Merged Dutch MP to be charged for "hate speech"

[gtc]

There has to be something wrong with you and your faith if you feel the need to arrest people to protect your religious esteem.

 

[Phaedrus74]

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?

Asked and answered.
If my answer is somehow unclear point out what you do not understand, I will gladly explain.

If you want to preach, go ahead, my intention was merely to clarify the facts surrounding this case.

 

[Phaedrus74]

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?

Great explanation UW!

As I mentioned previously, the case hinges on the bolded phrase.
This is the central question that will need to be addressed.

 

[Phaedrus74]

<snip>
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.

I read this morning in Trouw that, and I didn't know this, if the prosecutor is still not convinced of Wilders' guilt he can petition a "Not Guilty" (vrijspraak) verdict.

You seem to be better informed than I am, can you confirm this as a possibility?

 

[Skeptic]

Wilders has been accused of libel against muslims

Can you legally libel an entire group? If you say John X is a murderer and he isn't, that's libel; but saying "Muslims [or Jews, or whomever] are murderers" is free speech, even if false. Of course it might be libel in the moral sense, but not in the legal one.

Allowing general groups of people to be legally "libeled" means there is no freedom of speech in Denmark -- since in effect it means you are only allowed to say nice, or acceptable, things about any group of people.

That is bad enough. But, what's worse, it means that de facto there any and all criticism of any belligerent or lawuit-minded group is silenced, or at least heavily discouraged. The reason is that, even if the law makes a distinction between "libeling" Muslims and "criticizing" Muslims (or any other group), the vast majority of people will just keep quiet and not criticize Muslims at all-- since no matter how fair or justified one's criticism is, there is sure to be some spokesman or lawyer for the group you criticized demanding you be put in jail for "libel". Even if you're acquitted in the end, the legal expenses, wasted time, and ruined reputation may well ruin you -- not to mention the risk of losing, fighting in court against those whose career is to sue people for libel.

Better just say nothing. Why attract trouble?

I personally despise the man. He is a provocateur, a narrow-minded bigot, a hypocrite populist and absolutely doesn't deserve the media attention he is getting.

You might well be correct. And still, neither he nor anybody else should be on trial for "libeling" groups of people, since if that is a crime, bye-bye freedom of speech.

 

[Skeptic]

The annoying thing here is the double standard: saying "I hate Muslims" or "the Koran incites violence" (which is obviously does) is actually a punishable offense, but shouting "Jews to the gas!" and "Islam will rule the world!" is not, at least de facto.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Can you legally libel an entire group? If you say John X is a murderer and he isn't, that's libel; but saying "Muslims [or Jews, or whomever] are murderers" is free speech, even if false. Of course it might be libel in the moral sense, but not in the legal one.

Allowing general groups of people to be legally "libeled" means there is no freedom of speech in Denmark -- since in effect it means you are only allowed to say nice, or acceptable, things about any group of people.

That is bad enough. But, what's worse, it means that de facto there any and all criticism of any belligerent or lawuit-minded group is silenced, or at least heavily discouraged. The reason is that, even if the law makes a distinction between "libeling" Muslims and "criticizing" Muslims (or any other group), the vast majority of people will just keep quiet and not criticize Muslims at all-- since no matter how fair or justified one's criticism is, there is sure to be some spokesman or lawyer for the group you criticized demanding you be put in jail for "libel". Even if you're acquitted in the end, the legal expenses, wasted time, and ruined reputation may well ruin you -- not to mention the risk of losing, fighting in court against those whose career is to sue people for libel.

Better just say nothing. Why attract trouble?



You might well be correct. And still, neither he nor anybody else should be on trial for "libeling" groups of people, since if that is a crime, bye-bye freedom of speech.

Yes, the same way one can only say nice or acceptable things about individuals with libel laws the way they are now.

And I would accuse you of slippery slope, but you don't even offer a slope.

The annoying thing here is the double standard: saying "I hate Muslims" or "the Koran incites violence" (which is obviously does) is actually a punishable offense, but shouting "Jews to the gas!" and "Islam will rule the world!" is not, at least de facto.

You sure do like making up double standards, don't you?

And how exactly does a book incite violence?

 

[ravdin]

You sure do like making up double standards, don't you?

And how exactly does a book incite violence?

If you don't believe that the Koran directly incites violence, then you're not paying attention. I'd argue that a literal interpretation of the Koran's exhortations to kill nonbelievers had no small role in the recent attacks in New York, Washington, London, and Madrid, just to name a tiny handful of examples.

But if for some reason you still don't believe that a book can incite violence, then surely the same can be said of a film. I know you would agree with that as you are clearly unafflicted with double standards.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

If you don't believe that the Koran directly incites violence, then you're not paying attention. I'd argue that a literal interpretation of the Koran's exhortations to kill nonbelievers had no small role in the recent attacks in New York, Washington, London, and Madrid, just to name a tiny handful of examples.

Indeed. Which is why it is strange he doesn't call for the banning of the Bible, which suggests we murder non-virgins on their wedding night. If he sinks into apologetics and screams 'interpretation!', well, we can say the same about various Muslim's interpretations of the Koran.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If you don't believe that the Koran directly incites violence, then you're not paying attention. I'd argue that a literal interpretation of the Koran's exhortations to kill nonbelievers had no small role in the recent attacks in New York, Washington, London, and Madrid, just to name a tiny handful of examples.

How is it directly inciting violence when it depends upon people's interpretation?

But if for some reason you still don't believe that a book can incite violence, then surely the same can be said of a film. I know you would agree with that as you are clearly unafflicted with double standards.

I think you are trying to be witty here, but yes. I don't think a film can directly incite violence.

 

[ddt]

I read this morning in Trouw that, and I didn't know this, if the prosecutor is still not convinced of Wilders' guilt he can petition a "Not Guilty" (vrijspraak) verdict.

You seem to be better informed than I am, can you confirm this as a possibility?

To begin with the disclaimer: IANAL, I only play one on TV . I think I have a pretty good idea how the law works, but I haven't even got first-hand experience with the penal code.

That the prosecutor might ask for a "not guilty" seems to me to be a travesty of justice, but I'll flesh it out below. BTW, do you have an electronic link to the article in Trouw?

Let's look at the relevant article 12 in the "Wetboek van Strafvordering" (abbreviated "Sv"; in English: Law on criminal court proceedings):

Wordt een strafbaar feit niet vervolgd of de vervolging niet voortgezet, dan kan de rechtstreeks belanghebbende daarover schriftelijk beklag doen bij het gerechtshof, binnen het rechtsgebied (etc.)

translated:

If a criminal act is not prosecuted, or the prosecution halted, then a directly interested party can file a written request with the Court of Appeal, within the district (etc.)

The subsequent articles (12a through 12l) then only deal with the details of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal.

The verdict in this case states in its conclusion:

14. De beslissing

Het hof beveelt de officier van justitie te Amsterdam om Wilders te dagvaarden ter zake van het aanzetten tot haat en discriminatie (artikel 137d Sr) alsmede ter zake van groepsbelediging voorzover het betreft diens vergelijkingen met het nazisme (artikel 137c Sr).

translated:

14. Verdict

The Court orders the prosecutor in Amsterdam to subpoena Wilders for incitement to hatred and discrimination (art. 137d Penal Code), as well for group insult concerning his comparisons with Nazism (art. 137c Penal Code).

The relevant articles from the Penal Code (Dutch: Wetboek van Strafrecht, abbrev. Sr) are:

Article 137c:

1. Hij die zich in het openbaar, mondeling of bij geschrift of afbeelding, opzettelijk beledigend uitlaat over een groep mensen wegens hun ras, hun godsdienst of levensovertuiging of hun hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid, wordt gestraft met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste een jaar of geldboete van de derde categorie.
2. Indien het feit wordt gepleegd door een persoon die daarvan een beroep of gewoonte maakt of door twee of meer verenigde personen wordt gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste twee jaren of geldboete van de vierde categorie opgelegd.

translated:

1. He who in public, orally or written or by images, on purpose insults a group of people for their race, religion or sexual orientation, is punished with imprisonment up to one year or a fine of the third category.
2. If the fact is done by a person who makes a profession or habit out of it, or by two or more persons in collaboration, imprisonment can be up to two years or the fine up to the fourth category.

Article 137d:

1. Hij die in het openbaar, mondeling of bij geschrift of afbeelding, aanzet tot haat tegen of discriminatie van mensen of gewelddadig optreden tegen persoon of goed van mensen wegens hun ras, hun godsdienst of levensovertuiging, hun geslacht of hun hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid, wordt gestraft met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste een jaar of geldboete van de derde categorie.

2. (identical to sub 2 above)

translation:

1. He who in public, orally or written or by images, incites to hatred or discrimination of people or to violence against persons or goods of people for reason of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, is punished with imprisonment up to one year or a fine of the third category.
2. (identical to sub 2 above).

Article 23 sub 4 Sr lists the categories of fines: third category is up to EUR 7,400; fourth category is up to EUR 18,500. Minimum fine is EUR 3.

In the Dutch legal system, there are no minimum sentences. The prosecutor is free to ask for any sentence he deems appropriate, between the maximum sentence and no sentence at all. So, in this case, he is free to ask for no sentence, or for EUR 6 fine (the minimum on both counts), or for 4 years imprisonment (2 years for each count), or for something in between. I don't think the prosecutor could start a court proceeding with asking for a "non guilty" verdict. He wouldn't do so - obviously - if he started a case on his own initiative, and in this case the Court of Appeal has clearly indicated that Wilders should be prosecuted, so it would be totally against the spirit of the verdict of the Court of Appeal if he started with asking a "non guilty" verdict. The prosecutor can, however, in the course of proceedings, ask the judge to annul the case.

The judge, on his turn, has the freedom to come to his own conclusion. As a rule of thumb, the judge will not exceed the penalty asked for by the prosecutor, but in some cases, the judge has done so. So, the prosecutor could start the case with asking for no sentence, and the judge can then still render a verdict that Wilders has to do 2 years in prison. The judge, of course, also has the power to negate a request from the prosecution to annull a case. If the prosecutor really had the guts to ask for a "non guilty" verdict, I think the judge would be very displeased with such a dishonest trick, and that it would backfire against the prosecution.

I think that in any case, the judge will take a very active role in this case, and will very diligently study all the evidence in this case, and search themselves for more evidence either way.

ETA: When I say above "the judge", I really mean the panel of judges. Dutch District Courts and Appeals Courts consist of a panel of three judges. And when it comes to an appeal, three different judges will be appointed than the ones who heard this case.

 

[Oliver]

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?

Uhm, what of "my comparsions" are you referring to?

Wilders is what many people in Europe would call "islamophobic" - or would his criticism aim at Jews, it would be called "Anti-Semitism". So I don't know what about the criticism of the Bible has to do with anti-semitism, anti-islamism or anti-judaism since Dawkins is simply criticising the scripture - and not the believers in the example you made. Which is contrary to Wilders critizising Muslims in general as dangerous maniacs due to the Koran.

That's the reason why I wouldn't really care about him rotting in prison - as I would if he would rant about the Tora's followers the same generalizing way.

Because as he pointed out by himself, he "doesn't feel ashamed to be a politician" after being asked: "Isn't all your rhetoric just about getting votes?".

 

[ddt]

Indeed. Which is why it is strange he doesn't call for the banning of the Bible, which suggests we murder non-virgins on their wedding night. If he sinks into apologetics and screams 'interpretation!', well, we can say the same about various Muslim's interpretations of the Koran.

To answer your first question, that's really simple: Wilders himself is Roman Catholic.

Oh, and does anyone know if his Hungarian-born wife still has two nationalities? Wilders made quite a ruckus when the current government was installed about the double nationalities of Justice Minster Albayrak (Turkish) and Deputy Social Affairs Minister Abutaleb (Moroccan).

 

[ddt]

The annoying thing here is the double standard: saying "I hate Muslims" or "the Koran incites violence" (which is obviously does) is actually a punishable offense, but shouting "Jews to the gas!" and "Islam will rule the world!" is not, at least de facto.

The phrase "Jews to the gas" is punishable, and people have been arrested and convicted for it - and they didn't have to repeat it either. You might have actually read the thread and the verdict about Wilders to see that the repetitive character of his comments was an essential part in the considerations of the court. Not all people who ever shouted "Jews to the gas" have been arrested for it - nor have all bike thieves been caught.

For the phrase "Islam will rule the world", you might first try to make a prima facie case why it would be punishable. Try first explain to this forum how the explicit use of future tense without specifying a time frame makes it insulting. I suspect then that the speaker means at Saint_Glinglin^WP.

 

[ravdin]

How is it directly inciting violence when it depends upon people's interpretation?

Because the Koran makes direct, unambiguous statements that nonbelievers are to be enslaved or killed. If you interpret the Koran literally, then it is your clear religious duty to do violence to those different from you. Fitna, for all of its faults, does not call on anyone to take violent action against Muslims.

I think you are trying to be witty here, but yes. I don't think a film can directly incite violence.

Do you believe then that Wilders should be charged with a crime?

 

[ddt]

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

Dawkins clearly heavliy criticizes Judaism and Christianity by their holy scriptures. However, in the same book (The God Delusion, isn't it?) he also draws examples of both Jews and Christians with a differing interpretation of their God.

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'.

Yes.

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?

I see the difference clearly. And there's an obvious difference between the Nazis' opinions on Jews and Dawkins criticism of the OT God: Dawkins doesn't draw the inference that therefore all religious Jews and all Christians are bad. Wilders does, however. He has repeatedly drawn the inference "The Koran is bad, all muslims believe in the Koran and therefore all muslims are bad".

And then we're in the same category. The Nazis demonized a "race" group, Wilders demonizes a "religious" group - the people, not just the religion. Those two groups are protected by the same Dutch law article.

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?

No. What I've seen of criticism of Scientology, criticizes the "religion" and in the same breath shows empathy for the simple adherents caught in their web (e.g., Lisa McPherson).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Because the Koran makes direct, unambiguous statements that nonbelievers are to be enslaved or killed. If you interpret the Koran literally, then it is your clear religious duty to do violence to those different from you. Fitna, for all of its faults, does not call on anyone to take violent action against Muslims.

But I still think the causation lies with the person having their literal interpretation.

Do you believe then that Wilders should be charged with a crime?

Well, if the Dutch legal system determines there is sufficient evidence that he broke the law...

I assume you mean do I think that his crime should be a crime? Nope.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Uhm, what of "my comparsions" are you referring to?

Wilders is what many people in Europe would call "islamophobic" - or would his criticism aim at Jews, it would be called "Anti-Semitism".

Just to see if we are on the same page, if I say the God of the Koran is the most foul character in all fiction, is that Islamophobia or simply harsh, legitimate criticism?

As far as I saw in the film, it was completely devoted to criticising scripture, not Arabs. It is wrong for you to equate Islamophobia with anti-semitism, as the latter is made up of a self-identified racial group. Islam is not.

I've seen harsher films made about scientology on the web. Could you see yourself comparing them with anti-semitism?

Perhaps I've missed claims where Wilders has acted in a racist manner towards Arabs. I'm open to being proved wrong.

No. What I've seen of criticism of Scientology, criticizes the "religion" and in the same breath shows empathy for the simple adherents caught in their web (e.g., Lisa McPherson).

There was the South Park episode. There was little empathy shown in that.

 

[luchog]

But I still think the causation lies with the person having their literal interpretation.

But the Qur'an recursively denotes itself as the literal word of Allah, as dictated to the prophet Muhammad by Jibril, the messenger of Allah, and recorded by Muhammad's companions. Every word spoken by Muhammad and collected in the Qur'an came directly from Allah. There are few Muslims, aside from the Mu'tazilis, Sufis and some Ishma'ilis, who do not consider the Qur'an in it's original Arabic to be the literal word of Allah. They also believe that the current text of the Qur'an is letter perfect to that which was delivered orally by Muhammad; and that it is not possible for any human to produce a book such as the Qur'an (which, again, is asserted by the Qur'an itself). Which is why all Muslims are required to study and learn the Arabic dialect in which it is written.

The vast majority of the dispute between the various Islamic sects (again, excluding mystical sects such as the Sufis and Isma'ilis) is not related to interpretation of the Qur'an, the way that Christian sectarianism is based on differing interpretations of scripture; but rather on succession of religio-political leadership, and validity of the numerous hadith.

 

[Skeptic]

Two points.

First, if the man should be in jail for attacking the Koran, so should Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens for attacking the Bible. But if thet were in Denmark nobody would attempt to prosecute them. It is only attacking Muslim holy books that is a punishable offense -- like in Iran. In other words, this "progressive" law de facto establishes Sharia.

Second, I've read the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran. The OT is mostly history and the NT mostly biography and fables, the Koran is hate speech. It is full, to a much greater extent than any of the other two works, with fulsome praise of the believers' essential superiority over all others, curses and threats to the unbelievers, demands that they must be hated and despised, and childish, purile descrptions of the ridiculous heavenly rewards those who fight and kill for the faith.

It is the simple truth that smeone who grows up on the Koran is far more likely to turns out violent than those who who grow up on the Bible: one can well imagine how someone whose religious education consisted mostly of Peter the Hermit's sermons about the infidels, or of Luther's claims about the Jews, would turn out.

I don't think it's the government's business at all to ban literature. Nor is it fair to judge a work composed in the 7th century by modern standards. But if you think it is the government's role to ban ancient literature based on modern criterion of "hate literature", the Koran should be banned, while the Bible probably should not.