From Wikipedia:

Fitna is a film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Dutch parliament. The movie offers his views on Islam and the Qur'an. The film's title comes from the Arabic word fitna which is used to describe "disagreement and division among people", or a "test of faith in times of trial".
The movie was released to the Internet on 27 March 2008 on the video website Liveleak. Liveleak subsequently received threats to their staff, and decided to remove the video. Per 29 Mars 2008, a banner on top of the site declared that to be a "sad day for freedom of speech on the net".
The Dutch version of the movie received 1.6 million pageviews in 2 hours. The English version garnered over 1.2 million in 5 hours


The movie shows a selection of Suras from the Qur'an, interspersed with newspaper clippings and media clips. The movie is accompanied by music from the Peer Gynt suite by Edvard Grieg, specifically Aase's Death.

Wilders explores Qur'anic inspiration for modern terror attacks, most notably the attacks of September 11 and the July 7 London bombings. The movie starts with a warning, stating that the movie contains "very shocking images". The opening contains a widely-known cartoon from the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, showing the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb on his head. Next to the cartoon, a timer starts counting down from 15 minutes.

Suras are juxtaposed to video clips of Imams stating Islamic teaching, and videos of violent atrocities committed in the name of Islam, including major terrorist attacks.

The movie can still be found on YouTube, btw.


Now...What are your reactions? Have you seen the movie?  ??? I know it raised a few eyebrows internationally prior to its release. Was it just the proverbial storm in a teacup? Can we be bothered? Should we be bothered? Should we just ignore it?

And most of all: Is it still safe for me to travel internationally? ;)

Throwing in Grieg might have pushed it over the top!
:D

Yeah, you can take numerous passages from the Q'uran or the Bible and match them up with war from out time...but...and this is a big but...there is a small contingent of Muslims who is reading the Holy Book in all the ways a paranoid dreams!
::)

My feelings are that the Netherlands will likely censor their freedom of speech to appease the extremists.  Most Dutch I've spoken to online seem to be more concerned with ending the tension than in rationally defending their own ability to speak.  It's kind of scary, but we've seen other European nations make consolations for extremists.

In all honesty, I'd probably side with Wilders to an extent on how to deal with the Muslims.  If nothing else, the Netherlands should consider restricting the immigration of Muslims into their country.  If people like Wilders and that Danish cartoonist have to go into hiding, that means Islam really is a threat to the freedom of speech.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Is about raising hell and gaining votes,hopefully it will backfire and Geert Wilders and his xenophobic party will not gain any sympathy both nationally and internationally with this movie.

My feelings are that the Netherlands will likely censor their freedom of speech to appease the extremists.  Most Dutch I've spoken to online seem to be more concerned with ending the tension than in rationally defending their own ability to speak.  It's kind of scary, but we've seen other European nations make consolations for extremists.


And what exactly is wrong with ending the tension? ??? Even freedom of speech has its limits.

Making consolations for extremists...? I'd rather call it: using common sense. Nobody but warmongers benefit from building up tension and creating contrasts.


In all honesty, I'd probably side with Wilders to an extent on how to deal with the Muslims.  If nothing else, the Netherlands should consider restricting the immigration of Muslims into their country.  If people like Wilders and that Danish cartoonist have to go into hiding, that means Islam really is a threat to the freedom of speech.


It's not Islam that's a threat to the freedom of speech, it's people - and you find them in every religion.

Restricting the immigration of Muslims isn't going to solve the problem (whatever the problem) - it's only gonna create bigger problems, international tension and conflicts. But if that's your way of dealing with it...

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Is about raising hell and gaining votes,hopefully it will backfire and Geert Wilders and his xenophobic party will not gain any sympathy both nationally and internationally with this movie.


Latest news is that Mr Wilders has altered his movie on three points. I don't know which, though. :-[

And what exactly is wrong with ending the tension? ??? Even freedom of speech has its limits.

I'm sure the extremists would agree with you.

Making consolations for extremists...? I'd rather call it: using common sense. Nobody but warmongers benefit from building up tension and creating contrasts.

...and no one ultimately benefits from censorship except the people screaming deliriously for it.

It's not Islam that's a threat to the freedom of speech, it's people - and you find them in every religion.

Restricting the immigration of Muslims isn't going to solve the problem (whatever the problem) - it's only gonna create bigger problems, international tension and conflicts. But if that's your way of dealing with it...


Sometimes bloodshed in the short run saves you a lot of bloodshed in the long run.  This is a matter of showing who's dominant.  If you back down, they win.

And what exactly is wrong with ending the tension? ??? Even freedom of speech has its limits.

Making consolations for extremists...? I'd rather call it: using common sense. Nobody but warmongers benefit from building up tension and creating contrasts.


I respectfully, but vehemently disagree.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
  - Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, 1945.

And in full context, he makes his point even more forcefully:

"The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.  Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. -- In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
- Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, 1945

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
  - Barry Goldwater, 1960s.

You can laugh at Goldwater if you want, but if Karl Popper is somehow too right-wing (?! he's a philosopher of science, more so than a politician), consider that even John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice drew the line at "tolerance for the intolerant" when it crossed the line of self-preservation.  It is suicide to bring words to a gunfight, when one's opponent has brought a gun.

