Merged Dutch MP to be charged for "hate speech"

[Undesired Walrus]

There's a definite difference whether you write a history book and mention that the crusaders called to "kill all infidels", or that the author himself calls to kill all infidels.

Some people interpret it as a story book with messages irrelevant for the present day, some as a direct call to arms to people 1500 years in the future.

He's a hypocrite.

 

[ddt]

The relationship between this trial and tolerance or liberalism is like the relationship between the White Rose trials and patriotism.

In both cases an idea that is innocuous in itself (one should love one's country, one should tolerate people different than oneself without bigotry) had been transformed to the point where any whiff of criticism against the government's policies is "non-patriotic treason" punishable by beheading, or any whiff of criticism of people from other culture is "hate speech" punishable by jail time.

Exaggerate much? Wilders has been free to espouse his views, he hasn't served a minute jail time, much less torture, has access to all the lawyers he wants, and his conviction is not predetermined - to state some of the differences with the White Rose trials. If you'd bothered to read the opinion of the Appeals Court from last year, Wilders' utterances is not a "whiff of criticism" but a continuing barrage of hate-inciting speech. He has said more than once that most/all Muslims should be expelled from the Netherlands.

But the Appeals Court's opinion is not the final matter in this. To reiterate the history of this trial: at first, the prosecutor didn't see grounds for prosecuting Wilders. The complainants then went to the Appeals Court, which ruled that the prosecutor has to start a trial. Wilders appealed against that at the Supreme Court, which upheld the Appeals Court's verdict. Now the ball is in the court of a normal court, which will actually rule over the question whether Wilders overstepped the bounds of the hate-speech articles.

Undoubtedly, we'll get an appeal to this at the Appeals Court and subsequently an appeal at the Supreme Court. If you're only interested in the final outcome, tune out and tune back in around 2013.

By the way, this evil racist bigot, about to pay for his evil non-multi-culti thought crimes any day now, is apparently the most popular politician in the Netherlands. I know, I know -- "popular" doesn't mean "correct", of course, but does anybody really believe that about half the Dutch, of all people, are evil racist xenophobes who should be in jail for agreeing with Wilders?

That's old news. The European elections have long since been, and Wilders' party was not the biggest. Not that the 30% of voters who turn up in Holland for the European elections are in any way representative, but hey, let's not get facts in the way.

Or is it OK to think like him, as long as one does not say it?

You do know how he thinks? Can you give five representative quotes of Wilders? So we know we're on the same page?

 

[Skeptic]

That's old news. The European elections have long since been, and Wilders' party was not the biggest. Not that the 30% of voters who turn up in Holland for the European elections are in any way representative,

Not when they vote massively for the guy you don't like, no.

 

[Skeptic]

If you'd bothered to read the opinion of the Appeals Court from last year, Wilders' utterances is not a "whiff of criticism" but a continuing barrage of hate-inciting speech.

So what? He has the right to free speech. So does the KKK or David Irving or Fred Phelps or the Communists or A.N.S.W.E.R or whomever. Just because someone's views are disgusting doesn't mean they can't say it.

"Hate speech" is a meaningless concept: a fiction whose sole reason is to try and stop speech someone doesn't like, despite the fact that (unlike falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater) it does not actually pose a danger to anybody in particular.

Oh wait, there is no such thing as free speech in the Netherlands.

Nevermind.

 

[Darat]

So what? He has the right to free speech. Oh wait, there is no such thing in the Netherlands. Nevermind.

Or in the USA or in Israel or in the UK or in Russia or in... in fact can you tell me in which country there is this elusive "freedom of speech"?

 

[Skeptic]

In places where unpopular opinion cannot be punished, like in the USA, unless saying it is likely to lead to immediate violence. "Hate speech" is really just another name for "unpopular opinion".

As for Geert Wilders himself, is he a brave teller of the awful truth about Islam, or a paranoid hater or all non-Dutch? In my view, neither: it seems that he's more a populist than anything else, riding the hobby horse of anti-Islamic feelings for the votes it can get him.

But again: even if I am wrong about him, it simply doesn't matter. His right to free speech does not depend on his views being popular, or correct, or even honestly believed.

 

[Darat]

So no examples of where this "freedom of speech" exists?

 

[WildCat]

So no examples of where this "freedom of speech" exists?

In the United States you can say whatever you like, hateful or not.

Incitement in the US is an actual call to harm a specific person, what Wilders said doesn't even come close to this standard.

Yes, there is far more freedom of speech in the US than there is in the UK or the Netherlands. The definition you guys use are so loose and subjective as to be virtually meaningless. And as we see in the Wilders case used not as a tool against actual incitement, but as a way to suppress unpopular opinions.

Here we have a man on trial for causing others to experience an emotion.

 

[ddt]

So what? He has the right to free speech. So does the KKK or David Irving or Fred Phelps or the Communists or A.N.S.W.E.R or whomever. Just because someone's views are disgusting doesn't mean they can't say it.

"Hate speech" is a meaningless concept: a fiction whose sole reason is to try and stop speech someone doesn't like, despite the fact that (unlike falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater) it does not actually pose a danger to anybody in particular.

Oh wait, there is no such thing as free speech in the Netherlands.

Nevermind.

Need help with those goalposts? First it's a "whiff of criticism", and now it's the principle. Oh, and as to free speech: you give yourself a counterexample. You're not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater. Or: incitement to crime; I hear that's punishable in the US too. I also heard you're not allowed to divulge state secrets, or out a CIA agent in the US. What's that about freedom of speech?

In places where unpopular opinion cannot be punished, like in the USA, unless saying it is likely to lead to immediate violence. "Hate speech" is really just another name for "unpopular opinion".

