Dutch lawmaker Wilders in court on hate speech charges

Peter King said:

That may be your opinion, I disagree with that opinion but that is why the laws are like they are in the US (as decided by US voters) and the laws are like they are in the Netherlands (as decided by the Dutch).

Click to expand...

Did 'The Dutch' decide to prosecute Wilders or was this the decision of the opposing political parties?

Peter King said:

That may be your opinion, I disagree with that opinion but that is why the laws are like they are in the US (as decided by US voters) and the laws are like they are in the Netherlands (as decided by the Dutch).

Click to expand...

Yeah... in 1791 the young American government had the foresight to protect speech... and especially political speech.

The Dutch, weren't so wise... or fortunate... and we are seeing the result of this playing out now.

"... more Moroccans or fewer..." the basis for a court case? What a sad and sick joke.

Peter King said:

No, the laws where made by the people by voting in the members of parliament who they trusted to make the rules and constitution.

And I think it enforces the strengths of democracy that it is not only freedom but it is also about respect, honoring and civil/human rights.

Click to expand...

Trust is not something one should bestow on persons one lends power over oneself.
Democracy is not about the respect and honor and the goodness of man. It is a hard political decision making tool that allows all available information to be processed into the measures taken, while protecting citizens against the government and majorities of citizens. One of the most important factors is the freedom to express anything one thinks to be important. If this is undercut the system con no longer function, trust in it and its legitimacy are lost and with those the stability as well as its efficiency is lost. This is, what we have seen happening especially in continental Europe.

zimmer said:

Sorry, the Wilders case(s) reveal there is not respect for free speech. It illustrates intolerance, closed mindedness, and is dangerous... and in this case Muslims are exploiting this idiocy.

How many Imams or Muslims have been hauled before the court? Don't tell me there isn't anything from the mouths of Muslims that trumps Wilders.

What about the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam who told Muslims to **** off... in those precise words? Did he get hauled before the court? Why not? Let people preach whatever they want... even if it is true hate... I prefer it that way. Then we can identify scum easily. It really is dangerous to go down the road of wondering what you can and cannot say. "...more Moroccans or fewer...?" Hate speech my ass.

Click to expand...

The Dutch are attacking Wilders because of their fear of Islamists, nothing more, and feel they must adapt to the pressures of Muslims rather than Muslims adapting to the idea free speech.

When someone gets charged with hate speech by asking a rather ordinary question then that slope has been lubricated, greased and well slicked downward. I doubt many will go to the defense of the Dutch next time around. They're bringing it all on themselves.

joG said:

Trust is not something one should bestow on persons one lends power over oneself.
Democracy is not about the respect and honor and the goodness of man. It is a hard political decision making tool that allows all available information to be processed into the measures taken, while protecting citizens against the government and majorities of citizens. One of the most important factors is the freedom to express anything one thinks to be important. If this is undercut the system con no longer function, trust in it and its legitimacy are lost and with those the stability as well as its efficiency is lost. This is, what we have seen happening especially in continental Europe.

Click to expand...

Is the criminalization of hate speech in the Netherlands now dependent only on whom you hate?

In the Netherlands, crime is five times higher among Moroccan youth than among indigenous Dutch. Also, according to statistics released earlier this week, anti-Semitism is rising in the Netherlands, largely among Moroccan and Turkish immigrants and their children.

The question Wilders raised may have been in poor taste; but the answer, arguably in even poorer taste, came from the people, who are entitled to a country in which they can voice their frustration and be heard.

Isn't this protection, too, what democracy is supposed to be about?

The Netherlands is hardly alone in limiting speech it calls "free." In Germany, "incitement of popular hatred" is punishable by five years in prison. In Iceland, insulting a person on basis of nationality, race, religion, or sexual preference can bring a two-year sentence. And earlier this year, Swedish Democratic Party member Michael Hess was fined SK32,000 (about $5000) for "insulting Muslims" when he asserted that rape is "deeply ingrained in Islamic culture."

Click to expand...

Netherlands: When the Questions Become the Crime

Sounds like it's time for a revolution..

zimmer said:

Sorry, the Wilders case(s) reveal there is not respect for free speech. It illustrates intolerance, closed mindedness, and is dangerous... and in this case Muslims are exploiting this idiocy.

How many Imams or Muslims have been hauled before the court? Don't tell me there isn't anything from the mouths of Muslims that trumps Wilders.

What about the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam who told Muslims to **** off... in those precise words? Did he get hauled before the court? Why not?

Let people preach whatever they want... even if it is true hate... I prefer it that way. Then we can identify scum easily.

