Anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders plans Prophet Mohammed expo after US shootings

[Little Tich]

Source: The Telegraph / AFP

The Dutch politician wants to send a message after two gunmen attacked a Texas event that he and others were standing for freedom of speech

Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders said on Wednesday he wanted to stage a parliamentary exhibition of the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed that sparked a deadly shooting in Texas that left two dead.

"I am going to request parliament to exhibit the same cartoons as those that were displayed in Garland," Mr Wilders told AFP on Wednesday, referring to the Dallas suburb where the shooting took place on Sunday.

Police said the two gunmen drove up to the conference centre in Garland, where the American Freedom Defence Initiative was organising a controversial Prophet Mohammed cartoon contest, and opened fire with assault rifles, hitting a security guard in the ankle.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/11587797/Anti-Islam-politician-Geert-Wilders-plans-Prophet-Mohammed-expo-after-US-shootings.html

[iandhr]

1. Again I will quote Jon Stewart

"It is not OK to shoot other people because you are offended but what they draw. Even if they drew it to offend you, no shooting of them. Never OK to shoot people. Never, ever OK."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. No one here's defending anyone shooting people.

Sadly, some people here are defending blatant provocateurs who want violence for their own personal agendas and are putting the public at risk for their own selfish motives.

[Jesus Malverde]

34. Extremists putting people at risk.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

51. Was that the entire quote? In that episode he said NOTHING about the antics of Geller, for

instance?

I agree wholeheartedly with the comment, BTW

[arcane1]

102. He did a whole segment on it, and had words for Geller too

It was classic Jon

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

103. Of course he did.

Jon, like myself and others I hope is capable of holding two thoughts at once.

[delrem]

2. I can feel the hate radiated at me by these "free speech" events.

Why is that?

I think it might be because these events aren't "art exhibits", they're attacks.
They are attacks, and they are intended to be known to be attacks, and they are intended to inflame.
They occur in the midst of an accelerating "War on (Islamic) Terror" that's been going on for (at least) 14 years.

But then, what is "art" to some people is rubbish to others.

[geek tragedy]

3. They're not attacks, they're cartoons.

Cartoons of someone who died over 1000 years ago.

[delrem]

4. Keep telling yourself that. nt

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

22. You seem to have a great grasp of history, religion, and human nature.

[geek tragedy]

25. Was Piss Christ an attack? nt

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

27. I don't know what was in his mind.

But I'm pretty sure he didn't expect to be shot at the time. Pam Geller was hoping to be attacked. That is the ONLY reason she held the event.

[geek tragedy]

29. No, she did it because she hates Islam and craves attention.

Still doesn't mean the stupid cartoons at that rightwing circle-jerk hatefest were an attack on anyone.

[philosslayer]

58. They are attacks

And hate speech solely intended to inflame. There is no justification whatsoever for these types of events other than to provoke those who are offended by them. One can attack with words and images, not just guns and knives.

[Oktober]

89. What's wrong with provoking nutjobs hmm?

They attack one cartoonist here and there...

An event now and again...

What happens when these cartoons and dooodles are plastered all over the world? At a certain point they have to realize that violence isn't going to work.

or..

You can choose fear and acquiescence and hope that they don't continue to add to the 'naughty' list of forbidden things.

Stupid things, stupid ideas and stupid people deserve to be mocked.

[leftynyc]

5. Don't give them what they want

They WANT you to feel attacked....so you lash out. They're only cartoons, they're only words - please don't them control you. If you ignore it, they'll eventually stop and move on to something else. Those dead gunmen in TX gave geller and her merry band of morons exactly what she wanted.

[delrem]

6. I'm in no danger of "lashing out"

But it's all a bit like a good old fashioned KKK cross-burning.
It's a lie to say that isn't intended to feed and inflame hatred, and that it works.
Except the KKK is passée, and this is a different and there's all too official a target.
The pretence that it's "just cartoons" is belied by even the most cursory examination of Geller's site.
It's organized, it has money, and it has a few DU supporters denying that there's any ill intent.

Not nice.

[leftynyc]

7. I haven't seen any posts

denying geller has ill intent - anyone who thinks that doesn't know who she is or what's she's been up to. And of course it's meant to inflame - that's the whole point of it. But our laws protect her from government censorship and she has zero real power - unless it's given to her. Let's remember that without those two dead terrorists, most people still wouldn't know who she is or care about what she has to say.

