Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Tyyr**

Kilkrazy wrote:It is a bit odd to want to be a politician in a democratic country and not engage in debate.

Obviously you have not be keeping up on American politics in the last few years.

**Frazzled**

Tyyr wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:It is a bit odd to want to be a politician in a democratic country and not engage in debate.

Obviously you have not be keeping up on politics in the last few years.

fixed your typo.

**whitedragon**

@ Sebster, Dogam and Ahtman:

How dare you post things that make sense and get in the way of my OT forum enjoyment. I want more extremism and shenanigans, not less due to people realizing what they are sayin!

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
It is if you're at the other end of the sword.

So its hate speech when people talk about exporting democracy?

Frazzled wrote:
Hate speech is just speech you disagree with.

Really? So all those non-determinist philosophers that I've argued against have been subject to hate speech? And all of your statement that I disagree with are hate speech directed against me?

Come on Frazz, I know you like simple arguments, but you know that you're wrong here.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
It is if you're at the other end of the sword.

So its hate speech when people talk about exporting democracy?

Frazzled wrote:
Hate speech is just speech you disagree with.

Really? So all those non-determinist philosophers that I've argued against have been subject to hate speech? And all of your statement that I disagree with are hate speech directed against me?

Come on Frazz, I know you like simple arguments, but you know that you're wrong here.

You really are snappy with Dakka's Worst Mod Evah aren't you.
Philosophical arguments are not illumninative. Show me what the various laws using hate speech say. My only familiarity is PC codes on campus, and am not familiar with international laws in this area. PC college campus codes have been used to stifle a variety of different free speech advocates (of several positions).

Check that, Sanfrancisco has some anti obesity laws on the books now. So yea, its pretty much whatever the party in power disagrees with.

EDIT: Further, we're talking about Wilders and various Europa laws no? If there is no Constitution level protection, there's isn't anything keeping current legislation, whatever it is from changing to suit the majority in power.

**generalgrog**

George Spiggott wrote:Rather like the stony silence when Gerry Adams would be asked about IRA attacks or when Dakka's Christians respond to 'young earthers' deciding school curriculums.

What is it all these people have in common? (semi-rhetorical)

Wow the ignorance in this post is quite astonishing.

Comparing "DAKKA's Christians" and "young earthers" to IRA terrorists?

GG

**Frazzled**

generalgrog wrote:
George Spiggott wrote:Rather like the stony silence when Gerry Adams would be asked about IRA attacks or when Dakka's Christians respond to 'young earthers' deciding school curriculums.

What is it all these people have in common? (semi-rhetorical)

Wow the ignorance in this post is quite astonishing.

Comparing "DAKKA's Christians" and "young earthers" to IRA terrorists?

GG

Incorrect GG. We're going with the interpretation that he did not mean Dakka members.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Philosophical arguments are not illumninative. Show me what the various laws using hate speech say.

Well, for starters, I'm not aware of any hate speech law that states that hate speech is equivalent to speech you do not agree with.

Frazzled wrote:
My only familiarity is PC codes on campus, and am not familiar with international laws in this area. PC college campus codes have been used to stifle a variety of different free speech advocates (of several positions).

Check that, Sanfrancisco has some anti obesity laws on the books now. So yea, its pretty much whatever the party in power disagrees with.

Yeah, that's usually how legislation works. You try to ban things that you don't like. I mean, even people that advocate free speech try to ban non-free speech.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:

Yeah, that's usually how legislation works. You try to ban things that you don't like. I mean, even people that advocate free speech try to ban non-free speech.

So you just agreed with me. Excellent....

**dogma**

generalgrog wrote:
Wow the ignorance in this post is quite astonishing.

Comparing "DAKKA's Christians" and "young earthers" to IRA terrorists?

GG

No, that's not what was done. He compared the lack of response with respect to Dakka Christians in the context of young earth conversations to the lack of response with respect to Gerry Adams in the context of IRA terrorism.

The presence of two words in the same sentence is not sufficient to conclude that they were being compared.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
So you just agreed with me. Excellent....

