Yes, these laws operate under the assumption that there is an army of robots at the "inciter's" beck and call, ready to unleash hell on whatever group the "inciter" doesn't like. I personally think Jerry Falwell was a homophobic bastard, and it's even plausible some people committed violent acts partly on what he said. I never wanted to hear the guy, but I would never have made it illegal for him to express his opinions. Allowing the government to decide what speech is "free" and what is "prosecutable" is a very dangerous road to go down. The Dutch are playing with fire, and Wilder will most likely come out of this more popular than he currently is.
Merged Dutch MP to be charged for "hate speech"
- Thread starter ravdin
- Start date
Yes, these laws operate under the assumption that there is an army of robots at the "inciter's" beck and call, ready to unleash hell on whatever group the "inciter" doesn't like. I personally think Jerry Falwell was a homophobic bastard, and it's even plausible some people committed violent acts partly on what he said. I never wanted to hear the guy, but I would never have made it illegal for him to express his opinions. Allowing the government to decide what speech is "free" and what is "prosecutable" is a very dangerous road to go down. The Dutch are playing with fire, and Wilder will most likely come out of this more popular than he currently is.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Assuming you mean "Religulous", it depends on whether Bill Maher incites hatred against the religious.
Inciting hatred as defined in Dutch law is quite similar to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists. It is calling people to act on unnecessarily and in a way that is likely to cause people to get hurt because of a non-existent threat.
If a Dutch politician says something offensive we don't prosecute them either. Calling someone "macaca" is not inciting hatred.
Perhaps.
Some of them did. These Muslim organisations often have constructive dialogue with Jewish organisations and with Women's and Gay rights organisations. They are well integrated into the Dutch dialogue and consensus culture.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
No, they don't. A person can be prosecuted for an act whether or not someone else incited him/her to do it.
Who makes that decision? One person's "inciting hatred" is another person's "keen observation".
The "non-existent" threat is debateable, but you seem to be assuming people are sheep, moving from one "inciter" to another, ready to be provoked at a moment's notice. Again, who decides what is "likely to cause people to get hurt" and what isn't? Did Theo van Gogh bring his murder on himself because he offended some Muslim? Where is personal responsibility in all this?
Apparently, your Supreme Court recommends they be prosecuted. Wilder would not have been prosecuted for anything he's said here in America. He simply would have been voted out of office. Wilder doesn't hold a candle to some of the nuts of the Religious Right in America.
Who's to say if it is or isn't? I would never have thought the Dutch would consider amending their constitution to include Sharia Law: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Sharia could come via.html
Really? There was a large scale demonstration by Muslims against the fatwah on Salmon Rushdie, the treatment of women and homosexuals in Muslim countries, the anti-semitic statements made by the "president" of Iran?
Last edited:
So truth is a defense?
ddt
Mafia Penguin
The judge(s). That's what their job title implies, isn't it?
It isn't as if Wilders just made one comment. He has been making anti-Islam comments for years.
Did you notice that his murderer got life imprisonment (and lifelong means lifelong).
It was the Appeals Court. Did you read the thread? I wrote that at least half a dozen times. And his name is Wilders, with an 's' on the end.
Yes, the Appeals Court even instructs the public prosecutor to prosecute Wilders. That means they see enough reason for a case, not that they say he's guilty - that's up to the District Court where he will be prosecuted. And then probably to the Appeals Court, the Supreme Court and the EHRC
.And could you name a Religious Right nut who is worse than Wilders? I'm interested in the comparison. Did you read all the Wilders quotes from the verdict?
Let's see what then-Minister of Justice Donner said according to the article:
Where does it say the Dutch consider introducing Sharia law? He merely said that if there were a 2/3 majority (etc.). Note the tense and aspect of the verb. You're quite misrepresenting this. Note also there's not a single party currently in Parliament in favour of this; there isn't even a single islamic political party.
Wilders may, of course, argue before the court that his view is correct. The court may not agree with that view.
Indeed, a judge has to intepret the law. I guess I'm just used to our judges erring on the side of free-speech.
So have I, so have a lot of Dutch people, I'm guessing. Should they all be prosecuted? It's a crazy religion, promotes the mistreatment of women and gays, and the countries where Muslims are a majority are hardly beacons of tolerance and enlightenment.
That's not my question: does Theo van Gogh bear any responsibility for his murder because he made "Submission"? Yes/No? You almost seem to be arguing that a woman wearing provocative clothing is partly responsible for being raped because she "incited" a rapist. This kind of thinking is why many Muslim women where burkahs- men, somehow, would not be able to contain themselves at the sight of a woman with actual flesh showing.
An honest mistake.
Yes, the Appeals Court even instructs the public prosecutor to prosecute Wilders. That means they see enough reason for a case, not that they say he's guilty - that's up to the District Court where he will be prosecuted. And then probably to the Appeals Court, the Supreme Court and the EHRC
The idea that he should be prosecuted is what bothers a lot of people.
Where to begin?
These are all from one guy, Jerry Falwell:
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being”
"The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews” (Not ateempting to Godwin the thread. Falwell actually said this).
"Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.”
“[homosexuals are] brute beasts...part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.”
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/jerry_falwell/2.html
Here's some from David Duke, former KKK leader and Louisiana State Representative:
"These Jews who run things, who are producing this mental illness - teenage suicide... all these Jewish sicknesses. That's nothing new. The Talmud's full of things like sex with boys and girls.”
“Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.”
