So is it right to stop freedom of speech because other people can't behave? Does the right to speak stop when it is not convenient? It sounds to me like blackmail. "If you let him speak we cause problems"? Is that a free society?
I don't necessarily agree with most of what Wilder says, but I believe he should be able to say it for the simple fact that I might want to say something controversial. Who is the rightful judge of what is "correct speech"? Does any nation that is relatively free want to stand on that slippery slope of arbitrarily denying speech due to threats from opposition?
Maybe I should make some threats about all the damn church bells, and the government can stop that nonsense. I doubt it.
This user would like to thank AmericanGotWorkVisa for this useful post:
Re: Dutch MP Geert Wilders Stopped From Speaking in Wallis
I've sat through a couple of Mr Wilders' speeches on YouTube and a great orator he is not. Most of what he says is predicatble, repetitive and I don't think it appeals to many people unless they already agree with him anyway. He is also a bad actor and when he pretends to be emotional over something or shocked by something it doesn't come across as being very genuine. He's also not a great thinker. When confronted with deeper and more fundamental questions he often takes the shallow way out. Even though I don't agree with him I'm sure I could have written a more convincing script for him.
On the other hand, I am very happy there are people like him. People who say things that are totally outside of norms and conventions are the lithmus paper for democracy. If they are allowed to speak that is reassuring because it means that in all probability those of us with less radical views are also entitled to hold them. If they ban the greatest extremist then the second most extreme person automatically become the most extreme and with a precedent set they will sooner or later go for him also and so begins the long and slippery path of good intentions leading to the downfall of freedom.
I am actually quite shocked when going to places like Germany to discover that every person there who I ever talked to thinks banning people like the NPD would be a good thing and nobody sees the satire of banning things in the name of freedom.
The following 5 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
Who is the rightful judge of what is "correct speech"?
In Switzerland, anything that is not considered libelous or breaches anti-racism law.
Probably the officials of said Valais village had a look at the organisers list (SVP), and got an ideia what would be going to happen at this 'islam-meeting'.
Good for them not wasting the commune's tax payers money on police and additional security on a political party event, which is only held as part of politics propaganda due to the upcoming national elections.
Nothing to do with not letting the SVP allowing to voice their opinion, but please on their own bill.
The following 2 users would like to thank m_dalloway for this useful post:
Re: Dutch MP Geert Wilders Stopped From Speaking in Wallis
One Turkish politician was put into custody couple years back again in Switzerland because he voiced his disbelief in Armenian genocide (during Ottoman empire's last years)
think France is also prohibiting same sort of arguments
So, I find it only fair that Wilders is also blocked from public speech
This user would like to thank SemAms for this useful post:
One Turkish politician was put into custody couple years back again in Switzerland because he voiced his disbelief in Armenian genocide (during Ottoman empire's last years)
think France is also prohibiting same sort of arguments
So, I find it only fair that Wilders is also blocked from public speech
Two wrongs don't make a right. What does denying genocide have to do with speaking about religion and immigration issues?
If I'm not allowed to stand in public and lie about my neighbor, should someone else be blocked from speaking about church bell ringing at all hours should be banned because it offends Christians? I don't see any of these things as being related or dependent on each other.
Re: Dutch MP Geert Wilders Stopped From Speaking in Wallis
I thought you were arguing for Freedom of Speech?!
I do not want to hijack the thread but when you put it as "denying" genocide, you have already taken sides.
Anyway, my point is if there is Freedom of Speech (and I am in favor of it) all sort of opinions should be voiced freely; no matter if it offends millions or only couple (not insulting people while doing so).
Denmark rightfully stood by the cartoonist when many Muslims protested against.
The following 3 users would like to thank SemAms for this useful post:
Re: Dutch MP Geert Wilders Stopped From Speaking in Wallis
It's not the first time somebody noticed the difference between continental Europe vs UK/US about freedom of speech. There is no point repproaching continental Europe for not being anglo-american on that topic, it just isn't and that's it. Notice that continental Europans shouldn't argue the same on the UK/US side either, even though what happens there is really chocking to us.
The following 2 users would like to thank Faltrad for this useful post:
So is it right to stop freedom of speech because other people can't behave? Does the right to speak stop when it is not convenient? It sounds to me like blackmail. "If you let him speak we cause problems"? Is that a free society?
I don't necessarily agree with most of what Wilder says, but I believe he should be able to say it for the simple fact that I might want to say something controversial. Who is the rightful judge of what is "correct speech"? Does any nation that is relatively free want to stand on that slippery slope of arbitrarily denying speech due to threats from opposition?
Maybe I should make some threats about all the damn church bells, and the government can stop that nonsense. I doubt it.
I have taken sides.
I am Dutch, and I actually do agree with some of the points Wilders says. However, I do not agree with the way he says them, antagonizing many (muslim) people. In countries with "Freedom of Speech", acting this freedom sometimes means antagonizing or even insulting other people. As a Christian, I think insulting, offending, or otherwise harming people verbally is wrong, so I really try not to do that.
Therefore, I am happy that I live in this Western country where at least I can live the life I want to live, and where I am able to express my opinions in a less constraint way than for example in some middle eastern, Asian, south American or African countries. However, I know that I will never be able to express my opinions completely, because I know it may be insulting to other people who believe differently than I do. And I really do not see the point of doing so. And this is where I support decisions of "stopping public speaking".
In our Western society there are so many other ways of expressing oneself, that I think that making a fuss out of this, really only infuses media with some more news. And Wilders is known to purposely make use of the media. See "Fitna".
The following 2 users would like to thank hjj_74 for this useful post:
It's not the first time somebody noticed the difference between continental Europe vs UK/US about freedom of speech. There is no point repproaching continental Europe for not being anglo-american on that topic, it just isn't and that's it. Notice that continental Europans shouldn't argue the same on the UK/US side either, even though what happens there is really chocking to us.
Wilders was also banned entry to the UK once. That ban has since been lifted. But it does show the UK is not as immune to meddling with free speech as we would like to think it is.
The following 2 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
In Switzerland, anything that is not considered libelous or breaches anti-racism law.
Probably the officials of said Valais village had a look at the organisers list (SVP), and got an ideia what would be going to happen at this 'islam-meeting'.
Good for them not wasting the commune's tax payers money on police and additional security on a political party event, which is only held as part of politics propaganda due to the upcoming national elections.
Nothing to do with not letting the SVP allowing to voice their opinion, but please on their own bill.
This makes sense...but this would imply he could speak if he could pay for it himself or the SVP would pay for security. I'm not clear that is the situation.
I am Dutch, and I actually do agree with some of the points Wilders says. However, I do not agree with the way he says them, antagonizing many (muslim) people. In countries with "Freedom of Speech", acting this freedom sometimes means antagonizing or even insulting other people. As a Christian, I think insulting, offending, or otherwise harming people verbally is wrong, so I really try not to do that.
Therefore, I am happy that I live in this Western country where at least I can live the life I want to live, and where I am able to express my opinions in a less constraint way than for example in some middle eastern, Asian, south American or African countries. However, I know that I will never be able to express my opinions completely, because I know it may be insulting to other people who believe differently than I do. And I really do not see the point of doing so. And this is where I support decisions of "stopping public speaking".
In our Western society there are so many other ways of expressing oneself, that I think that making a fuss out of this, really only infuses media with some more news. And Wilders is known to purposely make use of the media. See "Fitna".
That is a slippery slope, because "offense" is easy to do. I can always offend someone by saying something. If you think the freedom of a person to speak should be judged by who is offended, then most comedians will be out of business in most Western nations. Many commentators in newspapers will also be unemployed. I get offended a lot by various European talking heads saying things about American that are often not even accurate or outright lies. Sometimes it is just conspiracy theories. Should I have the right to shut them up? Would you support that? Something tells me you would not.
Wilders was also banned entry to the UK once. That ban has since been lifted. But it does show the UK is not as immune to meddling with free speech as we would like to think it is.
I was trying to be nice... The predicators on Trafalgar square were also banned, eventually. But it remains: traditions lines goes along Channel/atlantic.
But thanks for making clear that the US is more isolated than we might think when it comes to freedom of speech. That makes UK a better place in my eyes, but I am aware of the fact that nobody cares about my view on that.
Wilders should stay in his living room w***ing in front of internet webpages like anybody else with the same psychological profil (there are quite a few discussion about him in the dutch media, therefore that remark from me now here).
__________________ Es wird nichts ausgelassen, um mich hier herauszuekeln. Ein Lehrbuch. False accusations and attacks continue. There is no stopping righteous people when they are wrong.
I was trying to be nice... The predicators on Trafalgar square were also banned, eventually. But it remains: traditions lines goes along Channel/atlantic.
But thanks for making clear that the US is more isolated than we might think when it comes to freedom of speech. That makes UK a better place in my eyes, but I am aware of the fact that nobody cares about my view on that.
Wilders should stay in his living room w***ing in front of internet webpages like anybody else with the same psychological profil (there are quite a few discussion about him in the dutch media, therefore that remark from me now here).
1) Why is Britian a better country for caving to blackmail? They gave the exact same excuse..."security reasons"...
2) Maybe I should make some security concerns when someone in SVP wants to mouth off about foreigners, maybe all of us should, then we might intimidate the Swiss government into shutting them up...?? In your words, would that make Switzerland a "better place"?
This user would like to thank AmericanGotWorkVisa for this useful post:
So is it right to stop freedom of speech because other people can't behave? Does the right to speak stop when it is not convenient? It sounds to me like blackmail. .
The man has proven again and again that HE cannot behave. And according to the news this morning, he himself decided against coming to Switzerland anyway.
This user would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
The man has proven again and again that HE cannot behave. And according to the news this morning, he himself decided against coming to Switzerland anyway.
I am actually quite shocked when going to places like Germany to discover that every person there who I ever talked to thinks banning people like the NPD would be a good thing and nobody sees the satire of banning things in the name of freedom.
Not shocking at all. The Germans in case of radical demagogues of course have Messrs Hitler and Göbbels in mind, even more so for obvious reasons than Austrians (in spite of A.H. having been an Austrian) and Swiss.
Do not forget that Switzerland in 1939 went as far as in order to avoid Berlin educated and pro Nazi-Germany leaning Corps-Commander (3-Star-General) Ulrich Wille Junior who like his father (CIC in WW-I) was in favour of Prussian methods for the Swiss Army
to nominate French oriented Corps-Commander Henri Guisan as military CIC
Demagogues are exactly the thing NOT wanted over here
PS: Compare the uniform of the soldier after the two pictures of the German Emperors. Quite interesting as that uniform is almost the one of the Swiss army of the early 1970ies !
It's not the freedom to lie (like denying genocide) or to support racism (NPD).
The threat of violence was enough to suppress free speech, not a good sign.
But Wilders IS supporting discrimination against ethnic groups all the time. His rethorics are similar to what Mr A.H. did in the Hofbräuhaus in München after WW-I. He is a racist demagogue.
He quite in public advocated active discrimination against ALL Muslims in Western Europe. He advocated the expelling of ALL Muslims from Western Europe. He described ISLAM quite publicly as NOT being a religion but an extreme and criminal movement.
He is the Khaddafi of the Netherlands, except that the Dutch never allowed him to take power !
He quite in public advocated active discrimination against ALL Muslims in Western Europe. He advocated the expelling of ALL Muslims from Western Europe. He described ISLAM quite publicly as NOT being a religion but an extreme and criminal movement.
He is the Khaddafi of the Netherlands, except that the Dutch never allowed him to take power !
I doubt it.
In your words, would that make Switzerland a "better place"?
Linear Mode