Tolerance for Muslims?  Fine!  They can worship God in whatever way they want!

But tolerance for people who want to kill those who make fun of Muslims?  Sorry, gonna have to say "no" to that.  The Muslims (and their God) are just gonna have to suck it up.  You know, like the Christians (and their God) who says to judge not, lest ye be judged, and all that rot.

Tolerance for murderers in the name of what you call "common sense?"  Is that really "common sense", or really just cowardice in the face of people who might want to kill you because you believe something different?  If that's "common sense", then to your common sense, I must also say "no".

If it somehow makes you think I'm a "warmonger"?  Fine - I can tolerate that.  Free speech and all.  Think whatever ya like of me!  But my answer remains NO.

Tolerance sometimes requires that one stand up and declare to the world:  NO.  Enough.  Not in my tribe, not in my country, not on my planet, NOT ON MY WATCH. 

Have you seen the movie at all? Do you know anything about the PVV?

Cause what you're saying makes sense but what Geert Wilders did with this movie doesn't. See...you don't want to be tolerant with terrorists i don't either,but you are saying is ok to be tolerant with what some ignorant racist douchebag thinks of Islam and that is the issue here.

I respectfully, but vehemently disagree.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
  - Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, 1945.

And in full context, he makes his point even more forcefully:

"The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.  Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. -- In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
- Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, 1945


Thank you for (unknowingly and unwillingly) giving me an argument in favor of my case, for it is Geert Wilders who is being intolerant.

You see...Of all broadcasting companies we have, the Muslim (!) one was the only to offer to broadcast the movie. Wilders refused.


Tolerance sometimes requires that one stand up and declare to the world:  NO.  Enough.  Not in my tribe, not in my country, not on my planet, NOT ON MY WATCH. 


Indeed. That is why I say "No" to Geert Wilders and his PVV.


Have you seen the movie at all? Do you know anything about the PVV?

Cause what you're saying makes sense but what Geert Wilders did with this movie doesn't. See...you don't want to be tolerant with terrorists i don't either,but you are saying is ok to be tolerant with what some ignorant racist douchebag thinks of Islam and that is the issue here.


Just to make sure: There is no excuse for terrorism, and I'm not defending it. I don't want to start a war on terrorism either 'cause it leads to nothing (five years in Iraq, and the world's definitely a safer place.... ::)). We need to take away the reason for terrorism. We need to take away the misunderstandings and misconceptions. We need dialogue and tolerance. That's what I call using common sense.
I know this is probably never gonna happen. Not while people are still pointing fingers anyway (and that includes me).

*shrugs*  Ultimately, it is the call of the Dutch, not our call.  I agree with Foobar, but to each his own, I guess....

*shrugs*  Ultimately, it is the call of the Dutch, not our call.  I agree with Foobar, but to each his own, I guess....

Call of the Wilders?
:-\\

I agree with Karl Popper.

I believe homegrown American intolerance is a greater threat to my liberty as an American than is radical Islam, but I certainly would not support any politician who speaks highly of Sharia law.

  See...you don't want to be tolerant with terrorists i don't either,but you are saying is ok to be tolerant with what some ignorant racist douchebag thinks of Islam and that is the issue here.


We're closer to agreeing than you might think.

Yeah, I am OK with what some ignorant douchebag (sorry, can't back you on racist -- Islam, for all its faults, is a religion and not a race) thinks of it.

Geert's ignorant (although I haven't read enough of the Koran to really make that call one way or the other).  Geert's a douchebag (no argument there!).  But Geert's not gonna want to cut my head off for calling him an ignorant douchebag.  Someone like Geert'd probably invite me to the coffeehouse, where we'd debate politics over a fine beer (or some other intoxicant), and whether we ended up agreeing or disagreeing, the evening would end with us raising our glasses to each other's respective douchebaggery debating skills, and maybe writing a 'blog about it.  So yeah, you're damn right I'm OK with that.

Nobody said freedom of conscience was easy.  Freedom's actually pretty hard work.  Sometimes it means putting up with people you don't like.  Even ignorant douchebags. 

As long as you initiate force upon no one, do whatever the hell ya want.  Douchey (definitely) and ignorant (maybe) as he may be, Geert isn't initiating force upon anyone.  He's happy to leave you free to accept his argument, reject it, or even debunk it.  The Muslim fundies calling for blood in the streets?  Not so much.

We're closer to agreeing than you might think.

Yeah, I am OK with what some ignorant douchebag (sorry, can't back you on racist -- Islam, for all its faults, is a religion and not a race) thinks of it.

Geert's ignorant (although I haven't read enough of the Koran to really make that call one way or the other).  Geert's a douchebag (no argument there!).  But Geert's not gonna want to cut my head off for calling him an ignorant douchebag.  Someone like Geert'd probably invite me to the coffeehouse, where we'd debate politics over a fine beer (or some other intoxicant), and whether we ended up agreeing or disagreeing, the evening would end with us raising our glasses to each other's respective douchebaggery debating skills, and maybe writing a 'blog about it.  So yeah, you're damn right I'm OK with that.

