Geert Wilders is Not a Hero

Primo

Spot on Mr.Massie. Well said.

Wilhelm

Alex, son

Tell the truth now, you probaby never heard of the quietly spoken, modest, super cool Geert Wilders until 5 minutes ago ?

Wilders said that European liberals have been far too tolerant of the intolerant muslim religion. Do you approve of the flogging of
woman and gays?

If not I suppose you must be a bigot and a boor then, eh Alex ?

Game Set and Match to Wilhelm.

Ash

Whether Mr Wilders is a lumpen bore, a bigot, a martyr or a hero is not what is in issue here, but rather essential freedoms such as that of speech. Mr Wilders is not a terrorist, or has terrorist connections or has he got a criminal record. He is a threat to no one other than those who wish to silence him. Blaming him for presenting the facts, however extreme they may be, is rather like blaming the mirror for how they may look. This comes from the multicultural spiel that all religions, irrespective of merit or content automatically have the right to be respected. This is not so. Respect only extends to the right to believe or not to believe in whatever one may so wish, not to the belief itself

As for the moderate Muslims, Islam is Islam, not all people are fascists, but this little fact is irrelevant, when the fascists get into power. The Koran should not be banned but rather be taken seriously. As it is beyond doubt, Islam is a political ideology, in a functioning democracy, it is imperative that it be subjected to critical analysis in the same manner as any other ideology, religious or otherwise, which has a political agenda. Failing this, we are heading down the road to a theocracy, a medieval and barbaric one with that!

Wilhelm

Primo

You gotta be kidding, thats a joke right ?

Dicky Dorkins slags off Christ and the bible and is fetted by the Islington dinner party set, Geert Wilders Mr Supercool slags off nutty islam and he's the bogeyman. Go Figure.

What this is all about is the craven media sucking up to islam.

David

Dawkins slags off all religions, you twit.

ndm

I think many (commenters) on the right need to be much more careful about who they are willing to get in bed with. Wilhelm, for example, has obviously been playing with his own balls if he thinks his post means "Game Set and Match to Wilhelm."

It is fashionable to attack left-wing commentators because they believe in something also believed by some ulta-left extremist even though their opinions are founded on entirely different logic. Sadly, there are too many right-wing commenters who share opinions with right-wing extremists BECAUSE their beliefs are founded on the same bad logic.

I think it is obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with Geert Wilders that he is, in fact, a "boor and a bigot." While we should not be banning Wilders from speaking - on the grounds that it is better to keep his bigotry in the light - we should be condemning him not praising him.

Jeff

UKIP was hosting Wilders and was busy screening his documentary when British society has been worrying about
its 13 year old fathering a baby.

Britain had 27 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 between 2000 and 2005, according to a report published by Population Action International. Comparable figures are 10 per 1,000 for Spain, 8 in 1,000 for France.

A 2007 increase in pregnancy rates mean that around 43,000 girls under 18 in England and Wales became pregnant - at least 1,200 more than the 41,800 teen pregnancies in 2006.
Lord Pearson could have
invested efforts how to address the real menaces affecting British teens. Why should he bother importing some problems from Holland when there are more than enough of our own to cope with?

DA

This site on Islam is a brief illustrated guide for non-Muslims who'd like to understand Islam, Muslims (Moslems), and the Quran (Koran). www.islam-guide.com/ or www.islamalways.com . May GOD bless all of us. Thank you.

David

Alex, you wrote:
>>...He further argues that "moderate Islam does not exist" which will doubtless be news to all those muslims around the world who have not taken up arms and have no intention of doing so. <<

Alex, but you never see these same "moderate" muslims protesting when the "extremists" kill 200 people in a marketplace in Iraq, or in a hotel in Mumbai, or when the extremists burn yet another Christian church in Pakistan. etc. etc.
Ah, but you do see them protest over a few cartoons.
Go figure.

ben

Belief in the Bible is just that -- a belief. Condemning someone's beliefs is not bigotry, it's argument. The appropriation of the language of "bigotry" and "discrimination" by religious types is a cowardly and hypocritical tactic, and a tacit admission of defeat.

Charles Pitt Gladstone

Where does moderate Islam exist Alex? Find me a school of Islam that is moderate and then tell us all about it, please.

Of course, you won't be able to because there is no such thing - there are moderate Muslims, to be sure, but not moderate Islam.

The difference between Islam and Christianity/Judaism - is that Islam calls for literalism when reading the Hadiths or the Koran.

Christianity and Judaism have pretty much 'liberalised' through reformation et cetera, - though their texts remain full of bigotry, racism etc.

Islam has yet to be reinterpreted and liberalised, the last time was in the 18th century - and that was a revolt against supposed Ottoman liberalism, which spawned the extremist Wahabbism (adopted by the house of Saud and exported to Muslims world wide, thanks to our need for oil!).

Fraser Nelson

Alex, I'm with you 100% on this. I suspected as much, but you've cemented my opinions. With Carole Thatcher, we're getting not no Gods and precious few heroes at the moment...

LawhawkSF

I am highly suspicious of some of Wilders's friends, and banning the Koran is a horrible, uncivilized concept. I learned how bad communism was by reading Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. How bad the Nazis were by reading Mein Kampf. How bad Islam is by reading the Koran. And the Bible has more than a few really nasty passages, too. But I learned about the good in the Bible by open discussions with those who preached the message of love for your neighbor and tolerance of the beliefs of others while rejecting the hate others preached. I also learned that most modern religions have interpreted their holy writings in light of the progress of civilization. Islam is stuck in the violent past and refuses to change its worldview.

What does that have to do with the cowardly act of banning Wilders from Britain? In America until recently, we believed that the way to combat bad speech is to have room for plenty of speech. Speech including dissent, loud and public. Banning dangerous thoughts only drives them underground where they fester and come back out even worse than when they were suppressed (ask older Germans about that one).

So banning Wilders accomplished two things. It suppressed free speech, and it emboldened the Muslims to make even further demands on the English goverment to suppress speech they don't like.

The government used the excuse that "Wilders might incite violence." Ask yourselves who would be committing the violence, and why, and you have the answer to why banning Wilders was a reprehensible and dangerous act.

sunniva

Wilders speaks the truth - like it or not.

Fitna just strings REAL Quranic quotes with REAL jihadi footage that fulfills the Quranic injunctions to the letter.

The Bible isn't the Quran. (But no doubt you'd like it banned anyway).

