The above quote is from Wilders. It's in the video. Watch the video.
There is a problem here, and it could result from one of three things,
1) Wilders could not come up with the right words, as he is not speaking his native language
2) Wilders has never quite thought the problem through before
3) Wilders would actually promote the prosecuction of thought crime ("if you start thinking about Jihad or Sharia")
Note the interview is from just two days ago. If this is the best Wilders can do, then he is certainly not the leader to help us deal with Islam.
I do believe that we might find ourselves in a position where we would have to deport many Muslims.
However, if we were to have to resort to such a method, we can not deport them because they are Muslims, but because they are attempting to overthrow the Constitution of the United States of America.
We need to tighten up the Sedition laws, so that Sharia and Jihad are declared to be what they are;
We need to tighten up the Sedition laws, so that Sharia and Jihad are declared to be what they are;
Sedition.
Anyone who is convicted of advocating Jihad or Sharia ought to be arrested, tried for their crime, and then given an option, if convicted, of whether to spend their lives in prison, or be deported to the Sharia state of their choice.
Wilders is a legislator, and yet, he doesn't bother proposing any specific law here. He just
speaks vaguely about what amounts to thought crime.
As I said, if this is the best Wilders can do, he is not the man to lead us.
Anyone who is convicted of advocating Jihad or Sharia ought to be arrested, tried for their crime, and then given an option, if convicted, of whether to spend their lives in prison, or be deported to the Sharia state of their choice.
Wilders is a legislator, and yet, he doesn't bother proposing any specific law here. He just
speaks vaguely about what amounts to thought crime.
As I said, if this is the best Wilders can do, he is not the man to lead us.
26 comments:
"If you start thinking about Jihad or Sharia, then, it's very clear ... we will strip you of your Danish nationality, and we will send you away ..."
I support Wilders. He is correct. No problem with the wording here.
Jihad is incompatible with the Netherlands constitution. Wilders understands sedition.
Shari'a & Jihad are not welcome. The muslim population must choose either to assimilate to Netherland's constitutional equalities which requires the muslim discard Shari'a and jihad or by default, repatriate to the jihad/shari'a friendly nation of their ancestors.
HRW
HRW,
You don't support convicting people of thought crime.
Wilders needs to be more specific. If you were meeting up with him to represent you as an attorney, and he was this vague in his pronouncements on the law, you would never hire him.
He does need to be more specific here. "If you start thinking about Jihad or Sharia..." sounds like an imprecise try at colloquialism in what is not Wilders' first language. That and probably a reluctance to discuss the likelihood of mass deportations in the first place.
"If you start advocating/promoting/taking action to bring about the violent overthrow (jihad) of the government in order to replace it with a theocracy (Sharia)...", we are going to arrest you, try you, and if you are found guilty we are going to deport your sorry ass, or words to that effect ("sorry ass" being optional) is what is needed here. Such action on a large scale is still in the future, by the ground rules need to be laid down clearly in the event it should come to that. Because if it does, things will be bad enough without having "thought crimes" getting into the mix.
RRA,
Yes, I think it is possible he was playing with colloquialisms which do not translate.
Who knows?
I think you said it better than I.
In Feb '08 I traveled to The Netherlands, on business, and the little I saw was frankly scary.
He says "i have nothing against Muslims"....wants to ban immigration.
That journalist was a jerk, he would fit in well at MSDNC.
I believe the word "thinking" was used in terms of acts, conspiracies, etc.
Remember on social policy he is quite libertarian and he is talking about the EU phenomena, not the USA.
As for our country, I agree with you but prosecutions and surveillance of mosques have already been discontinued by the Great Reader's Justice Dept.
He's left too much room .. language, coverage, reporter's bias, who knows... but it demonstrates how important public perception is ..
If you act on behalf of jihad, or by words cause others to act ... in a cause to kill, to terrorize and destroy America and her ideals, and her constitution
BYE BYE.
Otherwise, if you are here, you get the protections of all.
