GEERT WILDERS AT TEMPLE

Yesterday evening Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders spoke at Temple University. If you weren't there, it will probably be a bit hard to figure out what happened. The reason being the hyperbole on both sides and the somewhat overblown news coverage.


Cite ONE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ORnwDS7Deg

The news clip above suggest a calm and rational evening, the intro-text by the person who posted it avers otherwise.

Cite TWO
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/5125233/__Wilders_in_VS_weggehoond__.html?p=37,2

The article from De Telegraaf (in Dutch) alleges that Geert Wilders was booed off by the crowd of students. The article makes it seem like the crowd massively screamed their disapproval and chased him off stage.

I get the impression that reporters are not familiar with American college campi.
Loud noises, catcalls, and a hypercritical audience for speakers are fairly common.

Geert Wilders, as a politician, should in any case be used to Bronx cheers and rude shouting. Certainly he has been exposed to that in the Dutch parliament.

Other news reports suggest a fairly quiet and low-key response by those who disagreed with his message.


Quote:"About 100 students who came remained silent throughout his 17-minute "Fitna" film, which casts Islam as the culprit behind terrorism since the turn of the century. During a 25-minute speech that followed, he said the increasing Muslim population in Europe is causing a retrenchment of freedom.
[CUT]
Most of the 80 students gathered outside to protest Wilder's appearance quietly held signs or passed out pamphlets.
"We've had to deal with hate speakers before," said Monira Gamal-Eldin of Temple's Muslim Students Association. "What he's preaching is not free speech. He is funneling hate toward one group of people."
A small minority like freshmen Erik Jacobs, however, said Wilders' appearance and the peaceful protest showed off the virtues of free speech."
End quote.


SOURCE:
http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/10/21/05/1032-85/index.xml#




"WHERE ISLAM SETS ROOTS, FREEDOM DIES"

The New York Times has perhaps the best coverage: their account of the event describes audience reaction to Geert Wilders remarks, quotes him, and also cites students' comments.

Quote:
His remarks were met by a mixture of applause and boos, and occasionally gasps -- particularly when he stated that ''our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture and we should defend it.''
End quote.

SOURCE
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/21/us/AP-US-Islam-Speech-Controversy.html?_r=1


Quote:
He decried as a ''disgrace'' a resolution co-sponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, and backed by the U.N. Human Rights Council earlier this month, deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right.
End quote.

I would be leery of anything backed by the Human Rights Council, given its sorry track record and inclusion of the worst human rights violators. The United Nations in general might do well to stuff a sock in it too - the right to say horrid things is precisely what freedom of speech is about. If Geert Wilders wishes to call the Koran worse than Mein Kampf, insist that Islam is an intolerant ideology that encourages violence, or even aver that the prophet Mohammed was a brigand, a rapist, and a depraved pedophile who violated a nine year old, who the hell are the third-world gangsters, tyrants, and mother-violators in the United Nations to deny him that right?

None of the Muslim nations has freedom of speech, most of them are brutal dictatorships, and hardly anywhere in the Muslim world are non-Muslims treated as equals, despite having been in those countries longer than the Muslims.
Fine.
All of you foreign Thugbucket tyranies, kindly shut the F up. Thank you.


Quote:
A question-and-answer session was cut short after the tone of the event began to turn nasty, with some in the crowd of several hundred students began shouting jeers. Wilders' security detail quickly ushered him from the room.End quote.

That's quite a bit different than the impression that De Telegraaf paints. It also makes clear that he was not booed off, but that his security detail made a decision to extract him.
Paid protection tends to be very pragmatic about such things.


Quote.
''I think it's completely wrong that someone who promotes racism and intolerance should be given a platform at this university,'' said Temple student Josh Rosenthal. ''It's hate speech disguised as free speech.''
End quote.

Josh Rosenthal appears to have problems thinking. Perhaps Josh Rosenthal should contemplate his navel instead of speaking. Idiot.


Quote:
Another student, Joseph Rodrigues, said that being able to voice unpopular opinions is a freedom not to be taken lightly. ''I might not like what he said, but I think it's important that he be allowed to say it,'' he said.End quote.

Mr. Rodrigues is correct. It is important that one be allowed to say things that other people do not like. This is a fundamental right denied to many in the Muslim world. It is also a fundamental right of Muslims in the United States, some of whom are in fact students at Temple University. A number of whom made their point calmly, without causing any disruption.


Temple University students are free to disagree with Geert Wilders. Just as free as Geert Wilders must be to say disagreeable things.

And as free as the audience must be to hear what the man has to say.

------------------------------------------------------------------

POST-SCRIPTUM

If you're offended by whatever Geert Wilders says, you have the freedom to either counter-argue him, or ignore him. You also have the freedom to say nasty things about him, his ideology, and many other things. And really, there is nothing wrong with exercising that right.