Nobody said freedom of conscience was easy.  Freedom's actually pretty hard work.  Sometimes it means putting up with people you don't like.  Even ignorant douchebags. 

As long as you initiate force upon no one, do whatever the hell ya want.  Douchey (definitely) and ignorant (maybe) as he may be, Geert isn't initiating force upon anyone.  He's happy to leave you free to accept his argument, reject it, or even debunk it.  The Muslim fundies calling for blood in the streets?  Not so much.


My oh my how wrong you are ::) He's a politician who wants votes and that is his agenda. He's inciting hate and violence against muslims with his speech,isn't there a law against that sort of thing in Europe? 'Cause his opinion needs to be accounted for when he spreads lies and insults like he does publicly,this is not about coffeetable talk and blogs,Geert Wilders and PVV are the dutch Le Pen it seems.
You say he isn't "initiating force upon anyone",i say he is doing exactly that. Our definitions of force are not the same i guess.

And most of all: Is it still safe for me to travel internationally? ;)


;D  I don't think it's safe for anybody to travel internationally.  But then, I'm slightly xenophobic and agoraphobic (so don't listen to me.)  ;D  That's why I don't go too far from home usually.  :-[

It is my understanding of Dutch history that they were quite tolerant of Jewish people while most of Europe was prosecuting them.  Not only was there a wave of tolerance during WW2 but in the 17th and 18th century.  To the Dutch tolerance is pretty much a given.

The movie goes way too far with anti-Islamic rhetoric.  However I have brought up the question of can a free society coexist with a society that embraces the Sharia?  They are polar opposites.  If it can be done that is wonderful.

I don't necessarily agree with everything in the film.
But i will defend your right to the death to say those things in a free and right society.

One forum I post on actually did an april fools out of the mess of Network Solutions taking down the website.

This is not really from Network Solutions.
http://www.youposted.com/fitna.png

Nothing like parody and satire to take the mick out of it.

My oh my how wrong you are ::) He's a politician who wants votes and that is his agenda. He's inciting hate and violence against muslims with his speech,isn't there a law against that sort of thing in Europe? 'Cause his opinion needs to be accounted for when he spreads lies and insults like he does publicly,this is not about coffeetable talk and blogs,Geert Wilders and PVV are the dutch Le Pen it seems.
You say he isn't "initiating force upon anyone",i say he is doing exactly that. Our definitions of force are not the same i guess.


Yeah, I think you've nailed it -- our definitions are different.

I was brought up to believe that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me".

To that end, I don't like laws about "hate speech" or "incitement".  They're all too close to "thoughtcrime" for my comfort.  I believe that people should be free to incite, rant, steam, and be as douchebaggy as they want to be.  The day someone break a window or beats someone up, and may the law come down on you like a ton of bricks. 

The Euro thoughtcrime laws originated out of sincere (but IMHO misguided) attempts to limit neo-Nazis from trying to regroup and take power, but the final solution (heh :) to holocaust denial is to give the wannabe-Nazis a soapbox upon which they can make asses of themselves.  Same thing applies to fundie Muslims.  And to Geert Wilders. 

First, the politically-correct came for douchebags like Geert Wilders.
Next, they came for the Faculty of Engineering because someone made a sexist joke.
And by the time they came for the trite, there was no one left to make jokes at my expense.

Yeah, I think you've nailed it -- our definitions are different.

I was brought up to believe that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me".

To that end, I don't like laws about "hate speech" or "incitement".  They're all too close to "thoughtcrime" for my comfort.  I believe that people should be free to incite, rant, steam, and be as douchebaggy as they want to be.  The day someone break a window or beats someone up, and may the law come down on you like a ton of bricks. 

The Euro thoughtcrime laws originated out of sincere (but IMHO misguided) attempts to limit neo-Nazis from trying to regroup and take power, but the final solution (heh :) to holocaust denial is to give the wannabe-Nazis a soapbox upon which they can make asses of themselves.  Same thing applies to fundie Muslims.  And to Geert Wilders. 

First, the politically-correct came for douchebags like Geert Wilders.
Next, they came for the Faculty of Engineering because someone made a sexist joke.
And by the time they came for the trite, there was no one left to make jokes at my expense.


I'm no fan of political correctness and i will always defend freedom of speech as a basic human right. But i can also see the difference between freedom of speech and hate speech and i think laws against it should be protected,you say words can't hurt... i say verbal abuse can be one of the most violent way to inflict pain. I'm so tired of living in a world where people pretend to not see what's wrong in our world...we all know violence has to stop still here we are allowing "douchebags" to have their 15 minutes and the ones who truly need a voice keep being forgotten.

I'm no fan of political correctness and i will always defend freedom of speech as a basic human right. But i can also see the difference between freedom of speech and hate speech and i think laws against it should be protected,you say words can't hurt... i say verbal abuse can be one of the most violent way to inflict pain. I'm so tired of living in a world where people pretend to not see what's wrong in our world...we all know violence has to stop still here we are allowing "douchebags" to have their 15 minutes and the ones who truly need a voice keep being forgotten.



The anti-islamic crap and comments made about Muslims on youtube proves your point.