Hi MowSparc. I'll discuss this here because most of it's not relevant to the Q-Society page. I flagged Raoul for edit-warring because he wasn't engaging in a dialogue or trying to seek consensus, which is what Wikipedia is about. This site isn't a forum for pushing points of view. As I said on the Talk page, I'm trying to get a "quality Wiki article which objectively tells both sides, has appropriate weight on events and reliable, verifiable references". I think the easiest way to do that is to describe events in a way that neither side can claim they've been unfairly represented. I think some of the language Raoul was using would lead to those on the left to feel misrepresented.
It's not "my" Labor party, I don't have a "leftist agenda", I'm not a communist. Please don't tell me what I believe. Let me tell you about me - I'm pro-free market and a social liberal. I want to maximise individual freedoms, within context and reason, and I'm equally skeptical of extremes on the right and the left. I'm opposed to people preventing individuals from attending a public lecture but I'm also concerned by one group of individuals maligning an entire group based on the actions of fringe elements within that group, whether that group is characterised by leftist political beliefs, citizenship of Israel or a common religion. I'm NOT a member of any political party. However, I do my best to keep my beliefs out of my work...to the point where you clearly have no idea what I believe.
I think Wikipedia is an invaluable resource to tell an objective story about all sorts of topics. I strongly recommend that you take the time to read over some of the principles - why we're here, the list of policies. If you are in contact with Raoul please let him know I look forward to trying to reach a consensus/compromise once his block is up. MaxU24 (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Max; As far as I can see from the edit history of this article, you were just as much engaging in edit warring. How do you expect a dialogue when you block the other side? This is where your methods align with the bullies picketing La Mirage on 19 Feb 2013.
Has it occured to you that you and KD started this edit war by re-writing this section and inserting the number of 200? A Fairfax radio station reported 40, police command spoke of 80-100, and News Ltd outlets gave the number as 100? Only the ABC journalist felt inclined to round up to 200. But you kept on pushing the highest number; why?
You may see yourself as social and liberal, but your methods and the mindset revealed in your editing and actions show you up as anything but.
Then you write "I want to maximise individual freedoms, within context and reason,...". Freedom is endowed to each of us by being born as a human being. My freedom does not depend on you. Indeed it is often people like your good self, individuals who feel the urge to provide 'context' and 'reason' to curtail freedom for others, especially for those who do not share the same views of 'reason' and 'context'. I do not know your beliefs, but I can see your actions, and I read what you write.
As to two events in question: Clearly the Islamic community leaders did the smart thing and asked their own hotheads to ignore the visit of Geert Wilders. Some still punished the owner of La Mirage for providng the venue, but as an Iraqi Christian he's accustomed to this.
In Sydney there were maybe 50 noisy but peaceful protesters making their point heard. But they were not blocking and attacking others, or brawling with police. Very different scenario, but none involved any genuine Muslim groups.
If you want to write about the protests, then to present this fact and the very different behaviour of protesters in Sydney and Melbourne seems relevant. As is the fact that it was not a group of radicalised Muslims going on a rampage in Somerton, but notorious Trotzkyist union bullies and serial street brawlers from the anti-Semitic BDS movement.
The same faces can be found brawling outside food processing plants, Max Brenner chocolate shops, or shooting steel balls at police at a G20 meeting.
As to your concerns about Wilders and Q Society, you seem to not differentiate between ideology (Islam) and biology (Muslims). People are not the same as an ideology.
For example only two milion out of 66 million Germans (people) were members of the NSDAP (ideology) when the Fascists took power in 1933. Can we be openly critical of Fascism and indeed have emotions of hate for Nazis and Nazi ideology; but at the same time have no issues at all with Germans? Can we openly despise communism, but have no quarrel with ordinary Koreans from the north?
Wilders and Q Society are concerned about the consequences of Islam spreading. But this does not make Wilders or Q Society members dislike Muslims in general. Think again. There is truth in the fact that Muslims are the first victims of Islam.
In case you haven't seen it, here is the actual 'bone of content': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p52grNutoQ
WP is IMHO notorious for pushing POV in contentious areas. Anyone with an opinion and the urge to write has open slather. Especially on political and religious topics it is usually the larger team and those with more time on their hands who get to publish their version of 'truth'. Around these topics I suggest we agree that WP is more like a collection of blogs.
MowSparc (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi MowSparc, interesting post. Sorry my response is so long but I'd like to clear up some details and then get into your broader points -
Edit warring - if you have a closer look at the edit war I reverted the article once, and my comment directed everyone to the talk page to sort things out, rather than flipping the page back and forth - that wasn't achieving anything.
I also only flagged Raoul when he reverted the page twice without any comment on the Talk page, i.e. he'd already left the dialogue. As long as everyone's trying to reach consensus, however limited that may be, I can't see myself flagging anyone again.
