• 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 lawmaker Wilders in court on hate speech charges

Yes, it might well have happened in all religions all over the world but in trying to deal with today's world this is where we should focus. Being an apologist for rapists, and never their victims, sets you apart from most real men but your attitude is not that uncommon in the Europe of today. Perhaps that's why your focus is on the America of a century ago instead.

What planet do you live on? America a century ago? HAHAH, It is happening now. Your hatred of anything European is blinding you. And it is happening in every country, regardless of religion or race. And what on earth has this to do with rapists or their victims? I have never ever been appologist for any rapist regardless of race, religion or nationality. Now you on the other hand, tend to forget that a huge majority of rapes in the west are done by white christian males... but again, what on earth does this have to do with hate speech and Wilders?

Freedom of speech has never been absolute, even in the US. Books have been banned in the US at state and local level, and all live TV is censored for "morality reasons". So spare me the bull**** and wake up and smell the truth. Wilders is dangerous, he is a white supremacist pure and simple. He can say whatever he wants, that is his right, but there are consequences for aspects of what he says and does.. and that like anyone else, he must be judged on. You cant shout fire in a crowded theatre without consequences..
 
It deserves to be lampooned, and more. To say that a free born man cannot speak his mind, say what he thinks, is an abomination against the whole idea of being a thinking, feeling human being. Now the concern is not for the free exchange of ideas, no matter how we might disagree, but whether someones feelings may be hurt? If given the opportunity i feel quite certain you'd have me arrested for lampooning this anti human craziness.

The primacy of the regime's survival is lampoon-worthy? oh dear. Your free man is free thanks to a regime that can grant and sustain such freedom to begin with. If it's lampoon we're after, then the democratic crotchet that is the sovereign individual is our quarry, as a social arrangement is inherently antithetical to such a being - its presence is its absence. If it's craziness we're after, our quarry remains that same democratic crotchet which proclaims incontinence and lawlessness the hallmarks of a thinking, feeling human being who lacks the faculty not only to properly function in a social arrangement, but to ensure its survival for his own sake and the sake of others.

I can't say I'm surprised though; although the contemporary democratic man is inebriated on delusions of grandeur and singularity, he's merely copying his progenitors, asserting his inferiority by fiercely pledging allegiance to a regime that history proved bad.

No one has any fear whatsoever from Europeans. European women and children, and Jews of course, certainly have reason to be fearful, given that they have little protection. Muslims certainly aren;t concerned about Dutch feelings. Police in Dutch city Hague asked mosque to establish Sharia patrols

What the hell are you talking about? European children have reasons to fear Muslims? I'd say priests seem to be a much more veritable threat to European children. And Jews have little protection? whenever there's any vague security alert, Jewish communities and synagogues are the first to receive disproportionate protection just to placate Jewish special interest.

But I'm glad you brought up the Jews and the twaddle of Muslim "no-go zones". Fox news was forced to apologize to Britain and the rest of Europe when it tried to perpetuate that malignant malarkey in the hope that Europe would join the right wing's crusade against anything Muslim - the "source" you provide is but a paltry expression of that same fear-mongering. But if we're going to consider that nonsense, we should examine the Haredim in Brooklyn. They maintain a closed community with extreme authoritarian religious rules that render children and women the property of the community's rabbinate. Just last year, two sisters committed suicide shortly after abandoning the community, leaving behind a detailed account of their horrible experience in the community that wouldn't leave them alone even after their departure. Vice news did an excellent piece of investigative journalism on the matter. A dissenting rabbi, who's been condemned and ruined by the community for going public, revealed the extent of the abusive practices within the community, from coercing women into marrying their rapists to forcing parents to pardon their boys' rapists in the mikvehs and not to press charges, because a Jew can never trust a goy's judgement. Yet no one seems to care. For better or worse, it's not in the left's habit to rally against a particular demographic, but right wingers spearhead such campaigns in the name of patriotism and liberty. Yet they're awfully quiet about the Haredi situation, which isn't exclusive to Brooklyn; even in Europe, Antwerpen for instance, has the same situation with ultra orthodox communities.

