I have just finished watching Fitna. It's a film I would never have watched had Jacqui Smith not banned its maker, Dutch MP Geert Wilders, from entering the country. Having now watched it, I'm even more bemused that she should have taken this action. It's so simplistic as to be almost risible in parts. It shamelessly adopts many of the propaganda techniques of Leni Riefenstahl, the Nazi filmmaker of the 1930s, and the middle part which seeks to demonstrate how muslims intend to take over Europe certainly had echos of DER EWIGE JUDE, minus the rat imagery.
The simplicity of the quotes from the Koran accompanied by pictures of terror outrages was quite effective and made an important point. It's one which mainstream politicians have made in speeches, before going on to point out that Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion and not all muslims should be tainted with the actions of a few nutters. I see nothing wrong in quoting these passages, particularly as there are some unsavoury passages in the Bible which can be quoted back at Christians. UPDATE: Dizzy makes the point powerfully HERE.My test in these things is always to think: If a muslim politician had made a similar film about Christianity, would the Home Secretary have taken the same action. I think we all know the answer to that one. There are plenty examples of extremist muslim clerics who have made hateful films or written hateful books, calling for Jews and Christians to be slaughtered who have been let into the country.
You have to be consistent in these things, otherwise people feel you are discriminating in favour of one religious group over another.
Watching Question Time last night, it was astonishing that the only member of the panel to speak out in favour of free speech was the muslim leader of the Respect Salma Yacoub. None of them had seen the film they were commenting on (a fact which apparently got Keith Vaz into trouble on Newsnight) and yet all the rest decided that it was better for Wilders to be banned rather than be condemned by his own words. I was particularly shocked by Conservative MP Justine Greening's attitude to this. I suppose it echoed the tepid response of Chris Grayling yesterday, but it was nevertheless discomforting to see a Conservative MP seemingly unable to comprehend the importance of free speech, especially when she hadn't seen the film.The irony is that if this film is so shocking, and so hate-filled as to stir up racial violence, logic would dictate that the government should actually ban it. They should also take action against any blog or website which hosts it or links to it. But they can't. Instead, by their actions, they have increased Fitna's viewership by at least one hundred fold. Jacqui Smith has made a political martyr out of Geert Wilders. I hope she is proud of herself.
Anyway, you make up your own mind about his 16 minute film. View it HERE.
UPDATE: Peter Tatchell is also trenchantly against banning Wilders from Britain. In an interview with Pink News he says this...
The fact that a Dutch parliamentarian is refused entry to another EU country is highly regrettable. The Home Secretary is guilty of gross hypocrisy. She gives visas to demagogues who incite violence and murder, while banning from the UK a Dutch MP who has never incited violence against anyone. I do not agree with Mr Wilders, but he has never threatened violence against Muslims. The Home Secretary regularly grants visas and work permits to Jamaican reggae singers who openly incite the murder of lesbian and gay people. Incitement to murder is a very serious criminal offence. The Home Office and Metropolitan Police also allow radio stations and record stores to promote their murder-inciting CDs. Last November, Jacqui Smith gave Jamaican reggae singer Bounty Killer (Rodney Price) permission to perform at a concert in east London. He had been banned from Guyana earlier in 2008 over his murderous lyrics, but the British government said he was welcome to sing in the UK. It is double standards to ban Geert Wilders and not Bounty Killer. Bounty Killer encourages and glorifies gang violence. At a time when so many young people have been murdered in gang-related gun and knife crime, it is reckless and obscene for the Home Secretary to give Bounty Killer a visa and work permit.
60 comments:
I thought it was, in its way, as extreme as those it sought to attack.
I am disappointed, though, with the Government's decision simply to stifle debate - I'm waiting for the 'Social Cohesion' legislation that effectively bans any criticism of Islam.
Can this Government not see that by denying free speech to one side of the debate, they are in fact caving to the other?
Sad days for freedom of speech in this country.
D
Well done for taking the time to watch it Iain. I wouldn't have banned the man myself. But I'm not and you're not in a position to see the wiider picture and nor do we have to pick up the pieces if things sdo go wrong. Wilders is far from being the only undesirable barred or even turned round at the border. Are you really thinking most of these people are anti-islam? While all islamists get the red carpet?
And should Dave Cameron recant his intention to ban Hizb_ut-Tahrir without evidence of wrong doing? As well as hanging those Tories who flirted with them up here in Manchester - to associate Gordon Brown with Geert Wilders' Qur'an banning campaign - hanging them out to dry.