Churchill compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

It is a moot point (which Wilders would concede) that despite the appalling barbarism of the Quran, most 'moderate' Muslims appear to ignore these verses. This is the great wonder.

But these aren't the ones Wilders is worried about.

Francis

First of all I would like to thank Mr Massie for responding to our comments.
The phrase struck me as I completely agreed with everything else - I didnt know enough about him to know whether it was true enough but it struck me firstly as if it might be the sort of thing repeated enough times that it comes to be accepted especially when a different point is being thought (ie freedom of speech). Secondly the ad hominem characterisation is a very recognisable leftie trait which suggested it might have had such an origin and undected passed into wider streams of thought. A book i read recently was very open about this tactic of naming or labelling something to delegitimize it. This is why one always ought to smell a rat when something is dismissed as "extreme" or "xenophobic" or "far-right" or indeed straight "conservative" or "right wing". (Lefties might be useless at most things but at manipulating language they excell). Of course the greatest example is "racist" the best way of shutting down legitimate debate ever created.
This is why I was curious whether there was a substantial argument or whether it was a point conceded in a more important battle. However I am inclined to take up the gauntlet thrown down here.
However I think the description of being a "boor" can largely be ignored. I have no idea id he is or not but it is a not uncommon trait amongst politicians thoguh I wonder if any will ever rival Blair. It is not I think suggested that his suspicion of the Koran is because he dislikes literature or his antipathy towards Islam based on ignorance. It would be pointless to suggest that not being keen on Islam in itself necessarily makes him boorish (as this would presuppose certain views about Islam). The aesthetic standard of his film is something I cant comment on as I have no intention of watching it.
Personally I am not not conviced by the idea of banning the Koran but it has to be understood in context. The argument, as I understand it is that the book in itself is an incitement to violence. Whether you accept this and whether you think banning it is practical is of course a matter for debate but the question is not whether it is sensible but whether it is bigotry to propose it.
I think underlying the presumption of bigotry is the idea that this must be the motivation as there is no threat from islamization/ islamism. This is of course a matter of debate but in the light of islamist violence in both Britain and Holland it does not seem an unreasonable position to take seriously this threat. Remember the charge is not that he is wrong or that he is over reacting but htat he is self evidently a bigot. Even if he is mistaken it is hard to see why he should recieve greater opprobrium than a socialist - a person who persues an absolutely vile ideology. Wilders is described in this article as "an extremist and a bigot" and showing "exactly the kind of prejudice one might expect from a spittle-flecked, raving fascist". This seems a little OTT especially comparing him to Islamic radical who actaully want to slaughter Jews (and us Kuffars or whatever we are called). This seems mainly demonisation. The only evidence is his statement "I have had enough of Islam in the Netherlands: no more muslim immigrants here". This is taken as self-evidently a terrible thing to say but its hard to see what is so terrible about it unless you believe that Islam and Immigration are beyond criticism. The first section is the more questionable as it is open to interpretation however its understandable given the problems Islam has caused in terms of violence, social cohesion and threat to Dutch society. As for the rest of the comment you have to be literally mad not to mention immoral, evil and hateful of the environent to be in favour of immigration to either England or Holland and given the problems posed by Islam to be in favour of Islamic immigration is daftness squared. The question is not why some one would oppose it but why someone would be in favour of it. Why therefore is it dismissed as self evidently bigoted to be against immigration when its proponents arent exposed to the same invective?
I for one remain unconvinced that Wilders is a bigot - I don't see that there is sufficent evidence here for that.
The important issue as I see it is what constitutes legitimate debate and who decides this. Also why are different sides held to very different standards?

Mike

Apologists for Islamic barbarians like Mr. Massie are cowards. "Oh dear, they might get angry and place a Fatwa on me". How many Muslims has Geert Wilders named for murder? Beheadings, genital mutilation of girls, stoning, death sentences for apostasy, total intolerance of all other religions, contempt for civil law, "honor" killing, etc. What is the problem in calling this what it is: Lunatic savagery. So much more prudent, like Mr. Massie, to vilify the few brave and honest individuals who expose this plague on humanity. Preach your politically correct tripe to Salman Rushdie.

Hank in Colorado USA

The author suggests radical Islam should not be taken seriously as the same threat posed by the Nazis. Was he asleep when Mumbai was attacked? Have we seen any massive demonstrations by Muslims anywhere in the world condemning terror attacks like the ones that hit two African embassies in the '90's, on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali...the list does go on and on.

Peter Shields

"Happy playing the role of the martyr". This would be funny if were not the fact that he might literally be a martyr if he were not afforded protection. When was the last time you stood up for something that might literally cost you your life Mr Massie?

Banning a book of those you oppose is one thing, chopping their heads off or pinning words from that book to the body of a man with a knife in his chest as he walks through his city is another.

Wilder's argument is that if you are going to ban Mein Kampf then you should also ban the Koran and if you are going to allow the Koran then you should also allow Mein Kampf. Makes perfect sense to me.

Nick Kaplan

I don't know a huge amount about Wilder's but from what I have seen of him your characterisation seems somewhat unfair. For example, he does not think all Muslims are extreme or fascists but that Islam is an extreme and fascistic religion (if one reads the Karan it is hard to avoid this feeling although that could also be said for other major religious texts).

It is important to understand the distinction between saying ‘there is no such thing as moderate Islam’ and ‘there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim’ Wilders only believes the former and, as far as I know, this is a very similar view to Ayan Hisri Ali, (with whom he is good friends) who is by no means a bigot.

Also, I thought he had called for the Koran to be changed rather than banned, but maybe I have got that wrong.

In addition, whether or not Islamism has had as much of a destructive influence as communism or Nazism, the point surely is that if such an ideology were to become widespread then it would be just as intolerant, totalitarian and ghastly as either of these. It thus is true that we should be equally disgusted with the ideology of Islamism and we should fight it with equal force.

I would agree though that his comments about ending Muslim immigration do raise some very serious questions. However, if his view is anything like Douglas Murray which is that we should try and integrate the current population before encouraging further immigration he may have a point. Either way to compare him to a ‘raving fascist’ when he stands up for gay rights, women’s rights and democracy does seem somewhat unfair. He is probably no hero of liberty, but a bigot?... I’m not sure it’s so clear.

Craig Strachan

Alex, if you're so down on Geert Wilders how come you copied his hairstyle?

