Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

“Sack this Turd: Ban Stupidity!”

March 29th, 2008 . by Matt

From the Winds of Jihad blog.

Muslim nations, the European Union and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday expressed outrage at an anti-Islam film posted on the Internet by a ‘far-right’ Dutch lawmaker.

UN chief Ban Ki-Moon called Geert Wilders’ film “offensively anti-Islamic” while Iran and Bangladesh warned the film could cause grave consequences and Pakistan protested to the Dutch ambassador.

Snip –

“I condemn in the strongest terms the airing of Geert Wilders’ offensively anti-Islamic film,” the UN chief said in a statement. “There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free speech is not at stake here.”

Why is it so hard for Secretary General Ban say that the only reason the right of free speech exists is because people might say or write things that others disagree with or consider offensive. Secretary General Ban only wants “free speech” for things that people already agree on – what kind of free speech is that?

By the way, if Geert Wilders is killed by Jihadi, will Secretary General Ban be taking some responsibility for encouraging violence with his denunciation?


13 Responses to ““Sack this Turd: Ban Stupidity!””

  1. comment number 1 by: Ken

    This cannot be helped because Pan(p)Ki(n) is from totaritarian nation so that he does not know what free speech is.
    He is living in the suite room of Waldorf-Astoria hotel where millionairs or movie stras should stay originally with mistaking himself as the president of the world.
    Anyway, I wonder if somebody corrects his style of pronouncing English with pouting his lips like octopus or something.

  2. comment number 2 by: T_K

    Since this clown has a good résumé and is apparently talented, I can’t attribute his statements to stupidity. It’s then either cowardice or malice, take your pick.
    Some don’t seem to realise that freedom of expression is not a nice little perk but a vital ingredient of democracy and rule of law. It should be held as sacrosanct as voting right, anti-corruption and civil liberties.

  3. comment number 3 by: benalbanach

    I think the idea is to use your
    right to free speech wisely.
    In this case it was used to provoke,no
    not to enlighten.
    Freedom is the luxury of having self-
    -discipline.

  4. comment number 4 by: kjeff

    Matt,

    By the way, if Geert Wilders is killed by Jihadi, will Secretary General Ban be taking some responsibility for encouraging violence with his denunciation?

    Exercising my free speech thingy…that was stupid, where did Ban “encouraging violence”?
    .
    BTW,
    Just saw the video on YouTube, and I don’t what the big deal is? It looks like one of those bad YouTube compilation videos… It wouldn’t have mattered if it hadn’t come from a prominent lawmaker.
    .
    To me… I find the title of the ‘video'(can hardly call that a short film) ironic because in Indonesian, which borrowed the word from Arabic, “fitna” can also mean ‘slander’ and not just ‘discord’ or ‘strife’ as it is often translated in the western media.

  5. comment number 5 by: Matt

    Exercising my free speech thingy…that was stupid, where did Ban “encouraging violence”?

    Some people will take his comment that there is “no justification” as a de facto call for extra-judicial punishment. He should have called for calm instead, while noting that various opinions will never be reconciled.

    Personally, I didn’t think the film was that good or effective. I think that an effective anti-jihad position needs to be from an anti-war principle, by first denying jihadists causes by which they gain recruits.

  6. comment number 6 by: kjeff

    Matt,

    Some people will take his comment that there is “no justification” as a de facto call for extra-judicial punishment. He should have called for calm instead, while noting that various opinions will never be reconciled.

    Hey, I meant to say this earlier…I hope everything is well.
    .
    I think Ban’s response was appropriate. I think anything less than a strong condemnation would have been interpreted negatively by the mainstream Muslim world. And, from what I read I don’t think this video is as ‘explosive’ as Mr. Wilders wanted it to be. It’s boring, and worse, it’s old. And, I’m pretty sure Mr. Ban will urge calm when it’s needed.

  7. comment number 7 by: kojibomb

    if it is racist, it should be banned.
    Racism is a crime lol so making a racist speech? a crime should be banned.

  8. comment number 8 by: T_K

    kjeff, benalbanach,

    I think a bigger point is that free countries should have the sense to have their bureaucrats criticise the film as private individuals, not representatives of their countries. If Balkenende says he speaks on behalf of the parliament, he speaks on behalf of the Dutch people. This was a stupid move.
    The message in official criticism is that in the West, the government can and will dictate the nature of expression and opinion. With the cartoon riots, there was an understanding in many Muslim countries that Denmark had a way of punishing Westergaard, but it just chose to do nothing. This, of course, is not true. The Danes can’t fine someone for drawing a cartoon. However, some European politicians couldn’t shut up, and their misguided calls for “reconciliation” only reinforced the misunderstandings of the extremist mobs.

  9. comment number 9 by: Matt

    if it is racist, it should be banned.
    Racism is a crime lol so making a racist speech? a crime should be banned.

    Who decides if it is racist or not? What if the people who are the ones making the decisions are wrong?

  10. comment number 10 by: T_K

    and benalbanach,

    Freedom is the luxury of having self-discipline.

    Freedom of speech is a requirement and imperative for sustainable stability. If you see that something is wrong, it’s not your luxury but your duty as a citizen to state your opinion. If we all “self-disciplined” ourselves to shutting up in the name of harmony, there would be no positive change and only the officials would decide what can be discussed. Corruption would be rampant, systemic violence and segregation would be the norm.

  11. comment number 11 by: Matt

    I think anything less than a strong condemnation would have been interpreted negatively by the mainstream Muslim world.

    Any negative commentary about Islam or Mohammad is interpreted negatively by the mainstream Muslim world. Why should every single religion except Islam be subject to critique? Why should the negative stuff in the Koran and other holy writings of Islam be above criticism?

    Muslims are being asked the meaning of some of the iffy stuff in Islam, and Muslims respond with violence rather than dialog.

  12. comment number 12 by: john k

    When I did my thesis at university I had to be objective and quote sources to support my arguments. I could not use language that was misleading or vague nor use adjectives, just succinct and direct. These guidelines exist so that a reasoned and logical conclusion can be understood and also repeated, in the realm of science anyway, and hence be quantitatively, not qualitatively written. Otherwise any Tom Dick and Harry can be a Professor and say what s/he likes without supporting arguments.
    I could say “cold fusion” exist or I can travel faster than the speed of light. But unless I can prove it and demonstrate it repeatedly, no one will believe after the first 5mins.

    So given that we accept such guidelines to further knowledge, especially in science, why do “we” feel that such guidelines are no longer applicable when “we” want to say what we want? Should speech, that is, free speech have guidelines or limits to become “acceptable”?

    I would fight tooth and nail for free speech; if I had to fight a “war to defend it” then I would without hesitation.

    However, all aspects of social interaction have limits which have been set by ones peers over a long period of time that is deemed ‘acceptable’. Whether it be “limits” such as murder, theft, adultery, plagiarism, copyright, driving to fast, drug abuse etc etc. To be part of a society, ones adheres the ‘rules’ set by said society, if only to be accepted.

    Therefore, should speech be held up to the same methodology and hence define some limits that society applies to every other aspect of ones life? Or does this contaminate and dilute the speech and limit the intent of the thoughts/ideas being spoken about?
    If so, why and who decides that the intent cannot be spoken about in different terms but with the same conclusions?

  13. comment number 13 by: The Overthinker

    John – your idea on what “free speech” is – based on reason and evidence – does not appear to allow for personal opinion anywhere. Obviously not any Tom Dick or Harry can be a prof by just saying anything, as no university will hire them.

    Back before the internet, free speech was either just talking with friends, or ‘professional’ published work. Now, with the internet, we can casually chat to everyone in the world and our comments can be read by anyone. I for one take more care with what I write on the net than with what I say in private, but I think that rather than bending over backwards to accommodate the demands of religious sensibilities – enforced by violence – we need to make a stand and make them give way.