It really is dangerous to go down the road of wondering what you can and cannot say. "...more Moroccans or fewer...?" Hate speech my ass.

Click to expand...

1. Imams who spread hatred are kicked out of the country or denied a visa to come into the country

2. the mayor of Rotterdam did not say to all Muslims that they should get the hell out of the Netherlands, he said that people who are so intolerant that they do not want cartoonist to make a funny magazine that they should piss off. He said:

People who sympathize with the terrorists from Paris (Charlie Hebdo) he said: "For goodness sake, pack your suitcase and leave. There may be a place on this planet where can fit in. Do not go around killing innocent journalists, that is reprehensible. Leave the Netherlands if you cannot find your place in our country. And if you have an issue with cartoonists making a funny magazine, well.......if I could be so bold, piss off".

Nothing in his speech/comment was illegal or was offensive to all Muslims because most Muslims agreed with him.

3. Wilders has been given a huge amount of freedom of speech as the leader of a political party, but the "fewer fewer fewer" thing that he completely orchestrated may be the thing that he will get successfully prosecuted for and I do not have an issue with that. And dangerous is singling out one group of people and inciting hatred against them as Wilders has done.

Again, he may be found innocent but to me he started to sound a bit like Adolf or other Nazi faithful goading their followers into hating Jews. Because if an imam had shouted what do we want more or less gays/jews/christians and the crowd would have shouted "less less less" and the Imam would say, then that is what we are going to do, Wilders would have supported that person being prosecuted.

zimmer said:

Yeah... in 1791 the young American government had the foresight to protect speech... and especially political speech.

The Dutch, weren't so wise... or fortunate... and we are seeing the result of this playing out now.

"... more Moroccans or fewer..." the basis for a court case? What a sad and sick joke.

Click to expand...

That is your opinion that it is wiser, when I look at the KKK or neo nazi's marching then I think the Dutch law is wiser. But again that is my opinion as a Dutch person but the same goes for pro-Palestine demonstrations, if people say Jew hating comments they too should be prosecuted. It is not because this is Wilders or just because something is anti-Muslim that I agree with this prosecution.

joG said:

Trust is not something one should bestow on persons one lends power over oneself.
Democracy is not about the respect and honor and the goodness of man. It is a hard political decision making tool that allows all available information to be processed into the measures taken, while protecting citizens against the government and majorities of citizens. One of the most important factors is the freedom to express anything one thinks to be important. If this is undercut the system con no longer function, trust in it and its legitimacy are lost and with those the stability as well as its efficiency is lost. This is, what we have seen happening especially in continental Europe.

Click to expand...

Democracy is about respecting our constitution and in the constitution it says:

Article 1
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal
circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political
opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be
permitted

That is our first article of the constitution, but the fact is that the prosecution thinks Wilders broke the criminal laws of my country and as the prosecution is totally independent, it can form it's own opinion about whether or not the law was broken.

Peter King said:

That is your opinion that it is wiser, when I look at the KKK or neo nazi's marching then I think the Dutch law is wiser. But again that is my opinion as a Dutch person but the same goes for pro-Palestine demonstrations, if people say Jew hating comments they too should be prosecuted. It is not because this is Wilders or just because something is anti-Muslim that I agree with this prosecution.

Click to expand...

The Dutch are obviously practicing selective wisdom. http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/...s-say-hitler-should-have-killed-all-the-jews/

That was a very poor interview, these young Muslims should not have been interrupted so much, but that's not the reason the host has gone into hiding.

Peter King said:

Democracy is about respecting our constitution and in the constitution it says:

Article 1
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal
circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political
opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be
permitted

That is our first article of the constitution, but the fact is that the prosecution thinks Wilders broke the criminal laws of my country and as the prosecution is totally independent, it can.form it's own opinion about whether or not the law was broken.

Click to expand...

Your Constitution is obvious rubbish if it being selectively enforced. Some are more equal than others.

zimmer said:

What constitutes "hate speech" that would generate a court case in The Netherlands?


What a waste of court time.

Reminds me of the perverted attempt by the Kanuckistani's to do the same to Mark Steyn.

And those from The Religion of Peace would like to treat Wilders like Theo van Gogh.

Click to expand...

Another piece of evidence demonstrating that the United States is one of the few bastions of real free speech in the world.

Peter King said:

Democracy is about respecting our constitution and in the constitution it says:

Article 1
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal
circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political
opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be
permitted

That is our first article of the constitution, but the fact is that the prosecution thinks Wilders broke the criminal laws of my country and as the prosecution is totally independent, it can form it's own opinion about whether or not the law was broken.

