They wont do it, they aren't that frightened are they

Posted by: GrennBeck at March 3, 2008 8:19 AM

How could they ban it anyway?

Posted by: Elric66 at March 3, 2008 8:23 AM

I thought that the Netherlands was proud of free expression. Well, it was................you don't think that the mass migration of jihadists had anything to do with it, do you?

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 3, 2008 8:35 AM

the JW article headline is...

Dhimmitude and fear. "Dutch government could ban anti-Islam film,"

With this possible Dutch government 'response' to muslim community threats, does anyone see the parallels here, with another old story [below] about the pernicious nature ISLAMISM, and the *wrong headed* response of our govt. elites to this new 'crisis'???....

The Times June 24, 2006
To allow Islamists to direct the post-7/7 debate was a disaster
Michael Gove
THE BRITISH State has come under severe criticism following the Forest Gate raid for its intelligence failures in the fight against terrorism. But the biggest failure of all in the battle against Islamist extremism has gone practically unnoticed.
...Proof of the British State’s institutional weakness came directly in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings. At the Prime Minister’s behest the Home Office established a series of working groups to tackle the threat of Islamic extremism. A variety of individuals were appointed whose past statements or current affiliations made them very curious conscripts in the struggle against extremism.
Among those appointed was Ahmad Thomson, a convert to Islam who has argued in the past that....Muslims are obliged to want to live in an Islamic state.
...Given the presence of these and others with a similar perspective on the Home Office’s working groups, the conclusions were not that surprising. In so far as extremism was acknowledged as a danger it was attributed to the foreign policy of Blair and Bush. And in so far as remedial action was required, it seemed, again and again, to consist of more public money going to exclusively Islamic bodies that would be empowered to provide more Islamic solutions, in accordance with appropriate Islamic principles.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8802-2240635,00.html

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 3, 2008 8:43 AM

This Bible verse comes to mind....

Proverbs 26:11
¶As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 3, 2008 8:47 AM

I have some more perspectives of the Dutch situation on my weblog:

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Ferdy at March 3, 2008 8:55 AM

There are none so blind as those who cannot see what is before them.

"Peace in our time" Neville Chamberpot.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last". Winston Churchill

Posted by: ericthekuffar at March 3, 2008 8:57 AM

Either we live as dhimmis, and *eventually* as the slaves of muslims, in our own lands!

....Or we must insist [at some point] that muslims who want to live 'here', must conform with the mores of *our culture*, in our lands.

And *freedom of speech* must be sacrosanct, as the foremost guarantor of our freedoms, and guarantor of our *civil* way of life.

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 3, 2008 9:00 AM

If the Netherlands bans the Geert Wilders film on the Qur’an, it will be one of the most important acts in the history of free speech. It will constitute an act of Great Undoing, in response to threats from maddened primitives, of the most important political right acquired, over time, by individuals in the Western world -- a right that, without which, all other rights are essentially meaningless.

This has to be understood. If the Netherlands, and if the countries of NATO (who are now involved), cannot permit, and will by fiat end, freedom of speech when it comes to perfectly legitimate criticism of Islam, then the civilization of the West will have suffered an immense blow. Not everyone will mind, or even notice. Some will tell themselves that this "right-wing" politician Wilders was looking to stir up trouble by criticising Islam. And if he was? Isn't it better that the "trouble" be stirred up now, while the West can still defend itself, especially within its own lands, but can do so only if it recognizes the meaning, and the menace of Islam and Jihad?

And others will say something like "oh, but there will be greater danger to Dutch troops" in Afghanistan. And still others will add, "yes, and even to the troops from the other NATO lands." And perhaps that is true. However, if it is true, perhaps it is NATO forces that should rethink their "mission" in Afghanistan, and what is achievable there. Perhaps NATO should rethink whether "helping" people who would eagerly kill them because of the refusal of the Western world to abandon freedom of speech in the case of a fifteen-minute film in the Netherlands, is really the wisest course of action. Perhaps NATO should consider what that tells us about the nature of the people in Afghanistan, or in any other Muslim state or society, whom we complacently or desperately assume are not our sworn enemies, are not hostile to the non-Muslims of the world. (For yes, that hostility can exist side-by-side with a desire to get from the West all the benefits that West clearly offers, including every sort of aid. It can even be present among people who decide to move to and settle within that same West. That is, even those who leave the misrule of Islam can continue to harbor that hostility to non-Muslims. Unlike refugees from the Nazis or the Communists or other examples of misrule, all too many of these immigrants bring with them, in their mental baggage, the very thing, Islam, whose effects, especially those of political despotism and economic paralysis, are what caused them to leave such hell-holes as, say, Somalia, or Pakistan, or the Maghreb, in the first place.

This suppression, by the Western world, of free speech, will have grave and long-lasting consequences. For if this movie is suppressed, one assumes that all other such movies will be suppressed. And the demands, by Muslims inside and outside of Europe for still more to be censored, including the written word, will only increase, with that well-known triumphalism that feeds each new demand, as Muslims demand more and more concessions to ensure that they will never feel offended, neither within their own lands, nor within the historic heart of the free and advanced West. For if they are offended, the consequences will be greater than what the West wishes to pay. It need not be soldiers in Afghanistan. It could be, say, a threat to blow up one of the Oxford colleges, or the Louvre, or the Alte Pinakothek, or the Uffizi or the Vatican. Oh, it could be any number of things. Do what we want, submit to our Diktat....or else!

The stand has to be taken now. Not later. Later will be too late.

Posted by: Hugh at March 3, 2008 9:01 AM

If they ban it this means muslims have more freedom to criticize and (god forbid) blaspheme other religions in their own countries and the West than we do. The insane muslim world will dictate to us what films we can see. Great isn't it.

Posted by: savitch at March 3, 2008 9:05 AM

Ferdy - Your link -

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-muslim-call-for-payer-prettiest.html

How in the world anyone who isn't a muslim can call the muslim call to prayer a beautiful sound?

Posted by: Borg at March 3, 2008 9:27 AM

My first thought when reading this was... maybe Wilder shouldn't have given this so much P.R. He has been talking about it so much it has just inflamed the Moslems all the more and given the Dutch government the time to ban it or work out some way of preventing its distribution.

But the truth is that, even if the film is never seen by anyone... or for that matter if Wilder decided privately not to even film it... he has proved his point.

The Islamic world was inflamed by the mere thought of someone creating such a film. Riots and death threats resulted, Egypt banned Dutch films, and now the Dutch are cowing to Islam.

Even if Wilder never shows this film, he has proven what he set out to. Islam is a violent offensive religio-political ideology and Western governments are violating freedom of speech to placate Islam.

Posted by: StephenDvd at March 3, 2008 10:29 AM

I was under the impression that Geert Wilders is going to release the movie through youtube. How are the Dutch going to block that? Well...they could pull a Pakistan and block access for most of the World.

When is this movie coming out anyway?

Posted by: kyros at March 3, 2008 10:32 AM

I'm beginning to wonder whether this film even exists. I woulddn't be surprised if we end up with a meta-film: a film about the reactions to a non-existent film.

Posted by: saturnine at March 3, 2008 10:34 AM

re: saturnin

lol...that would be pretty funny.

Posted by: kyros at March 3, 2008 10:40 AM

The only respectable response to these Islamic threats against free men is moral outrage.

If the assorted political parties in Europe and the USA were really who they say they are via their organizational monikers--"liberal" and "democrat" and "Christian"--they would be hugely offended by this vicious, domineering Muslim behavior. If the multi-culturalism and diversity ideologues were really who they pretend to be--persons having some special sensitivity to, and "sophisticated" knowledge of, foreign cultures--they would understand the supremacist, intolerant, and uncompromising Islamic attitudes behind these threats, and would reflexively and instantly throw the Muslim words back into their collective bigoted Islamic faces.

Instead of discussing amongst themselves how best to meekly bow to outrageous Islamic demands, principled Westerners should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder demanding contrite apologies from the Muslim world for offending the sensibilities of free men, who are practicing freedom of thought and freedom of speech within their own lands, as they have a right and a duty to do.

Bravo to Geert Wilders. A man among sheep.

Shame on the Islamic world--a shame richly deserved.

Posted by: Stendec at March 3, 2008 10:43 AM

"The stand has to be taken now. Not later. Later will be too late." ~ Hugh

Personally, Hugh, I feel that moment to stand passed the station a while ago, with the Moe Khartoons. If the entire non-muslim world had published those khartoons as a reaction to the violent displeasure deemed acceptable by muslims, the debate would have already started. The self-censorship of the Moe Khartoons was the first tentative step on that slippery shari'a slope. Everything is down hill from there, including the dhimmi reaction of so many politicians, Dutch and otherwise, to Mr. Wilders' little film.

From the Guardian link: "From her self-imposed exile in Washington, Hirsi Ali criticised the new film as "provocation"."

Huh?

Posted by: Rick at March 3, 2008 10:59 AM

What's Mr Wilders doing? If you are reading this Geert, just release the thing. Don't worry about the hollow legal threats. There is ton of other truthful videos out there about that evil Koran cult-book which they haven't banned.

Anyway, the only people responsible for any rioting that may occur are the brainwashed perpetrators themselves. And also the politicians for appeasing them time and time again.

We're all waiting. Please don't wait any longer. The time is now. Strike while the iron is hot. Don't "submit" ! We're all behind you. Go for it without further delay.

Posted by: Infidel419 at March 3, 2008 11:27 AM

The Dutch people should demonstrate so loudly, and in such numbers, in favor of Mr. Wilders that the government would more greatly fear fanning Dutch sentiment against the government by banning the film than it would fear Moslem sentiment by allowing it to be shown.
Come on, citizens of the Netherlands. This may be one of your last chances to protect your country. How about a "million-man-march" (or two) in support of Wilders? Dutch teachers, how about a one-day (or longer) strike in support of releasing the film? Dutch unionists, how about a one-day (or longer) work-stoppage by the railroaders and the truckdrivers and the Schiphol ground-crews? This could be your last chance to rein in an out-of-control government and its insane policies.

Posted by: ebonystone at March 3, 2008 11:45 AM

The truth is that this film will fine its way onto the internet, just like the Mohammed cartoons.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 3, 2008 12:08 PM

Seems like it is getting more serious in france

Four police officers were wounded when masked youths fired shotguns at them in a southern suburb of Paris on Sunday, the French interior minister has said.

Michele Alliot-Marie said about 30 people ambushed the officers after they were called to Grigny when a local bakery was vandalised.

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-this-day-feb-26.html

Posted by: Shiva at March 3, 2008 12:20 PM

Yeah, what is up with Hirsi Ali calling the film a provocation?

Posted by: Borg at March 3, 2008 12:24 PM

I thought that the Dutch never ban anything, which is why porn is legal as free speech. But now if they ban this, those in the Netherlands who've wanted to ban things like porn would at least be able to steamroll those who always made the free speech argument in defending this.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 3, 2008 12:28 PM

"and will by fiat end, freedom of speech when it comes to perfectly legitimate criticism of Islam"

Perfectly illegitimate criticism of Islam should also be allowed, or the "freedom of speech" under which it would be proscribed would be hollow and dangerous.

Posted by: cantor at March 3, 2008 12:51 PM

Is Mein Kampf banned?

And if the film uses only the words of the koran and the film gets banned as hate speech, will the koran then be banned also as hate speech?

Posted by: Borg at March 3, 2008 12:53 PM

Infidel Pride said

But now if they ban this, those in the Netherlands who've wanted to ban things like porn would at least be able to steamroll those who always made the free speech argument in defending this.

True, but if the Netherlands banned porn, that would make a favorable impression on Dar al-Islam. And if the Netherlands banned alcohol and drugs, that might make the Dutch U.N. peacekeepers safer. And if the Netherlands banned uncovered women, they might actually start to win over the "hearts and minds" of the ummah.

Posted by: special_guest at March 3, 2008 2:39 PM

“Yeah, what is up with Hirsi Ali calling the film a provocation?”

Google: “Hirsi Ali” + Wilders + provocation

Go to the Hotair links.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 3, 2008 2:46 PM

Reminiscent of this "man bites dog" story

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020055.php#comments

the position of the Labour party would seem to be, at the very least, "Man Bites Dog Lite". Good news from the perspective of those, such as myself, who have dared to continue to hope that the Left would eventually start to wake up, but extremely sad from the point of view of the irony in the Christian Democrats' position.

Worse yet, is the fact that the one of the ideological fonts and soulmates of the CD party (theoretically, at least), the Holy See, is showing disturbing signs, notwithstanding what we thought was the position of the current Pope, of going decidedly dhimmi. Notice the condemnation of the Mohammed cartoons, and the agenda of cooperation between Islam and the Catholic Church that is opened up in the following statement.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20080226_cairo-declaration_en.html

In light of this, there is grave reason for concern that we can expect more of this kind of weak-kneed vacilating from the CDs and other Christian parties in the future, as the anti-Jihad resistance has been dealt a considerable blow from this abyssmal statement.

Although I submitted the information about this story by email to Robert Spencer on more than one occassion, as I suspect other readers may have, to my great disappointment, it has received, so far as I've been able to see, no attention or analysis at Jihadwatch.

Nonetheless, I submit it here for readers' consideration. I would urge everyone, particularly my fellow Catholics, to bombard the Holy See with letters and messages, including direct petitions to the Pope, to overturn the new policy by withdrawing its approval from the joint declaration.

The Papacy had an opportunity to further weave the theme of freedom of conscience and freedom from coercion into its dialogue with Islam by insisting on avoiding the topic of the Mohammed cartoons, steering the discussions away from this whole wretched matter of "avoiding disrespect of religions", and reminding the Islamic participants in the discussions of the value of considering the constructive criticism of religious dissenters and non-believers and it wasted it, being coopted instead into the old sinister agenda of repressive state imposition of orthodoxy. Notwithstanding the important role of religion in creating a strong culture, which I vigourously defend, religious believers ought to be wary of their beliefs and institutions being further discredited by once again being put in the position of overriding basic rights and freedoms.

There is something for them to act on here.

Posted by: templar at March 3, 2008 2:50 PM

And *freedom of speech* must be sacrosanct.

In a free society, two *free men* can agree to disagree.

But, if one of those men has the power, to silence the other, HE is [becomes] the master of that other man.

He then determines the rights of that 2nd person.

If this circumstance is enshrined in law, such a society, enshrines a political apartheid.

Where some have rights and others have none.

And this is the circumstance TODAY, in *ALL* Sharia jurisdictions [i.e. a political apartheid].

"Within a Sharia jurisdiction all muslims are equal [this is the 'justice', which muslims speak of], but under Sharia all non-muslims are 'guilty' and inferior [and are not equal beside a muslim, under law].
Yet, not one single muslim cleric will acknowledge that Sharia is unjust, in that Sharia imposes a political apartheid, favouring muslims, and which is oppressive to any and all [both non-muslim and muslim], who are deemed un-ISLAMIC.
http://members.dodo.com.au/~wtt626/index.html#There_Can_Be_No_End_to_Jihad

tanstaafl said....

An innocent can only be a Muslim. All others, who refuse the message of Allah and his prophet, Muhammed; are guilty.

Muslim = innocence
Infidel = guilty
The basis of Sharia Law.

Posted by: tanstaafl
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020161.php#c516772

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 3, 2008 3:07 PM

Why can't one leader of some nation get up and say to the Muslims that "Iif you threaten violence and attempt to supress, all you are doing is proving what barbarians the critics say you are. Why don't you act like intelligent, peaceful civilized people for a change? Your religion will survive this movie!"

Posted by: Dumbo at March 3, 2008 5:42 PM

Dumbo said....

"Why can't one leader of some nation get up and say to the Muslims......Why don't you act like intelligent, peaceful civilized people for a change?"

Dumbo, muslims, its not in their nature to concede.

ISLAM is a death cult.

End of story.

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 3, 2008 7:26 PM

Today: Dutch government may ban Wilders' Qur'an film

Tomorrow: Islam may ban Dutch government.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 3, 2008 7:53 PM

"Today: Dutch government may ban Wilders' Qur'an film

Tomorrow: Islam may ban Dutch government."
Posted by: RalphInfidel

Amusing!

But true with a scary sorta ring to it!

:0

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 3, 2008 8:02 PM

I think I'll be putting PM Balkenende up on Craig's List today. He is utterly useless and a total embarrassment to his country. I for one cannot find words to express my disgust and revulsion for him.

Posted by: Kim Hartveld at March 4, 2008 3:35 AM

It would be physically impossible for the Dutch government to actually ban this film. All Wilders has to do is put it out on video CD, then encourage as many people as possible to copy the CDs and distribute them everywhere.

Since the video is only 15 minutes long, it can easily be sent by email for mass distribution throughout Europe. So let them try to outlaw it. That will only make more people want to see it!

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 4, 2008 10:03 PM

"I am Spartacus!"

Posted by: ex-democrat at March 5, 2008 11:39 PM