You may also say whatever you want about other religions. Just bear in mind that no one really cares what you think about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his Noodly Appendage, nor what your opinion is of the Grelzakian Toadcult.
You are far less important than you think you are.
Stop acting like you are a victim and grow up.

------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDENDUM

The nine year old mentioned above in connection with the prophet Mohammed was Aisha bint Abu Bakr, who was only six or seven years old when betrothed to Mohammed. She continued living with her parents for several more years before the marriage was consummated, allegedly when she was nine or ten years old. But the traditional sources can be doubted, as this may very well be hyperbole serving to emphasize her purity and youth - she was the only one of Mohammed's wives to have been a virgin when she married him.

[Sources suggest that succession and legitimization issues may have influenced the narrative - her father Abu Bakr (Abu Bakr As-Siddiq also known as Abdallah ibn Abi Quhafa, 573 CE to 634 CE) became the first Caliph after Mohammad's death in 632 CE. Additionally, she is the source for many of the ahadith of the prophet's life, which later generations took as sources of authority. So there may be more to her reputed age at the time of her wedding than meets the eye.]


After their wedding, she continued to play with her toys - Mohammed would join in to make her happy.

Aisha is said to have been Mohammed's favourite wife, and they had great affection for one and other. Her tent curtain became the prophet's battle flag.

During his final illnes, the prophet sought her apartments and expired with his head in her lap in 632, aged 82 years.
She survived him by forty six years, being 65 when she died.

THE QURAN, THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD AND HIS CHILD BRIDE, UNDESIRABLES, TERRORISTS, AND OTHER SUBJECTS

Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders of the Freedom party said yesterday that if Muslims want to stay and be a part of (Dutch) society they should tear out half the Quran and discard it, as it espouses values and attitudes which are incompatible with western civilization. He also made mention of Muhammad's favourite wife, Aisha, whom the prophet became engaged to when she was six, and married (with consummation) when she was nine. He further pointed out that if the prophet Muhammad were alive today, he would have to be deported as an undesirable or locked up as a terrorist. Naturally, the internet is buzzing, with several writers having fits.

His party has nine seats. Judging by some of the reactions, they may have two or three times that number after the next election (four years from now, or earlier, if the just formed cabinet falls).

He's a hatemonger, and intemperate. But he's also a ballsy loudmouthed gadfly. And pisses off the standard-issue Dutch politicians and Hague bureaucrats.
Sort of the Pim Fortuyn of anti-Islamists.
[His site was where I first found the cartoons, by the way.]


For some odd reason, many Dutch, who normally support all the usual liberal humanist progressive points of view, seem to be of the opinion that if he gets whacked, that's to be expected, only natural, perfectly all right, and his own fault.

They may be overlooking the idea that he has every right to say whatever intolerant thing he wants to, and has a right to protection if there are threats upon his life.

Instead, many have opined that a recently uncovered plot to assassinate him in a suicide car-bomb attack which aimed to also kill as many innocent bystanders as possible was probably justified.
[How do you say 'chicken' in Dutch? Kip. But it doesn't have quite the same connotations. Say 'lafaard' (coward) instead.]



Link to the Algemeen Dagblad article (in Dutch):
http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/article1086329.ece?pageNavType=all#reactie


Link to the Gazet van Antwerp article (also in Dutch):
http://www.gva.be/nieuws/Buitenland/default.asp?art={16FE8039-3F50-41FF-A3F8-625F0ACD9869}

[ Zelfmoordaanslag tegen Nederlands politicus beraamd ]

Quote: "De Nederlandse rechtspopulist en fractieleider van de Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) Geert Wilders is vorige week bedreigd met een zelfmoordaanslag. Twee jongemannen zouden het plan hebben om Wilders neer te schieten en vervolgens een busje vol explosieven bij de politicus tot ontploffing te brengen. Daarbij moesten "veel onschuldigen omkomen in de enorme chaos"."
[Translation: The Dutch rightwing populist and parliamentary fraction leader of the Freedom Party (PVV) Geert Wilders was targeted last week for a suicide attack. Two young men apparently planned to shoot Wilders and subsequently detonate a van filled with explosives at the scene. It was intended that "many innocents should perish in the enormous (ensuing) chaos.]

According to the file, the planners were not fundamentalists, but merely sought revenge on behalf of Muslims and Islam. There have been a multitude of threats on Wilders' life in the past, primarily because he will not shut up and play nice with the Muslims.

As you might have noticed, we Dutch speakers sometimes get a mouth on, and say things which are not exactly easy on the digestion. Geert Wilders, whose opinions I mostly do not share, seems to have a talent for that. A talent which Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh also had.

Abrasive utterances are a fine Dutch tradition, treasured because they get under the skin of all the right people. They should be encouraged, especially in a country which suffers from massive mental rigidity such as the Netherlands. Dutch deftigheid often needs a clout in the face or a poke in the eye.

If anything happens to Geert Wilders, the public discourse will be less offensive, but very much poorer, and likely stifled.