Merged Dutch MP to be charged for "hate speech"

[ddt]

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.

It's not called libel, but it's called insult. See the snippets of the Dutch law I posted.

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.

(bolding mine). Do you read the thread at all? This is about the Netherlands, not about Denmark.

Your inference is also false. The fact that the prosecutor first decided not to prosecute Wilders, and then the complainants went to court to ask to overturn that decision, and the decision itself indicates that the hurdle is very high. Name one Dutch person, outside Parliament, who'd have the same access to the media to proliferate his message on a weekly basis.

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.

Nonsense - see above.

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.

More nonsense. You're trying to paint it very black & white. You're also overlooking that this is a criminal case. Those who wanted Wilders prosecuted don't get any financial gain with it, and they're the ones who had to employ lawyers to file this request. Wilders didn't have to employ a lawyer until now, and he'll certainly not face financial ruin even if the case ultimately gets to the Dutch Supreme Court.

 

[ddt]

First, if the man should be in jail for attacking the Koran, so should Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens for attacking the Bible.

Read the thread. Wilders is not prosecuted for attacking the Koran. He is prosecuted for infering from that that all muslims are evil.

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.

Denmark again? Don't bother to read the thread? And please refrain from putting up these strawman.

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.

I agree with this. Is this criticism of Wilders, who repeatedly called for the Koran to be banned? As a bonus: name one book that was banned in the Netherlands since, say, 1600.

 

[ddt]

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?

The latter: legitimate criticism. I'm quite sure you wouldn't be prosecuted for that in the Netherlands.

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.

Fitna wasn't just about criticising scripture. It started with images of 9/11, and halfway switched to Dutch demographics, how many muslims there will be in 2020 or so. That sends the message: all muslims are terrorists.

Moreover, it's not just about Fitna. It's about a whole pattern of statements. To take a couple from the verdict. In newspaper "De Pers", 13 Feb. 2007:

We willen genoeg. De grenzen dicht, geen islamieten meer in Nederland, veel moslims Nederland uit, denaturalisatie van islamitische criminelen.

translated:

We want a lot [of things]. Close the borders, no more muslims into the Netherlands, many muslims out, de-naturalization of muslim criminals.

Op-ed in the "Volkskrant", 8 Aug. 2007:

Ik heb genoeg van de islam in Nederland: geen moslimimmigrant er meer bij.

translated:

I've had it with the Islam in the Netherlands: not a single muslim immigrant into the country.

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

Not towards Arabs, but towards muslims in general - see above.

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

You're right. But did it try to even insult, let alone "incite hatred of" all the adherents? It mocked their religion, and maybe insulted individual leaders and celebrities. There's a vast difference between the South Park Scientology episode and the above statements of Wilders.

 

[Earthborn]

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.

I think that not only isn't it "clearly audible", I think sounds more like the "Hamas, Jihad, Hezbollah" as heard earlier and interpreting it as "Hamas, Joden aan het gas" is an example of hearing what you expect to hear. With human ears being better than camcorder microphones, it is not hard to imagine that the people there heard the former, not the latter.

 

[Oliver]

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, it's no Islamophobia to critizise the Koran or it's God, which -btw- is the same as all the other religions based on Pal Abraham. To reduce all Jews, Christians or Muslims based on their scriptures - on the other hand, is a quite disingenuous and an even risky position, as we know from history due to another politican who knew how to generalize a group of people.

To say that Wilders is racist is rather strange, because neither Muslims, nor Christians or Jews are a specific group of "race".

Concerning his movie, I don't really care about any outrage or controversy about it, and "documentaries" about Scientology may be no difference from your point of view, the difference from a critical POV, however, is that the critizism about scientology aims at the religion, not the followers as a generally dangerous group of people.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

To say that Wilders is racist is rather strange, because neither Muslims, nor Christians or Jews are a specific group of "race".

This is what I've been trying to say to you. Yet anti-semitism is a racist attitude, devoid -at least in its modern incarnation- of scriptual criticism.

Concerning his movie, I don't really care about any outrage or controversy about it, and "documentaries" about Scientology may be no difference from your point of view, the difference from a critical POV, however, is that the critizism about scientology aims at the religion, not the followers as a generally dangerous group of people.