[delrem]

8. See post #3.

And a KKK cross burning is a weenie roast.
And if someone "lashes out" at a hooded KKKer, it "proves the KKK's point"... and so on.

[leftynyc]

12. I must have that person on ignore

So you can make your own assumptions on that.

[delrem]

16. Someone who "+1"ed #3 is now comparing Geller to Maplethorpe.

This is all just in this one short thread, provoked by my comment.
It's hard to see how you haven't seen any posts denying that Geller had ill intent. It's all over DU.

[leftynyc]

17. I see nothing wrong with that comparison

I'm sure Mapplethorpe knew he was creating controversy and further knew he would be insulting a lot of people with his art. I don't believe he was looking FOR violence and that's the only difference I see. I firmly believe geller was BEGGING for violence. Too bad she was obliged.

[jmowreader]

73. Piss Christ was a Serrano, not a Mapplethorpe

[delrem]

75. Yah. When discussing Pamela Geller's hate, a lot of subtleties come into play.

The more subtleties the better, so long as they bear on a judgement whether Pamela Geller aspires to "Art", with a capital "A".

I've been told that the actual existential context of an ongoing and accelerating "War on Islamic Terror", led by the USA, isn't relevant. Not something to factor in, when we try to understand Geller's "Art".

Well, OK, Geller is persistent to a fault. There'll be another similar event soon, to be sure. So maybe all our budding and wannabe DU "artists" can submit their entries, to prove their credentials as supporters of "freedom of speech".

eta: I distinguish between Pamela Geller and Salmon Rushdie. I have nothing whatsoever against Salmon Rushdie, esp. "artistically". I don't compare them on a same "playing field".

[leftynyc]

13. You also simply can't deny

that geller got exactly what she was looking for. You may think that's defamatory but it's also the truth.

[delrem]

15. Why would I deny that her hate speech worked? nt

[7962]

10. +1

[7962]

9. Did you feel the same way when Maplethorpe did his "exhibit"?

Because displaying a crucifix in a jug of urine is exactly the same "rubbish", maybe more so since it reqired NO talent to create it.

[delrem]

14. No it isn't.

Fucked if I'm going to debate with a Geller apologist.

[leftynyc]

18. Now you're losing me

Mapplethorpe was well aware he would be insulting millions with his "art". So did Geller. Only one was actively begging for violence but the free speech precepts are exactly the same and it's not an apology for geller to think so. Just imagine the uproar if some Christians had gotten violent and attacked Mapplethorpe's exhibit. DU would have gone crazy. And you're certainly not going to like this but your attitude is exactly why I've always maintained that DU has special rules just for Islam.

[delrem]

19. Mapplethorpe's context wasn't a 14yr long "War on Islamic Terror", was it?

There wasn't that tiny little extraneous factor.
Go to Geller's site. Then tell me that her site reflects "art".

eta: also, I'm not somehow arguing against "the free speech precepts"
There's a difference between "the free speech precepts" which indeed are exactly the same for all speech, and my statement that I felt the fucking hate, and the Geller "art exhibition" was a show of hate. And yes, there are DUers who are denying that there was ill intent.

[leftynyc]

20. Unless you're claiming

that the world shouldn't be fighting against 7th century barbarians like isis and boco haram, I'm not sure what the war on terror has to do with anything. Both geller and Maplethorpe KNEW they would be insulting millions. Do you really think sticking a statue of Christ in urine is any less offensive than cartoons?

[delrem]

21. So there you have it. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Mapplethorpe did not make 'Piss Christ' that photograph is by Andres Serrano.

And the group that is most like Geller is Westboro Baptist. The response to her that would be most effective would draw from the responses to Westrobor Baptist, who over the years were made into international laughing stocks. No need for violent reactions, no matter how much they provoke. Phelps and his lot actually traveled to LGBT events to attack us at funerals and such. Stalking us with hateful slurs and signs. They did this for years and years.
There is of course a great deal of actual anti gay violence in the US, and of course such violence is encouraged by Phelps and others who speak hate against LGBT people. Still, the proper response is made of works and wit and law, not bullets and torches and baseball bats.

[leftynyc]

30. My mistake

but the message is the same. And you also prove my point by showing that no matter how ugly the WBC is/was (I think the leader is dead), nobody felt the need to bring guns and mow them down. Geller couldn't have asked for a better response than ALMOST being attacked, having both terrorists die and she gets to do her Camille routine and pretend she's a victim (which, lets face it, she would have been if that off duty cop didn't kill the terrorists). That's what pisses me off - geller got exactly what she wanted and I don't care how insulting they were, they're just cartoons.