The admin would have looked at all the edit activity before choosing to temporarily block Raoul, but if you feel that either KD or I were edit warring also, I'm encourage you to nominate me, KD or both of us and let the admins decide.
ABC estimate of crowd size - I put 200 in because it was in the source I found. I didn't "push" it. Raoul criticised the ABC and I justified the organisation's credibility with the Australian public. In retrospect I should have used a range, which is what's on the page now.
I didn't have the Fairfax number, though now I've found it I've changed the page to reflect it. The police report would be ideal but it needs to be publically accessible to meet verafiability criteria. I haven't been able to find it on the VicPol website or in the first 10 pages of my Google search. If you've got it in a publicly accessible format, please make the appropriate change and link it in the article.
Sydney vs Melbourne - I'd love to make the point that the behaviour at Sydney was peaceful but I haven't been able to find any news article that describes the Sydney protest. All the articles I've found refer to the lead-up to the speech. Again, if you've got a WP:VE source please link it.
The article already records the fact that Muslim leaders opted out of protesting the event. I don't see why it's necessary for the protestors to be Muslim to be able to legitimately protest the event. People are empathetic, we all openly oppose things we're not directly connected to (not that that justifies violence, etc. etc.)
Now the more philosophical stuff -
Freedom - it would be great if our natural endowments let us live our life as free as we want, without reference to others but that's not the way the world works at the moment. To a degree our individual freedoms depend on collaboration and working within the system to increase freedoms. There are legitimate limits to freedoms - shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre or the rules that are put on membership of a voluntary organisation - like the Q-Society or Wikipedia. As an economist I also recognise that even the market has failures which need correction.
Individuals vs Ideology - I completely agree that people aren't the same as ideology, it's the point I was trying to make. When Wilders opposes individuals immigrating from an Islamic country that's confusing individuals with ideology and nationality.
Definitely oppose the oppression of women, homophobia, pushing religious beliefs/observances on the unwilling/vulnerable etc. etc. but target the issue, not the faith. I can't see anything inherently wrong with some/more people/Dutch/Australians believing the five pillars of Islam, if that's their choice (not that it's mine). Don't assume that all Muslims hold the unacceptable beliefs, just like you wouldn't assume that all Christians follow 1 Timothy 2:11-12. I prefer to judge people by their own actions, not the collection of beliefs written 1400 years ago that they nominally subscribe to. If a Muslim tells me "Islam is a religion of peace" I think it's fair to assume for them that is true, until they prove otherwise, at which point I'll deal with them individually.
Thanks for the link to the Wilders speech. I don't have time to watch it right now but I'll definitely make the time. Believe it or not, I try to be open to different perspectives.
WP - definitely isn't perfect - no reason not to do our best to balance it or reduce the article to a set of commonly agreed points, with appropriate weight, supported by good references, that neither side can object to. - There's probably a better definition of NPOV than that but it's my working definition.
MaxU24 (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know I watched the Wilders speech, thanks. He's an extremely talented speaker even if I don't agree with a lot of his arguments. I felt he made some overly broad generalisations, some of which I know from personal experience aren't true. He also pushed for a cultural absolutism that would interfere with individual choices that don't affect anyone else. At the end of it I think I still stand by my position above, that we should vocally oppose the offensive beliefs but judge each individual on their actions. Thanks again for forwarding me the link, it was a good experience. MaxU24 (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Max, Wilders is an freely elected representative in one of the oldest and most tolerant democracy. His party represents one million voters in parliament. He has currently 15 seats in a 150 seat parliament. Since the last election when PVV came third, the numbers have gone up and up and PVV is now leading the Sunday polls. If this trend holds he will be the next PM in The Hague. Whether or not you agree is of little concern for those who feel they become strangers in their own country and have to live day by day with the consequences of moral relativism, suicidal multiculturalism and Islamic mass immigration.
An idealistic approach like yours is fine - until you run out of other people's money. When you deal with hundreds of thousands of more or less legal migrants overrunning your society and your social security systems, as it is in the case of Holland and the EU in general, you come to a point when you can no longer judge each individual case separately.
After all individuals are guided by common beliefs and subject to cultural consensus as well as group pressure and inherent "Insh'Allah" fatalism. In externally-guided honor/shame guided cultures like the Islamic culture, there is very little individual freedom. It is not per se the individual but the ideology which is the problem; the individual only becomes part of the problem when s/he actively pushes this ideology unto others, or exercises his ideology in a way that it impacts on others. Whether he's a Fascist, Communist or Islamist. Not all ideologies are the same. We make a mistake to think all religious fundamentalists are a problem. Sam Harris make a very important point here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQezdSihI-o
Martin - the Mormon taxi driver is OK when he practices his religion by refusing to drink wine. Abdul, the Islamic taxi driver is not OK when he practices his religion by refusing to take a passenger who carries a bottle of wine.
Does this make sense?
Nicolai Sennels, a psychologist in Denmark, has studied and written a good deal about this very issue so many Westerners find hard to come to terms with: http://www.newenglishreview.org/Nicolai_Sennels/Muslims_and_Westerners%3A__The_Psychological_Differences/
MowSparc (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mowsparc, Wilders claims that Christians (and presumably non-Muslim Westerners) are unsafe in Muslim countries. I have friends who lived, as Westerner Christians, in the UAE for years with no trouble and had many local friends. My brother-in-law is a Christian missionary in Jordan who openly attends church. I've traveled in Turkey and received better treatment than in France or Italy.
Wilders claims that areas with high Muslim populations are no-go zones. In 2005-6 I was living in East Ham in London, parts of which are majority-Muslim. I was NEVER harassed and could freely buy bacon or booze on the local high street.
Geert Wilders might win and that's absolutely fair in a democracy but I'd hate to think that he took a perceived fear of Muslims and played to and inflated the fear with generalisations and extreme examples rather than having a nuanced dialogue, like we are.
I like Harris and the other New Atheists but they tend to assume all theists worship according to their original text, whether it's the Koran (Harris) or the Bible (Dawkins). They don't have a lot of time or nuance for moderates or evolving theology. In choosing the Jains Harris picks an exception that proves a rule. Other religions have equally frightening fundamentalists.
I don't see the distinction between Insh'Allah fatalism (which I've never observed in any of the Muslisms I went to school or worked with) and Calvinist predestination. Sure, there are Muslims who want a world-spanning Caliphate but there are also Christian Dominionists and George W Bush who reportedly claimed a divine commandment to invade Iraq.
Islam isn't the only honour/shame guided culture (and here we're confusing culture and the religious overlay). Asian countries are the archetype of collectivist cultures. Many Asian nations also have strong cultural concepts of honour and "face".
You could just as reasonably campaign against Hindu immigration - it has a collectivist culture, karma-based fatalism, homophobia, dowries, honour killings and inter-religious violence. Hinduism is also growing twice as fast as Islam in Australia. But that would marginalise Hindus, give credence to extremists and cause Hindu anger towards non-Hindus. I just don't see what's so special about Islam.
You raise the issue of Abdul who refuses a wine-carrying passenger (have you experienced this?). I agree that there is a dilemma of competing rights between a business-man running his own business, and an individual who wants to use a fundamental service. What are your thoughts on the Catholic pharmacist who won't stock condoms?[1]
I'm not arguing for an idealistic approach, the criminal justice system seems to do a good job on Muslims carrying on unacceptable practices - [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxU24 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a bit too much moral relativism and strawmanship for my taste. The topic was Islam, not Calvinists or Chinese or Hindus. We don't see many Hindus plotting to blow up the MCG or flying passenger aircraft into buildings. Calvinists are not blowing themselves up in restaurants or in crowded buses in the name of their god.
What is the relevance of you buying grog and bacon in Newham for islamizised no-go zones elsewhere around the world?
A pharmacy is not part of the public transport system, taxis are. I have no problem with an observant Muslim shop owner in Islamabad not wanting to sell grog or bacon in his shop.
Harris makes the very important point that neither religion per se, nor religious fundamentalism in itself is the problem, but the fundamentals of Islam. Not all religions are the same and because one religion had a bad stretch a few centuries ago doesn't mean we have to accommodate a much worse one today. See how Jesus asked his followers to spread his religion and then compare this to Mohammed. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism etc do not proselytize.
The criminal justice system merely deals with most extreme cases, and it does so in a very poor way.
I fail to understand why you seek to paper over and defend the most discriminatory, hateful and violent ideology we still have threatening human civilization. Will you also be holding the banner for Nationalism, Communism and Fascism?
MowSparc (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course religious violence is STILL going on in most religions, read chapter 2 of Hitchen's God is Not Great or just consider Northern Ireland, Joseph Kony's the Lord's Army or the partition of India. And all religions and cultures that commit violence should be criticised in proportion to the violence they cause.
My point about bacon and booze and Westerners living in Islamic lands is I've got direct counter examples to Wilders - he's at-best cherry-picking and exaggerating and at-worst lying in places in his speech. I don't know about you but I think deceit's not acceptable within a Judeo-Christian/Humanist culture.
Cultural relativism - maybe. Moral relativism - absolutely not - I'm a strong liberal and consequentialist and that's why I think that individuals should be judged on the merit of their actions and not discriminated against because somebody's decided "my culture, right-or-wrong" and appointed themselves the Thought Police. From that perspective, culture/ideology is far less relevant. To assume that a monolithic and immutable version of a culture/ideology is the dominating people's actions is simplistic and naive, and like most simplistic systems is going to have unintended consequences. So I'm flying the flag for Humanism and every opposed belief can take a walk. MaxU24 (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)