So if I released a movie saying that Scientologists are the greatest threat to world peace, would you approve of me being sent to jail (I presume by your attitude in your first post you approve of Wilders being banged up), and equate my attitude with anti-semitism?

 

[ddt]

I think that not only isn't it "clearly audible", [...]

Let's discuss that further in the other thread.

 

[ddt]

So if I released a movie saying that Scientologists are the greatest threat to world peace, would you approve of me being sent to jail (I presume by your attitude in your first post you approve of Wilders being banged up), and equate my attitude with anti-semitism?

Oliver, UW, are you discussing hypotheticals or Wilders? In the latter case, could you refrain trying to picture as if Wilders is being indicted for Fitna alone?

 

[Skeptic]

Read the thread. Wilders is not prosecuted for attacking the Koran. He is prosecuted for infering from that that all muslims are evil.

So what? It should be perfectly legal to infer all Muslims -- or Jews or anybody -- are evil. Making hating a group of people illegal means that there is no freedom of speech, since the government gets to decide what may, or may not, be said about some group. And calling the crime "insult" instead of "libel" doesn't change things.

I agree with this. Is this criticism of Wilders, who repeatedly called for the Koran to be banned?

I think Wilders and the Koran should be treated the same way. It is not the government's business to prevent people from saying members of one group -- be it the Muslims or the infidels -- are evil. It's freedom of speech to say such things. But IF one wants to make it illegal to ban Wilders' speeches, then one should also ban the Koran.

The problem with the Koran is threefold.

1). It is a nasty piece of work, full of violence against the infidels. By modern standards it undoubtably fits the "hate literature" definition.

2). Even by ancient standards, the Koran is an especially nasty piece of work in its treatment of the infidels. It was violent and warlike even by the standards of the time; indeed the original Muslim conquests were made precisely because it is so conductive to making people want to kill the infidel.

That alone is not enough to make it "hate speech", since I presume that the hate speech laws make exceptions for historical works which, naturally, could hardly be asked to meet modern sensitivities. But the clincher is:

3). The Koran is extensively used today, in the Netherlands, to promote violence against the "infidels".

Taking (1), (2) and (3) together, it follows that if Wilders' works should be banned for their possible practical effect of violence against Muslims, or for "insulting" Muslims, certainly the Koran should be banned for its possible, in fact actual, practical effects of violence against non-Muslims and "insulting" them.

They don't stand to gain financially

Their main point isn't financial gain, but making sure people fear to criticize Islam in general and the Koran in particular.

 

[ddt]

So what? It should be perfectly legal to infer all Muslims -- or Jews or anybody -- are evil. Making hating a group of people illegal means that there is no freedom of speech, since the government gets to decide what may, or may not, be said about some group. And calling the crime "insult" instead of "libel" doesn't change things.

Allowing incitement of hatred to a group - Muslims, Jews, gays, whatever - might lead to worse. You might also check out when these laws were introduced into the Dutch penal code. Moreover, freedom of speech isn't an absolute anyway, there are always restrictions. Europeans and Americans tend to differ on which those restrictions are; it doesn't seem to me to be fruitful to repeat that discussion again.

I think Wilders and the Koran should be treated the same way. It is not the government's business to prevent people from saying members of one group -- be it the Muslims or the infidels -- are evil. It's freedom of speech to say such things. But IF one wants to make it illegal to ban Wilders' speeches, then one should also ban the Koran.

There's a definite difference between Wilders and the Koran. Wilders is a person, the Koran is a book. The above law articles pertain to persons only. You might compare Wilders with Muhammed then, but the latter is not subject to the Dutch jurisdiction 2009 AD.

AFAIK, a publication ban is a matter of civil law. So, if Wilders were serious about it, he hadn't bleated on and on - in Parliament and in the press - about that the Koran should be banned, but he would have gone to a civil court and asked for a ban. Alternatively, he might file a criminal complaint with the police against the publishers of a Koran edition.

The problem with the Koran is threefold.

1). It is a nasty piece of work, full of violence against the infidels. By modern standards it undoubtably fits the "hate literature" definition.

2). Even by ancient standards, the Koran is an especially nasty piece of work in its treatment of the infidels. It was violent and warlike even by the standards of the time; indeed the original Muslim conquests were made precisely because it is so conductive to making people want to kill the infidel.

