That exercising a human right guaranteed by both Dutch and international law hurt their business interests?

Dutch businesses warned on Saturday that they would consider suing far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders if his anti-Islam film led to a commercial boycott of Dutch goods, while police said cars were set ablaze and graffiti called for Wilders to be killed.

“A boycott would hurt Dutch exports. Businesses such as Shell, Philips, and Unilever are easily identifiable as Dutch companies. I don’t know if Wilders is rich, or well-insured, but in case of a boycott, we would look to see if we could make him bear responsibility,” Bernard Wientjes, the chairman of the Dutch employers’ organisation VNO-NCW, told the Het Financieel Dagblad newspaper.

Better idea – sue the boycotters, and those who are stirring up REAL hatred against Holand and Wilders. After all, they are the ones who are doing the damage, not Wilders.

Unless, of course, you believe that profits trump human freedom.

UPDATE: Looks like the Dimmification of Holland continues.

The ambassadors of 26 Islamic countries want the Netherlands to investigate whether the film Fitna made by Dutch right-wing populist MP Geert Wilders can be banned. They asked Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen whether it is possible to start legal proceedings against the anti-Islam film. The meeting at the ministry in The Hague was attended by ambassadors of countries including Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Mr Verhagen told the 26 ambassadors he was pleased that responses from the Muslim world up to now had been moderate. He said the public prosecutor was investigating whether any offence had been committed, and the Dutch government clearly distanced itself from the film.

At the same time he called on the ambassadors to ensure Dutch citizens and organisations abroad were protected. "Let's keep heads cool and relations warm," he added. "We know about the concerns and feelings about this film among the international Muslim community, but hurt feelings must never be an excuse for aggression and threats."

I guess the real answer is that Wilders isn't likely to kill anyone, but the most vocal opponents of the film are. As a result, Wilders' rights are the one to be suppressed. See why the Second Amendment is in the US Constitution?

H/T HotAir

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

I will not submit. I will join the international movement to see that Geert Wilders' documentary, Fitna, is freely available.

Here is the Torrent link to the movie.

I have not watched the movie. I may not watch the movie. But I will do my part to help prevent the suppression of the movie.

Bravo to LiveLeak for upholding the same principle.

Free speech trumps the right not to be offended.

UPDATE: The torrent link still works, but LiveLeak was forced to drop their hosting of Fitna. Their statement is as follows.

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.

Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

Seems to me that a certain segment of the Islamic community just proved Geert Wilders' point -- aided and abetted by certain elements of the liberal media. Good going, Islamo-Fascist scum!

Fortunately, another source exists for the video.

Freedom of speech will not be stopped by seventh-century barbarism.

H/T Michelle Malkin, Hot Air

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, D equals S, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Rant It Up, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 4 kb.

Now a Muslim group is seeking to ban ANOTHER film because they are offended by its depiction of Muhammad.

The only problem is that the film depicts a historical fact attested to in Muslim writings about the life of Muhammad that are considered to be authoritative by islamic scholars.

Former Dutch Labor party politician Ehsan Jami, founder of the Committee of ex-Muslims, said he has produced an anti-Muslim cartoon that will show a sexually aroused prophet Mohammed with his nine-year-old wife. The film is to be released next month and will be called "The Life of Mohammed."

A group of Muslims has seen the film and is going to court in an effort to ban it from being shown, citing it as unacceptable and offensive. Jami said the film would be more shocking than the Danish cartoons two years ago that showed Mohammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban.

Now, some might be offended by the notion of Muhammad sexually aroused -- and given the special liberties he was permitted to take with women due to his status as Prophet, I can't understand why a Muslim would be -- but this is documented in islam's own religious texts. And lest any Muslim think that we Christians would never be subjected to such treatment of Jesus, might I offer the example of the movie The Last Temptation of Christ? Despite its heretical and ahistorical approach to Christ's sexuality, Christians were expected to tolerate the showing of the film, including on the campuses of publicly funded colleges and universities using mandatory student fees. Similarly, murder was not the response to the play Corpus Christi -- there were protests, but no significant acts of violence, and threats made over the film were universally denounced by Christian leaders.

In short, when will Muslims grow up and recognize that human rights trump their desire to have non-Muslims accord the same level of respect and reverence to those things that Muslims hold sacred? That is not a requirement in the free world -- even if it might be in the Muslim world.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, D equals S, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Rant It Up, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:54 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 4 kb.

Can we simply abolish the whole organization now, and deport all its staff from the US, and allow the headquarters to become a crack house, brothel, or overgrown vacant lot -- something of greater social utility than the UN itself? The main "human rights" body of the UN has come out against the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion when Muslims take offense.

The top U.N. rights body on Thursday passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging governments to prohibit it.

The European Union said the text was one-sided because it primarily focused on Islam.

The U.N. Human Rights Council, which is dominated by Arab and other Muslim countries, adopted the resolution on a 21-10 vote over the opposition of Europe and Canada.

EU countries, including France, Germany and Britain, voted against. Previously EU diplomats had said they wanted to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech.

The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

Although the text refers frequently to protecting all religions, the only religion specified as being attacked is Islam, to which eight paragraphs refer.

Interesting how "respect for religion" is defined as "respect for Islam" in this document. Never mind that particular strains of Islam have been a violent pox upon human civilization for most of my lifetime -- we are not supposed to criticize the very elements of Islam that the terrorists themselves use to justify their acts of murder and mayhem. Odd, isn't it, that the UN Human Rights Suppression committee cannot be bothered to denounce the anti-Semitism rife in the Muslim world -- and within the tenets of the Islamic faith itself as defined by the Qu'ran and hadiths.

