babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Filmmaker in Netherlands Needs 24-hour Security

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Filmmaker in Netherlands Needs 24-hour Security
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 20 November 2005 09:18 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Times (UK):

quote:
A FILM about gay rights should hardly raise an eyebrow in the Netherlands, which for centuries has prided itself as a beacon of freedom of expression and was the first country to legalise gay marriage.

But when Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee turned Dutch MP, starts making a new film about the oppression of homosexuals under Islam, the threat to everyone taking part is deemed so great that there will be no faces shown on screen, no end credits, and the entire production team will remain anonymous. Ms Ali, a lapsed Muslim who revealed this week that she has finished the script, lives in a safe house under 24-hour protection.

[ 20 November 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 20 November 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tape_342:
Times (UK):

[ 20 November 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]



One can only hope that her body guards have been told to shoot to protect her at all costs.

From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sheriff Bart
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10979

posted 20 November 2005 01:57 PM      Profile for Sheriff Bart        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's another example of the 'Religeon Of Peace' in action. Indonesian Christian girls this time.
WARNING! These aren't very nice.

Is it time we took of the rose couloured glasses?


From: swamp | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 20 November 2005 03:37 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ummm...Hey, scuzzball, that's the work of extremists.
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 20 November 2005 03:42 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Ummm...Hey, scuzzball, that's the work of extremists.
That's Sheriff scuzzball to you!

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 November 2005 04:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey Sheriff. Any more generalizations about Muslims and you're gone. First and last warning.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
moderatsaklart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10912

posted 20 November 2005 04:32 PM      Profile for moderatsaklart        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Hey Sheriff. Any more generalizations about Muslims and you're gone. First and last warning.

Is it ok to generalize about conservatives, white men, and republicans?


From: gaia | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 20 November 2005 04:57 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by moderatsaklart:
Is it ok to generalize about conservatives, white men, and republicans?
Don't be difficult or Michelle will send you to the corner without any babble. It's the snarky 'religion of peas' comment. Apparently conservative christian white men for hundreds of years were quite content to murder FN and African people by the millions for some four hundred years through beheading, rape, burning, torture, hanging etc, but this would not entitle me to continuously call all white christians murduring psychopaths, would it?

[ 20 November 2005: Message edited by: Makwa ]


From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 20 November 2005 06:17 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

Better watch out for that shifty-eyed Pope too...religion of peace, baby!


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sheriff Bart
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10979

posted 21 November 2005 12:03 AM      Profile for Sheriff Bart        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
Don't be difficult or Michelle will send you to the corner without any babble. It's the snarky 'religion of peas' comment. Apparently conservative christian white men for hundreds of years were quite content to murder FN and African people by the millions for some four hundred years through beheading, rape, burning, torture, hanging etc, but this would not entitle me to continuously call all white christians murduring psychopaths, would it?

[ 20 November 2005: Message edited by: Makwa ]


Have any of these white men called for the death of ,say, Queen Elizabeth lately? Have they deliberately blown up any weddings lately? Does anyone need 24 hour protection from them if they voice any critisism ala the first post in this thread?
It's rare news when a moderate Muslim speaks out against the 'extremists'.
The fact that it's happened a couple of times in recent weeks is very encouraging.
It's too bad that we have to bend over backwards to be politically correct and are unable to notice the relative lack of condemnation of the 'extremists' by the moderates.
Tell me, is it just the extremist Muslims that hang homosexuals or would that be considered moderate?

[ 21 November 2005: Message edited by: Sheriff Bart ]


From: swamp | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 November 2005 12:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The swamp beckons, Sheriff. I'm sure you'll be able to find some board where this sort of rhetoric is encouraged. This isn't it. Bye.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 21 November 2005 12:48 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pat Robertson.

'nuff said.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723

posted 21 November 2005 01:43 AM      Profile for MartinArendt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmmm...I see I got to this thread too late.

Well, perhaps I shall have some peanut butter and crackers. Yum. I do so love peanut butter with crackers, particularly "TLC" crackers. The TLC stands for Tasty Little Crackers. So, I suppose, if one were to say "TLC crackers", they'd be saying the word "crackers" twice.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 21 November 2005 07:41 AM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's a sad thing that Ms. Ali needs 24h protection.
It's a sad thing that freedom of speech can cause such hatred against one.
But it's not like Ms. Ali couldn't have seen this coming... A lot of people think she's using her public position to bring her own problems with the islam under attention.
She was the one, who went to Theo van Gogh, for making the movie Submission. As some or many of you might know, Theo van Gogh was slaughtered last year by a radical muslim. The motive of the killer had been the continuing bashing of the islam by Van Gogh, mainly portrayed by the film Submission.
I'm not saying Ms.Ali is responsible for Van Gogh's death. But when I hear that's she's thinking of making a sequel to Submission, I think she hasn't learned much of last year's tragedy.
There are more subtile ways to start a conversation with muslims and try to persuade them in changes in their beliefs.
I mean, whenever you're in a discussion, trying to persuade the other side of your point of view, you don't go around insulting the other party, do you..?
But that's just my humble opinion...

From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 November 2005 10:16 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I mean, whenever you're in a discussion, trying to persuade the other side of your point of view, you don't go around insulting the other party, do you..?

I can't disagree. But have you seen the movie? Is it, in fact, insulting? Or is it just honest and critical? There's a big difference.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 21 November 2005 10:27 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not saying Ms.Ali is responsible for Van Gogh's death. But when I hear that's she's thinking of making a sequel to Submission, I think she hasn't learned much of last year's tragedy.
There are more subtile ways to start a conversation with muslims and try to persuade them in changes in their beliefs.

If some creationist stabbed someone to death for having a "Darwin fish" bumper sticker on his car, would you now be on here telling us that we "should learn from the tragedy" and stop making fun of creationists?

And I'm not trying to single out creationsists. A lot of political/religious movements have wayward yahoos who resort to violence to make their point. I'm just wondering how far you think we should go in letting the violent fringe dictate the terms of discussion.

[ 21 November 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 21 November 2005 10:58 AM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Can't say I've seen the movie, only bits of it showing naked muslim women with Koran scriptures written on their body. Don't know what's shown in the rest of the movie, but I do know that these bits are enticing enough to provoke radical muslims. Don't get me wrong: I do not approve of this, but common sense will tell you shit is gonna hit the fan if you publicly insult muslims in that way.

As for saying the same about the creationalist stabbing a Darwin-fishy-guy: that would depend on a number of conditions...
If radical-creationalism would have been a serious problem throughout the world, if a radical-creationalist had slaughtered a Darwin-fishy-guy a year before, if some Darwin-fishy-guy would have the brilliant idea of making an insulting movie about creationalism and if someone overhere came up with the idea of making a thread about it, then I'd probably say about the same, yeah...

I'm not saying that violence should dictate the discussion, au contraire, I despise that violence. But what I'm kinda trying to say is that violence can be provoked unnecessary, while other more subtile ways of achieving your goal are overlooked.

[ 21 November 2005: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 November 2005 11:03 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Don't get me wrong: I do not approve of this, but common sense will tell you shit is gonna hit the fan if you publicly insult muslims in that way.

Again: what's the insult? A naked woman in a movie? Guess what? Under their clothes, they're all naked.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 21 November 2005 11:08 AM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My opinion also, but I'm not ignoring the fact that mulims hold different values compared to Western society. Some lesser, some better, but then again: who's to judge..? And you can't force your values onto eachother, values are something you have to embrace...
"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"

[ 21 November 2005: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 November 2005 11:13 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And you can't force your values onto eachother, values are something you have to embrace...

Agreed. But I don't think making a movie about Islam "forces" anything on anyone.

We may actually be in agreement on this. I dunno. But to me, a naked woman with religious scripture written on her body is not an "insult", nor does it force anything on anyone. Don't like it? Don't look.

Personally I'm getting really sick and tired of religious wackos pretending that other people's speech, actions, art, music or words are somehow harmful to them. They need to shut the fuck up and get over themselves. It's they who need to make the concession here, not the rest of us.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 21 November 2005 11:29 AM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I know the movie doesn't force anything, but I saw a documentary the other day, about a Saudi woman. She had very close contact to the Western world, but she was reluctantly forced by her Western contacts to adopt Western values. She didn't want to, because she's from the Middle-East which has been her way of life all along. This woman is a an advocate of women-rights in Saudi-Arabia and though she wants (practically) the same as Ms. Ali (equality between men and women), she has achieved much more in Saudi-Arabia with more subtile measures, than Ms.Ali has done with her crusade against the unequality in the islam.

Most muslims abhor the acts of the radical muslims, not in the least place because all muslims are blamed for their actions.
It's indeed a very sad thing that reglion can cause such hatred and mayhem in the world...


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 21 November 2005 11:30 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But what I'm kinda trying to say is that violence can be provoked unnecessary, while other more subtile ways of achieving your goal are overlooked.

But what exactly is the goal? If you're trying to convince the kind of person who goes around stabbing filmakers that he should be more open-minded, fat chance. You MIGHT be able to avoid provoking him into another murder, but you're not gonna get him to become a more tolerant and broad-minded individual. If he believes that deliberate blasphemy is grounds for killing someone, he's not likely to give a fair hearing to the opinions of even a non-blaspheming infidel.

"You know, I was planning to stab that woman to death, but now that she's decided not to make another film, I think I should reciprocate and listen to what she has to say".

Now, if the aim is simply to prevent him from getting angry enough to commit murder, yeah, holding back on the second film might do the trick. But that's a rather limited(if laudable) goal. It's not really a question of promoting social harmony so much as it's a question of securing one's own safety.

quote:
If radical-creationalism would have been a serious problem throughout the world

However big a problem "radical Islam" may be thoughout the world, again, how do you take a more benign approach without allowing the thugs to dictate the terms of the discussion? Rushdie's Japanese translator was stabbed to death for translating the Satanic Verses. At that point, should anyone working on a Satanic Verses translation have stopped their work? That seems to be the approach you are advocating Ms. Ali take in deciding whether or not to produce another film criticizing Islam.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 21 November 2005 12:00 PM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps I'm a bit gullible, but maybe not shooting a offensive movie might prevent another stabber from standing up...?
In my opinion it's a matter of cause and consequence: If you play with fire, you can get burnt. If you get burnt, you miscalculated the risk you run. (Or am I being really narrowminded now?)
Now I'm not saying getting burned is normal or justified, but I do know common sense should have given you a hint...

From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 November 2005 12:02 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So you're suggesting that any time a wackjob murders someone over ideology, we should in fact reward them for this by giving them whatever it is they want?

That's actually a recipe for more murders, not fewer. Once word gets out that all you need to do is kill someone to get your wishes granted, you'll be repurposing stadiums as ad hoc morgues.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 21 November 2005 12:41 PM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No I'm not suggesting anything like that...
I'm trying to make clear that a different, more subtile approach might have more succes.
I mean, if a certain approach doesn't seem to work and even turns out dangerous, do you go ahead and approach it from the same angle or do you rethink your strategy..?
It doesn't get you much further by pointing fingers which side is to blame for the failing approach, what does is finding the right approach. All that matters is reaching the intended goal.
And if using more delicate measures is the only compromise needed to make, I say: "What the hey? Let's give it a go!"

