The world's most dangerous broadcaster

Paul

Typo alert (don't publish this comment)...

"They will thus have suspected any critical faculties or professionalism to which they might ever have laid any claim."

I think you meant "suspended".

Gabez

Interesting. However, unlike Geert Wilders, Daniel Pipes doesn't actually believe that Jordan is Palestine. He wrote a whole essay dismissing that statement as historically flawed. That's not to say that it is. I thought I'd just point it out.
Google 'Is Jordan Palestine?'

TGF UKIP

Careful now, remember how central the BBC is to the rolling promotion of Brand Nelson.

Dr Michael Salt

The world's most dangerous broadcaster? I'm not so sure.

Vain, self aggrandising, greedy, dishonest, antisemitic, treacherous, deceitful, nasty, leftist, biased, dumbed down to the point of idiocy, privileged, hypocritical, aggressive, unethical, BORING....but dangerous????

Well, I just don't think the BBC matters that much any more Mel. Ask my kids. They couldn't care less about it, and can't understand why this small, irrelevant, boring channel makes me want to throw things at the telly.

Augustus

Through a massive amount of immigration and high birth rates
of Muslims, Islam has become a
political force in Europe. Mosques, Islamic faith schools and Islamic centres have sprouted like toadstools out of the ground. Segregation, social
dependancy and integration problems blight many European
towns and cities. Slowly, but surely, these areas are being transformed into areas where different rules seem to apply than to the rest of the community. And the central authority, the mosque, is becoming also the central authority in the ghetto, pushing out everything else, to
be used by radicals as bridgeheads to further Islamization of the very town itself, and ultimately, the whole country. In Belgium a survey was done which found that Moroccans and Turks identified with the towns where they lived, but hardly at all with Belgium, and certainly not
with Flanders. In Germany, only
12% of 3.5 million Muslims there
thought of themselves as German.

We in the West think that our freedom of religion, our equality of both sexes, our seperation of church and state,
are universally accepted norms,
but they are not so in Islam.
We citizens belong to a Judeo-
Christian civilization, but in the eyes of the imams and the ullahs we are inferior beings who would, in an Islamic state,
be classed as second-class citizens, the so-called dhimmis.
Geert Wilders says that it is an illusion to think that the more Muslims come to Europe the
more moderate they will become.
He sees more the danger that we will most likely be forced to fit in with their cultures.
This process has already started: Sharia judgements are already being handed out in some places; in some countries
an Islamic lawyer is no longer
required to stand when a judge enters a court; female Islamics
brought before a court are not required to remove their burkas
which cover them completely.
Have our leaders become blind?
Have we learnt nothing from the past? If future generations are
to enjoy a better world, then the problems of today will have to be solved. The truth is not always pleasant, but we can't run away from it.

Ian

I never watched it as it would obviously be a hatchet job. I can honestly say that I never look to the BBC for any news or information as they distort the truth worse than any organization. That would be OK if we weren't paying for it.

MikeHu

Melanie, do you think that, with this program, the BBC has crossed over a line they had not crossed before? As an American I have the distinct privilege of being able ignore their statist output as much as I like. It sure sounds like this one went above and beyond the BBC's typical efforts that you and others catalog. This sounds like typical Radio Moscow propaganda of the 60s-70s.

Colin Cumner

Isn't it curious how any view other than that promoted by the Left is regarded as 'fascist' or 'racist'? So much for the 'independence' of the national broadcaster.

MikeHu

...Oh, and should we call it "Voice of Londonistan" now?

Pamela Monks

You are correct in saying that this disgraceful programme was in effect inciting violence or murder, particularly in view of the fact that it was just such biased reporting as this that led to the murder of Pim Fortuyn in Holland in 2002. Geert Wilders was throughout described as far right or extremist, yet Martin Smith, the National Secretary of the far left Socialist Workers Party was just referred to as representing the left.

The whole programme was a total and deliberate distortion of the truth. To even imply that Geert Wilders is Europe's most dangerous man is laughable. I could find scores of more dangerous men in any town in Europe, and so could the BBC if they had wanted to.

Linda Smith

I think any viewers watching the programme on Geert Wilders and then switching over to watch File on 4 about the Islamic schools would have been exclaiming "Wilders is right!! Vote for Wilders!!"

Herb

It's interesting to see who picked up this documentary and is using it for their own propaganda purposes. Ironically, it is the neo-Nazi sites like stormfront who have posted it. So we have the left wing BBC doing a hatchet job on Wilders and Israel, implying that both are fascist, while the people who agree with them are the real life Nazis who view both Wilders and Israel as their enemies. They were attracted to this film like catnip. You might want to let the BBC know who their fans are. Again, we see that there is hardly a difference between the left wing international socialists and the National Socialists, the Nazis.

St Bruno

‘We are living in truly evil times’
May I add that we are living in dangerous times.

Geert Wilders is not a dangerous but a very courageous man. Europe needs more men like him to speak out against evil and dangerous events.

There is none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

Events are moving fast in the Islamic world, too fast to really understand what is at the root of the problems. My main concern is the two Iranian war- ships heading for Syria.

I recorded the BBC2 programme to play it again to make sure I could believe what I saw the first time was true to my memory. A typical BBC biased ‘documentary’ possibly put on at the date/time to counter the Channel 4 Islamic School documentary.

I may be wrong in saying that the BBC is supposed to be the voice of the British people but I am not wrong in saying that it is the voice of the extreme-Left and pro any organisation that is anti Israel and their, the BBC’s, twisted view of the extreme- Right.

Terry in Oz

"We are living in truly evil times"

Never a truer observation, Melanie. This is the world prior to WW2. Except this time it precedes WW3. The fact that the appeasing west will eventually have to fight to defend any vestige of civilisation is hard to deny. But I'm not sure it will win this time around.

Roy

If the British authorities had any sense they would expel the whole evil caboodle. Give the BBC the option of going with them, since they have more regard for their crowd, than the English one. Then after giving Geert Wilders a Knighthood, form a new broadcasting system with no public finance or government involvement.

Carlos Perera

The vicious vituperation of Mr. Wilders should not surprise anyone. Britain's own Winston Churchill was subjected to the same sort of hysterical libel when he was a lonely voice urging the country's rearmament, to stave off what should have been the obvious threat present by a bellicose, irredentist Nazi Germany . . . which managed to convince many Western intellectuals that it was the aggrieved party, even as it prepared to plunge the world into a horrible, genocidal world war. Very little changes in history, save the names of the actors momentarily on the stage.

An American

Does anyone here find it odd that the only people who care about Palestinians are liberal Western media and kook actors.

Europe and the UK are in the thick of it when it comes to home-grown Muslim extremists...unfortunately, I believe it is beyond too late.

Geert Wilders is just the messenger...but he is also too late.

Objectivist George

There is a cogent and quite detailed complaint about this 'documentary' on the Gates of Vienna blog, which I would urge you to read:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/02/bbc-breaches-its-charter.html

Julius O'Malley

There are disturbing parallels between how the Western liberal-leftist mindset, epitomised by the BBC and the Guardian (and their imitators in other Western countries), treated Communism and Marxist regimes 1930-1989 and now treats Islam and the Islamification of the West.

Interestingly 1989 was the fulcrum year. It has been identified by many perspicacious observers with an understanding of Islam's modus operandi, including Nigeria's Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka, as the beginning of the West's craven acquiesence to Islam: the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie by a newly-installed Iranian theocrat (who of course spent his political exile in 'gay Paree', not some Islamist cesspit)

Arthur Schopenhauer's three stages of truth are apposite here: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Wilders, as a, perhaps the in Europe, standard bearer of a palpable but unpleasant to confront truth, is positioned half way between stages one and two.

Thus from the perspective of the BBC Geert Wilders has to be demonized as a dangerous man, not for the reasons the BBC maintains, but because he is an anathema to, and a powerfully convincing voice against, the multicultural pieties the BBC propagates. Moreover, he does so calmly, rationally and with a degree of personal charm and charisma. If Wilders, in terms of his personal demeanour and language, presented as a raving lunatic the BBC would be delighted for Wilders would lack credibility. But he doesn't and thats why documentaries like the one you cite have to push out the envelope of misrepresentation and enlist people like Ibrahim Mogra and entities such as the MCB.

Wilders is indeed dangerous: to the dominance of BBC worldview and to the minds of those that would ordinarily adopt it reflexively.

I had a very satisfying experience with a twentysomething Dutchwoman early last year which I hope is being repeated everyday in the Netherlands and more generally the Western democracies. She was by default, ie the educational and cultural milieu from which she had grown, naturally anti-Wilders. I privately offered some considered, temperate words of opposition to the groupthink on Wilders. This young woman said quietly to me: "He might be right." I replied "I'm glad you have the honesty and intelligence to acknowledge that."

Apart from preaching to the converted the BBC's target audience in this instance is those people in the English-speaking democracies who may be wavering in their adherence to the multi-culti worldview or specifically beginning to separate out Islam as a unique phenomenon.

t was staggering in the early 80's to find people, almost always employed in or by the government sector, who were, despite the overwhelming empirical evidence of the monstrousness of Communist regimes, still apologists for them.

The crucial difference between those apologizing for Marxist regimes then and those denying the serious consequences of the Islamification of the West now, is that the former did so from the luxury of living in an affluent, rule-of-law-governed, democracy. That is they didn't have to live it - it was happening over there. Islamification is happening over here - democratic institutions and mores are being eroded and corroded by people living under them.

One only hopes that the West reaches the third stage of Schopenhauer's truth in relation to Islam and the destructiveness of Islamification, and its midwife "Multiculturalism", in years not decades. Geert Wilders is doing the best he can and so are you Melanie.

dbt

No. He is indeed "the most dangerous man." The truth is always dangerous. They cannot handle the truth.

Andy brim

No surprise here from a BBC that recently aired a programme on Radio 4 the premise of which was that the EDL was responsible for radicalising muslims.

The marxists at the BBC know one teleology from another and so must surely be aware of such political bias.

It seems that the BBC is quite prepared to embrace islamic and socialist absolutist politics but not the plural democratic.

Grumpy true Zionist

for more on Geert Wilders and other enlightened europeans, joining in the frontline battle against the scourge of islam/islamism have a look at;

'The Gates of Vienna' blog - (as in.... the Barbarians are at the gates)

JohnW

"That would be OK if we weren't paying for it."

Well no - the situation is worse than a simple matter of who pays. The BBC happily trades on its past reputation of being universally accepted as a fair and impartial broadcaster. It is patently nothing of the sort now. In its current guise, it is a Trojan Horse for those who wish to see the demise of the West and the degradation of Judaeo-Christian values and traditions.

William

Well done Melanie. I was waiting for a journalist to write such an article. I have also complained to the BBC about this most shameful of broadcasting. I was expecting the usual left wing bias but was flabbergasted to see them using Shaykh Khalid Yasin as "a voice of reason" against Mr Wilders. A man caught on film in this country criticising the culture of its people and openly calling them Kuffurs, a racist term.

James Browning

Really excellent analysis. The BBC is simply the propaganda arm of the soft-totalitarianism of political correctness.

Shazza

Melanie, please publish this article in the Daily Mail. As brave Geert says, it is not too late - the time is 11.55, not 11.59. We still have time to preserve our precious, hard won freedoms and Western values.

RezaV

Melanie

"... was effectively the broadcasting equivalent of a flier distributed by the Socialist Workers’ Party."

The extremist far left were there too. Towards the end, the programme introduced “Martin Smith, leader of Britain’s Unite Against Fascism” before featuring a speech by him.

This is the same Martin Smith who is also National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party with their well-documented track record of supporting for extreme Islamist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Dai from Edinburgh

I imagine that the template used by the rationally unhinged producers for this 'documentary' would have been applied to Churchill had Hitler and the Nazis been around today - the former being labeled extremist, the latter as peace loving, daisy gathering victims.
No wonder Bin Laden dismisses the west as a weak if not dead horse.

Wayne Tavitt

Herb on February 18: "Again, we see that there is hardly a difference between the left wing international socialists and the National Socialists, the Nazis."
There is actually, Herb, NO difference- and for an interesting discussion on this see "Modern Facism" by Gene Edward Veith

Tim

But there is a glimmer of hope.
I watched the programme while my girlfriend sat and did a jigsaw. She is uninterested in politics or world affairs but kept glancing up at the programme and at the end said, unprompted by me, 'That was propaganda'.

Ben

We need a Geert Wilders in Britain.

Robert Mitchum

I had hoped, rather naively, that Cameron would set about the BBC and force it to adopt standards of mature objective reporting. What a fool he is, allowing it to pump out endless Guardian-type juvenile propaganda. If only for his own selfish interests he should wipe the smile of their smug faces. Let them experience what the rest of the country is facing - redundancies. Unfortunately Melanie, I would start with Question Time.

Nick

As somebody who frequently appears on BBC Radio 4, shouldn't you declare an interest here Melanie? Presumably you take a fee for your trouble.

logdon

Meanwhile following C4's far more honest and responsible journalism...

Police Launch Child Beatings investigation at Three Glasgow Mosques

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/02/police-have-launched-child-beatings-nvestigation-at-three-glasgow-mosques-.html

And the shape of things to come...

'Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Coming Civil War in France

The following clip is from a CBN news program about deteriorating
conditions in France brought about by late-stage Multiculturalism, with
a special emphasis on the cultural enrichment provided by Muslim
immigrants. Some of the people interviewed seem calm and matter-of-fact
about what�s coming � Yes, of course there will be a civil war. It�s
interesting that the army is expected to intervene when civil
disturbances reach a certain (as yet undefined) level of intensity.

youtube.com/watch?v=J1fcgSvu6xM&feature=player_embedded

Miranda Rose Smith

His crime, apparently, was to believe that Israel was ‘the last line of the defence of Europe’ – which indeed it is – and that to solve the Middle East impasse, Jordan should become Palestine -- which indeed it originally was.

I've been saying for years that Jordan could have solved the problem of the now-so-called "Palestinian" refugees by taking them in, 63 years ago, when they were called what they were, the ARAB refugees, and it could solve the problem by taking them in tomorrow.

How can the pro-Arab BBC hacks not realize that Israel is, indeed, the last line of the defence of Europe? The last line of their defence against those wonderful folks who, only a few days ago, got ahold of Lara Logan?

Speaking of Lara Logan, I think that all of us who are religious, of whatever denomination, should pray for her recovery in mind and body.
We should also pray thast she wises up!!

Trumpeldor

"Gabez
February 17th, 2011 11:04pm

Interesting. However, unlike Geert Wilders, Daniel Pipes doesn't actually believe that Jordan is Palestine. He wrote a whole essay dismissing that statement as historically flawed. That's not to say that it is. I thought I'd just point it out.
Google 'Is Jordan Palestine?'"

