Free Expression? Not in Holland.
 

Is it the Dutch that really don't have any anti-terrorism laws?

If so, then what's happening to this particular person in your link isn't really a surprise.

The tensions between the Dutch Muslims and the Dutch mainstream are enough to make Americans look like monolithic by comparison. I think at this point the primary objective is to prevent full-scale street warfare from breaking out. They don't want to risk this guy's words inciting violence in a country that has already suffered so many casualties from this tension.

It is interesting to note the immigration of Muslims into Europe and around the world.

One thing that is immenently clear is that their immigrants, hold tight to the culture they have come from, and would appear that even though displaced to a foreign land, maintain tight bonds to the "motherland" so to speak.

This has had a very destabalizing effect in all of Europe. Holland? Muslims? That country on the brink of strife and internal turmoil. Germany, France, England...have so many Muslims that cling to beliefs that would undermine the very country they've moved too.

If push comes to shove, would these Muslims fight against the country, or go along with subversive plots that would come from their birthplace vs. standing with the country they've moved too?

America...in the past...when people moved to our country, they were integrated and became Americans. Not so much anymore, as even here, we compartmentalize cultures, and don't stress becoming part of the melting pot anymore.

It's disturbing to me, and I can see how the countries of the world are fractionalized and could crumble easily as there are so many within their own borders who don't necessarily maintain the same disposition/loyalty/beliefs that a citizen should have.

The West may "win the battle" against terrorism...but, the war may be lost due to immigration and birthrates.

I don't buy into your assumptions.

How about rampant racism against Muslims preventing them from being more integrated?

Every single generation the majority in America have complained that the latest immigrant group is not / won't integrate culturally with the rest of America. Italians, Irish, Mexicans, Chinese, etc. It's basically impossible NOT to be subsumed. And usually when that happens, I would venture to say it is usually outside forces that are working against integration. Not the immigrant groups preventing it.

This may the case, but in our culture that would be an insufficient basis to suppress free expression. The problem with Islam is that the radical elements of Islam justify murder and violence over words. That aspect of the radical elements of culture destabilize the rule of law.

What does the US have that they or most countries don't have? The First Amendment. This country is nothing without it.

There are tensions because Europeans have traditionally treated their immigrants very badly. That has generally not been the case here. I hope we never fall into that same trap.

Good point.

Right, but freedom of speech is constitutionally protected in the Netherlands, too. This is a matter of interpretation.

It surprised me that a country noted for laissez faire in about everything took such a restrictive interpretation, although the rise of the Muslim demographic had an impact no doubt.

I wonder if Mormons had more power, would they ban openly mocking the temple ceremony(ies)?

Probably, but I'm glad we don't.

I'd prefer allowing desecration as opposed repressed speech.

I think this is how Muslims feel. That mocking the temple ceremony should be illegal. Except for them, it's not a 'temple ceremony.' It's other stuff.

If God is the most important thing in the world, what could be more important than upholding, through law, basic respect for God?

Freedom of speech is more important than God?

The Westerner says 'yes, if you want to put it like that.'

However even in America we have the same fundamentalist impulses, i.e. putting people in jail for burning the flag.

That is the impulse, which you're capable of expressing. But thanks to that impulse, ignorance, repression and a general lack of understanding permeate Islamic society.

We don't talk about things and so many of those things remain a mystery of ignorance.

Versus the enlightened Western democratic liberal impulses of, say, the Israelis, that allow them to prevent charitable relief from reaching the prison camp they just bombed.

I believe free expression is also repressed in Israel. You don't have the freedom to proselyte, and many things can't be said there.

Not "had an impact." It's the driving force. The tension between these two populations is probably the foremost issue facing the nation.

And the fact that the nation is so generally and historically laissez faire is the problem, not the non seq. It's kind of like communism -- it seemed like a good idea in theory, but when you have to sort out the details in practice it all starts to break down.

Think about it. You've got a nation's ideals rooted in secularism and mutual acceptance, tolerance, and respect for all peoples. Very non-interventionist. Well, this only works so long as everybody plays along. What happens when you have a mass influx of a group whose ideology encourages the very opposite of these ideals? What happens when you have a significant and increasing population whose attitude is "convert or be killed, curse'd infidels!!"? How much longer can the rest of the population continue its let-them-be way of life, knowing that their neighbors are reproducing in droves and teaching their offspring the opposite? How much longer can the government watch the intercultural tensions increase?

