Dutch raise terror alert over anti-Islam film

theCops
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-03-05
User is offlineOffline
Dutch raise terror alert over anti-Islam film

Associated Free Press wrote:
THE HAGUE (AFP) — The international uproar about the planned release of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch far-right MP prompted the Netherlands to raise its terrorism alert level on Thursday.

"While there are no concrete indications of impending attacks in the Netherlands, the increased international terrorism threat has prompted to raise the threat level for the Netherlands from 'limited' to 'substantial'," the justice ministry said.

One of the main reasons for the raising of the alert level is the plan by far right deputy Geert Wilders to air his short movie -- which he says attacks the Koran as a "fascist book" -- in March.

"Compounding the threat is the fact that the Netherlands has been cast in a negative light in the Islamic world due to the tone of the debate on Islam in this country, especially since the announcement of a controversial film on the Koran," the ministry explained.

The international media attention for Wilders movie "has led to the posting of death threats against the Freedom Party leader on one of the leading international jihadist web forums", according to the national anti-terrorism coordinator NCTb.

The Wilders film has caused uproar in Muslim countries, some of whom have called for an economic boycott of the Netherlands if the film is shown. Iran, Egypt and Pakistan all voiced criticism about the film.

In Afghanistan hundreds of protesters took to the streets Wednesday to protest the film, whilst the Taliban has already vowed revenge against the 1,600 Dutch soldiers stationed in the country if the movie is shown.

The Dutch government has twice tried and failed to convince Wilders not to broadcast his film, fearing a repeat of the worldwide protests which met the publication of satirical Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.

It has already warned its embassies in Muslim countries to be on the alert.

On Wednesday Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen met with ambassadors from 30 Muslims countries at the request of the Organisation for the Islamic Conference (OIC) to explain The Hague's stance about the film.

The Dutch government says it supports Wilders right to freedom of expression but stressed that does not mean The Hague shares his opinions.

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said last Friday that the government has tried to show Wilders "the possible consequences of his actions".

"Already we have to consider there are serious risks for Dutch nationals and Dutch businesses in several countries. It is our duty to point this out to Mr. Wilders," Balkenende said.

But Wilders, whose Freedom Party holds 9 of the 150 parliamentary seats, has said repeatedly he will not bow to pressure.

The deputy is still trying to find a broadcaster to air his film but De Volkskrant newspaper reported Thursday that no Dutch television station had agreed to air it.

It is likely that Wilders will present the film at a press conference and on the Internet on the website www.fitnathemovie.com which he has already reserved. It is due to be aired before the end of this month

The film, which lasts around 15 minutes, is called "Fitna", which in Arabic means war, or division, in the heart of Islam.

The film has yet to be shown to the public, but a Dutch newspaper which has seen excerpts said it showed Koranic texts with video footage of beheadings.

The UN and NATO have both expressed concerns about the film while the European Commission has warned its overseas offices of the risk of protests related to Wilders' movie.

Ok, obviously this is one extremist being extreme, and I doubt anyone thinks all muslims are inevitably extremist in their views as this film might want you to think.

What I'd like to see from a community made up of atheists is your views on free speech, particularly whether or not to allow hate speech from either side of this, which is likely to shape up to be a disaster. Is it just to ban free speech in this form? Should action be taken against those who provoke by offending, and/or those who are "reacting" to being offended?

I'm of the persuasion that banning hate speech is to allow someone to decide for you what's hateful and what isn't, being the government or some other sub-section of the community.

That seems wrong to me, as the most likely individual to decide what's hateful and what isn't is no one but the individual. Not only that, I doubt some law of western liberal democracy is going to be much of a deterrent to the most committed Islamic fundamentalist.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3949
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Threats

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I consider this an obstacle

I consider this an obstacle and restriction to free speech that is solely motivated by the anticipated violence from uberreligious Islamists it will elicit. This is one of the actual problems of terrorism that doesn't just have to do with violence, but the terror of future threats of violence when someone speaks against the beliefs of those insecure delusionists.

The thing that struck me as completely ridiculous were the first few lines:

"The international uproar about the planned release of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch far-right MP prompted the Netherlands to raise its terrorism alert level on Thursday.

"While there are no concrete indications of impending attacks in the Netherlands, the increased international terrorism threat has prompted to raise the threat level for the Netherlands from 'limited' to 'substantial'," the justice ministry said."

These arbitrary threat levels serve no real purpose other than to ratchet up fear and abdicate the responsibility of the government in question with regard to future violence. Possible future apology of "We said there was a substantial terrorist threat and unfortunately we were right." The US is currently at at an elevated alert level in the terror alert system that goes from low>guarded>elevated>severe. I don't think the US has been at a level below elevated since the inception of the system a few years ago. If you are citizen that believes you are at a constant elevated risk of terrorists attacking you, then you have already given them the power of creating the terror by creating a system in which you can calculate the amount of fear one should realistically have on a daily basis.

Here is the Department of Homeland Security's own website what to do to prevent attacks.

http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/programs/Copy_of_press_release_0046.shtm

"All Americans should continue to be vigilant, take notice of their surroundings, and report suspicious items or activities to local authorities immediately"

Very Gestapoesque indeed.

 

 

 

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


Fanas
Posts: 249
Joined: 2008-03-27
User is offlineOffline
I am angry about the view on

I am angry about the view on islamic terrorism. When those cartoons were released all those protests should have been dealt with force. By force i mean deadly force.

If i were in command then i would have given ten minutes to go back home and then shoot everyone who still protests dead.

Such a terrorism in the name of god is unforgivable.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
I've just finished reading

I've just finished reading While Europe Slept
It may be because I've just read the book (sometimes a book gets you fired up and it takes a while for the dust to settle and doubt/scepticism to sink in) but it's left me with the impression that Radical Islam is Europe's spoilt child.
A spoilt child will demand from it's parents and expect these demands to be met.
Failure to do so will result in a temper tantrum.
If the parents appease and give in, the child, rather than making concessions in return, is likely to take advantage and demand even more. The more they are accustomed to demanding and receiving, the more throwing tantrums helps their cause, the more that they will do it.

Europe has spent the last 20 or so years appeasing the extreme muslims.
(And thereby neglecting the moderate muslims who wished to prosper as part of our society rather than try and dominate it)
I agree with Fanas that we should have had zero tolerance to these riots. (although maybe not lethal force - I'd've settled for rubber bullets and tear gas)
Riots in history have been justified when the people are so oppressed that there are no other options for them to take. (i.e. the government persecutes opposition)
The actions of Islamists have simply been to try and terrorize people they don't like into submission.

That's why it disappoints me that European leaders still try appeasement rather than strongly standing up for western values, the values that they claim to be standing up for when they do this appeasing.