Yawn.Mr Geerts is spot on
I have been reviewing scores of historical reports about the region and Jordan is definitely eastern Palestine
If you do not believe me and want to cut it short, you google the history of this region from 1920 to 1923 !
thank you to Mr Churchill and British politicians who ,once more,betrayed the Zionist cause !

Norm

I missed it so turned to BBC i-player but it's not listed?

Derek Pasquill

It would be quite nice if the BBC were to be shut down for a bit. During the interregnum, a McCarthy-type purge of the lefty luvvies surely would be sufficient to restore this venerable old tart, sorry aunty, to a fit state for broadcasting to the nation.

Andy Gill

Hate to disagree Mel, but I think al Beeb actually shot itself in the foot this time.

I came away from seeing that documentary with increased understanding of the threat of Dutch Islamization, and respect for Wilders' political courage.

The attempted hatchet job failed dismally, and I believe this documentary will increase Wilders' appeal.

Crombouke

Par for the course: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/bbc-appeasement-self-loathing.html

tiki

Why blame the Islamists? They learned their lessons very well. They understood that,like in the Arab countries, the best way to 'convey their message is throught the 'ignorant masses (being polite here), who in return influence the media who, by being afraid to lose their voice, comply.

Jack R

Yes; the BBC knows what it is doing in putting out such a blatant, but devious pro-Islam, anti-Wilders propaganda film.

The BBC is an active player in the 'political left-Islam' alliance, and is very hostile to e.g., Geert Wilders, Israel, and the EDL. (Such a political stance happens to fit with the policies of the National Union of Journalists' BBC branch.)

For further critique of BBC on Wilders, etc., suggest see threads at website: 'biased-bbc blogspot'.

Paul Henry

The programme was so incredibly poor and biased that it frequently contradicted itself. One moment it was suggesting that the threat posed by Islamists was exaggerated and then it would cut to footage of those killed by Islamist violence such Theo Van Gogh.

Sheikh Yasin's fascism exposed on "Undercover Mosque" was completely ignored and he even threatened that there would be "a war" is people in Holland if more people started supporting Wilders.

The programme was a complete hatchet job and a betrayal of the balance and objectivity that the BBC claims as its central values.

I would urge all who seen it and agree with Melanie to complain in the strongest possible terms to the BBC right here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/

Remember that the BBC only get away with it because we, the licence payers, allow them to get away with it.

"We are living in truly evil times."

Evil only thrives when the good do nothing. I've registered a complaint and demanded a full written response - have you?

Jez

I've just watched it.

That was bad.

It simply reassure's the already brainwashed.

Edward in the USA

If the EDL was responsible for radicalising muslims,

is the BBC responsible for radicalising non-muslims?

Also why are people forced to pay to support the BBC? Why can't the BBC stand on its own like any other corporation newspapers for instance?

Let the marketplace decide whether the BBC deserves to survive.

Tintagel

Yes, it's still on iPlayer http://ow.ly/3YRDE

raymond

Just could not believe the treatment the BBC gave to Wilders in that programme. Unprofessional, is one of the kinder words I would use.And this , from an organisation that makes such play of its "impartiality" !

canonalberic

I know there is an excellent website dedicated to this subject but what is especially alarming is that the BBC is now quite openly biased; a sure sign of how powerful and above crticism those in senior editorial positions perceive themselves to be.

The Today programme (and to a similar degree its other new outlets) pursue a blatantly propagandistic anti-government line.

This mornings Today programme twisted an innocuous storyline about declining use of public libraries into a narrative about the evil Tories attacking the literacy of poor children. Naughtie introduced Clegg ironically re AV as "the Yes man". There was a very sloppy item allegedly about preserving a Dickensian Workhouse with no obvious current relevance (except in juxtaposition to the "Poor Law" narrative they are running against the IDS reforms); Ms Montague interviewed the Foreign Secretary as if he were a war criminal supplying dictatorships with weapons and finally they mocked Cameron for suggesting that maybe the Today programme was not his favourite start to the day.

They are totally committed to the scary new religion of climate alarmism. They openly campaigned firstly for a hung parliamnet and then for a lib-lab pact.

Bowen and Wingfield-Hays regularly report on matters from Gaza in a manner that would shame the Beobachter describing the mistreatment of ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia....need one go on. It ceratinly scares me - and it especially concerns me that no authoritative voice takes them on and they are allowed to marginalise all their critics as "right-wing" nutters.

Jack R

Today, even 'Harry's Place' has:

"BBC Wilders Documentary Promotes Extremists and Members of Extremist Groups"

Paul W

It was a pretty disgraceful programme but it would be wrong to react against it by praising Wilders. Anybody who uses the "Mohammed was a paedophile" jibe doesn't deserve much sympathy.

Kolnai

An Israeli friend of mine starts banging on about 'Islamophobia'. So I ask him what he would do about countries surrounding Israel which (for example) televise 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. Answer comes there none. 'Forbidden zone! Reactionary question!'

It's becoming increasingly clear the 'Liberal' (snort!) establishment's Nietzschean agenda, if successful, will destroy the West. Think of the man who wears the robes of the 'Archbishop of Canterbury' and his desire for sharia law. How did he get in the building...? And where did he hire those clothes!?? Where's the real Bish hiding? In fact, where have all the real politicians gone as well..? I say: Help! you chaps. We're going under for the third time here..SOS...

'Evil times' indeed.

PS: Is Wilders heir to the mantle of Theo van Gogh and the blessed Ayan Hirsi Ali?

Rupert DeBare

The time is surely coming when Brits of conscience must refuse to pay the BBC tax. Where Inertia rules, Evil flourishes.

moise pippic

Is no one able to bring the BBC and editors of 'documentary' programmes such as the one you are criticising to court on grounds of misrepresentation, incitement to violence, and failure to broadcast in accordance with the BBC Charter that demands evenhandedness and lack of bias in its programmes? Or is bias and partiality considered responsible journalism in Britain today?

Neil Turner

I totally agree Melanie

I watched this programme live, then flicked over to watch the Channel 4 doc on Muslim Child Beating

I have just written to my MP and requested that he take this up with the BBC. I suggest you all do likewise, as this will have greater effect than a complaint via the BBC website

Just google "write to your MP", it'll take 5 mins and will have effect

Augustus

Geert Wilders has started a new
organization called 'The Geert Wilders International freedom Alliance'. He says it is "To defend freedom, and stop Islam in the western world. It will first focus on five countries:
Canada, USA, UK, France, and Germany." He intends to go to each country every six months to
deliver a speech there. He says that he has great expectations
for its success. He has been asked that, with this news, does he expect to get the whole Muslim world against him, are you ready for that? "Yes, I am ready for that. I realize that very well. But that is not my intention. My intention is never
to get people against me, but I
think that I also have a responsibility which stretches further than just Holland, and I think that we, by stopping Islamization and struggling for this freedom should be taken seriously, and I am prepared to stick my neck out for that. We are going to go about this in a very professional way. We will take this on in a number of countries. I will enter into debates with Muslim communities,
but this must be dealt with at an international level. And in many countries it will not be applauded, but that must not be a reason not to do it." He intends to start with this after his trial is finished in November. This could be a breakthrough. He is a brave man!

"Civilization will not last, freedom will not survive, peace will not be kept, unless a very large majority of mankind unite
together to defend them and show themselves possessed of a constabulary power before which barbaric and atavistic forces will."
-Winston Churchill

Simon

There is a big bit about this on Bias BBC.

Fact is noone will challenge the BBC and they know it so can pump out propaganda to promote whatever cause they believe in.

It is a disgrace but there truly is nothing we can do

Martel

Great article again Melanie. I get the disturbing feeling that many people on the Left want to believe that Geert Wilders and racists are what has caused Islamic radicalism to gain momentum. It is much more comfortable for them to believe that than put responsibility on the ideology itself. Khalid Yasin is an out and out seperatist and also hypocrite if he thinks he has the integrity to criticise Wilders. Rather than condemning a mans (albeit controversial)views maybe he should condemn suicide bombings and honour killings, things that really hurt people.....

Emet

Shame on the BBC to enlarge a failed agit-prop
picture.The film was butchered in Holland!

michael

2 million TV licences to fight in court if they had said the wrong thing. Having seen the brass's mercenary attitude towards HR, I wouldn't credit this lot with any loyalties except to their fat bonus cheques.

Grumpy true Zionist

Miranda Rose - well said!

put in a post earlier which must have insulted somebody......anyway, what i said was that fayad, abbas, rudineh and the rest of the 'good' terror thugs of fatagh, have in fact already applied for and received jordanian citizenship

now all we have to do is wait for the 'friendly'jordanians to extend this kind gesture to the rest of the arabs milling about the 'so called' west bank

talking lara logan, i know the parents (derek and margeret) and when i told to them years ago that their daughter was playing in a very dangerous neighbourhood, they were somewhat contemptous of my comment, and thought i was a bit over-reactive
typical i might add of many of the posters here, who think that all the arab/muslim world needs is a big cuddle

Woody

The Keighley Muslim school involved in alleged child beating is, according to the Bradford Telegraph and Argus of February 17, to be investigated by the police. I saw nothing of this on the main TV news channels. Was this a cover-up? If a Christian faith school had been accused of beatings and race hate taachings imagine how the BBC would go to town!

Heidi

"Hate to disagree Mel, but I think al Beeb actually shot itself in the foot this time." From above.

Yes, when the Soviets allowed footage of riots in American cities on their television services, believing that this would undermine the US and show that the communist regime was superior, it backfired.

What people saw, beyond the looting and violence, were loads of goods in supermarkets, superior clothes, superior cars etc etc.

Ruth

Thank goodness someone has the guts to state the obvious, albeit teh politically incorrect obvious - do we or do we not want a Muslim Britain? And before you answer that, go to Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc., and see how women are treated, how 'justice' works and think twice....

MFS

Hi.
This is a remake with new material of an earlier Dutch attempt to discredit Geert Wilders!
The earlier Teledoc was from Pieter from Huystee Film, RedRebel Films and VPRO .

ANNE JONES

Public should not pay the BBC licence fee. That would be a start.

MikeF

Re the Wilders film how appropriate to our times that a company with the pseudo-Marxist name of Red Rebel should be pumping out conformist, establishment propaganda.

HuddsOn

I find it utterly astonishing that so many people here are praising Wilders - not just defending his right to self-expression, but actually defending him as a politician. He is on record as saying that there is no such thing as moderate Islam, he has compared the Koran to Mein Kampf and called for it to be banned, he has even proposed a tax on the wearers of headscarves. If this doesn't make him an extremist, what does?

For the record I am not an Islamophile or multiculturalist - indeed, as a member of a minority religion myself, I have good reason to fear the rise of politicised Islam and Muslim faith-hate. But Wilders is nothing but a narcissistic, self-serving troublemaker.

Gareth

You deserve a medal for sitting through it. I always avoid the BBC's "documentaries" on global warming, islam, Iraq, Egypt, the EU, the financial crisis...and everything else that matters.

joe strummer

It was an appalling rant against Wilders by the BBC. The Dutchman frightens their warped collective world view, so they've set their attack dogs on him.

Shaun Harbord

Well said HuddsON.

old fogey

My opinion of the BBC was already pretty low and this programme can't really have lessened it. But observing the Dutch political and legal authorities in action over the last few years has been a truly enlightening experience; what a devious, craven bunch of near traitorous cowards. In their perfidy they helping to bring about what Wilders has been warning them of.

Penny

Hopefully, many people are filling in the 'complaints' forms on the BBC's site.

My complaint expressed several concerns, including my view that the documentary on Wilders lent itself more to a David Icke conspiracy theory than to the research of a supposedly world standard, national broadcasting company.

I asked if the BBC also believes that the shark found in Egyptian waters and the vulture discovered in Saudi were agents of Mossad?

This BBC nonsense really needs to stop. I'm beginning to read an increasing number of articles which indicate that many overseas are also aware that the BBC is a biased and untrustworthy institution. I feel ashamed that it is British.

William Smart

Well, I'm watching "Europe's most dangerous man" on YouTube right now and Wilders will only be pleased with it. Yes, there is wild and irrational opposition, but there is, if anything, more that backs what Wilders is saying.

Penny

HuddsOn - I don't necessarily agree with all Wilders says or all his policies, but surely if he is a) the one with the bullet-proof vest b) living under guard 24/7 c) having to move home every few days. And if d) one politician has been murdered and another forced to flee the country for the part she played in making a film by e) yet another who has been murdered, then it would seem that there is a position far more extreme than Wilders. And we haven't even mentioned the fact that he is on trial for what amounts to heresy. In the 21st century no less.

Because the Netherlands is a democracy, those who disagree with Wilders have many options open to them to protest against his views and his policies. The Dutch are incredibly tolerant people; if they don't agree with Wilders, they'll show it via the ballot box, not through violence and intimidation. Yet, this appears to be what is happening which by itself should be a concern for Europeans of all faiths (or none) and races.

But this program could have been about Wilders or anyone else and Melanie's point still stands. We are being presented not with facts and sensible debate with which to make our decision about Wilders (and bizarrely, Israel) but with a form of propaganda that is lurching towards conspiracy theory. You don't have to care about Wilders to find this increasing trend within the BBC to be extremely worrying. It is not what most of us expect to see in a Western democracy.

Wilders and Israel today - who will it be tomorrow?

Andy

Melanie, ever since reading Londinistan i have admired your views.
I wrote to the BBC highlighting the dangers of the way they aired this programme, especially after the Theo Van Gogh atrocity where a Muslim hacked off his head in the street after the far left villified him.

Lately the BBC have become apologists for radical Islamists and the far left who are willing to carry violence on their behalf.

I ask, why is it only a female journalist who is brave enough to raise these issues? Is it because of guidelines from the NUJ, fear of the establishment, backlash from the public or just plain cowardice?

All over Europe, as here in Britain, the polulace are fed up with having to walk on egg shells whenever the word "Muslim" is raised. They are not special and should not be accorded special distinction.

J. Hank Rearden

Wilders is under armed guard 24/7, moves from save house to save house never sleeping the same place twice in a row because of death threats from the religion of peace. And he is the trouble maker?? What a load of crap. Wilders tells the truth, which paraphrasing Orwell "In a world of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act" and that is what scares the elites

David Price

What the Guardianistas at the Beeb fail to realise is that Wilders is a 'muscular liberal', to coin David Cameron's phrase.

Having lived in Holland, I can add that the Dutch are very tolerant, pluralist people, but when things/people come along to threaten this, they reassert their liberalism in a robust way. Basically, saying 'we won't tolerate people who threaten our liberal way of life', and that includes Islamicists, if not Islam.

To the feeble minded Beeb, that counts as extreme right wing politics, but asserting liberalism in a strong way is simply radical liberalism, and bang smack in the middle of the political spectrum not at the far right!

We all know the Beeb is a lefty organisation, but this simply shows that the culture there is not a progressive, libertarian socialism, it's just an old school unreconstructed Leninist strain. It's sad (but predictable) enough that they 'did a job' on Wilders, but it's sadder still that it was done in such an tediously obvious way.

