Amazing, all the incitement of hate and violence was done by the jihadists in Wilder's film not by Wilder himself. I also dont understand how it was "anti'Islamic". Perhaps the UNESCO could elaborate.

Posted by: Elric66 at April 1, 2008 9:00 AM

The letter I just wrote to UNESCO:

"Dear Sirs:

Mr. Koïchiro Matsuura stated in his condemnation: "There is no justification for such an expression of hate or incitation to violence".

Where is his condemnation of the attitudes and actions - the EXPRESSIONS OF HATE - evidenced in the film by those filmed? His, and Mr. Moon's, condemnation is similar to condemning a reporter who uses moving images to portray the horrors of war. Mr. Wilders did not invent the material in his film, he REPORTED it, as well as the link between Islam and violence that those violent persons shown will THEMSELVES cite as justification. This film is not a call to violence. It showed overwhelming evidence of ISLAMIC calls to violence. Where is the outrage over the recent Palestinian children's television show that portrayed a young child murdering the President of the United States with a sword? (see here: http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1729.htm)

Mr. Matsuura should be calling for THAT incitement (the kind spewed in mosques around the world), which is much more vitriolic and potentially dangerous than Mr. Wilders' film, to be condemned and stopped. The world awaits blame being put where it properly belongs."

I wonder if anyone will read it.

Posted by: Godefroi at April 1, 2008 9:22 AM

What do expect from Islam and the Mohammedans. Mohammad told his followers not to play chess. I mean no music, no art. Just go and emulate him by robbing, pillaging, raping, murdering and destroying other cultures. Over 1400 years that is all Islam has done. The only contribution to humanity is possibly the architecture other than that wholesale slavery, child bombers, mass murder, mass raping and sex slaves, looting and bigotry, racial and cultural hatred for all non Muslims. It is a culture born from the harsh and waste lands of the desert and it is equally and brutally barbaric and violent.

This is what makes me sick that there are no sanctions by our leaders on these gross violations of human rights and we keep sending boat loads of aid. While they laugh and get their jizya. I mean in some ways Islam is ruling the world. A mass protest in Indonesia and our leaders start to buckle. UN, UNESCO all condemn fitna, but everything else as mentioned above is just fine. What a sick state of affairs. It seems they have been sold to the carnal and booty ideology of Islam, they have become the Mohammedenbots

Posted by: savsiv at April 1, 2008 9:27 AM

And the beat goes on with all these "get on the dhimmi bandwagon characters".

Did they see the video? I very much doubt it, but I sure would love to ask that question.

" Mr. Wilders did not invent the material in his film, he REPORTED it,"

from Godefroi above

And as Godefroi points out, that is precisely what he did. virtually all the material that Geert Wilders used was from a variety of film clips that are out there for all to see.

Posted by: Mackie at April 1, 2008 9:38 AM

"calling for a "calm" dialogue"

I am sick of this crud! The ignorance that abounds is getting sickening. How much more talking do WE want to do before WE realize that the muslims do not negotiate, they only stall for time to regroup and rearm?! That they have only 3 types of 'peace' with infidels?!

Ok, so I am not calm anymore - so what?! It is better than 'rage boy'!

Posted by: R_not at April 1, 2008 9:53 AM

Disregard what the UN says, they CANNOT enforce anything anyways, it has NO TEETH.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 1, 2008 10:17 AM

Interesting review at Victor Davis Hanson's site;
'Radical Thoughts: Dr. Tawfik Hamid reveals life as an Islamicist'; by Raymond R. Ibrahim. It speaks directly to this fear-based 'condemnation'.

Here's some of it:

Bringing his psychological background in play, Hamid carefully delineates the phases of radicalization — from hatred to suppression of conscience to desensitization to violence — with a stress on how radicals seek to suppress the human capacity for critical thinking, well demonstrated by a telling dialogue with a senior member of al-Gam’a who once explained to him that “One’s brain is similar to a donkey…you can ride it to the palace of Allah, but you must leave it outside when you enter.”

Hamid also demonstrates how weak U.S. military responses coupled with apologetic behavior serve to, not only embolden current jihadists, but also motivate on-the-fence Muslims into joining their ranks: “If terrorists saw that Americans were demonstrating against them — instead of demonstrating against their own country — they would have felt defeated at the ‘mental level’ and the number of terrorist attacks would have declined.” And so “After the publications, in 2005, of the Muhammad cartoons by a Danish newspaper, Muslim riots started in earnest only after the paper issued an apology.”

This goes with all Hugh and Robert, et al, have been writing over the last several days about Fitna.

They attack when they think we're weak. So let's not be weak... let's be unerschrocken.

Posted by: undaunted at April 1, 2008 10:20 AM

bigcatgirl - that's becoming less and less true, as our federal courts are increasingly citing INTERNATIONAL laws and precedents in their decisions. The UN itself is fairly powerless, but the agreements reached in those unholy halls are having ever-widening effects.

Posted by: Godefroi at April 1, 2008 10:26 AM

Godefroi,

Can you please cite some sources for me please to back up what you have posted, in other words, information please. Thanks.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 1, 2008 11:00 AM

This comment about International law is spot on, in the EU there is much reference to International law which is scary as these are treaty agreements not laws made by the people for the benefit of the people. In terms of democracy, International law is just plain anti-democratic.

Posted by: Daffersd at April 1, 2008 11:01 AM

Any bets that he's not watched FITNA either?

I think its fair to say that all governemtn or Supranational organisations in the Western World who condemn FITNA and Wilders have not watched it.
They follow instead the smear campagnes in the majority of the MSM who denoucne Wilder as beinga 'right-wing populist', which in eurabian speak is beyond bad.