That alone is not enough to make it "hate speech", since I presume that the hate speech laws make exceptions for historical works which, naturally, could hardly be asked to meet modern sensitivities.

I really wouldn't know what a civil judge would say about this. First of all, you've seen the hate speech laws, and they're criminal laws, and what is deemed to be incitement of hatred and insult is up to the judges. Secondly, there is no precedent of banning historical literature.

But the clincher is:

3). The Koran is extensively used today, in the Netherlands, to promote violence against the "infidels".

Evidence for the extensively?

Taking (1), (2) and (3) together, it follows that if Wilders' works should be banned for their possible practical effect of violence against Muslims, or for "insulting" Muslims, certainly the Koran should be banned for its possible, in fact actual, practical effects of violence against non-Muslims and "insulting" them.

First of all, Wilders' "works" aren't banned. Nearly all the evidence consists of statements he made in newspapers and TV, so they can't be banned. And the judges don't ask for the ban of Fitna - they can't, penal law doesn't provide for banning works, only for prosecuting people. Even if this prosecution would be successful in the end, it's not a given that someone could successfully ask for banning Fitna, as it's only part of the evidence.

And as to banning the Koran - why hasn't Wilders asked for it himself???

Their main point isn't financial gain, but making sure people fear to criticize Islam in general and the Koran in particular.

Where's that laughing dog when you need it?

How would "they" go about? The only thing they can do is file complaints with the prosecutor, and, if the prosecutor doesn't act, file a request with the Court of Appeal. All without any cost for the accused.

 

[Skeptic]

Allowing incitement of hatred to a group - Muslims, Jews, gays, whatever - might lead to worse.

Yes, it might. And allowing people to drive cars might lead to accidents. However, a free society knowingly takes these risks, since it considers people's freedom to be worth the risks inherent in their misuse.

Moreover, freedom of speech isn't an absolute anyway, there are always restrictions.

Indeed so. And driving a car isn't an absolute right, either. And yet, if driving cars is made illegal to all but those in the 35-45 age group, say...

it doesn't seem to me to be fruitful to repeat that discussion again.

By all means, LET us repeat the discussion. It seems to me that the European view is "watch your mouth!" -- that some views are illegal, NOT when expressed in ways that are likely to lead to violence, but merely for being disgusting.

Hence, for instance, shouting "Kill the Jews!" in a Jewish neighborhood at the head of a mob is surely illegal in both Europe and the USA. The reason? It is likely to lead to actual violence. But holocaust denial is illegal only in Europe no matter what. This is a restriction, not on people not hurting other people, but on what people may think or say. As disgusting as David Irving is, for instance, he should NOT be in jail, or sued, for holocaust denial.

(And, no, the Irving vs. Lipstadt trial was NOT a prosecution of Irving for holocaust denial -- it was he who sued her.)

There's a definite difference between Wilders and the Koran. Wilders is a person, the Koran is a book. The above law articles pertain to persons only. You might compare Wilders with Muhammed then, but the latter is not subject to the Dutch jurisdiction 2009 AD.

...or to Imams who use the Koran, who ARE subject to Dutch law.

AFAIK, a publication ban is a matter of civil law. So, if Wilders were serious about it, he hadn't bleated on and on - in Parliament and in the press - about that the Koran should be banned, but he would have gone to a civil court and asked for a ban.

Or perhaps his point was not to actually try and ban it, but rather to point out that the Koran qualifies as hate literature by modern standards. Which it is.

Again, I do NOT think the Koran should be banned. But I think Wilders' point is to point out it is a hateful document, which it is. And he should be allowed to say this.

How would "they" go about? The only thing they can do is file complaints with the prosecutor, and, if the prosecutor doesn't act, file a request with the Court of Appeal. All without any cost for the accused.

...unless the prosecutor decides to prosecute, which, even if the accussed is eventually cleared, means an enormous waste of time and money and reputation for him.

 

[Cleon]

These sorts of laws are no different than the ones restricting Holocaust denial and so on. They're all based on the idea that should be illegal to stir up hatred against a particular ethnic/religious group.

It doesn't take a psychohistorian to figure out why such laws are on the books, but I'm still not a real big fan of the idea. Forcing the lunatics underground just makes them more dangerous, IMO.

At the same time, those who are claiming that this is the result of some "special status" that Muslims have in Europe to be free from criticism need to talk to David Irving.

 

[ddt]

Yes, it might. And allowing people to drive cars might lead to accidents. However, a free society knowingly takes these risks, since it considers people's freedom to be worth the risks inherent in their misuse.

And we impose rules, both on drivers and on cars, to minimize these risks. We don't want the equivalent of a Ford Pinto driving around, do we? There is this little precedent of 1933-1945.

Indeed so. And driving a car isn't an absolute right, either. And yet, if driving cars is made illegal to all but those in the 35-45 age group, say...

The US allows people to drive from 16 on, the Netherlands from 18 on. Seems a much more proportional comparison.

By all means, LET us repeat the discussion. It seems to me that the European view is "watch your mouth!" -- that some views are illegal, NOT when expressed in ways that are likely to lead to violence, but merely for being disgusting.

You're overblowing the scope that is given to the laws in question. Note that the judge only judged the comparison with Nazism to be prosecutable as an insult. As for incitement of hatred - egslim above cited from the Anti-Racism Monitor of the Anne Frank Foundation that they attribute the rise in racism in 2008 to Wilders.

Hence, for instance, shouting "Kill the Jews!" in a Jewish neighborhood at the head of a mob is surely illegal in both Europe and the USA. The reason? It is likely to lead to actual violence. But holocaust denial is illegal only in Europe no matter what. This is a restriction, not on people not hurting other people, but on what people may think or say.

See above. The bar is a bit lower.

...or to Imams who use the Koran, who ARE subject to Dutch law.

If they use the hate inciting passages of the Koran, for all means, I'm in favour that they get prosecuted for it. The courts here, unfortunately, give "religious convictions" more leeway there. A couple of years ago, an imam was prosecuted for disparaging remarks about gays. The fundie-protestant MP I mentioned earlier who was prosecuted for disparaging remarks about gays was eventually acquitted too.

Or perhaps his point was not to actually try and ban it, but rather to point out that the Koran qualifies as hate literature by modern standards. Which it is.

He started with saying so. Then he upped the ante by saying that those hateful parts should be ripped out - thereby the Koran rendering to the size of a Donald Duck magazine. He ended with outright saying it should be banned. All of those statements he repeated ad nauseam - at least once a week. He said what he said, and didn't mean anything else with it.

But not acting on it is pure hypocrisy.

Again, I do NOT think the Koran should be banned. But I think Wilders' point is to point out it is a hateful document, which it is. And he should be allowed to say this.

He is allowed to point that out. The court had a problem with his inference that therefore all Muslims are evil.

...unless the prosecutor decides to prosecute, which, even if the accussed is eventually cleared, means an enormous waste of time and money and reputation for him.

Waste of reputation, I doubt. In the case of Wilders: some commentators said prosecuting him was not a good idea as it could make a martyr out of him. He literally made a profession out of this: he was elected on an anti-Islam platform, it's the only thing he's been talking about for the last five years or so.

This case will set the bar for what is prosecutable and what not when it comes to Muslim criticism. It's also the first case that is going to court. Whoever tops Wilders in his statements will have polarized opinions about him: on the one hand, supporters with whom a court case will only bolster his reputation; on the other hand, antagonists with whom he'll have no reputation left to begin with.

ETA: still, the point remains that (Muslim) organizations who'd like to stifle criticism of the Islam, don't have the actual possibility to do so, as it's in the end a prosecutor or a judge who decides whether someone is prosecuted or not.

BTW, you forgot to give evidence of:

3). The Koran is extensively used today, in the Netherlands, to promote violence against the "infidels".

in particular, the extensively.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I am not sure we have statistics on crime with ethnic data. It is a bit of a taboo to note the ethnic background of a criminal.

In Holland muslim or islamic means more or less Turkish or Moroccan as the great majority of that faith comes from those countries, they came here to work from in the sixties and seventies.

Nowadays it is a fact that in some areas of crime young people from those backgrounds are overrepresented. Nobody will deny that. But it is not their faith that causes this, it is the fact that in many areas of society they still have difficulties to overcome. Their parents or grandparents are low educated, they came here for manual labour. In school they have a disadvantage (culture, language, racism) All this and much more together makes them more likely to be unemployed, or become drop-outs.. Just like everywhere else in the world (ghetto, gangs) Not that we have gangs like the famous examples in big American cities but that is mostly because we don't have big cities and because out social system is more extended than in a typical american state.

So yes, muslims* do commit more criminal acts than nonmuslims, but their faith has little or nothing to do with it. Wilders draws the wrong conclusions.



* The youths, many are teenagers, that add a lot to the crime statistics with acts of violence, vandalism, shoplifting, joyriding, blackmail etc are not exactly model believers. calling them muslims is a bit silly.

All true. But these same teenagers also are most visible on the streets, hanging out in groups and being intimidating.
In the media they also have a disproportionate effect as their crimes, attitudes and recent anti-Semitism are put in the spotlight.

So, to Wilder's followers they have become the defining representatives of Dutch Muslims. Objectively wrong, but that's the effect.

Perception is reality and all that...

I have Dutch-Moroccan friends and they are profoundly unhappy with the PR-efforts of their less successful brothers. And needless to say; They're equally unhappy about Mr Wilders' drive to demonise Muslims.

 

[Skeptic]

These sorts of laws are no different than the ones restricting Holocaust denial and so on.

Indeed so. And I think holocaust denial should not be illegal, as I repeatedly said.

 

[Malerin]

Don't the Dutch know that sunlight is the best disinfectant? Let Wilder release his film and let there be an honest debate. Can you imagine the Supreme Court of the U.S., in this day and age, recommending someone be prosecuted for making a film that offends a religious group? Bill Maher would be serving multiple life-sentences...

 

[ddt]

Don't the Dutch know that sunlight is the best disinfectant? Let Wilder release his film and let there be an honest debate. Can you imagine the Supreme Court of the U.S., in this day and age, recommending someone be prosecuted for making a film that offends a religious group? Bill Maher would be serving multiple life-sentences...

Huh? The film was released, March 2008. It is available on Liveleak (in Dutch and English). What other release do you want?

Furthermore, it hasn't been established that Fitna incites hatred. And it won't, as the Court has cited Fitna in combination with a long list of other comments of Wilders'. Did you read the press release I linked to?

Finally, debate? With Wilders? He's the one who shuns debate. As another poster succinctly put it, he shouts some statement in the media, goes home and pulls the phone out of the plug. Whenever muslim organisations proposed a debate, he refused to.

 

[Malerin]

Huh? The film was released, March 2008. It is available on Liveleak (in Dutch and English). What other release do you want?

That's true, but if Wilder is prosecuted for making an anti-Muslim film, where does it end? Should Bill Maher have been prosecuted for Religiousity?

Furthermore, it hasn't been established that Fitna incites hatred. And it won't, as the Court has cited Fitna in combination with a long list of other comments of Wilders'. Did you read the press release I linked to?

Why is this even a matter of for the judiciary? Short of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, Wilder should have the freedom to say whatever he wants, no matter how offensive. If an American politician says something offensive (i.e., George "Macaca" Allen) we vote them out (or don't vote for them at all). We don't prosecute them.

Finally, debate? With Wilders? He's the one who shuns debate. As another poster succinctly put it, he shouts some statement in the media, goes home and pulls the phone out of the plug. Whenever muslim organisations proposed a debate, he refused to.

So he should be prosecuted for this? If Muslims are serious about a debate, perhaps they should demonstrate against the fatwah on Salmon Rushdie, rally in support of equal rights for women, and condemn Achmedinajad's anti-semitic and homophobic statements.

 

[gumboot]

Anti-hate laws excuse the personal responsibility of the incited. They are totally out of kilter with international humanitarian law, which clearly establishes that you are individually responsible for your own actions.

If someone incites you to hatred, if someone implores you to despise a given group, it is you who is responsible for acting on those emotions, not the inciter.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Anti-hate laws excuse the personal responsibility of the incited. They are totally out of kilter with international humanitarian law, which clearly establishes that you are individually responsible for your own actions.

If someone incites you to hatred, if someone implores you to despise a given group, it is you who is responsible for acting on those emotions, not the inciter.

I completely agree with this.