Using this same BBC logic that those who bullishly stand up to protect their free, equal way of life are 'extreme right wingers' would make Britain in 1939 the Nazi's and Germany the oppressed good guys. I despair!

Hysteria

@ HuddsOn

"He is on record as saying that there is no such thing as moderate Islam, he has compared the Koran to Mein Kampf and called for it to be banned, he has even proposed a tax on the wearers of headscarves"

yes - and your point is?....

Ben

We love you Melanie! Well said.

I noticed this too. The title of the documentary itself was very revealing. Like you said, it tried to paint Wilders as some kind of Nazi fascist. At the end of the documentary, the Muslim imam they got compared the situation with Wilders in Holland now, to Hitler in Germany in 1930s (I don't remember the exact quote). And that's even after the the documentary spent a good fifteen minutes talking about how pro-Israel Wilders is! And this is when it is those very Muslim extremists who are the Israel and Jew haters. Astonishing - makes no sense.

And to call Wilder's 'the most dangerous man in Europe' when he is under 24 hour protection from bloodthirsty Islamists, is just extraordinary. Surely people see a problem with this?

And to be fair Melanie, I think they will. The whole thing was so outrageously biased - and yet at the same time, I think it failed spectacularly to actually portray Wilders as the fascist nutcase they tried so desperately hard to do. I think many people watching this will see the lies and the nonsense - surely people are waking up to what Islam is all about? A very telling part of the documentary was when those Moroccan youths called the Wilders supporter a 'Dutch bastard'.

We can hope that people watched this and recoiled at the hideous bias, and at the same time, learned something about one of the most important men in Europe today.

Neil Saunders

Nick

We, the licence-payers, pay Melanie Phillips's fees for her participation in BBC broadcasts (as well as those of everybody else who expects payment from the Corporation).

The BBC is supposed to be a public-service broadcaster, funded by the licence-fee.

Are you suggesting that Melanie Phillips should refuse money from the public when others who speak and/or appear on the BBC do not?

If you think so, please explain why.

Mustapha Bunn

In Australia,yesterday,Liberal Senator,Cory Bernardi denounced islam as a "totalitarian,political and religious ideology".
He went on to say that," islam is the problem not muslims".
Naturally he has received death threats ......... says it all!

Edward in the USA

HuggsOn said:
"nothing but a narcissistic, self-serving troublemaker"

You must of course be referring to George Gallowsway.

TomTom

Why does the EU insist on privatising Mail Delivery, Railways and issue Directives but never propose privatising State Broadcasting Corporations in Europe ?

gareth

Best piece I've read in ages - there's very few writes like you outside of America Mel.

Bryan

Incisive analysis, as always, Melanie. The propaganda of this "documentary" is so blatant that it's easy to miss the more subtle and sly fiddling with the facts:

At 13:45 minutes in, the commentary has this:

"To prevent trouble on the streets, the visit was banned...."

That's a half truth, at best. The visit was banned primnarily because lefty Jacqui Smith and crew chose to bow to the will of intolerant, radical Islam and had no qualms about illegally banning Wilders to that end.

"....But a year later, in March 2010, the British government relented and allowed Wilders to make his appearance."

And here I was thinking that in fact Wilders had to fight a legal battle for his right to visit Britain, another EU country. If he had lost, the ban would have stayed in place.

Someone mentioned Rupert Wingfield Hayes. He's yet another BBC "journalist" supporting the anti-Israel agenda. He figured he'd do his bit for the cause so he set out to portray the Israelis as wealthy, lazy slobs, indifferent to peace, and the Palestinians as honourable activists, committed to an end to "occupation." I guess even he realised he would have to disguise the propaganda as news so he made a feeble attempt at it by couching his contribution to the poisonous anti-Israel output of the BBC in terms of the peace process.

Once he'd set his agenda, all that remained was to film Israelis sprawled on a beach, making and buying gold jewellery, claiming they had no political concerns, and the Palestinians as earnestly seeking a solution to the conflict.

And there you have it - yet another dumbed-down little package of BBC bias aimed at reinforcing anti-Israel sentiment, and to hell with journalistic ethics:

"Tel Aviv is like a new Miami but does it help talks?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11294445

Fergus Pickering

More power to your elbow, Melanie. I've seen some lefty tripe on the Beeb but this one really takes the biscuit.

moif

The BBC did much the same thing on Radio 4 against the Danish politician Pia Kaersgaard not more than a week ago.

Larry in Tel Aviv

I remark for the benefit of all the Brits here, that the Lefty UK blog, 'Harry's Place' which pretends itself a decent Leftwing blog (removed from all the anti-Semites/anti-Zionists on the Left), when it is no such thing, has endorsed the BBC doccie as factual and accurate and Wilders as a dangerous racist.

I mention this, because HP is still taken seriously by some, when it has about as much credibility as the Guardian. And they endorse blatant censorship if you show them up too much. HP is a dhimmi blog, part of the problem, just like the BBC.

Stephen Green

The BBC is deluded. From their broadcasts they seem to think that the current events in the Middle east and North Africa will lead to Democratic Governments.
All BBC Current Affairs' staff should be made to read the Koran from cover to cover and then be examined to ensure that they have got the message.
This can be summarised as follows:-
1. All human beings who refuse to convert to islam should be murdered.
Note the 'All'.
2. All governments throughout the world should be subject to Sharia Law.
Note the 'All'.
There is no room for compromise with this facist based so called religion.
If, after this exercise, the truth penetrates the thick skulls of the BeebPlod they might care to make a new programme that reflects the reality of the world wide crisis with which we are faced.

Herzen

Melanie Phillips on occasion makes a distinction between Muslims, with whom she has no quarrel, and Islamists. This Wilders makes no such distinction, yet Melanie Phillips supports him whole-heartedly.

Is the complaint that these Muslim immigrants are intent on establishing a state consonant with their religion despite the opposition of the indigenous people, and are willing to use force to get their way?

Emmet Sweeney

What does it take to get the people of Britain to stand up and refuse to pay the license to these bastards?

Lucas Hyde

Don't worry Melanie, I may not be the brightest spark around but I could see from the outset, the intention of the documentary. It was so obviously biased I became more, not less, pro Wilders because of it.

Mossytoddler

Holland (the political murders, Hirsi Ali, a visit to a Morrocan-dominated area), and clips from Ali's film, Fitna and an internet film about Muslim immigration and its effect on European demography. Also, there were numerous clips of Muslims calling for violence. The clip of Martin Smith showed him as inarticulate and foul-mouthed, and again saying nothing but calling for violence. This was immediately after a clip of Tommy Robinson, which couldn't help but show him in a favourable light - though that particular clip had probably been chosen to insinuate that he wanted to drive out Muslims (at one point he warned Islamists to get out of Europe).

So a lot of information that normally wouldn't have reached MSM screens was brought to the public. I agree, though, that this was probably despite the programme makers. Their arrogant assumption that the audience would naturally share their views - hate Israel and cuddle Islam - blinded them to their own content, I suspect.

Alison Timms

Hurrah for Melanie Phillips! - a seemingly lone voice of common sense and decency in an ever-increasing world of Islamisation - would that politicians have the same guts to voice the truth as you do!
Did anyone watch Channel 4's 'Dispatches' this week on the secret filming in a British mosque and religious school? Absolutely shocking - and what are the government going to do about it??? People of Britain, it's time to stand up, be counted and heard!

Merlyn

I wrote a long letter to the BBC and to my local MP.
The BBC will take time in its response as it always does... hoping the complainer will forget.

The MP wrote;
The BBC has editorial freedom and the Government can not intervene. You do not mention whether the BBC has answered you complaint. Ultimately you have the right to complain to the chairman of the baord of trustees and this is probably the best course of action.

The BBC has editorial freedom and the Government can not intervene. You do not mention whether the BBC has answered you complaint. Ultimately you have the right to complain to the chairman of the board of trustees and this is probably the best course of action.

Toby Ellenor

Yesterday I heard the BBC radio programme fivrlive discussing the referendum on the AV proposals.
During the discussion somebody said that,'AV would let UKIP in'.
Shock- Horror !!, these supposed democratic folk doing the discussion started talking about how to stop this !

I mean, do they really not comprehend the concept of Democracy ? or are they parrotting somebody elses tosh ?
When I heard that the BBC were doing a programme about Geert Wilders I knew intinctively that they would be trashing him, I was correct but is this not a very sad thing to see how low the BBC has sunk ?

Peter T

The question that I want answered is how can the BBC be brought to account for their incredible bias and lies?

pterodactyl

Derek Pasquill says "It would be quite nice if the BBC were to be shut down for a bit."

I would be content with them handing over editorial control to give the other side only, say 10%, of the airtime on any issue. That should easily be enough to counteract even years of on-message broadcasting by the BBC. With all the anti-Wilders hours they have broadcast so far, he should now be allowed his 10% of that time to give his side. That would make an interesting documentary. The reason I would be happy with 10% is that it does not require much of the truth to counteract even years of on-message lies from the likes of the BBC. Especially when the truth is in harmony with the way people think, and the BBC message runs against it. That is why the BBC must be distressed about the internet increasingly bringing the other side to a much larger audience, for example Geert Wilder's film 'Fitna'. How the BBC must be enraged by the free speech of the internet. For a start, it has cancelled out all their years of AGW propaganda.

Robert Mitchum says "I had hoped, rather naively, that Cameron would set about the BBC and force it to adopt standards of mature objective reporting"
Before the election Cameron said he was a fan of the BBC. I do not think we can look to him to defend conservative values.

Michael says "2 million TV licences to fight in court"
-but the government would bail them out. An anti-British government will support an anti-British Broadcasting Corporation.

Augustus

Frankly, the excuse that the Muslim violence and immorality that we see practically every day on the news is due to a small number of 'radicals' who have 'hijacked' the religion is
getting to be a pretty tired argument. Of course there are those who think its wrong to kill, but then there are others who take all those violent sayings by their preachers quite
seriously, and use those sayings
as justification for beating wives, killing innocents, forcing girls to marry for money, rather than love, or whether the offspring will be
healthy. But the most important
fact about all this is that, if
there is a great majority who don't condone all this, who do believe that these practices and religious fanaticisms are wrong, unhealthy, and against the civilized principles of the West, they seem to be completely
ignoring and denying these immoral principles, and that is
the danger. And that is why another voice has to do it - someone like Wilders.

Tilly

In Melanie's previous post ("Double standards and an imbecile media")the subject of Geert Wilders was raised by a correspondent and I pointed out that among Wilders' fiercest critics was the Anti-Defamation League - an American organisation founded by Jews and whose main focus is campaigning against anti-Semitism.

The League published the following statement in response to a speech Wilders had made:

"The ADL strongly condemns Geert Wilders' message of hate against Islam as inflammatory, divisive and antithetical to American democratic ideals.

"The rhetoric is dangerous, incendiary and wrongly focuses on Islam as a religion, as opposed to the very real threat of extremist radical Islamists."

Apart from one comment in riposte - "some Americans are capable of sticking their heads in the sand" - there was no further discussion. Contributors to this thread, hopefully, will address the ADL's statement with greater care.

Amberling

Next week the Netherlands will have elections for the Senate.
Our equivalent of the BBC has defamed this right government for months on end.

On television (tax payers money !) Geert Wilders is openly being branded als Adolf Hitler and has been compared with a nazi guard in a concentration camps where he sends children to the gas-chambers.

At the moment a political Inquisition is going on where the state is trying to silence him.

A few years ago Pim Fortuyn was murdered after months of demonisation from the Media and (some) of the political parties on the left.

A few months after the murder the othe rpolitical parties declared that the Dutch people had enough of the three III's (meaning Immigration, integration and islamisation) and they stopped talking about it.

Wilders was kicked out of the liberal party (which are actually more like the conservatives than the liberals in Albion) because he didn't want Turkey in the European Union but was not allowed to express his opinion

Het started his Freedom party and here we are.
The media and the political parties wanted to put a lid on all the talk concerning the three III's but on Internet the discussion raged on.

The outcome of the elections took the 'Better People' completely by suprise.
First Wilders got 9 seats where the opinion polls thought he would get 1 seat.

Last summer he got 24 seats (and became the third largest party) and in the current opinion polls the Freedom party is close to 30 seats and are bigger than the Dutch Labour party (24 seats)

Conclusion
The old media doesn't work anymore
Their domination has ended.

Now begins the battle against the Education, Civil Service, Subsidy Circus, Universities, 'Soft' Science and many other institutions where the left-wing has been eating it's way into for decades.

It will be a long and often difficult struggle and the media (with tax payer's money) will fight us inch for inch but it's better to go down with a fight than without one.

For a better future for everyone.

The left has thrown secularism, the freedom of Speech, the equality of women and man, homo/hetero and black/white on the refuse-dump of history.
The Left has betrayed us and slowly we are awakening.

Comprehensiveboy

With all the usual responses understood just remember one thing alongside all the rest of the truisms - each muslim is stuck with Islam too. They face death if they try to leave, never mind reform it - and a lifstyle like Wilders. Learn from Gramsci. Concentrate on those who do make the bid for freedom and make them cause celebres. They would be tiny number to start with but once the possiblity is established maybe a tidal wave. Think of all the left campaigns for phenomena which appear small and peripheral at the start and actually change society. e.g. support for single mothers (a small number of deserving unfortunates in the 1960s) now a large part of society and many state clients and labour voters, or abortion, a small number of deserving unfortunates at first now we get large swathes of the indigenous population aborted - to be replaced by labour voting immigrants. Or are right wingers just too direct and honest for all this?

Amberling

To put things in perspective

In Holland the leader of the Green Left party Femke Halsema (the most Left-wing and multicultural party in Holland) said:

"This movie is biased and proves that the State Broadcaster is prejudiced. It has nothing to do with journalism."

I think that even the most left-wing politician in Holland would be called a racist in your country.

I fear you have a long way to go.
I think in Europe only Sweden and England are comparable in their highly dangerous State-sponsered multicultural fanatism.

In England there are only two religions left: the Islam and Political Correctness.

Augustus

Red Rebel Films are the same company which aired a documentary in The Nethetrlands a while back which tried to prove that the Dutch were bigoted against Muslims. They staged a Muslim woman with a shopping bag from which a bag of oranges was deliberatly allowed to fall on the pavement,
and then their camera waited to see whether anybody would come to her aid by helping her pick them up. Needless to day, after
many drops of the oranges, not one Hollander made an effort to help her; they just walked by
uninterested in her predicament.
But, unknown to this film crew,
another crew from France working in Amsterdam saw what was happening and proceeded to film the Dutch crew. It turned out that every time a passer-by
stopped to help pick up the oranges, a member of the Dutch crew told them to stop doing that and clear off. So much for Joost van der Valk and his motley crew. Similarly, when he
approached people he wanted to interview about this programme he told them that his film company was 'working on a programme for Dutch television
(VPRO) about the PVV and similar parties which oppose
Islam in Europe', but the documentary was only about a biased view of Geert Wilders. It is obvious to anyone in the know that this was a nasty hit job on Wilders designed to smear
him and his supporters abroad.
Deep shame on the BBC that they have had to stoop so low to the extreme Left in order to try to
undo their hitherto failed attempts to discredit Wilders, and damage him.

Augustus

Amberling - Everything you say is correct, except that he wasn't 'kicked out' of the VVD
party, he resigned of his own accord.

Tilly - Wilders is popular in America (he spoke out in New York against the Ground Zero mosque recently). It's no use trying to discredit him by cherry picking a quote from the ADL, because the ADL does not speak for Jews as a whole. They are a rum bunch; they have categorically denied the Armenian genocide committed by Ottoman Turkey, and they came out in support of the teacher of an Islamic school in Brooklyn
who had to resign because of her
intifada T-shirts. The ADL has a notorious reputation for being
loyal firstly to their Leftist
dogma before the survival of the Jewish people.

b.boru

D'ont pay the licence fee.Starve the beast.

Sneb

A very good review on this very poor piece of documentary. Since the uprise of Wilders he has been falsely accused and attacked for being a racists and a fascist.

His sole purpose is addressing and exposing the danger of Islam. Wilders is on a tight 24/7 security watch which might give you an indication about the validity of his claim.

Liz

Merlyn. Please don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from the fabian fascists at the Beeb. I've asked them several times why it is that of all the 32 languages in which the world service broadcasts (including Pashto, Kinyarwanda and Sinhala) they couldn't manage to have anything in Hebrew - particularly since Israel is so often their focus of attention. I'm still waiting to hear from them - even though I realise that their unwillingness to provide a reasonable answer is shockingly obvious.

C.Gee

Tilly:
"Contributors to this thread, hopefully, will address the ADL's statement with greater care."

Why? The ADL is the Jewish wing of the Democratic Party.

I am surprised you did not look for J- Street’s anti-Wilders statements. J-Street is the Jewish wing of progressive post-nationalism. Even more your sort of Jews than the ADL.

Why do you wish to hear the American Jewish point of view on Wilders? What does American Jewish opinion signify in Dutch politics? Do you believe that the ADL speaks for all Jews, or only the Jews that matter because they agree with you?

Gavin

Good analysis. Please also see the Gates of Vienna article on this topic, and the comments under it:

http://bit.ly/hEop8k

Bohemond

Why doesn't Auntie just be honest and change her name to Guardian Broadcasting?

Edward in the USA

I see that the BBC has been around since 1922.

How much longer will the BBC demand license fees from the public to support its "experimental wireless project"?

Why can't the BBC stand on its own like print media?

Will Freedom Loving people in the UK demand an end to the BBC dictatorship?

Stuart Seacole Smith

The BBC bangs another nail into its own coffin. The question is, how much longer can this debate skewing anachronism continue in the same guise? Let's hope not too much longer.

imnokuffar

I gave up watching the BBC for any news coverage years ago due to its downright bias against Israel and its crappy reporting on just about every issue.

OK I lie, occasionally I switch it on just to remind myself how bad it is. I particularly dislike the morning show where the presenters appear to be brain dead simpering idiots. I can stand about 2 minutes of this hogwash.

When I told my daughter that I consider the BBC news reporting to be crap and full of bias she was shocked. I told her to watch any reporting on Israel and the Palestinians.

Arjan

Hear Hear, Melanie!

Fergus Pickering

The BBC is jolly good at covering animals but when human beings come into view they have a definite problem. I think it is because animals can be herded about and keep their mouths shut.

Santorum

Gavin

Have you read some of the comments on the Gates of Vienna. it's Stormfront gone to college. Melanie Phillips to her credit has always taken a dim view of facists

verkooy

Truly an obligatory column for every dutch voter!
Thanks in evil times, Melanie.

Joshua

"During the times of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth becomes a Revolutionary act."
George Orwell

Grumpy true Zionist

the real problem for main stream media (msm) is that its slow, biased (leftwingnut like bbc or rightwingnut like fox news - you could say one cancels out the other) and has to satisfy certain economic agendas/sponsors etc

webblogs on the other hand are immediate, raw, edgy, intense, fairly numerous and divergent....but most of all honest

for every 'Gates of Vienna' there's palistine solidarity ban or boycott this or whatever

you get a nice counterbalance, and most of all - unless you're trying to contact aljazeera (very difficult to do at the best of times) you can happily contribute your little bit to all of these blogspots - indeed they actively encourage same, unlike that doha based iranian network aka aljihad... oops jazeera and its sister networks bbc and the guardian (who are not averse to you contacting them, but i'm sure divert most comment to file 13)

Ian S.

Who is in charge of the Thought Police censoring posts to this blog - Warsi ? This is the third time that y comment has failed to appear. I did not post some foaming, libellous invective - I merely pointed out the limits of tolerance when confronted with rigid intolerance. From numerous comments I have noted on other threads, this entire site appears to be heavily censored, particularly as regards any comments made about Islam.

Tilly

Augustus & C:Gee

I had no idea that the ADL was notorious as a "rum bunch" of Lefties till I read your replies! From what I could gather, its primary aim was to defend Israel to the hilt and fight anti-Semitism.

Do you regard the League's pronouncements and actions as deficient/half-hearted on this specific score? (I certainly couldn't see any evidence of ambivalence.)

If not, why disparage it for acknowledging the existence of hate speech on a wider front?

Far from "cherry-picking" the League for criticism of Wilders, I had actually been expecting (yet another) cheerleading exercise: hard-core Zionists who didn't give a toss about bigotry unless it was directed squarely at themselves. What a surprise ... and that's why I raised it here.

There would have been no point in quoting criticism from non-Jewish sources or opponents of Israel's policies, only to have accusations of anti-Semitism and "usual suspects" thrown back. And - however disgruntled you may be by the ADL's issued statement - you surely can't accuse it of THAT!

Both of you emphasise that the League doesn't represent all Jewish people, and C.Gee asks why I should wish to hear an "American" point of view on Wilders. Two reasons:

1. The US may not epitomise all Jewish thinking, but it nonetheless remains the place where the largest percentage of Jews live.

2. Wilders does not confine his oratory to Holland - or even Europe. His most widely-publicised speeches have been in America, so reaction from that quarter is somewhat significant.

I'd be interested, finally, in knowing what organisation(s) you DO regard as best representing "Jewish opinion" and campaigning most effectively against anti-Semitism if not the ADL...

Reuven

The question is not how evil the BBC is but how many listeners there are who will swallow their garbage. It is time a poll was done - and HOPEFULLY the numbers will put our minds at rest.

Objectivist George

Ian S, I couldn't agree more: this site is no oasis of rights-respecting free speech.

wonderer

You may be right Ian S but I suspect technical glitches, especially on Sundays. Here's another attempt from me:-

It would be interesting to know whether the anti-Wilders respondents, eg Tilly, are relaxed about creeping encroachment on public space in Europe by substantial numbers of Muslims, as shown here:-
http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=17933

Ian S, I think the thing to do is to copy your text into Notepad before you send it, and save it somewhere for second attempts.

Augustus

Tilly - I honestly don't know how to reply to you regarding the stance of some American Jewry, I am sure C.Gee will do better. I am very puzzled and disturbed by the self-hating positions taken by so-called Jewish leaders like the ADL. Of course, it has long been known
within Jewish circles that Republican Jews need not apply,
that's why many formed their own organiztions, or left the Jewish world altogether. Unfortunately, most American Jews don't realize that their best friends are conservatives
and Christian Zionists. And since Israel has gradually lost the support of the diaspora, the centre of Jewish thought and life has shifted to Israel.
Perhaps C.Gee will explain, if he can, why there is such self-hatred which allows political correctness to advance
Muslim agendas and why they are against people like Wilders who
cannot speak up enough to defend Israel. Perhaps it's a case of, left-wing politics first, the fact that you are a Jew second.

Ian S.

Wonderer: I would have suspected a glitch, but another post to Nick Cohen's blog that I sent at roughly the same time (too much time on my hands!) was posted almost immediately. The three posts that have never appeared all mentioned the religon of peace, not in the most positive terms, I'll grant, though not couched in inflammatory nor 'phobic' nor racist language. Thanks for the Notepad tip - will do in future. Would be interested to hear if other frustrated contributors identified a common thread in posts that have failed to appear.

Archie

Indeed, Miss Phillips, and I am not the first to question why our so-called Tory Prime Minister hasn't cut out this organisation root and branch by now. Really one has to wonder what is the hidden agenda of our rulers. I guarantee that he will not win a second term largely thanks to the BBC.

Oflife

Related, I accidentally came across episode 3 of Channel 4's The Promise, which from the 15 minutes I have seen so far is totally biased and inaccurate. I have just watched a scene where Jewish children begin throwing rocks at a white girl and some arab girls following her. Further, the IDF soldiers nearby don't do anything. And as it continues, it is portraying the Israelis nothing like the reality or even those I have met or know.

It's totally the opposite of the reality.

Pure propaganda and very dangerous, surely?

Who else is watching this?

And who paid for it exactly?

Steven L

When will the British people teach a lesson to the Foreign Office Orientalists and BBC1?

mags

We also have a brain dead national broadcaster. The leftist slant to all it's news, commentary and opinion blogs have turned people away in droves. It breaks its charter constantly and wonders why people want it shut down.

Tilly

wonderer

The "creeping encroachment" of Muslims on Europe doesn't worry me half as much as the hysterical response to it.

Anyone would think from reading (most of) the comments here is that migration is a one-way street; that the impact of one particular group has been entirely negative; and that the underlying reason for so much current tension is a "wicked" faith which encourages them to live outside the pale of western civilisation.

Look back a bit. Muslim immigration to Britain has been happening for around 50 years. During that time, there have been clashes - mainly in the form of attacks AGAINST them by neo-nazi youths - but only in the 21st century has the Islamic religion itself become an issue.

Why? Because of the emergence of Al Qaeda? Or 9/11? Somehow, before these occurrences, British Muslims had been managing to follow the Koran without being "infected" by its warlike utterances. They were perhaps seen as an irritant by white people who didn't like the smell of curry (despite curry houses quickly becoming the Brits' favourite eateries), and there were also some whites who saw them as "stealing" jobs and housing - somebody visible to blame for community impoverishment brought about by inept government and corporate mismanagement. (Blacks, Jews and Catholics have, incidentally, also filled this scapegoat role in UK history...)

Religious zealotry didn't enter the picture as far as the first-generation Muslims were concerned mainly, I'd suggest, because they were peaceable foreigners desperately wanting to gain acceptance. It was the following generations - youngsters who found that no matter how well educated, fluent in English and westernised they would ALWAYS be outcasts - who posed a potential danger.

Simmering resentment of this sort could always be exploited, and the "war on terror" was a perfect opportunity for a few Islamist demagogues from faraway lands to do their worst, spreading their message westward. Not that they got a lot of takers for practical violence and suicidal frenzy among the youth of the UK - but they certainly got a hearing and loud enough echoes to keep the pot on the boil.

Predictably enough, out of the woodwork now pop equally dangerous demagogues determined to restore the western world to some mythical age of shining whiteness - Geert Wilders and his ilk.

Employing just the same inflammatory rhetoric of the imams he reviles, Wilders finds fertile ground among disaffected Europeans and Americans whose hitherto comfortable lives are imploding - NOT because Muslims are "taking over" but as a result of financial crises of the west's own making.

What better excuse for a new imperial wave (mass emigration to countries rich with oil, gold reserves and job-producing opportunities) than to transform domestic pariahs into an international enemy on whom to declare open war? And how useful is quasi-religious style preaching as a propaganda tool!

Several contributors to this thread are full of self-congratulation for their ability to spot propaganda when it's targeted at their own beliefs. Yet they seem to apply no critical faculties at all to films such as the one made by Wilders or Theo Van Vogh's "Suppression". BBC bias can be detected at every turn, but not even a hint of it when the source is the Daily Mail.

Yes, Wonderer, if there is one thing that frightens me way above "creeping encroachment", it's how easy it is for incendiary orators to turn swathes of people - Muslims, Jews, Christians alike - into monsters.

wonderer

Ian S. I hope you found time to click on the cbn link I mentioned yesterday. It's disquieting.

aelle

Am I alone in finding the condemnation of the BBC for showing the Dutch documentary on Geert Wilders somewhat hysterical and excessive?
It was made quite clear that the film was produced by "liberal" Dutch film-makers antipathetic to Wilders views on the threat of Islam to the fabric of European civilisation.
It would therefore be apparent from the outset that the content of the film could be expected to be partial and tendentious - as indeed it was.
It seems to me that those protesting most vehemently at the screening of this slanted documentary are at best underestimating the intelligence of the audience and at worst close to approving a form of censorship that should have no place in a sophisticated and democratic society.
Perhaps Voltaire's well known attitude might better fit the case : " I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Non-PC and Proud of it

Is Tilly looking to won "PC of the year" award?

Frank P

Tilly, willy nilly, is being very silly. She seems oblivious to the incremental threat of militant Islam over half a decade, the oppression of the Mullahs with their front man - the rat-faced tyrant in Iran; a spate of global atrocities organised and perpetrated by Ismalists including the WTC etc and London transport massacres, to name but two - and the cunning propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood which is akin to the agitprop of the erstwhile Soviet bloc and the current subversive plotting and activism of neo-Marxist cadres around the world (now is cahoots with global Islmic jihad). She obviously has not noticed the mushrooming of exotic mosques all around our country (according to my local press one is planned in the Isle of Ely, intended to dwarf Ely Cahtedral, FFS! The Landmark of the Fens despoiled by not only fucking useless windmills, but now, apparently by minarets and the wail of the muezzin's imperatives!)

Tilly is exuding all the characteristics of advanced Dhimmitude; she obviously hopes that, by the 'sweet reasonableness' she will, by osmosis, infect the rest of us with this debilitating affliction and assist her friends to achieve the Caliphate with no further pockets of resistance, so that we can all live happily ever after in Londonistan or Dhimmingham or whichever enclave she now rests her copy of the 'peaceful' Koran. Peace! Y (and p.b.u Pat Condell).

Who she may wish to critique, as a postscript to her little sermon:

http://www.patcondell.net/

Just up Tilly's street!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Tilly: "Far from "cherry-picking" the League for criticism of Wilders, I had actually been expecting (yet another) cheerleading exercise: hard-core Zionists who didn't give a toss about bigotry unless it was directed squarely at themselves. "

As opposed to hard-core moslems?

Don't be thoroughly dense, Tilly.

Augustus

Tilly - You say the 'creeping encroachment' doesn't worry you.
You imply that Theo van Gogh's
short TV film about the disgraceful suppression of Islamic women, for which he received a most brutal assassination on the street in Amsterdam, should somehow be
criticised for being made in a democratic country, but you say nothing about the fanaticism which cannot bear to let such a man live (the Muslim who killed him tried to cut his head off with a knife while he was not yet completely dead from his bullet wounds, for Heaven's sake!). A friend from Holland tells me that after his murder writers and artists don't even dare to criticise Muslims any more. Teachers at schools and universities say that they are systematically threatened by Islamic groups when they even touch on religious matters, and parents of Muslim girls go crazy when their offspring want to go to the gym with boys, or if sex education is on the agenda, or if Israel is discussed. In public buildings crosses are torn of the walls, Saint Nicolas, Christmas and Easter are slowly being banned in primary schools, and even banks have had to remove their piggybanks.

Slowly this asymmetric clash of cultures will result in silent acceptance by one tolerant side,
while the other side will just
demand more and dictate more.
"Tolerance is a proof of distrust in one's own ideals."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
But to Tilly, Geert Wilders is
a 'dangerous demagogue', because to Tilly, resistance is not only futile, it is undeserved.

C.Gee

Tilly:

“Far from "cherry-picking" the League for criticism of Wilders, I had actually been expecting (yet another) cheerleading exercise: hard-core Zionists who didn't give a toss about bigotry unless it was directed squarely at themselves. What a surprise ... and that's why I raised it here.”
This is disingenuous. I did not ever think that you were “cherry-picking”. You were witch-hunting. That you were looking at the ADL to find “hard-core Zionists who didn’t give a toss about bigotry unless it was directed squarely at themselves” is exactly what I had thought you were up to. Why were you going on a witch-hunt for bigoted Jews in the first place? What has it to do with the BBC’s broadcasting of a biased film about Wilders?

And do you think that your “surprise” at finding that the witches were not bigots (as you define it), shields you from accusations of anti-semitism?

My question did not seek to know why you witch-hunted in America. You give the answer yourself: American Jews constitute a large fraction of world Jewry, albeit a tiny fraction of the American population. America is a happy witch-hunting ground. American Jews play an active part in opinion-making and there are many very well known Jews on all sides of every issue. You could indeed have found American Jewish voices condemning Wilders, and others defending him.

But America is also the home of strong Islamic voices. Why did you not quote CAIR?

There are also Jews in Holland. Why did you not seek out their opinion? Surely more relevant.

But why seek out any collective opinions? A poll of the entire world’s opinion of Wilders will not disprove or prove the accusation that the film is biased.

Tilly

Frank P

Cranky Frankie needs a spanky (see, I can do playground-talk too) because if you think Geert Wilders gives a toss about those awful windmills (how horribly Dutch we Brits are becoming ...) you're in for a shock.

Your platinum blonde imam has just one ugly tune. If he'd been born brown in Pakistan, no doubt you'd instantly recognise him for the ranting extremist he is. In the meantime, just keep whistling along...

Charles Martel

I have had a number of letters printed in my Australian capital city newspaper, so here they are in descending date order -

1) Believing that multiculturalism has failed in Europe but succeeded in
Australia is akin to believing that socialism failed in Eastern Europe but succeeded in North Korea.

2) For no apparent reason a deranged gunman in Arizona kills six people, critically wounds US politician Gabrielle Giffords and America goes into
mourning and introspection.
In Pakistan an islamic zealot murders Punjabi governor Salman Taseer for opposing the blasphemy law, is showered with rose petals by lawyers falling over themselves to defend him in court, tens of thousands
demonstrate in the streets of Karachi hailing him a 'Warrior Of Islam' and the conservative religious establishment warns of violent retribution against anyone who challenges the blasphemy law.
Not all cultures share the same values.

3) al-Qaida, and other Islamist groups such as the Taliban and Somalia's al-Shabab, are modern manifestations of the 7-8th century Kharijites, the original Islamist group whose utopian goal was religious and societal purity through violence and murder.
It has nothing to do with US foreign policy, imperialism, colonialism, crusaderism, zionism or poverty.
It has everything to do with the West's overwhelming cultural dominance and it's supposedly corruptive influence on the faithful.
Western corruption includes man-made law, human rights, democratic principles and religious equality, all alien concepts in Islamic theology, philosophy and ideology.

4) Australian moslem Hamza Amar's statement that 'muslims must follow Western society laws as long as they don't contradict sharia law' is just another example of the
supremacist nature of Islam's totalitarian belief system.

No-one wants islam in Australia because we can see it's destructive effect on European societies.

I have been called 'racist', 'fascist' and 'islamophobic' (correct term should be islamoknowbic) but these adhesive-free terms are the response of cretins who cannot devise a cogent and reasoned counter to my opinions.

C.Gee

aelle
February 21st, 2011 1:53pm:

Voltaire is frequently trotted out to remind the west about its glorious freedoms. Put him back on the shelf.

The willingness to die for free speech is not half as persuasive as Muslim willingness to kill to stop it.

Yale University Press will not publish the Mohammed cartoons in a book written about them. I do not think they have put out a new edition of Voltaire.

Frank P

emendation:

in my post at 2.50pm I wrote:
" ... she seems oblivious to the incremental threat of militant Islam over half a decade, ...

I meant to write 'half a century' (which itself is a somewhat conservative time-frame - some might say half a millenium).

Frank P

Tilly

I haven't been spanked in the playground since a rather dishy French teacher did it when she found me behind the bike sheds - smoking. I later realised that she probably enjoyed doing it as much as I didn't enjoy suffering it! You're not her, btw - are you? It was a very long time ago.

Pleased to hear you also don't like the windmills; but you are a bit obsessed regarding the Dutch, aren't you? Quite fond of them myself, they did a good job in the fens back in the seventeenth century. As a wee boy, I used to fish (and swim au naturel)in Vermuyden's Drain in those halcyon days. But then, as you have probably never had your ass inadvertently tickled by a brown trout, you probably wouldn't understand. Come to think of it ... you might well have. Which could explain your choice of friends.

Tilly

C. Gee

Your abilities as a mind-reader and long-distance spy on research strategy are seriously flawed.

My motive in looking at the ADL website was not part of a "witch-hunt to find bigoted Jews" - why bother when such a rich seam of unabashed bigotry is available right here?

My visit there was actually quite accidental. I simply knew very little about Geert Wilders and Googled his name to find out more. The ADL came up in the list.

Expecting the League to take much the same line as Spectator bloggers (ergo, "hard-core Zionist"), my surprise came on seeing the ferocity of its Wilders attack.

It was not to shield MYSELF from accusations of anti-Semitism that I quoted the ADL but to present a challenge to the prevailing Spectator view from an impeccably pro-Israel lobby group adjudging Wilders' pronouncements to be "dangerous".

What earthly point would there have been in quoting any group remotely critical of Israel when the knee-jerk reaction of this blog's contributors (yourself included) is to dismiss anything but wholehearted support as "anti-Semitic" or (in my case, I guess) "self-hating Jew"?

Be honest: would you not highlight the view of the Muslim Brotherhood if it came out with an unexpected statement condemning BBC bias against Geert Wilders?

On that subject ... I have deliberately NOT engaged in discussion of that BBC documentary because I didn't personally see it. All I've been talking about are Wilders' widely-reported (uninterrupted) speeches in other forums - and I stick to my guns here: like the ADL, I regard him as a hate-speech merchant.

daniel maris

Tilly - You mention that Muslim immigration to the UK has been substantial for 50 years. True, but the worrying thing is that the Muslim communities that have been here for 50 years still cling to their original language and customs and women remain part of a closed society.

Whilst it is true that Muslim Asians were subjected to prejudice and brutality at times, that could equally be said of Hindu, Christian and Buddhist Asians and Africans...only difference that people from their communities have not tried to blow up trains, buses and planes.

C.Gee

“Be honest: would you not highlight the view of the Muslim Brotherhood if it came out with an unexpected statement condemning BBC bias against Geert Wilders?”

You are unable to help yourself. The ADL statement had nothing to do with the BBC documentary. The ADL is not equivalent to the Muslim Brotherhood. The fact that you think it is equivalent - like Geert Wilders’ speech and Islamist incitement - calls your judgment into question, and renders your opinion merely reflexive prejudice.

daniel maris

Tilly - I think I can resolve your ADL puzzle for you. There has always been a tension in Zionism I think between those who took a realistic view of Islam (as an ideology imbued with anti-semitism from the outset by its founder) and those who took a romantic view of Islam as a private religion that could reach an accommodation with Judaism.

Paradoxically I think it the more extreme Zionists, who want to grab the West Bank and all of Jerusalem who tend to have the romantic view (maybe they don't REALLY believe it but they choose to pretend to). So I think the ADL want to maintain the fiction that once Arab Muslims on the West Bank get the chance they will be prepared to settle down and live in harmony with Jews, as many Muslim communities in Israel might be said to. So I think they see Wilders' exposure of Islam's core beliefs as dangerous to the wider Zionist project.

Those who take a more realistic view of Islam also I think tend to have more limited aims - maintaining a viable Jewish state with a sizeable Jewish majority and not trying to hold down millions of followers of Islam.

EC

Tilly speaks of "incendiary orators" and yet makes no mention of the violent anti American, anti British, anti semitic rhetoric that clerics spout from their pulpits every week at "friday prayers." Instead s/he singles out Geert Wilders as a "hate speech" merchant but has not given a single example of anything he has said that was factually incorrect.

Something has gone terribly wrong when facts become illegal. If I lived in Holland then Wilders would get my vote. Vote? VOTE? Aaargh! That's democracy not theocracy. Democracy is an anathema to Islam.

However, I live in the UK where last week the Prime Minister said that multiculturalism had been an abject failure. When therefore is he going to set about dismantling the dozens of sharia courts operating in the UK? There should be one law for all and that's NOT sharia!

Tilly

daniel maris

Thanks for a coherent analysis of the ADL's place in the grand scheme of things. As you might expect, I don't see eye to eye with you about what's a "realistic" view of Islam, but in general terms do accept the divide you describe as plausible.

On the other points you raise:

I think you'll find that it's not the older-generation "traditionalists" who are drawn to extremism, but born-and-bred British Muslims who find themselves in a cultural vacuum - disconnected from their ethnic roots and at the same time marginalised (and even openly abused) by whites.

Unlike the other oppressed groups you mention, they are additionally reviled for being (stereotypically) associated with lethal conflicts emanating from thousands of miles away. Branded "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists" it is inevitable that some - and I do maintain it is very few - decide they might just as well embrace the label as be passive victims of it. Hence, bombings rather than the street brawls of bygone days.

One parallel that springs to mind - certainly in terms of the fiery rhetoric urging terrorist activity - is Northern Ireland.

Orators like Geert Wilders don't hold out hope of defeating terrorism; they merely ratchet up the score by inciting retaliation in kind ... in exactly the same raucous voice as those they rail against.

jon

All this talk of the ADL by a bunch of Brits makes me laugh.

Brits are so afraid of their own shadows when it comes to defending Israel (with the exception of Melanie Phillips) that Britain could never in a million years come up with anything that comes even close to the ADL and the often fearless work it does.

If a "documentary" like this BBC one on Geert Wilders were ever shown on American TV, there would have been public outcry. Religious leaders from all faiths (well, almost all faiths) would have banded together and called for a retraction by the broadcaster. Full page ads denouncing the show would have appeared in newspapers. But not in Britain where everyone is afraid of offending a certain group...

Keith D

Oh dear Tilly,how terrible of Mr Wilders,a man who's never advocated violence but is under 24 hour guard,to voice concerns over the barbarity that Islam imports.You're wasting your time dear.
Most on here get it,ok?

Tilly

EC

You say I "don't mention" the inflammatory Islamist orators...

They were precisely the ones I cited as spouting the sort of hate-speech Geert Wilders indulges in. What more do you want?

As for the vote you say you would cast for Wilders if you were a Dutch citizen: it might give you pause for thought that he received only 2% of the Jewish population's democratic vote in Holland's last election, compared to 25% of the non-Jewish vote. Could it just be that the Jews of Holland recognise him all too clearly as a horrible spectre of the past?

C.Gee - please take note:

I found the above data while looking for a Dutch Jewish perspective - on your suggestion that this would be more relevant than the ADL's.

In the absence of any other "mainstream" opinion indicator, I am at a loss to think where else to turn.

Finally, EC - you imply that democratic freedom is a value confined to the west. What on earth do you think is being expressed by the Muslim people of Egypt, Lybia, Bahrain, Yemen and Tunisia right now?

daniel maris

I hardly think these groups I mention are "oppressed" in any meaningful sense. Were Ugandan Asians oppressed by us taking them in? I don't think so. I think we had a moral obligation since we had encouraged them to move to Uganda in the first place, but you'd hardly call them oppressed. Most Asian people are doing reasonably well in this country and certainly better than the unskilled "white" working class.

As for your denying that Islam has been anti-semitic from the outset, I take it that you are familiar with the fact that it was Mohammed himself who ordered the removal of all Jews from the Arabian peninsula. Jews have been and continue to be anathematised by Islamic clerics - and it they who transmit Islam from one generation to the next. You can only deny all this if you are prepared to deny the evidence of your eyes. This is what is taught in the great Islamic universities and the Madrassas.

FlorisV

It is even worse in The Netherlands where I live. I can't take any "public" TV station seriously since all they do is waste my tax money to spout out agitation propaganda against Wilders and his party, the PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid, Party for Freedom). The newspapers are alike.

The established media are one big fat happy socialist family for the most part and they need to uphold their myths in order to secure their well paid jobs. Wilders wants to cut heavily into their shameless feasts of incestuous jobtrading, indoctrination, fact cloaking/fabricating and demonizing, funded by robbing the ever shrinking number of hard working people of our country.

It saddens me to read that the BBC is a similarly rotten family. I used to think it was one of the best channels to watch. The corruption lies in them depending on Tax money. Because they don't have to rely on the market. THEY can decide what's best for you!

However, I hope that the majority of the people that actually watch the bile our goverment feeds them are the elderly and that they start to see how they are being betrayed by their traditional party, by the media and how their country is being brought to ruins.

The internet, and then only the independent websites, is now my only source of reliable information.

On a side note, if the BBC is so much into Godwin these days, it's not really hard who are the real fascists. Just ask yourselves, which ideology glorifies... -extermination of all jews? -world domination? -submission and abuse of women? -discrimination and hatred of non-muslims?

Hint: it's not Wilders' ideology.

Tilly

Keith D

No, Wilders does not "openly" incite violence - that would get him jailed. Most of the Islamist rabble-rousers in Europe and US similarly avoid being so specific in their rallying cries for the same reason.

But that doesn't mean they are naive about the effects their oratory has.

Do you seriously believe all Wilders is anticipating in response to his rhetotic is a passive exodus from Europe by several million Muslims (huge numbers of whom were born and bred here)? Or is he rather expecting widespread resistance to such "cleansing" policies and gearing up bands of foot-soldiers to "persuade" them by force?