They haven't got that you only hear WIlders' voice once, when he says that he's ripped a page out of a phonebook - because it is for the muslims to deal with the violence prescribed in the Qu'ran.
What is hateful about that?

That seems to me an eminently sensible demand.

Posted by: Calon Lan at April 1, 2008 11:33 AM

"Then he should be protesting against the Muslim preachers and spokesmen in the film, not against Wilders."

That attitude, condemning the film but not the 'actors' in it, is just a kick in our collective teeth. What's the UN's dental plan again?

Posted by: Rick at April 1, 2008 11:46 AM

OT, but in response to bigcatgirl (these are from HSLDA-the basis for my interest in the subject)

The Supreme Court is using international sources to guide its decisions. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court used international law to interpret the U.S. Constitution, "discovering" a new constitutional right to engage in homosexual conduct. Lawrence was not the first time the Court had used international law to interpret our Constitution—it is just the most well-known example.

In March 2005, the Supreme Court took an even more dangerous step, using not only international law in general but the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to guide their decision in Roper v. Simmons. In Roper, the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute a murderer who, about seven months before his 18th birthday, killed a total stranger in a brazen premeditated plan. As a part of its ruling in this case on the changing views of cruel and unusual punishment, the Court used the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as evidence of a shifting view on the subject.

In 2002, a federal district judge in the Eastern District of New York, Jack B. Weinstein, aggressively applied international law in cases dealing with parental autonomy. Judge Weinstein's first offering was the decision in Beharry v. Reno. In the Beharry decision, Judge Weinstein relied heavily on a law review article penned by a professor with an openly internationalist agenda. Ultimately, Weinstein concluded that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was binding on the U.S. Since Weinstein considered the CRC to be a "customary international law norm," he deemed it to be binding on the United States. Judge Weinstein had another opportunity to advance his views of CIL in Nicholson v. Williams. This case was a constitutional challenge to the New York social services practice of removing children from homes solely because their mothers were victims of domestic abuse. Weinstein gratuitously relied on international law as an additional basis for reaching his conclusion. The judge cited a particular provision of the CRC and said, "These provisions of CRC have the force of customary international law."

In the case In re Julie Anne, an Ohio trial court, on its own motion, raised the issue of whether parents and others should be restrained from smoking tobacco in the presence of a minor child. The court held that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child had been ratified and proceeded to use it as an additional basis for ordering the parents not to smoke in front of the child. This case has no subsequent appellate history.

Posted by: Godefroi at April 1, 2008 11:47 AM

So easy to condemn something you in all probability have not seen.

Geert's real crime - he's a kuffar daring to tell the truth about Islam.

Don't upset the apple cart! Blame the victim! What about dialogue?

Silly dhimmis, talking is for kuffars! Islam takes action.

Posted by: tanstaafl at April 1, 2008 12:44 PM

Director General of UNESCO Koichiro Matsuura strongly condemned in a statement the Internet broadcast of an offensively anti-Islamic video made by the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.

He stressed "There is no justification for such an expression of hate or incitation of violence."
really need to come down from the ivory tower at one UN Plaza and go over to the site of the attack on 9/11 then look at the site of the attacks in London and at the train bombings in Madrid, or take a look at the plate the Coptic Christians in Egypt or the beheading of a man shown in the movie being beheaded by radical Islamists and look at the number of Israelis being killed by Palestinian terrorists while they use the population as human shields which is illegal under international law and cried loudly whenever the IDF accidentally kills one of the human shields there is more than enough justification for this movie and on a note about the film I'm still kind of wondering that one old inman that was waving a big sword around and screaming kill the Jews at a very high pitched voice I'm wondering if he was playing with his sword as a teenager and it training in the area of his testicles and drew it so fast he castrated himself and turned himself into a castrato like what was done to opera singers in Europe several hundred years ago

Posted by: crusader at April 1, 2008 1:13 PM

I'm curious to know why Pat Condell's Fitna response has been removed.

Posted by: johndoe at April 1, 2008 3:09 PM

He stressed "There is no justification for such an expression of hate or incitation of violence."

You are correct sir! So we can condemn and restrict Islam now as a violent political ideology, right?

Posted by: RalphInfidel at April 1, 2008 3:35 PM

Pat Condell's Fitna response is still up on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxbYBIlT6VE

Posted by: Tom D at April 1, 2008 3:41 PM

He should condemn Islam instead. It does significantly more damage for the life and dignity of people than does 'Fitna'.

Posted by: Henrik at April 1, 2008 5:02 PM

Didn't the U.S. withdraw from UNESCO during the Reagan Administration? Can anyone think of any good reason we may have had to rejoin?

Posted by: Seamus at April 1, 2008 6:15 PM

I would no more send a letter asking the UN to reconsider their pro-jihad decisions than I would send a similar letter to Hamas, Al Qaeda, or Hizb'Allah.

I'm all for getting involved and being active, but I ain't gonna waste that postage.

Posted by: special_guest at April 1, 2008 7:09 PM

I would no more send a letter asking the UN to reconsider their pro-jihad decisions than I would send a similar letter to Hamas, Al Qaeda, or Hizb'Allah.

I'm all for getting involved and being active, but I ain't gonna waste that postage.

Exactly. But you could spend that postage on a letter to the president, asking that he do like the Gipper and withdraw from UNESCO. (Better still would be to withdraw from the United Nations entirely, but I'll be happy to take things one step at a time.)

Posted by: Seamus at April 2, 2008 3:35 PM