Merged Dutch MP to be charged for "hate speech"

[WildCat]

Mr. van Bommel is not a Muslim...

It's the people waving tha Hamas flags I was referring to, and chanting "intifada, intifada".

Actually the bar is set very high, the cases are very rare as ddt pointed out and there is a good chance he will be found not guilty.

It has no business in a court at all.

He is not prosecuted for speech but for incitement of hatred, BIG difference.

"Incitement of hatred" should not be a crime, period. Incitement to violence for sure, but hatred? Can you define "hatred" in a legal sense? Or explain why it is that hatred should be outlawed?

Hatred is an emotion, not a criminal act.

 

[ddt]

Oh, and let's not forget: it's OK to march down the streets of Amsterdam flying the flag of a genocidal hate group while chanting for the destruction of Israel.

Evidence?

But if you dare criticize Islam you must be prosecuted. Because merely criticizing the "religion of peace" is incitement, the exact same thing as calling on others to take up arms and start murdering people!

Have you read the Appeals Court's press release?

What a dangerous path you are on.

This is just another anti-Euro rant of yours?

Actually the socialist party MP Mr. van Bommel already has some complaints regarding his behavior during that rally. Time will tell whether or not he will be prosecuted...

Actually, not his own behaviour, but that of others. It is said that others shouted offensive remarks. High-profile attorney Bram Moskowicz filed a complaint. It is still too early to say whether the prosecutor will act on it.

I'm impressed by your fact-checking skills, read the press-report yet?

This was sarcasm, I hope?

Don't be silly. Of course Muslims won't be prosecuted.

Your lack of fact checking is noted. With the pointers Phaedrus gave, you could easily have seen that MP Harry van Bommel^WP is not a muslim but a Roman Catholic.

Yes. I find it disgusting that the bar for incitement is set so low in your Amsterdam. Merely causing offense is prosecutable? Disgusting.

You have still not read the press release, I see.

Actually the bar is set very high, the cases are very rare as ddt pointed out and there is a good chance he will be found not guilty.

To be fair, those were only about MPs.

As for the rabid anti-semitism, I share your disgust...

And anti-semitism is prosecuted in the Netherlands, just in case WildCat had missed it.

 

[Phaedrus74]

It's the people waving tha Hamas flags I was referring to, and chanting "intifada, intifada".

They won't be prosecuted not because they are muslims but because their acts are covered by freedom of speech..

If what Wilders does is covered by freedom of speech is up to a judge to decide now.

It has no business in a court at all.

I respectfully disagree.

"Incitement of hatred" should not be a crime, period. Incitement to violence for sure, but hatred? Can you define "hatred" in a legal sense? Or explain why it is that hatred should be outlawed?

Hatred is an emotion, not a criminal act.

It is not hatred that is illegal, it is making people hate others that is illegal.

 

[Phaedrus74]

Actually, not his own behaviour, but that of others. It is said that others shouted offensive remarks. High-profile attorney Bram Moskowicz filed a complaint. It is still too early to say whether the prosecutor will act on it.

Hmm, I got the impression that the idiot had called for intifada himself. Must have misheard.

This was sarcasm, I hope?

You have to ask?

 

[WildCat]

Evidence?

Note the Hamas flag:

And from the video description:

A member of the Socialist Party and spokesman for Foreign Affairs chanted: 'Intifada, Intifada, Palestine Free Now!' with the rest of the protestors.

It's a pro-Palestinian video btw.

Have you read the Appeals Court's press release?

Yes.

This is just another anti-Euro rant of yours?

Label it how you like.

Your lack of fact checking is noted. With the pointers Phaedrus gave, you could easily have seen that MP Harry van Bommel^WP is not a muslim but a Roman Catholic.

I'm speaking of the people in the video. Was van Bommel waving a Hamas flag around?

You have still not read the press release, I see.

I have. Shall I quote from it?

The Court of Appeal has considered that the contested views of Wilders (also as shown in his movie Fitna) constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law as seen in connection with each other, both because of their contents and the method of presentation. This method of presentation is characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created. According to the Court of Appeal most statements are insulting as well since these statements substantially harm the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers. According to the Court of Appeal Wilders has indeed insulted the Islamic worshippers themselves by affecting the symbols of the Islamic belief as well.

I read that as "creating hatred" and insulting people is an actual crime in the Netherlands. And also "harming the religious esteem". Have you read the press release?

 

[WildCat]

They won't be prosecuted not because they are muslims but because their acts are covered by freedom of speech..

If what Wilders does is covered by freedom of speech is up to a judge to decide now.



I respectfully disagree.



It is not hatred that is illegal, it is making people hate others that is illegal.

Wow! Such tortured rationalization...

 

[ddt]

Hmm, I got the impression that the idiot had called for intifada himself. Must have misheard.

He did indeed. He later explained on the "Pauw en Witteman" TV show he meant peaceful means with it; he also said there he had checked the slogan with his lawyers.

I agree with you, though, that it was quite foolish of him to adopt that slogan.

You have to ask?

Just to be 100% sure .

 

[WildCat]

Btw, here's your boy van Bommel chanting "intifada intifada". At the 50 second mark the pro-Hezbollah chants start, followed by van Bommel chanting "intifada" and calling for the destruction of Israel.



eta: !!!! and you can hear others there yelling in Dutch "Hamas, Hamas, Joden aan het gas". Care to translate that for us ddt?

 

[ravdin]

He's not being prosecuted for a "thought crime", he's being prosecuted for inciting hatred.

I realize ddt put up the links after you posted this but I recommend that you read the english press release and lay off the cheap rhetorics.

First of all, how is it a crime to incite hatred? I support making it a crime to incite violence, but hatred? I stand by my label of "thought crime".

Secondly, there's a big difference between hating Islam and hating Muslims. I dislike socialism but not socialists, the platform of America's Republican party but not individual Republicans, and similarly I dislike Islam but I have met many Muslims I like very well. It's absurd to make Islam subject to special protection from debate and criticism because doing so might upset its adherents. In a democracy, we don't have similar qualms about challenging people's deeply felt political beliefs in a way that might be deemed offensive.

Finally, if you truly believe that it should be a crime to incite hatred, then by that standard you should ban the Koran along with Wilder's film.

 

[ravdin]

This case made me think of a very bad film I saw several years ago- Fahrenheit 9/11. In it, filmmaker Michael Moore demonizes former US President George W. Bush. I didn't entirely disagree with the film, but the tone was heavy handed and the propaganda was clumsy. What's more, Moore seems motivated by his personal vitriol for Bush (whatever will he do with himself over the next four years?)

So I ask: will this film be banned in Holland? Will the Dutch be spared from Moore's incitement to hate Bush and his cohort of neoconservatives? Will Interpol release an arrest warrant for this third rate filmmaker so he will stand trial if he ever returns to Amsterdam?

 

[ddt]

Note the Hamas flag:

And from the video description:

A member of the Socialist Party and spokesman for Foreign Affairs chanted: 'Intifada, Intifada, Palestine Free Now!' with the rest of the protestors.

I'm speaking of the people in the video. Was van Bommel waving a Hamas flag around?

He's not even featured in the video you linked. Maybe in one of the other parts? As to the slogan, see my previous post.

As to the single Hamas flag - hardly evidence. People do get arrested occasionally for slogans they carry or shout. Can't catch everyone though.

I have. Shall I quote from it?

The Court of Appeal has considered that the contested views of Wilders (also as shown in his movie Fitna) constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law as seen in connection with each other, both because of their contents and the method of presentation. This method of presentation is characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created. According to the Court of Appeal most statements are insulting as well since these statements substantially harm the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers. According to the Court of Appeal Wilders has indeed insulted the Islamic worshippers themselves by affecting the symbols of the Islamic belief as well.

I read that as "creating hatred" and insulting people is an actual crime in the Netherlands. And also "harming the religious esteem". Have you read the press release?

From your previous post:

Yes. I find it disgusting that the bar for incitement is set so low in your Amsterdam. Merely causing offense is prosecutable? Disgusting.

You're clearly moving the goal posts. The press release clearly states this wasn't "merely causing offense". You earlier tried to depict it as if you get in jail when you call your neighbour an idiot.

