Sua, you are, of course, correct that for the concept
of free speech to be meaningful, you must defend speech you hate. You will note that I concurred in my earlier post.
However, I think there is a difference between defending the free speech rights of homophobes, (which I do) and allowing a wave of first-generation immigrants to change your laws to
take away your civil rights, which, if I understand the OP correctly, is what the Imam and his Muslim followers are trying to do. It’s unlikely that they will succeed, but the attempt is worrisome.
Yes, because outsiders telling the Saudis to clean up their act would only foster resentment and push them into an even more reactionary direction. Any meaningful change in civil rights would have to be led by Saudis who speak the language and understand the culture.
Yes, because outsiders telling the Saudis to clean up their act would only foster resentment and push them into an even more reactionary direction. Any meaningful change in civil rights would have to be led by Saudis who speak the language and understand the culture.
I know I’ll end up losing this discussion because you two are both intelligent lawyers well-trained in finding the flaws in an argument, but I’ll soldier on as best I can until checkmate.
Don’t worry, goboy. I’m just trying to do the Mill thing of illustrating “the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” You can decide for yourself which side of the discussion is error and which is truth.
Anyway, I’ll certainly give you points for consistency. I just disagree with you over whether political viewpoint is a legitimate criterion for determining eligibility for immigration. Here in the States, I think (I know squat about immigration law, so “think” is the best I can do) pretty much the only check on politicical viewpoint is that you can’t advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government. That’s why we get the occasional loony like Omar Abdel Rachman (sp?) as an immigrant, in addition to the millions of extraordinary immigrants who make such great contributions to the country.
But I really don’t think there’s any need to worry about this Imam in Holland being able to change Dutch discrimination laws. It would take millions and millions of immigrants of like viewpoint to bring about such a change. A few thousand signatures on a meaningless petition is a drop in the bucket compared to the firm convictions of millions of tolerant Nederlander.
Hell, I don’t want to fight you on this one, goboy - if “reality” were the only consideration, I’d firmly agree with you.
But the problem is where is the line drawn. I dated a woman in college whose parents were Latvian refugees. During the Cold War, they (and she) got arrested protesting U.S. policy towards the USSR and Latvia. Should her parents, as first-generation immigrants, have been deported? They were trampling not only on the position of the U.S. government, but breaking the freaking law.
Based on what Agris has posted, the Imam is not even remotely close to changing the law in the Netherlands. He represents a small, minority religious group (comprising about three per cent of the population) and he is expressing their disapproval of particular aspect of Dutch law.
The paranoid notion that a single immigrant cleric expressing a reactionary opinion amounts to a foreign invasion which strikes at the very heart of the Dutch way of life is, I am afraid, a common complaint of anti-immigration racists. They are quite happy to accept immigrants into the country provided that they adopt their culture, values, religion, cuisine, mode of dress, etc; which is not so much immigration as assimilation.
I see no reason why immigrants, having been accepted into a country, should not enjoy the same freedom of expression as native citizens. You and Aghris both seem to be suggesting that it is only the fact that the man is not a native of Holland that puts his views beyond the pale. And you are both talking as if he had gone to Holland for the express purpose of complaining about gay marriage, which I very much doubt is the case.
Let’s find out where this Imam and his followers live, shop, or visit. Then organize through Dutch.gays.net to have gay couples at all times to openly embrace, kiss, and love each other as soon as these guys set their foot out of their door.
There is nothing the Imam and his followers can do, as you are exercising your right and freedom of expression protected by the Netherlands law.
Ummm. I wonder how long will it take the Imam and his followers to immigrate out of Holland. Thus, problem solved.
Paranoia and racism are nicely inflammatory charges that neatly evade the question of why would someone immigrate to a country that holds values one despises. It seems that there is a double standard here: if a non-Western country tries to preserve its traditions, it is resisting Western cultural imperialism; if a Western country wishes to preserve its traditions, it’s racist.
The Imam’s views would be reprehensible if he were a native Netherlander. What I find puzzling is why the Imam would immigrate to a non-Muslim country, then be pissy because it doesn’t adhere to Muslim values. Like I said, I wouldn’t move to Saudi Arabia and then wonder where all the beer and pork are.
Two things, goboy. Whether the holder of the Imam’s views is a native Dutchman or a Middle Eastern immigrant, his views are equally reprehensible. National origin is not, however, a legitimate basis for distinguishing between the holders of those views.
Also, you would be a darned fool to emigrate to Saudi Arabia and wonder where all the porn and scotch were. But while the Saudi government is under no necessity of changing their laws to accord with your wishes, any civilized nation should absolutely permit you to hold and express your belief that porn and scotch are an essential part of a nutritious breakfast, as well as to petition the government to chage its laws accordingly. That’s the essential difference between Holland and Saudi Arabia.
The corollary to your last post is that countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are not “civilized nations”. Of course, being strictly Islamic, these countries’ constitution is written around Qoran which forbids alcohol, pork, etc. Therefore, you cannot even petition those governments to allow the existence of champagne and bacon breakfast.
As you know, Iran and Saudi Arabia force foreign women visitors to wear a veil (chador) in the streets. Why don’t Netherlands and other Western countries require women immigrants and visitors from Iran and Arab countries to remove their veils in the streets of the west, until such time that Iran and the Arab coutries allow foreign women visitors to walk the streets of Tehran or Riyadh without veil (and without being harassed by the thugs).
Iran is steadily improving, but you’re spot-on for Saudi Arabia. Nor do I have any patience for the governments of Afghanistan, China, Serbia, and Nigeria, among others. That hardly means that there is any justification for the rest of the world treating immigrants from those countries any differently than they treat their native-born citizens. Human rights should not be conditional upon the happenstance of where a person was born.
I thought that’s what I said. Amend my previous post to read “The Imam’s views would be just as reprehensible if he were a native Netherlander.” And no, human rights should not be dependent upon one’s country of origin. My point of contention is that it makes no sense for a fundamentalist Muslim Imam to emigrate to a Western nation and then complain because they treat homosexuals like human beings. I can certainly see Aghris, a native Dutchman, resenting being told by somebody just off the boat that Aghris ought to be discriminated against. Correct me if I am wrong, but my sense of the general opinion here is that the Imam has the right to advocate discrimination against gay folk, but gay folks do not have the right to tell the Imam, “Hey, welcome to Holland, baby, don’t bogart the Astroglide.” Why is it racist for ** Aghris** in Amsterdam, or me in DC, to assert that our countries are not obliged to respect Muslim customs?
Note: Minty Green, I said pork, but porn and scotch sounds like a mighty good breakfast to me!
Leaving aside the immigration-assimilation issue, I see similar arguments put forth by Christian fundamentalists (I’m not talking about all Christians, so cool down).
I have read the arguments of fundies saying that not being allowed to discriminate against homosexuals is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
Hell yes they can say stuff like that to the homophobic butthead! Free speech always works both ways. Otherwise, it ain’t free.
It’s not racist at all to express such sentiments. It would be racist (“national-originist”?) to use national origin as a basis for denying a person equal rights of free speech and the ability to petition the government to change its policies.
You might think the charges are inflammatory, but I stand by what I said. The assertion that this man, or Dutch Muslims in general (all 3% of the population) are somehow going to overthrow traditional “Dutch” values is paranoid, in that it expresses an irrational fear. It is a common complaint among people who are opposed to immigration that immigrants fail to adapt to the host country’s way of life. This attitude is racist in that it denies the legitimacy of cultural and religious views.
I have not addressed the question of why he emigrated to the Netherlands because it is irrelevant, as is his relegion and his national origin, which is precisely the point I am trying to make. You and Aghris are the ones who seem to be hung up on the fact that he is a non-Dutch-born Muslim.
This argument is simply smug when it comes from somebody living in a peaceful democracy. You know full well that there is no reason for you to go to Saudi Arabia at all except of your own volition. If you were a (Muslim) Kurd in Turkey or Iraq, a (Muslim) Palestinian in Israel, a (Muslim) Iraqi in an area which was being bombed (or deprived of essential medicines) by NATO or a (Muslim) Albanian in Kosovo, you might be no choice but to leave your home country and to take up residence elsewhere.
I have no idea why this man emigrated to Holland, and I suspect you don’t either, but I’d be prepared to bet that he didn’t just wake up in Riadh one morning and think, “I know, I’ll go to the Netherlands and annoy some homosexuals”.
It’s not about Muslim customs, it’s about freedom of expression and freedom of religion. You and Aghris seem to think that these freedoms should be enjoyed only by native-born citiznes of a country who fit a particular set of cultural norms.
Why not require them to go to Church, eat pork and drink alcohol for the duration of the stay as well, while you’re at it?
I’m not questioning his right to freedom of expression, but what about my right to live my life without being harrassed by religious fundies breathing down my neck?
Now, that’s irrelevant. It doesn’t matter why they emigrate; what gives them the right to impose their religious values on the locals? The imam’s origin is relevant in that he is saying that he, a foreigner, should have more rights than the gay people who live there.
You see, I defend the imam’s right to practise his religion in peace. He can obey the Five Pillars of Islam, abstain from alcohol and pork, and get prayer breaks from his employer. I’m all for that. I don’t approve of homophobia, religious sanctioned or not.
Question for you, Tom H. Why do you approve of the imam acting to take away the rights of gay Dutchmen, but disapprove of gay Dutchmen telling the imam the boat goes both ways?
Stoning homosexuals to death is a legal punishment in Saudi Arabia, sanctioned by the Sharia. So, if a Saudi immigrant whaps me upside the head with a rock, I’m supposed to sit still and honor his cultural and religious heritage?
Not the entire definition, no. But given the fact that we’re the first country in the world to legalise gay marriages, I dare say we’re pretty serious about tolerance towards homosexuality. Any newcomers better take that into account before they decide to move to a country that’s so offensive to them.
For a bit of an explanation to where free speech ends in the Netherlands, see this exchange I had with Fenris in the Pit about a month ago. In short: you can say what you want, as long as you don’t violate someone elses rights.
The problem here is not one conservative fundamental muslim saying this. The problem is that this particular person is a man of authority within his religion, and he is teaching young kids homosexuality is bad, and should be fought.
Freedom of religion is one thing. Teaching kids that were born and bred in the Netherlands (and hence are just as Dutch as Agrhis or myself) that homosexuality must be fought is another. If anything, his actions will lead to a wider gap between young muslims and Dutch society as a whole. Since everybody has a stake in a good integration of minorities, this is a very worrying development.
And TomH: the CIA world factbook does indeed state the Muslim part of the Netherlands to be 3%. However, the figures are the 1991 ones. I think by now, we’re looking at at least twice that. And 6% is not a group to ignore.
The Imam is not acting to take a away the rights of gay Dutchmen – presumably only the Dutch Government can do that – he is expressing an opinion on gay marriage.
If you have any evidence that his actions have resulted in any diminution of the rights of gay Dutchmen (or women), then please post it.
The converse is this: I have no objection to gay Dutchmen telling him that “the boat goes both ways”. What I object to is the assertion that he has no right to express his opinion because he is a foreigner or because he is a Muslim. I would not even object so strongly if the suggestion was that nobody should have the right to speak out against gay marriage (though I would still object). It is the suggestion that Muslims and immigrants should not have the right to speak out against gay marriage which I find so repulsive because of its implication that a Muslim immigrant in Holland is some kind of second-class citizen.
This is not a comparable case and, as I said before it’s nothing to do with “cultural and religious heritage”. Here’s a clue: I’m defending this man’s right to speak about gay marriage. A comparable case would be if a Dutch homosexual went to Saudi Arabia and spoke out against the practice of stoning homosexuals. In that case, I would defend his right to do so. Though I doubt the Saudi authorities would do the same.
Besides which, goboy, you’re in the USA. By your own argument, surely you have no right to speak about a situation in Europe?
Coldfire,
Is Islam the only religion in the Netherlands which is opposed to gay marriage?
BTW, goboy, here’s a question for you. I believe that homosexuals should enjoy exactly the same rights in society as everybody else. Do you think the same about immigrants and religious minorities?
No, of course not. The extremely conservative Reformed Church opposes it too. So do the Orthodox Jews and the more conservative layers of the Catholic Church. No secrets or surprises there: extremely religious people have a problem with homosexuality, and hence gay marriage.
That doesn’t change my point, though. It is one thing to express your views within your own church/synagogue/mosque, but it is another thing to air those hateful views in nationwide media like the Imam in question did. By doing so, he’s overstepping his constitutional right of freedom of religion - because he’s breaking the very same article by discriminating on sexual orientation:
Dutch Constitution
Article 1 [Equality] All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.
Again, his right to freedom of speech only goes so far in this country. And the fact that he’s basically instructing a very influenceable group of young kids (already struggling with the discrepancies between their conservative faith and the progressive society they have to reconcile it with) to hate and fight homosexuality, makes him a very irresponsible and thoughtless role model for those kids. An influence that should be restricted by application of Article 1, IMHO.
