UPDATE: 04-01-08 WILDERS FORCED TO MODIFY FILM

According to a report by the Associated Press, the creator of the widely-reviled film on the Koran is being forced to remove the Dutch cartoon that led to violent protests due to copyright restrictions. Although a case could be made for "fair usage" based on critical commentary of a social or political nature, it is unknown if such protections exist in that part of the world. It was the Danish Union of Journalists who threatened to sue if the cartoon was not removed. It is still unknown whether the Dutch government will bring charges against Wilders for using "hate speech."

And speaking of "hate speech" and cartoons, here is another example of the Muslim hypocrisy and copyright infringement by "the other side."

Hate Speech Example One...

According to reporting by Haaretz.com...

"Following the 'demise' of the Hamas Mickey Mouse character 'Farfur' at the hands of a belligerent Israeli soldier, Hamas' television station has introduced a Bugs Bunny lookalike who declares "I will eat Jews," a British newspaper reported Wednesday. "

"According to the Daily Mail, Hamas-controlled TV in Gaza has introduced 'Assud', a rabbit, claiming that he sneaked into Gaza from Egypt after the border was breached last month."

"Farfur, the Mickey Mouse lookalike who called for the terror attacks against Jews was beaten to death by an Israel Defense Forces soldier, only to be succeeded by Nahul the bee."

"Nahoul was killed a week later when an Israeli siege prevented him from receiving medical treatment."

"The Hamas TV show faced global condemnation - and the threat of a lawsuit from Disney - before Farfur was taken off the air."

"The newspaper report said that the new show ended with a song, 'We will never recognize Israel, until we liberate our homeland from the Zionist filth.'"

"In the new show, Assud speaks with Saraa, a young girl narrator. 'We are all martyrdom seekers, are we not Saraa?' Assud asks. 'We will sacrifice our souls and everything we own for the homeland,' he says."

"'We will liberate al-Aqsa from the filth of those Zionists,' Saraa replies."

"'I Assud will get rid of the Jews and I will eat them up, Allah willing,' Assud concludes the scene."

Hate Speech Example Two...

From CNSNews.com...

"The Hamas television station that brings anti-Israel propaganda to children is doing it again -- this time with a puppet of President Bush who is killed by a Muslim child."

"Hamas' Al-Aksa satellite television station aired a children's puppet show on Sunday in which the Bush puppet is stabbed to death by a puppet identified as an orphaned child. The child puppet blames Bush for killing his relatives."

"The puppet show is part of a weekly children's program that imitates the news and delivers sermons. A translation was provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute."

"The anti-American message is clear: The President Bush puppet, dressed in an army uniform and black boxing gloves, asks to speak to the child's parents, but the child replies that he is an orphan."

"'You killed daddy in the Iraq war,' the puppet says. 'As for my mom -- you and the criminal Zionists killed her in Lebanon. You and the criminal Zionists also killed my younger and older brothers in the Gaza holocaust. I'm an orphan, you criminal!' the child cries."

"The puppet vows to take revenge on Bush with 'this sword of Islam.'"

"'I have brought thousands [and] thousands of children from Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. You have denied all these children their fathers and mothers. That's why I have come to take revenge on you and on all the criminal traitors who collaborated with you,' he says."

"The child puppet repeatedly stabs Bush, after telling him the White House has been turned into 'a great mosque for the nation of Islam.'" 

So where is Ban ki-Moon and the United Nations' condemnation of these examples of "hate speech?" Or does the anti-American, corrupt and chaotic United Nations only pander to despots?

Which begs the question, why do you not see militant Jews rioting in the streets, destroying their own property and watching Rabbis on public television demand that the program's creators and distributors be beheaded or mutilated? Perhaps because the Jewish religion, teaching and Holy documents all teach peace, tolerance and respect for other ideas and cultures -- unlike Islam which declares itself to be the only way to the "afterlife" and that all unbelievers should be killed or subjugated.

Both examples prove the point of Wilder's film: Islam, as it is being practiced, is intolerant and must be modified if it is to exist and be welcomed into the world community or the jihadists who perverted the religion must be destroyed. There can be no co-existence with evil without selling your soul to the devil. One need only look at the occupation of France by the Nazis in World War II.  

Original Blog Entry...

Once again the United Nations proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it openly supports anti-human rights concepts and repressive regimes that deny freedom to much of the world's population.