EC

Tilly,

"What more do you want?"

Tell me something that Wilders has said that is factually incorrect.

"... he [Wilders] received only 2% of the Jewish population's democratic vote in Holland's last election, compared to 25% of the non-Jewish vote"

Source? Sounds like a dose of CRU UEA data to me. Do they not have a secret ballot in Holland?

"Could it just be that the Jews of Holland recognise him all too clearly as a horrible spectre of the past?"

"In the absence of anything else," Tilly, I think that you're really grasping at straws now!

" What on earth do you think is being expressed by the Muslim people of Egypt, Lybia, Bahrain, Yemen and Tunisia right now?

It is too early to tell. There are many agendas at work that want "a change," but what change? There is no pan arab pro democracy movement. In the middle east, an incoherent rabble protesting on the streets doesn't equate to a desire for democracy. They have been brainwashed so effectively over the last 60 years that they'll probably all line up behind the next nutter that says he wants to exterminate the Jews.

David

I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr Wilders and spent the majority of the 'documentary' laughing out loud. The utter crap the bbc regards as actual journalism is seen on our screens on a daily basis with its never ending Jew/Israel bashing. This programme was not about Wilders at all....it was an to attempt to yet again vomit all over Israel by way of 'reporting' on Wilders. Again the word reporting was not meant to be a pun. The bbc is a joke, does anybody give a toss what they produce anymore?

Tilly

daniel maris

I assume your post of Feb 22 was addressed to me, though don't recall talking about Muslim anti-Semitism.

Anyway...

1. Ugandan Asians were not, I agree, oppressed by the British GOVERNMENT, but they certainly were by skinhead "Paki-bashers" and other neo-nazi louts; they also faced discrimination over jobs and housing. These things were widely reported at the time and even if (as you or others will doubtless say) exaggerated, the reception was far from comfortable.

Is it any surprise that they should have congregated in self-protective ghettoes?

2. The unemployment rate among Muslim males currently runs at approx 13% compared to Christians at 4%; the gap is even wider for women - 18% v 4%. Around 69% of Muslims are recorded as living in poverty, compared to 20% of whites.

So much for myths that Muslims are "doing better" than the white unskilled working class. Highly unlikely, too, that there is a disproportionately large Muslim middle class population, since they register at the bottom of educational qualifications tables - i.e, in line with a poverty profile.

3. I'm not prepared to enter into discussion about anti-Semitism unless you assure me that you don't (like most other contributors to this blog) regard those making the slightest criticism of Israel's political/military policies as anti-Semites or "self-hating Jews". That line has now become so ridiculous (and boring) it's not worth hammering at any more.

EC

Geert Wilders writes in the WSJ today:

http://is.gd/9KfOA1

h/t Noa.

daniel maris

Tilly,

You were challenging what I consider a "realistic" view of Islam (that it has been imbued with anti-semitism ever since the Jews of Arabia refused to accept Mohammed as a legitimate prophet). That's why I raised that.

I don't think you are a hopeless case but I think your in hoping to put your heart in the right place you have lost perspective. For instance you refer to "Paki-bashers" as though there are no "Kaffir-bashers" - of course in the Mid East, Africa and South Asia that Kaffir-bashing is far more lethal then any skinheads gangs ever were. (Several Kaffir Ahmadis were recently killed in Indonesia. Went unreported in this country I think.) However there have been plenty of Kaffir-bashing cases in this country - but you seem either ignorant of them or completely indifferent to them.

Seen the latest news: stickers going up in the East End declaring it a "gay free zone". Where are all the condemnations from outraged Islamic clerics? Some Christian clergy have condemned it.

I have to ask: have you ever actually read the Koran, the main Hadith or the life of Mohammed (all accept as fully authorative by Muslims)?

wonderer

@Tilly
February 22nd, 2011 10:54am

If not street brawls, there is still the most vicious street thuggery as well as bombings,as reported in the Daily Mail online today:-

"Four men launched a horrific attack on a teacher in which they slashed his face and left him with a fractured skull because they did not approve of him teaching religion to Muslim girls.

Akmol Hussein, 26, Sheikh Rashid, 27, Azad Hussain, 25, and Simon Alam, 19, attacked Gary Smith with a Stanley knife, an iron rod and a block of cement.

Mr Smith, who is head of religious education at Central Foundation Girls' School in Bow, east London, also suffered a fractured skull.

The four now face a jail sentence.

Detectives made secret recordings of the gang's plot to attack Mr Smith prior to the brutal assault.

The covert audio probe captured the gang condemning Mr Smith for 'teaching other religions to our sisters', the court heard."

From my regular observation of that part of London these men are not cut off from their ethnic roots; rather the roots have been transplanted there. I suppose you will maintain that they have been marginalised and abused by whites. In reality, though, they are anything but marginalised and maximum effort is made to accommodate them: ring up the Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel and you will be offered the option of voicemail in Bengali.

Which representatives of other faiths in this country would react as these men did to the teaching of comparative religion in British schools? Christians, Jews, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Bahais...?

john bruce

EC,

Quite right. As you say:

"However, I live in the UK where last week the Prime Minister said that multiculturalism had been an abject failure. When therefore is he going to set about dismantling the dozens of sharia courts operating in the UK? There should be one law for all and that's NOT sharia!"

I asume you also want to ban Jewish courts in Britain, who apply a different law for Jews than the rest of society. It's called Beth Din.

Too much multicultarism for you? Or is some multicultarism ok, as long as it's not for Muslims. Only Jews.

EC

john bruce, February 23rd, 2011 4:42am

If you want to know the true status of Beth Din courts within the UK I can think of no better person to to give you an explanation than Melanie herself:

www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=567

In 2009, there were 85 sharia courts operating with the UK with full legal sanction. I think that rather eclipses your "Jewish" problem.

Primitive religion = primitive law. Women have a really raw deal under sharia. Not to submit to sharia would seen as de facto apostasy and leave her vulnerable to beatings and much worse.

Jews are fully integrated within our society whereas muslims appear to set themselves apart - and not just by their stupid dress code.

Have there been any Jewish "honour" killings in the UK? Have there been any Jewish suicide bombers in the UK?

Tilly

EC

I don't have time to address all your points (sorry) so am leaving out those which have already been thrashed out in posts elsewhere.

1. You challenge me to cite anything Wilders has said that is "factually incorrect".

Among his most absurd claims is that there are no creative Muslims (because Islam is a religion which denies freedom and without freedom there is no creativity).

Quite apart from stunning architecture (try googling "famous mosques", for eg), Islamic culture has most notably produced a plethora of scientists and mathematicians whose names might not be familiar to westerners but whose breakthroughs certainly were: Algorithms (for eg) - without which the internet would never have been born. Philosophy and poetry (surely Geert must dimly recall Omar Khayyam?), not to mention numerous popular culture entertainers and authors in more recent times.

So that claim for one is pure crap - entirely designed to give an impression of a people stupefied into morons by religious brainwashing. (Maybe just the sort of thing which gives you such a cynical view of the current clamour for democracy in Egypt, etc ...?)

Then we have the "elites of multiculturalism" whose "goal [is to] pursue a strategy of mass emigration that will eventually result in a Muslim Europe". Oh yeah? Just like those mythical conspiracies by "Jewish bankers", the claim here is of a sinister, ultra-powerful cabal, meeting in secret, da-de-dah ...bullshit!

If you want one more, try doing the research on this one for yourself (too much like hard work for me, simply to expose a lie): "Muslim neighbourhoods are mushrooming in every city in Europe". No cheating, though - you're looking for "mushroomings", not just odd pockets of well scattered, integrated Muslims, and its got to be in "each" city, not only those which we KNOW have large enclaves.

2. The 2% Jewish vote for Wilders came from reference to a poll published in De Pers newpaper (Holland) on June 4th, 2010. Sorry, can't check out the original because I don't read Dutch, but assume that like most opinion polls it was conducted by interviewing representative samples and then extrapolating. There's always a margin for error, of course, but I think it's at least safe to say the percentage was "very, very small".

Tilly

daniel maris & wonderer

Let's do a deal: Each time you mention an act of violence by Muslims to illustrate a point, give me an balancing example of Muslims as victims; I, in turn, will follow the same format.

Only problem I foresee is that our posts could become inordinately long and repetitive. A better alternative might be to accept a statement from me that I acknowledge there are nasty bastards on all sides (and you do the same); then we can focus on specific issues - with violence cited as a SYMPTOM where relevant - rather than endlessly swapping gruesome anecdotes.

Just one observation about the particular case you describe, Wonderer, and it's not to detract from the seriousness of the assault - I'm merely curious and somewhat astounded.

How on earth could those detectives who recorded the gang plotting to attack Mr Smith have then sat back and allowed it to happen? If I'd been the victim, I think I would sued them for trillions!

daniel maris

Tilly's probably unaware just how many of those creative Muslims from the reputed Golden Age of Islam were actually Jewish or Christian! He-she's in for a shock.

Of course Wilders is guilty of generalisation but there is a lot of truth in it. Why don't you have a look at the number of books published each year in the Islamic world. If you look at the number it is tiny, even more so if you extract the religious works. Islam bans or frowns upon music, dancing, representational art, free thought and speculative philosophy. That has undoubtedly had an effect on its creative output.

I think Islam's "Golden Age" has been oversold.

Of course you can point to acts of violence on both sides of the divide, but the difference is that you have referred to on population group as "oppressed" on the basis of those acts of violence, but not the other population group.

Incidentally the prision population in the UK has about 12% Muslims. In France the figure is an incredible 55%. One can argue how that comes to be but it is hardly an advert for the ethical instruction of Islam.

What you haven't explained is why so many Muslim clerics seem to encourage violence or excuse it. We know for instance of the Australian cleric who defended rapists on the basis that uncovered women were making themselves too attractive.

One or two of these incidents don't amount to much but there is a pattern across Islam.

Augustus

Tilly - I don't think you know anything about the European situation at all - in fact, I don't even think that you are in Europe. Denmark, for example,
which is not known for being a particularly conservative country, has now become fed up with the continued ghettoization
of its country, and the Prime Minister, Lars Rasmussen made a statement this week following the new measures which they have introduced to deal with the situation. Here it is:-

"Generations of us have made of
Denmark a safe, rich, and free
society. Certainly, welfare and material prosperity have been important factors, but most important have been, and are still, our values: individual freedom, responsibility towards the community, respect for the existing laws, freedom of speech, equal rights for men and women, a princpled trust that we respect each other - in
short: Our deeply anchored democracy. Those are all strong
Danish values.

"But there are white spots on the map of Denmark. Spots
where Danish values simply no longer exist. Where firefighters
can only go and do their work under police protection, where schools and other places are being destroyed, where abuse and criminality has taken over from respect, where parallel legal systems have sprouted -
areas where large unemployment
exists and where a lot of criminals and immigrants live. We are going to act to change this. It is now time to no longer exercise false tolerance
against this intolerance which exists in areas of these ghettos."

You might think it clever to find every puerile reason to attack the democratically elected and liberal Geert Wilders, but you could hardly
succeed in doing so against the Danish Prime Minister.

Tilly

daniel maris

I haven't made a count, but let's say (at a conservative estimate) the number of contributors to this blog who cite Islamist hate-speech to justify their support for Wilders outnumber those who find him abhorrent by 20-1.

The fanclub (you included?) certainly don't need me to further hammer home just how repugnant anti-Semitic rabble-rousers are. That side of the argument has been covered more than adequately - and I've GOT THE MESSAGE!!

The argument that isn't being addressed in any critical depth is whether or not Wilders is guilty of similarly disgusting and manipulatve rhetoric: all I seem to get back is either (a) yet more citations of terrible pronouncements by selected Islamist extremists, or (b) assertions of Wilders' "truthfulness", "courage" and so forth, backed up mainly by quoting the man himself or like-minded acolytes.

It's rather like the response I'd expect to get from an Islamist cheering on his fundamentalist imam - "Everything he says is true! Just look at the slaughter in Gaza if you want evidence! How right he is about lager-louts and sexual diseases - here are the facts and figures! And what courage to speak out in the teeth of US imperialism!"

Geert Wilders and the loony imam count on exactly the same things in winning support: making frightening generalisations, each with enough of a grain of truth to be recognised as "real" - and then urging massive action to combat the threat they themselves have so simplistically and all-embracingly identified.

In order to then achieve the action required, the "enemy" must be painted as sub-human - whether vicious or moronic doesn't really matter - because otherwise the bandwagon might be stopped in its tracks by thoughtfulness and compassion. The agenda doesn't have time for such wavering ...

The Koran comes in jolly useful here. Like most westerners I haven't read it, relying instead on excerpts selected by Wilders on the one hand (trying to inflame me) or some peace-loving Muslim (wanting to reassure). On the other side of the fence, imams and scholars are interpreting and selectively highlighting passages - also according to their various colours - for the better-read faithful. The Koran is, in other words, as rich in nuance, imagery and conflicting injunctions as the Bible. And just as open to abuse from those wishing to reinforce political messages through appeal to a "higher" or "devilish" authority depending on your point of view.

To the fire-breathing Islamist, the authority is a militant prophet authorised by a warlike Allah; Geert Wilders chooses to subscribe to this - except, of course, that the protagonists are perceived as demons - but he doesn't HAVE to accept such an extremist line. He could equally trawl the Koran for injunctions urging peaceful co-existence.

To Wilders, there is no mileage in the latter: who's going to take up arms against the invading horde he so eloquently describes if he subsequently paints their defining religion in such wishy-washy terms? Much more effective and direct to label this book they've never read as "Mein Kampf" (which they've also - hopefully - never read) and then dish out sound-bites from it (which they almost certainly won't check out, let alone seek scholarly guidance on).

You, Daniel, may have read the Koran thoroughly and come to the same conclusion as Geert Wilders and the Islamist extremists, but you'd be in a minority both on this blog and in the Muslim world.

Your studies to date notwithstanding, might I now suggest you check out a few texts on Nazi and Stalinist propaganda techniques and THEN tell me Wilders is the decent, courageous, clear-sighted bloke depicted by so many here...

Herbert Thornton

Tilly seems to believe that Islam can be legitimately interpreted to be a peaceful religion. It should make us all ask -

1. Whether she is aware that the weight of Islamic scholarship teaches that the violent, warlike exhortations in the Koran were written in what recorded in what is known as the post-Medina period - and that they are what count and what must be obeyed, because they have superseded the earlier, more peaceful verses - which were composed earlier in what is known as the pre-Medina period. The basis for this is that later law supersedes earlier, inconsistent law (rather as it does in most legal systems, including the English Common Law); and

2. Whether she is aware that the verses in the Koran are not assembled in chronological order. Consequently, Islamic scholars have traced the various verses to the time of their composition - with the results described in 1 above.

Augustus

Tilly - What do you know about Nazi and Stalinist propaganda techniques? Have you read the Goebbels Diaries and Mein Kampf?
To even compare Wilders with such people is not only outrageous, it is perverse. It was the EU which in 2008 approved its so-called Council
Framework Decision on combating
racism and xenophobia, and the EU's 27 nations have since had to incorporate it into their national legislation. It defines racism so broadly that every statement that any individual might perceive as insulting to a group to which he belongs becomes punishable by law. The result is that it is now impossible in Europe to have a debate about the nature
of Islam, or even about the effects of immigration openly.
Wilders' point is simple: He says that Islam is a totalitarian political ideology,
and that is wears the mask of religion. He always makes a distinction between the people and the ideology. He always says that there are very many moderate Muslims, but that the ideology is not moderate and has global ambitions. He is also correct when he says that the Koran orders Muslims to establish the realm of Allah in
this world, if necessary by force. And why shouldn't he be allowed to voice those opinions,
it is no different from you voicing your opinions, or me mine. And you tell me why a supra-national body like the EU,
who most people once only voted for as an economic union of nations, should be allowed to impose such charges of group insult on a matter which the vast mass of Europe's constituents consider to be the truth? It is the EU and its bureaucratic baggage which most resembles the workings of the former USSR, not the questions raised by Wilders. Or is the erosion of our freedoms the price we must pay to accomodate
Islam? Forget your rantings about Wilders, his trial and the
media focus is not about him at
all, it is about freedom in Europe to say and debate the truth. Dwight D. Eisenhower, after the liberation of Europe from the despicable evil of Nazi tyranny, said: "Freedom must be daily earned and refreshed, else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die."
We must not let it die, and Wilders will do his best to keep it alive.

Cynic

Given a choice between Wilders and the MCB I know which one I'd rather have in the country. Kom binnen, Geert!

C.Gee

Tilly:

Equal treatment for the Koran as Mein Kampf under Dutch Law is a policy articulated by Wilders because he wants attention drawn to those aspects of it which make it into a work of political ideology and not a religious text like the Bible. He points to the Islamist’s own explanations for the authority of their actions as being the “sword verses” of the Koran. Rich nuance, imagery, contradiction, and pacifist “interpretations” (and whether or not the gates of ijtihad are open or closed is a controversial topic in Islam) may exist a-plenty for the Koran, as they may for Mein Kampf, but it is as a manual for insurrection and sedition that it is having its strongest influence, Wilders would argue. Were the Bible’s influence similar, an argument could be made for its public dissemination to be limited.

If the Dutch legislature indulges in some sort of “influence” analysis, and concludes that as only a tiny percentage of Koran readers are sword wielders, it should not be regarded as primarily a book of political ideology, but as a religious text, then at least Wilders will have vindicated western principles which the Koran itself is adamantly against: the Koran is a text, like others, and may be subjected to critical examination, and that it is not the supreme law.

Wilders is far more politically sophisticated than your dog-whistle theories about him suggest you are.

daniel maris

Tilly,

I lost an earlier post (comp freeze not censorship this time).

To summarise:

You condemn yourself by admitting you know nothing of the Koran. If you did you would realise that the quotes you have heard of "peaceful verses" are often truncated quotations. The classic one is the verse about "saving one life is the same as saving the whole of humanity". It's from the Talmud, but it's altered in the Koran - it's qualified by a statement that it does not refer to murder of mischief making - and the next verse prescribes the various horrible punishments for mischief making etc. - among them crucifixion. So the "peaceful" Koran is actually recommending crucifixion.

Herbert is right about the principle of abrogation. All four major schools of Islam agree that the later (horribly hateful and bloodthirsty) verses abrogate the earlier peaceful ones that relate to a time when the early followers were in a vulnerable position.

As to us swapping violent offence references, the point is you were citing the violence against Muslims as evidence they are "oppressed" in the UK, but you don't say non-Muslims are "oppressed" because of the violence they have suffered. Why not?

EC

Tilly, February 23rd, 2011 11:53am

You rather make Geert Wilders' point for him when you cannot cite any examples of major contribution to civilisation in the last 500 years. Even going back 700 years would leave both your socks firmly on whilst counting the advances made.

Look down the list of Nobel prizewinners the name of "Peace' prize winner Yasser Arafat stands out. Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini (to give him his full moniker) was a terrorist but a far better conman and world class embezzler. Hundred of millions of dollars and euros of aid money went straight into his Swiss bank account. Yasser was the nephew of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, who actually was a Nazi supporter - they had a common interest.

More recent developments in architecture: In the last 20 years Damascus, and to some extent Baghdad, have been leading the way in bunker design and construction. No, actually all the work was done by German construction companies. Nothing but the best for the Baathists!

I think that your claims regarding Geert Wilder's support amongst Holland's Jewish population are irrelevant and were thrown in as a red herring. It is well known that Geert Wilders is married to a Jew, and is a staunch supporter of, and a frequent visitor to, Israel. I think that this is really at the root of your problem with him.

daniel maris

Tilly,

I would defend Wilders. You dont have to agree with everything he says to defend him (ever read any Voltaire?). Sometimes he sounds like a small town matron clucking over litter-bestrewn streets.

But -

(a) He has every right to call for the Koran to be banned if Mein Kampf is banned, since it is just as full of hatred and calls for violence, including instructions on how to enslave non-Muslims. As indicated above, the book calls for those who oppose Islam to be crucified.

(b)It is Wilders not you who is living under a death sentence in a country where such death sentences have been carried out.

(c) Are you saying that we cannot oppose the totalitarianism of a movement just because it calls itself a religion.

(d) He has been subject to a campaign of legal harrassment of a type that threatens the whole of democracy.

Tilly

Augustus, Herbert Thornton (and others)

During his trial, Wilders argued that one of the charges against him - insulting Muslims as a group - should be dropped because he only criticised Islam and not its adherents.

Let's accept for a moment that he was genuine about this ...

Islam is (according to Augustus's citation) a "totalitarian ideology that wears the mask of religion" and the Koran (on Herbert's analysis) a mass of "warlike exhortations ... that must be obeyed". What we have, then, is a nazi tract (Koran = Mein Kampf, says Wilders), which every Muslim is inexorably bound to follow while disguising the political nature of their beliefs.

Nonetheless, Wilders (let's still accept) doesn't criticise these nazi adherents. Perhaps he regards them as innocent dupes (though that does seem a bit unlikely since the exhortations to war - on a "global" scale, according to Augustus - are so crystal clear). No, Geert Wilders is always making it plain that he recognises there are many "moderate" nazis ... er ... Muslims.

The only trouble for Wilders, it would seem, is that he has been misunderstood by his own adherents. Despite all his best efforts, there are many people (not least, contributors to this blog) who are so convinced that moderation is impossible as long as the Koran is permitted to exist as an ideological guide, that they want it banned. (Actually, that's what Wilders has called for too, but maybe it was just a slip of the tongue.)

Yes, Geert's supporters want to deprive those moderates of the very book which defines them as a religious group - end of Islam, end of Muslims.

How very unfortunate that Wilders is now being vilified for something he never in a million years intended!

How unfortunate, too, that he comes across as such an insufferable hypocrite ...

Wilders portrays himself as a martyr to censorship, but his whole platform is based on demands to censor those he reviles. Ban the Koran. Prosecute Islamist orators. Hooray for laws against anti-Semitic hate speech.

All fine and dandy if these writings and utterances amount to inciting violence or discrimination. But Wilders doesn't even allow this safeguard to be enough. An imam who carefully avoids stepping over the "incitement" line (just as Wilders tries to do) is held up as a worthy candidate for silencing; Wilders demands that the line is strictly preserved solely for ANTI-Islamists (such as himself) in this arena of debate.

And why? Because Wilders is telling only the truth, whereas all those others are liars?

Even if this held water (which I have tried to show in previous posts it does not), telling lies is not in itself reason to sacrifice freedom of speech on the scale Wilders wants. (Plenty of laws - eg, relating to defamation - exist to protect against palpably DAMAGING lies.) As long as liars are challenged by the diversity of opinion we currently enjoy, let them do their damndest.

On one point alone I agree with Wilders (though not on the spurious basis he offered at his trial): merely "insulting" a particular group should not grounds for prosecution.

Chucking racially stereotypical insults about is a pathetically stupid way to conduct an argument but much better dealt with by discourse which exposes the taunters' shallowness - or ignoring them altogether.

Luckily, however, there doesn't seem to be anything like the amount of legalistic gagging Augustus complains of. You say:

"It is now impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam or even the effects of immigration openly."

What on earth do you think is going in the Spectator blogs and thousands of other internet sites devoted to precisely this theme (not to mention commentary the mainstream media and by politicians)?

I myself can't think of a better example a no-holds-barred dog fight.

Proud to be European

Miranda Rose Smith - if ther terrorists running Israel are "the last line of defence of Europe" then we don't deserve to be saved.

Fortunately Israel is as irrelevant to Europe as it has been ever since we cvreated it.

Proud European

@Kolnai - if you hate Britain so much why no go and live with your chum in Israel? And of course Wilders has inherited the mantle of loathsome hate preacher Theo van Gogh and benefit fraudster and bogus asylum seeker Ayyan Hirsi Magan (please don't use the fake name she made up to hide her origins when crawling into the Netherlands). The Dutch threw her out and will throw out Wilder soon.

Tilly

C. Gee

If there is indeed a sub-text to Geert Wilders' pronouncements on the Koran along the lines you claim, he certainly hasn't muddied the waters by sharing it.

I don't recall any plea by him for an "influence analysis" - he has done that for himself and exhorts audiences to accept his verdict. Full stop.

Do you seriously believe that he would ever give a conflicting analytical verdict his blessing? He has, after all, been fully persuaded of the Koran's "evil" influence and "ideological" status by (as you say) pointing to the authority Islamist extremists cite for their actions in the "sword verses". On that low threshold of proof, a backtrack simply isn't possible. ("Oh, okay, government adjudicators, the Koran can stay because only the same old bloodthirsty loons are waving it about violently as before, but I now accept this is their democratic entitlement...")

Wilders has dug himself into a tight corner by unequivocally condemning a religious book on the basis of fundamentalist interpretation. He's in as much of a hole as anyone seeking to ban the Bible on the grounds that large chunks of it can be - and have been - cited as authorising everything from killing homosexuals to massacring whole populations. (Take a trawl through Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Chronicles, just for a start.)

As I've suggested in my previous post, banning the Koran isn't simply a matter of withdrawing a book from circulation - it effectively makes religious observance impossible for millions of people.

If that is something you and others corresponding here would countenance, western civilisation really does face a serious threat - from cultural and moral implosion.

daniel maris

Tilly,

I don't know how you can keep on pontificating about Islam when you admit to not having read the Koran in any detail, nor the other holy scriptures - d you seem barely acquainted with Islamic history. You are arguing from complete ignorance.

But let's run with what you say.

Here's where you go wrong:

"every Muslim is inexorably bound to follow"

No that's not true and fortunately the majority do not actively follow the injunctinos of the Koran. But a sizeable minority do to a greater or lesser extent and the majority are hobbled by their membership of the religion and the difficulties of leaving it (including in many cases the death penalty or long imprisonment for apostasy - another pretty much unique feature of Islam as a world religion).

I think since you bring up the German example that really Muslims generally are in the position of German citizens under Nazism. A sizeable minority were true believing Nazis. But most weren't, although they were never very critical of them - partly because their German nationalism prevented them from criticising what appeared to be a successful nationalist movement.

What exactly are you saying: that ALL religions are all exactly equal in pacificity? That seems a remarkable outcome - like discovering every country on earth has exactly the same per capita wealth.

No, clearly religions do differ, both in theory and in practice and also to the extent that practice is motivated by theory. There is no reason why one particular religion (just as it has sometimes been one particular state) should not represent a serious threat to peace and happiness on the planet, while others don't. What can be true of states can also be true of religions.

Tilly

EC

For future reference, here is the Spectator Bloggers' Guide to closing down an argument when all else fails:

1. Accuse your opponent of being an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew. (Don't pussyfoot about with vague allusions to inter-faith marriage and visits to Israel.)

2. If not sure of opponent's faith (or lack of it), don't let that worry you - "brainwashed" is just as good.

3. You don't need any help with the other preferred option - "Leftist" covers pretty well everyone in the opposing camp. (Red ink is a cute touch and will no doubt be adopted by lots more people.)

Cheers,

Tilly (self-hating Jewish brainwashed lefty female)

daniel maris

Well anyone can see I have not employed 1,2 or 3.

What I have done is challenge your ignorance of Islam and its teachings (its active teachings - what is currently taught in its Islamic universities and schools).

Augustus

Tilly - The first point I want to make is that Wilders, whose party already forms part of the ruling coalition in Holland cannot afford to be a far-right
Politician, or leader of a party
like Britain's BNP, or France's
National Front; the whole structure of Dutch political discourse is too liberal, from the Dutch Queen downwards, to accept such a party, even as a minority voice in Dutch affairs.
Wilders has himself said that he would never co-operate with such older far-right parties.
Support for Wilders in his own country (the only means by which he could ever gain any political influence) is very much from the political centre,
who are increasingly concerned about immigration and national sovereignty (as many are in Britain also). Many refuse what they see as a marked change in their cultural or religious surroundings, and the problems posed by mosques, burqas, halal
foods, ghettoization etc. It also depends on what you call extreme. There are politicians
who, when told that there are now so many Muslims unable to find a mosque to pray in that they are reduced to praying in the streets, would say, OK, go ahead build more mosques. And then again, there are others who
would insist that public funding of mosques has gone far enough and should now cease. One of those might be labelled 'extreme', the other might be labelled left-wing.
But the whole essence of the piece: Is Geert Wilders Europe's
most dangerous man? is frankly
laughable, and coming from the BBC (albeit not of their original making) an utter disgrace, and perhaps something which they will never live down.
You are, of course, entitled to believe such false propaganda.
If you want to quiz him yourself
you can do so: Go to pvv.nl, down the page it says 'Mail Geert', put in you name and email address and write in the
box (English will be fine). But I warn you, he's very busy right now campaigning for the coming Dutch Provincial Elections on March 2nd for the
Dutch Senate seats. One last point, if you consider multiculturalism to have succeeded in America, for example, it is because immigrants have succeeded there because they have helped themselves, not because a government helped them and pandered to their seperate community culture and language.
There's a right way and a wrong way in going about the business of integration, Europe, by and large, has chosen the wrong way.

EC

Tilly,

In the list of credentials after your name you forgot to add "deranged, frothing, swivel-eyed loon." To be completely rigorous you should also have added "Dhimmi" somewhere in the list.

Cheers
Ern.

Alastair

BBC got another letter from me. I will dance in the street the day that treacherous organisation of lefties are kicked into the real world.

Herbert Thornton

Geert Wilders is to Holland what Pastor Martin Niemoller was to Nazi Germany.

Tilley's on the other hand clearly supports Islam, which no doubt accounts for Tilley's determination to defame Wilders.

daniel maris

The most dangerous men are those who have ignored public concern about mass immigration and those who have played the racism card to deny the public the right to give voice to their concerns.

Tilly

daniel maris

As a confirmed atheist, I am perfectly well aware of how dangerous ALL religions can be. (I have, incidentally, studied the Bible in some depth; and while the Koran is not nearly such familiar territory, I do know the gist and have made efforts to read a range of commentaries.)

On a chapter and verse level, I could probably make as good a case for banning the Bible as you could for the Koran. I could trade you plenty of examples of its exploitation for warlike and repressive ends; and for every story you could tell of lunatics killing insulters of the Prophet, I'd bounce back with a catalogue of fearsome retribution against heretics. Utterly pointless exercise.

What matters is not the book itself but how best to marginalise (and ultimately undermine) the influence of those who misuse it.

Wilders' solution is dangerous because it would not achieve that end. Banning the Koran would amount to a declaration of war on ALL Muslims - and far from marginalising the influence of fundamentalist radicals, anyone possessing illicit copies or arcane knowledge would rapidly gain centre ground.

The outcome I envisage from this is a self-fulfilling prophecy: an entire religion criminalised by failing to abide by the "No Koran" law; adherents either fight back (confirming their "terrorist" natures) and can thus be interred or expelled en masse, or they leave the country abjectly in droves. Either way, Holland is rid of an ethnic minority which is "destroying" its freedom-loving, tolerant, liberal culture.

If you can foresee an alternative scenario, I'd be very interested to hear it.

Tilly

Herbert Thornton

I do not "clearly" support Islam. The only thing which ought to be clear is that I do not support Geert Wilders.

If he were proposing to criminalise you for reading the Bible (or whatever) I promise I'd defend you, too.

Tilly

Augustus

1. As pointed out in a previous post, I have deliberately not spoken about the BBC documentary because I didn't see it. All my criticisms of Wilders come from reading his published statements.

2. Yes, I agree that Europe has largely cocked up on integration (not sure the US is a terrific role-model though!). The main problem as I see it is that POVERTY exclusion hasn't been tackled with nearly enough energy or funding. Look at any "sink estate" (of whatever ethnic complexion) and the occupants create mini-cultures which don't gel with the rest of society - drug culture, crime, gangs, sectarian ... That's not going to change unless real incentives for escape are offered. No, not hand-outs and multi-lingual social workers, but jobs and alternative housing.

Herbert Thornton

There we go again. This time Tilley tries to conceal undoubted support for Islam by saying that the word "clearly" doesn't apply. That is playing with words, designed to mislead, and to give the impression that even badly concealed support isn't really support. It's the kind of dishonest argument that has the ring of the kind of thought processes taught, under the guise of "learning", as one of the techniques for spreading Islam.

Tilley's suggestion that Wilders could want to prevent me from reading the Bible (which, incidentally I'm not much interested in doing) is a related technique - that of throwing more mud into the water in order confuse the issues, while, in this case continuing (rather clumsily) to try to defame a good and brave man.

Europe needs more men like Geert Wilders.

Daedalus

I watched the program to see just how biased it would be. I must admit to being astonished at how one way it was. I even pointed out to my wife that it lacked any balance at all. I think I should really complain to who ever you complain to for TV. Anyone know the website?

EC

Herbert Thornton, February 25th, 2011 4:59pm,

Yes, clumsy and defamatory by implying that Wilders is a Nazi because the Jews didn't vote for him because he reminded them of "something or someone else from their past."

Leftist techniques of dealing with those not compliant in thought, word and deed to their agenda have been beautifully articulated and thoroughly documented by Nicholas over the last few weeks.

Tilly, who may or may not be a lefty, has certainly exhibited some symptoms, albeit mild ones as compared to Palestine Pat, definitely needs to be kept on the watch list.

I'm not certain how Tilly, who maintains that she is a secularist well versed in the holy books of the desert dogmas, can hold such dangerously naive views about the nature of Islam, its adherents and their activities around the globes over the last 40 years.

Why would a woman who quite clearly enjoys the freedom of speech and equal rights NOT want to confront the creeping menace of a sharia society that would, as a woman, remove ALL her rights?

Her 'problem' with Wilders appears to be that he is prepared to speak out and be confrontational.

Appeasement has never worked.

Augustus

Tilly - I both admire and appreciate your staying power, and ability to respond individually to others as well as myself. I believe that you have thought the thing through,
and respect that you haven't seen the BBC programme. I also think that you are right that the whole social structure should get away from a hand-out
special situation scenario and concentrate on promoting a desire for proper integration into the society which the alien families have chosen to make their home. I understand that Denmark is now trying to do this. I am also sure that, if Wilders were ever to become Prime Minister of Holland, he would become far more moderate in terms of his speeches etc.,
and that he would not ban the Koran, or want to wage a kind of
political war on the Muslim minority just because of their faith. But first he has to convince his fellow citizens that Muslim extremism and anti-Semitism, as so often preached
in mosques and on satellite channels destroys, not just individual human beings, but social and democratic development as well. If you listen to these hate-filled preachers standing at their pulpits you are left in no doubt
that they invest the word
'Zionist' with exactly the same
sense as that which Hitler once invested the word 'Jew'; namely
that of being the incarnation of evil. This sort of thing rubs
off on worshippers and it doesn't take long before the streets and cities are plagued with gangs of mischief makers, attacking Jews and others, throwing bricks through windows, and generally causing
mayhem in society. These youths are very often the second or third generation of immigrants,
who came to Europe in the 1960s
and '70s looking for employment,
even perhaps with every intention of returning to their
Arabic villages in time. But they didn't return, life was too
agreeable and affluent. Perhaps in time their wives or sweethearts joined them. But today we have a completely different situation, with people, not perhaps all, but many, not wanting to fit in, wanting to stay seperate with their own language and customs,
and wanting to have an increasing say in how their communities should be run. That's not healthy in a place like Holland or Denmark, it upsets the locals, and sooner or later people like Fortuyn or Wilders will emerge and try to
draw a line in the sand. Now the
intrigueing question is, let's say that Wilders is acquitted of
hate speech, will others be allowed to say, for example, that the Koran was Mohammed's Mein Kampf? The answer must be
'yes', because of legal justice.
Justification in law creates clarity for citizens generally,
and that has to mean that that
will be a great advantage in
similar cases, and for the freedom of speech.

Tilly

Augustus

Thanks for your courteous reply. Can't quarrel with anything you say, but maybe a word of warning is needed on the censorship front:

It would be wonderful if people could speak freely on any subject they like - and I include the freedom to say nasty things about the Koran. But where religion is concerned (in particular) the speaker has to be aware of the depth of hurt/offence involved and take some responsibility for likely backlashes.

Violent responses aren't confined to adherents of Islam. When the film 'The Last Temptation of Christ' was released, there were angry scenes and effigy burnings outside the home of one of the studio's Jewish executives, along with more widespread outbursts of anti-Semitism (even though the film-makers themselves were Christians!). Protest marches were held over Monty Python's 'Life of Brian', and when 'Jerry Springer - The Opera' was shown on TV, a Christian group published the addresses and phone numbers of BBC execs, resulting in numerous death threats.

I'm not saying such responses were the FAULT of the artists involved - they didn't turn their critics into religious fanatics - but they did know full well what the response would be.

If a message or artistic expression is important enough to take this risk, all well and good. What does get my goat, though, are squeals of surprised outrage at entirely predictable reactions.

I'll now go and see if I can find some of those satellite channels you mention ...

daniel maris

When you go back over this thread, it's amazing how often Tilly says she doesn't like what Wilders says and paraphrases him. What she doesn't do is a give a single quote. Why ever not?

Tilly

daniel maris

This is a very long thread, so I only checked back to the time of my entry. Results:

Direct quotations in my posts are to be found on Feb 23rd (11.53) and Feb 24th (3.09).

Direct quotations from Wilders' supporters: Augustus two posts; all others (including you) zero.

Perhaps you would now like to trawl through the whole lot - CAREFULLY this time - and report on your findings and their significance.

pterodactyl

imnokuffar: "occasionally I switch it on just to remind myself how bad it is."

Re the daytime news readers - they cannot even read properly, pronouncing each word one at a time with a pause in between, which reminds me of the way a six year old reads.

daniel maris

Tilly,

You're imagining things. I went through your post of 3.09pm 24th Feb. There's plenty of paraphrasing. No direct quotation.

In the other post you refer to there are some broken up partial quotations with no citations.

Do you want some direct quotations from the Koran, Hadith and Islamic clerics?

Tilly

daniel maris

So now it's "broken up" quotations you object to...

By what twisted logic do you think it's my job to quote Wilders extensively and at length? His supporters (I assume) know exactly what he said and do not need more than paraphrased reference points to remind them. If I misrepresent a view, or contextualise it wrongly, it's up to those who oppose me to point out the shortcoming by providing a full, unfettered "horse's mouth" account. Thus far, no-one has done so.

I accept paraphrasing from others because I recognise a need for brevity. If I doubt what they're saying, I either check it out for myself or ask for further clarification.

You are neither challenging my accuracy, nor asking for guidance on some specific point, but instead seem to be requiring full quotation as ... what? ... a tribute to Wilders' eloquence? A GCSE-style demonstration of regurgitation skills? Frankly, I'm baffled.

Your offer to quote passages from the Koran, etc, is equally bizarre. I have not for one moment cast doubt on your (paraphrased) observations that these are sources awash with violent rhetoric and oppressive injunctions. My sole argument has been against Wilders' selective harvesting of such observations in order to fire up support for a political agenda which I regard as cruel, dangerous and unworkable.

daniel maris

Tilly,

You clearly don't understand how Islam works otherwise you wouldn't talk about "selective quotation".

Islam is not a private religion it is a totalitarian system that seeks to rule the planet.
The way in which this is to be achieved is to extend the rule of Shariah law. It is to be extended through a variety of means, but violent Jihad is one such means that is not ruled out. Islamic nations may not enter into more than a 10 year truce with non-Islamic nations (ever wondered why Hamas talks about a truce - that's why).

Mohammed's life is supposed to provide a perfect example to all Muslims.

This is precisely what is taught in all the main Islamic schools.

Islamic law (Sharia) is based on the injunctions in the Koran, and life and sayings of Mohammed. It applies to non-Muslims as well as Muslims. Under Islamic law non-Muslims have to show a submissive attitude to Islam if they are not to be murdered. There are non-Muslims murdered in the tens and hundreds every week in Islamic countries.

Again, none of this is controversial within Islam, it's only controversial among people like yourselves who are easily conned by those professional Taqiyya merchants in the West.

Now, I am not saying (and Wilders is not saying) all Muslims subscribe 100% to this ideology. All he is asking (and all teh UK government, officially is asking) is that Muslims in his democratic country abide by the basic norms of that democracy. It isn't really a lot to ask, and it is certainly something that both the Labour and Conservative/LD governments have asked for. The only difference is that Wilders says there must be consequences to failure to comply and we must stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. The banning of the Koran proposal is really more a debating point I would say. But it is a reasonable one.

On the quotations I am asking for citations for your quotes. That is a reasonable request. And I note you seem to admit that one of the posts you said showed quotations did not.

daniel maris

Here's one quote among a 100 I could give you:

Qur'an:47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."

That's from their holiest of books and it is taught to Muslims as an injunction relevant to the modern age. If you can find me a mainstream Islamic cleric who says this verse is inoperative I will be interested to hear.

There have been over 15,000 terrorist attacks by persons claiming to be followers of Islam and citing that religion as their motivation, since 9-11. How many attacks by persons claiming to be Buddhists or Methodists or Roman Catholics or Mormons or Taoists and citing their religions? Put them altogether, how many? I can't think of one.

According to you, that's just coincidence and Wilders has got it all wrong about Islam, that those 15,000 attacks could just as easily have been committed by modern day Buddhists and Christians. That stretches credulity to breaking point.

If you're not saying that, please advise what you are saying, because it is not consistent for you to claim Wilders is misrepresenting Islam if Islam's teachings are what cause the 15,000 terrorist attacks.

Tilly

daniel maris

I'd like to address your points in separate chunks owing to the problem of posts so often going adrift.

In this one I just want to establish some ground rules - in particular, urging a halt to your obsessive focus on quotation etiquette.

1. OK, I did not quote Wilders directly in one of the posts I named - the exact words were those of an Augustus paraphrase. I apologise. You might, however, ask yourself why HIS lack of direct quotation (as a Wilders supporter) doesn't bother you, whereas mine does.

2. You, personally, seem to feel at perfect liberty to paraphrase Wilders. (Eg: "All he is asking is that Muslims in his democratic country abide by basic norms of democracy".) No source citation is given. If I wanted to argue that this is a highly sanitised version of Wilders' rhetoric (which, frankly, I can't be bothered to do) I would look for the relevant quote(s) myself, or ask you for guidance on the specific point at issue. I do not expect academic-style referencing from you at every turn; kindly grant me the same leeway.

3. You now want me to engage in a quasi-theological debate. I'm willing to do so as long as it's clearly understood that I am not prepared to quote lengthy passages from either the Bible or Koran (or commentaries on them) just to save you the bother of checking them out for yourself. I don't, in return, expect such a service from you.

If these "terms of engagement" are satisfactory, please confirm; otherwise let's just agree to differ and have done.

Augustus

Tilly - If I might edge in just once more, here are a few quotes from Wilders delivered at the resumption of his trial on February 7th:

"All over Europe the elites are
acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us since the Fourteenth Century."
(By 'us'I presume he means Europe)

"An ideology that sprang from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people feedom".

"The ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and can only produce societies that are backwood and impoverished. Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology."

"My trial is not an isolated incident. Only fools believe that it is. All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass-
immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe - a Europe without freedom: Eurabia."

And finally: "The lights are going out all over Europe. Everywhere the Orwellian thought
police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back to within the confines in which it is allowed to think."

Btw, I am quite happy just to agree to differ. Regards.
Over to Daniel...

daniel maris

Just one for Tilly, since she thinks all Pakistani Muslims are oppressed:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1448727/Pakistani-gangs-are-targeting-us-say-fearful-black-youths.html

It would seem some are oppressors.

daniel maris

And for today:

The only Christian member of the Pakistani Cabinet, a man who opposed the death penalty for blasphemy against Islam has been assassinated. Presumably not by Methodists or Buddhists.

Why does modern have a death penalty for insulting Mohammed (not even a God)? Well believe it or not, it has something to do with the ideology of Islam, Tilly.

daniel maris

...and one more:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12621832

Seems these murderers were motivated by a certain religion.

Plus - did you know that for that certain religion insulting a man, just a man, who they happen to hold in high esteem amounts to blasphemy.

Tilly, Tilly, Tilly...none so blind as shall not see.