Professor Mr. Ellian of legal philosophy at Leiden University in the Wallstreet Journal:
“The issue isn’t really Mr. Wilders’s movie, or whether it incites hatred (..) It’s whether we are capable of defending our values against the intolerance of radical Muslims”.
“Some people wanted “Fitna” banned before seeing it. That’s disconcerting. Dutch law prohibits a priori censorship”
“(Wilders) outrageous remarks have stirred a constructive discussion about the Quran and Islam in the Netherlands that is more vigorous than in any Western or, for that matter, Muslim country. And uncomfortable as they may be for Dutch Muslims, they help them view their religion in a more critical light”
“The Western world long ago learned to criticize, even mock, religion. Think of such movies as “The Life of Brian” and “The Da Vinci Code” or more serious texts on Christianity by Nietzsche, whose famous phrase “God is Dead” is part of popular culture. Competition of ideas is fundamental to the Western way of life. The Islamic world isn’t accustomed to such discussions”
Professor Mr. Ellian of legal philosophy at Leiden University in the Wallstreet Journal:
“The issue isn’t really Mr. Wilders’s movie, or whether it incites hatred (..) It’s whether we are capable of defending our values against the intolerance of radical Muslims”.
“Some people wanted “Fitna” banned before seeing it. That’s disconcerting. Dutch law prohibits [...]
Comments
@ 04:55
In an important judgement on a case dealing with religious freedom of speech in the High Court on 23rd July 1999, Lord Justice Sedley quoted Socrates and two famous Quakers when he declared: “The irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and provocative have a right to be heard.”
The corporate and state organs have no right to decide on our behalf what we should read, watch, or hear, even if we find the material objectionable.
The removal of Fitna from various webhosts was nothing but pre-emptive censorship!
@ 06:29
The “Fitna” incident brings into question the scope of western values, rather than their validity. For years, the idea of “universality” has been used light-handedly in western cultures, especially when applied to shared values. We believe that certain rights are “universal”, such as freedom of speech. But then, we come face to face with cultures in which different, and often conflicting values are held as being fundamental. These are cultures that, when compared to the West, are founded on much more hierarchical structures, based on respect to elders and institutions, especially religious ones. In their contexts, freedom of speech may not be a fundamental value, and probably it’s not even a desirable one. So maybe we should re-examine the true meaning of universality. Yes, freedom of speech is at the roots of *our* western societies… but we must be ready to understand that other cultures are the results of different processes, and we all have to live together…