Btw, here's your boy van Bommel chanting "intifada intifada". At the 50 second mark the pro-Hezbollah chants start, followed by van Bommel chanting "intifada"

see my previous post.

and calling for the destruction of Israel.

Where does that follow? He chants exactly what your earlier source states, in Dutch: "intifada, intifada, Palestina vrij"

eta: !!!! and you can hear others there yelling in Dutch "Hamas, Hamas, Joden aan het gas". Care to translate that for us ddt?

This is the most well-known video of the event indeed.

The slogan means: "Hamas, Hamas, Jews must be gassed". In the same TV show, it was said it was "clearly audible" - I disagree, it took me three replays to hear the whole slogan. Van Bommel said he hadn't heard it, and also said no-one of the 100-person security team of the organizers had heard it. The video is hardly evidence of the contrary.

Such a slogan is indeed inadmissible (at least outside the soccer stadium, where it originated). Good luck finding the perps.

 

[Phaedrus74]

First of all, how is it a crime to incite hatred? I support making it a crime to incite violence, but hatred? I stand by my label of "thought crime".

Because history has shown that hatred causes people to harm others..

Secondly, there's a big difference between hating Islam and hating Muslims. I dislike socialism but not socialists, the platform of America's Republican party but not individual Republicans, and similarly I dislike Islam but I have met many Muslims I like very well. It's absurd to make Islam subject to special protection from debate and criticism because doing so might upset its adherents. In a democracy, we don't have similar qualms about challenging people's deeply felt political beliefs in a way that might be deemed offensive.

The reasoning of the judges who decided that the prosecutor should proceed with this case hinges on this very distinction. According to their judgement Wilders targets not just Islam (which would not be something he would be prosecuted for) but Muslims in general.

This is not about special protection for Islam, it is about bigotry and discrimination.

Finally, if you truly believe that it should be a crime to incite hatred, then by that standard you should ban the Koran along with Wilder's film.

Iciting hatred defines a limit of free speech, the point where is ceases to be free. Which cases are or are not across this line should be decided on a case by case basis.

Current case: Wilders
Next case: a radical Imam? Who knows...

 

[Phaedrus74]

This case made me think of a very bad film I saw several years ago- Fahrenheit 9/11. In it, filmmaker Michael Moore demonizes former US President George W. Bush. I didn't entirely disagree with the film, but the tone was heavy handed and the propaganda was clumsy. What's more, Moore seems motivated by his personal vitriol for Bush (whatever will he do with himself over the next four years?)

So I ask: will this film be banned in Holland? Will the Dutch be spared from Moore's incitement to hate Bush and his cohort of neoconservatives? Will Interpol release an arrest warrant for this third rate filmmaker so he will stand trial if he ever returns to Amsterdam?

I saw that film in Amsterdam as a matter of fact and enjoyed it greatly.
Moore's tone was occasionally grating (IMO he should have stuck to doing TV-Nation), but generally entertaining.

But onto your argument: The proper response would be "false analogy"?

 

[WildCat]

He's not even featured in the video you linked. Maybe in one of the other parts? As to the slogan, see my previous post.

As to the single Hamas flag - hardly evidence. People do get arrested occasionally for slogans they carry or shout. Can't catch everyone though.

I'm not asking for anyone to get arrested. Merely pointing out that the enforcement of this ridiculous law seems selective at best, and political persecution at worst.

From your previous post:

You're clearly moving the goal posts. The press release clearly states this wasn't "merely causing offense". You earlier tried to depict it as if you get in jail when you call your neighbour an idiot.

Absolute nonsense, I never mentioned anything about when "you call your neighbor an idiot". The prerss release you waved about as if it supported your position actually suports everything I have said.

Where does that follow? He chants exactly what your earlier source states, in Dutch: "intifada, intifada, Palestina vrij"

What do you think "Free Palestine" means in this context? It means Israel must be destroyed. I challenge you to support any other interpretation.

This is the most well-known video of the event indeed.

The slogan means: "Hamas, Hamas, Jews must be gassed". In the same TV show, it was said it was "clearly audible" - I disagree, it took me three replays to hear the whole slogan. Van Bommel said he hadn't heard it, and also said no-one of the 100-person security team of the organizers had heard it. The video is hardly evidence of the contrary.

I find it impossible that van Bommel hadn't heard it. Human ears are much better than a camcorder microphone is in such situations. More likely he was pandering to his base and got caught, so now he backpedals and makes a shopddy excuse.

Such a slogan is indeed inadmissible (at least outside the soccer stadium, where it originated). Good luck finding the perps.

Like I said before, no one should be prosecuted for it. But everyone should know about your MP marching in an anti-semitic hate rally.

 

[ravdin]

Because history has shown that hatred causes people to harm others..

That is true. Just ask Theo van Gogh.

So I ask again: why tolerate the Koran, when it clearly exhorts its followers to commit murderous violence? I personally think it's much more sensible to blame van Gogh's murderer rather than the Koran, so why should Wilders be judged by a different standard? Have any violent acts been directly linked to his film?

 

[dudalb]

I am just queasy about any body being prosecuted for "hate speech", unless it can be linked to a specific act of violence.
I guess in the end it is an issue about how much power you want to give the state. At the risk of sounding "Anti Euro", I suggest that Europeans seem much more willing to allow limitations on individual rights then people in the US.

 

[Beerina]

Geert Wilders' film was cheap and simplistic and his views of Arabs/Muslims border on bigotry. There's a difference between secular criticism of Islam and intolerance.

And letting the government decide which is which...hasn't worked out so well, historically.

Yes he did call for its banning.... irony indeed.

...and...

I'd be glad to . No, the decision is that he now must be prosecuted.

I felt much the same way about McCaine. He worked so hard for the McCaine-Feingold laws restricting freedom of speech that it was wonderful to see him tripping over his own Holy Works as Obama's funding outstripped his several times over (and, apparently, exceeded the total of Bush and Kerry in 2004.)

 

[egslim]

Have any violent acts been directly linked to his film?

Not directly, but there have been notable increases of discrimination and violence against Muslims.

The researchers blame anti-Muslim remarks by the PVV and the decision not to prosecute these for the increase.

More interesting is that in 2006 and 2007 the number of violent incidents with a rascist background was actually in decline. In 2007 it was the lowest number in a decade, but in 2008 this trend reversed.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

What is the difference between Anti-Judiac and Anti-Semitism?

A large difference. When Dawkins declares that the God of the Old Testament:

"is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Now, is Dawkins being anti-Semitic or anti-Judiac?

You keep bringing up the comparison to the Nazi treatment of the Jews, and it is highly flawed. The persucution they suffered was nothing to do with their Holy texts and everything to do with their 'race'.

If Wilders said something anti-Arab, I'm with you. But he is purely being anti-Islamic. Can't you see the difference between demonising a religion and demonising a self-identified race?

Let me put it another way. When someone releases a video just as critical of Scientology, do you compare it to the Nazi treatment of Jews?

 

[ddt]

I'd be glad to . No, the decision is that he now must be prosecuted.

I felt much the same way about McCaine.

My comment wasn't meant as either approval or disapproval of the Court's decision. I see I haven't commented on that yet.

Not directly, but there have been notable increases of discrimination and violence against Muslims.

The researchers blame anti-Muslim remarks by the PVV and the decision not to prosecute these for the increase.

Another thing the researchers mention is the reluctance of the public prosecutors tot prosecute hate- and discrimination cases against muslims.

In the Islam discussion in Holland - especially after the murder of Theo van Gogh - it's often been said that muslims and muslim organizations should use the legal way if they feel wronged. And from their part, muslim organizations have conceded that they have been far too reluctant to do so. By contrast, Jewish organizations like CIDI are very active on this and report every instance of anti-semitism they hear of to the police.

Some time ago, I read a book of a Dutch philosopher, Bas van Stokkum, on the issue of freedom of speech, and he argued that the state should prosecute a couple of such cases - whatever the outcome - to show that they belong to the society as well.

I agree with him. So I think it's good the Appeals Court has decided as it did. It's also good for the law that a judge - make that a dozen judges, with all probable appeals - review this case and give more jurisprudence on the limits of the incitement-to-hate laws.