NO to Hate Speech! NO to Geert Wilders!

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/members/phillyimc/sites/phillyimc.org/web/sites/all/modules/mailhandler/mailhandler.module on line 855.

David Horowitz is sponsoring a tour of anti-Muslim bigot and Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, which starts here in Philadelphia, at Temple University.

On Tuesday, October 20, 7pm Wilders is schedule to speak, with Horowitz providing the introduction.

Wilders is notorious for his anti-Islam statements, calling for the banning of the Koran, and an end to immigration from Arab and Muslim countries.  Horowitz has led a right-wing intimidation campaign against left-wing professors and students across the country.

Moreover, because the Muslim Student Association along with a number of other groups protested Temple University's acceptance of Wilders as a speaker, Horowitz has been on a mission to denounce the MSA as "jihadists."  The organizers of the event are calling Wilders a "European Free Speech Leader."

We must protest this intolerance and the intimidation of our Arab and Muslim sisters and brothers. 

The Wilders event begins at 7pm at Temple University's Tech Center.  Protesters will be gathering at 6:30pm.  The event location is on 12th Street just north of Montgomery St (and a couple blocks north of Cecil B. Moore).

John Coursey
International Socialist Organization

Some Geert Wilders quotes:

- "The Koran is an inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror." (Source: BBC News, 28 February 2008)

- "Moderate Islam? That's a contradiction." (Source: Spiegel.de, 31 March 2008)

- "Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches!" (Source: Expatica, Internet Archive, 13 February 2007)

-"Islam is the Trojan Horse in Europe. If we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia and Netherabia will just be a matter of time....We are heading for the end of European and Dutch civilisation as we know it."


Raphael MacNamara adds:

Those Quotes are tame. 

  • He called Islam a "retarded religion" 
  • He has said that Cultural Relativism is the Disease of Western Culture. 
  • When asked bye a reporter about taxing Islamic head dress for women, he said it doesn't matter what they think/want, he wasn't elected by them, he was elected by people that think like him... aka racist!
  • He claims to be promoting humanistic and christian and jewish values but says that that the Netherlands has been "too tolerant"! and that their should be exceptions to human rights to save his "cultures dominance".
  • He wants to stop Muslims from being able enter his country, actually he says they have to be stopped, but also he welcomes Muslim culture in another interview.... (as long as they don't believe in Islam, I guess)
  • He wants to outlaw Muslim symbolism.
  • He said Israel was BRAVE in bombing Gaza and he hoped the Netherlands would do the same thing!!!!!

Sorry I didn't source these and am making you watch the links I include to verify, but I more just wrote down his quotes and not which video I got it from, but most of these things are part of his "look-at-me-I-am-a-racist-and-you-come-to-listen-to-me" show.






Bin Laden appreciates Horowitz getting Muslims with mixed feelin

Today's Metro Newspaper had a strong well laid out article mentioning a protest at 7 PM not 6:30,

It is interesting to note that David Horowitz has high praise for General Stanley McChrystal who wants to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, while Horowitz is busy making any Muslim with mixed feeling to be more angry at the US instead. Before Obama much of the world used to hate the US, if Horowitz succeeds even more of the world will hate the US than under Bush. I think bin Laden appreciates people who make this a more polarized world.

I personally want to see Obama get out of Afghanistan as soon as the Taliban agree that they will turn any al Qaeda leader over for trial if a legitimate international court asks. Which would mean that the al Qaeda leaders leave Afghanistan and have less evidence to claim al Qaeda suicide bombers chased the US out, and less people will be inspired by suicidal tactics such as at the Columbine massacre For more about getting out with less lose see,


The protest started at 6:30

It was the speech that began at 7:00, that's what's getting the Metro confused.
Had Kanegis read the piece that I suggested he read, he'd realize that that Taliban have no interest in hosting al Qaeda again, so asking them to pledge that they won't host al Qaeda is an utterly superfluous demand.

Invited guest only meetings wasn't free speech in the past

People could only attend who were on the guest list. I know of someone who admired Wilders opposition to religious fundamentalism who even asked to attend. Were unscreened Temple students allowed to attend? Is this going to occur in campus's around the country like Horowitz's last hate tour?

When it comes to Afghanistan it's best that the US leave quickly under the best conditions we can. The Taliban aren't interested in rubbing things in with goals for the world like al Qaeda. The only thing that would get in the way is that the Taliban might suspect that it was a trick, that the US would find a way to stay.