[7962]

84. Thats what I've been saying as well.

But i still get spoken down to and insulted. Whats so hard about understanding the point you just expressed so well?

[leftynyc]

85. I'm not sure how long you've

been here but for me it's been over a decade and I've said many times that Islam gets a pass that no other religion gets. There are others that see it also and speak out about it sometimes. The ridiculous accusation that I (or you) am/are an Islamophobe only proves my point further.

[Coventina]

88. I've been here well over a decade as well, and have seen the same treatment.

Members can get banned for being an "Islamaphobe", but I've NEVER seen anyone get banned for being a "Cathlophobe" or an "Evangelophobe" or even the more general "Christophobe."

I have seen a few get banned for anti-Semitism, but more from an ethnic angle, never over the religion.


On edit: typo. Just woke up.....

[leftynyc]

90. Christians get trashed here

all the time and nobody even blinks. It's why the label Islamophobe goes in one ear and out the other.

[7962]

39. Great statement.

[7962]

43. Oh, I absolutely KNOW her intent was to inflame. And that doesnt matter.

Its still considered "free speech". We dont get to decide based on what we like or dont like. As I stated elsewhere, the best response would have been to totally ignore her. She likely wouldnt have had a 2nd "exhibit". Now, her point that muslims are violent being proven according to her, she'll do it all over again.
If nothing would've happened, she would probably have moved on to her next gimmick.

[delrem]

47. *You're* asserting that I question "free speech"

When I said nothing of the sort, or even close.

And *you* claimed that there was no ill intent, that it was "just cartoons".

BYE!

[7962]

76. They ARE just cartoons. Its ridiculous that people would kill over them.

But we have people here who think she should be CHARGED for having the event because she knew it would piss off muslims. So what.
We start charging or banning her, wait till the right wing is in charge and see who and what gets banned. Hell, DU could get chopped.
Life's tough. It's tougher when you're stupid. Dont try to shoot up a stupid cartoon show.

[delrem]

78. this is the world's smallest violin. listen ....

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

23. Free speech is just their cover - alibi if you will.

If anyone thinks this is actually about free speech, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Mapplethorpe did not make 'Piss Christ' that photograph is by Andres Serrano.

Robert Mapplethope's work offended people due to being 'homoerotic'. It's amazing to see two sides argue vehemently over art works they don't actually know, artists they can't name, statements they do not understand.

[leftynyc]

31. Because the art itself

is completely besides the point and not germane to the discussion but if you think it is, have at it. I don't care what Serrano or Mapplethorpe's intentions were or what their art was trying to say - many people found them highly insulting - and still managed not to kill anyone over them.

[7962]

42. Thanks for the correction.

The point is still the same, people who inflame with their "works" are free to do so in the US. And when we make Gellers nonsense illegal, at some point someone will also make the "homoerotic' art, or the jug of piss, or pile of dung ( Piero Manzoni) as well. Just a question of who is in power!

[Coventina]

35. Point of clarification: Piss Christ is not a work by Mapplethorpe

Piss Christ is by Andres Serrano.

Mapplethorpe's gig was homoerotic photography.
(That wasn't all he did, but that's what made him "controversial&quot .

on edit: should have read the entire thread before replying. Sorry to pile on when not needed!!

[7962]

40. Thank you for the correction.

[Tom Ripley]

38. I assume you meant Serrano, not Mapplethorpe, and the work is the photograph, not the "displaying

a crucifix in a jug of urine"
Have you seen the work? It is aesthetically pleasing and conceptually valid.

[7962]

41. Yes, i attributed the work incorrectly. But its still a picture of a jug of piss.

You are free to consider it art; thats the whole point of the discussion. But one poster above cannot seem to grasp how one is like the other in its inflammation.
And yes, I have seen it and can only hope you're being sarcastic! If not, hey, to each his own!

[Tom Ripley]

44. Are you sure? Because there is no "jug" in the photograph...

but only a crucifix with a golden radiance. Look again.

[7962]

45. I know its not in the photo, but I know how he made it too.

It was news at the time so you didnt have to see the picture to know what it was. I saw the picture knowing what it was, but it didnt really matter. He could have used any of the dozens of liquids that wouldnt be as offensive as his own urine, but he CHOSE to do what he had to know WOULD offend the most. In that respect, he's no different than Geller

[jberryhill]

104. "he CHOSE to do what he had to know WOULD offend the most"

No, you are completely ignorant of his intent and the meaning of the work.