These are ABSOLUTELY not the acts of those Wilson went after in 1917-18.
These would be the acts of German saboteurs, IF they also wanted to expressly murder Americans ESPECIALLY women and children.
These people are well outside the bell curve of legal expectations
Advocating for jihad or Sharia law in a Western nation should be grounds for an immigrant, naturalized or not, to be deported to his/her country of origin. But deportation is only a side issue. The real issue is Muslim immigration: It needs to be stopped ASAP and hopefully all serious anti-jihadists can agree about that. Why worry about deporting a handful of radicals when we're still admitting millions of Muslims into the West, most of whom probably support the jihad and Sharia but are smart enough not to get themselves deported by blabbing incessantly about it.
Carlos,
The explanation you offer up for Wilders statement sounds plausible to me.
Unfortunately, he will be called to account for this statement by much harsher critics than I. It would have been better for him, and for our whole movement, if he had not used such slippery language in the first place.
That is why I say, if this is the best he can do, then he is not the person to lead us against the Jihad.
I really do have to wonder if this is the result of a lack of proficiency in English.
It's probably very hard to be precise when you are not speaking your native tongue.
Pastorius - per your e-mail & question above -
No I do not support 'thought crime' legislation and though I cannot speak for Wilders, I doubt that is his intention.
In simplest terms, Universal human rights must be the lone standard in all Western democracies. Find the legal terminology/phraseology in the source document.
Wilders clearly states that he welcomes muslims who assimilate (though in this speech IIRC, he used the term 'integrate' while in other speeches he used the term 'assimilate') when those muslims accept their place as equals on every level in Dutch (Western) society and fully accept/adhere to the law of the land.
The issue of 'thought crime' comes to play when the laws of the land do not adequately address the inherent seditious nature of the Islamic belief system.
I'm not a lawyer, so bear with me.
Is shari'a &/or jihad compatable with the US constitution?
Short answer from a non-lawyer. . .no.
The Constitution establishes protections/'rights' for individuals - not for 'belief systems'. Islam should not be entitled to special protections.
Without special protections, Islam's strength is limited.
The Cairo Declaration of human rights has no place in western democracies.
***********
HRW
HRW,
I agree. I think it is unlikely Wilders would support prosecution for thought crimes.
If the laws of the land do not adequately deal with the inherent violation of human rights from Sharia and Jihad, then Wilders, as a legislator and MP ought to deal with the issue in legal terms.
Honestly, I can not figure out what went wrong in this interview. He could be confused with the language. He could have gotten befuddled because of the barrage of questions. Or, sadly, he may just never have thought the legal implications through.
If that is the case, he is not the first politician to go off half-cocked.
But, he needs to be better than the average politician for the task at hand.
This is a problem that will require a mind like Lincoln or Churchill.
Well, Pastorius, what you're advocating is not practical either. The status quo where the US is dealing with a small number of declared fundamentalists has already tied up the courts, the police, the FBI, the CIA, and what have you. Now when you scale up and put thousands, tens of thousands under trial for sedition, where are you going to house them all? And does the US even have the manpower to investigate each of them individually? And how many years will it take to prosecute thousands? The whole thing will just be one giant economic Jihad. Are US taxpayers willing to bear this economic burden? The only practical bloodless way to secure the nation for good is to summarily expel them all.
Abu Abdullah,
Let's face it, Wilders method is what will, indeed, happen, if we wait until the last minute to solve the problem.
I don't think it is the last minute, and neither does Wilders, who estimates we are "four minutes to midnight."
The reality is, we are about 10-15 years away from his fear target of 20-30% Muslims in the major cities.
Now, that being said, we have a real problem on our hands.
What I have advocated in the past, what makes sense to me (with my admittedly lame understanding of law and the Constitution) is something like this,
1) poll the Muslim population to find out what percentage of Muslims desire Sharia
2) combine this information with a study of the radicalization of Mosques, a la the Freedom House study, thereby coming to an understanding of where the radicalization of the Islamic population is emanating from
3) you will get, I believe, results that will show that somewhere between 15-45% of Muslims in any given country will declare their desire to see Sharia instilled as the law of the land
4) figure out how many total Muslims want Sharia (in a country like America, that would mean between 400,000 - 1.6 million, depending upon which population estimate you are using)
5) divide that number by 1000
6) target 4000-16000 total Muslims who are in positions of power, and who are using those positions of power to clearly advocate for the imposition of Sharia law in the U.S.
7) designate them as threats to the nation at War.
8) military tribunals
9) give them the option of incarceration for the rest of their lives or deportation to the Sharia state of their choice
10) watch the population of islamic leaders and rabble rousers in the aftermath of the first set of prosecutions, find the trouble makers, and prosecute them,
11) rinse and repeat ad nauseum, until you have done away with the problem.
Now, my idea is a half-baked idea. I am no great legal mind. I have little understanding of the Constitution.
BUT, my idea is much better than,
"If you start thinking about Jihad or Sharia, then, it's very clear ... we will strip you of your Danish nationality, and we will send you away ..."
isn't it?
Wilders articulates culturist policy well.
The Constitution PROHIBITS punishing those who COMMIT NO ACT
The Constitution PROHIBITS acting against a religion
The cure would be worse than the disease
We must find another way
There are several paths available.
So let me ask you this...cultural defenders of various ilk ...
HOW
MANY
CHILDREN
DO
YOU
HAVE?
Put your schvantz where your mouth is ....so to speak.
Defend the culture.
Here in America, our main demographic war is with Latino / Mexican folk. There is no way we out populate them or win a demographic war.
Being practical, the thing to do is to assimilate; to teach the virtues of America and our history, to have policies that do not reward (especially in schools) early pregnancy in the name of a responsible work ethic.
MANY folks of Mexican / hispanic heritage are WONDERFUL citizens. We do not need to reify "us good - them bad" and assume hostility. That is racist. We need to work on each other in the name of America. That is culturist.
In Europe, Wilders is right to say that the vast majority of Muslims are good, law abiding citizens. Again, stress Western history in schools. Don't give into Sharia, stop Islamic immigration and send out those planning jihad.
Much of assimilation is mental. If you target people without probable cause, you create hostility towards society. That is not the goal. Fairness and welcoming, with a clear message about the threat WE face can facilitate assimilation or adopting the Western point of view.
GOOoooOOO WEST !!!
"If you start thinking about..." implies that someone is thinking about it and thinking about following thru w/the tho't.
I've said 'I hope you're not thinking about...' when dealing w/my kids. It's a warning that you will follow thru w/punishment if they do what they are thinking. No tho't crime here.
Until we can read tho'ts, we won't know what someone thinks until they act.
Culturism does not always prescribe specific policies. Herein we have a culturist debate. And, it is very sensitive to the need to not undermine western values of free speech in the name of free speech. I would like to thing the book culturism takes this on well and errs on the side of free speech.
Culturism does provide some general truths. One is that if you have large amounts of people coming from another culture it will impact and change yours. If we had no Islamic immigration we'd have no Patriot Act. In NYC bags on subways are subject to search. Why? A terrorist / muslim threat.
Culturism also recognizes that rights are not decontextualized universal truths. They require a functioning society. In times of war, rights in democracies always get compromised. Herein is the debate. My personal culturist interpretation is that we are now, in the USA, far from needing to deport folks for thought crimes.
To the extent possible we must avoid abusing freedom to uphold freedom. Immigration laws are the key to keeping it that way. And, were there more terrorism, the clock would be sped up. Now the key is to stop immigration, follow only those for whom you have probable cause and treat all others fairly.
In Europe, I am not sure. But, we are on the same side. These are culturist debates. The principles / spectrum, remain the same in any situation.
Epa,
"Put your schwantz where you mouth is."
I've tried. Can't do it. If I could, I wouldn't have a blog.