Right wing, left wing. Who really cares? The real story is the breakdown of European society and the response from Europeans is to rattle off different 'wings'. It's just hopeless.

Who seeks the truth cares. If you're choosing to stick your head in the sand, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't change the reality that anti-Islamism is nothing but a fear concocted by treasonous right wingers for purely partisan ends.
 
Last edited:
I disagree, it is a very useful use of court time (especially because the case will be done in a few weeks with only a few days of court proceedings, at least that is the norm even for murder trials).

I think he should be fined only for his words, he planned this from start to finish and that kind of hate mongering against one group of people (not one faith, that would have been somewhat different, also reprehensible but that would most likely not have lead to a court case). But who knows, he may also be found not guilty.

I think your use of the words 'hate mongering' entirely unjustified.

Will the issue of guilt be decided by a jury or by judges? If the former who will decide on the jury's composition?
 
Who seeks the truth cares. If you're choosing to stick your head in the sand, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't change the reality that anti-Islamism is nothing but a fear concocted by treasonous right wingers for purely partisan ends.

Oh dear. I really do detest intolerant freedom-hating barbaric Islam. If that makes me a 'treasonous right winger' in your eyes I will just have to do my best to live with it. Or maybe I'll think that disapproval from someone like you is a sign of merit.
 
Ronald Reagan, as usual, summed it up well, and you can see the contrasting philosophy with that of The Netherlands.

That is one fundamental difference to the understanding of constitutional law between the US and most of continental Europe.
 
On the contrary: only a judicious and blessed polity ensures its survival and prolongs its happiness by admitting that in a social arrangement, a boundless liberty is nothing but a self-indulgent absurdity, an idiosyncrasy of a demos that conceals anarchy and incontinence as liberty and magnificence. Proper governance is primarily concerned with the survival of the regime, without dismissing the auxiliary but still significant concern of maximizing individual happiness. First, we'll conscript the necessary resources for the regime's survival; second, we'll allot the excess to the populace.

Freedom of expression is no exception, even if the demos makes of it a fetish. The postulate that freedom of expression is an immutable right of the individual is perverse and a recipe for bad governance. Before speech is allowed, it must be scrutinized; only when its benignity is established can we sanction and protect the individual's entitlement to it.

I have looked at planed societies and economies. They do not attain the level of general welfare as do individual based systems of proper organization.
 
I have looked at planed societies and economies. They do not attain the level of general welfare as do individual based systems of proper organization.
Europeans generally feel that the government can organize their lives better than they can. Some are beginning to realize that their governments have done them a great deal of harm, and a huge amount of disrespect, but it's probably too late to do much about it.
 
I think your use of the words 'hate mongering' entirely unjustified.

Will the issue of guilt be decided by a jury or by judges? If the former who will decide on the jury's composition?

And I know you are wrong. Again, this is not a comment about a religion because that would almost certainly (as proved last time when he was prosecuted and acquitted) but about 1 specific group of people in the Netherlands, people of Moroccan origins. And it was hate mongering because it was a call for his supporters to do the same. Young children being shouted "fewer fewer fewer" by kids and adults. A soccer match being halted because the assistant referee was being shouted against "fewer fewer fewer". Mosques where vandalized with the comments "fewer fewer fewer", etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

We do not have jury's we have a panel of judges (usually three) and the are rotated by chance to each case and if the suspect thinks one judge is prejudiced in one way or another, he can ask for having the judge removed from the trial. That decision will be made by a specially convened court (again I think of three judges) who will hear the suspects reasons for asking of the removal of the judge.

And Trump has said loads of things that a lot of people think is hate mongering but legally was not (like comments about the Quran or about Mohammed/the Islamic faith) but as said, this was not about a faith or about Muslims as a whole group, but he went after a group of one Dutch people bound by genetic and country origins. A group that is only about 2% of the population.
 
I have looked at planed societies and economies. They do not attain the level of general welfare as do individual based systems of proper organization.

The only "planned economy" left in the world is in North Korea.
 
