What's My Line?

Question: How deep is the Dutch government prepared to bow to Muslims threatening violence? Answer: Deep enough that it can just about kiss its own ass goodbye. Why not hand Holland over to the perpetually indignant Koran crowd right now?

You see, firebrand parliamentarian Geert Wilders is set to release a film revealing the Koran to be "a source of inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror." It is possible that one scene will show the book's pages being torn or otherwise treated without the apparently mandatory convulsions of respect, though nobody has yet seen Wilders' little movie so anyone's guess is as good as mine.

The whole country is now in a state of heightened awareness, and Dutch citizens living abroad have been asked to register with the Netherlands embassies in their host countries (presumably, to facilitate keeping track of the beatings, firebombings, and kidnappings that will possibly befall Dutch expatriates). Echoes of Denmark, ca. 2005.

Now, here are two verbatim responses to the upcoming flick, from (ahem) different sides of the religious and ideological chasm:

(1) "[Wilders] is inciting wars and bloodshed ... It is the responsibility of the Dutch people to stop him."

(2) "Freedom of expression does not mean the right to offend."

One of these statements was made by Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, the Grand Mufti of Syria; the other by Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch Foreign Minister. Please (a) guess who said what, and (b) muse on whether it still even matters.

For the record, I'll always stand at the ready to verbally dropkick any official, from whichever country or religion, who claims to favor "freedom of expression" provided that this right doesn't include the freedom to offend. It's the facile refuge of dictatorially-minded cowards, the very definition of doublespeak. Those claiming that only messages that offend no one can be tolerated, are robbing the concept of free speech of all meaning. It is the exact equivalent of talking about a peaceful war, or a virginal matriarch: one part necessarily rules out the other.

These people don't defend free speech, as they claim. The opposite is true: they sell out all of us by betraying it. They are every bit as much part of the problem as the foaming-at-the-mouth Mohammedans who get erect at the prospect of teaching uppity dhimmis one bloodsoaked lesson after another.

Comments

[Michael Chaney]

"Freedom of expression does not mean the right to offend."

By that definition, people in Cuba have full freedom of expression. I would argue that the only expression that even requires protection is that which offends somebody.

[Fred Mangels]

Agreed.

[jhc]

Yep. The quoted responses by the Dutch government don't do much to inspire hope. But that said, here are a few other comments on this story.

First, there seems to be a serious shortage of White Hats in this story. E.g.: "In parliament he [Wilders] then called for the Koran and Hitler's Mein Kampf to be banned, a proposal that was rejected." This doesn't exactly make Mr. Wilders a poster boy for freedom of speech, I'm thinking.

Second, even though the politicians are being fairly craven about this, I didn't read that any of them were threatening to suppress it. At worst, they were 'hoping' it wouldn't be aired. You can find craven politicians in every nation on the globe. I doubt the Dutch have a monopoly in this area.

Third, I found this report a little odd. "From her self-imposed exile in Washington, Hirsi Ali last week criticised the new film as 'provocation' and called on the major Dutch political parties to restart a debate on immigration [...], rather than leave the field to extremists." Maybe Ms. Hirsi Ali knows something about Mr. Wilders (and the situation) that we should know?

Finally, I have to admire the spunk of the Dutch who continue to bring this issue into the news. Admirable work.

[Martin Owens]

It is not about who has the right to be offended, but who has the right to punish.
People these days can say any sort of nasty thing about Christianity ( and many do), but no one seriously backs the right of Christians to lynch the speakers as punishment for offending Christian sensibilities.

Why do our ruling classes and parasite intelligentsia maintain a complicit silence when genuine threats of war and murder are made?

They are bold enough to shriek meaningless accusations of " fascist" and "genocide" in a nice , safe parliamentary, free-press setting where they know there will be no consequences.

But as soon as the knives are out for real, when it's plain that we're dealing with real life killers who mean to hurt you if you stand up to them, all of a sudden the " speak the truth to power" crowd is nowhere to be found.

So I guess the thing to do is become a bloodthirsty brute without a conscience.

The people who consider themselves the West's moral arbiters will do just what you want and swear you were right all along.

[Douglas Black]

"Islam is a religion of peace. I know this because I study the Koran constantly." --GWB

[George Arndt]

You can't have it both ways. Freedom of speech can't exist without the right to offend. If Muslims don't like something they see or hear no one's going to stop them from saying so. We need more speech overall, not less.

Almost everyone is offended by something, regardless how “sensitive” we might try to be.