Among the central concepts of Christianity is that of the incarnation of God in Christ - a divine being becoming fully human - and redemption in the blood of Christ. Bodily fluids are an essential part of the crucifixion story, both in terms of Christ's blood and the pleural fluid which was released by the Roman soldiers who stabbed him with a spear, so the story goes. The human body purifies blood through the kidneys, and the product of the blood purification process performed by the blood is urine. Light, filtered through urine, takes on a yellow timbre similar to the chiaroscuro effect used in classic representations of the crucifixion for hundreds of years.

The Serrano work is not "a crucifix in piss". It is a photograph of light filtered through urine reflecting on an image of the crucifix, which results in what looks like a classic "divine light" image of the crucifixion, while literally having been produced by filtering white light through the human product of purified blood.

What you've been led to believe about the work, its meaning, and intent, is bullshit.

[7962]

106. If that were true, he wouldn't have added "Piss Christ" to the name.

He would have simply left it titled "Immersion" as is in the full title. No one would've known urine was used. As a matter of fact, he could've used many other mediums to achieve the same appearance. Personally, I think it was intended to shock people and gain him attention. And it worked.
The fact that it was considered an insult to many Christians puts it on the same level as what Geller did. Much like the Virgin Mary paintings smeared with shit. Whats the point of that other than to irritate people?
But to each his own, you obviously have a different opinion.

[Coventina]

36. You can't attack a person who has been dead over 1000 years.

Geller's stunt wasn't an art exhibit, but it can't be classified as an attack either.

[delrem]

48. Of course hate speech is an attack!

WTF is wrong with DU?

[Coventina]

49. In what way is drawing cartoons of Muhammad "hate speech"?

The man is dead, he cannot be harmed.

If others take offense on his behalf, that is their choice to be offended.

Or, they can be grown-ups and ignore it.

[delrem]

55. "Muhammad" is just Geller's vehicle.

And you know that.
You, a "grown up", know that Geller is an anti-Islamic hater of the first order.

You talk just like her fans.

[Coventina]

56. There's a difference between being anti-Islam and anti-Muslim.

Geller is a loathsome person, and I am NOT a fan and never will be.

But being anti-(insert religion here) is not the same as behaving or speaking in a bigoted way of that religion's followers.

That's what's known as "tolerance".
You might disagree with their beliefs (and I most definitely disagree with most Abrahamic doctrine), but I do not advocate hateful behavior toward Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Being critical or mocking of a religion is not the same as directing the same behavior toward a person.

It's that simple.

[delrem]

57. Bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit!

bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit!

"There's a difference between being anti-Islam and anti-Muslim"

bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit!

I'M FUCKING WELL DONE HERE!

[Coventina]

59. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Any belief system is subject to scrutiny, criticism, ridicule, and disgust.

Denying people employment, housing, human rights, etc. for a belief system is wrong.

I don't know how to make it any more clear.

[delrem]

60. Thanks for your explanation, Pam. nt

[Coventina]

61. OK, whatevs. If it makes you feel better to insult me, have at it.

Again, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Still doesn't change the truth.

[delrem]

62. What "truth" are you selling?

That Pamela Geller isn't a hate monger?

Because that's all *my* point was.
THAT'S ALL IT WAS!
It wasn't an attack on "free speech". Or any of the other straw men.
I made a statement that I could feel the fucking hate. Something that you can't feel, because you're onside.

But hey, you make a fine distinction between "Muslims" and "Islam", as if one could exist without the other, and you pretend that Pamela Geller isn't totally about promoting hate.

Good bye.

[Coventina]

63. Not at all. I specifically said Pamela Geller was a loathsome person and I stand by it.

You stated that the "art show" was an attack.

I merely said that it wasn't an attack, because Muhammad is dead.

Now, it is entirely possible that there were people there that said hateful things about Muslims, in fact, I would willing to bet that there were. The event itself, though, was not an attack on Muslims any more than a KKK rally is an attack on African Americans.

Loathsome and despicable, but not an attack.

Of course there is a distinction between religion and the followers of a religion. We make such distinctions all. the. time.

My intention was not to make you angry, I was merely responding to a comment you made on a discussion board with which I disagreed.

[delrem]

65. oh my lord...

Thanks for the explanation, Pam.

eta: "The event itself, though, was not an attack on Muslims any more than a KKK rally is an attack on African Americans."

unbelievable.

[Coventina]

66. You're welcome.

[delrem]

67. "The event itself, though, was not an attack on Muslims any more than a KKK rally is an attack on Af

The event itself, though, was not an attack on Muslims any more than a KKK rally is an attack on African Americans."

uh huh.

Way to fucking well go.

[Coventina]

68. Horrible people seek out the company of other horrible people.

This is nothing new.

As long as they do not act out on their horrible ideas, they are allowed to spout whatever nonsense they want.

I am not pro-Geller or pro-KKK or pro-hate ANYTHING.

But I am never going to say that criticism of a belief system is automatically bigotry against those who believe in that system.

I think the Papacy is a horrible, cruel, bigoted, misogynistic institution that can't be ended soon enough.
It doesn't mean that I think Catholics are horrible people because they love their Pope.

I will work to try and make them feel differently, though.

[delrem]

69. Give it a rest. You're done.

[Coventina]

70. LOL! Sorry, I don't take orders from the internets.

But, I am leaving, because I'm going out to dinner.

I'll be sure to check in later to see what other manner of monster you describe me after I get home.

Cheers!!

[delrem]

71. " The event itself, though, was not an attack on Muslims any more than a KKK rally is an attack on A

"The event itself, though, was not an attack on Muslims any more than a KKK rally is an attack on African Americans."

Have a nice dinner, Pam.

[Coventina]

72. If you find my words so offensive, why do you keep repeating them?

[delrem]

74. I repeat them because I want you to EAT THEM FOR DINNER TONIGHT.

[Coventina]

79. Nom nom nom nom nom!!!!

Tasty and satisfying!




Seriously though, you are giving me WAY too much power.
It's just a discussion board.

[delrem]

83. "The event itself, though, was not an attack on Muslims any more than a KKK rally is an attack on Af

"The event itself, though, was not an attack on Muslims any more than a KKK rally is an attack on African Americans."

[7962]

77. You cant win with apologists.

But you sure can be insulted by them.

[Coventina]

80. I'm not insulted. I'm more amused than anything else, really.

I'm also a tad disappointed that apparently the difference between criticism of a belief system and actual "attacks" on a person is not understandable to some.

Not sure what to do about that.

[delrem]

82. "The event itself, though, was not an attack on Muslims any more than a KKK rally is an attack on "

"The event itself, though, was not an attack on Muslims any more than a KKK rally is an attack on African Americans."

Can't get lower than that.

[Coventina]

87. I'm not sure what your point is in continuing to repeat me.

Again, a GATHERING, no matter how loathsome the attendees, is not an ATTACK.
And, in this country, is specifically protected by the Constitution.

[delrem]

92. "There's a difference between being anti-Islam and anti-Muslim."

"The event itself, though, was not an attack on Muslims any more than a KKK rally is an attack on African Americans."

I quote you because I want you to recognize that in your zeal to defend Pamela Geller you are reduced to splitting hairs.

Reminds me of the bullshit "hate the sin, love the sinner" mantra of LGBT haters.

[Coventina]

93. Nope, that argument does not work.

First of all, please quote where I defend Pamela Geller.

Secondly, being LGBT is not a belief system, it is science. Those mental midgets are science deniers, blinded by their own brand of religious bigotry.

Thirdly, freedom of religion is a protected right in the Constitution as well. No one, INCLUDING MYSELF is arguing that Muslims not be allowed to freely practice their religion.

Shooting people over cartoons is not required in Islamic doctrine. Those people are just criminals.

[delrem]

94. It was your decision to respond to my original observation this way.

My original observation being that I can feel the hate from Geller's event. You took exception to that.

You chose to interpret Geller's anti-Islamic crusade of hate as being just anti-Islam and not-anti-Muslim. That's your distinction, and the only possible point of your phoney distinction is to defend Geller.
You decided to interpret the term "attack" as something that can only mean "physical attack", as if verbal attacks, organizational attacks, don't exist, can't possibly exist. It was you who denied that a KKK rally is an attack on African Americans, in effect denying that such an attack is the purpose of the KKK.

So whatever. I think I'll use the ignore feature.

[Coventina]

95. I wasn't arguing with your feelings. I disgreed with your description of art as "attack".

(and I wasn't the only one)

I haven't paid enough attention to Geller, quite frankly, to know the extent of her goals and aspirations.
For all I know she may be anti-Muslim AND anti-Islam and YES, there IS a difference.