According to Wikipedia...

"The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues. The UN was founded in 1945 to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between nations and to provide a platform for dialogue."

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion are basic human rights...

As I written before, free speech, by its very nature, is the freedom to say anything you want about any subject, anytime and in any forum.

The only prohibitions are giving false alarm (crying "fire" in a crowded theatre); bearing false witness (libel, slander) and inciting a riot which is contrary to the maintenance of good public order and conduct. Other than that, it is what it is!

In this case it is not the filmmaker that is inciting a riot, it is those that believe that their religion allows them to kill, maim and create havoc with impunity -- all in the name of the "Religion of Peace."

Only despotic regimes, their enablers and apologists fear free speech.  Only the cowardly will apologize to the oppressors and plead for calm when the truth is openly and courageously told.

According to Reuters...

"U.N.'s Ban condemns Dutch film as anti-Islamic"

"U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday condemned as 'offensively anti-Islamic' a Dutch lawmaker's film that accuses the Koran of inciting violence.

"Ban acknowledged efforts by the government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of the film, which was launched by Islam critic Geert Wilders over the Internet, and appealed for calm to those 'understandably offended by it.'"

"'There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,' Ban said in a statement. 'The right of free expression is not at stake here.'"

Notice how Ban cleverly twists the truth from a true statement in the first part of the paragraph ('There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence.") to a demonstrably untrue statement at the end of the paragraph ("The right of free expression is not at stake here.")

There is no doubt in my mind that the right of free expression is EXACTLY what is at stake here! After all, nobody is censoring Ban's comments or demanding a retraction -- only commenting on them; which is as it should be.

"The short film, titled "Fitna," an Arabic term sometimes translated as "strife," intersperses images of the September 11 attacks on the United States and Islamist bombings with quotations from the Koran."

"The film urges Muslims to tear out 'hate-filled' verses from the Koran and starts and finishes with a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad with a bomb under his turban, accompanied by the sound of ticking."

"Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility," Ban said.

Cultural sensitivity as a precursor to defeat?

Coming from North Korea, Ban is probably culturally attuned to the "go along to get along" Asian culture where there is slavish devotion to the "collective" rather than supporting "individual" dissenting acts.

Social responsibility is far different from a required adherence to a social outlook promoted by a political or religious viewpoint.

Is there a point where the United Nations should transcend cultural sensitivity for the greater good? Is there a point when you must speak the truth about any religious book that lacks apparently tolerance for dissenting views and prescribes death for all of those who do not submit?

A diplomatic canard?

"'We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists, on different sides, with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict,' Ban said."

Common sense will tell you that this is not true. If the main religious documents are intolerant of other faiths and demand the execution of those who do not believe and submit, then the religion, as it is practiced, is fundamentally flawed.

There cannot be any other interpretation. If there was another, more enlightened version, religious leaders far and wide would proclaim it from the highest pulpits and condemn those who distorted and denigrated the "official" interpretation. There has been no such outcry among mainstream Muslims or their religious leaders.

One man stands up and tells the truth...

One man, Geert Wilders, a Dutch lawmaker stands up and claims that ISLAM is:

• not tolerant of free speech;
• does not recognize any other religion;
• commands its followers to kill and destroy those who do not harbor and spread the religion's beliefs; and
• openly promotes itself as the ONLY way to live in this world!

He illustrates his beliefs by juxtaposing passages from the Koran with the acts of violence that they allegedly inspired.

The film is extremely difficult to watch as it contains the 9-11 planes hitting the Twin Towers, the falling body where the choice was being burned alive or jumping to a certain death and the beheading of a captured American.

No Korans were destroyed in the making of this film...

It should be noted that the filmmaker actually goes so far to claim that the sounds of the page tearing was generated by tearing the pages of a telephone book -- so as not to destroy someone's Holy book.

Academy Award?

There is no doubt the film engenders strong emotional responses in its viewers: dismay by some, joy by others. But is that not the purpose of  such a film? If Hollywood had any real guts, they would nominate the film for an Academy Award. After all, it has generated far more viewers in a shorter period of time than most other films of a political nature. Will Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Mike Farrell, Susan Sarandon et. al. stand up for the filmmaker's rights of free speech?

Condemned as being irresponsible...

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned Geert Wilders' film as being  "offensively anti-Islamic."

Why?

