1. Comment #458778 by DocWebster on February 6, 2010 at 3:31 pm

Wow, I think the humor is starting to go out of poor Pat a little. He is correct as always though so maybe there is no more humor.

Other Comments by DocWebster

2. Comment #458789 by orgasmatron on February 6, 2010 at 3:57 pm

Another offering from the religion of peace.

Other Comments by orgasmatron

3. Comment #458798 by bethe123 on February 6, 2010 at 4:19 pm

Brilliant as always.

Netherland Muslim youths attack gays, as Pat mentioned:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7856.html/

Other Comments by bethe123

4. Comment #458799 by phil rimmer on February 6, 2010 at 4:21 pm

Wilders assertion that Islam is at right-angles to freedom unwittingly mirrors his own political philosophy. He is not a friend of free speech. In his political manifesto-of-a-book, Clear Wine, he seeks the

"Replacement of the present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, by a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions."

This intellectual imperialism utterly undercuts Wilders as a spokeperson for "freedom". He is little removed from the islamic idealogues he despises.

However, he is now joined in this un-enlightened state by these crappy judges it would seem.

Pat's rant is well directed at these court proceedings but is fatally flawed in not identifying Wilders as a hypocrite who co-opts truths for his own oppressive ends. Even if Wilders spoke no truth he should not be in court. That he speaks some truth should not be the reason to get him out of there and free.

This is Pat's dumbest piece yet. Perhaps he is blinded by the very seriousness of the case which should concern us all. Wilders must, after all, be acquitted and on simple freedom of speech grounds.

Interestingly if Wilders is convicted then the judges must by rights move on to Islamists spouting hatred and intellectual imperialism.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

5. Comment #458810 by bethe123 on February 6, 2010 at 5:01 pm

Phil -

This intellectual imperialism utterly undercuts Wilders as a spokeperson for "freedom". He is little removed from the islamic idealogues he despises.

Perhaps you should read Wilders’ Clear Wine statement a few more times and reflect on what it actually says.
The reality is that if Islam became the dominant culture, the Dutch freedoms would be far,far less than in a society of "cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions". Wilders’ proposed law is to guarantee that can never happen.

Widlers is defending freedom, you are not.

Other Comments by bethe123

6. Comment #458814 by phil rimmer on February 6, 2010 at 5:21 pm

Comment #458810 by bethe123

Ah, the enlightened Patrician view. The benign thought police.

Democracy is always a gamble. Those who wish to affect it (always positively, I note!) must simply "win the argument" if deep roots for a culture are to be formed.

Don't get so panic stricken about a threat that you become persuaded to replace "the present Article 1 of the" .... "constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law" with something that doesn't.

Having read that many times, as I'm sure you have, if you still feel this actually helps freedom to thrive then I can only assume you have become thoroughly "bewildered" about what our most valuable values are.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

7. Comment #458816 by NineBerry on February 6, 2010 at 5:24 pm

The Home Affairs Ministry and Justice Ministry announced on Monday that the police had received 150 reports of violence against homosexuals throughout the country in the first half of this year. In 14 percent of these cases, the victim stated explicitly that the perpetrator was from an ethnic group. In the other cases, the ethnicity was not registered or the victim indicated that the perpetrator was white.

http://www.nisnews.nl/public/221108_3.htm

There's more non-muslim homophobes in the Nethlands than muslim homophobes.

Other Comments by NineBerry

8. Comment #458826 by phil rimmer on February 6, 2010 at 5:48 pm

Comment #458823 by Dwain

This issue is not about Wilders and Condell. Its about freedom.

Thank you for agreeing. The very essence of my point.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

9. Comment #458829 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 5:53 pm

Comment #458799 by phil rimmer

Don't get so panic stricken about a threat that you become persuaded to replace "the present Article 1 of the" .... "constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law" with something that doesn't.

Absolutely. It seems very odd to me that a suggested defence of freedoms is to destroy them.

It's like attempting to defend yourself from a violent attacker by threatening to stab yourself.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

10. Comment #458836 by j.mills on February 6, 2010 at 6:10 pm

Gotta align with phil here. I was taken aback by Pat's declaring Wilders "a hero". Pat could make his point perfectly well without such whole-hearted approval.