Not considering what you wrote. Maybe I'm not clear on your meaning.

**Frazzled**

Here's a nice summary. the Dutch law is particularly open to interpretation, which is bad.
http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws

European Hate Speech Laws
Since the end of World War II, many European countries have witnessed a proliferation of hate speech legislation designed to curb incitement to racial and religious hatred. Though originally intended to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, today, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one's race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality. Under the guise of tolerance and co-existence, Islamists have often manipulated such laws in a bid to monopolize debate and define what is beyond the pale of permissible public discussion.

In large part, the movement to circumscribe the bounds of free expression has its roots in three instruments of international law—the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Discrimination (CERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 10 of the ECHR, for example, grants the freedom of expression to all, but the exercise of this right is conditioned on conformity with the restrictions necessary, inter alia, "for the protection of the reputation and rights of others." The CERD and ICCPR, which also purport to recognize the freedom of expression, go a step further. Article 4(a) of the CERD obligates signatories to make "all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred" a punishable offense, while Article 20 of the ICCPR requires outlawing "any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence."

Given the nebulous standards on which much of Europe's hate speech laws are based—indeed, there is not even a universally agreed upon definition for what constitutes hate speech—it is little wonder that such legislation has ensnared speech it was likely never meant to punish. Delineating the line between speech that is considered rude and that which is considered insulting for the purposes of criminal prosecution is an utterly subjective undertaking, and a distinction that governments are ill-suited to determine. Compounding the problem of these laws' arbitrariness is their selective application: while European authorities have at times appeared reluctant to go after Islamist firebrands spouting hatred, those engaging in legitimate debate about Islamism are frequently targeted for prosecution. Examples abound:

Denmark: Article 266(b) of the Danish Criminal Code criminalizes "expressing and spreading racial hatred", making it an offense to use threatening, vilifying, or insulting language intended for the general public or a wide circle of persons. In 2001, several Danish politicians were convicted under this provision for allegedly making "anti-Islamic" statements. More recently, in June 2010, the Danish crown prosecutor sought to lift MP Jesper Langballe's parliamentary immunity so that he could face charges under Article 266(b) for publishing an article about the creeping "Islamisation of Europe" and the subjugated status of Muslim women.

France: France's principle piece of hate speech legislation is the Press Law of 1881, in which Section 24 criminalizes incitement to racial discrimination, hatred, or violence on the basis of one's origin or membership (or non-membership) in an ethic, national, racial, or religious group. A criminal code provision likewise makes it an offense to engage in similar conduct via private communication.

Such laws have been deployed against individuals across a broad swath of society. In 2002, four Muslim organizations filed a complaint against author Michel Houellebecq for stating that Islam was "stupid" and "dangerous" in an interview. Although the court acquitted Houellebecq, it refrained from doing so on free speech grounds. In 2005, politician Jean Marie Le Pen, runner-up in the 2002 presidential election, was convicted of inciting racial hatred for comments made to Le Monde in 2003 about the consequences of Muslim immigration in France. And in 2008, actress Brigitte Bardot was haled into court and convicted on charges of inciting racial hatred for her criticism concerning the ritual slaughter of sheep during a Muslim feast. Bardot was ordered to pay €15,000, the fifth time she was fined for inciting racial hatred against Muslims since 1997.

The Netherlands: Long considered a bastion for the freedom of thought and expression, Holland has today joined in the European retreat on free speech. Together, Articles 137(c) and 137(d) of the Dutch Criminal Code operate to prohibit making public intentional insults, as well as engaging in verbal, written, or illustrated incitement to hatred, on account of one's race, religion, sexual orientation, or personal convictions. The most prominent hate speech case to date is that of politician Geert Wilders, who was indicted by the public prosecutor in 2009 for his public comments about Muslims and Islam, and his release of a short film documenting inflammatory passages in the Qur'an.

United Kingdom: Sec. 18(1) of the Public Order Act of 1986 (POA) states that "a person who uses threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, is guilty of an offence if: a) he intends to thereby stir up racial hatred, or; b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby." Among the panoply of other British hate speech laws is Section 5 of the POA, which makes it a crime to use or display threatening, abusive, or insulting words "within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress thereby." Indeed, it was under this incredibly low threshold that Christian hoteliers Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, accused by a Muslim patron of calling Muhammad a "warlord", were charged, but ultimately acquitted, in 2009. Conversely, Harry Taylor, an atheist who placed drawings satirizing Christianity and Islam in an airport prayer room, was convicted in April 2010 under Section 5 and given a six-month prison sentence.

The Legal Project has tracked the challenges posed by Europe's national hate speech laws to free speech, educating policymakers and the general public about the danger through op-ed articles, speeches, and blog commentary. The Legal Project has also worked to inform the legal community about the problem through its new Continuing Legal Education course, Suing the Messenger: The Misuse of Law to Suppress Free Speech Regarding Terrorism, Radical Islam and Related Topics.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:Here's a nice summary. the Dutch law is particularly open to interpretation, which is bad.

Ah, ok, yeah it seems we agree. I'm just being more specific than you, which is normal.

**Frazzled**

Hugs and kisses to you too Dogma.

**Kilkrazy**

I think Europe is particularly sensitive to this issue because of events last century.

There is an argument, though, that hate speech must be allowed to happen if it is to be countered by non-hate speech.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:I think Europe is particularly sensitive to this issue because of events last century.

There is an argument, though, that hate speech must be allowed to happen if it is to be countered by non-hate speech.

Its the theory of the cleansing disinfectant of sunlight.

**Orlanth**

On the Christians and young earthers issue.

To head straight for the topic here I am yet to find ANY Dakka Christians who have posted a belief in hardline literalist Creationism. The idea that such people openly exist here is just part of someones unhealthy magination, if anyone thinks that Dakkas Christians are hardline creationist literalists, they do so unsupported by what we have actually said here. Likely the blind assumption that even some Dakka Christians are hardline creationsirts is just a catchall label designed to put words into others mouths in order to leap to their condemnation. On that note cheers to Frazzie for reestablishing the distinction between hardline creationists and terrorists, that one didn't help matters either.

There is a lot of Christian bashing over Creationism. For a start as seen above many people simply blindly assume or prefer to assume all Christians beleive in literalist creationist stories, or are unaware of what Creationism doesnt have a single meaning mutually exclusive with Evolution. In fact while I am a very fervent Chrisitian with a LOT of church connections, in various denominations and personally know some big names ministers; I must admit I have seen enough true hardline Creationist literalists to count on one hand. However despite the low odds that any random Christian you meet is actually by ultra dogmatic the bashers dont care, they just found beatstick and wanna beat.

I can tell you straight up its a beatstick because literal Creationism comes from the book of Genesis. Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible and is thus holy to Christians and suprise suprise Jews and Moslems too. Do they get bashed the same way?
Now many hotheads are happy to bawl and yell and use the beatstick on Christians, the same are usually a lot quieter or reluctant to about mock Judiasm or Islam. Mock Judaism and you risk getting labelled an anti-Semite and a very well oiled propoganda machine comes into play at that point which can tarnish everything you say and do. We all know what happens when you mock Islam.
It's a lack of moral fibre usually, going for acid comments on easy targets that are not culturally enabled or just plain vindictive enough to hit back.

Let look at a case study example: the comedy program South Park loves to lampoon religions. South Park tries to be fair by heaping scorn on just about anyone, but even that is grossly unevenly applied in practice due to widely differenng tolerances of critique. Jesus is frequently lampooned, but thats risk free and in fact when some Christians get upset the only effect it has is to boost ratings. The program makers run a risk by lampooning Scientology or Islam, and were far more reluctant to do so, and in the case of Islam quickly self sensored out of fear. South Park is yet to have a go at Judaism in anything like the same way, its is depicted but more respectfully. Mocking Judaism is a line most program makers in the US dare not cross, even South Park. Even the very tame lampooning of Moses in the 'Jewbilee' episode caused deep controversy even though it did not mock the tenets of Judaism.