Celina

Excerpts from the Koran state the Religious Imperative to wipe out the Jews. These are the cornerstones of the Hamas Charter, and are in fact something our media/Government have amnesia about.
These are daily reminders of the argument that it can be compared to Mein Kampf, that the Islamic extremists still give the Nazi salute and that the Muslim nations sided with Hitler during the war. Lest We Forget.
Our Government caved in immediately to Lord Ahmed's threat of surrounding the Houses of Parliament with 10.000 raging Muslims and suing the Government, without any of them having viewed the material that begs the question of who is running our Government? These are points for Wilders and we need not to be intimidated when we look at them.
As a Palestinian friend of mine said, "not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all suicide bombers are Muslim."
Having viewed his film, and having weighed the amount we are moving towards a pro Muslim ideology here in the West,I feel it would be wise to check our balance, and the reasons we might lose it.
Of course many Muslims just want a peaceful life. However innocently, they add substance to the Trojan Horse containing the Warriors. These are the people that do not deserve Political Correctness or Human Rights serving to keep them here.The British Lion squeaks.

Rhoda Klapp

I've read your case, and consider it not proven. If being against terrorism and violence is bigotry, count me in. Boorishness is more in the area of behaviour, and that's not proven either. If bringing the issue of Islam's aims and ambitions into public discussion is bad, I don't see how. But here we are NOT having that debate because it has been deflected into the area of Wilders' character. The political class in the UK and elsewhere is afraid to air the kind of things which people express here on the various Wilders threads. You won't see this on Newsnight or QT. (Although Ch4 has had a go occasionally.) Ordinary people in this country are concerned about this issue, but the Media and politicians won't touch it. Why?

Wilhelm

David

Dicky Dorkins doesnt slag off all religions like islam because he knows he'll get death threats like Theo van Gogh, Salmon Rushdie and Geert Wilders.

Dick Dorkins is a coward, so there.

cuffleyburgers

I suspect tha Wilders is probably rather amusing company for a few beers although not terribly political correct.

However it is not acceptable for a political leader to call for the banning of a book such as the Koran.

The actions of the British government in not allowing him in are grotesque, and truly have sunk to a new low.

Finally, I would take issue with your last point - according to the government we are absolutely engaged in a struggle comparable with the fight against naziism and communism, a global war on terror no less, and the motivation behind the terrorists is islamism, inspired by the, no doubt wrongly interpreted, writings in the koran. This GWOT is used to justify endless curtailings of basic freedoms, torture, detention without trial as well as a bottomless pit of spending. So it is idle to pretend that Islam is not a threat.

It may be true as I believe, that the actions of our own government are a bigger threat to our culture than Islamic terrorists, but it is still true we are engaged in a desperate struggle to preserve what our forefathers created

elfraed

"Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'"
Ban The Bard, too?
"Cry 'Allah for Muhammed, dar al Islam, and the Qur'an?'", instead?

Wilhelm

Alex

I know that you have to come out with the tired old mantra '' Wilders is a boor '' like a Pavlov's dog because you dont want 10.000 radical nutty muslims squeeeling outside the Spectator
office on a Friday night, after all you got to get home and the traffic jams in Londonistan are terrible, and you want a quiet life, dont you, kid ? and I fully understand that and I appreciate your predicament thats why the cowardly British press didnt publish those Danish Mohamad
cartoons.

Now if Geert Wilders came to Britain slagging off the west, Christianity, Israel and Jews. I suppose he would get the red carpet treatment and a job reading Channel 4 news but because he points out that radical islam is err, um, not nice, those touchy sensitve muslims are squeeeeling from the roof tops and the English media treat him like kryptonite. It proves Geert Wilders point entirely that muslims are intolerant.

Is Islam soooooo fragile that it cant take the slightest criticism ?

There is none so blind as those who will not see, eh Alex ?

Max Kaye

Geert Wilders may - or may not be a hero. But he is right to warn us about the dangers posed by fundamentalist and uncompromising nature of unreformed Islam.

Muzzling his right to expression and free speech on this matter unacceptable in a free and tolerant society. If we don't protect these freedoms we will soon loose them.

Cassandra

This [Link: tinyurl.com...] is the verdict of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal against the decision of the Prosecution Board (PB) NOT to prosecute Geert Wilders for hate speech e.a. After appeal against the PB's initial decision the Court ordered the PB to prosecute GW in full before a criminal judge.

In my country is, thanks to the Enlightment, the Right of Complaint against ANY decision of ANY organ of the Kingdom of The Netherlands appeable. The only Human Right which doesn't interfere with all the other human rights as laid down in constitutions, treaties, laws und so weiter.

In a criminal case a victim of assault or robbery, slander or hate speech for instance can always ask a courtorder for the PB to prosecute in full a suspected criminal of whom a officer of justice has said 'let it be' or 'let's make a deal'.

This so called art 12 Criminal code procedure is free of any charge and you do not need a sollicitor or a lawyer. Just a few poststamps.

Annabelle

Ban Milibland for:

a) Holding a banana at a public event;

b) Incessant gurning;

c) Pathetic claims to leadership qualities;

d) Believing that he is fit for purpose;

e) Making a mess of UK's community relations, ie the Government's embarrassing response to Wilders will damage community cohesion irrevocably. Hopefully it never recovers under the terms envisaged by Lord Ahmed and his chums.

Robert Mules

What an intemperate and bigoted article by Massie, I just can't believe it. Wilders has raised the important issue that certain passages from the Koran -- and yes, I've seen the film and read much of the Koran -- are contemptuous of infidels and (in Chapt. 8) encourage fighting them. Since the Koran is viewed by Moslems as being the literal word of God, such passages have, as Wilders states, been used by murderous criminals to justify their attacks as at Mumbai. If this issue may not even be discussed -- and some Moslems are ready to discuss it -- then there is no hope for us at all. Has Wilders ever threatened anyone with death or enouraged murder? Not that I know of. Massie is just a typical Lib/Left whinging appeaser like Miliband and Vaz (who never even bothered to see the film). hank God for people like Francis and Mike and many others who have posted comments in this column.

Ian C

It seems to me that there is considerably complacency in the you argument and of those who agree with you Alex.

First, bigotry and boorishness are surely not the issue, but his message? The message is that many Muslims are using the Koran as justification for world domination and as moral authority for the intent - as Hitler used Mein Kampf to justify 1000 years of German domination. There are surely visible comparisons with evidence from at least the last 20 odd years and many extremist Islamic writers such Qtub and othere to support the thesis.

Yes, Wilders goes too far to make his point and he may be a bigot and a boor. But history tells us that we should not ignore such people for that reason.

Fergus Pickering

A boor and a bigot? John Prescott is a boor and a bigot. That's what a boor and bigot looks like and sounds like. Mr Wilders doesn't look like that and he doesn't sound like that either. I don't think he actualy wants to ban the Koran, which woukd hardly be practicanle, now would it? I htink he says that IF Mein Kampf is banned, which I gather it is in Holland, though it is not over here, then the Koran SHOULD be banned because it ia a similar sort of a book. That is, I agree, a rather extreme position. It's the sort of argument I might find in Private Eye of the New Statesman or other rather extreme magazines. Mr Wilders is obviously not a boor. You have yoked it with bigot because of euphony. Even if Mr Wilders was bigoted he could still be right. I urge you to onsider the imprisonment of G.K. Chesterton's anti-semmitic brother, Cecil. Cecil was rather boorish. He was also right. He said that Lloyd George and a couple of jewish businessmen had broken the law overMarconi shares. And so they had. He was boorish and bigoted and he was right. Mr Wilders says that the mass immigration of muslims into Europe is bad thing. For us I mean. It is hunky dory for the muslims. Is he right? What do you think?

Roland Martel

I find it rather boring that commentators do not present actual facts to support there arguments.
Mr Wilders has stated that the Qu'ran should be banned as Mein Kampf is banned. That means the laws which already exist should be applied equally.
He's also repeatedly stated, in fact more then once that his beef is not with Muslims but Islam (something which for some reason just doesn't get through the blinders of most commentators on the left while it's a crucial point)
He's also stated that there should be a halt to Muslim migration until such time as the socio economic situation of the over a million immigrants with Muslim background in the Netherlands has changed.
At which point one could start to accept new migrants.
Presenting facts which actually aren't facts do not make a proper argument.
Which is why mr Wilders is gaining more support in the Netherlands as his critics seem to be unable to actually tackle and defeat his arguments.
Name calling seems to be the only thing his critics can offer.
From funny comments on his hair to labels as far right extremist, right wing racist,bigot etc. to scare people.
mr Wilders wouldn't have the support he has in the Netherlands if he was any of the things people label him with.

Alex Creel

I watched Fitna last night and was entirely surprisd by how little impact it makes;since 2001 news footage has systematically spliced together headlines of terrorism with senes of islamic life. People at prayer is the stock library footage for these stories. Bush's war on terror (for terror read Islam) and the countless documentaries made on the subject have us trained to relate islam with terrorism in true Pavlovian style.
The cherry on top of this portrayal was a channel 4 news report I saw which described 2 bombing suspects having 'the beard....favoured by terrorists' -and the vast majority of peaceful muslim men in the UK.
The media has already conditioned the public to relate islam with terrorism - Wilders work was already done.

David Gibson

The problem people have with Wilders is that he suggests, wait for it....that...attrocities in the name of Islam, might just have something to do with Islam. He is a freind of freedom and I am ashamed of my country.

Augustus

I don't agree with anything Alex Massie says in his piece about Geert Wilders. If he is 'boorish' he certainly doesn't display any such uncultured character trait in his parliamentary dealings in Holland (which I often follow with interest).

Perhaps Alex Massie should be reminded what Winston Churchill had to say in 1938 when Nazism threatened to overrule our way of life: "I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the Press, for it will be said -
indeed, I hear it said sometimes now - that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticised by ordinary common English politicians. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour,
we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."

Wilhelm

Hypocrisy in the Media Part 947

Extreme leftist George Galloway said on Syrian television that muslims should rise up against the British and American oppressors in Iraq, inciting violence againt British soldiers.

Galloway has got a radio show to spout his venom against Britain, likewise the Guardian and the Independent is full of hate against the west every day.

Why does the Facist left gets a free pass ? The only person who is sensible is Melanie Philips because she knows Israel is on the front line surrounded by wacked out muslim terrorists.

Thankfully the Spectator posters have kicked Alex's erroneous twiterings into touch.

richard

To ban Wilders was wrong.

To try to judge his film without having deeply understood all 149 verses of the Koran that advocate violence against apostates or unbelievers - Fitna used only five - and how they are applied today by Islamist murderers is stupid.

There's no evidence that Massie or most other people accusing Wilders of bigotry today have done this extremely challenging job.

I think we should be very grateful to the flying-but-sadly-not-staying Dutchman for spurring us on to do a very necessary job even better. And he has clearly been willing to give his life for his convictions. That will, by the way, also be required of anyone who does a more thorough job - which I'm sure can and should be done.

Who's volunteering? Ah, I see, criticising the maker of Fitna is a lot less costly than dying a violent, premature death for making something better.

That's OK then. Sorry I mentioned it.

Gareth

It is possible that the new special covenant the Government has with Muslims in the UK allows for banning orders against controversial figures who criticise Islam. The same covenant may also allow for Islamist preachers to enter the UK freely. I am sure that the Home Secretary is entirely satisfied with this arrangement. All other arguments about free speech, etc, are beside the point.

Nicholas

I think your logic is wrong. If Wilders is a boor and a bigot is that worse than the boors and bigots that inhabit the world of Islamic extremism? If I dislike something based on the empirical evidence of what has been done in its name must I suspend that dislike or remain silent about it in order to avoid the accusation of boorishness and bigotry - or to pretend that I hold to some sort of superior set of values?

Your case strikes me as very typical of the left where certain behaviour (that of extremists) is almost excused or ignored as to be expected (or perhaps disgust at the depravity is so obvious it does not need to be articulated?) whereas a negative reaction from "us" is condemned as bigotry. So our focus is on the unacceptibility of Mr Wilders for uttering views we do not like to hear rather than on the extremists who murder and maim, who behead human beings in the most horrible way imaginable (not even the comparitive mercy of a sharp, single sword blow but instead a protracted butchering), who fly aeroplanes full of innocent human into buildings full of other innocent human beings and who have perpetrated many, many other atrocities against the whole world over a period of some 40 years.

So far as I am aware Mr Wilders has not even articulated a belief in such behaviour as a counter to radical Islam so please reserve your words of disapproval for the real degenerates and the real threat.

And I agree with many here that the readiness of our muslim population to protest at being offended by words and pictures is in sharp contrast to their failure to protest about the despicable and inhuman acts of butchery perpetrated against human beings in the name of the religion they share. That makes me feel anger and I am not afraid to articulate it. Could I take to the streets and articulate that anger freely? Doubt it. They can though.

What surprises me, given the established threat and reality of Islamic terror across almost half a century is that we are not more boorish or bigoted and that we still tolerate so much. Lord Ahmed should have been arrested for criminal intimidation and conspiracy incitement to public disorder when he threatened the House of Lords. The perspective on this problem is badly skewed.

Big Bob

Wilders makes for a poor martyr yes, but you know very little about Islam.

Wilhelm

Alex

Why is it ok to ban Geert Wilders from Britain but not an ex Russian soldier who has done time for murder, then he murders again, a poor Lithuanian migrant worker, beheads hers and throws her body into the sea off the coast of Aberdeen ?

ndm

If much of the hostility we see in these comment threads seems familiar it is because it echoes words already written:

-- The [Muslim] religious doctrine consists primarily in prescriptions for keeping the blood of [Muslims] pure and for regulating the relation of [Muslims] among themselves, but even more with the rest of the world; in other words, with non-[Muslims]. But even here it is by no means ethical problems that are involved, but extremely modest economic ones. Concerning the moral value of [Muslim] religious instruction, there are today and have been at all times rather exhaustive studies (not by [Muslims]; the drivel of the [Muslims] themselves on the subject is, of course, adapted to its purpose) which make this kind of religion seem positively monstrous according to Aryan conceptions.

The author of these sentences was speaking of Jews not Muslims - but the tenor of his opinion appears to be a commonplace among commenters at The Spectator, given their dominance of the comment threads.

I am glad to see that the writers of the magazine do not share the opinion of the majority of the commenters since Clive Davis, Alex Massie and Fraser Nelson have all come out against Geert Wilder. I have to think there is some shock by writers at the magazine about the nature of the commentary to their posts.

al thor

look at the amounts of ridiculous views among people here. let's get one thing straight people.

the koran gives the right to self defense for every muslim out there if they are attacked. so when iraq is invaded by the west, then it's the right of iraqis to fight them. there is no apologies for that. if your country is attacked and invaded then you too would be up in arms. how many muslim countries out there occupy christian or jewish countries? none.

but we have christians and jews occupying muslim lands. so what do you expect?

by the way, there are 150 million arab christians living in the middle east. if the goal of the muslims were to wipe out christians, then the logical step would be to attack them first. instead they lead their lives in peace with muslims.

remember saladin? remember how he treated the jews and the christians? do learn your history.

the koran gives the right to self defense to everymuslim out there if they are attacked. however the koran also says never initiate hostilities. as far as i am concerned, the right of self defense is alienable right.

as for geert wilders, it's funny how he calls for the banning of the quran and yet whining about his ban.

he is nothing but a racist xenophobe seeking attention for his bigotry. he turned holland into shithole. now he wants to turn britian to one too.

David Ossitt

The people who are happy to ban Geert Wilders are the same people who say 'I believe in free speech but'. If you have to qualify your belief; then you are simply saying that only those who believe 'as I do' are entitled to this freedom. This is all now quite irrelevant because we do not have freedom of speech in the UK nor do we have freedom of thought. The Politically Correct Brigade want to have everyone singing from their loathsum hymn sheet.

Morris Wolfson

"What would you call someone who compared the Bible to Mein Kamp and demanded it be banned?" Well, Winston Churchill called Mein Kampf "the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message" (The Second World War, Volume 1, Chapter 4).

As far back as 1934, Wickham Steed wrote: "The Nazi creed is sometimes called 'the New Islam'" (The Meaning of Hitlerism, Chapter III).

Would you call either Churchill or Wickham Steed a "bigot" or an "extremist"? (Actually, you, Mr Massie, probably would; but I'm talking more about rational people.)

As for your claim that "to pretend that they [Moslem extremists] pose a comparable danger to that we faced from Nazism or, for that matter, communism is absurd": let's compare London of, say, 1941 (at the height of the threat of Nazi invasion), or of the height of the Cold War, with today. Armed police, CCTV's everywhere, wide powers of stop-and-search, anti-terrorist devices - these were never needed in the past, not during two World Wars, not for forty years of the Cold War, not even to counter the threats of the IRA in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, when "the troubles" were at their all-time high.

I realise that the conclusion does not sit comfortably with your politically-correct prejudices, but Islam is a greater threat to Britain than anything that the country has faced in centuries.

Roy

This new mouthpiece at the Spectator has proved what a left wing prat he really is.

Penny

Well, if we were going to ban every bigot from the country we'd certainly have our work cut out with our own, home-grown lot!

I think the point being missed here is that Wilders was invited. He didn't ask to enter the UK, set up meetings all over the country and have public screenings of 'Fitna' did he?

He was simply going to a private screening of his film and to answer questions relating to his views.

More to the point, Wilders views hadn't changed since he entered the country five short weeks ago when he first visited the Lords.

The hue-and-cry over Wilders and the subsequent ban is the result of one man - Ahmed, an unelected member of our Parliamentary system. His threat to rouse 10,000 muslims was the real security risk the Government feared. Not Wilders.
I think it foolish to lose sight of this.

The double-standards and hypocrisy are shameful. Ahmed has invited dubious characters who support his beliefs into the UK in the past. In my opinion their views were more of a threat to social cohesion than Fitna.

It is sadly true that had Wilders declared 'ban the Bible', no one would have blinked an eye.

It is also sadly true that those who have actually banned the Bible - the Saudis - are quite free to enter the UK. The Foreign Office supported an airline's ban on one of its hostesses having her bible with her when she flew with British Midland Airways into Saudi Arabia.

Bibles discovered on tourists in Saudi Arabia are confiscated - some allege that they are shredded. Clearly with no concern about the sensitivities of those carrying them - nor the West in general.

Wilders has also explained that his use of the word 'ban', in respect of the Koran, needs to be taken in context. The UK may not ban books, but the Netherlands does.

I am alarmed at the rush to label Wilders a 'bigot' when a) we don't know a great deal about him and b)thanks to Ahmed, we still don't.

A truly worrying episode for the UK, but on the bright side, one I think has the worm twitching a little and looking around - even if it hasn't yet turned.

Michael B

Alex, this is one of those arms-folded and obdurate harrumphs, intoned very grandly indeed; incuriousness dressed up as informed intelligence. Wilders' speech, had he been allowed to give it in the House of Lords. All of it worthy of considered and probative review. Both Buruma's and Waterfield's reviews are fundamentally misconceived, based upon the same quality or type of incuriousness. Understandable to a degree - because what's involved here is not at all surface level considerations - but only to a degree. Wilders' take on the matter is not the final word, but it is one beginning, and a worthy one. For that, he can in fact be considered in something of a heroic mold given what he's been put through. Also and as others have emphasized, Wilders did not simply call for the book to be banned, he called for it to be treated within the context of pre-established Dutch statutes. Various caveats, contingencies, cautions and such can be applied, but even if he's interpreted in a rhetorical manner only, he's worthy of considered and conscientious review, not a tout court dismissiveness and attendant harrumph. Likewise, and this fact seems to be telling, it's not a heroic status he's seeking or that is important in the least - it's his ability to speak upon being invited, in the House of Lords, in the British Parliament. That that very right becomes a mere footnote in all of this is what is telling.

Big Bob

Dear Al Thor, master of history

I suppose it was self defence when the armies of Islam conquered vast swathes of territory stretching from Europe to the borders of China within a century of Mohammed's death. And I suppose it was also self defence that led to the imposition of the poll tax on Christians and Jews and so on, and so forth. What a profound grasp of history you have.

Oh, and you know the heartlands of Islam? What religions do you think they practised in those territories before the occupying armies came rolling over the hill?

And Wilders transformed Holland into a shithole. Of course he did. What power he has!

Was it Wilders who stabbed Theo Van Gogh to death?

Dearie, dearie me.

Michael B

Also, since a prominent aspect of this involves mischaracterizations of the seventeen minute film "Fitna," someone needs to tell Piotr Stanczak and Aasiya Hassan - in Pakistan and the U.S.A. respectively and most recently only - that the film is irrelevant. For emphasis, the brief film depicts certain acts and certain verses of the Qur'an which have served to justify those acts, it does not depict all Muslims. In fact, Wilders himself has overtly and unambiguously stated that there are moderate Muslims. (And to be fair, in the case of Aasiya Hassan, the legal case needs to proceed through the U.S. court system as her husband was charged only yesterday.)

Ben Qurayzah

13,000 Muslim terror attacks - that we know about - since 9/11. Is that what you mean by "so few," Mr Massie? Then there's the rape, arson, sabotage, poisoning, medical malpractice, incitement, subversion, fraud and a thousand other forms of jihad, all going on right under the nose you can't see beyond the end of, Mr Massie. As someone once said, in times of universal deciet, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act. Geert is a superhero, and when victory comes, as it soon will, collaborators will cease to enjoy the fruits of their treason. I'm sure you're not one of them, Mr Massie, but even your faux-dhimmitude is irritating.

William Dunbar

Mr Massie, I wonder if you regret moving your blog to the Spectator now? It certainly seems to attract comments from frothing-at-the-mouth mental cases in a way that it never did over at The Debatable Land.

TCN

Did you watch the odious Keith Vaz claim, proudly, on the Newsnight programme, that we no longer have free speech because of the laws that his government have passed? Maybe, Alex, you should be commenting on his statement. Which I find more disturbing than anything the Dutch plonker has to say.

Nicholas

"It certainly seems to attract comments from frothing-at-the-mouth mental cases in a way that it never did over at The Debatable Land."

Boorish and bigoted. Someone has an opinion that differs from mine therefore they must be "frothing at the mouth mental cases". Dismissive scorn rather than engagement. Throw in a bit of demonisation. Very priggish. Very Left. Very New Labour.

Sunny H

Spot on Alex, well said.

Penny

The Government is tunnel-visioned when it comes to 'sensibilities' being offended.

Perhaps they should consider the British Jews in respect of Dickens and Shakespeare?

There can't be a single adult in the UK who hasn't read 'Oliver Twist' or seen a production of 'Oliver', with its gross caricature of a Jew (Fagin).

Shylock isn't much better.

But then, the Jews don't threaten Parliament mob-handed, do they? They just get on with it.

Nick Kaplan

Al thor; When my country is run by a murderous dictator I will beg others to invade and impose democracy. How could anyone but the most ardent fascist not delight in the demise of the mass murdering oppressor and war-monger who formerly led Iraq?

How easily could the people of Iraq put into practice their Koran granted right to self-defence? What about the Kurds? Let us not pretend it is the west that Muslims need protection from, it is their own tyrannical, theocratic leaders.

The fact that you think you speak on behalf of Muslim people by suggesting that giving them democracy was somehow a horrible war crime smacks of hypocrisy and racism, are democracy and liberty too good for those outside the West? It's quite easy for you to say so, but it's not so easy for those who are mudered and tortured by these tyrants.

jhimmi

Wilders is calling for consistency in the application of Dutch laws that restrict speech that incites to violence, but which have never been applied to the Qur'an or to the hate-filled imams who preach jihad and Islamic supremacism in obedience to Quranic dictates.

Wilhelm

Alex.

In your parlance, you blew it, BIG TIME.

Fergus Pickering

Fagin is no more a gross caricature of a jew than Bill Sykes is a gross caricature of a man of the working class, or Nancy a gross caricature of a prostitute, or Mr Bumble a gross caricature of a beadle, come to that. Dickens worked with caricature. He got it from Eighteenth century novelists, particularly Smollet. You may have a point with Shylock, though Shakespeare gives him enough good speeches to stop the play being the comedy it was supposed to be. The general Elizabthen/Jacobean view of jews was considerably more unkind. You should read Marlowe's Jew of Malta who goes about poisoning wells and other horrid things. Icidentally, Dickens introduced a 'good' jew into oneof his later novels, Our Mutual Friend I think, though I couod be wrong. The chap's called Riah, I think, and totally forgettable. Oh, and I can assure you that the Elizabethan/Jacobean view of muslims was every bit as bad. No doubt about it. They just didn't like foreigners.

Penny

Al Thor

850,000 Christians and Jews have been ethnically cleansed from the Middle East since the 1950's. Itamar Levin, in his book 'Locked Doors' estimates the assets seized from them amount to some $6 - $10 billion. This money has never been returned.

I would suggest you investigate the plight of the Coptic Christians in Egypt before stating with such certainty that Christians live peacefully in the ME.

I am at a loss do understand your logic in respect of 'self-defence' Are you saying that if there is a war abroad (say, Iraq), Muslims are at liberty to commit acts of terror in another nation? That a British Muslim - benefactor of the British state system - may then strap a bomb to him/herself and blow up his neighbours in the UK? If he/she is not personally threatened, how is this 'self-defence'?

