc. Your first post erroneously claims the CA law to be a hate speech law rather than a hate crimes law. You may disagree with both, but they are distinct.

The first two didn’t feel the need...
McCain, meanwhile, has fallen into a trap...

But all had/have supporters who spewed hate and all embraced them afterwards. You hold your party's politicians to a much lower standard than you do Democrats.
McCain shouldn't be disqualified because he embraced Hagee and Parsley after their hateful rhetoric was well known and neither should Obama be disqualified because of his association with Wright.
What they should be called to do is to address that hateful rhetoric and either embrace it as their own or to repudiate it.
Your standard for Obama is that repudiation is not enough and for McCain that it is entirely unnecessary. That is quite the double standard you have there.

To suggest this is to ignore the concept of thought, and it’s origins and our rights to our own thoughts. In both cases, they are predicated in the misguided notion that government should have any input on what one THINKS.

To argue as you do ignores the origin of these laws. Burning a cross in someone's lawn is more than vandalism. It is an act designed to terrorize a community. Hate crimes laws are about punishing the act of terrorizing the community or group (ethnic, religious, or sexual), not about punishing hatred of that group. You are after all still free to hate them and to talk about hating them. You are not free to terrorize them.

Once again, I say I’m holding such people to the standards they expect everyone else to come up to, and pointing out, loudly, and hell, yes, rudely, when they do not measure up to their own standards.

Yet you conspicuously fail to apply that standard to Wilders and you even support his hateful rantings. That is your double (triple?) standard. You strenuously object to hateful speech directed at white Americans and Christians, yet you are entirely silent when it is directed at homosexuals (Hagee, Parsley, Robertson, et al.), or even support it if it is directed at Muslims.

That is why I mentioned police. How do you think it could have been resolved better?

In both cases, they are predicated in the misguided notion that government should have any input on what one THINKS. Hate, after all, is a THOUGHT crime.

That is why it is not HATE that is prohibited, but HATE SPEECH. As I teach my young sons: you cannot help how you feel, but you are responsible for what you DO with those feelings.

For the people who understand Dutch: a Dutch moslim has made a little follow up film after fitna.