Have you seen Fitna?

[chakka35]

I have just watched Geert Wilders' film 'Fitna' and wonder what there is about it that has caused our interfering politicians to ban the man from this country.

Factually you cannot fault it. Without comment it gives us verses from the Quran that call for apalling violence against infidels (which is all non-Muslims), then shows hot-headed imams and others using those verses to incite that violence with the atrocious results that we see all too graphically in news film.

It is, of course, very selective and I have no doubt that there are many Muslims who abhor such evil mindlessness as much as any of us do. But the fact that many German people were appalled by the Holocaust does not mean that we should not draw attention to it.

The only contentious item I could see is at the end, when, having shown all the shouted declarations that Islam will take over the whole world by killing all infidels,
Wilders says that since we put down Nazism and Soviet communism, which also had those aims, should we not put down Islamism?

I find it sad that our goverment has ruined our fine reputaton for freedom of speech and of expression just for this.

What do others think? (You can see the film by Googling 'fitma'.)

[Gromit]

toonmilo

i have not attacked you, yet you seem to think I have.

My attacks were on the film. So when you write... Gromit and Mani have accused her (and me by association) of claiming all manner of things that we haven't claimed, it is most odd. You are taking on the role of a victim in some kind of personal attack by me, when one doesn't exist.

[Gromit]

apologies toonmilo, my post was addressed to chakka35

[chakka35]

Alright, gromit, you didn�t actually attack us but you have made all sorts of ad hominem comments like �lacking basic analytical skills� and �believing medieval scripture�, which would raise a chuckle from anyone who has read the things that naomi and I have posted over the years. But never mind; it�s not important.

Mani, you make unwarranted assumptions about the likelihood of the film�s causing anti-Muslim violence. It does not incite such behaviour, nor is there any sign of any having happened. We cannot meekly surrender our cherished freedom of expression because some people think that an unpleasant fellow might incite violence. Our freedoms are more precious than that.

To get back to my question, it seems that the majority (like the majority in the country by all accounts) think that we should not have kept Wilders out. So why did we? Which leads me to my secondary question:

Does the UK establishment kow-tow too much to the sensitivities of official Islam (not, I emphasise, the Muslim in the street.)?

With Christians, Jews, Sikhs, atheists and so on, society takes the commonsense view that they are not entitled not to be offended; the right to offend is part of our general freedom. (As an atheist the only thing that would offend me is the suggestion that I be protected from offence!)

Rushdie writes a book which, absurdly, raises calls for him to be murdered � calls supported by senior British Muslims, without their being prosecuted. Cartoons are printed in Denmark which cause Christian churches to be burnt down and others murdered. Many freedom-loving countries (USA, France, Germany, Norway) print the cartoons but no-one in UK does. Jerry Springer offends Christians but is not barred from coming here, while Wilders is. I could go on but I won�t for now.

So, do we show undue partiality towards the sensitivities of official Islam? <

[naomi24]

Yes, we do. In fact we go so ridiculously far at times as to render ourselves devoid of all semblance of basic common sense.