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 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tape_342:
Times (UK):

[ 20 November 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Ummm...Hey, scuzzball, that's the work of extremists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Hey Sheriff. Any more generalizations about Muslims and you're gone. First and last warning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moderatsaklart:
Is it ok to generalize about conservatives, white men, and republicans?

---

[ 20 November 2005: Message edited by: Makwa ]

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 ]

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..?

---

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 ]

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 ]

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.

---

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

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.

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

---

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?

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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".

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."

---

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 ]

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.

---

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?

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 (Guantánamo 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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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".

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.

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.

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?

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

---

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.

---

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 ]

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 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I don't think anyone should back off from saying things that are unpopular or "offensive".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by obscurantist:
...except George Galloway, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by obscurantist:
Because he's guilty as hell! Unlike Scooter Libby, who's innocent!

---

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 ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Who are not submitting?

---

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.

---

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 )

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.

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 ]

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 ]

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...

---

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?

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.

Klompen jongen, je doet het heel goed.

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.

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

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.

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bubbles:
Do you think she has political ambitions? We Canadians tend to be a bit sceptical about politicians.

---

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.

---

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 ]