Heck, maybe these folks will merit serious consideration when they condemn the Islamic practice of killing or imprisoning those who attempt to leave Islam for another religion that better meets their spiritual needs -- or the practice of Saudi Arabia in banning all non-Muslim worship in the country. But then again, maybe such condemnations would constitute "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

And the timing of this action -- coinciding with the release of Geert Wilder' Fitna, is transparently an attempt to suppress his human rights.

I wonder -- does this mean my website is now officially condemned by the UN?

MORE AT Hot Air, who notes the following provisions from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Interestingly enough, the Secretary General of the UN has expressed his belief that these rights, though expressed in absolute terms since the earliest days of the UN, really are not implicated by the ongoing attempt by extremist Muslims (and non-extremist Muslims) and their craven dhimmis to prohibit expression of speech that disturbs Muslim sensibilities.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday condemned as “offensively anti-Islamic” a Dutch lawmaker’s film that accuses the Koran of inciting violence.

Ban acknowledged efforts by the government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of the film, which was launched by Islam critic Geert Wilders over the Internet, and appealed for calm to those “understandably offended by it.”

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

Interestingly enough, Wilders' film is not an incitement to violence -- but the words of those who have threatened violence as a response to this film (and to previous "offenses" such as the Muhammad cartoons or Benedict XVI's quoting of a Byzantine Emperor) do fall under that rubric. Where is Ban Ki-moon's condemnation of the actual threats of violence and the vitriol that accompanies it, rather than speech that the UN's own documents declares to be a human right.

Now we know why the 9/11 hijackers didn't target the UN Headquarters on 9/11 -- that organization is already in the pocket of al-Qaeda.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, D equals S, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Rant It Up, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 845 words, total size 7 kb.

CHAPTER 28
1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.
2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.
3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.
4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.
5 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.
6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”
8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.
10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 1 kb.

But with one minor proviso.

They must embrace key tenets of Islam and reject key tenets of Christianity.

No churches should be permitted in Saudi Arabia, unless Pope Benedict XVI recognised the prophet Mohammed, according to a Middle East expert.

While Saudi mediators are working with the Vatican on negotiations to allow places of religious worship, some experts believe it will not occur without this recognition.

Anwar Ashiqi, president of the Saudi centre for Middle East strategic studies, endorsed this view in an interview on the site of Arab satellite TV network, al-Arabiya on Thursday.

"I haven taken part in several meetings related to Islamic-Christian dialogue and there have been negotiations on this issue," he said.

"It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognise the prophet Mohammed."

"If they don't recognise him as a prophet, how can we have a church in the Saudi kingdom?"

Ashiqi's comments came after a declaration launched by the papal nuncio of the Persian Gulf, the archbishop Mounged El-Hachem, at the opening of the first Catholic church in Qatar last week.

The prelate had announced the launch of "treaties to construct a church in Saudi Arabia where it is banned to practise whatever religion they want outside Islam".

El-Hachem estimated three to four million Christians in the Saudi kingdom who want to have a church.

Let's see -- accepting Muhammad as a prophet would also require rejecting the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Oh, and also his divinity. In other words, Christians can have churches in Saudi Arabia just as soon as they apostasize and become Muslims.

Of course, that would means that there would be no need for Christian churches in Saudi Arabia. But then again, that is the Muslim view of religious freedom -- if you aren't Muslim, you have none.

Isn't it a wonderful insult for the Saudis to throw at the Christian world in the midst of the holiest season of the Christian faith?

Posted by: Greg at 06:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
Oh! Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they crucified my Lord?

Were you there when they nailed Him to the tree?
Were you there when they nailed Him to the tree?
Oh! Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they nailed Him to the tree?

Were you there when they laid Him in the tomb?
Were you there when they laid Him in the tomb?
Oh! Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they laid Him in the tomb?

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Another author has had to go into hiding in the face of death threats from the followers of the Religion of Peace.

BANGLADESHI writer Taslima Nasreen has left India after being hounded into hiding by death threats from Islamic extremists, her publisher and friends say.

"Taslima Nasreen flew out of New Delhi this afternoon to Europe for medical treatment,'' her publisher Sibani Mukherjee said.

She said Nasreen had asked her not to reveal the author's exact destination.

Close friends also told said she had left India, and some Indian television stations reported that Nasreen was headed for Canada.

Nasreen was forced to flee Bangladesh in 1994 after radical Muslims accused her of blasphemy over her novel Lajja (Shame') - which depicts the life of a Hindu family persecuted by Muslims in Bangladesh.

The 45-year-old gynaecologist-turned-author - whose predicament is similar to that of Indian-born British author Salman Rushdie - had been seeking permanent residence in India, where she moved after spending time in Europe and the United States.

But New Delhi had stalled the request, fearful of a backlash from the country's 140 million-plus Muslims, and has given the openly atheistic author only six-month visas.

Why the outrage over Nasreen's writings? is it because it depicts untruths about Islam? No -- it is because it depicts the truth about the status of religious minorities in Islamic societies. And an unflattering truth about Islam cannot be allowed to go unchallenged-- and those who speak such truths cannot be allowed to go unmurdered.

Personally, I would welcome Nasreen in this country -- not because I agree with her atheistic beliefs (non-beliefs?), but because I believe in her undeniable right to hold and express them freely. Indeed, there was a time that the "offenses" committed by Nasreen were considered to be human rights, and Western nations (even non-Western nations) sought to protect those who exercised those rights. Today, fear of Islamic terrorism leads many nations to back down or remain silent in the face of Islamic demands for the murder of those whose only crime is exercising their human rights.

But the threats of those who would kill Taslima Nasreen for the crime of speaking and writing freely once again leads to a choice between two strikingly sad realities -- either Islam is incompatible with human freedom, or it teaches that Muslims are not human beings.

Posted by: Greg at 08:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.