Saladin was the 11th century for heaven's sake! How long do you think it viable to carry a grudge??????

Gabriel

Geert Wilders has only pointed out that the Koran meets the criteria for the already existing censorship laws in the Netherlands. This is obviously and undeniably true.

It strikes me as completely bizarre that to call for the banning of the Koran is considered obviously tantamount to boorishness when our own government has banned and continues to ban countless things.

Frank

"Peace in our time"

shark

"exactly the kind of prejudice one might expect from a spittle-flecked, raving fascist".

Could this be the same kind of prejudice displayed here by a spittle flecked, raving, boorish and bigoted journalist?

Augustus

As with all political and religious ideologies nobody is more vulnerable to false teachings than the young and naive elements in society. So it was with Nazism, and so it is with fundamentalist Islam. Take this business of dying as a shahid or martyr. Fighting as a true warrior for Islam is also covered in the Koran. The warrior must not die by his own hand even though he has volunteered for the cause, and he must not know the time and place of his own death. But suicide bombers do exactly that, yet suicide is expressly forbidden. In his lifetime Muhammad absolutely refused to bless the body of a suicide even though the man had ended his own life to avoid crippling agony of disease. Those who commit mass murder of innocents and commit suicide are destined for hell, not paradise. The false preachers and immams of the modern age who have tricked them down this road will join them there.

Joanne Silverman

As commentor David said, the moderate Moslems are not terrorists, but they do nothing to quell the violence of extreme Moslems. To them it would be a betrayal of their brothers to speak out, or worse, to do anything to stop the violence. They are like the majority of moderate Germans who did nothing during WWII. Just as there were only a few radical Brownshirts at the beginning . . .

David Ossitt

I have just reread Alex Massie's artical; it is badly written, in that it makes false arguments, such as.

'He further argues that "moderate Islam does not exist" which will doubtless be news to all those muslims around the world who have not taken up arms and have no intention of doing so'

He is missing the whole point of Geert Wilders message; that is, some muslems might be moderate but that nothing in the Islam creed is, it is by its very essence an extreme ideology and one that all liberal people, have good reason to fear and distrust.

Alf Tupper

"...to pretend that they pose a comparable danger to that we faced from Nazism or, for that matter, communism is absurd."

We agree on that. The problem we face right now is far greater than those posed by these former regimes.

Neither the Nazis nor the Communists managed to insert millions of their sympathisers into the heart of our cities; they were both unsuccessful in their attempts to gain influence over substantial areas of authority; and the ideas of neither of them were able to hold sway over the people who inform us through the media, to anything like the extent that we see today.

Ask yourself why so many reasonable people are in favour of Wilders' message being broadcast? I would suggest that it's because they have been fed the same old 'you only THINK we have a problem' message for so long, when they can see in front of their eyes the problem is growing, exponentially.

Can you not understand that? Not any of it?

Morris Wolfson

Augustus, before you sprout on about how Moslem suicide terrorism is a "false teaching" of Islam which appeals to the young and wild, learn something about the subject. You have lifted your "facts" almost verbatim from Frederick Forsythe's novel "The Afghan". Where oh where does the Koran forbid suicide? When did Mohammed (maha ismo) "refuse to bless the body of a suicide"? Can you quote a source - other than a novel? Are you awaye that Forsythe was writing fiction, not fact? And whom do you think has a more authentic understanding of Islam - you, or the greatest Imams of the world (Hassan Nasrallah, Ahmed Yassin, Ayatollah Khomeini, etc etc)?

Oh, and one final question: earlier on, I referred to "Mohammed (maha ismo)". Do you even understand what "maha ismo" means?

Wilhelm

3.5 % of Britain is muslim
6 million muslims in France.
Half of Rotterdam is now muslim, the Dutch are leaving their country in droves.

The Islamic Caliphate of Europe, here we come.

jane from sydney

I don't know anything about Geert Wilders - far away on the bottom of the world as I am. But I looked at his film (only because someone wanted to ban it). I found it unremarkable amongst all the other anti-terrorism stuff I've seen on the net - except for one scene which reinforced the hardening of my heart against Islam (whether justified or not): the bare feet of a young woman standing in a pool of her own bright red blood. Perception is reality, image is everything. Stop female genital mutilation!

tommyt

Massie is spot on here. Wilders is no hero, how can anyone who, in a weasel worded manner, advocates the extermination of a geopolitical threat, which is at best exaggeartated and at worst invented, be described in such terms ?

BUt I would have liked to have the chance to ask M. Wilders that question.

Personally I would be happier if more of the world followed the Christain, HIndu or Islamic traditions.

Taken as a fragment, and out of context, that seems Anti-Semitic doesn't it. Its not I just mistakenly forgot, whilst typing at 5 in the morning, to mention Judaism.

David Preiser

Yes, Geert Wilders is a boor and a bigot whose antics may very well incite violence in Britain. But, Alex, who will actually be doing the violence? Unless this question is addressed, any criticism of Wilders is entirely beside the point.

When you say Wilders isn't the poster boy, you might be looking at the wrong poster.

GC

Morris Wolfson @ 8:36pm again

Apologies to the forum posting again but the comical thought arises that 'maha ismo' is your babylon attempt at 'great name' in Arabic.

****ed up or what? Not only does any such valediction *not* exist anywhere in Arabic texts but also no self-respecting Muslim would countenance its use because while Muhammad merits the utmost respect he is nevertheless to be thought of as a mere mortal, yes the messenger of Allah but not in any sense divine.

What caused Salman Rushdie such grief was not his slander (and so it was despicably) of Muhammad but his suggestion that the revelation itself (through the angel Gabriel) was doctored: frankly he's lucky that the Iranian fatwa was eventually lifted and if I may say so you might to like to ponder a little before posting blasphemous rubbish like this yourself lest you fall into the same difficulties and that especially if you are a convert.

Ronnie

So Alex, I think we can see that, to many people here, Geert Wilders actually is something of a hero after all.

John C

There is no doubt that Islam and our Muslim population within Europe are a community who are distrusted and feared regardless of what Government useing appeasement and ethnic-centric policies to censor any debate about the role of Islam terrified that bombings will increase.
I believe many others if given the chance would wish them to just go back to their original homelands for the time bomb of Muslim birth rates and the Islamic takeover of our Western Society could become a reality.
Racist? definitely not just my honestly held opinion and I do not give a damn if it is viewed as inflammatory but I can tell you when discussing with many people my view is the predominate one on an issue that all politicians have neutered discussion on and the most important grievance, that we the indigenous population were never allowed to vote on whether we wanted millions of Muslims within our society just look at the no -go areas in the Northern Towns where a European would fear to tread.
The Media is also culpable in not allowing frank discussion censoring honestly felt views however contrary to PC correctness.

