Illegal observation in the Netherlands

Darat said:
You do have libel laws.
Click to expand...
Truth is a defense against libel in the US.

Not so the law Wilders is accused of violating.

eta: are you claiming the US has libel laws against groups?
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
That Wilders is an idiot, a jerk, and a racist is not reason to criminalize his thoughts.
Click to expand...
The Openbaar Ministerie (DA) agreed with that, and refused to prosecute Wilders. Then some people went to court to force the OM to prosecute.

Now, if I remember correctly, the OM actually prosecutes him while demanding Wilders be acquited. The judge could convict him regardless, but that would really surprise me.

Most likely this case will simply legally establish that yes, people are allowed to say these things.
 
WildCat said:
(snip) Wilders is an idiot, a jerk, and a racist (snip)
Click to expand...
Two of those three statements are baseless insults.

Truth is a defense against libel in the US.

Not so the law Wilders is accused of violating.
Click to expand...
It sure wouldn't help him if it was.
 
The point about truth not being a defense was made by the prosecution.

This is not evidence that Wilders is telling the truth, just official putting him on notice not to bother.

When it comes to political speech in a free country, lying is not illegal either.
 
Last edited:
Abdul Alhazred said:
When it comes to political speech in a free country, lying is not illegal either.
Click to expand...

And even if it's easy
to be free
what's your definition
of freedom?
and who the fuzz are you
who the fuzz are they
who the fuzz am I to say
what the fuzz is really going ooonn.....
- NoFX

No, but really. How is 'allowing politicians to lie' synonymous with freedom?
 
WildCat said:
Truth is a defense against libel in the US.

Not so the law Wilders is accused of violating.
Click to expand...
From what do you infer this? That the judge only allowed 3 of 18 of Wilders' proposed witnesses?

That foremost means that his lawyer botched his job. I read somewhere that his lawyer didn't make clear which of those witnesses were asked as experts and which as witnesses, which makes a difference in a Dutch court case.

Then, the case is not about whether there are nasty things in the Quran, but whether the inference that therefore all Muslims are nasty is correct.

Nevertheless, the court allowed 3 expert witnesses on Islam. So they are interested to hear more on the background. As Wilders' lawyer didn't give an order of preference, they chose the first three off his list.

I don't know the complete list of witnesses Wilders wanted; but a well-known name that was rejected was Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh. And I agree fully with the court that his testimony says precious little on what the hundreds of thousands other Muslims in Holland feel and think. Moreover, would Bouyeri tell more than he did in his own court case (which was nothing at all)?
 
Architect said:
Examples? European ones, since you're having a pop at us?
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? Are you really that clueless?

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/113182/Take-it-easy-on-Muslim-extremists-police-told
POLICE will be ordered not to charge Muslim extremists in many hate crime cases – to stop them becoming more militant.


Guidelines will tell forces to press for conviction only in cases of clear-cut criminal acts.

Officers will be advised not to proceed when evidence of lawbreaking is “borderline”.

Examples of crimes to which a blind eye may be turned include incitement to religious hatred or viewing extremist material on the internet.

Last night critics warned that the move could mean Islamic radicals being give the freedom to encourage violence.

Some saw the move as a politically correct attempt to appease extremists who hate Britain.
Click to expand...

http://maarten.typepad.com/brusselsblog/2004/11/thou_shalt_not_.html
In the Netherlands, artist Chris Ripke reacted to the murder on Theo Van Gogh by an islamic fundamentalist by painting a mural with the text "Gij zult niet doden" ("Thou Shalt Not Kill"), one of the ten commandments of the Christian religion.

But because the head of the nearby mosque complained to the police that this was 'offensive' and 'racist', the cops came and sent in city workers to sandblast the mural. A local journalist, Wim Nottroth, who wanted to protest against this by standing in front of the mural was arrested.
Click to expand...
 
egslim said:
Now, if I remember correctly, the OM actually prosecutes him while demanding Wilders be acquited.
Click to expand...
I think they only uttered the idea that they still could demand acquittal. The summons doesn't contain the punishment they demand. I think we'll have to wait for their demand till the closing plea.

egslim said:
The judge could convict him regardless, but that would really surprise me.
Click to expand...
This article in the NRC (in Dutch) says the matter is pretty much in hands of the judges now and suggests the judges pretty much will come to their own conclusions.
 
MikeMangum said:
http://maarten.typepad.com/brusselsblog/2004/11/thou_shalt_not_.html
In the Netherlands, artist Chris Ripke reacted to the murder on Theo Van Gogh by an islamic fundamentalist by painting a mural with the text "Gij zult niet doden" ("Thou Shalt Not Kill"), one of the ten commandments of the Christian religion.

But because the head of the nearby mosque complained to the police that this was 'offensive' and 'racist', the cops came and sent in city workers to sandblast the mural. A local journalist, Wim Nottroth, who wanted to protest against this by standing in front of the mural was arrested.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, that was outrageous. Do you also care to tell the end of the story?
 
ddt said:
Yes, that was outrageous. Do you also care to tell the end of the story?
Click to expand...

That's all I remember about it. Theo van Gogh was murdered, this artist responded by putting up a mural on the outside of his studio that said "thou shalt not kill", and the police forced him to remove it because it was deemed offensive. If there is more to the story than that, I am unaware of it.
 
MikeMangum said:
That's all I remember about it. Theo van Gogh was murdered, this artist responded by putting up a mural on the outside of his studio that said "thou shalt not kill", and the police forced him to remove it because it was deemed offensive. If there is more to the story than that, I am unaware of it.
Click to expand...

Several town councillors raised the issue in the town council meeting and demanded apologies from the mayor (who is formally head of the police). The mayor did acknowledge the removal of the mural was an error, and apologized to the artist, as well as to the journalist for the policemen's insistence to erase his tapes. (link)
 
Captain.Sassy said:
And even if it's easy
to be free
what's your definition
of freedom?
and who the fuzz are you
who the fuzz are they
who the fuzz am I to say
what the fuzz is really going ooonn.....
- NoFX
Click to expand...

But most importantly:

HOW DID THE CAT GET SO FAT?
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
It's not about Wilders being a "freedom lover". It's about freedom of speech, even for freedom haters.

Because otherwise, the government can and will suppress anything by calling it "hate".

And it's always selectively enforced, thus my comment about why Wilder is being prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Not in Scotland its not.
 
WildCat said:
That Wilders is an idiot, a jerk, and a racist is not reason to criminalize his thoughts. Oh, sorry, it's not his thoughts that are criminal, it's just when he says them out loud...

Sooner or later you guys will realize you can't control thoughts by criminalizing speech. Well maybe you can if you want to go to extreme lengths like North Korea and China do, but do you really want to be like NK and China?
Click to expand...

You did not really think that through did you?
 
BTW, I am skeptical that such a law can be enforced non-selectively, even with an honest intention to do so.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Good for Scotland.

Equal opportunity silencer of unfashionable nasties.
Click to expand...

Religious bigotry up here is mostly the catholic/protestant thing. The prosecutions are not selective at all. Try another tack.

It's just the way we like it. No need for the flappers on here to get their knickers in a twist about it every few days and start more whiney threads.
 
funk de fino said:
You did not really think that through did you?
Click to expand...
Didn't you claim in another thread that Scotland was a heartbeat away from becoming a fascist racist state and the fascism is only kept at bay by your laws against free speech?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom