Geert Wilders' anti-Islam film released online

After months of anticipation, criticism, threats and counter-threats, right-wing Dutch MP Geert Wilder's controversial short film, Fitna, warning of the perceived "Islamisation of Europe" has finally been released online at video site LiveLeak.

You can read about its release in this story on the BBC website, which for anyone who doesn't want to watch the video provides a summary of what it contains.

Now the release has actually happened, it remains to be seen what the fallout might be. Wilders lives under constant police protection, and ever since he announced his intention to make Fitna the Dutch government has been taking measures to protect its offices overseas.

Opinion is greatly divided over Wilders and his film, so we're running a poll to gain an idea of what readers of this blog think. Here's the question, followed by the choice of responses. Vote at the top right of this page:

What is your opinion on the controversial Dutch MP Geert Wilders and his decision to release the short film Fitna, which warns of the perceived "Islamisation of Europe"?

• In releasing his film, Wilders is making a brave stand against Islamisation and mounting a necessary defence of Western values
  

• Wilders is acting in a deliberately provocative manner and should be condemned for his actions. Free speech must be exercised with a degree of responsibility, which Wilders has failed to demonstrate
  

• While I do not agree with the message of the film, I believe that free speech is paramount and so defend Wilders' right to release it

As always, your comments are encouraged - please leave them on this post.

No limits? Introducing the Virtual Museum of Offensive Art

In our latest web exclusive, Floris van den Berg introduces the Virtual Museum of Offensive Art, a new Dutch website dedicated to gathering together "art works that have caused social turmoil in the past, present and possibly in the future."

In his article, van den Berg asks why some art is considered offensive, and what role such a museum has to play in liberal, Western society.

Warning: following the links above may lead to links that may eventually lead to images that some people may find offensive...

Geert Wilders: Troublemaker or defender of free speech?

A great deal has been written in the past few months about Geert Wilders, the right wing Dutch MP who is preparing to release a ten minute film on what he believes to be the "terrible things" contained within the Koran – a text he regularly refers to as "fascist" and thinks should be banned in the Netherlands.

Despite various death threats and warnings from the Dutch government, who have already made plans for evacuating their foreign embassies if it all goes the way of the Danish cartoon controversy, Wilders has insisted on releasing his film and will do so in March.

The latest news is that a death threat has been made against him on a website with links to al-Qaeda, reported by a Dutch newspaper as reading: “In the name of Allah, we ask you to bring us the head of this infidel who insults Islam and Muslims and ridicules the Prophet Mohammed.”

The reason I'm blogging about him is I've just seen a video of a TV interview with him in English, which was the first chance I've had to see him in action, if you will. Personally I found it hard to sympathise with someone acting in such a deliberately provocative, even dangerous manner in order to further his own political agenda (he's anti-immigration). It also seems like he's presenting a very simplistic view on Islam, somehow believing he can convincingly write-off the world's second largest religion in ten minutes.

Yet again it raises important questions about freedom of speech (it seems to be free speech week on the blog). What do people think about him? Is he a dangerous troublemaker or a hero of free speech? Have a look at this interview and leave some comments...

Muslims protest Wikipedia entry

Wikipedia has become the subject of an online petition from Muslims, who are unhappy with images included in the entry for the Prophet Muhammad.

Some Muslim users have taken offence to the inclusion of images from medieval manuscripts, which feature representations of Muhammad. The online petition has received more than 80,000 signatures and emails have been sent to Wikipedia demanding the images be removed. The call for users to sign the petition puts the case as follows:

"In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed. But Wikipedia editors are showing illustrations with face illustrated and face is veiled or white washed. But still they are offensive to Muslims. I request all brothers and sisters to sign this petitions so we can tell Wikipedia to respect the religion and remove the illustrations. "

Despite the protests, Wikipedia has refused to remove the images. A message in the site's FAQs section explains its stance: “Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group.”

Banned: MySpace deletes world's largest atheist group

Social networking site MySpace, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, has sparked controversy by deleting the world's largest online atheist group following complaints from people who find atheism "offensive".

"Atheist and Agnostic Group" boasted 35,000 members until it was deleted on 1 January for the third time in as many years. It was founded in 2004 by Bryan Pesta, an assistant professor at Cleveland University who established it as a social network "specifically for godless people."

The group was closed down for the first time two years ago after an organised campaign by Christians persuaded MySpace to delete it. It was eventually restored and MySpace promised to protect it. This time, despite a petition from 500 users and repeated emails to customer services, MySpace seems reluctant to reverse its actions.

Pesta is understandably furious, particularly given the treatment Christian groups have received in the past: “When the largest Christian group was hacked, MySpace’s Founder, Tom Anderson, personally restored the group, and promised to protect it from future deletions.”

Last April the atheist group won the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy's Excellence in Humanist Communication Award and the chaplain, Greg Epstein, has expressed his displeasure at MySpace's actions: “It is an outrage if Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and the world’s largest social networking site tolerate discrimination against atheists and agnostics – and if this situation goes unresolved I’ll have little choice but to believe they do.”

The decision has caused much debate on the Richard Dawkins website, where users have been discussing what action should be taken against MySpace. Suggestions include:

• Is there someone we can contact to complain?
• Should Professor Dawkins continue to support and promote these sites in the light of what has happened ??
• I'll be deleting my account at the end of the day when I get home.
• My account is now closed! My personal protest!
• But isn't Myspace just for ridiculous wankers anyway?
• Create multiple accounts and tag all of the as Atheist
• Fuck 'em I've no use for these social network sites anyway

Pulling all this together, we thought we'd run an opinion poll to see what people think should be done about this. Get your vote in at the top right of this page:

Also, check out Bill Thompson's web exclusive article "Facebook knows I'm an atheist", where he wonders what the consequences might be of letting social networking sites know about your unbelief.

Afghan journalist sentenced to death for blasphemy

A big story this week has been the death sentence handed out to a 23-year-old Afghan journalist for publishing an article said to be critical of the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.

Padraig at Index on Censorship has sent us his article on the case, which gives all the details and describes the reaction of human rights organisations both in Afghanistan and around the world.