Christian Westling

How can someone compare citicism of islam and muslims in society with the prosecution of the jews?
The jews were inocent people being in the eyesight of people trying to find a boogeyman for all of their problems.

Islam in Europe faces a real threat, which the sucicide bombings show. Also, muslims are getting more and more radicalized spanning from Lord Ahmeds threats of muslim occupation the parliament to hordes of palestinians making the police run in fear.
Of course not all muslims partake in these actions, but many do, and even more sympathize with them.

The Jews in Europe never did any of these things. They were innocent, radical islam is not!

David

It would be quite easy (and in fact people have, just look at Youtube responses to Fitna) to juxtapose passages from the Old and New Testaments with images of Christians or Jews engaged in violent acts.
Were someone to do that, I've no doubt that many here would talk about issues of context, interpretation, and of how the vast majority of Christians and Jews are in fact pretty moderate and regular people.

Yet somehow, point out the same in this case, and you are accused of burying your head in the sand about Islam.

There is a debate to be had about the activities of extremist Muslims, and their use of religious texts on whcih they base their ideology. But there is no legitimacy in framing that debate, as Fitna does, as one which applies to all Muslims and which does not recognise that the vast majority do not subscribe to ideological extremism.

That is why Wildeers is wrong, and that is why he can accurately be described as a bigot. (I'd also note he's called for the Koran to be banned, which doesn't strike me as being the attitude of a defender of freedom of speech).

Morris Wolfson

Sorry, GC, you got it wrong. "Maha ismo" is my attempt at transcribing an Arabic (not Babylonian) phrase in Latin characters. It means approximately "his name should be blotted out" - something like "of accursed memory" in more comprehensible English idiom. Take a tip from me: don't EVER say "Mohammed maha ismo" to a Moslem, unless you want to risk being murdered. To any Moslem, this phrase constitutes blasphemy far worse than (say) desecrating the Host would for a Catholic.

David

"The Media is also culpable in not allowing frank discussion censoring honestly felt views however contrary to PC correctness."

I suggest you pick up a copy of the Daily Mail and Daily Express.

James H

The key point is that even if he is a "boorish fascist" (which I don't think) he should have been let in and allowed to present his case. If in doing so he incited violence against Muslims, he could have been arrested and prosecuted - with no complaint from me.

I seem to remember a few years back Le Pen was let into Britain to attend some BNP function - even thought he is undeniably a fascist. And many people have already pointed out that the government has no problem in letting various Islamist loonies into the country, so why ban Wilders? The reason is simple: they caved into Muslim pressure.

Augustus

Morris Wolfson, my only purpose was to highlight the various groups, sects and movements which have sprung up, not just today, but throughout the history of Islam. The Sufis, who are mystics, the jursists or Mullahs, the self-appointed Caliphs, and indeed the self-styled Imams. Is it not from these varied muslim groups that present day extreme views of the West and incitement to terrorist atrocities stem? Do these extremists not incite Islam to conquer the world? There is nothing wrong with loving the Koran, or believing in Islam as a religion of peace, but when the will of Allah is turned into a politico-religious hatefest, and where Muslim youths are incited to hatred and violence, it is either the purity of the holy book which must be questioned, or its interpreters who must be accused. As I understand it, the Koran is itself a plagiarism of Judaeo-Christian writings mixed with dreamy reveries and fables conjured up by the bold imaginings of Mohammed. Thomas Carlyle considered it 'toilsome reading'
and spoke of it as 'a wearisome,
confused jumble'.

Rhoda Klapp

That Tom Carlyle was no more than a boor and a bigot.

Primo

Congratulations Alex, you are now garnering enough comments to be able to look Melanie Philips in the eye, despite being a 'left wing prat'. You're still absolutely, utterly and completely correct in all you have said on this issue though.
I think Wilhelm REALLY needs to relax a little - try some buddhism perhaps?

Wilhelm

Primo squeeeks '' Smoke some pot .''

You just dont get it, do you, kid ?

T

To celebrate some sense & decency coming to the Spectator I'm going to repost my Post From Mels Blog I'm glad to say it really got up the nose of the a of the boors & the bigots.

Helen Says " The reason Wilders wants The Koran banned is because, as with the ban on Mein Kampf in the Netherlands, it is because he believes freedom of speech reaches its limits at incitement to violence."

This point seems a trifle obtuse. Comparing a book that billions hold sacred to Hitler’s murderous tract Mein Kampf seems to me to suggest that those who believe in the Koran are somehow like Nazis, and an all-out war against them would be justified. . Geert Wilders method is to expose the intolerance of Muslims by deliberately provoking them. If they react to his insults, he can then claim that they are a threat to our way of life.

He is no hero of free speech but rather a typical cynical bully boy racist politician of the far right just in this case the majority on this blog agrees with his target.

Also I'm not trying to hide anything otherwise I wouldn't be on this bog arguing with you would I . As an atheist I have no love for Islam I think that's a mostly a terrible religion as is Christianity. I could of course pick out quotations from The Bible or The Torah that could easily be described as "hate speech". I would also remind you that with some of the worst massacres of my life time happed in the forests of Srebrenica and in the Sabra and Shatila refuge camps of Beirut and they were perpetrated by Christians on Muslims. Personally I think all religions are all as bad each other and no doubt we could trade atrocities in the name of religion all night.

Alf Tupper I think you should apologise - I came on to this blog with a reasonable point, okay might not agree with it (fair enough) and a true point re Dutch Muslim TV did offer broadcast the film, after all other stations had refused, and you appear to accuse me of somehow condoning the murder of Theo van Gogh's- Shame on you - In fact I made a contribution for the protection of Hirsi Ali and would do the same for Geert Wilders..

Augustus

T, you assess Wilders as 'no hero of free speech but rather a typical cynical bully boy racist politician'. I'm afraid it is you who are the cynical one. Geert Wilder's principal weapons are his courage and his willingness to resist even his own government. He fights for Europe's independence from the caliphate and for its endangered freedoms. In fact, if his motivation was self-interest he could do far better by courting Islam's favour, as so many Europeans are doing - consciously or unconsciously -
rather than risking his freedom and indeed his life.