We live in a world where nonviolent Buddhist monks in Burma are squashed, and 9/11 is the way desperate kids of any political stripe see results. Regardless of politics it would be good for the war in Afghanistan to end without the US appearing powerless.

But the harm to the US economy and to our mindset from endless war is immeasurable. Any way out of Afghanistan would be better.


Not sure

what happened to anti-Horowitz people once it came to getting in the door. I doubt that any signs or blatant displays were permitted. Security was pretty tight. Not sure if restricting admission to a speech is a violation of any sort unless the speaker is a public official and even then, there's a general recognition that the official's security trumps public access.
I agree on Afghanistan.

BTW, I took short movies of the demonstration with my cellphone, but I don't appear able to turn them into anything I can share with the public. The file format is 3G2 and YouTube needs MP4's.

"Racism" and "Diversity"

I find it interesting how Wilders is criticised here as being "racist", even though he has much travelling experience in the mideast, and is not wholly hateful of Muslims. 'Der Spiegel' has said that he will "wax poetic" about their magnificence, and he remarks "It's a real shame that these places are so chaotic."

How is that at all racist?

Islam is NOT a race, rather, it is an ideology. Ideologies are NOT the same as the people who follow them. Wilders recognises this, stating "I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam." Explain to me how this is "racist".

What Wilders is trying to do is preserve his country's rich cultural heritage. In other words, he is DEFENDING diversity.

For you members, of the "fashionable left", perhaps the prospect of a native culture being slowly strangled does not bother you, IF the strangling culture can be labeled as a "victim". But let's think about this logically for a moment. Mass immigration of a radically different culture has been horribly destructive to native cultures, historically speaking. Don't believe me? Read up on the histories of Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals!!

Furthermore, European and Islamic cultures have long been historical antagonists. See: Crusades, Battle of Tours, the Ottoman Empire in of Europe, ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, etc.

This relationship finally faded into temporary obscurity after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, when Europeans came into nominal control of most of the Islamic world by way of colonies and protectorates. But the Europeans never migrated in droves to these lands. The lands remained overwhelmingly Muslim. European culture never really threatened Islamic culture to any extent. And in the rare events when it did, who opposed it? Muslim NATIONALISTS.

In modern Western Europe, however, Islam DOES pose a cultural threat to Europe in ways that European culture never did to the Muslim world. Muslim immigration rates are alarmingly high, and Muslim birthrates greatly outpace native European ones. Germany is now offering incentives for German couples to have children. Islamic culture is fundamentally at odds with European culture. Need proof? Just compare Islamic Sharia codes with, say, modern Dutch or French law. The differences are striking. Women are subjugated in ways repulsive to most Western women, and punishments for crimes are often barbaric and medieval. In the west Honor beheading went out of fashion with crucifixion and 'the rack'.

Who opposed European colonisation of the Muslim world? Muslim NATIONALISTS. You do not seem to decry these people as "racist" and "bigoted".

Who opposes Muslim colonisation of the European world? European NATIONALISTS. They do essentially the same things as the Islamists of the past. Yet somehow, they are all "racist" and "bigoted".

That is a double standard.

I enjoy Döner and couscous as much as the next guy. But does that mean I need to mindlessly sit back and watch as European lands slowly slip out of European control and into the grip of an alien culture? I think not.

These is no physical equivalent of "white man's firewater" here to make westerners complacent. There are only these anti-diversity "multi-culti" views which pervade certain sections of the Western populace that threaten us with loss of our culture.

Such views are the TRUE threats to "diversity", not the views of Geert Wilders and like-minded individuals.

Your comments, please.

It is indeed a problem

that Wilder's religious bigotry is described as racism. Don't think that describing relgious bigotry as an ideology is any more accurate, though.
Wilders is defending "diversity"? Interesting definition of diversity, seeing as he's defending European culture against Muslim culture. Again, we're dealing with highly inaccurate definitions.
Erm, the people who wiped out large numbers of American and Australian natives were not "immigrants" in the sense that Muslims are immigrants to Europe. The people currently known as Americans and Australians made no attempt to become part of the native societies that were there first. Natives were simply pushed aside. When a Muslim migrates to, say, France, he or she must undergo some measure of assimilation, he or she must accept French rules and laws to at least some degree.
The problem of poorer people outbreeding more affluent people is a worldwide one, with Mexicans becoming dominant in the areas that were Mexican before 1846.
Please read Wilders' comments again before you claim that Muslims defending Muslim lands and Wilders' bigoted statements have anything in common.