Oh dear. I really do detest intolerant freedom-hating barbaric Islam. If that makes me a 'treasonous right winger' in your eyes I will just have to do my best to live with it. Or maybe I'll think that disapproval from someone like you is a sign of merit.

No, that's not what would make you a treasonous right winger; instead your willingness to exploit and exacerbate an ostensible phenomenon believed to harm the state for purely partisan ends would make you such. I'd have appreciated your attempt at equivocation if it wasn't so trite and passe.
 
No, that's not what would make you a treasonous right winger; instead your willingness to exploit and exacerbate an ostensible phenomenon believed to harm the state for purely partisan ends would make you such. I'd have appreciated your attempt at equivocation if it wasn't so trite and passe.
Perhaps you'd make more sense if you stopped trying to impress others with your wordiness.
 
I have looked at planed societies and economies. They do not attain the level of general welfare as do individual based systems of proper organization.

Would that mean that individualist societies aren't planned? Such a claim would be absurd, hence the cop-out "proper organization", which, unless we're going to argue semantics, is just an uneconomical way of saying planned.

Thus, all societies are planned; the fashion and degree of planning are what varies. Besides, welfare is a term too complex to be defined by an abundance of substance and the license to anarchy; too universal to be limited to a single point in time. Even if substance and liberty are the criteria, a society that has the most welfare is the one that has as much for as long, not too much for now.

But the elephant in this topic is the irony of zealously defending that which conduces to what we're zealously attacking. Europe's obsession with the democratic utopia of excessive affluence and license isn't only threatening its ability to sustain a semblance of either, but to demographically sustain itself as well; the immigration you're all loathing is the self-interested enterprise to preempt impending calamities. Instead of heeding the warning and forge a safer and happier future, we'll obstinately pledge fealty to the same course and expect to be pleasantly surprised - I have no cure for such heedlessness.
 
Muslims can only eat halal meat(animal bleed to death by throat cut ).These people are mental.
 
No, a suggestion. Continue with the same gobbledygook if you prefer but you won't get many responses.

I'm not forcing anyone to reply to me. And unless I'm unintelligible, I'm sure I'll get the responses of those that are willing to commit themselves to a decent discussion.

Gracias nonetheless.
 
The only "planned economy" left in the world is in North Korea.

That depends on how carefully you look at the question. You see, there are grades of planning that are possible and areas that are planned.
 
Would that mean that individualist societies aren't planned? Such a claim would be absurd, hence the cop-out "proper organization", which, unless we're going to argue semantics, is just an uneconomical way of saying planned.

Thus, all societies are planned; the fashion and degree of planning are what varies. Besides, welfare is a term too complex to be defined by an abundance of substance and the license to anarchy; too universal to be limited to a single point in time. Even if substance and liberty are the criteria, a society that has the most welfare is the one that has as much for as long, not too much for now.

But the elephant in this topic is the irony of zealously defending that which conduces to what we're zealously attacking. Europe's obsession with the democratic utopia of excessive affluence and license isn't only threatening its ability to sustain a semblance of either, but to demographically sustain itself as well; the immigration you're all loathing is the self-interested enterprise to preempt impending calamities. Instead of heeding the warning and forge a safer and happier future, we'll obstinately pledge fealty to the same course and expect to be pleasantly surprised - I have no cure for such heedlessness.

Proper organization is less a cop-out than the realization that property rights structures invite differing behavior that you must consider.
 
I take it youre muslim

And how did you deduce that? because I seemingly don't care how an animal that's going to be consumed, all flesh and guts, is killed?

But let me take this opportunity to enlighten you a bit. Ritual slaughter is a practice that's by no means exclusive to Muslims; Jews, Hindus and Sikhs come to mind.
 
The Dutch have spent all their police forces on shutting down free speech with their PC Police that they let all these terrorists plant bombs and blow up airports. Of course the Dutch reaction will be to double down on their efforts to keep people from saying mean things about terrorists.
 
That depends on how carefully you look at the question. You see, there are grades of planning that are possible and areas that are planned.

Then you're using the term "planned economy" to mislead.

It's still widely understood to refer to complete government control of all means of production.
 
Back
Top Bottom