Politics Is controversial far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders thinking of an Australian visit?

[Monniehawk]

He proposed it be banned under existing hate speech provisions that bans Mein Kampf in Holland. Does that make supporters of the ban on Main Kampf undemocratic?

He's hardly on his Jack Jones in speaking out against the Koran. His former Dutch parliamentary colleague, former Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, termed it a 'a destructive, nihilistic cult of death'. And said that 'Islamic violence is rooted not in social, economic or political conditions — or even in theological error — but rather in the foundational texts of Islam itself'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/books/review/ayaan-hirsi-alis-heretic.html?_r=0

Both Wilders and Hirsi Ali face constant threats to their lives for their views. Now that's anti-democratic!

Unfortunately, he has not read the Bible (see Leviticus, Paul's Epistles, 1 Cor, and many others, PLUS a myriad of references in the OT) where death, subjugation and violence of women and non-believers is rife.
This is not a condemnation of The Bible or Koran, it is recognition that those tomes were written in the context of their time, for a totally different audience, and that all religions have moved on from this as they adjust to a modern society and ethic. Muslim's also.

 

[Lebbo73]

When was this recorded, do you know?

 

[Admiral Byng]

Once they've finished with our Muslim brothers, and sisters, who will be next? These guys have nothing with an enemy.

Rugby League.

 

[crackerjack4X4]

When was this recorded, do you know?

Street Interview why I support ALA
Street Interview with local Perth radio station RTRFM on 92.1 after the ALA press conference in Perth on 21 October - as transmitted next day by them

 

[Monniehawk]

"Lester Burnham, post: 41725928, member: 144664"]He proposed it be banned under existing hate speech provisions that bans Mein Kampf in Holland. Does that make supporters of the ban on Main Kampf undemocratic?
He's hardly on his Jack Jones in speaking out against the Koran. His former Dutch parliamentary colleague, former Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, termed it a 'a destructive, nihilistic cult of death'. And said that 'Islamic violence is rooted not in social, economic or political conditions — or even in theological error — but rather in the foundational texts of Islam itself'.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/books/review/ayaan-hirsi-alis-heretic.html?_r=0
Both Wilders and Hirsi Ali face constant threats to their lives for their views. Now that's anti-democratic!

The convoluted logic of this is astounding. Having death threats is not alien to Wilder's opponents, either!
Also, having someone speak out against an opinion is hardly irrefutable proof of validity. There are myriad speakers against The Bible, but you seem to overlook that. Even so, that hardly invalidates The Bible and your reference to the dissenters of Islam is in the same league - simply cherry-picked opinions without any substantial logical support.
Try a bit harder.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Hopefully vegans

Initially read that as "vaginas"...

 

[WA ROO]

Initially read that as "vaginas"...

But I like vaginas
Not all of them
As many as I could though

 

[Lester Burnham]

Madam Speaker, the Koran is a book that incites to violence. I remind the House that the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code. In addition, the Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem. The distribution of such texts is made punishable by Article 137(e). The Koran is therefore a highly dangerous book; a book which is completely against our legal order and our democratic institutions. In this light, it is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defence and reinforcement of our civilisation and our constitutional state.

Stop all immigration from Muslim countries, ban all building of new mosques, close all Islamic schools, ban burkas and the Koran. Expel all criminal Muslims from the country, including those Moroccan street terrorists that drive people mad.
​

http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.ph...-the-parliamentary-debate-on-islamic-activism

Is that good enough? Direct quote and sourced from the Geert weblog
Wonder what twaddle you'll spin this time...

Good boy. So now we are actually discussing what he said rather than what he is purported to have said. It confirms my point that the Guardian article was a mixture of quotes and assertions by the journalist. There is no demand to rewrite the constitution. This seemed to be your main beef that he was 'undemocratic'.

I agree with some of his views and disagree with others but I support his right to express his views without being subject to death threats!

 

[CM86]

Good boy. So now we are actually discussing what he said rather than what he is purported to have said. It confirms my point that the Guardian article was a mixture of quotes and assertions by the journalist. There is no demand to rewrite the constitution. This seemed to be your main beef that he was 'undemocratic'.

I agree with some of his views and disagree with others but I support his right to express his views without being subject to death threats!

Where did I say he was undemocratic? Where did I give you the impression that my "main beef" that he was undemocratic came from a demand to rewrite the constitution?

It confirms nothing that you have said...

All along, you have been told what he said, and you just dicked around, pretending he didn't say it.

You started asking Maggie for evidence that he wasn't that democratic, because of certain issues about his hypocrisy re free speech.
You've then weaseled away for two pages until I nailed you.

Then you just say yeah he said it... but so?
Pathetic, Lester. And you know it.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Unfortunately, he has not read the Bible (see Leviticus, Paul's Epistles, 1 Cor, and many others, PLUS a myriad of references in the OT) where death, subjugation and violence of women and non-believers is rife.
This is not a condemnation of The Bible or Koran, it is recognition that those tomes were written in the context of their time, for a totally different audience, and that all religions have moved on from this as they adjust to a modern society and ethic. Muslim's also.

Of course there are elements of the bible that are barbaric but Christians don’t tend to take the worst of its passages seriously. The New Testament is a humanist doctrine. Christianity, for centuries, has been shaped by and has shaped, science and secularism.

But it's not what is in the old books but how they are interpreted. As Hitchens said,

the most toxic form that religion takes is the Islamic form. The horrible idea of wanting to end up with Sharia. with a religion governed state, and that the best means of getting there is jihad, holy war, that Muslims have a special right to feel aggrieved enough to demand this is absolute obscene wickedness. I think their religion is nonsense.

The idea that God speaks to some illiterate merchant warlord in Arabia, and he's able to write this down perfectly, and it contain the answers to all... Don't waste my time!​

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x30f7lw

 

[Maggie5]

Where did I say he was undemocratic? Where did I give you the impression that my "main beef" that he was undemocratic came from a demand to rewrite the constitution?

It confirms nothing that you have said...

All along, you have been told what he said, and you just dicked around, pretending he didn't say it.

You started asking Maggie for evidence that he wasn't that democratic, because of certain issues about his hypocrisy re free speech.
You've then weaseled away for two pages until I nailed you.

Then you just say yeah he said it... but so?
Pathetic, Lester. And you know it.

This is why I tend to cut any real discussion with Lester short, he just likes to play with words and ask for links for things he already knows.
Happy to engage in real discussion with him but point scoring is a bit childish.

 

[Lester Burnham]

This is why I tend to cut any real discussion with Lester short, he just likes to play with words and ask for links for things he already knows.
Happy to engage in real discussion with him but point scoring is a bit childish.

More self parody from you. You have a habit of ignoring links that people provide then 3 posts later asking for evidence.

And now after you made an unsupported assertion and I requested evidence you wanted me to search the internet to support what you said?

Your sloppiness about evidence, and Greens feelz irrationality do not lend themselves to 'real discussion'. We shall trouble each other no more.

 

[Maggie5]

More self parody from you. You have a habit of ignoring links that people provide then 3 posts later asking for evidence.

And now after you made an unsupported assertion and I requested evidence you wanted me to search the internet to support what you said?

Your sloppiness about evidence, and Greens feelz irrationality do not lend themselves to 'real discussion'. We shall trouble each other no more.

Great, better than ignore

 

[Monniehawk]

Of course there are elements of the bible that are barbaric but Christians don’t tend to take the worst of its passages seriously. The New Testament is a humanist doctrine. Christianity, for centuries, has been shaped by and has shaped, science and secularism.

But it's not what is in the old books but how they are interpreted. As Hitchens said,

the most toxic form that religion takes is the Islamic form. The horrible idea of wanting to end up with Sharia. with a religion governed state, and that the best means of getting there is jihad, holy war, that Muslims have a special right to feel aggrieved enough to demand this is absolute obscene wickedness. I think their religion is nonsense.

The idea that God speaks to some illiterate merchant warlord in Arabia, and he's able to write this down perfectly, and it contain the answers to all... Don't waste my time!​

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x30f7lw

Hitchens is less an atheist than anti-theist. He wields a broad axe over all religions. His scathing attacks on The Bible in consort with other New Atheists is well documented in 21st century literature. They want the Bible banned and every religious argument (inc. Xian) to be attacked, challenged, and ultimately silenced. They use ethical, epistemology and some metaphysical arguments to support this. I see them as ultra Rationalist snobs. The problem with religion is extremism. That is also the problem with some New Atheists, politicians, environmentalists, economists, or any other group. Fundamentalists heaping shit on other fundamentalists.
Go figure.

 

[Fire]

Hitchens is less an atheist than anti-theist. He wields a broad axe over all religions. His scathing attacks on The Bible in consort with other New Atheists is well documented in 21st century literature. They want the Bible banned and every religious argument (inc. Xian) to be attacked, challenged, and ultimately silenced.

When did Hitchens call for the bible to be banned?

And what's wrong with silencing an argumemt via attacking and challenging it?? Would you prefer Atheists bomb churches to get their point across?

 

[Maggie5]

When did Hitchens call for the bible to be banned?

And what's wrong with silencing an argumemt via attacking and challenging it?? Would you prefer Atheists bomb churches to get their point across?

Not sure that is what Monniehawk is saying, how did you get that conclusion?

 

[Monniehawk]

When did Hitchens call for the bible to be banned?

And what's wrong with silencing an argumemt via attacking and challenging it?? Would you prefer Atheists bomb churches to get their point across?

.....ummmm! Let's see. There are only two alternatives, are there? And I have to accept one or the other? C'mon!
I'm an atheist. A secularist. Not an anti-theist. New Atheism is far too extreme for me despite my enjoyment of Dawkins and Hitchens writing. I disagree with religious myths, but don't want to see them banned unless they are proved to be dangerous to society. The trick is when a doubtful fraction of a story implies that the whole book should be condemned. Neither do I wish to pan New Atheism. I don't believe in magic, but can't see any point in condemning Harry potter. Just enjoy it for what it is. It is all about perception, after all.
Likewise, I don't like Wilder's rhetoric. Still, I would condemn any unreasonable attempt to stop him coming. He should be here - partly because it will expose his irrational opinions to reasoned argument and partly because I am concerned about heavy-handed censorship. Rational debate should destroy his credibility and then allow us to get on with being a country of migrants - as we have been through virtually our whole westernised history.

 

[Fire]

.....ummmm! Let's see. There are only two alternatives, are there? And I have to accept one or the other? C'mon!

Actually, history says yes. If people cannot peacefully protest an idea, like through dialogue, then you end up with blowback.

Seriously, if you think that silencing an argument through dialogue is a bit much, you are quite the pacifist. I cannot believe someone thinks that silencing an argument through dialogue is the wrong way to go about it.

I'm an atheist. A secularist. Not an anti-theist. New Atheism is far too extreme for me despite my enjoyment of Dawkins and Hitchens writing. I disagree with religious myths, but don't want to see them banned unless they are proved to be dangerous to society.

I ask again, When did Hitchens call for the banning of the bible? When did Dawkins call for religion to be banned??

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/330958-it-would-be-intolerant-if-i-advocated-the-banning-of
"
“It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree. You interpret that as ‘intolerance’ because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, which expects to get a free ride and not have to defend itself."


You're running around pretending to be some sort of rational voice, but your whole opinion is based on ignorance. You haven't provided any evidence for your position because you haven't even bothered to look into anything relating to what you are saying.

Anti-theism means the opposition to theism, it is NOT the avocation for its prohibition. Sure, some nutbags might be pushing for this, but the two names you have smeared are NOT a part of this group. Neither is the wider so-called 'new atheist' movement.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, and your opinion is rubbish.

 

[Fire]

Not sure that is what Monniehawk is saying, how did you get that conclusion?

Well he seems to think that silencing an idea through dialogue is a no-go, so what is the alternative? That is what I was asking, albeit colourfully.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Could you silence Jones, through dialogue?

I think he is saying that sometimes we need to appreciate the dangers some people with smooth tongues could create, and limit it in some aspects.

Not bomb places and kill people... It isn't an either/or situation.

How legislation? this only strengthens such beliefs.
This is why freedom of speech is so important, no matter which side of the fence you're on.
you cannot have an argument without allowing both sides to have their say.

You prevent people from participating it means people sit outside the system stewing and eventually some will lose their shit.

an often used line here by chief is for the nutters to go to stormfront, now chief is well within his right to say that even ban them. but this does not resolve the argument, such people go off to stormfront because they are being pushed out of society because of their frankly insane POV.

some become more radicalised and will start advocating more drastic measures.

and the intolerance of such people grows within society and thus it becomes more acceptable to label such people as scum. shutting down debate is never the correct option.

 

[Fire]

Could you silence Jones, through dialogue?

I think he is saying that sometimes we need to appreciate the dangers some people with smooth tongues could create, and limit it in some aspects.

Not bomb places and kill people... It isn't an either/or situation.