And if you want my opinion on wackjob-murderers: Highest penalty possible


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 November 2005 12:55 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And if using more delicate measures is the only compromise needed to make, I say: "What the hey? Let's give it a go!"

But this isn't about "more delicate measures". This is about the wackjobs setting the terms under which they can be discussed.

A great example of this was the fatwa issued on Salman Rushdie for his supposed capital crime of "blasphemy". Is the solution to that problem to never, ever discuss Islam or Mohammed in a "blasphemous" way? Or do we say that the problem is with the zealots, not with the free speech of some writer?

I don't think the very nebulous goal of "saving a few lives" is worth having to forever censor ourselves, lest we offend some violent wacko. Let's just mop up the floor with the violent wackos whenever we get the chance, and make it as clear to them as we possibly can that we're not going to make policy based on their crimes. The instant we start holding our tongues, lest we anger them, they've effectively found success and will no doubt continue to use violent means to get their next wish fulfilled, then their next, and so on.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 21 November 2005 01:18 PM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok, you got a point there...
I do agree with you on the fact that racidal wacko's should be dealt with in the hardest way.
Just seems that our ideas seem to differ slightly on ways to prevent murders or other atrocities commited in the name of religion...
Luckily we've got that freedom to differ in opinion

From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 November 2005 02:07 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sure. My guess is that if the topic were sexual assault, and how to minimize it, you'd be quietly urging women to wear fewer miniskirts and to stop acting all flirty. As harm-reduction, of course.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 21 November 2005 02:09 PM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Geez, stop putting words in my mouth, man...
From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 November 2005 02:11 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think I made it clear that I'm guessing.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 21 November 2005 02:13 PM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Then stop guessing...
From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 November 2005 02:14 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm guessing you're all mad now. Tough.

I'll guess whatever the fuck I feel like guessing. If you don't like it, tattle to a moderator or something.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2005 02:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clog-boy:
Then stop guessing...

Welcome to Magoo, he actually is an internet version of this:

[ 21 November 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 21 November 2005 02:19 PM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Naw, I don't get mad easily
Guess what you want, go and have a fieldday, if that's what makes you happy...

From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 22 November 2005 12:17 AM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Possibly a more effective strategy than Hirsi Ali's film, if the goal is to help bring about social change.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 22 November 2005 04:03 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Naw, I don't get mad easily
Guess what you want, go and have a fieldday, if that's what makes you happy...

I think Magoo's point might have been a bit better received if instead of saying "Clogboy probably thinks that woman who wear short skirts...etc" he had said "Clogboys opinions are similar to those of people who think that woman who wear short skirts...etc".

Clogboy, I like your style. Provocative opening post, which you have defended with grace and good humour. However, in all seriousness, I'm still a little confused about your position. Are you saying that:


A. Ali should refrain from producing offensive films in order to prevent violent criminals from attacking her, or...

B. Ali should refrain from producing offensive films in order to more constructively engage the Muslim community in dialouge, or...

C. Ali should refrain from producing offensive films in order to more constructively engage the violent criminals community in dialogue.

As you've probably moticed, C is a combination of A and B, and I've included it because it really isn't clear to me whether the main target of your "accomodation" policy is the Muslim community, the violent criminals, or both.

And I agree. If the aim is to prevent further attacks against Ms. Ali, then getting her to cease the production of offensive films is a good place to start. But if the aim is to constructively engage the Muslim community in dialogue, then the actions or inactions of one filmmaker probably won't make much difference in the big picture. And if the point is to engage the criminals in dialogue, then her actions are completely irrelevant, because as I said, the kind of person who stabs someone to death over a film likely has no interest in social accomadation.

[ 22 November 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 22 November 2005 09:08 AM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
B is my opinion... [Edit: mostly my opion, since I don't think she should refrain from making the movie]

I'm not saying that she should refrain from making any movie, but if she does make the movie, I won't be surprised if something nasty would happen to her (though I even abhor just the thought of it).
Neither am I saying it's wrong what she's doing, only that her approach is "open for improvement".
She shouldn't even have to deal with violent people, but they're attracted by her comments on the islam. If she would rephrase those comments, I think she wouldn't have problems with violence. Instead she would reach a broader crowd with much more sympathy for her position...

"C'est le ton qui fait la musique"

[ 22 November 2005: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 22 November 2005 10:07 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If she would rephrase those comments, I think she wouldn't have problems with violence. Instead she would reach a broader crowd with much more sympathy for her position...

As a quick example, rather than saying "Fundamentalist Islam oppresses women", she could rephrase it slightly as "Fundamentalist Islam reveres and respects women".

Then everybody would be happy. Except the women.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Amricain galitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 22 November 2005 10:29 AM      Profile for Amricain galitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clog Boy: while your desire for peaceful dialogue is commendable, no great social progress comes about without the risk of possible violence. Bullies and those that would subjegate others tend to thrive on a one-way interpretation of their 'freedom' of belief.

For what its worth, consider:

quote:
"It has always seemed to me that in dealing with foreign countries we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own, and it really is astonishing to contemplate how the identically same facts are regarded from two different angles."

Neville Chamberlain, 1938


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 22 November 2005 10:43 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
"It has always seemed to me that in dealing with foreign countries we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own, and it really is astonishing to contemplate how the identically same facts are regarded from two different angles."

Neville Chamberlain, 1938


I have to say that, while it does kind of come off badly when considering the historical context, Chamberlain's advice here is generally sound, and is in fact a key facet of the diplomatic arts.

In fact, it could be argued that Chamberlain's problem was that he didn't follow his own counsel. Had he really been clued into the Nazi mentality, he would have realized that they had no intention of honouring whatever pledges they made at Munich.

[ 22 November 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Amricain galitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 22 November 2005 11:25 AM      Profile for Amricain galitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

In fact, it could be argued that Chamberlain's problem was that he didn't follow his own counsel. Had he really been clued into the Nazi mentality, he would have realized that they had no intention of honouring whatever pledges they made at Munich.


Well, I guess that's my point really in including this quote. Those who would kill to silence dissent or criticism have sent a pretty unmistakeable message of their worldview and intent. Further attempts to mollify with kind words and accommodations will not be met with changed attitudes on their part. They will interpret that behaviour as a sign of weakness.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 22 November 2005 01:35 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's Hirsi Ali trying to achieve? If it's to improve the treatement of women and gay people in Islamic societies, then it looks like her work is counter-productive. The in-your-face "recovering Muslim" style just pisses off the people she is trying to persuade.

On the other hand, if she's trying to reinforce prevailing notions and serve dominant ideological assumptions in the West, then she's doing a great job.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 22 November 2005 02:25 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
On the other hand, if she's trying to reinforce prevailing notions and serve dominant ideological assumptions in the West, then she's doing a great job.

That's such a lame argument.

"Don't say that, even though it's true because some right-winger might take it and run with it!"

So?

It's bad enough that the nutters are using the threat of murder to try and shush her. Now the you want some of that action too?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 22 November 2005 02:36 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
!^*$%^ %&#*@%$ *%%@!!!

This thread has managed to make me incredibly mad in two different ways. First I got mad by Sheriff Scuzzball's tarring everyhing in sight with the acts of extermists and second I'm mad that Clog-boy and Swallow are apologizing for the acts of religious extremists.


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ginger Jar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10992

posted 22 November 2005 02:57 PM      Profile for Ginger Jar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why is it that when women like Irshad Manji and Hirsi Ali highlight the mistreatment and suppression of Islamic women, they are attacked for going about it the wrong way, or are accused of serving some vague and devious "western agenda"?

Now, two months later, she has returned to work, resuming her role as a beacon of hope for thousands of Dutch Muslim women. For in the shadows of the famously tolerant and peaceful Netherlands has long lurked a secret it took Hirsi Ali's courage to lay bare: Honor killings.

quote:
Corroboration came in October 2003, when a teacher overheard two mothers discussing why one of his students, 18-year-old Dutch-Turkish Zarife, had not returned to school that fall. (Dutch officials do not release the last names of the victims of family violence.) Her father had taken her to Ankara in August on vacation, the teacher learned; when they arrived, he shot her. The teacher alerted the police, and the story made headlines Holland-wide. Zarife's crime, according to Hirsi Ali: She'd been seen going out with Dutch girls, and without her scarf.

How should Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji speak of such things? Say women are oppressed by Islam, and tut tut, it's got to stop? Is that going to be effective? Is that how it was done in western Christian societies?


The following quote is from this interview

quote:
Many critical reactions after showing Submission in Zomergasten, two months ago now, welcome the fact that the oppression of Muslim women is combated, but they ask themselves whether the strategy chosen by me is constructive. They put criticism of the drawbacks of Islam on the same footing as defeatism. They blame critics of the drawbacks of Islam for pessimism and point to third generation Muslims (in the Netherlands, ed.) who do not spend the whole day in the mosque and combine a crop top with a headscarf. But I am not a defeatist. On the contrary, I am an optimist. Criticism will humanize Islam. Criticism of Islam does not implicate a rejection of the faithful but only of those Islamic views that, if they are transformed into behaviour, have inhuman consequences.
Others have warned me, in reaction to Submission, for the unintentional effect of criticism of Islam: Islamophobes will take advantage of my criticism of Islam to discriminate against Muslims and make Islam appear in a bad light. This may be the case, but it is not my intention to play into the hands of Islamophobes, on the contrary, but to urge Muslims with inciting texts and images to reconsider their own part in the underprivileged position they find themselves in. The risk of Islamophobes or racists using my work does not stop me from making Submission II. No more than a journalist who rightfully insists on openness in a liberal democracy (Guantnamo Bay) would let himself be stopped by the worries of the government that transparency of policy could be abused by enemies of freedom.

I agree with her, she doesn't deserve to be dismissed as a tool of Islamophobes and racists.

I don't think she can be intimidated by bully boys like Bouyeri, who butchered Theo Van Gogh, the director of her film, Submission.

She will not submit.

To women like Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali I say Bravo!

The world needs more, not less of you.

[ 22 November 2005: Message edited by: Ginger Jar ]


From: green glen | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 22 November 2005 04:16 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yup, that's me, an apologist for religious oppression of gay people. Nope, never lifted a finger for gay rights in my life.

It's a tactical question. If you want to change a repressive culture, do you

(a) hector them, tell them their religion is the worship of false gods, and make films that will be viewed mostly by people who already think Islam is Bad? Or do you

(b) Attempt to persuade, work with gay groups in the repressive society, back those within who are working for change, even if it garners you no headlines?

Do you seek to be effective, or not? If so, then the starting point should be: what works? There's a case to be made for (a), but the uses of (a) to date don't suggest it's been terribly effective.

There's not a doubt in my mind that Hirsi Ali is a sincere person trying to change a repressive aspect of the culture she comes from. I just think she may be going about it in a counter-productive way. Is she right that there is a lot of sexism and a lot of homophobia in a lot of Muslim societies? Of course she is. So, next step: how to bring about social change? It is certainly legitimate to ask how to do that effectively.

And: it is quite fair to ask, even for someone who is completely sincere in every way, what agendas are served by their work. It's something i try to grapple with when doing international human rights work, this question of whether trying to publicize the human rights records of some nasty dictatorships will increase the chance that the same language will be used to justify hatred against people from those countries (case in point: Amnesty International reports being used to argue that Saddam Hussein was so Evil(TM) that the US had to invade Iraq). It doesn't mean stop doing the work. But it means at least thinking reflectively about our work.

Of course it's easier to spew righteous indignation. Trust me, i have plenty of indignation for the vicious killers of this world who enjoy burying gay people under mountains of rubble and beheading them and the like. But what are you going to DO with that righteous indignation? May i suggest that shouting about bully-boys may be less useful than making a donation to the International Lesbian and Gay Association for their work within the Islamic world, or any other number of acts that might provide useful solidarity to those who are suffering?

[edit to add]

Cross-posted with the above, so i'll say two things on the Hirsi Ali quote. One is that she's clearly thought about the effect of her work, so apologies if i implied she hasn't. (The criticism is not so lame that Hirsi Ali does not think it's worth a response, in other words.) Second is that the language about "the drawbacks of Islam" are part of the problem. She suggests that sexism and homophobia are intrinsic to the religion. I'm not at all sure that's true, and i'm not at all sure that it's such a good idea to say so if part of what you are trying to do is change the way people understand and practise their religion.

[ 22 November 2005: Message edited by: swallow ]


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ginger Jar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10992

posted 22 November 2005 04:38 PM      Profile for Ginger Jar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
She suggests that sexism and homophobia are intrinsic to the religion. I'm not at all sure that's true, and i'm not at all sure that it's such a good idea to say so if part of what you are trying to do is change the way people understand and practise their religion.

Really? What should be said then? How is anything going to change if it can't be talked about?

Can the Catholic church ever be persuaded to change it's homophobia, or it's insistence that women may not be priests, if it can't be talked about?

I think your comment is just a dodge, a duck and weave. What are you fighting for anyway? Without saying anything, how can the oppression of women in Islam be fought?

[ 22 November 2005: Message edited by: Ginger Jar ]


From: green glen | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 22 November 2005 05:01 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's a tactical question. If you want to change a repressive culture, do you

(a) hector them, tell them their religion is the worship of false gods, and make films that will be viewed mostly by people who already think Islam is Bad? Or do you


Well, the "in your face, no punches pulled" tactic seems well received when it's Micheal Moore attacking corporate culture, or Morgan Spurlock going mano-a-mano with McD's, or when it's a documentary like "the Corporation".

I don't think anyone would ever suggest that corporate culture would change, if only we were a little more polite about asking.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749

posted 22 November 2005 05:06 PM      Profile for Yst     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
What's Hirsi Ali trying to achieve? If it's to improve the treatement of women and gay people in Islamic societies, then it looks like her work is counter-productive. The in-your-face "recovering Muslim" style just pisses off the people she is trying to persuade.

No doubt. I can speak from experience in saying that there's no question at all my own particular queer identity ( an "in-your-face" variety, yet!) pisses off my almost exclusively Baptist extended family. Actually, I believe the criteria for not pissing off the Baptist mainstream when approaching it directly from the point of view of queer identity is never speaking of or addressing homosexuality in any way. Open displays of homosexuality are right out.

So my question is, by way of analogy, understanding that Baptist, Methodist, Congregationalist and Lutheran evangelicalism is a fundamental aspect of North American cultural and personal identity in many regions of the continent, is the route to reform of sexual/gender ideology in North America by way of an agenda which will avoid 'pissing off' the evangelical mainstream? Certainly, most American Baptists find the mention of homosexuality in civil dialogue alienating. So is it wrong to mention homosexuality in dialogue with the protestant evangelical identity groups? This, as I see it, is the only way not to piss them off, in this regard.

Certainly, most of you are not persons of Baptist heritage, raised into Baptist identity. And so, furthermore, is it perhaps counterproductive for you to be openly criticising Pat Robertson and the like for their politics, when this dialogue could be better undertaken by a white, straight, evangelical, middle-class American Republican whom he and his demographic would find less alienating?

Really, I find the argument in favour of a civil discourse consisting only of politically pragmatic, strategically devised statements by persons in positions to affect internal change within a given ideological demographic grotesque.

Sometimes, you just have to accept that a demographic is saying "you are not with us; we are against you" and stop pussy-footing around looking for an in (I'm looking at you, Log Cabin Republicans). I will no more ask for abstention from criticisms of backward-looking Muslims than I will ask for abstention from criticisms of backward-looking Evangelicals, and the fact that criticisms "piss off" either of these groups (what a surprise!) doesn't strike me as a convincing argument against airing them. Sometimes, an ideology simply cannot help but be alienated or angered by progressive politics. Statements of fact and expressions of personal identity can be inherently alienating for these groups. We can hope to minimise such instances of alienation, but that's all we can do. Sometimes, you just have to speak and accept the consequences. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a meaningful progressive account of modern political reality which will not alienate and anger the Muslim mainstream and the Evangelical Christian mainstream in virtually all major centres of activity for both groups. That's just the way it is. Speak, and be despised, or do not speak and be unheard. I do not consider the latter the desirable option.


From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ginger Jar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10992

posted 22 November 2005 05:20 PM      Profile for Ginger Jar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Certainly, most of you are not persons of Baptist heritage, raised into Baptist identity. And so, furthermore, is it perhaps counterproductive for you to be openly criticising Pat Robertson and the like for their politics, when this dialogue could be better undertaken by a white, straight, evangelical, middle-class American Republican whom he and his demographic would find less alienating?

Right on.

I think you've disposed of the "counterproductive" argument quite nicely.
Perhaps if Irshad Manji were to approach the Mullah with her head and face covered...


From: green glen | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 22 November 2005 05:30 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
She suggests that sexism and homophobia are intrinsic to the religion. I'm not at all sure that's true, and i'm not at all sure that it's such a good idea to say so if part of what you are trying to do is change the way people understand and practise their religion.

[ 22 November 2005: Message edited by: swallow ]


Well, I'm fairly sure that sexism and racism have been and remain pretty intrinsic to Christianity. I know of a great many people who have said so, with the express intention of changing the way people understand and practise their religion. Some of them on this board, many others elsewhere.

So, the woman in question has done the same about her own culture and religion. In response, you suggest that it probably isn't true, and that she should probably be a bit more tactful in making her case.

Let's leave aside the glaring fact that she's likely got a much better understanding of what is and is not true within her own culture than you or I.

Are you suggesting that she should be more submissive? The parallel to 'western' culture is striking. Women and gays have experienced appalling sexism and homophobia in our own culture - do you doubt that women or gays from our culture are actually correct when they assert that is the case? Would you suggest that women and gays be more tactful in denouncing sexist and homophobic behaviour in our culture?

So why are you doing so with her and her culture?


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Amricain galitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 22 November 2005 05:45 PM      Profile for Amricain galitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK, I'm a quote fiend, but this is says it better than any other way I could:

quote:
Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will. -- Frederick Douglass

From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 22 November 2005 06:04 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I will no more ask for abstention from criticisms of backward-looking Muslims than I will ask for abstention from criticisms of backward-looking Evangelicals, and the fact that criticisms "piss off" either of these groups (what a surprise!) doesn't strike me as a convincing argument against airing them.

You're right. I won't ask for abstention from criticism of backward-looking Muslims either. (In fact: those Muslims who murder and kill and oppress make me feel physically sick, just like those Christians who do the same, and especially those people in my own church who try to wipe us out.) I will ask, though, for abstention from criticism of entire religions on a generalized basis. Hirsi Ali wants to convince Muslims to change their ways, to put it crudely. OK, why do so by saying things like "Islam is intrinsically flawed"? And me asking is not an attempt to silence anyone (as if i had any power to do such a thing). I'll ask for that especially when the critiques of entire religions are aimed at identifiable groups (Muslims) who are being scape-goated in Western societies. But there are stalwarts on babble who can make that point much better than me.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ginger Jar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10992

posted 22 November 2005 06:19 PM      Profile for Ginger Jar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Are Christians "intrinsically flawed"?

I have seen them mocked most cruelly on babble. Why do you want an exception made for Islam?

Oh, Infidel, there is a tax to be paid. You will submit.

I've heard of Pope Natzinger. Have you heard of Ayatollah Crowfeigni?

There are many decent Muslims, as there are Christians. But we will not kowtow to the bullies and fanatics.

No to theocratic states. No to the whip and lash.
Freedom yes, Blind Devotion, no.

[ 22 November 2005: Message edited by: Ginger Jar ]


From: green glen | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 November 2005 06:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Can you write anything other than slogans and polemic?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 November 2005 06:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Other than amorphous accusations, I mean.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ginger Jar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10992

posted 22 November 2005 06:44 PM      Profile for Ginger Jar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, cueball. I don't care if you are queasy.
Vomit some more incosequential and sorry pissed- in-cornflakes crap.

Oh cueball, master of the universe and debate, scion of the gods, king of the clouds, incisive parser of the proletariat, slay all before you with the vast sweep of your massive and mythic mind, lull all to loquaciousness with loving lamentation, with grammar most gracious...


From: green glen | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 November 2005 08:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am just trying to get my head around the fact that you brought a lone killer in the Netherlands (boueryi) in the middle of a thread about Boanian gay people. It boggles the mind.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ginger Jar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10992

posted 22 November 2005 08:12 PM      Profile for Ginger Jar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Your mind is easily boggled.
Get over it, and yourself.

You easily think that fascist piece of shit Bouyeri acted alone, apart from his fellow believers? Geez, you are dumb.

No more excuses cueball.

We are not submitting.

[ 22 November 2005: Message edited by: Ginger Jar ]


From: green glen | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 22 November 2005 08:38 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For Chrissakes, would you two take your pissing match elsewhere and let the rest of us have a conversation! I'm sick of all these threads, with valuable and interesting discussion, getting derailed by yet more bickering.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 22 November 2005 08:51 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whether it's Michael Moore bashing Bush or Ayaan Hirsi Ali bashing extremist Muslims, I don't think anyone should back off from saying things that are unpopular or "offensive".
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 22 November 2005 08:56 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
I don't think anyone should back off from saying things that are unpopular or "offensive".

...except George Galloway, right?


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 22 November 2005 08:58 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by obscurantist:
...except George Galloway, right?

Why not George Galloway?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 22 November 2005 09:00 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Because he's guilty as hell! Unlike Scooter Libby, who's innocent!

...meh, never mind....


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 22 November 2005 09:04 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by obscurantist:
Because he's guilty as hell! Unlike Scooter Libby, who's innocent!

Just because I think Galloway is a liar doesn't mean he should have any less of a free speech right than anyone else.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 November 2005 09:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ginger Jar:
Your mind is easily boggled.
Get over it, and yourself.

You easily think that fascist piece of shit Bouyeri acted alone, apart from his fellow believers? Geez, you are dumb.

No more excuses cueball.

We are not submitting.

[ 22 November 2005: Message edited by: Ginger Jar ]


Who are we? Who are not submitting?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 22 November 2005 09:23 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Who are not submitting?

Don't you mean, "Who be not submitting?"?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 November 2005 09:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
For Chrissakes, would you two take your pissing match elsewhere and let the rest of us have a conversation! I'm sick of all these threads, with valuable and interesting discussion, getting derailed by yet more bickering.

And I am tired of being misrepresented and red baited.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 23 November 2005 03:14 AM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Cue, maybe you should have been a lawyer, then they might let you represent yourself...

As for me apologizing for the acts of religous fanatics: I don't... I thought I've been clear on more than one occasion that I despise the fanatics or their horrific acts. Hang em, skin em and boil em in salty water...

All I'm saying is that it's there and that certain actions can provoke a nasty response in this matter. This is not an opinion, this is common knowledge.
Nor do I carry any negative feelings towards Ms Ali or any other human-rights activist. I don't want to interfere with them reaching their goals, I'd even love to support them.
What I'm trying to say is: All roads lead to Rome... Why not take a detour that's less bumpy, to avoid breaking some eggs...? (unless anyone is eager to make an omelet )

(ps: please bear in mind that my native language is Dutch and that some translations might be a little off or even blunt/undifferentiated)


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 23 November 2005 04:58 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As for me apologizing for the acts of religous fanatics: I don't... I thought I've been clear on more than one occasion that I despise the fanatics or their horrific acts. Hang em, skin em and boil em in salty water...

All I'm saying is that it's there and that certain actions can provoke a nasty response in this matter. This is not an opinion, this is common knowledge.


Clogboy:

Earlier, in response to one of my questions, you said that your concern was that producing these films would hinder dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims. Here's the exchange:

quote:
Are you saying that:


A. Ali should refrain from producing offensive films in order to prevent violent criminals from attacking her, or...

B. Ali should refrain from producing offensive films in order to more constructively engage the Muslim community in dialouge, or...

C. Ali should refrain from producing offensive films in order to more constructively engage the violent criminals community in dialogue.


And you replied:

quote:
B is my opinion... [Edit: mostly my opion, since I don't think she should refrain from making the movie]

Now, however, in your most recent post, with its references to "horrific acts" and "a nasty response", you seem to be suggesting that the issue is the violent acts commited by extremists. So I'm still a little confused.

I bring this up again because by going back and forth like this, you seem to be conflating the violent extremists with the Muslim community as a whole, which I DON'T think is your intention. As well, it makes it kind of difficult to respond to your point, when we're not sure what the point is.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 23 November 2005 05:01 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
(ps: please bear in mind that my native language is Dutch and that some translations might be a little off or even blunt/undifferentiated)

I think I speak for most of your readers here when I say that your English is first-rate.

[ 23 November 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 23 November 2005 11:00 AM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Although my English seems fine, it's pretty much walking a tight rope expressing my opinion. Most words or expressions are famiiar to me, but sometimes I might be a little off on the exact value/charge of the words/expressions (in reading as well as wrting).
But thanks for the compliment, voice

As for me "conflating the violent extremists with the Muslim community as a whole": I think that these 2 groups should absolutely be separated from eachother.
But a less offensive appraoch is more likely to help both goals at once (having a constructive dialogue with Muslims and preventing Ms.Ali from getting hurt by extremists).

When I was given the 3 options, maybe I should have made it clear that I am against her making an offensive movie. Don't mind her making movies or using any other means to reach her goals, as long as they're not offensive...

[Edit:
Let me give you an example which I just thought of while taking a shower: In my office, there's this guy who smells pretty bad most of the time. None of my colleagues nor me have ever had the guts to confront him with this, since it's a sensitive subject.
If I were to confront him though, there are numerous ways of doing so. 2 of them are the following:
I could walk up to him and say:
a: "Geez, you're one smelly fuck! What raw sewage do you take a swim in every morning?! Take a shower, you lousy bum!" or
b: "I dunno if you're aware of it, but you seem to have a kinda strong B.O. Do you think you could look after your personal hygiene a bit more?"
Both will deliver the same message, but I think you'd have to agree the first will inflame or upset most people, while chosing for the second option might even grant me gratitude for opening his eyes(or nose, in this case)
As I said before: C'est le ton qui fait la musique!
End Edit]

[ 23 November 2005: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 23 November 2005 12:50 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clog-boy:

But a less offensive appraoch is more likely to help both goals at once (having a constructive dialogue with Muslims and preventing Ms.Ali from getting hurt by extremists).

When I was given the 3 options, maybe I should have made it clear that I am against her making an offensive movie. Don't mind her making movies or using any other means to reach her goals, as long as they're not offensive...



I think there is a world of difference between pointing out that an offensive message may not be the best way to effect change in one's audience and forbidding someone from delivering an offensive message in the first place.

Another problem with your approach is that you are allowing the Muslim fundamentalists to define what is offensive. Why should they get to make that call?

On another note I will second the call that your English is pretty much flawless.


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 23 November 2005 01:58 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But a less offensive appraoch is more likely to help both goals at once (having a constructive dialogue with Muslims and preventing Ms.Ali from getting hurt by extremists).

That almost sounds like a compromise.

Honestly now: do you think fundamentalists will compromise? Yes or no?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 23 November 2005 02:58 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Holland is built on compromise.

Klompen jongen, je doet het heel goed.

Do you think she has political ambitions? We Canadians tend to be a bit sceptical about politicians.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 23 November 2005 05:07 PM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dank u, dank u! Not too many compliments, please, I'm starting to blush...!

As far as the compromise, I don't think she'd be making one with the extremists, but more with her own time-table. She's kinda rushing delicate matters.
By following a less offensive path, she might even put extremists off-side, by taking away their reasons to attack her. Their attention wouldn't be focused on her, but on other nasty things (such as figuring out how to walk into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. with a nuke under their shirts )
In all seriousness, I have to admit that it would be a compromise. But since you can't make extremism disappear by a snap of the fingers, I think it's a sacrifice we'll have to make.

As for extremists ever willing to compromise? Unfortunately, not unless hell freezes over...


