• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dutch Free Speech

Harshaw

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
From Geert Wilders' trial before the Dutch Openbaar Ministerie. Says the court:

“It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct”, the ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ stated, “what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.
Click to expand...

Shrugging off Spinoza - Sappho

I would hope I need not explain the problem here.
 
“It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct”, the ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ stated, “what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.

I've known forums to act on this same principle.

At one if them, people are allowed to rationalize why they support terrorism but it is forbidden to state that they have just done so.
 
Harshaw said:
From Geert Wilders' trial before the Dutch Openbaar Ministerie. Says the court:



Shrugging off Spinoza - Sappho

I would hope I need not explain the problem here.
Click to expand...

I find it paradoxical that Geert Wilders and its supporters bitch about being "censored" and say they promote "free speech" while they want to ban the koran because they consider that it "incites hatred".
 
bub said:
I find it paradoxical that Geert Wilders and its supporters bitch about being "censored" and say they promote "free speech" while they want to ban the koran because they consider that it "incites hatred".
Click to expand...

That is quite the height of hypocrisy.
 
bub said:
I find it paradoxical that Geert Wilders and its supporters bitch about being "censored" and say they promote "free speech" while they want to ban the koran because they consider that it "incites hatred".
Click to expand...
The right to freedom of speech is not absolute. There are limitations such as hatespeech, or calling out for violence. The argument Wilders makes is that the Koran is dripping with incitement of hatred and violence against Jews, Christians, pagans, women, atheists and apostates. Wilders was simply asking for consistent application of the Dutch law. He had no illusions about getting the Koran banned, there's no support for. He just wanted to use the attention so he could give numerous examples of hatred and violence against Jews, Christians, pagans, women, atheists and apostates in the Koran.

Wilders is gaining groud, they're trying to handle him just like Pim Fortuyn. Sometimes people forget that Pim Fortuyn, busy winning the 2002 elections, predicted his own death on national television. Pretty extreme huh?!
 
Djoop said:
The right to freedom of speech is not absolute. There are limitations such as hatespeech, or calling out for violence. The argument Wilders makes is that the Koran is dripping with incitement of hatred and violence against Jews, Christians, pagans, women, atheists and apostates. Wilders was simply asking for consistent application of the Dutch law. He had no illusions about getting the Koran banned, there's no support for. He just wanted to use the attention so he could give numerous examples of hatred and violence against Jews, Christians, pagans, women, atheists and apostates in the Koran.

Wilders is gaining groud, they're trying to handle him just like Pim Fortuyn. Sometimes people forget that Pim Fortuyn, busy winning the 2002 elections, predicted his own death on national television. Pretty extreme huh?!
Click to expand...

By that logic one should also ban the Old Testament/the Tanakh. Otherwise it is hypocrisy.
 
bub said:
I find it paradoxical that Geert Wilders and its supporters bitch about being "censored" and say they promote "free speech" while they want to ban the koran because they consider that it "incites hatred".
Click to expand...

I don't give a flying flip for Wilders personally. If he actually wants to get the Koran banned, then he's obviously wrong.
 
Djoop said:
The right to freedom of speech is not absolute. There are limitations such as hatespeech, or calling out for violence. The argument Wilders makes is that the Koran is dripping with incitement of hatred and violence against Jews, Christians, pagans, women, atheists and apostates. Wilders was simply asking for consistent application of the Dutch law. He had no illusions about getting the Koran banned, there's no support for. He just wanted to use the attention so he could give numerous examples of hatred and violence against Jews, Christians, pagans, women, atheists and apostates in the Koran.

Wilders is gaining groud, they're trying to handle him just like Pim Fortuyn. Sometimes people forget that Pim Fortuyn, busy winning the 2002 elections, predicted his own death on national television. Pretty extreme huh?!
Click to expand...

Then the same argument is valid for Wilder's movieFitna. If he wants to ban the koran because it incites hatespeech, then his own movie should be banned too.
 
bub said:
Then the same argument is valid for Wilder's movieFitna. If he wants to ban the koran because it incites hatespeech, then his own movie should be banned too.
Click to expand...
I disagree, Fitna does not call for violence, it doesn't incite hatred either. Wilders is being prosecuted for Fitna though...
 
If you poke the hornets' nest you end up getting stung, or banned from telling the truth to protect the hornets.
 
Djoop said:
I disagree, Fitna does not call for violence, it doesn't incite hatred either. Wilders is being prosecuted for Fitna though...
Click to expand...

