Hans Teeuwen is a Dutch comedian who is not afraid to use foul language in his speeches. On one occasion he referred to the "Halal Girls" who run a TV show on the various aspects of Muslim life in The Netherlands.
In 2007 he was invited in their show to explain why he thinks it is necessary to ridicule various people and faiths including the Islam:


His message was very powerful and not what the Halal Girls expected.

An opinion can be insulting and often an insult is nothing more than a truth one does not like to hear. When looking at strict religious sects we see that they often claim to have a monopoly on truth. Without regard for others they say there is only 1 decent way to live and claim to be insulted when that belief is ridiculed. But they do not realize that by acting on that belief they deeply insult and hurt others like in this interview homosexuals.
According to Teeuwen everyone must be allowed to ridicule others. Because when this is not possible it means that we don't live in a free society anymore. It means that some groups use power to corrupt other's minds. But this does not mean we must ridicule each other for there is a difference in trying to make a point and just meaningless hurting each other.

While I do not always agree on his choice of words, he has certainly a good point

Freedom to speak means freedom. Words do not hurt it your emotional reaction to words that hurt yourself. Self control is something we should learn in grade school.

He said the ridicule stops when violence begins.  Drawing that line for everyone is impossible.  People react differently to the same stimulus.

I agree that poking fun at repressive attitudes can help free people from the repression.  It can help them recognize the absurdity of or even the harm done by repressive attitudes and beliefs. 

The women I have spoken with from middle east came to the US to escape repression, including, but not limited to, the garb you see in the video.  They talked of a very misogynistic culture where women lived in fear.  Looking at the faces of some of the Muslim men in the video made me wonder how many women will be beaten for laughing at Teeuwen's jokes.  The Muslim men in the audience certainly weren't laughing.

So ridicule, when done in an effort to end repression, can be a positive thing.  But when it's done to repress people, I don't agree with it.

The women on the show used the term "insulting" when referring to Teeuwen's jokes.  He defended himself without reservation.  At one point I got the impression one of the women understood his motives.  But all the while, especially after showing pissed off men in the audience, I was wondering if the women hosts were taking into account what would happen to them if they said what they really felt, like "Yeah, you're right!  These are stupid clothes!  And we are tired of men who think they own us!  Ladies, time to protest!  Let's burn our burqas!"

On another note, what's with the bed of nails/shrink couch they put Teeuwen on?  That's a pretty bizarre place to put your "guest".  Imagine Leno replacing his guest seating with these!

I also noticed the stoney faced men. But I think one of the women was losing it a bit when she made a reference to superior western culture. 5:50.

His reference to the attitudes of some toward homosexuality and miniskirts being insulting is very appropriate.

I recall the protests in 2004, over the Muhammad cartoons. One of the most disturbing slogans was, Freedom doesn't mean the freedom to insult someone's religion.

It means exactly that.

Sadly, the UK government has gotten itself into a terrible knot over the sensitivities of some Muslims and especially the threat of a repeat of Feb 2004.

In the late 70s when I had a brief foray into politics, a number of us suggested that anti-descrimination legislation be replaced by a single code against irrelevant discrimination. What would be irrelevant would be a matter for case law.

I still believe that is the most appropriate way forward. The piecemeal approach is insulting and simply doesn't work.

Thank you Octavianus for posting this video. It's unlikely I would have found it otherwise. But what it contains is quite important.

The show was called "Bimbos  and burkas: opposites in multicultural Holland". During the broadcasts discussions were held on the freedom of the Western World as seen by both native and foreign (especially Muslim) people.
I didn't really grasp the torture rack either. Maybe they played a pun on the old Dutch saying "to put somebody on the rack" (to interrogate a person).

The scene with Teeuwen became quickly famous in the country and the 3 sisters were invited on another talk show. There they simply said it was one of their lesser performances. Looking at the film it seems the sisters didn't expect such solid claims from Teeuwen. At one part it becomes obvious they prepared for the discussion to flow in a different way. For example they said: "You can deny all you want about insulting". The fact was however that Teeuwen didn't deny at all: he fully admitted.

During the 60's and 70's a lot of Turkish and Moroccan families moved to The Netherlands to find work. Being cut off from their homeland meant they didn't participate in the cultural revolutions their countries underwent since then. So a lot of Muslims in The Netherlands are very old fashioned and value tradition over liberty. This means traditional clothing and even forced marriages are still common.

The moody bald man briefly shown runs a mosk. Earlier on the show ranted about homosexuality and left when a woman wearing a short skirt appeared. He said: "I do not wish to see such things because it goes against my religion. Mini skirts are worn to abuse emancipation. I am an emancipated male and I choose not to look at this"

This is very different from what Teeuwen said: "In a free society you are confronted with things you rather not want to see or hear. But you develop a shield for this"

Sometimes ridicule is used to undermine corrupt power structures; sometimes it's used to reinforce them. It's often hard to tell the difference.

I support his (and anyone's) right to ridicule; I support the right of the subjects of his ridicule to voice tell him he's a jackass for exercising that right.