I don't know the details, but Wilders prosecution is probably motivated by his loud criticism of islam. It's possible to denounce that prosecution without deifying the accused.

By the same token, Pat is free to say what he thinks too, and long may that continue. His passion certainly wins attention for important issues.

Other Comments by j.mills

11. Comment #458839 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 6:18 pm

Comment #458836 by j.mills

To borrow language from "1066 And All That", someone can be both right and repulsive.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

12. Comment #458840 by alabasterocean on February 6, 2010 at 6:18 pm

Calling this "brilliant" is promotion of word relativism.

It is an rambling of accusations etc. that has more in common with crazy people and fundamentalists then it has anything to do with reason and pragmatic argumentation. He sounds like a propagandist, especially like the ones he seem to dislike himself.

"BLA BLA BLA!!!", in my view even if he might have point from time to time. It's ridiculous and maybe RD.net should post more intelligent stuff, this is embarrassing.

Other Comments by alabasterocean

13. Comment #458847 by NineBerry on February 6, 2010 at 6:35 pm

Calling this "brilliant" is promotion of word relativism.

It is an rambling of accusations etc. that has more in common with crazy people and fundamentalists then it has anything to do with reason and pragmatic argumentation. He sounds like a propagandist, especially like the ones he seem to dislike himself.

"BLA BLA BLA!!!", in my view even if he might have point from time to time. It's ridiculous and maybe RD.net should post more intelligent stuff, this is embarrassing.

QFT

Other Comments by NineBerry

14. Comment #458855 by bethe123 on February 6, 2010 at 6:46 pm

Freedom is only one issue, but I am not surprised some posters here did not pick up on that. Multiculturism is major issue also, and in the case of Islam, they are linked. Islamic countries enjoy far less freedoms than non-Islamic countries.

If a religious group migrates in large numbers to a country, refuses to assimilate, and attempts to force its primitive culture and beliefs upon the host country (rather than assimilate) then the host country would justifiably be concerned.

Wilder's proposition is also a rejection of multiculturism, which when it comes to Islam, I agree with.

Other Comments by bethe123

15. Comment #458858 by phil rimmer on February 6, 2010 at 6:55 pm

Comment #458855 by bethe123

Wilder's proposition is also a rejection of multiculturism, which when it comes to Islam, I agree with.

I agree with the rejection of multiculturalism, period. Why qualify?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

16. Comment #458901 by RightWingAtheist on February 6, 2010 at 8:59 pm

Perhaps we should all write letters to the court, repeatedly, asking for prior permission for everything we plan to say.

To the Honorable ______,

I write to you seeking advice on the following comments I wish to make in the coming week. Please provide the Court's opinion on whether or not these statements may incite hatred, as I do not wish to violate the Law:

- The national right-wing party is dangerous and foolish.
- The national left-wing party is dangerous and foolish.
- The peanuts from the vending machine on the 3rd floor are of sub-standard quality.
- The next episode of 'Lost' is sure to be incomprehensible.

Your humble citizen,
_____________

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

17. Comment #458904 by Ramases on February 6, 2010 at 9:00 pm

It does not surprise me at all that Condell is calling Wilders a "hero", as Condell has made it clear again and again in his ravings that he is fundamentally similar to Wilders - an anti-secular and anti-freedom representative of the extreme anti-immigrant right.

Condell has said on occassion after occasion that Muslims do not "belong" in Britain and has questioned their right to practice their religion there. This, of course, is not secularism and it certainly is not freedom.

As Phil and Steve have pointed out, real freedom and democracy is to some extent a risk. It does not just mean freedom for those whom you agree with or have similar view or who come from a similar cultural background to your own. I would defend anything about Islam or any other religion, but I would defend the right of anyone who want to practice it. Nor is it possible, if one defends freedom, to say that people who follow a particular belief system do not "belong" it Britain. The whole concept of a secular society is that people of all belief systems belong.

That does not mean that we should not be free to criticse them of course, and I would not support the charges against Wilders, however much I would disagree with his fundamental position.

I have always found Condell's simplistic ravings to be somewhere between laughable and appauling. But what I find even more appauling is that so many people who claim a rationalist atheist position (as I do) are sucked in by this bigot. I would have hoped to see a little less gullibility in what should be a rational, secular and tolerant movement.

Other Comments by Ramases

18. Comment #458911 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 9:20 pm

Comment #458855 by bethe123

There is no need to reject multiculturalism. All that is needed is to ensure that the rule of law and standards of fairness and justice are universal. If that was common practice, multiculturalism would not be an issue.

There is nothing wrong with society being a mixture of cultures. What matters is when the rights of individuals and standards of behaviour and education are compromised because of some strange idea that a culture needs protection.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

19. Comment #458915 by PrimeNumbers on February 6, 2010 at 9:36 pm

I don't like Wilders - but that doesn't stop me agreeing with some of what he says, even though I don't think he's saying it for the right reasons. But he should have free speech to say and criticize as he wishes.

Free speech is NOT an Islamic idea, and Islam is utterly incompatible with the ideals and standards and freedoms we want to enjoy.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

20. Comment #458916 by ridelo on February 6, 2010 at 9:47 pm

Let's not forget that all religions are based on woo-woo. All depends on how you handle the patients but problem is that the patients are in the majority.
Pat Condell has stated this many times in his inimitable way. Like it or not.
Nevertheless I think that if he knew Wilders better he would keep himself a bit more aloof from his ideas. Trying to forbid the Koran (or any other book, even Mein Kampf) like he did is not an example of free speech. It's as idiot as forbidding the Bible.
Here are some fog banks to be blown away...

Other Comments by ridelo

21. Comment #458919 by bethe123 on February 6, 2010 at 9:55 pm

Well no. The fundamental error many posters are making is lumping Islam with all cultures/religions, when clearly Islam has some very serious issues -- unless you think being killed for changing your mind is not a big deal. Islam must be treated separately, and if that implies passing legislation that targets Islam specifically, so be it.

In addition, Islamists do not think there is anything wrong with their beliefs, no matter how many honor killings and similar atrocities occur. Implicit in the word multiculturism is the idea that a group does not have to change when they come to a new culture, but instead can have the freedom to retain their complete culture, and practice their beliefs, not matter how abusive or evil. If they assimilate on the other hand, then it's no longer multiculturism. If they change their beliefs, it is no longer the Islam...or at least a form of Islam I need worry about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fae3jz_QbXc

Other Comments by bethe123

22. Comment #458920 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 10:00 pm

Comment #458916 by ridelo

Nevertheless I think that if he knew Wilders better he would keep himself a bit more aloof from his ideas.

That is something I find puzzling. It's not hard to know about Wilders' ideas. A short session on google and Wikipedia will reveal Wilders' anti-freedom and anti-free speech views.

I wish Condell would rant about clear targets that don't involve cosying up to awful people like Wilders. How about a video in support of free speech - for everyone? How about a video passionately supporting secularism?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #458922 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 10:03 pm

Comment #458919 by bethe123

Well no. The fundamental error many posters are making is lumping Islam with all cultures/religions, when clearly Islam has some very serious issues -- unless you think being killed for changing your mind is not a big deal. Islam must be treated separately, and if that implies passing legislation that targets Islam specifically, so be it.

You don't need to target Islam, because murder is illegal.

All you need to do is ensure that murders are treated equally, no matter what the cultural background of the killer and victim.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

24. Comment #458923 by flying goose on February 6, 2010 at 10:07 pm

I was once on a train with a young moslem, we had an interesting conversation. At the end of the journey I wished him Salam which he refused to return. He said that because I was not a moslem he could not guarrentee that I might not one day be his enemy. That's one converstion.

When I was a curate in Brum we would often meet with our moslem neighbours and peace would always be wished upon us by them. The same was true of the moslems we met from the Gambia (My home town has a link with Gunjur).

I have seen anglican male clergy refuse to share the peace with women clergy because they did not agree with their ordination, the peace here is slightly different. But this was impoliteness at best.

My point.

If I preached a sermon which generalised from the first story I would be guilty of inaccuracy. Had I done so in Brum I might have even put my neighbours in danger.

That's what hate crime is. And that is why it is wrong.

