Merged Dutch MP to be charged for "hate speech"

Originally Posted by WildCat
And according to funk at least part of the UK, Scotland, is on the precipice of 1930s-style fascism.


someone please let me know when evidence is provided for this claim.
 
Speaking out against Islamic hatred is dangerous work in the Netherlands. Not only might you be murdered in the streets (as Theo van Gogh was), but there's the additional hazard that your own government might prosecute you.
Click to expand...

Europe will surrender to Islam just as France surrendered to Hitler.
 
ddt said:
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.
Click to expand...

The trial started on a strange note. Wilders read a two-minute statement that he invokes his right to silence, and will not answer any questions of the Court. He said he does so (a) on the advice of his lawyer Bram Moszkowicz, and (b) because he has said everything. He said he stood there for the freedom of expression, which is needed for an open debate. He also remarked that not all quotes of him in the press were accurate, but that he stands 100% behind everything he has said.

The Presiding Judge deplored that Wilders will not answer questions. It also remarked that it was noted frequently in the press that Wilders had a habit of evading actual debate (spot on!), and that it deplored Wilders did so here too. Nevertheless, the Court read all statements of Wilders' on which the indictment is based, and subsequently asked questions about it, like:
- exactly when and where did he say that
- did he say this unprovoked
- where his words quoted truthfully (in case of interviews)
And especially it also noted in several cases that Wilders had spoken about "Muslims" and not about "Islam", and asked whether he actually had said that, and if he meant all Muslims or some Muslims or what.

After dealing with all written statements (interviews and op-eds), there was a short recess to set up the equipment to show Fitna. After the recess, Moszkowicz said he had an issue with the remark of the presiding judge about Wilders evading debate, and he asked for the presiding judge to be recused, or of the whole court. The two other judges said the presiding judge had spoken on behalf of the Court, so Moszkowicz asked for the whole Court to be recused.

A special recusal chamber will convene in an hour to judge this request.
 
ravdin said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm

Speaking out against Islamic hatred is dangerous work in the Netherlands. Not only might you be murdered in the streets (as Theo van Gogh was), but there's the additional hazard that your own government might prosecute you.
Click to expand...
That man didn't say anything that wasn't true. The Qu'ran does call for violence against non believers in some circumstances. Judging by the behaviour of certain Islamic groups I have to agree with hiim that they have a violent streak in them. Look at what the muslims are doing in Malmo Sweden. Is not safe for a jew to walk the streets in that city.
 
ddt said:
A special recusal chamber will convene in an hour to judge this request.
Click to expand...
The recusal chamber convened at around 12:30 CET today, heard arguments and will give their verdict 14:00 CET tomorrow.
 
ddt said:
The recusal chamber convened at around 12:30 CET today, heard arguments and will give their verdict 14:00 CET tomorrow.
Click to expand...

This panel of judges just gave their ruling. The request for recusal is denied. They did say in their ruling that the wording of the presiding judge of the main court case was unfortunate, but did not exhibit partiality of the judges and didn't put undue pressure on Wilders.

So the main court case continues, tomorrow at 09:00 AM CET.
 
Dutch Prosecution does not just 'rest' on Wilders case

According to Reuters, the prosecutors said his comments targeted Islam and not Muslims as a group. They said he also had the right as a politician to make statements about perceived problems in society

Linkee

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE69E1PG20101015

So, while I wonder about the cost of having to prosecute and defend the case, I am glad this came down ultimately in favor if more speech, rather than less.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
According to Reuters, the prosecutors said his comments targeted Islam and not Muslims as a group. They said he also had the right as a politician to make statements about perceived problems in society

Linkee

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE69E1PG20101015

So, while I wonder about the cost of having to prosecute and defend the case, I am glad this came down ultimately in favor if more speech, rather than less.
Click to expand...

As to the latter: let's not forget how this started. First, the public prosecutor didn't want to prosecute Wilders. The complainants then went to the Appeals Court, and that court instructed the prosecution's office to go to trial. The plea of last Tuesday and of today was of the very same public prosecutor who didn't want to go to trial in the first place. So I'm not very surprised.

I have the impression the prosecution did a half-hearted job. Just look at the charges: article 137c is about "group insult" and article 137d is about inciting hatred. The prosecutor could easily have collected more statements of Wilders in the same vein and argued for articles 138c and 138d, which are the same charges but then for someone who makes a habit out of it (and carry a maximum sentence of two years instead of one). Considering that Wilders makes these kind of statements at least every week, that would have been a trivial consequence. Also the fact that, while Wilders called on several "Islam experts" who validate his view of Islam, as expert-witnesses, the prosecutor hasn't called anyone for a counter-opinion - though there has been an amicus curiae letter of 7 Dutch Islam experts who countered those views.

I admit I haven't read the prosecutor's pleas yet completely, so I could revise my opinion, but I found the verdict of the Appeals Court pretty convincing. Technically that verdict only ruled on the question whether Wilders should be prosecuted or not, but it treated thoroughly the question of what is forbidden or not.

The prosecutor's plea lasted two days. Tuesday the question of "group insult" was treated. This was predominantly based on Wilders comparing the Quran with Mein Kampf.Today's plea was about "inciting hatred". The Appeals Court found, in fact, that Wilders had crossed the line from criticizing Islam to criticizing Muslims, and IMHO, his wording makes that clear.

The prosecutor's office has press releases in English, complete with summaries of their pleas:
press release prosecutor Tuesday (English)
prosecutor's plea Tuesday (Dutch)
press release prosecutor Friday (English)
prosecutor's plea Friday (Dutch)
 
Of course, Wilders still has to go around with bodyguard, lest members of the religion of peace murder him for saying their religion is violent. A rather ironic situation.
 
Apologies for resurrecting this thead, but for those interested in this case:

The judge has just declared Wilders to be not-guilty of all charges.
 
The whole trial seemed like a witch hunt to me. So i'm happy that free speech seems to have won out this time.

Here's a link for those that care.
 
danrush said:
Europe will surrender to Islam just as France surrendered to Hitler.
Click to expand...

This is stupid and disrespectful to the French soldiers who fought and died in the invasion of France.

(unless it´s sarcasm, then it´s just boring).
 
Last edited:
NoZed Avenger said:
According to Reuters, the prosecutors said his comments targeted Islam and not Muslims as a group. They said he also had the right as a politician to make statements about perceived problems in society

Linkee

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE69E1PG20101015

So, while I wonder about the cost of having to prosecute and defend the case, I am glad this came down ultimately in favor if more speech, rather than less.
Click to expand...


Quibble, but politicians, and governments, do not have rights. They have powers. The People retain their rights, and grant the government revocable powers over those rights.
 
Johny2x4 said:
This is stupid and disrespectful to the French soldiers who fought and died in the invasion of France.

(unless it´s sarcasm, then it´s just boring).
Click to expand...

Stupid and disrespectful, perhaps. But it should not be illegal to say so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom