Immigration: Organization Of The Islamic Conference

Islam Christianity Dept: That is what the Dutch prosecutors seem to have thought too. “No doubt his words are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims,” they said, when a prosecution was first suggested, but “freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in a democratic society.” However, a group of prominent lawyers, NGOs and interest groups got an appeal court to reverse this decision and oblige the reluctant prosecutors to prosecute. The court argued that “by attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion, he also insulted Muslim believers.”, according to Globe And Mail. There is also a wider context here. Members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have long been arguing for an international outlawing of the “defamation of religion.” In the country where director Theo van Gogh was murdered for offending Islam, Mr. Wilders himself has to live under round-the-clock security because of death threats from violent Islamist extremists and so the courts are being asked to do what the politicians won’t. This is the wrong way round. For reasons both of free speech principle and political prudence, Mr. Wilders should not be on trial for what he says about Islam. Instead, mainstream democratic politicians, and other opinion-leaders, should be more brave and outspoken in combatting his inflammatory rhetoric. That sentence perfectly exposes the problem of principle: a blurring of the line between attacking the believers and criticizing the belief. For we must remain free to criticize any belief, even in extreme terms. Religion is not like skin colour. There is no rational argument against the colour of someone’s skin. There are important, rational arguments to be made against Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Scientology or any other belief system. Such prosecutions, even if their purpose is to defend the human beings, will have a chilling effect on discussion of the beliefs. As reported in the news.
@t theo van gogh, free speech principle