Edited

Other Comments by flying goose

25. Comment #458925 by phil rimmer on February 6, 2010 at 10:09 pm

Comment #458911 by Steve Zara

There is nothing wrong with society being a mixture of cultures.

Steve,

This is not what I take "multiculturalism" to be promoting. And I don't believe Condell intended that either.

I take multiculturalism to mean precisely encouraging the non-mixing of cultures and communities with added respect for traditional community values above the (non cultural specific) rights of its individuals.

Its not a particularly lovely word, so I am happy that these unlovely ideas are strung around its neck and it be universally vilified. I don't see how its rejection can be turned into a basis for racism either.

EDIT Making the caveats you do, multiculturalism is pretty much a useless word. If it is not a pro-active policy of some sort, how is it different from saying we welcome people from anywhere to come and live in our country?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

26. Comment #458926 by bethe123 on February 6, 2010 at 10:11 pm

You don't need to target Islam, because murder is illegal.

Yeah, how's that working out?

Other Comments by bethe123

27. Comment #458927 by SteveN on February 6, 2010 at 10:11 pm

It seems to me that some of the posters here are missing the point of Pat's 'rant'. Wilders may (or may not) be an obnoxious bigot. He may (or may not) be motivated by political ambition. He may (or may not) be the last person anyone would want to have in a position of power. However, his motives are irrelevant. Criticising any religion, particularly a religion openly set upon imposing its own barbaric rules on a modern democratic society by stealth, should not be something for which one ends one in court. Pat gets it right, as usual, and if his style seems politically incorrect and outraged, well, that is the point, isn't it?

Other Comments by SteveN

28. Comment #458928 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 10:13 pm

Comment #458925 by phil rimmer

Phil,

You are, of course, right.

I don't know of the correct term for what I mean: a society with common values, but with artistic and intellectual influences from a variety of sources.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

29. Comment #458929 by blitz442 on February 6, 2010 at 10:13 pm

23. Comment #458919 by bethe123

There is a such thing as a universal human nature, and the things that you and I want from life are much more similar than different from what a person in Uganda or Korea wants from life. If different societies have developed materially different ways of living, it is inevitable that certain societies have developed practices that don't work as well as some of the practices developed in other societies.

This doesn't bar the possibility that societies can develop different practices that work equally well, but it does give us some degree of objectivity as to what constitutes healthy as opposed to backward or dysfuntional societal practices.

It is therefore justified to point to some of the practices of other societies as OBJECTIVELY wrong or at least inferior.

Multi-culturalists don't accept this or think that any criticism of another culture is just racism or xenophobia in disguise.

Other Comments by blitz442

30. Comment #458930 by flying goose on February 6, 2010 at 10:14 pm

The question in my view is whether or not Wilders' action inspire hatred and violence upon moslems, if they do he needs to more careful, if he intends them, something I suppose we can't know, then he is wrong and morally so.

Edit That is something I suppose the courts are trying to decide.

Other Comments by flying goose

31. Comment #458931 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 10:16 pm

Comment #458926 by bethe123

It would be a strange form of bigotry to target "Islamic" killings separately. Would a murder be less serious if it was carried out by a Christian?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

32. Comment #458932 by j.mills on February 6, 2010 at 10:18 pm

If we're going to get bogged down in the Multiculturalism Debate, we would each do well to say what we mean by the term. People seem to talk across each other because they're using different definitions. bethe123 seems to be suggesting that it provides cover for "honour killings" and other illegalities; whereas Steve regards multiculturalism as a social phenomenon beneath the law. Yet he would condemn "honour killings" every bit as strongly as bethe123.

If the people over here wear saris, and the people over there wear turbans, and some other people celebrate a different new year with dragons in the street, all of those folks are legally exercising their freedoms. That is what multiculturalism connotes to me. But any cultural 'tradition' that breaks the law of the land is as much a crime as it would be for those of the *cough* 'host culture'.

Ramases: I agree with your paragraphs 3 & 4, but:

Condell has said on occassion after occasion that Muslims do not "belong" in Britain and has questioned their right to practice their religion there.

I've watched all Pat's videos (I think), and I don't recall him ever going that far. He seems to me to condemn religion (not only islam) when it steps over the law, or into law-making, and calls for religion to be private. There are 'integrated' muslims, but naturally they aren't the ones who make the news; just as the ordinary bumbling C of E christian doesn't: instead it's whichever latest bonkers bishop is blaming hailstorms on homosexuality. - But if you can point to a Condell-o-rant where he does say what you claim, I'll recant. :)

Other Comments by j.mills

33. Comment #458933 by flying goose on February 6, 2010 at 10:22 pm

There were anti german riots during WW1 shops and homes were looted. Every ex pat german was seen as a spy, I am sure most were not. Had one committed a murder, would that have been a German murder inspired by the rantings of the Kaiser?

Other Comments by flying goose

34. Comment #458934 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 10:24 pm

Comment #458932 by j.mills

I've watched all Pat's videos (I think), and I don't recall him ever going that far. He seems to me to condemn religion (not only islam) when it steps over the law, or into law-making, and calls for religion to be private.

I agree. I would also be interested to know if Pat has said such things. I suspect not.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #458935 by SteveN on February 6, 2010 at 10:26 pm

How would people here be reacting if Richard was being tried in Ireland for 'blasphemy' and for 'inciting hatred of christians', I wonder.

Other Comments by SteveN

36. Comment #458936 by j.mills on February 6, 2010 at 10:28 pm

SteveN - Richard has never called for a constitutional change to diminish equality.

Other Comments by j.mills

37. Comment #458937 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 10:28 pm

Comment #458935 by SteveN

Richard hasn't (as far as I know) campaigned to restrict immigration based on country of origin, to pass laws that are against secularism, or to reduce freedom of speech.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #458939 by bethe123 on February 6, 2010 at 10:34 pm

The question in my view is whether or not Wilders' action inspire hatred and violence upon moslems, if they do he needs to more careful, if he intends them, something I suppose we can't know, then he is wrong and morally so.

Again, completely missing the point...again I am not surprised.
Truth is absolute defense against libel, as they say, and if hate laws infringe upon that, the "hate laws" must go.
If Wilders statements are in fact true (which must be demonstrated) but accurately describe acts committed by Islamists, whose fault is it that his statements engender disapproval of Islam, and depending on the individual, hate? Wilder's or the Islamists? I say the Islamists. Do not commit vile acts and expect to be loved. Do not commit vile acts and expect not to have them reported.

Why do you think Wilders has been denied most of his witnesses?

Other Comments by bethe123

39. Comment #458942 by j.mills on February 6, 2010 at 10:39 pm

Followed a link from Pat's YouTube page to a Telegraph blog, which tells me:

The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.

This is indeed what the summons (linked on the blog) says, quoting lots of bits of Wilders, some undeniably true, some dubious and inflammatory; but all things that should be sayable in a free country. The summons itself:

http://www.rights.no/filer2/wilders_summons.pdf

EDIT: If you really can be legitimately tried for "offending a group of people", then the law was already profoundly at fault, long before this trial arose.

Other Comments by j.mills

40. Comment #458944 by SteveN on February 6, 2010 at 10:43 pm

J.Mills and Steve Zara, you are missing my point. If Richard were to be so prosecuted, we would be very vocal in condemning the legal system in Ireland for allowing such a thing to occur. Blasphemy is now illegal in Ireland, after all. Wilders, as far as I am concerned, can call for consitutional change and campaign for whatever he wants, no matter how objectionable, but why should he be prosecuted for his views?

Other Comments by SteveN

41. Comment #458945 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 10:43 pm

Comment #458939 by bethe123

Truth is absolute defense against libel, as they say, and if hate laws infringe upon that, the "hate laws" must go.

This isn't a trial about libel. It isn't a trial about disapproval of Islam. It isn't a trial about whether or not certain Muslims have committed vile acts.

It is about whether or not Wilders has published propaganda which uses the fact of the vile acts to encourage hatred towards all Muslims, no matter what their connection to those acts.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #458948 by phil rimmer on February 6, 2010 at 10:45 pm

Sorry FG I cannot follow you all the way there. You are right not to extrapolate from individual anecdotes. You are right not to countenance incitement to violence, which we shall agree must be legislated against, but you bundle in hatred and the question then becomes hatred against who or what. (Violence is always against who.)