Well said about the viseo Iain. I tried to watch it last night but it reminded me of the 9/11 conspiracy videos.
why was a UKIP member trying to bring Wilder into the country?
6th form Vox Pop with pan-european publicity.
Ah, screw it - the fake politicians are in complete control. As long as they get their expenses, their ludicrous holidays, their Fridays off, their 2 homes, their ability to censor and keep their heads down - well, why rock the boat?
Iain, it would be very difficult for anybody to make a similar film about Christianity.
First of all there are very few explicit references in the Christian texts, and by this I mean the New Testament, and none in the Gospels, where Christians are instructed to attack non-believers.
Secondly, it is very easy to find footage of Muslim prayer meetings, particularly Friday prayers in Tehrn, but also elsewhere, showing clerics advocating the killing of non-Muslims, particularly Jews, but I think you would be hard pushed to find any footage of similar Christian prayer meetings, particularly of such prominence (who knows what goes on in the wacky US bible belt).
You may not have read the Koran, but I have, and I find it a truly terrifying book. I have also travelled extensively in Muslim countries and have been to Iran 6 times. It is a truly ghastly place, the dictatorship of the Shah haveing been superceded by a more unenlightened and arguavbly more pervasive theocratic dictatorship.
"You have to be consistent in these things, otherwise people feel you are discriminating in favour of one religious group over another."
Fancy that...
Oh I am just sick of everyone justifing their actions because of the Nazi's. Maybe to get his point across in a world gone stupid with appeasement in the name of tolerance, he had to provoke. Do you really believe that his intent is the same as Leni Riefenstahl?
Some in the foreign press are saying we British have capitulated to the Muslim threats like the Germans did to the Nazi's. So try that as an antidote!!
Islamic terrorism, and Islamic fundermentalism bring misery to many across the world. Women are denigrated, homosexuals murdered - etc, etc. If Islam is a religion of peace, it has a funny way of demonstrating it, and to be honest the evidence does not point in that direction as far as I am concerned.
If Muslims want to practice Islam, and it seems they don't actually have a choice, they can do so in Muslim countries. Surely that is the sensible thing for them to do, rather than come and live in countries who do not agree with Sharia law. Why do they come here?
I'm afriad my 'tolerence' has been stretched to the limit, and it is now broken. I will not tolerate, violence, persecuation of homosexuals, honour killing, suicide bomging, hateful imans, and all the rest of the baggage that goes with Muslim immigrants to the UK.
Perhaps the next time you bump into Shami or Davis, you could ask them why they are completely silent on the matter of the lack of free speech and free movement of EU persons within the UK.
Summer, I said he was using the techniques of Leni Riefenstahl. I made no comment as to their respective motivations.
Here is the religion of peace
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
It's not Christians who threaten to take you to the top of a cliff and toss you off.
Iain says:
"there are some unsavoury passages in the Bible which can be quoted back at Christians"
Yes Iain but we gave up that sort of thing 2000 years ago. As Peter Tatchell might point out, we have not only stopped stoning sodomites and loose women to death, we elect them Bishops.
Please, please will people stop making glib comparisons between the Quran and the Bible or us Christians ...will..well...might get a bit upset.
I echo your fear that 4 out of 5 guests invited on Question Time by the BBC are inherently opposed to freedom of speech. Everybody supports the freedom to say things they agree with - the test is if they will defend the rights of those they disagre with. This country is in a dreadful situation wherec the sole defender of free speech on the government broadcaster is a Marxist Moslem "extremist".
Thank Ghod for the internet.
-----------
I wouldn't agree that Islam is a "fundamentally peaceful religion" - its history is certainly otherwise. However the same applies to Christianity. It may be inherent in monotheisims that since my God is real & yours isn't, my priests, speaking English, or formerly Latin, are really talking to God & yours, speaking arabic, are liars, frauds & thieves doomed to burn in Hell & the sooner the better along with all those who won't worship ny God.
Jacqui Smith is incompetent as well as corrupt. She has all the intellectual capacity of a bar of soap.
The Penguin
On Questiontime last night the only person who seemed to me to bear witness to a long British tradition in support of Free Speech was Salma Yacoub, a Muslim woman in a hijab who is the leader of Respect. Good on her.
But shame on the comments of the Tory and Labour reps - they were typical of the soft-left cant that cannot distinguish between supporting equality and rejecting freedom. I want both.
At least give Melanie Phillips in the Mail this - she opposed banning Wilders, and has equally opposed banning holocaust deniers.
[As for the film FITNA, I have seen it on Liveleaks, and it is a foul and disgusting misrepresentation of Islam. That's not the point though.]
Paul Halsall: "As for the film FITNA, I have seen it on Liveleaks, and it is a foul and disgusting misrepresentation of Islam."
How so...?
Don't just tell us what you think, tell us why you think it. You might have a point, but how can we know, otherwise?
Tatchell gives a characteristically robust argument here:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11132.html
Wilders is seeking to have the Qur'an banned.
The Old Testament has plenty to go at of course. But as far as the New testament goes one would have to juxtapose all the peace and love versus the horror scenes done in the name of latter day crusades.
And one might have a root around in the "other" AD books of the bible and not to mention the mutterings of the priests of Christ these last 2000 years. "Sayings" or interpretations and rulings or "hadiths" of equivalent people - scholars and priests - are very much part of the scripture, whereas in Christianity they are there, but not in the anthology of magick that we know as the Bible.
Hizb_ut-Tahrir hung their campaigns on this man's malaevolence last spring/summer. They have now been gifted a showing of this crappy film in the Palace of Westminster - thanks UKIP - they would be given further fuel had the author of attempts to ban their book - and their book only - had also been present and spouting his hate.
They will have a point anyway, but their minority appeal could have been mainstreamed by a "Wilders in the House" moment.
There is a stencil variant on the keep britain tidy image, building on the version with the swastika being dumped, that has a star of David, a Christian cross and a Muslim crescent also being dumped.
Can't find any instances on Google images so I'll go and take a picture of it.
The Tories have been utterly useless on this case. The lack of anger and apparently lack of realisation of the importance of this issue really goes to the heart of the spineless, rudderless Conservative party.
The Tories appear to be more interested in appeasing a minority vote base than standing up for an important principle upon which democracy is based.
Pathetic and disgusting.
Wilders is seeking to have the Qur'an banned.
Which is a pretty ridiculous "policy". If he was allowed to come and argue his case he would be torn apart. Instead the government and the Tories are quite happy to ban him on the grounds that a few people don't like him.
I don't know why we keep falling for this 'Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion' lie. And talking about quotes from the old testament as if all religions carry on the same way. Fact is, if someone criticised the Old Testament, you won't find Jewish people threatening to burn flags and call for all non-Jews to be killed. And you certainly won't find a Jewish peer threatening to march on Parliament with 10,000 followers. And when someone put up the ad 'There's probably no God' on buses, Christians responded with a humourous ad. Some Christian idiotically said he won't drive the bus, but never threatened to behead his passengers. There's a problem with Islam. No Islamic country is democratic and free. And it's scary for us to see how politicians of all parties refuse to stand up to this presence none of us elected to be in our midst. Incidentally, no Christian pastor or Jewish Rabbi or head of Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism would call for you to be thrown off a mountain. It's time we recognised Islam for what it is and say so boldly.
I'm afraid I didn't get to see much of Question Time.
During the responses you refer to I had, without realising it, started muttering under my breath. My wife told me, in shocked astonishment, that it was the worst language she had heard me use in 30 years of marriage.
Following my abject, sincere and entirely warranted apologies, she insisted on changing channel.
Probably a good thing, because two more minutes of that and the set would have gone out the window!
I have only once not voted Conservative, that was when Ian Duncan-Smith was leader. Nice bloke and all, and I admire what he's done since, but I couldn't vote for him as a possible PM. I detest Labour with a passion which I find slightly embarrassing, but if the Conservative response to the Islam/Wilder/Freedom of speech outrage is indicative of their current standards, principles and political courage, they can whistle for my vote in future.
First of all there are very few explicit references in the Christian texts, and by this I mean the New Testament, and none in the Gospels, where Christians are instructed to attack non-believers.
Yes, because the New Testament and the Gospels are all about peace and love!
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:16
"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death." Matthew 10:21
"[W]hen the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance of them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord ..." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" ; (1 Timothy 2:11-12).
"For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death" (Mark 7:10).
Wilders is basically a run-of-the-mill populist, but with one core issue: Islam. To characterise him as a racist or western suprematist in the sense of Le Pen, Haider or Dewinter would be great injustice. Apart from the Islam issue, his party (which for the remainder is filled with non-entities) has seldom progressed beyond the catchphrase level, and their lack of presence in the economic crisis debates had been overwhelming.
The attempt by a local Amsterdam court to sue him for racist incitement has already proven to be a very effective bullet in the foot, granting him new publicity just when he appeared to go under amidst financial disaster. But lawyers being what they are, they're incapable of grasping the importance of anything beyond the statute books.
So Jacqui Smith has given a local nuisance international standing. I hope she's happy; but judging her intellectual abilities she probably still hasn't a clue. But then, if 4 out of 5 politicians agree, there are difficult days ahead for the freedom of speech. What a farce.
"There are plenty examples of extremist muslim clerics who have made hateful films or written hateful books, calling for Jews and Christians to be slaughtered who have been let into the country."
........many to be found in Fitna.
Whether you like the video, its contents or its maker or not, there has to be debate, from both sides. That debate has, sadly, been stifled by weakness and political over-correctness from our beloved Leader (Oh, Saviour of the World. May God fall prostrate and give praise to the mighty Gorgon) and his poison dwarf, "Two Gaff(e)s" Smiff.
"Please, please will people stop making glib comparisons between the Quran and the Bible or us Christians ...will..well...might get a bit upset."
The last words are a salient point. Christianity does, in the Old Testament and New Testament, prescibe fire, violence and brimstone. It is a book from the same Abrahamic tradition as the Koran, and the two are comparable. True most Christians wouldn;t do this, but as I pointed out on my blog, if the video was done in reverse in a counterfactual world it would not cause the same outrage which is scary.
Mr ex-apprentice - QT was pants as per. 4-1 on global warming too - that other shibboleth.
Any irrational adherence to any religious or other text is pants and the get out clause of the New Testicle leaves open the claim that the Torah is pants.
What concerns me more about Islam is that there doesn't seem to be a hierarchy - so any clan, movement, warlord, sect has equal claim to represent the Qu'ran.
That is by no way to state that Christianity and its domination by the various churches and orders are better, but that they inherently dovetail with European history - chicken and egg perhaps.
Ah, yes,Peter Tatchell, I beleive I might have nudged you in that direction!
He has highlighted, yet again, the contradictory and irreconcilability of liberalism.
Nutty politically correct people will end up like Daily Mail readers who are confused to read that Asylum Seekers eat Single Mothers.
Iain - Rather surprise you've fallen for the religion of peace line. Islam means submission, much like the cowardice of Miliband and Smith - they submitted and now they have their peace.
I suspect the issue that underlies the objections to Mr Wilders and his film relate to the status of the Muslim holy book being the uncreated eternal word of god, written in the original Arabic.
The underlying issue is likely to be blasphemy against Islam, rather than inciting hatred. ( After all those who carried out the acts shown in the film have done enough of that. )
If I'm right then we are being deceived about the motives of those who have objected to Mr Wilders.
Personally I think he's wrong to call for a ban on the Quran, just as it would be wrong to ban any other book of key historical importance, with the possible exception of something like military manuals etc.
Chris O'D said... “...why was a UKIP member trying to bring Wilder into the country?”
Let’s face it. They are all as daft as the proverbial brush.
But still the ban is appalling. And what (local) publicity for both Wilders and UKIP the silly Home Secretary has provided.
Atheist bus Canadian Atheist bus Atheist buses in Barcelona & Madrid
This is the first time I've left a comment having been a voyeur for the past year. Surely Wilders was barred entry by Jacqui Smith with the sole intention of stiring up huge debate on freedom of speach to deflect attention from other current issues, her own expenses being one!
Are you Melanie Phillips in disguise?
Alex said... “Secondly, it is very easy to find footage of Muslim prayer meetings, particularly Friday prayers in Tehran, but also elsewhere, showing clerics advocating the killing of non-Muslims, particularly Jews, but I think you would be hard pushed to find any footage of similar Christian prayer meetings, particularly of such prominence (who knows what goes on in the wacky US bible belt).”
Hmm. That’s only because the ability to make such footage is recent. Go back a bit in time and you’ll find it. The crusades are still very much alive in Arab minds. What a tool George Bush was to call for a “crusade” after 9/11.
Atheist bus Canadian Atheist bus Atheist buses in Barcelona & Madrid
I think there are some elements of Islam that might be misused and I think it is fair to say that it does not have the same emphasis as the Bible but thats really pretty irrelevant. Islamic terrorism is not an ancient problem it stems from modern politics and modern culture.In that Islam lends itself to totalitarianism it is more the relationship Muslims have to the Qur'an than its contents that is the problem. Some Christians treat the Bible in the same way but there is a dominant tradition of interpretation. None of this is immutable and we are better off forgetting competitively mis using ancient texts.
How truly ridiculous Chris Huhne made himself look arguing with the excellent Quilliam Foundation who want the chance to defend their religion and abhor its use by terrorists much as we would deplore the use by the BNP of the Union Jack.
Maajid Nawaz, Director of the Quilliam Foundation, says:
“Banning Geert Wilders from the UK is not the solution. Just as the ideas of non-violent Islamist groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir should be tackled through debate and argument, so should those of Wilders and others. Freedom of speech should be protected – so long as people do not use this freedom to call for violence against others.
“Wilders has evidently been convinced by the words and actions of Islamists and jihadists that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant. We therefore challenge him to an open debate in which we will argue that Islam is not an inherently violent religion and that, contrary to what he apparently believes, Muslims are not a threat to Europe and its values.”
Ed Husain, the co-Director of the Quilliam Foundation, says:
“Geert Wilders is undoubtedly an ill-informed, hate-driven bigot with many unpleasant views but he is not directly inciting violence. As a result, unlike in the case of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, I do not support the decision to ban him from the UK. By threatening parliament with a mob, Lord Ahmed is contributing to the negative portrayal of Muslims and their religion.”
There is much that is good and admirable about Islam in my view and the Quilliam Foundation are showing the way forward . Bravo to them and shame shame shame on Jaqui Smith for her cowardice venality and double shame on Lord Ahmed who is not the first Muslim to disgrace his religion by uttering veiled threats against his country.
YET AGAIN Labour's incompitence in making decisions ( especially the right ones has shone through) It's a bit like banning kids from eating chocolate. where there is a will there is a way of getting or seeking what you want (in this case, Wilders has got his publicity) and isn't even in the country....
www.plenty2say.com
It would have made more sense to ban Wilders for having a naf hairstyle and wild staring eyes. As well as bad taste in ties.
Why should the Tories get too involved in this? The issue there is Browns taste in bankers.
At the end of the day this Wilders guy should not be banned - but he is a pillock of enormous proportions and my thought is its not a good idea for oppositions to go out of their way to defend pillocks.
The next time the govt let in a loony muslim cleric though ...
an ex-apprentice said... “...if the Conservative response to the Islam/Wilder/Freedom of speech outrage is indicative of their current standards, principles and political courage...”
I rather think it is so indicative. So there’s nobody left for you to vote for (except presumably Respect)!
Atheist bus Canadian Atheist bus Atheist buses in Barcelona & Madrid
Leave it to Chris Paul to bring up the Crusades- just like every other whining leftie who wants to defend the indefensible. The Crusades were hundreds of years ago. We are SUPPOSED to be more civilised now.
trevorsden said... “Why should the Tories get too involved in this?”
Because they have some pretensions to govern. Apparently. Although perhaps not...
Atheist bus Canadian Atheist bus Atheist buses in Barcelona & Madrid
In contrast to Alex it would indeed be very easy to make a similar video against Christianity based on the words of US Evangelical and Pentecostal preachers and the Old Testament (no one would be interested in making the distinction between the New and Old testaments in the context of denouncing the Bible as a whole). I do agree with Alex that after reading the Koran it is a far more worrisome document.
It is of course quite easy to throw Leni Riefenstahl at this but then I believe a lot of the post War political campaigning has roots in Leni Riefenstahl's work. I think straight away of what was in the head of the people who made those controversial posters in '05 that verged on being openly anti-Semitic.
A complete failure of the political establishment over this issue. Liberty, David Davis, the Tories, the Liberals, all should be ashamed. Only the few voices of moderate Islam who could get any coverage were standing up for free speech.
Iain I saw the film and even I was shocked by some of the content. Can I suggest a warning before people watch it.
In my opinion Lord Ahmed's promise of 10,000 Muslims turning up to the House of Lords to undemocratically disrupt freedom of assembly and speech far outweighs the content of the film's message.
AProlefrom1984 said... "And when someone put up the ad 'There's probably no God' on buses, Christians responded with a humourous ad"
That wasn't the first response for some Christians. It was to complain to the ASA and to get the ad banned. So for some Christians freedom of speech isn't important. But on the larger point there was never, ever any suggestion, nor even a tiny hint of violence against the ads organisers.
Peter Tatchel is spot on, as usual.
I don't agree with eveything he's said and done over the years, but his courage and consistecy are to admired.
didn't the west midlands police 'service' recently consider prosecuting channel 4 for transmitting a programme containing footage shoot inside a mosque where the preacher was advocating death and destruction to anyone and everyone who was not a muslim ?
Trevorsden:
It would have made more sense to ban Wilders for having a naf hairstyle and wild staring eyes
That made me laugh out loud.
It did for Heseltine, I think.
Not all Muslins are terrorists,
unfortunately all terrorists seem to be Muslims.
The guy was trying to point out the adverse gains of accepting unfettered Muslim immigration.
We would do well to watch our backs in the UK.
A storms coming, we will have to face it sooner or later,....better sooner.
And Iain,a man of your "tastes", should be especially worried.
Colin, re Tatchell: he is very polite and likeable in my limited experience of him. And he has been in the vanguard of liberty for longer than I dare recall.
Had he not been shafted by a closet gay, who knows what he could have done in Parliament.
You're right, Iain - it's shocking and hilarious that all these people see fit to judge this film without even seeing it.
And the logic of the government's position, as you say, is not simply that the film should be banned, but that Lord Pearson should be arrested under section 29E of the Public Order Act for showing it yesterday.
He won't be, because it's not threatening.
"...Lord Ahmed's promise of 10,000 Muslims turning up to the House of Lords.."
If he offers to give any of them a lift in his Jaguar, they'd better make sure his mobile is out of reach first...
You are on form today Julia.
I too express my admiration for the intelligence and courage shown by Salma Yacoub in her defence of free speech.
I feel ashamed by the stance taken by the Conservative Party.Please defend free speech with conviction if you want universal respect.
This government does not do shame, all the pity. Miliband, Smith,Vaz et al, you are the pits.
Chris Paul said: Wilders is seeking to have the Qur'an banned.
To put this into a clearer context, Wilders believes the Koran is on a par with Mein Kampf and as that is banned in the Netherlands he believes the Koran ought to be as well.
Bloody hell! I never thought I would agree with Tatchel, but the man is spot on! I totally agree.
how muslims intend to take over Europe
Umm, they are, whether they intend to or not. Look at the demographic forecasts.
@ Head of Legal
Of Pearson's possible arrest:
"He won't be, because it's not threatening."
Er, no. He won't be because the Government daren't risk the political fall-out. The legal position is nothing to do with it.
If anything shoul dbe banned it should be Justine Greening's enormous face. It scares me that people write about her as being attractive.
Seriously though, I agree it is a poor film. I too have watched it on the net and it is a powerful work for weak minds. Those who want to hate foreigners and muslims will love it whilst those of us who want the whole picture and know the real story can see all the holes in the film and know it to be almost worthless as a factual film other than to highlight the film maker's lack of ability.
I like the parallels with Nazism that you make. As part of my degree we watched "The Triumph of The Will", an experience that I shall not repeat again.
A quick correction, though Leni Riefenstahl was responsible for some fairly unpleasant cinematography [beware of ski movie stars, where she started her career], she can't be held responsible for the 'Der ewige Jude' - the credit for that filth goes to Fritz Hippler.
What a stupid video and what a stupid response by the government.
You tell 'em Iain!!!
"And you certainly won't find a Jewish peer threatening to march on Parliament with 10,000 followers".
Right on. They'd never agree on the catering arrangements!
lol
Just a clarification ... Wilders argument is that if Mein Kampf is banned then by the same token the Koran should be banned. Or conversely if the Koran is available to read then so should Mein Kampf.
It is a perfectly, clear & reasonable argument. Yet it gets him banned from the UK and called a 'hate criminal' (aka know as a thought criminal)
It is an interesting position Rebel Saint.
Mein Kampf is legal here but not in a number of European countries, while Geert Wilders is not legal here but he is in a number of European countries.
Before banning Wilders we could have stood on reasonably firm ground and said to Europe - banning Mein Kampf is a bit silly. Now we can't.
Mein Kampf should not be verboten any more than the Koran should be. Holocaust denial too. All should suffer at the hands of considered disccussion or simply the ridicule some feel they deserve. Prohibition never stopped anything and to hide such things away grants them a greater power.
The ideals the UK in particular once stood for are withering at the hands of the well meaning Righteous who are fearful of any chance that people might be offended, and the more insidious who trot out the phrase 'oxygen of publicity' to try and control the thoughts and words of others.
I suspect the likes of Geert Wilders is a threat to this country not just because of what he says, but as much because he is a politician who stands for something compared to most of ours on all sides who stand for little more than themselves. They cannot have a grown up debate on serious matters because so few of them actually have an opinion. They do and say simply what a focus group, poll or party spin doctor suggests would play well.
Post a Comment