Click to expand...

The constitution regulates the relationship between the government and the citizenry. If it forbids discrimination it means that the government may not discriminate. Whether a citizen may discriminate is quite a different category and would be in a lower law. In this case it is even questionable that the representatives and government would be allowed to make a law that restricts free expression of political opinion, though the Article you mention only guarantees the government shall not discriminate against any political opinion and not its expression. But even so, it is hard to see that punishing someone for expressing his political opinion is not an act of discrimination against that opinion.
So, while Wilders does not seem to have acted against the constitution it seems obvious that the state is acting against it.

zimmer said:

Throughout history, it is actually typical of Left Wingers to restrict speech.

Click to expand...

You need to dig into your history books a bit more and look at your own country where almost all book bannings and attempts of such, happen in red states and are done by right wing politicians. Not saying politicians on the left are totally blameless, but you need to revise your views a tad.

Grant said:

Point taken. But it is still a government threatening protesters with criminal charges and possible jail terms. This is what's happening in Europe.

Click to expand...

Happening everywhere even in the US. Just look at how the treatment of the Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street. Or the treatment of whistleblowers...

Good for the Netherlands. Wilders is a dangerous, demagogic wing nut who's willing to exploit anything and everything for votes with no regard for the well-being of the state.

Europe paid dearly for fascism and its ilk; it's not about to repeat that dark epoch of its history. The U.S, however, finds fascism entertaining and jocular. Had Trump been censored the moment he first spouted his venom, the course of history would've been altered. But no, we must make a fetish of freedom of expression and perversely protect that which destroys us.

Gaztopian said:

Good for the Netherlands. Wilders is a dangerous, demagogic wing nut who's willing to exploit anything and everything for votes with no regard for the well-being of the state.

Europe paid dearly for fascism and its ilk; it's not about to repeat that dark epoch of its history. The U.S, however, finds fascism entertaining and jocular. Had Trump been censored the moment he first spouted his venom, the course of history would've been altered. But no, we must make a fetish of freedom of expression and perversely protect that which destroys us.

Click to expand...

Then argue your point. Allowing the state in breach of the local constitution to take sides and suppress citizens' expression of their opinions causes severe damage to democracy on a number of levels. It is a very dumb people that allows its democratic system to be subverted in that way.

PeteEU said:

Happening everywhere even in the US. Just look at how the treatment of the Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street. Or the treatment of whistleblowers...

Click to expand...

In fact we have looked at those things you mention on numerous occasions and have all had our say. But now we have moved on to a different topic and don't really want it hijacked. Try to stick to the topic, okay?

Gaztopian said:

Good for the Netherlands. Wilders is a dangerous, demagogic wing nut who's willing to exploit anything and everything for votes with no regard for the well-being of the state.

Click to expand...

The well-being of the State must take precedence over the rights of citizens to speak their minds because of the possibility of Fascism. It's always enlightening to read what the Centrists are thinking.

Europe paid dearly for fascism and its ilk; it's not about to repeat that dark epoch of its history

Click to expand...

. In fact it is and is undergoing that transformation now. After a brief drunken fling with multiculturalism Europeans have awoken to a growing monotheism snoring in the bed beside them. How do you get this beast out of the privacy of your home and have your own comfy bed back again? Sorry, but you can't.

The Dutch, and other western Europeans, decided that cradle-to-grave social programs supported by the taxes of foreign workers were preferable to maintaining a free thinking culture and a safe environment. Once a mistake of that magnitude is made it is, as the responders to Wilders question certainly understand, impossible to have your home back again.

The U.S, however, finds fascism entertaining and jocular. Had Trump been censored the moment he first spouted his venom, the course of history would've been altered. But no, we must make a fetish of freedom of expression and perversely protect that which destroys us.

Click to expand...

Is this you, Pete? Trump is only a presidential candidate so what 'course of history' are you referring to? You could be arrested for making such a false claim.

Grant said:

In fact we have looked at those things you mention on numerous occasions and have all had our say. But now we have moved on to a different topic and don't really want it hijacked. Try to stick to the topic, okay?

Click to expand...

Different topic? LOL! you have got to be kidding me. You are bitching about government stopping "free speech" and protests in Europe, blaming muslims and what not, and yet when someone points out that it happens elsewhere including the US, then that is suddenly off topic?

PeteEU said:

Different topic? LOL! you have got to be kidding me. You are bitching about government stopping "free speech" and protests in Europe, blaming muslims and what not, and yet when someone points out that it happens elsewhere including the US, then that is suddenly off topic?