;-)
or a job
But think of the business chiropractors would have
Epa,
Yes, then we would need the Obama Osteopathy Care Plan.
By the way, clearly, I think the threat in the United States is worse than Epa believes. I do not believe we will be able to sit comfortably and assimilate. Nor do I believe that a "gentleman, start up your schwatzes" approach will work.
I think we have tens of thousands of dangerous radicals living here already. The question is, at what point would they feel it necessary to activate themselves?
The silly 11 step idea I posted above would seem necessary only in the wake of a massive terrorist WMD attack.
One thing I did not make clear (look at that, I'm guilty of not being clear, just like Wilders ;-) is, the reason I think you take the total number of Sharia advocates and divide by 1000, because I believe we have so many radicals in the country already that it would be impossible to actually round them all up and ship them out.
Instead, I think we would just have to enact some sort of policy that would make it clear that there is no reward in being a active radical. And therefore, I would say, we'd have to target a very large round number, and then rinse and repeat as necessary, as a way of showing our intolerance for their intolerance.
It's like on the battlefield, nothing will frighten the enemy into submission more than a dominating display of willful disregard for the humanity of the enemy. This is why wars culminate in acts like Atlanta, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. At that point, the enemy realizes you mean business and you will stop at nothing.
The 11 step thing I posted above is designed with that thought. If we were to pick a big round number and display willful disregard for the humanity of the radicals and their families, we would show we mean business.
I'm sure there are many who would assert that our willful disregard would drive them to display a willful disregard for us. I would remind those that such action would only be taken in the wake of a massive terrorist WMD attack. And, I would remind those people that the idea is to start out with one big, round number, and then do it again and again, until the radicals are quieted.
Culturist John,
Yes, Wilders is a Culturist. I do not think he is a racist, fascist bigot.
However, I do think that it is possible that sometimes sloppy thinking can lead to fascist policy. I think Wilders ideas here, if he were actually to try to implement them the way he articulates them, would be fascism.
As Epa said, "The Constitution PROHIBITS punishing those who COMMIT NO ACT. The Constitution PROHIBITS acting against a religion."
While Culturism as a body of ideas may choose to stand back and look at the broad picture, Policy has to work according to law and the agreed upon standard of Human Rights.
I absolutely agree that one practical step we could take would be to emphasize our history and culture in the classroom.
By the way, as a Culturist, I would assume you are pro-Public School, and against the whole "vouchers" idea. Am I right?
Sameno Kami,
Then what you are saying is that Wilders is issuing a semi-idle threat here, as in, if you continue in this fashion, I'm going to ship you out ..."
Ok, fine. I believe that might be his reasoning.
It ain't much, but ...
Problem is, he is going to be called to account for this vaguenesss.
Just you watch, this video is going to become viral among his enemies. Unless he comes with some specific ideas really fast, this video is going to be a real problem for him.
All,
We must work within the law. What is the alternative. We have legal precedent for deporting those who advocate sedition. We also could legally charge those who take a naturalization oath that precludes loyalty to foreign potentates and fealty to the Constitution with fraud.
I would not be against vouchers if the content of the schools led to a test that included significant knowledge of western heritage. I would not want public dollars going to a Madrassa.
PS For those who want to use extra-legal means, you would no longer have a government of laws. Who would you trust in our government with extra-legal powers?
Also, one of the reasons that naturalization is so awful is that no one would then have violated an oath by which we could prosecute them.
In terms of religious discrimination: 1) that applies to American citizens. You have no right to be in America if you are not American, period. 2) It is not religious discrimination to target people who advocate overthrowing the government. Even if they happen to be Islamic.
Culturist John,
You said: one of the reasons that naturalization is so awful is that no one would then have violated an oath by which we could prosecute them.
I say: I agree. I think the current immigration policies of our government are INTELLECTUAL APARTHEID.
We have a permanent underclass of citizens who do not have a foundational understanding of what it means to be America.
That is dangerous. It will lead to classist and racial division, in my opinion, and it is created by the government.
Post a Comment