GEERT WILDERS (witnessing the Dutch experience):
“People are waking up. They see that we are losing our identity, that neighborhoods are unsafe, that women are shouted at and hassled in the streets, that schools are unsafe. If my party were extremist, we’d be at the margins and we’d be getting 1.5 or 2 percent of the vote.
We’re not. In Holland, fortunately, we don’t have many racists. The Dutch are a very tolerant people. We have no problem to be tolerant of the tolerant, but we should be intolerant of the intolerant.
Source: ‘The Jerusalem Post’: What does the rise in support for your party say about Holland?'
Free speech is indispensable in a free society, and many a great man has fought for that principle, some of them going to prison for it. It is a longstanding if hard-won principle in the West that Wilders has a fundamental right to make whatever comment he likes about Islam, its prophet, or its scriptures, and so do all of us. To the extent that Dutch law contradicts that principle, it contradicts what is best in Europe’s heritage.
Furthermore, Wilders is an elected parliamentarian, leader of the third-largest party in his country. Public figures not only have a right to speak out, but a duty...
The Wilders trial has also to be seen in the international context. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) purports to represent, and speak for, all Muslim countries. This body is now campaigning in various forums, including the United Nations, to criminalize all criticism of Islam. Any such privileging of Islam would block all possibility of reform and condemn Muslims to perpetual intellectual stagnation. Freedom of expression for Wilders also means freedom of expression for Muslims.
It is retrograde and shameful that a Dutch court should now be aligned with the OIC in the business of making criticism of Islam punishable by law. And highly dangerous, too.'
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250038/what-wilders-trial-means-editors
Comments
Beatice (not verified)
Thu, 2010-10-21 16:37
Permalink
Favours UN push for immigration to developed nations
John Marlowe
Fri, 2010-10-22 23:46
Permalink
Migration from undeveloped countries is problem avoidance
Less people in a world of human excess would be bliss, and dare I say more 'sustainable' probably.
No country needs immigrants. Immigrants aspire a better life and wealthier countries offer it - simple. But to make the world more 'equal' is not solved by shifting high birth rates from undeveloped countries to developed countries, it is to improve the lot of those in undeveloped countries by addressing poverty and rewarding lower birth rates with a better quality of life.
Human quality of life is not found by communal sharing "allowing poorer nations to have access to their land, culture, social security benefits and housing" - show where communal sharing has worked in hunan history?
Migration from undeveloped countries to developed countries, avoids the cause of the problem driving the migration. Worse, its shifts problems to developed countries. The quagmire of human misery is moved around instead of it being resolved. Migration is social problem avoidance on a international scale.
Ahead if seeking human equality, is the more fundamental priority of maintaining basic life needs and human rights. Indeed, the UN is a failed organisation with a broken record of 'do as I say, not as I do' - Somalia, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, Congo, etc. And from where are the bulk of migrants fleeing?
"As details emerged this week of the U.N.'s knowledge of rebel activity in the villages where nearly 200 women were systematically gang raped by armed groups in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) late last month, human rights groups are demanding an investigation into the U.N.'s failure to prevent the raid from occurring. "These scandalous, outrageous atrocities should serve as a wake up call for the international community," Marcel Stoessel, Oxfam International's country director in the DRC, told IPS in a phone interview."
[Source: D.R. Congo: Outrage grows over UN failure to protect civilians]
If you want to get closer to the truth on human rights, don't listen to the UNHCR, listen to Amnesty International.
Strategic invasive desires of wealthy and unethical countries like the USA and Israel continue to cause similar migration pressures from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon.
Human problems must be addressed in the countries of origin, not be used as the driver of mass refugee problems impacting on other countries.
Add comment