Heeding the call, many bloggers have joined in to blog for Geert Wilders, freedom of speech, and Western Civilization. See OneSTDV's post Geert Wilders and Media Coverage of Muslims about the shaming tactics against Wilders used by the mainstream (i.e. left wing) journalists. These journalists are not much interested in freedom of speech. Far more important for them to assert moral superiority in the on-going American culture war. OneSTDV's previous posts about elite media use of shaming language are worth reading as well.
Roissy did not write a whole post about Wilders but he dedicated a post to Wilders. I think there's special symbolism in his choice of posting topic related to Wilders' opponents. But I haven't figured it out yet. Perhaps someone more penetrating can explain in the comments?
HBD chick (she calls herself the exception that proves the rule) does a short post supporting Geert but arguing against banning the Koran. Not sure if Geert is serious about that. More likely he's trying to make the point that the law he's being prosecuted under is ignoring a dangerous huge incitement to hatred and oppression.
Half Sigma, in his post about Geert Wilders, argues that it is a historical coincidence that the Left took up the cause of free speech because they wanted to use it on behalf of communism. In his view the Left's commitment to free speech is weak. That sounds correct. The speech codes on college campuses (such as the one that former Clinton Administration cabinet member Donna Shalala put in place at U Wisc) were implemented by the leftists who totallly dominate academia. The extent of anti-free speech efforts by universities and colleges is stunning. What would Mario Savo think? Would he sympathize with the leftists or with the free speech advocates?
Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake (venomous?) announced his support for blog bombing for Geert and says "the result of the Wilders trial will signal whether Europe continues on the road toward mass censorship by the aggrieved." Islam seems to make Muslims feel aggrieved. Why is that? Since they feel that way restrictions on speech imposed for the aggrieved have the tendency of tilting the playing field for Islam and against those who favor a free society.
James at Athwart-History says the complaint against Wilders does not include a claim that he's made inaccurate statements. The objective truth is the enemy of those who restrict speech.
Who else have I missed? Let me know in the comments.
Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders, on trial for speaking his mind about Islam, gave a speech in Berlin on October 2, 2010 which is worth reading in full. Here's an excerpt where he discusses how the Dutch government has tried to silence him in spite of the fact that it is Islam and not Wilders that is the real threat to the Dutch people.
As you know, I am standing trial in the Netherlands. On Monday, I have to go to court again and I will have to spend most of the coming month there. I have been brought to court because of my opinions on Islam and because I have voiced these opinions in speeches, articles and in my documentary film Fitna. I live under constant police protection because Islamic extremists want to assassinate me, and I am in court because the Dutch establishment – most of them non-Muslims – wants to silence me.
I have been dragged to court because in my country freedom can no longer be fully enjoyed. Unlike America, we do not have a First Amendment which guarantees people the freedom to express their opinions and foster public debate by doing so. Unlike America, in Europe the national state, and increasingly the European Union, prescribes how citizens – including democratically elected politicians such as myself – should think and what we are allowed to say.
Our leftist intellectuals have betrayed us.
One of the things we are no longer allowed to say is that our culture is superior to certain other cultures. This is seen as a discriminatory statement – a statement of hatred even. We are indoctrinated on a daily basis, in the schools and through the media, with the message that all cultures are equal and that, if one culture is worse than all the rest, it is our own. We are inundated with feelings of guilt and shame about our own identity and what we stand for. We are exhorted to respect everyone and everything, except ourselves. That is the message of the Left and the politically-correct ruling establishment. They want us to feel so ashamed about our own identity that we refuse to fight for it.
The detrimental obsession of our cultural and political elites with Western guilt reinforces the view which Islam has of us. The Koran says that non-Muslims are kuffar (the plural of kafir), which literally means “rejecters” or “ingrates.” Hence, infidels are “guilty.” Islam teaches that in our natural state we have all been born as believers. Islam teaches that if we are not believers today this is by our own or by our forefathers’ fault. Subsequently, we are always kafir – guilty – because either we or our fathers are apostates. And, hence, according to some, we deserve subjugation.
Our contemporary leftist intellectuals are blind to the dangers of Islam.
Read the whole thing.
If you are a blog author then do a blog post about Wilders, freedom of speech, and Islam in Europe.
While Dutch political leaders schemed to silence Dutch MP and political party leader Geert Wilders for saying things about Islam that are unpopular with Muslims here in America we are pretty much resolved that people should be able to say unpopular things (excepting those ideas suppressed by the forces for Political Correctness). An overwhelming majority of Americans believe we should be free to express unpopular ideas without fear of our lives.
While most Americans said they valued freedom, Baker wanted to learn more about just what "freedom" meant to them, so he asked "To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of these statements:"
"Freedom is being left alone to do what I want;" and
"Freedom is being able to express unpopular ideas without fearing for my safety."
Only about a third of Americans agreed that freedom is being left along to do what they want. But over 90 percent of Americans agreed that freedom meant being able to express unpopular ideas without fearing for their safety. "There was no difference between liberals and conservatives. The vast majority on both sides agreed," Baker said.
But some Americans have expressed ideas about Islam in ways that forced them to go into hiding. A cartoonist formerly known as Molly Norris has gone into hiding with a new identity. So in addition to having to worry for her life, she has to move somewhere and get a job doing something without being able to demonstrate what she's done in the past. That's harsh.
At the urging of the FBI, the Seattle cartoonist behind "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is "going ghost" — leaving town, changing her name, creating a new identity because of the death threat issued in July by an Islamic cleric linked to the failed Times Square bombing, the Seattle Weekly says of its former contributor.
This Islamic cleric, Islamic Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, was born in New Mexico.
Geert Wilders is on trial this week in the Netherlands for using his basic right to free speech (said right not recognized in the Netherlands) to advocate against the Islamization of the Netherlands. It occurs to me we should choose a day when all bloggers who support a basic right to free speech ought to write posts protesting the prosecution for Geert Wilders.
Since Wilders is on trial this week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday I propose Thursday October 7 as the day to write posts excoriating the Dutch government for this unjustified and unfair prosecution of Geert Wilders.
If you are going to do this then write a post immediately that alerts your readers and other bloggers that you will be doing this. Also, tell me in the comments of this post along with a link to your blog. Also, send emails to blogger friends who are likely to be sympathetic to this idea.
I hear George Orwell:
Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
Update: Many heeded the call.
Former president and senior Democratic statesman Bill Clinton has joined a growing drumbeat for government regulation of radio talk shows, claiming the U.S. "ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side."
More right wing people want to listen to political talk radio than do left wing people. Therefore there's more right wing talk radio hosts producing more right wing radio programs. What is wrong with that? If liberals, progressives, and the like really want more programming that agrees with their point of view then they should tune in to listen to more leftie programming.
But what the Democrats want to do is cut back on the number of right wing radio talkers. They want more lefties on the radio. The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" (Orwellian much?) will force radio stations to broadcast more lefties. These leftie shows will not generate enough ad revenue to pay for their programs. This will cause fewer conservative hosts to get programs since effectively the ad revenue from the conservative program will need to pay for the liberal leftie program as well. Assorted Democrats who have little interest in free speech think this is a peachy idea.
Sen. John Kerry , D-Mass., told WYNC's Bryan Lehrer Show in 2007, "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back."
Last June, John Gizzi reported in Human Events a conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in which he asked her if she personally supported revival of the policy.
"Yes," Pelosi answered.
One of the reasons there's so much rightward leaning talk radio is that leftward leaning people dominate most of the TV networks and major newspapers. That this domination isn't enough for them speaks volumes about their attitude toward dissent.