The Telegraaf newspaper reported that the coalition government was divided on the film, with the Christian Democrats leaning towards a ban but Labour favouring freedom of expression and calling on Muslim countries to prevent violence against the Netherlands.
The 15-minute film, called Fitna - an Arabic term used in the Qur'an and sometimes translated as "strife" - was made by Geert Wilders, a rightwing politician who leads the nine-member PVV (Freedom) party.
Wilders has argued that there is no such thing as moderate Islam, and has called for a ban of the Qur'an, which he compares to Hitler's Mein Kampf.
"The core of the problem is fascistic Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Muhammad as it is set out in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Koran," he wrote in a comment piece for the Volksrant newspaper last year.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato secretary general, has expressed concern about the safety of Nato troops after protests against the film in Afghanistan.
"If the [troops] find themselves in the line of fire because of the film, then I am worried about it and I am expressing that concern," he said in a television interview.
Yesterday, around 1,000 Afghans protested against the republication of a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad in Danish newspapers and Wilders' plan to air the film.
The protesters, mostly religious clerics in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif, demanded the withdrawal of Danish and Dutch troops from Afghanistan.
The Dutch prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, warned last week that the Netherlands risked economic sanctions and attacks against its troops because of the film. He stopped short, however, of saying that it should not be broadcast. Dutch government could ban anti-Islam film >>> By Mark Tran and agencies
Mark Alexander (Paperback)
Mark Alexander (Hardback)
7 comments:
Didn't Wilders say he would post it on the internet if it was banned by the Dutch government?
Dutch blogger kleinverset states Wilders will release the video online regardless. Wilders WILL NEVER BOW! Go Geert!
Revereridesagain:
Yes, he did say that; but I don't know what the legalities would be of doing that if the film were to be banned.
Personally, I feel he should have shocked the world with the film by simply coming out with it, without forewarning. That way it would have been too late for the Dutch government to do anything about it.
The way Geert Wilders has gone about this, he has had maximum publicity, but his government may yet find a way of stopping him.
I must say that I have enormous respect for Geert. I so wish we had more politicians in the West with the courage that he has.
Freedom of speech (Article 7)
This article has only been partially changed in the 1983 revision, as it was linked to very complicated case law. Subarticle 1 contains the classic freedom of the press. Any censorship is absolutely forbidden. However, formal law can otherwise limit this freedom, e.g. by making a certain content punishable under penal law. Such limitative powers cannot be delegated to lower administrative bodies such as municipalities and this includes the concomitant right of distribution of printed materials. However, the Supreme Court has nevertheless ruled since 1950 that such bodies may in fact limit the distribution of materials, if such a limitation is not based on the content of those materials and does not imply a complete impediment to any separate means of distribution. They may e.g., limit the spreading of pamphlets to certain hours for reasons of public order. Subarticle 2 has the same arrangement for television and radio broadcasts. Subarticle 3, added in 1983, gives a general right of expression, for those cases neither printed nor broadcasted information is involved; this includes the freedom of speech. Again, no censorship is ever allowed, BUT the right can otherwise be limited by formal law; explicitly mentioned in subarticle 3 is the possibility to limit the viewing of movies by minors under the age of sixteen. Although no delegation is possible, lower bodies may limit the exercise of the right for reasons of public order if such limitations are not based on the content of the expressed views. Subarticle 4 states that commercial advertising is not protected by article 7. The Dutch constitution does not contain a freedom of gathering of information.
Why does the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Scientists give a standing O for a documentary on American cruelty while freeing Afghanistan from a millennium old fanatic religious fascism of murder and intolerance, but when a documentary is made of that which powers that intolerance......I hear a silence in LA, a silence from from the Spielberg's, from the Sheen's, a silence from those who crow about the fascism of a government which can promise no harm to them, and would never dare.
The cowards who complain about our exceptional failures to live up to double standards are silent in the face of angering those who WOULD harm them for making freedom of speech blasphemy in their eyes.
They complain in the face of no risk and are silent in the face of brutal suppression by worldwide threats of murder in the name of god, and the western govts are filled with risk averse appeasing buffoons.
http://sioe.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/stop-the-demonizing-of-geert-wilders/
Anti-Quran Film to Air in Netherlands
Protesters already have torched Dutch flags in Afghanistan ahead of a new Dutch film portraying Islam's holy book as a "fascist" text that incites violence and preaches the oppression of women and homosexuals.
A Dutch Cabinet minister postponed his trip to Somalia on Friday due to "specific threats" linked to the film, and the Dutch government has urged lawmaker Geert Wilders to scrap his film for the safety of its citizens abroad.
But Wilders said Monday he has begun negotiations with Dutch broadcasters about airing the 15-minute film, "Fitna." He said he will only allow them to show it in its entirety, and if they refuse, he plans to show it to the media and post it on the Internet.
"We have never learned to be intolerant toward people who are intolerant toward us, toward cultures that are intolerant toward us," he said in a recent Associated Press interview.
The right-wing legislator previously warned of a "tsunami" of Islam swamping the Netherlands and said Muslims should tear up half of the Quran if they want to live here.
Wilders has lived under round-the-clock security since the 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by an Islamic radical enraged by his short film, "Submission," a fictional study of abused Muslim women with scenes of near-naked women with Quranic texts engraved on their flesh.
The film "Fitna" — an Arabic word meaning discord — puts the centuries-old Dutch traditions of religious tolerance and freedom of speech on a collision course.
If it airs, Dutch Muslims are expected to file criminal complaints for racial or religious vilification. Prosecutors would then have to decide whether to charge Wilders with any offense.
"Our law is very clear — anybody can make a film. We have freedom of expression and you cannot restrict that," says Moroccan-born Sadik Harchaoui, chief of the Forum Institute for Multicultural Development.
"Can you offend people? The answer is yes. I'm not saying you should do it or it is desirable, but you can," he added. "But if the film is insulting and preaches hate, then the law has to take action."
The Dutch government says it cannot ban the film but is attempting to distance itself from Wilders, the leader of the Freedom Party, which holds nine of Parliament's 150 seats.
"It is our responsibility to make clear to everyone that the views and actions of this one elected representative are not those of the government," Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende told reporters last week. "We defend the core values of freedom and respect. We guarantee freedom of expression and of religion, for Muslims as for everyone else."
Already the film has provoked reactions from Damascus, Tehran and other capitals of predominantly Muslim countries.
Pakistan's government ordered Internet providers to restrict access to YouTube, allegedly to prevent Pakistanis from accessing a clip of Wilders in which he makes derogatory remarks about Islam. The move inadvertently caused a brief worldwide outage of the video sharing site.
In Afghanistan, protesters set fire to Dutch flags over the weekend and Islamic clerics called for the withdrawal of Dutch troops.
NATO's Dutch secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, says he too is worried about the "potentially serious consequences" for alliance troops in Afghanistan, where 1,500 Dutch troops serve in the NATO-led force in the volatile south.
"If they are put in the line of fire because of the film, I am concerned," he told Dutch television news show "Buitenhof."
De Hoop Scheffer says people around the world, including some in the U.S. administration, have been asking him about the film.
So far, the reaction among the 850,000 Muslims living in this country of 16 million has been muted, but the Dutch government has warned municipalities to be on alert for rioting if and when the film appears.
The moderate National Moroccan Council has said it is trying to "neutralize the threat" posed by the film, but cannot rule out violence at home.
"We will have succeeded if, after the film, Mr. Wilders is frustrated," chairman, Mohamed Rabbae said at a news conference in January. "If he sees there are no riots and Muslims are cleverer and more democratic than he thinks."
***************
A while ago, I read a comment from a Dutch citizen claiming that Geert, as MP is entitled to equal access to state run media for programming of his choice.
Post a Comment