It's like the progressive free-thinking mother who scoffs at discipline and believes young children should be allowed to express themselves by acting out their impulses. Well, how far is she going to take this? So long as brother and sister play nicely? Does she intervene once the toddlers start threatening to hurt each other? Hurling toys? Or does she wait until brother yanks sister's hair, knocks her to the floor and leaves bite marks in her arm before explaining to sister that it's all in the name of personal freedom? Did she, as the authority, not have an obligation to prevent the violence?

It's a difficult position for a nation. It is much like the dichotomy Obama referred to. What happens when a country has to choose between long term security and its ideals? This is the struggle the Netherlands is facing. And there are no easy answers. Which precedent do we wish to set? That it is no longer permissible to speak freely? Or that for the sake of freedom and tolerance the government will sit idly by while incendiary language results in widespread civil disturbance?

It's a fascinating story unfolding, but one that I'm rather relieved I'm reading about instead of living out.

What western European nation isn't? Britain's got it. France has got it. Germany. Spain. This culture clash is a huge elephant over there.

Banning racist, misogynistic Snow White stories is a good start, however.

Well said BG.

In reading your reply...I couldn't help but think of the early days of the founding of the Church, and their mass influx to Missouri. Same kind of deal...to the existing people living there. The early Saints became a real threat to the settlers of Missouri.

So, it is interesting to see what is happening there....it is a foreshadowing of what is to come in other countries, in my opinion.

Do you stand by your principles and watch your country go down all in the name of ensuring certain freedoms, even if those very freedoms you're protecting could produce the demise of your very country. Or, do you somehow try and preserve your founding ideals that made your country.

Wow....scary to think about.

Correct. But because the Netherlands is the most ardent adherent to this inclusive, mutual respect philosophy, the situation is particularly difficult there.

Don't go there, Tex. This is not relevant to the topic at hand. Further, even in germane context, I can't imagine that even you would try to deny the sexist and, yes, misogynistic portrayal of women by the Grimm brothers.

I don't believe you need to force a dichotomy such as that, but it would require a more sophisticated approach than is usually employed.

That's what Obama was suggesting. That we've been living a false dichotomy for seven years now. The thing of it is, dichotomies are easy. If you reject the dichotomy, you have to use negotiate a more complex yet still realistic and effective solution. That must seem awfully daunting in a situation like what you see in The Netherlands.

The politics of the Netherlands are particularly complex, because of the huge influx of nonindigenous peoples.

I don't think their equivalent of the first amendment starts off by saying, "Congress shall make no law..." We take it to the extreme as far as the rest of the world goes, and it's reflected in the way the amendment was written.

here is the Dutch Constitution on the Expression. You may be overstating your case:

The German GrundGesetz is stronger:

http://bundesrecht.juris.de/gg/art_5.html

check out this article though.

http://snouck.blogspot.com/2006/01/f...therlands.html

In other words, when your speech discriminates you can be punsished.

If you wish to argue that the application of the lofty declarations is not always as perfect as we might desire, then I'm certain that is true.

That's correct. But the language our First Amendment is written in makes it harder to introduce loopholes to restrict the rights mentioned in it. It's harder to argue with the words "no law."

There is also this in the Dutch Constitution. I'm not sure how paragraph 2 can be interpreted there, but it seems to indicate the possibility of restricting speech for some reasons.

Article 61. Everyone shall have the right to profess freely his religion or belief,either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to hisresponsibility under the law.
2. Rules concerning the exercise of this right other than in buildings andenclosed places may be laid down by Act of Parliament for the protectionof health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders

It was meant as a tangential jab, yes. Laugh a little.

To answer seriously, I don't know that I've actually read the actual Grimm tales as written. Can't remember, there's about a billion of them after all. But I know the Mickey Mouse versions, and to call them sexist and misogynistic is just silly and hypersensitive. I know all kinds of women who haven't been psychologically damaged by the supposed bigotry of these stories. Some even enjoy them (the horror!).

But as you say, we're off topic.

The Germans ban expression of Nazi symbols and words, don't they? Sitting here today it's hard for me to defend my Dutch kinsmen. But Europeans have seen ethnic hatreds cause fifty million deaths in a period of ten years. I firmly believe Islamic fundamentalists are as fascist as Hitler. But to compare the Koran to Mein Kampf goes too far, does perhaps border on hate speech.

But you continue on...

Here may be what Mr. Wilders published that sent everybody in an uproar.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3094

It's certainly not the type of thing most of us would publish, meaning we wouldn't really want him to be our best friend, but jail time?

He seems like a rogue speaker.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...herlands.islam

His opponents would be better off letting him speak so that he shoots himself in the foot.

Seems like that the point of allowing silly or stupid speech, no?

He doesn't have any credibility if you read his writings. His opponents will win by letting him speak. Shutting him down gives him credibility.