Click to expand...

It is off topic. This debate does not involve the United States but there many threads which do. Go there and share your thoughts on any number of subjects, including the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.

Defend the Dutch decision to prosecute Wilders or argue the governments point of view. Can you do that without exhibiting your obsession with the United States?

joG said:

The constitution regulates the relationship between the government and the citizenry. If it forbids discrimination it means that the government may not discriminate. Whether a citizen may discriminate is quite a different category and would be in a lower law. In this case it is even questionable that the representatives and government would be allowed to make a law that restricts free expression of political opinion, though the Article you mention only guarantees the government shall not discriminate against any political opinion and not its expression. But even so, it is hard to see that punishing someone for expressing his political opinion is not an act of discrimination against that opinion.
So, while Wilders does not seem to have acted against the constitution it seems obvious that the state is acting against it.

Click to expand...

No, the constitution also regulates the way companies and citizens have to deal with each other, it is not just how the government deals with the citizens. Just like it is illegal for the government to discriminate it is also illegal for people and companies to discriminate.

And again, people who get prosecuted do not get prosecuted under the constitution but under criminal law.

Peter King said:

No, the constitution also regulates the way companies and citizens have to deal with each other, it is not just how the government deals with the citizens. Just like it is illegal for the government to discriminate it is also illegal for people and companies to discriminate. .

Click to expand...

Yes, society must be structured and orderly or it just gets too messy. And let's have free speech so long as it's kept sensible and inoffensive. And no funny business with inappropriate questions!

What gut European could not support that?

And again, people who get prosecuted do not get prosecuted under the constitution but under criminal law

Click to expand...

That makes all the difference.

joG said:

Then argue your point. Allowing the state in breach of the local constitution to take sides and suppress citizens' expression of their opinions causes severe damage to democracy on a number of levels. It is a very dumb people that allows its democratic system to be subverted in that way.

Click to expand...

But as said, fascism and extremism has cost Europe much much more when looking at our democracy and the lives lost. And it does not suppress people's expression if they do it in the privacy of their own home and they can say a lot but not when it violates the civil rights of other people. Because other civil rights are valued here very highly too.

And I think it is very dumb when racists/extremists are allowed to say things that are so racist/discriminatory that it endangers our society/democracy or even the safety of the people that are being attacked in a racist/discriminatory manner.

Peter King said:

1. Imams who spread hatred are kicked out of the country or denied a visa to come into the country

Click to expand...

Only four... and what about the Muslim followers who spout hate speech (measured by the hemophiliac Dutch standard)?

2. the mayor of Rotterdam did not say to all Muslims that they should get the hell out of the Netherlands, he said that people who are so intolerant that they do not want cartoonist to make a funny magazine that they should piss off. He said:

People who sympathize with the terrorists from Paris (Charlie Hebdo) he said: "For goodness sake, pack your suitcase and leave. There may be a place on this planet where can fit in. Do not go around killing innocent journalists, that is reprehensible. Leave the Netherlands if you cannot find your place in our country. And if you have an issue with cartoonists making a funny magazine, well.......if I could be so bold, piss off".

Click to expand...

He dropped the F-bomb... I recall it well... and regardless... according to Dutch standards it is hate speech. Why couldn't he show more tolerance, patience... understanding? He is only encouraging more hatred, bombers, Islamofascist converts with such speech (using the illogical logic of the Left).

Nothing in his speech/comment was illegal or was offensive to all Muslims because most Muslims agreed with him.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh... now it is OK so long as some people agree with you. A slippery slope. And if you say something most people disagree with you end up in court. You fail to see the enormous danger in this?

3. Wilders has been given a huge amount of freedom of speech as the leader of a political party, but the "fewer fewer fewer" thing that he completely orchestrated may be the thing that he will get successfully prosecuted for and I do not have an issue with that. And dangerous is singling out one group of people and inciting hatred against them as Wilders has done.

Again, he may be found innocent but to me he started to sound a bit like Adolf or other Nazi faithful goading their followers into hating Jews. Because if an imam had shouted what do we want more or less gays/jews/christians and the crowd would have shouted "less less less" and the Imam would say, then that is what we are going to do, Wilders would have supported that person being prosecuted.

Click to expand...

"...more Moroccans or fewer..." is not a huge a amount of free speech when it lands you in court. That is Stalinist... and what Wilders asked was a fair enough question.

May I remind you, Hitler killed German citizens that embraced the Jewish faith... because they were Jewish. Wilders asked if they wanted more unskilled Moroccans to enter the country that aren't known for their eagerness to integrate.