I don't want to 'silence' anyone; but I do want to silence some arguments. Silence, as in render them toothless and irrelevant. Which happens in the free and open marketplace of ideas when sides are expressed and shared. I cite examples such as arguments against abortion and against gun control. Arguments which are now rendered irrelevant, and effectivley silenced.

I've attacked and challenged his arguments here and have in turn been attacked and challenged. I just don't get how this is meant to be a bad thing?

I think he is saying that sometimes we need to appreciate the dangers some people with smooth tongues could create, and limit it in some aspects.

What do you mean by this? Like censorship and sedition?

In which case I am against both of you. Free speech should not be limited just because some people can express bad ideas well. Its up to us to learn how to be vigilant and evaluate arguments. That's the cost of free speech. The alternative is to mandate what is and isn't an acceptable view to hold, which will be dictated by the social and political power behind the ideas. In which case you may as well throw out the middleman by dissolving parliament and the courts.

Not bomb places and kill people... It isn't an either/or situation.

I disagree. You take away a persons right to engage peacefully, like through dialogue, then eventually, there will be blow back.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

OK, an Imam is preaching to youths everyday, about the evils of the west, and how they should be cleansed for Allah. Or something.
Do you stand outside the mosque and try to argue against his points as people are leaving?

I enjoy freedom of speech. I just also appreciate that it can cause harm.
It can be pushed a very long way, before it becomes illegal.
I think we've got it pretty much on point here in Aus.

you mean inciting people to commit violence?
this is not an argument, it's a crime and he should be locked up.

Everyday people stand in churches and mosques and synagogues preaching about the evils of the secular west.
that is what the "new atheists" everybody objects to, draw issue with.

the moment you stop arguing your point of view that the west is evil and start advocating violence because it is evil. The debate is over, You've chosen what is effectively a declaration of war with the state. You're just so severely outnumbered your would be army consists of the only youths that were listening instead of sneakily texting each other about how michael's was granddad arguing with a taxi driver on friday.

 

[CM86]

you mean inciting people to commit violence?
this is not an argument, it's a crime and he should be locked up.

Everyday people stand in churches and mosques and synagogues preaching about the evils of the secular west.
that is what the "new atheists" everybody objects to, draw issue with.

the moment you stop arguing your point of view that the west is evil and start advocating violence because it is evil. The debate is over, You've chosen what is effectively a declaration of war with the state. You're just so severely outnumbered your would be army consists of the only youths that were listening instead of sneakily texting each other about how michael's was granddad arguing with a taxi driver on friday.

I don't think that you'd have to explicitly advocate violence. I think you can fill someone with enough hate and frustration, that they could do something dangerous.

I think we are talking about very different situations.
I'm not talking about creating an army and telling them to kill.
I'm talking about someone creating divisions in society that create tension, anger and can fracture communities.

 

[Maggie5]

I don't want to 'silence' anyone; but I do want to silence some arguments. Silence, as in render them toothless and irrelevant. Which happens in the free and open marketplace of ideas when sides are expressed and shared. I cite examples such as arguments against abortion and against gun control. Arguments which are now rendered irrelevant, and effectivley silenced.

I've attacked and challenged his arguments here and have in turn been attacked and challenged. I just don't get how this is meant to be a bad thing?



What do you mean by this? Like censorship and sedition?

In which case I am against both of you. Free speech should not be limited just because some people can express bad ideas well. Its up to us to learn how to be vigilant and evaluate arguments. That's the cost of free speech. The alternative is to mandate what is and isn't an acceptable view to hold, which will be dictated by the social and political power behind the ideas. In which case you may as well throw out the middleman by dissolving parliament and the courts.



I disagree. You take away a persons right to engage peacefully, like through dialogue, then eventually, there will be blow back.

I suppose it maybe be that in the circle of people I mix with even though we may strongly disagree on somethings (politics, religion, abortion, euthanasia etc) we can discuss (sometimes heatedly) but can end up agreeing to disagree without the need to ram an opinion down each other or go on and on about it.
Knowing that they have freedom of speech, some use to do harm.
There are some real nutters out there.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I don't think that you'd have to explicitly advocate violence. I think you can fill someone with enough hate and frustration, that they could do something dangerous.

I think we are talking about very different situations.
I'm not talking about creating an army and telling them to kill.
I'm talking about someone creating divisions in society that create tension, anger and can fracture communities.

where do you draw the line and who decides if it's been crossed?