Merged Dutch MP to be charged for "hate speech"

rwguinn said:
You could thatch the roofs of a whole country with the straw thrown here.
McCarthy was discredited and ruined,
Click to expand...

I-485 application.

by the very system you disdain-
Click to expand...

Heh. And you talk about straw.

Is there much more juvenile then the "My country is freerer than yours" going on here? All countries have their weak points when it comes to these issues.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
I can remember though having to answer that question on a visa form. And I'm not yet 50 years old. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Completely irrelevant. There are no constitutional issues in deciding who to allow to visit the country. Different story if they tried that on a citizen.

The American Communist Party is alive and well. At least as well as can be expected for a fringe group.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
"have you ever been a member of, or in any other way affiliated with, the communist party..."
Click to expand...
Excellent example. McCarthy went too far, was countered by free speech, lost the battle of ideas and ended up disgraced.

Instead of an attempt to strip Communists of their Constitutional rights your little witch hunt focuses on those who insult Muslims. Who among you will stand up and say "this is wrong, we can win the battle of ideas without outlawing the opposing side"?
 
funk de fino said:
How many people or careers did he ruin?
Click to expand...
He certainly ruined his own. And his name lives on in infamy and disgrace.

McCarthy started his witch hunt in 1950, in 1954 he was censured by the Senate and his career was in ruins. He basically drank himself to an early death after that.
 
WildCat said:
He certainly ruined his own. And his name lives on in infamy and disgrace.

McCarthy started his witch hunt in 1950, in 1954 he was censured by the Senate and his career was in ruins. He basically drank himself to an early death after that.
Click to expand...

How many? Quite the man at the time eh?

Care to rethink this strawman?

Instead of an attempt to strip Communists of their Constitutional rights your little witch hunt focuses on those who insult Muslims.
Click to expand...
 
WildCat said:
Excellent example. McCarthy went too far, was countered by free speech, lost the battle of ideas and ended up disgraced.

Instead of an attempt to strip Communists of their Constitutional rights your little witch hunt focuses on those who insult Muslims. Who among you will stand up and say "this is wrong, we can win the battle of ideas without outlawing the opposing side"?
Click to expand...

The laws against discrimination, incitement of hatred etc. towards Jews were in place decades before any similar laws that also cover other religions and ethnic groups.
 
Darat said:
The laws against discrimination, incitement of hatred etc. towards Jews were in place decades before any similar laws
Click to expand...
Laws against discrimination are fine, they proscribe actions. "incitement of hatred", now that's a broad brush wide open to interpretation and abuse.

that also cover other religions and ethnic groups.
Click to expand...
And according to funk at least part of the UK, Scotland, is on the precipice of 1930s-style fascism.

Your laws don't appear to be working.
 
WildCat said:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's witch hunt.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to take the possibility that the UK's Government has less respect for freedom of belief than the US and its constitution. Regardless, Government isn't the be-all and end-all of what makes a country free. Our country is a lot less prudish than yours, for example (I'm thinking of the US's film censorship board), and the US has far less press freedom than many European countries (Including the Netherlands).
 
funk de fino said:
How many? Quite the man at the time eh?

Care to rethink this strawman?
Click to expand...

The US learned from this and is the better for it.

Europe is proceeding down a path of censorship, which history shows nothing good comes from.

There! Straight forward enuf?
 
I see two discussions at the same time in this thread:

1 - Wilders is being prosecuted under the current laws of NL, what do you think of that?

and

2 - What are the extends to which Free Speech is a good thing.


Well, as to 1 my opinion (yes, just an opinion) is that if it is possible under the Law then by all means, have at it.

It will also set precedents for other fun stuff like prosecuting our minister who wanted to know about the pubic hairs of children and the like.

If you build a weapon to do good, it will also be used to do bad.

Countering Wilders should not be in the Court of Law, but if people like to grab a stick before they have tried to parlay... well, let's see what comes of it.

Now, with regards to 2, I am of the opinion that anyone should be able to say whatever they want. No limits.

There are 'a few' problems with that obviously...

For instance:

- You can offend people. But that is a slippery slope... if you set a line where people say 'I am offended' then the next can move that line etc.
And before you know it, everybody is offended by anything that says more than nothing.

- You could tell lies about someone. Well, that is a good thing to take someone to court for.

- You could rally a lot of people to do things which they never would have done if they only had thought about it, by just saying the 'right' things (i.e. buttons).

And it is that last thing that is actually what is at stake here with Wilders; not the free speech thing, but the confusion that free speech equals "free action" (for want of a better description).

But actions can (and should) be kept in check by Law. But his thoughts and ideas and even the things he says and how he says them should not.

And yes, people are afraid of a repetition of a certain event in Germany in the 20th century, but I do not see any markers for that in NL at all.

Personally, I subscribe to
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (often misattributed to Voltaire, but it is by Evelyn Beatrice Hall).
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Our country is a lot less prudish than yours, for example (I'm thinking of the US's film censorship board),
Click to expand...
Excuse me?

and the US has far less press freedom than many European countries (Including the Netherlands).
Click to expand...
How do we have less press freedom? Hell our libel laws are much less restrictive than yours are.
 
Trial begins Monday

Monday, 9:00 AM, the public part of the trial against Wilders starts. This page details the scheduled trial dates. The trial will be broadcast live by the Dutch broadcasting corporation NOS on its website.

Wilders has received affidavits from four Islam experts from the US and Israel (link in Dutch), with some of their quotes:
Robert Spencer, founder of JihadWatch: "The ultimate goal of Islam is the eradication of Western society"
Prof. Raphael Israeli, professor in History in Jerusalem: "The Islamization of Europe is a great danger for the Europeans", and: "I completely agree with the current and future danger of the Islam in the Netherlands"
Andrew Bostom, MD, Islam critic: "The characterization of Islam as a totalitarian regime is right"
Bill Warner, director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam: "The only way to prevent becoming a slave of Allah is to protect the Dutch freedom"

Can anyone shed more light on the views of these gentlemen? I have a hunch, of course, but some of the posters on this board are much better informed.

Earlier, the court has heard, behind closed doors, testimonies of three experts on Wilders' request:
Prof. Hans Jansen, a leading Dutch Islam scholar
Drs. Simon Admiraal, who has an MA in Islamic studies with Jansen as supervisor
Ms. Wafa Sultan, MD, well-known US Islam critic

Wilders had requested more witnesses to be heard, a.o. the murderer of Theo van Gogh and several lawyers, but this was stricken down by the court, partly because the court considered them not appropriate, partly because the court thought it was too much - e.g., Wilders had asked for 8 Islam experts to be heard, and he had not specified why all 8 would be relevant. (link to ruling).

For some of these experts, amongst which Ms. Sultan, Wilders had also requested them to be heard at trial, but the court denied this.

All four people who now support Wilders with an affidavit were on his list of Islam experts he wanted to have heard. (link to list)
 
Darat said:
WildCat said:
Don't be silly. Of course Muslims won't be prosecuted.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Why not? As far as I am aware the law doesn't exempt Muslims.
Click to expand...

"Really?" You think they'll be prosecuted?

I hope you're right, for fairness' sake. And I hope you're wrong since it impinges on freedom of speech, and neither side should be prosecuted.
 
WildCat said:
And according to funk at least part of the UK, Scotland, is on the precipice of 1930s-style fascism.

Your laws don't appear to be working.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I like to be reminded on how many lies you actually post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom