On 20-12-2010 21:48, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> He was consistently trying to provoke violence towards groups of
>> people by selective portrayal of individual actions as that of a whole
>> group (while trying to keep within the boundaries of what is just not
>> racism). He was also trying to anger a lot of Dutch people that happened
>> to have immigrant forefathers, apparently hoping that one of them would
>> be so angry that he would misbehave. Or so at least is one view on what
>> he does.
>> The case against him was therefore on provoking violence and not on
>> freedom of speech, just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of
>> speech.
>
>    Good to see you are not prejudiced in the least.

I try not to be, indeed. (unless you meant it cynical, in which case I 
would be interested to know on which side my prejudices are)

>    Why would someone create a video critical of islam and islamic culture?
> There's only one possible reason: To provoke violence towards muslims and
> to anger them. Given this axiom and law of nature, the only remaining
> question is how to punish such a person for such a despicable act.

There are a few others:
- because he really believes it
- because more people will vote for him (increased influence and another 
4 years of income)
- because it is the consequence of the path he has taken and he can not 
go off that path anymore.

>    Of course at the same time videos criticizing eg. christians and
> christian culture is ok, and completely under freedom of expression.

That really depends on the content. There have been cases of opinions of 
Imams ('you should throw gay people from the high buildings') that were 
not considered to be free to be expressed. Interestingly that lead to 
the concept that tolerance of gay people is part of being Dutch and gay 
rights to be defended by extreme right wing people.

>    Double standard much?

In general the majority in a country has to be able to get more 
criticism than a minority. If that minority is more vulnerable. Which 
means that jews, muslim, hindus and perhaps even atheists get more 
protection in western Europe from attacks by someone from the majority. 
I wouldn't call that a double standard.

Post a reply to this message