In any case, I think she's a creep and I've said that from the beginning.

Hate groups are HORRIBLE and I WISH they did not exist, but they are allowed to exist, as long as they do not engage in criminal behavior.

This is spelled out VERY CLEARLY in the Constitution. Your argument seems to be with it, not with me.

[delrem]

99. When did I argue against free speech?

I never did, and I've told you so already - but you repeat it.
It's like you can't understand English.

I don't care that you can't recognize how such organized displays of hatred are attacks on people.

(you are now on full ignore)

[Coventina]

100. I never said that you did. You are putting words in my mouth.

You described Geller's contest as an attack.
I gave my reasons as to why that is not so.

You have disagreed with my reasons.

For all I know, Geller attacks Muslims on a daily basis. I certainly wouldn't put it past her.

But, CARTOONS are NOT an attack on people.

If that were the case, all political cartoonists would be in jail.

I'm sorry to hear that reasoned debate causes you to use your ignore function.

[delrem]

81. Now, you wonderful person, are calling me an "apologist".

All because I said that I could *feel* it that Geller's is hate speech.

You're just wonderful people.

[Coventina]

86. Whoops! My bad. You did reply to the correct poster. I apologize!

I just got up.
Haven't finished my Pepsi yet.....

[christx30]

97. The question comes down to

do you support gunmen coming out to Charlie Hebdo and killing the people making the Muhammad Cartoons? Or Geller's party?
Or are you saying that violence from some Muslims is inevitable, and no one should ever poke the bear? Neither position seems very progressive.

I mean, if someone were to say "you shouldn't hire blacks. They're just going to steal from you", you would rightly call that person a racist.

I hear "Muslims faith doesn't allow drawings of Muhammed. It's something that we have to respect."
I can kind of understand that argument. On the other hand, it puts your life under the yoke of someone else's religion. Should we do that with everyone's faith? Should we just not have abortion gay marriage out of respect for the religious sensibilities Christians, who view it as a direct attack on their religion? Or can we just live our lives with the understanding that someone else's religious rules only affect them, and not us?

The fact is that if these two guys had formed a counter protest instead of reaching for the weapons, they could have gotten their message out. But now they're dead, and they can't do anything, for good or ill.

[delrem]

98. What makes you think I support violence and killing?

What, in all I've posted, makes you think that?
I want to know.

[christx30]

101. I don't think you support violence or killing.

But most of what I've seen you post is attacks on the cartoonists, and not much, if anything, against the shooters. You know, the real bad guys here.

[delrem]

105. True.

I've expressed my revulsion for Pamela Geller's organized hate show.

I see no reason why that should be construed as support for shooters intent on mass murder.
Nor do I see reason why others have construed it as being an attack on "free speech" and the US constitution.

But OK, since people insist on interpreting my remarks expressing revulsion for Geller's freak show in that way, I'll say it: I do support free speech, and I don't support murder or attempted murder. OK?

[Sunlei]

11. It's never ok to 'bully' or 'corner' a suicidal person, they will do it.

[Paladin]

28. Any chance of Pam Geller being on-site for such an exhibit?

No, I didn't think so.

[closeupready]

33. What a douchebag.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

37. How about they hold it at some deserted island far away?

And then Geert Wilders and Pam Geller and ISIS can all go fight each other all day long and leave the rest of us normal folk alone.

[cbayer]

46. Freedom of speech? Sure, as long as it's not islamic speech.

I'm feeling pretty certain that the parliament is not going to go for this.

[seveneyes]

50. Islamic controlled countries and free speech

They get all the free speech Sharia Law allows them.

[cbayer]

52. So, should we emulate them or not?

Not sure what you point is here.

[seveneyes]

53. Not

Nor should we ever allow religious fanatics to tell us we can't insult their abusive ways.

[cbayer]

54. Agee. Nor should we let any fanatics say "Free speech for me but not for thee",

which is Gellers position.

[delrem]

64. To say nothing of how she totally *owns* the KKK, in the field of hate speech.

And these guys are gung ho advocates for it.

Wow.

[Sunlei]

91. Geert Wilders should show his own 2008 hate film cartoons

[yellowcanine]

96. Can't we put Mr. Wilders on a no fly list and keep him out of the U.S.?

Outside agitator and all that. We have banned Muslims for less.