As for Geert Wilders himself, is he a brave teller of the awful truth about Islam, or a paranoid hater or all non-Dutch? In my view, neither: it seems that he's more a populist than anything else, riding the hobby horse of anti-Islamic feelings for the votes it can get him.

But again: even if I am wrong about him, it simply doesn't matter. His right to free speech does not depend on his views being popular, or correct, or even honestly believed.

What about actually looking up some quotes of his? What about actually reading the Appeals Court's verdict? It's all there in the beginning of this thread.

So no examples of where this "freedom of speech" exists?

Of course not. The US doesn't have absolute freedom of speech either, though some Americans try to portray it as such in threads like this.

 

[ddt]

In the United States you can say whatever you like, hateful or not.

No you can't. See my previous post.

Yes, there is far more freedom of speech in the US than there is in the UK or the Netherlands. The definition you guys use are so loose and subjective as to be virtually meaningless. And as we see in the Wilders case used not as a tool against actual incitement, but as a way to suppress unpopular opinions.

I presume you can back up this "far more" by citing relevant Dutch precedents?

Here we have a man on trial for causing others to experience an emotion.

You didn't read the Appeals Court's verdict either?

 

[WildCat]

No you can't. See my previous post.

Exceptions only allowed where it conflicts with the rights of others. No, you don't have the right to not be offended.

I presume you can back up this "far more" by citing relevant Dutch precedents?

I don't even have to, the Wilders prosecution is enough. Even if he is not convicted he will have spent a small fortune on legal defense as well as a significant amount of time and anguish defending himself from the charges. This has a chilling effect on free speech, even if no conviction results. The message is "better just keep your mouth shut than risk prosecution by the thought police". And this is indeed a thought crime.

You didn't read the Appeals Court's verdict either?

Is it in English?

I really don't see why it would matter anyway, even if all allegations are true it falls far short of anything that would be considered incitement in the US.

This is nothing short of prosecuting an individual for having an unpopular opinion. Is Wilders a POS scumbag? Yes. But that should never be a reason for criminal prosecutions in any country that values freedom of expression.

 

[funk de fino]

You still don't get it. Stop crying about it. We are happy enough with our laws. If you do not understand them well that is just tough tits.

I can see why the USA folks rail about a percieved lack of freedoms but not the Israelis. That is just too hypocritical.

 

[WildCat]

You still don't get it. Stop crying about it. We are happy enough with our laws. If you do not understand them well that is just tough tits.

Have whatever laws you like, just don't try to tell me you have freedom of speech when people are being prosecuted for the thought crime of "inciting hatred". Causing an emotion is a criminal offense in the Netherlands?

I can see why the USA folks rail about a percieved lack of freedoms but not the Israelis. That is just too hypocritical.

Why? Does Israel prosecute thought crimes too?

 

[funk de fino]

Have whatever laws you like, just don't try to tell me you have freedom of speech when people are being prosecuted for the thought crime of "inciting hatred". Causing an emotion is a criminal offense in the Netherlands?

We tend not to start the threads on this nonsense subject and don't cry like little girls about it. You're happy with your lot. We are happy with ours. Get over it.

It's not a thought if it is said. As I said, a lack of understanding of the law never helps a poster make a reasonable post on the subject.

Why? Does Israel prosecute thought crimes too?

You seriously want to get into lack of freedoms in Israel?

 

[rwguinn]

We tend not to start the threads on this nonsense subject and don't cry like little girls about it. You're happy with your lot. We are happy with ours. Get over it.

It's not a thought if it is said. As I said, a lack of understanding of the law never helps a poster make a reasonable post on the subject.



You seriously want to get into lack of freedoms in Israel?

Nice change of subject. After all, you brought it up.
In the meantime, I assume YOU and all the Europeans and ferriners will cease and desist your bashing, rants and raves about laws in the United States, since you obviously have a "lack of understanding of the law"

 

[Darat]

Have whatever laws you like, just don't try to tell me you have freedom of speech ...snip...

Tell you what - you stop claiming you have freedom of speech as well and lets all talk about what we both actually have in our respective countries i.e. restrictions on what we can say without fear of prosecution.

 

[WildCat]

Tell you what - you stop claiming you have freedom of speech as well and lets all talk about what we both actually have in our respective countries i.e. restrictions on what we can say without fear of prosecution.

Wasn't there a case in the UK recently where a man wrote a letter to the town council and used a word that rhymed with an offensive word and was arrested and questioned by the police?

Do you really want to claim this has no chilling effect on political speech?

 

[Cleon]

Nice change of subject. After all, you brought it up.
In the meantime, I assume YOU and all the Europeans and ferriners will cease and desist your bashing, rants and raves about laws in the United States, since you obviously have a "lack of understanding of the law"

Right. This thread is for Americans to bash and rant and rave about Europe. How dare you "ferriners" think you have any right to talk smack about the US; you don't even live here!

 

[WildCat]

The 45-year-old IT company manager, who does not want to be named, was arrested in front of his wife and young son, was fingerprinted and had his DNA taken.

It came after staff at Rother District Council in East Sussex declared the phrase “It’s the “do as you likey” attitude that I am against” – sent in an email to their planning department – was potentially racist because “likey” rhymes with the derogatory word “pikey”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/695...r-anti-gypsy-email-he-did-not-even-write.html

Yeah, that just has "freedom of speech" written all over it. No chilling effect here people, just move along.

 

[Darat]

Wasn't there a case in the UK recently where a man wrote a letter to the town council and used a word that rhymed with an offensive word and was arrested and questioned by the police?

Do you really want to claim this has no chilling effect on political speech?

What has that got to do with the post of mine that you quoted?