"The Jews are trying to destroy all other cultures - as a survival mechanism - the only Nazi country in the world is Israel.”
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/david_duke/
Those are just two off the top of my head. Neither of these guys was ever prosecuted for any offense or incitement they may have caused. America has a proud tradition of allowing nutjobs (like Ann Coulter) to get on their soapbox.
I think the point was that people were schocked Donner would even consider the possibility of Sharia law in the Netherlands legitimally becoming a reality. Of course if enough people amended the consitution here in the U.S., we could have Sharia law, but we would never let the country get to the point where 2/3 would agree with Sharia law, and any politician (or judge) who suggests the America may someday have Sharia courts would have no political future. 9/11 woke more Americans up than Dutch, I think. But there may be hope for you Dutch yet:
"Since the release of Fitna, in these past few weeks, moderates across the couintry seem to have kept extremists under control. But tensions remain. According to a recent poll, 15% of the Dutch claim they would vote for an anti-immigration party, while nearly half consider Islam a threat."
http://www.france24.com/en/20080418-netherlands-islam-cragg-ransom-wilders-immigration
"A poll of June 2004 found that 68% felt threatened by "immigrant or Muslim young people", 53% feared a terrorist attack by Muslims in the Netherlands, and 47% feared that at some point, they would have to live according to Islamic rules in the Netherlands.[26]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_Netherlands#cite_note-25
Oh, Wilders would have a field day in court. It would be like a 21st century version of the Scopes Monkey trial.
Last edited:
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
The notion of a democracy implementing Sharia is an interesting one, but I'd make an argument that a democracy cannot implement Sharia, even with a 2/3 majority, and here's why.
A democracy is not simply "mob rule" in which majority view rules. I've said this before, but democracy is defined more by obligation than by right. A democracy has an obligation to protect unpopular and minority opinion. That's why free speech is so vital to democracy.
Sharia Law does not respect the minority, or unpopular views, and therefore it cannot be democracy. Thus any state that elects to implement Sharia has abandoned their democratic responsibilities in favour of mob rule.
A democracy is not simply "mob rule" in which majority view rules. I've said this before, but democracy is defined more by obligation than by right. A democracy has an obligation to protect unpopular and minority opinion. That's why free speech is so vital to democracy.
Sharia Law does not respect the minority, or unpopular views, and therefore it cannot be democracy. Thus any state that elects to implement Sharia has abandoned their democratic responsibilities in favour of mob rule.
Geert Wilder trial
I just learned that the well known Dutch politician is on trial:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6994396.ece
I'm not sure I understand what the charges are. What actually is he accused of doing that is illegal?
If "discrimination" is the charge, it seems there are thousands of racist bigots out there making movies, websites about Jews, black and gays, even on this board... and I don't see any of them being prosecuted and brought to court.
And if it's incitement to violence, then I'd like to see the evidence. He may have a strong and even extreme opinion on Islam, but I am not aware of him actually advocating violence against Muslim persons, and he doesn't seem to have connections or to be supporting financially violent groups. On the other hand I've seen alot of reports of Imams in Great Britain inciting hatred and physical violence against Jews and Americans, why don't they get the boot?
Although I agree his views may be a bit extreme and inflammatory, I don't see anything illegal about them. Any Dutch posters who can keep us apprised of the proceedings?
Blast! I forgot the 's' on Wilders in the title.
I just learned that the well known Dutch politician is on trial:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6994396.ece
I'm not sure I understand what the charges are. What actually is he accused of doing that is illegal?
If "discrimination" is the charge, it seems there are thousands of racist bigots out there making movies, websites about Jews, black and gays, even on this board... and I don't see any of them being prosecuted and brought to court.
And if it's incitement to violence, then I'd like to see the evidence. He may have a strong and even extreme opinion on Islam, but I am not aware of him actually advocating violence against Muslim persons, and he doesn't seem to have connections or to be supporting financially violent groups. On the other hand I've seen alot of reports of Imams in Great Britain inciting hatred and physical violence against Jews and Americans, why don't they get the boot?
Although I agree his views may be a bit extreme and inflammatory, I don't see anything illegal about them. Any Dutch posters who can keep us apprised of the proceedings?
Blast! I forgot the 's' on Wilders in the title.
Last edited:
MikeMangum
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,856
The actual charge is irrelevant, he is being tried for saying things that the current government doesn't want him to say. It's that simple.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
I suggest first reading this thread. It's about the verdict where the Appeals Court instructed the prosecutor to prosecute Wilders. So it also covers for what Wilders is prosecuted - incitement of hatred.
The only interesting action thus far is that Wilders put forward a list of 20 "witnesses" to be heard by the court, with which he wanted to prove that his statements about Islam were true. The list included Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh. The judges decided to only allow 3 of them to appear.
PS. It's Wilders with an 's' at the end.
The only interesting action thus far is that Wilders put forward a list of 20 "witnesses" to be heard by the court, with which he wanted to prove that his statements about Islam were true. The list included Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh. The judges decided to only allow 3 of them to appear.
PS. It's Wilders with an 's' at the end.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
I suggest you first read that same thread, specifically my post #10 explaining how it came to this trial.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Small correction: it took the prosecutor nearly a year to start the trial. The Appeal Court's verdict of last year only instructed the prosecutor that he must start a trial.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
WIlder is beneath comtempt.
But I find the idea of prosecuted somebody for an opinion, no matter how disgusting, to be dangerous.
But I find the idea of prosecuted somebody for an opinion, no matter how disgusting, to be dangerous.