Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Geert Wilders 'Fitna'

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well I am pretty f***ing furious. I've tried twice to download it, and both times failed because my connection just... dropped.

Once after almost four hours, only 14 percent left. And apparently the firefox downloader doesn't understand the concept of picking up where it left off.

Damn it to hell.

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that I would say that Fitna is in the public domain. Originally, Geert Wilders wanted his own website, which would have gotten 5 million hits by now, and maybe he could have made some money from this film. As it is, he was denied a website and no option to get his message out aside from free distribution via other websites. He also has a death fatwa hanging over his head. So what I propose, is that if there is a Geert Wilders defense fund, that a link be made on the websites displaying Fitna, so that people can donate to the cause of keeping him safe.

Anyone know if there is such a defense fund? Or what he is doing now with that death fatwa hanging over his head?

He is asking for donations to his political party, the PVV (Party For Freedom), on his website here. The website is in dutch but I ran the text through freetranslation and here's what I got:

"I lead a fight against the islamising of the Netherlands and the mass-immigratie. I stand in this not alone. Meanwhile appeared that six out of ten Dutchmen sees the islam as threat and finds that the mass-immigratie the largest wrong from our history is. That gives hope for the future.

Only temporarily I look at against enormous expenses. The film and the naweeën expenses many money. The Party for the Freedom accepts no subsidy and is thus totally indicated on the support of vrijheidslievende citizens as you. I have your help urgently necessarily. May I ask yourself support? Each donatie is welcome!

Here are the gegevens: Bank account number 67,04,72,344 to name of the Foundation Friends of the PVV to the Hague. Borrows on: the gifts its complete tax deductible. The foundation has been recognized by the load service as good-range foundation.

Meanwhile warm thanks for your support"

also,

"To our international friends:

Please support our struggle. The battle for the survival of freedom is not something we can do all by ourselves. Party for Freedom (PVV) is the only political party in Dutch Parliament that refuses government subsidy. Therefore, we are dependent on your support. We need your help urgently, as costs are mounting. Freedom isn’t free.

You can use the Paypal application under “DONEER” or you can make a contribution to:

Stichting Vrienden van de PVV (Foundation Friends of PVV), in The Hague, the Netherlands. Bank account 67.04.72.344 "

I think I'll probably kick in a few bucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am pretty f***ing furious. I've tried twice to download it, and both times failed because my connection just... dropped.

Once after almost four hours, only 14 percent left. And apparently the firefox downloader doesn't understand the concept of picking up where it left off.

Damn it to hell.

Use Free Download Manager. When you download files using this program, if downloading gets interrupted due to getting disconnected, you can continue from where you left off once you reconnect. There is no need to begin again from scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attention!-this is a must see. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

From the LiveLeak page regarding Fitna:

** 30/3/2008: Liveleak Update **

On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film "fitna" from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families. Since that time we have worked constantly on upgrading all security measures thus offering better protection for our staff and families. With these measures in place we have decided to once more make this video live on our site. We will not be pressured into censoring material which is legal and within our rules. We apologise for the removal and the delay in getting it back, but when you run a website you don't consider that some people would be insecure enough to threaten our lives simply because they do not like the content of a video we neither produced nor endorsed but merely hosted.

**

And there is evidently world wide Muslim protest against this film, including signs that say, "Kill Geert Wilders" just to prove the point that fundamentalist Islam is a peaceful religion :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some ways it's better than Obsession. Obsession suggests that Islam has been "hijacked" and the final message in the film is that Muslims need to drive out the extremists. Fitna shows that violence is inherint in Islam (fundamental in the Quran) and it is really the moderates that are inconsistent.

Have you seen the ending?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Geert Wilders is going to be prosecuted in the Netherlands.

From what I can gather, there were complaints, but the public prosecutor decided that, while Wilders might be offensive to some, his actions did not rise to the level of being criminal. Now, however, a Dutch court has decided that the prosecutor must prosecute.

Free speech just took a huge blow in the Netherlands.

Updated: The original LiveLeak link doesn't work any more, but Google Video still has it.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geert Wilders has started a campaign to ban the Koran, for the same reasons and purpose that Hitler's "Mein Kampf" was banned in Germany.

You'll find many stories on this by googling "geert ban koran".

That, and every other stupid idea he may have, falls under the category of speech, and it ought to be free from the control of the government.

Instead, European courts are essentially putting a gag order on 500 million European citizens, by declaring their intentions to allow the government to crack down on any speech, for no objective reason. As a result, those who are unpopular will be silenced.

This trend in Europe must be the single biggest threat to Western civilization I can think of at present. Is there a European equivalent of the ACLU out there, which could counter the threat these laws pose to anyone engaging in controversial speech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

His prosecution is based on the concept of 'inciting hatred'.

This is a crime which is not defined so it is up to the the judge to determine if he 'fits the shoe'. This is I think an illustration of the non-objective nature of a lot of laws. The concepts used in laws often go without definition. Previous rulings given an indication, but different cases with the same facts of the case don't necessarily give the same rulings. So in practice people are in fact not really 'equal before the law'.

Also something, maybe not obvious to Americans, is that the dutch law system doesn't have a jury. For better or worse; Prosecutor, lawyer, judge and witnesses make up the trial.

for your information, this guy: http://www.spong.nl/en/mr_g_spong_home_en.html is leading the prosecution. Funny thing is he his gay...not something I guess Islam is very tolerant of...some people can be very misguided.

His defense; http://www.elsevier.nl/web/nederland/biogr...mmoszkowicz.htm, who is Jewish...

if you follow this link: http://www.pvv.nl/ (Partij For Freedom) and click the 'partij' (party) link you get to a section about donation in English.

I must state a significant portion of the dutch society, particular to the left of the political spectrum, resent Geert Wilders.

Basis of this is:

- Many people do not know anything about the live of Mohammad or the teachings of Islam beyond superficial things like 'don't eat pork' or 'pray 5 times a day'

- Many people believe (beyond questioning) in the multi-culture, live-and-let-live concept of every religion is equal and we can all get along, each with its own private religious practice.

- So anyone who attacks one of those precious sub-cultures, breaches the equilibrium, is branded 'a hater', 'a hitler', someone who must by definition be an bad person who's arguments, how persuasive they may be, must have a double agenda full of evilness (that's why they are impervious to a rational argument for the attack).

-Islamic people are (still) a minority in Europe, some people to the left compare the people of Islamic faith to the Jews in the time before Hitler. So anyone attacking the practices of Islam is branded a Nazi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geert Wilders is a hero. He should be given a medal, not sued. For shame.

If he dropped dead tomorrow, the world would be a better place for it. He's among the 1/1000-th worst human beings on the planet, in a select company of awful wannabe tyrants.

Still, he has the right to free speech. While he is just a potential threat (not a very likely one at that, since he's a moron), the government preventing him from free speech is an actual threat which needs to be countered now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geert Wilders has started a campaign to ban the Koran, for the same reasons and purpose that Hitler's "Mein Kampf" was banned in Germany.

That, and every other stupid idea he may have, falls under the category of speech, and it ought to be free from the control of the government.

I cannot believe Geert Wilders can be serious in believing he will be able to get the Koran banned; I suspect he is only proposing it to shock people and get himself into the media.

It is more likely that freedom of speech is to be limited than that the Koran every will be banned. The dutch constitution contains 2 articles protecting the Koran and only one regarding freedom of speech; which only gives the right to publish opinions without permission. This does not mean anything can be published without subsequent punishment.

Article 1:

All who reside in the Netherlands, will in similar cases be treated similar. Discrimination on the basis of religion, life conviction, political association, race, gender or on whichever ground, is not allowed.

Article 6:

Everybody has the right to exercise his or her religion or life conviction, individual or in community with others, in freedom. With regard to responsibility before the law.

Article 7:

Nobody needs permission in advance to express thoughts or feelings via the printing press (or other means, this is in the rest of the article). With regard to responsibility before the law.

It is the article 1 which in practice can be used to create injustices. Any criticism of harmful convictions, which find their source in a religion can be argumented to be religious discrimination. If the religion being attack is by historical accident being practised by an ethnic minority than this can even be used to turn it in to a case of racial discrimination. This can make it very difficult to point out the dangers of a portion of a religion and the strict followers of it.

For instance; I condemn the jihad teachings and their followers, these teachings are in the Koran, therefore part of Islam. I go out into the public domain an speak of the evilness of Islam. Now my neighbour looks out the window and sees all these peaceful, law abiding Muslim people, who I seem to be scapegoating (like the Jews where by the Nazis) to facilitate my rise to political power and he concludes I am the next Hitler who must be stopped before I get into power....

The other way around...a hate preaching imam can claim his right to do so on the basis of article 6, nobody can easily condemn his statements without implicitly condemning the teachings on which they are based; that would be religious discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He should go anyway (no one checks passwords on travel within EU borders, he can just get on a train and cross the channel-drive a car to the tunnel, cross on a freight train with the car, and drive to wherever the movie is shown).

I'm sure he'd enjoy the publicity of being arrested and put on a plane back home, and I'd love to see the Labour Government exposed for what they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure he'd enjoy the publicity of being arrested and put on a plane back home, and I'd love to see the Labour Government exposed for what they are.

He's being detained at Heathrow Airport under the premise that he is spreading hate that is a danger to the British community.

Britain's Home Office would not comment specifically on the ban, but it said it "opposes extremism in all its forms" and would work to "stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country."

Reminds me of when Yaron Brook was detained going into Canada because he was going to present a lecture about Islamic Militant behavior.

Free speech is being lost in the west due to militants threatening force against citizens who speak out against them. It's a travesty of justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its extra ironic that people cannot advocate against Muslims because it is "hate," but Muslims seem to be fairly free to threaten (and sometimes act out on those threats) the lives of the 'hate-spreading' people.

Its funny how anti-"hate" laws are actually supporting the real haters and terrorists more and suppressing people who want to combat it in the context of a civil society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say someone in America wanted to hold a viewing of this movie and invite Wilders over for it. Do you believe the U.S. government would do what the U.K. government has now done to Wilders? Would this actually be possible?

That's highly unlikely, and it would definitely be illegal. (They could, in theory, withhold a visa, but only under the table, it would take some type of conspiracy.) It most definitely would not be possible for the White House to issue a public order, based on nothing but this guy's speech. If they did, they would, in my opinion, be sued and forced to withdraw it.

Of course, in America very few people would take his idea to ban the Koran seriously, since people tend to be aware of the First Amendment, so no one would really feel the need to ban him.

I wonder if someone like Ahmedinejad would be allowed to enter Britain, the way he seems to be strolling into New York every time he feels like it?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
FYI:

GEERT WILDERS' SPEECH IN HOUSE OF LORDS IF HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM

http://www.pvv.nl/index.php?option=com_con...09&Itemid=1

Geert Wilders is being interviewed on The Glenn Beck Show, Fox News, today, Monday, 4pm central. I think it repeats later in the day. So, he is in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...