Subtitled: Tolerance seems to be a one way street.
Last week Australia had a visit from Geerts Wilders, a Dutch politician who came to speak about his fears related to Islam.
The first news report I saw of him showed Wilders braving a gauntlet of vocal (apparently non-moslem) protestors. These people were clearly taking advantage of the “freedom of speech” they were trying to deny to Wilders. My thought on seeing this crowd was “try exercising that right in Saudi Arabia”. Maybe if they also made a visit to an Islamic state to protest against the persecution of Christians I could take their anti-Wilders protest more seriously.
Then on Sunday, Wilder’s was interviewed by Andrew O’Keefe on Weekend Sunrise. O’Keefe tried his best to talk over his guest insisting Wilders was wrong about Islam – not an easy thing to get across considering Wilders has lived under close guard for around a decade because of death threats from “extremist” moslems.
O’Keefe also tried to quote the bible to show that the “Judeo-Christian tradition” was no less violent than that of Islam. Considering Wilders isn’t a Christian or a Jew I didn’t see the relevance. Neither do I see the point of quoting out of context sentences from the Bible (or the Koran) to prove the violent nature of a religion. Wouldn’t it be far more relevant to observe the nature of the present day societies that are allegedly founded on the religions in question (the nations that are governed by religious law) and see what they are like in practice?
This post is not intended as an endorsement of Wilders or his views.