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 23 November 2005 05:17 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know what to do with this thread, I really don't. I guess the best thing I can do is mostly say "ditto" to everything that swallow has said on this thread. Let's leave aside the Theo van Gogh issue: the "recovering Muslim" business is incredibly counterproductive and self-serving. I would also say the same thing about certain ways of criticizing American evangelicals---but their case is slightly different as many of the criticisms are targetted at voters to scare them away from voting Republican.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 23 November 2005 08:05 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heh. I would like to give a shout out to the cubicle bound short sleeve shirt wearing CIA or NSA schmuck who had to come and read this thread after their web tracking software picked up '1600 Pennsylvania Avenue' and 'nuke' in a sentence.

How are you? Tough work, being a tool of the police state. Give my best to your family, and go to hell.

/back to previous discussion.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 23 November 2005 08:12 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by arborman:
I would like to give a shout out to the cubicle bound short sleeve shirt wearing CIA or NSA schmuck who had to come and read this thread after their web tracking software picked up '1600 Pennsylvania Avenue' and 'nuke' in a sentence.
-
I'd just like to quote/repeat the aforementioned sentence so as to give those guys that are listening in to this conversation some excitement in their mundane lives.

From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 23 November 2005 08:17 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks arborman.

It's long sleeves, not short sleeves. And it's not NSA or CIA, but a top-secret agency called ... oh, wait, I guess I can't tell you what it's called. Sorry. Never mind.

Anyhow, my family are quite well. Little Janie is two, and Mark is just starting kindergarten. I sometimes worry that Marisa might be striking up an acquaintance with a fellow at the place where she works, but I'm probably just imagining it, reading too much into things as I so often do.

I love reading Babble, particularly the Plame Game and "what are you listening to" threads.


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 23 November 2005 09:00 PM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Re Irshad: we can argue about what WE should do, or someone should do, about problems like Muslim extremism. Lord knows there're enough options, peculiar situations, and analogies.

But even to suggest that IRSHAD should or shouldn't do something because the extremists won't like it -- well, I can't see any difference between that and declining sympathy for someone who got beaten up for doing something he should have known would cause trouble.

Sure there may be better ways to get through to the moderates...and if you think you know one, go for it. But that is no ground for permitting any exception to the right of someone else, like Irshad, to say whatever the heck she wants to say about Islam. Any more than if we're talking about the Vatican.

Her right to speak about religion should prevail over anyone's offence at what she says. That's not a tactical approach to a Dutch political issue, it's a cultural value. And if she's speaking in whatever the local culture considers 'public', it's a principle that cannot be compromised by sensitivity to those offended feelings, because IN-sensitivity to them is the whole point. Whether the feelings are Muslim in particular, or Anglican (remember Piss-Christ?), or that Great Spaghetti Monster somebody posted about on the McGill prayer-space thread, is emphatically not the point.

You can disagree with it, as with any other cultural value. If you do, and you also believe in hell, go for it. I got a vote, you got a vote, we can only compete.

(If the energy seems disproportionate, I'm recalling the only time I ever truly got angry at national politicians -- well, OK, the first time -- when Canada temporarily blocked imports of Satanic Verses because of offended complaints. Before the fatwah. That offended MY cultural values, as does any incipient criticism of Irshad for expressing her views -- as opposed to for those views themselves.)


From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 23 November 2005 09:44 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
Do you think she has political ambitions? We Canadians tend to be a bit sceptical about politicians.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a member of parliament for the centre-right VVD party. She has a very intersting political biography: Hisri Ali wiki.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 23 November 2005 10:22 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
swallow, Yes I knew that she is a member of parlament, but I was wondering is she had any ambitions to go politically beyond that or if she was more interested to persue her desire to modernize Islam. I read one of her interviews in dutch and she came across as very focused, clear and well organised. But it was not clear to me if she was using the muslim issue to further her political career or her political career to further the muslim issue. It might make it a bit more easy to understand her stance.

Another thought: The most populus muslim country in the world is Indonesia,I believe, and it used to be a Dutch colony. I lived there as a kid and find it hard to believe that the men there were as opressive with their wives as I gather from reading her interview. My impression of Indonesian society as a kid was one of gentleness and fun and laughter, Much softer then I got from the interview. But it has been a long time since I have been there. However if that caring gentleness is still there one could maybe use that to show the Middle Eastern and African Muslims that there are alternatives. We have to live with each other and I agree with Clog-boy that hard dogmatic attacks could make things rather unpleasant.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 23 November 2005 11:14 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But it was not clear to me if she was using the muslim issue to further her political career or her political career to further the muslim issue. It might make it a bit more easy to understand her stance.

I think that's kind of a chicken-and-egg question(though I admit I haven't read the interview). Most politicians probably enter the arena with a) a desire to further their own careers, and b) a desire to push certain issues that are of concern to them. Which one is motivating the other is probably difficult to discern, even for the politicians themselves.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 24 November 2005 02:33 AM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Didn't think about those longsleeves untill after I added the post. But I still haven't seen any suspicious vans in my street, nor have I heard any strange clicks on my phoneline. But maybe I finally get to fly in one of those Gulfstreams..! "Cause I am leaving on a jetplane, don't know when I'll be back again, oh babe I hate to go..!"

But here's a little update: Looks like Ms.Ali has ended up in a quarrel with one of her party-members, Hans Wiegel. In a letter to him she has called him a "reactionary conservative" and accused him of telling people behind her back that she's not tolerant and that she has no respect for people with other opinions. She also held it against him, that he doesn't get involved enough in the discussion about immigration and integration.
This morning Mr. Wiegel has accused Ms.Ali of using "instigating and polarizing" words/actions, causing the muslim-society to become isolated, instead of integrated. He has also accused her of not doing enough in the parliament.
Their party, the VVD, refrains from giving any comment.

[ 24 November 2005: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca