Flemming Rose, who is well-known as the editor who arranged the publication of the original batch of Mohammed cartoons, is now the foreign affairs editor of Jyllands-Posten in Denmark. Last weekend he shared a podium with Geert Wilders at the Folkemødet political conference on the island of Bornholm. During the course of the event he interviewed Mr. Wilders.
You’ll notice that this is a hard-hitting interview, but not in the usual way that Geert Wilders might expect. Flemming Rose asked Mr. Wilders some tough questions about his call to ban the Koran, which is an issue over which civil libertarians — who may otherwise agree with his stance on Islam — often part company with the leader of the PVV.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:
Below is a video of Mr. Wilders’ speech given the same day at the meeting in Bornholm:
The prepared text for the speech is available here.
The Qur’an calls for the premeditated murder without cause of those who do not believe as Mahomet does or are not as pure in their faith as Mahomet is. As premeditated murder is a capital crime, and religion is a protected class (last time I checked) then the murder of a Christian by a Muslim is a hate crime. If the muslim were to mount a defense stating that the action that is on trail was commanded by his religion as found in his holy book, then the Qur’an must be banned not only as hate speech but also as incitement to murder and those who teach from it are to be prosecuted as accessories before the fact to a hate crime murder. There are your legal grounds for the Qur’an to be banned from both publication and possession.
In the U.S. this wouldn’t meet the immediacy standard of “clear and present danger”. This issue has already appeared before the Supreme Court back when Marxists were advocating for violent revolution.
In order to ban general, non-specific, and non-immediate calls for violence in mosques, more than one Supreme Court decision would have to be overturned.
So as things are, only something like “burn the church across town now!” could be prosecuted. But as we have seen, yelling “burn this bitch down!” during a riot doesn’t get prosecuted so I see little hope that anything similar would unless it were shouted by a white male professing to be a Christian.
according to what you say, the laws are not enforced equally but only selectively. In this case, even though the Qur’an qualifies as hate speech, it has been given protected status and immunity from prosecution, as has violent Marxism which has now been embraced as the foundational tenet for the new black panthers.
May God have mercy on us and protect us from ourselves.
Wilders is a clever poker player and horse trader. You must begin from a position apparently as “extreme” (“Ban the Koran!”) as your opponent (“Kill the Infidel!”) since you need a hard bargaining stance to start with.
If the Muslims give up “Kill ther Infidel!” then I’m sure Geert would say: “Well, okay then we don’t have to ban the book The Koran since it is now no longer a threat.”
The point is to get Islam to lay down The Sword.
Until it agrees to this trade off then the West must deal with it as seriously as it deals with us.
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” puts this crucial concept perfectly.
If their book is a death threat to us, why would we allow it?
If Islam can reform out the death threat, then no ban would be needed.
Problem solved.
But without the threat to suppress such a malignant ideological playbook, why would Islam feel a need to reform?
Go Geert!
If pigs could fly.
Behead those who say, ‘BAN THE KORAN!’
If modern laws against “hate speech” are being used against the likes of Mark Steyn, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Oriana Fallaci, Michel Houllebecq and countless others, then why not against the publishers of the Koran – a text arguably much more inciteful of hatred than any of the above indiduals?!
Perhaps some funding could be crowdsourced for a good lawyer to go after a publisher of the Koran in a place with strict “hate speech” laws, such as Canada – to highlight a) the hate speech within the Koran, and b) how the Koran is given special treatment by the courts? (assuming the case is thrown out)
Banning the Koran may be a useful rhetorical meme; but it’s really beside the point. The point is the Muslims who put the Koran into bloody (and mendacious) practice. How do you “ban” millions of people? Do something similar to what the Czechs did immediately after WW2 to millions of Germans under the Benes Decrees.