Because the extreme elements of Islam, the so-called Islamo-fascists, might turn to murder and mayhem or  participate in riots leading to the widespread destruction of property?

These are the same ignorant and intolerant crazies that show no tolerance for other viewpoints and rioted over the type of "political cartoons" found in most civilized, democratic and free countries. 

Where the individual nations should have prosecuted and deported everyone involved in the disruptive criminal activities, the politicians lacked the courage of their convictions and did nothing but apologize to the perpetrators. Thus insuring "more of the same" outrageous behavior in the future.

Ban Ki-moon is the irresponsible party...

Ban Ki-moon does not seem to openly refute the film's truth or stand up for the filmmaker's freedom to put forth his opinion, but appears to condemn the film project as being "socially irresponsible."

I suggest that Ban Ki-moon is shirking his official duties and he should be convening a United Nations' panel on Islam. They should be charged with a simple task: determining whether or not the main documents of the faith are intolerant of other beliefs, whether or not the religion demands that unbelievers submit or face death -- and whether or not these findings can be tolerated in an ever-shrinking world by those who respect the human rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly?

Judging for yourself...

According to CNSNews.com...

"The film juxtaposes graphic images of Islamist terrorism -- including bombings and beheadings -- with verses from the Koran, footage of Muslim clerics endorsing violence, and newspaper headlines dealing with various aspects of radical Islam."

"In recent months reports on the planned film, entitled Fitna (an Arabic word in the Koran translated as "strife" or "ordeal"), have prompted reactions in the Islamic world ranging from allegations of blasphemy and diplomatic maneuvers to angry street demonstrations."

"European authorities warned of more violence to come, and the Dutch government urged Wilders to drop the plan. Dutch television channels declined to broadcast his film."

"Wilders' earlier attempts to post the movie on a Web site he registered for that purpose ran into trouble when the U.S.-based hosting company suspended it, citing complaints, even though the site was merely a holding page with no accessible content."

The Americans refuse to host the film...

The American firm Network Solutions, once the top Internet firm in the world, posted this notice on the www.fitnathemovie.com website:

"This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site's content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation. For more information about Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy visit the following URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/aup.jsp"

Far from respecting the rights of authors, filmmakers and others to enjoy American freedoms, Network Solutions seems to be waffling about the propriety of posting this material -- although it had little comment about the number of sites that feature similarly objectionable pornography --which is also offensive to a large number of religious people.

A British firm, LiveLeak, steps up...

"The right-wing lawmaker subsequently succeeded in getting the film posted on the British video sharing site, LiveLeak. Despite a few hitches overnight, as of early Friday morning (U.S. eastern daylight time) the English version had been viewed more than 2.5 million times and the Dutch one 2.7 million times, according to figures on the site."

"LiveLeak said in a statement it did not endorse the views expressed in the film, and that many of those involved with the site found some of the material offensive. But, it added, 'our being offended is no reason to deny Mr. Wilders the right to have his film seen. Pre-emptive censorship or a discriminatory policy towards freedom of speech are both things we oppose here.'"

LiveLeak relents under serious threats...

"Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill-informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, LiveLeak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers," the site LiveLeak.com said in a statement.

Here is their withdrawal statement...

This video is "proof positive" that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim and that the vocal and vicious majority hold sway over the complicit mass of so-called "moderates" -- if they even exist.

You cannot blame LiveLeak, a private company without the physical protections of a governmental agency, for choosing employee safety over an adverse outcome. Which clearly makes it a governmental matter to protect its citizens from terrorism and terrorist acts.

The world in crisis? 

Which leaves us with the question: should all threats made against the film's creator and distributors be treated as "terrorist" threats and subject those who are guilty of making these threats to the severest punishment available under the law?

Can a rational society, a free society, a tolerant society permit any single religion to so dominate its actions as to constitute a clear and present threat to the very fabric of democratic freedom?

If these threats should be treated as terrorist activities and society, collectively, determines that the practice of a single religion is inimical to and orderly society, what might be the next likely steps to contain the spreading contagion or moderate its viewpoint?   

Had it not been for the profligate wealth of certain oil-bearing countries, this issue would have been contained to the Middle East... but now threatens to explode onto the world stage ... perhaps as the foundation for WW III.

And, what greater demonstration of the wisdom of our founding fathers when they wrote the Second Amendment.

Reference Links...

U.N.'s Ban condemns Dutch film as anti-Islamic | Reuters