So observe next time you see people want to bash Christians for things that all the Abrahamic relgions beleive similar things in, and let as be very clear here: all the controversial things in Christianity other than the Resurrection and divinity of Jesus are shared with both other Abrahamic faiths. Observe and ask yourself, or better yet the critics why the critics are not labelling Jews of Moslems in addition to Christians, and usully they wont be.

In the UK Christian bashers have an unfortunately valid though morally piss poor excuse, due to the dogmas imposed on us by the Blair regime. You can be arrested for a 'hate crime' offense for openly saying things about some religions including (perhaps especially) Islam which are very similar to comments also stated openly and frontally against Christianity without reproach.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:On the Christians and young earthers issue.

To head straight for the topic here I am yet to find ANY Dakka Christians who have posted a belief in hardline literalist Creationism.

Grog is pretty much what you're describing, at least as I understand.

**Kilkrazy**

I think it depends if you mean people who believe the Bishop Ussher theory, or people who believe that God created the Universe.

There are one or two Ussherites, but that is a tiny minority among the generally participating Dakka.

**AbaddonFidelis**

Kilkrazy wrote:I think Europe is particularly sensitive to this issue because of events last century.

There is an argument, though, that hate speech must be allowed to happen if it is to be countered by non-hate speech.

I agree with this. they appear to be alot less confident of democratic principles than the united states is. understandable, given their history. still I think they're going the wrong way here. if you cant trust people to talk without government oversight, then how do you trust them to vote?

**Orlanth**

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:On the Christians and young earthers issue.

To head straight for the topic here I am yet to find ANY Dakka Christians who have posted a belief in hardline literalist Creationism.

Grog is pretty much what you're describing, at least as I understand.

I remember General Grog posting on a number of religion threads and I do not think he is a literalist, he is not a theologian, but knows his basics and is unconfused regarding the tenets of his faith. I will leave it to him to say more.

The only major church group that has literalist crerationism as an 'enforced' doctrine for a very long time are the Seventh Day Adventists, which isn't really suprising. I only met one Seventh Day Adventist, they have a 'major' headquarters in our town, which is nonetheless a very quiet place, so its no suprise to hear they are a rarity nowadays. Those people who I know who know any have never known any problems with them, they are not an extremist group by any stretch. They are quite harmless, and are good sober caring Christians by all accounts, so I will happily defend them from any accusations of 'whackjob' or 'idiot'.

If someone is a literalist, but is nontheless a decent carting brother who as far as his humanity allows abhors hypocritical living I can see no reason to show anything but respect for his faith. This is where I stand with Seventh day Adventists, in another way its how I stand with all non-violent, and seriously honest religious people, even those who follow other Gods. I have far more respect for an honest peaceful Moslem than a hypocritical Christian, and i have met a number of both.

**generalgrog**

Thanks for the complement Orlanth, however I do consider myself a "literalist" when it comes to the creation account as it is portrayed in Genesis chapter 1. I also believe there was a literal world wide flood, a literal parting of the Red Sea, water turned into wine, etc.etc.

I am a Bible believer.

I won't castigate Christians that don't believe the way I do, but I do most certainly believe they are in error.

GG

**Bran Dawri**

Frazzled wrote:EDIT: Further, we're talking about Wilders and various Europa laws no? If there is no Constitution level protection, there's isn't anything keeping current legislation, whatever it is from changing to suit the majority in power.

I'm not sure what the laws of Jupiter's moon that we have only reached with probes have to do with Wilders

.

On topic: Um, I don't really know what to think of this. I abhor Wilders (even though he's from the same hometown as I am) and his fearmongering, but I'm not sure suing him in this way is the way to go.

I think that to resolve this whole Islam/extremist/political powergrabbing through fear issue we should genetically engineer and release intelligent, green martians so we can have the first interplanetary Earth-Mars war to unite all of humanity. Who's with me?

Why can't we all just... get along?

**Orlanth**

Bran Dawri wrote:
On topic: Um, I don't really know what to think of this. I abhor Wilders (even though he's from the same hometown as I am) and his fearmongering, but I'm not sure suing him in this way is the way to go.

So its just scaremongering when cartoonists get killed is it, the danger is real mate.

People are pussy footing around beacause they dont know what to do, its the elephant in the room. Islam however is not here to share, it wants its way, all day and is willing to kill to get it.

Only a fool would bnlame this on a 'minority' because the easiest way for the relgious attacks to stop would be if thev supposed peace loving Islamic majority forced them to stop. UIslam is not being supressed or repressed in the Netherlands, or elsewhere in Europe. therer is no actual reason beyond religious dogma for the killings. However nothing is being donte to stamp out the relgious violence. You need to come to a point where those parts of a relgion that do not speak out against a problem are part of the problem. Questions need to be asked of the religions.

Do you utterly condemn the killing or violence against an offender of your faith and leave all punishment to either the lawful court of the country you are in.
Do you agree that severe punishment of religious offenders outside the courts should be left to the afterlife by a just God, and not pursued now by fallible mortals.

Places of worship of any denomination that fail to give satisfactory answers should be closed.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Why can't we all just... get along?

If militant Islam agreed with that, I doubt you would have heard a peep from Wilders.

Has Wilders killed cartoonists for drawing pictures he dosnt like? No, and I am sure by now there are plenty of negative political cartoons in the media about him.
Has Wilders committed any 'honour killings' of young women who go with the wrong guy? Not, that I am aware of, and from what I hear there are plenty of girls in holland who like to move around a bit.
Has Wilders called for the elimination of a section of the population? Be honest now, he hasnt, he doesnt like Islam; but since when has he called for their deaths.

Arent you pointing the finger at the wrong guy. All Wilders is doing is pointing out that something is wrong, that Hollands hospitality and openness is being taken forgranted by people who have no intention of integrating.

**egor71**

Bran Dawri wrote:
Frazzled wrote:EDIT: Further, we're talking about Wilders and various Europa laws no? If there is no Constitution level protection, there's isn't anything keeping current legislation, whatever it is from changing to suit the majority in power.

I'm not sure what the laws of Jupiter's moon that we have only reached with probes have to do with Wilders .

On topic: Um, I don't really know what to think of this. I abhor Wilders (even though he's from the same hometown as I am) and his fearmongering, but I'm not sure suing him in this way is the way to go.

I think that to resolve this whole Islam/extremist/political powergrabbing through fear issue we should genetically engineer and release intelligent, green martians so we can have the first interplanetary Earth-Mars war to unite all of humanity. Who's with me?

Why can't we all just... get along?

Because moeslims want your head on a stick, chamberlain!
I guess your the kind that is friendly when someone want to beat you up

**Orlanth**

generalgrog wrote:Thanks for the complement Orlanth, however I do consider myself a "literalist" when it comes to the creation account as it is portrayed in Genesis chapter 1. I also believe there was a literal world wide flood, a literal parting of the Red Sea, water turned into wine, etc.etc.

I am a Bible believer.

I won't castigate Christians that don't believe the way I do, but I do most certainly believe they are in error.

GG

Very well Grog. I am a Bible beleiver too.

Remember the bit about Jesus being hailed the messiah. What did the Jews want? Most of them wanted a 'conquering son of David' someone who would liberate the people from the Romans. But literalism was wrong. The verses actually mean liberating people from sin, Jesus conquered sin and death, not the Romans occupiers.
Jesus broke the commandments as seen by literalists, but he did not break the commandments by Gods interpretation, has literalism been Gods interpretation then Jesus' many violations of the Law would have been sin and he would be unworthy to go to the cross for us.
All through the Gospels Jesus was condemned by literalists for breaking Gods literal Law, yet the law was never broken and Jesus remained the perfect sacrifice even though he 'worked' on the sabbath and dined with sinners.

So you have a dilemma, the Bible, which we see has true, has clear and direct repeat warnings that Bible literalism can be erroneous, and so when applying the Bible as Truth then only some things should be taken absolutely literally. The big point is which bits, the text itself tells us it cannot mean all of them, as some have already proven to require indirect interpretation to see the Truth in the Word. Thus someone can be non literalist and still adhere to the faith. Like you I beleive all the Bible to be Gods Word, true and reliable, but I am ready to discard the face meaning of passages and look sideways to see how that is so.

**Kilkrazy**

Orlanth wrote:Islam is not being supressed or repressed in the Netherlands, or elsewhere in Europe.

It is illegal to build a minaret in Switzerland. No other religion builds minarets.

It is illegal to wear a burkha in France. No other full face head coverings, such as the motorcycle helmet or the komuso hat, have been made illegal.

Consequently it is clear that these are specifically anti-Muslim laws.

It can be argued that the burkha is a cultural, not a religious phenomenon, however looked at from the other side of the religious divide, it should be obvious how it might affect Muslim feelings.

**Orlanth**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Orlanth wrote:Islam is not being supressed or repressed in the Netherlands, or elsewhere in Europe.

It is illegal to build a minaret in Switzerland. No other religion builds minarets.

- Not repression, thats town planning. Switzerland decided that minarets change the image of their towns and decided that they collectively didnt want them. Islam can still be practiced openly and mosques built.

It is illegal to wear a burkha in France. No other full face head coverings, such as the motorcycle helmet or the komuso hat, have been made illegal.

- Full burkha is seen as an opression of women, hijab is not banned anywhere. its also a security issue, you diont know who you are dealing with. Passport photos with burkhas are not permitted, the immigration and security teams have reaoanble right to see a persons face. For the same reason motorcycle helmets are also restricted. This is why security helmets were redesigned with full transparent visors and people in bike helmets are not allowed though bank doors.

Consequently it is clear that these are specifically anti-Muslim laws.

- Nope, for the reasons listed above. Swirtzerland has good reason to say no to minarets and headware restrictions are more common than just burkhas.

It can be argued that the burkha is a cultural, not a religious phenomenon, however looked at from the other side of the religious divide, it should be obvious how it might affect Muslim feelings.

- How would you know? Moslem women aren't ususually entitled to express themselves and have no choice on whether to wear the burkha, usage is almost entirely down to the clan preference of the Islamic subculture their husbands or fathers belong to. The burkhas is a form of oppression, there is no cultural group that of its own volition secludes itself in this way, it mentally unhealthy for a start. The burkha is sexist, sexism is unwelcome, in the balance of 'intolerances' France chose correctly of the two. People are inherently male or female, relgion is a choice matter, burkhas however are not. The hijab allows Islamic law to be protected and has far fewer negative social, gender equality or security connotations.

**Kilkrazy**

Why would town planning demand the banning of minarets but not other tall structures?

I know that many Muslims see these examples as repressions of their religion because they say so.

If I, a white, middle-class CofE member can see these laws as repressive, what do you think the effect on the people affected is likely to be?

**egor71**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Orlanth wrote:Islam is not being supressed or repressed in the Netherlands, or elsewhere in Europe.

It is illegal to build a minaret in Switzerland. No other religion builds minarets.

It is illegal to wear a burkha in France. No other full face head coverings, such as the motorcycle helmet or the komuso hat, have been made illegal.

Consequently it is clear that these are specifically anti-Muslim laws.

It can be argued that the burkha is a cultural, not a religious phenomenon, however looked at from the other side of the religious divide, it should be obvious how it might affect Muslim feelings.

Oh dear god, the poor muslims, and they are so tolerant to other religions.

It's so simple, we don't want their crap, if they are in the majority you will live under sharia law.

Better stop shaving your beard and start wearing a dress

**mattyrm**

egor71 wrote:
Oh dear god, the poor muslims, and they are so tolerant to other religions.

It's so simple, we don't want their crap, if they are in the majority you will live under sharia law.

Better stop shaving your beard and start wearing a dress

I like this guy!

QFT!