I loathe feeling hatred for individuals. I can't bring myself to do it (memetic infection is my favorite getout clause for that), BUT I really can't abide to see it legislated against. Its just bad law, with no reasonable definition of an unreasonable hatred.

My guess is that Wilders inspires hatred against Muslims (Condell I suggest inspires hatred against Islam) and that neither intend to inspire violence.

And Wilders should not be in the dock simply for being "immoral", but nor should he be listened to either if that is the case.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

43. Comment #458949 by SteveN on February 6, 2010 at 10:46 pm

J.Mills, I agree completely with you. The 'offending a group of people' act is essentially what the Irish blasphemy law prohibits

Other Comments by SteveN

44. Comment #458950 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 10:48 pm

Comment #458944 by SteveN

It's not about blasphemy. It's about whether or not you are deliberately inciting hatred of people.

Wilders has done far more than just call for constitutional change.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #458952 by ridelo on February 6, 2010 at 10:50 pm

Imagine no religion. There, I said it again. Sigh!
Old Ratzi appointed here in Belgium a new archbishop in stead of the former, rather benign, one. He already ranted against abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality. And he believes in miracles!
Wait and see. How long before Miss Mary will make her apparition? I suppose he's a bit jealous of the ardour of our Muslim compatriots.
But I could chuckle a bit: a church choir in the province of Namur refused to sing for him.
Exciting times are here again.

Other Comments by ridelo

46. Comment #458953 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 10:50 pm

Comment #458942 by j.mills

EDIT: If you really can be legitimately tried for "offending a group of people", then the law was already profoundly at fault, long before this trial arose.

Yes, absolutely. I can perhaps see some justification for laws about inciting hatred, but there should be no laws about causing offense.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #458954 by SteveN on February 6, 2010 at 10:54 pm

Steve Zara

It is about whether or not Wilders has published propaganda which uses the fact of the vile acts to encourage hatred towards all Muslims, no matter what their connection to those acts

I am sure that many muslims consider the frequent publication on this site of reports highlighting 'honour killings', floggings and executions by individuals and islamic states as encouragement of hatred towards all muslims, no matter what their connection to those acts.

Other Comments by SteveN

48. Comment #458955 by blitz442 on February 6, 2010 at 10:58 pm

48. Comment #458953 by Steve Zara

This isn't a trial about libel.

Steve, how do you determine if something is propaganda or not? Hopefully some part of your analysis is whether or not it contains lies and inaccuracies?

Are you arguing that regardless of the truth of the claims, in certain circumstances a person should be prosecuted for making those claims?

If Wilders published accounts of vile acts, and not one jot of those accounts is false, and you agree with his prosecution, then essentially you are saying that the distribution of those facts must be controlled when someone decides to label it as propoganda.

What is Wilders supposed to do? Publish those facts but with a giant disclaimer that not all Muslims are like this? Or for every bad act, state a good act? Or should the government just ban any publishing of vile acts the Muslims commit, in any context, regardless of whether they are true.

You really don't trust people to think for themselves, do you?

Other Comments by blitz442

49. Comment #458956 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 11:00 pm

Comment #458954 by SteveN

I am sure that many muslims consider the frequent publication on this site of reports highlighting 'honour killings', floggings and executions by individuals and islamic states as encouragement of hatred towards all muslims, no matter what their connection to those acts.

Perhaps, but legal judgments aren't based on such opinions. They are based on hopefully objective assessments of what the intent of someone on trial may be.

RD.net has not produced a video titled "what we think Muslims are like" concentrating only on such matters as honour killings and executions.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #458957 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2010 at 11:05 pm

Comment #458955 by blitz442

Do you believe that propaganda works? Do you believe that advertising is effective? If you answer 'yes' to either of those questions, then you have to admit that Wilders actually has some personal responsibility for the consequences of his film "Fitna".

Personally, I think Wilders is a repulsive bigot who is using Islam as way of furthering his political career. He is very clever, and knows exactly how to play the courts, and the media.

Other Comments by Steve Zara