Doesn't incite hatred?? Half of the movie is blaming muslims for most of the world's violence. What feeling other than hatred could it possibly incite? Friendship?
 
bub said:
Then the same argument is valid for Wilder's movieFitna. If he wants to ban the koran because it incites hatespeech, then his own movie should be banned too.
Click to expand...

Only if the Q'ran is actually banned. Since that particular book HASN'T been banned, then Wilder's movie shouldn't, either.
 
Gardener said:
Only if the Q'ran is actually banned. Since that particular book HASN'T been banned, then Wilder's movie shouldn't, either.
Click to expand...

Gardener, you found the paradox!!!
 
Gardener said:
Only if the Q'ran is actually banned. Since that particular book HASN'T been banned, then Wilder's movie shouldn't, either.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you. Either both are banned, or none are banned.

But no one should depict wilders as a supporter of free speech since he is the one who wants to ban books.
 
Djoop said:
Gardener, you found the paradox!!!
Click to expand...

so the question is "why would be wilder's movie censored because of hatespeech while the koran isn't", right?
 
bub said:
so the question is "why would be wilder's movie censored because of hatespeech while the koran isn't", right?
Click to expand...
Why are dutch Imams, who make speeches about throwing gays from apartement buildings, not being prosecuted, while Wilders is.

I still hold the position that Fitna does not incite hatred while the Koran does. However, I don't agree with banning books, no matter how vile their content. I am an absolutist when it comes to the freedom of speech. The reason I'll probably vote for Wilders next election is not because of his program, it's about being extremely annoyed with the Left trying to demonize him.
 
I believe there was a similar case in Australia a few years ago.
The Defense (against the charge of hate speech), wanted to read from the Koran.. but was not allowed to.

'Truth' apparently is not a defense. Tho reading from the Koran isn't exactly free speech that should be restricted such as yelling "fire" in a theater... Or is it?
If it is, Wilders is correct.

The problem is also, the Koran/Islam being Last.. it's enemies are still extant. Not just the statements villifying Jews and Christians.. but even worse for people who aren't 'of the book'; Pagans.. Hundus, Animists, etc.
-
 
Last edited:
Djoop said:
Why are dutch Imams, who make speeches about throwing gays from apartement buildings, not being prosecuted, while Wilders is.
Click to expand...

Those who say that should be prosecuted. Is there an example of imams saying such things and not being prosecuted?

I still hold the position that Fitna does not incite hatred while the Koran does. However, I don't agree with banning books, no matter how vile their content. I am an absolutist when it comes to the freedom of speech. The reason I'll probably vote for Wilders next election is not because of his program, it's about being extremely annoyed with the Left trying to demonize him.
Click to expand...

If you defend freedom of speech I can understand why you don't like Wilder's program.

I do like some of his ideas.
 
bub said:
Those who say that should be prosecuted. Is there an example of imams saying such things and not being prosecuted?
Click to expand...
Yes, the example came from an imam in Rotterdam. More importantly, gay bashing is on the rise, the gay community has been complaining about it for years.

If you defend freedom of speech I can understand why you don't like Wilder's program.

I do like some of his ideas.
Click to expand...
Koran ban, veil tax, he's an attention whore.
 
Djoop said:
Yes, the example came from an imam in Rotterdam. More importantly, gay bashing is on the rise, the gay community has been complaining about it for years.
Click to expand...

and this guy is not being sued?


Koran ban, veil tax, he's an attention whore.
Click to expand...

Those are the kind of measures I would support, since we are a Judeo-Christian continent.
 
bub said:
and this guy is not being sued?
Click to expand...
nope.
Those are the kind of measures I would support, since we are a Judeo-Christian continent.
Click to expand...
Which part of the judeo-christian heritage deserves this credit? In my view we should be proud of our philosophers, our scientists, of secular humanism.
 
Djoop said:
nope.
Click to expand...

then the Dutch justice is not very efficient

Which part of the judeo-christian heritage deserves this credit? In my view we should be proud of our philosophers, our scientists, of secular humanism.
Click to expand...

Of course, but our roots are still Christian, we should not deny it.
 
bub said:
then the Dutch justice is not very efficient
Click to expand...
It's very selective, a dutch cartoon maker got an arrest team.
Of course, but our roots are still Christian, we should not deny it.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't, but some parts of Europe have been islamic for centuries, and Islam did have a quite important influence on medieval Europe, in terms of governance and science.
 
Djoop said:
I wouldn't, but some parts of Europe have been islamic for centuries, and Islam did have a quite important influence on medieval Europe, in terms of governance and science.
Click to expand...

I agree with the science part, but I'm sceptical about the governance part. Have you got an example? (and are you still in your "liever turks dan paaps" mood? :mrgreen: )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom