[Big Mac]

BBC News - Dutch anti-Islam MP Wilders goes on trial

"The Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders has gone on trial in Amsterdam accused of inciting hatred against Muslims. Mr Wilders, whose statements have included comparing the Koran with Hitler's Mein Kampf, told the court freedom of expression was on trial. If found guilty, he faces a maximum sentence of a year in jail. Mr Wilders' Freedom Party is the third biggest in the Netherlands after June's elections, and is expected to play a key role in the next parliament."

What limitations, if any, do expect to place on free speech and expression in a liberal democracy? Do people have the right to offend other groups of people, or should all the conceivably major interest group categories all enjoy various zones of protection that cannot be breached by anyone, any speech that may be deemed offensive to said group? How and where is the line drawn?

I think that countries purporting to be liberal or libertarian in orientation must be very cautious about these kinds of crackdowns. I know that it's much more common to see prosecutions like these in European countries, however. I think squelching speech that may be offensive to some creates more problems than it solves. On the flip side I can see why Germany has a core state interest in banning pro-Nazi speech, so I realize that the standards and sensibilities in different countries can vary with just cause.

I can appreciate many sides of this particular claim and controversy, interestingly enough. On the one hand, I am naturally sympathetic to Wilders' general view that the growth of Islam poses threats to Europe and western civilization generally. On the other hand, I'm not too wild about his doctrinaire atheism, speaking as an Orthodox Jew. And I think that many of his statements have been needlessly inflammatory and provocative. It's known that radical Muslims chop off people's heads for less than what Wilders has said, so I question his overall judgment while admiring in part his tenacity in taking on a growing problem that happens to be a very volatile and politically incorrect topic few wish to openly discuss. It's also an interesting phenomenon to see a very influential political leader go on trial for something other than corruption charges.

[smacintush]

If we are going to have a restriction on free speech with regard to incitement, there needs to be a straightforward, objective definition. For example, he shouldn't be saying "Go and kill muslims because they are evil." but comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf is perfectly acceptable IMO. I don't know what standard they use there but there needs to be a clear line, not vagueries that can be interpreted any way the judges please at the time.

[turtle777]

well, shit, vagueries is what leftists are all about.

Just look at all their legislation, like Obama Care: more than 2,000 pages of bla bla, with nobody knowing at the time of what what's included.

Or take Obama Change: only now, 2 years later, he's starting to show what change really means in his socialized world.

You don't know what's happening until you find yourself bending over.

-t

[OAW]

I'm not familiar with the law with regard to freedom of speech in the Netherlands other than to say that it isn't as wide-ranging as in the US. Having said that, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said his statements have been needlessly inflammatory and provocative. I put him and that nutjob down in Florida that was threatening to burn the Qu'ran in the same boat. Freedom of speech is not absolute of course. Defining where the line is drawn will always be a nebulous endeavor at best. But if a line is going to be drawn then I can certainly understand the value in putting statements that are clearly designed to incite another ethnic or religious group on the other side of it. However, the question then becomes ... what speech is "inciting" and what is not?

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

A dark cloud is descending on Europe.

Threatening jail for expressing an opinion, no matter how 'insensitive' is just wrong. Only actions should be criminal offenses. And yes, some speech is 'action', like truly inciting violence: directly urging others to commit crimes, falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded place, etc. etc. But expressing a negative opinion or comparison of Islam isn't.

If the worst anyone can come up with is comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf, then something has gone seriously off the rails and freedom of speech is no longer in effect.

But then, let's not pretend- we've known this about parts of Europe for some time. I don't buy for one second that this is about anything more than P.C. insanity and appeasing Muslims that so many Europeans are clearly deathly/blindingly/willing to give up their freedom/ afraid of.

Meanwhile, ten bucks says one can probably say/publish/display any similarly nasty (or worse) thing about Christians and no one bats an eyelash. Antisemitism has had a resurgence in Europe with a vengeance- so when's the last time anyone in Europe was threatened with jail time for bashing Israel, or inciting hatred against Jews? (Not that this should happen in a free society, but as a standard of comparison to this incident?)

As for Muslims, when was the last time some Muslim cleric was arrested for preaching hate intolerance of the very host country he's in, or for inciting people to go apeshit over cartoons or Facebook? How about for carrying a sign in public, stating "Death to.." whatever, or some of the other amazingly hateful messages we've seen during protest rallies?

I don't buy for a second that this is any standard that's applied equally across the board- it's merely more P.C.-gone-haywire bullshit that's designed to appease Muslims. It's akin to skulking in fear over publishing cartoons in newspapers, or making accurate documentaries the Islamic world's cultural abuse of women, for 'fear' of insulting someone.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

well, shit, vagueries is what leftists are all about.

Just look at all their legislation, like Obama Care: more than 2,000 pages of bla bla, with nobody knowing at the time of what what's included.

Or take Obama Change: only now, 2 years later, he's starting to show what change really means in his socialized world.

You don't know what's happening until you find yourself bending over.

-t

How can a bill be 2,000 pages while simultaneously being vague? What length should the bill be while being precise, in your opinion (other than 0 pages, we all know what you think of it)?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Meanwhile, ten bucks says one can probably say/publish/display any similarly nasty (or worse) thing about Christians and no one bats an eyelash. Antisemitism has had a resurgence in Europe with a vengeance- so when's the last time anyone in Europe was threatened with jail time for bashing Israel, or inciting hatred against Jews? (Not that this should happen in a free society, but as a standard of comparison to this incident?)

Here you go. Same country, same law, applied against an Arab-European group over Holocaust-related cartoons (ironically, the group here complains that Wilders was, at the time, being treated more leniently).

BBC NEWS | Europe | Arabs charged over Dutch cartoon

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How can a bill be 2,000 pages while simultaneously being vague? What length should the bill be while being precise, in your opinion (other than 0 pages, we all know what you think of it)?

Are you serious ?

So more words are automatically more precise for you ?
Ever written a college paper ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Are you serious ?

So more words are automatically more precise for you ?
Ever written a college paper ?

-t

So your assertion is that the entire bill is just filler and at no point in the bill is there specificity about anything? I'd like to see you prove that.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Here you go. Same country, same law, applied against an Arab-European group over Holocaust-related cartoons (ironically, the group here complains that Wilders was, at the time, being treated more leniently).

BBC NEWS | Europe | Arabs charged over Dutch cartoon

Now this debate becomes about which of you should swallow the Paypal fee for the ten bucks

[OreoCookie]

@Big Mac
I find it a bit disconcerting that you make your support or opposition of such laws dependent on what is said. Free speech shouldn't depend on the opinions you utter, for otherwise free speech would be anything but. Same rules should apply if you insult Islam, deny the Holocaust or if you don't like the new tax laws.

I'm generally against laws curbing hate speech (other than the obvious `unless you endanger others'), though. People with idiotic ideas should be stripped bare naked in public and their ideas should be exposed for what they are.

@turtle and others discussing Obama's health care bill: what does that have to do with the topic? If you want to discuss it, you should create another thread.

[Big Mac]

Oreo, I never declared that I support restrictions on speech. I argued both sides of the coin. I'm surprised you missed that. Look at my initial reaction again:

I think that countries purporting to be liberal or libertarian in orientation must be very cautious about these kinds of crackdowns. I know that it's much more common to see prosecutions like these in European countries, however. I think squelching speech that may be offensive to some creates more problems than it solves.

I also made some arguments for the other side. I expressed some limited sympathy for the Muslim position! If I didn't previously make it clear, though, I generally dislike most all restrictions on speech.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

A dark cloud is descending on Europe.

On the nail.
Bloodbath within 30 years. You can feel it brewing, feel it in your bones. A lot of people are getting very pissed off. People who were previously neutral are now turning to outright and open hostility.

Geert is in a win-win situation here. The moronic authorities don't realise that. Or perhaps they do and it's part of their game.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Here you go. Same country, same law, applied against an Arab-European group over Holocaust-related cartoons (ironically, the group here complains that Wilders was, at the time, being treated more leniently).

BBC NEWS | Europe | Arabs charged over Dutch cartoon

Wow, from bad to worse.

So rather than an already horrible policy atleast being used against anything that could actually be considered illegal, or even harmful -or for that matter even worthy of giving two shits about from either side- the focus is on... cartoons.

Not charges based on a cleric inciting people to commit acts of jihad. Not charges based on carrying a sign that makes death threats. Not charges for making actual death threats against 'infidels' and other such bullshit.

Nope, who drew what cartoons.

If that doesn't just about sum up the stupidity, I don't know what else does.

Definitely a dark, dark cloud indeed.

[SpaceMonkey]

So you are backing away from your claim that the law is not being applied even-handedly, and is only about appeasing Muslims? Ok thanks.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The law is idiotic, and part of an overall policy of appeasing Muslims, yes.

[SpaceMonkey]

Actually the current strict enforcement of the laws in question, which in the Netherlands date to as far back as the early 1970s, was part of a reaction to a wave of European anti-Semitism in the late 1980s and early 1990s, in which Dutch policymakers committed to essentially criminalizing Holocaust denial. So really the direction of your previous rant is all backwards. These are opinions about free speech that, at least in the Netherlands, are rooted in a reaction to anti-Semitism, and not a trivialization of it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

My initial comment asked if any of this applied to bashing Christians. I still haven't seen that it is.

I also asked if Muslims were being charged and arrested for REAL things that are widespread- clerics inciting violent jihad, protestors carrying signs threatening death, people being harassed for merely drawing cartoons or making films. (Not that all of those things actually SHOULD be criminalized, but at least it would be somewhat consistant.) But actually expecting that anyone ban Islamics for drawing cartoons also, 'in the name of fairness' is just a dumb policy made even dumber.


So rather than concentrating on people REACTING violently to a cartoon- the Dutch try and criminalize... drawing the cartoon.

And yes, unless you've been living under a rock, at the heart of it is all about appeasing Muslims. Who else en-masse gets violent over cartoons and movies, and have riots over them where people end up dead? If all this is new to anyone, look up the timeline of the Mohammad cartoons in 2005.

Some highlights, stunning in how innocent the origins are, and how out of control the reaction became:

September 17, 2005: Politiken, a Danish newspaper, reports that Kaare Bluitgen, a writer, cannot find an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad, because artists fear reprisals from Islamic extremists

September 30: In response, Jyllands-Posten, a right of centre newspaper, asks artists to draw Muhammad as they imagine him and publishes 12 cartoons of the prophet

October 14: Up to 5,000 people stage a protest outside the offices of Jyllands-Posten. [I'd love to know if anyone was arrested for some of the "hate speech" this probably entailed, if other protests are any indication.]

January 29: Jyllands-Posten prints a statement in Arabic saying the drawings were published in line with freedom of expression and not a campaign against Islam. Palestinians burn Danish flags and Libya announces it will close its embassy in Denmark. Danes told to be vigilant in the Middle East

January 30: EU says it will take World Trade Organisation action if the boycott persists. Masked gunmen in storm EU office in Gaza

January 31: Danish imams accept statements from Jyllands-Posten and the Prime Minister, and say are surprised at the extent of the protests. Saudi hospitals refuse to buy Danish insulin

February 3: The International Association of Muslim Scholars calls for a "day of anger" across the world. 50,000 protest in Gaza. Muslims outside the Danish Embassy in London call for execution of those who insult Islam. El Pais, Spain's leading newspaper, reprints a drawing, which shows the prophet made of words saying: "I must not draw Muhummad"

February 4: Mobs in Damascus attack the Norwegian, Danish, Swedish and French embassies but are beaten off by riot police. Protesters, including a man dressed as a suicide bomber, gather for a second day in London

February 5: Demonstrators set fire to the Danish Embassy in Beirut, overwhelming Lebanese security forces. A protester dies. America and Lebanon blame Syrians for the riot. The Lebanese Interior Minister offers his resignation. Around 4,000 protest in Aghanistan. Iran withdraws its ambassador from Copenhagen

Conclusion? That you're dealing with a backward mindset that's largely INCOMPATIBLE with modern western democracies?

Nope! Hit the appease button! BAN CARTOONS!

But hey, you shown that they're effectively banning cartoons in 'equal opportunity' fashion! Because you know, Jews might riot in the streets and threaten violent Jewhad if you draw cartoons about them.


The fact that there's been a brewing anti-Semitism in Europe doesn't exactly disprove my case about a dark cloud descending on Europe. Where would you guess the most of that anti-Semitism is coming from?

"Criminalizing Holocaust denial" is just a stupid as "criminalizing insulting Islam", and is ironically, part and parcel of Europe moving in exactly the opposite direction of freedom, and into a weird P.C. correct totalitarism, that when mixed with radical Islamics that know well how to take advantage of it, can't possibly end well.

I'm inclined to agree with Doofy that eventually the simmering pot of stupidity is going to boil over with some truly disastrous results.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'm inclined to agree with Doofy that eventually the simmering pot of stupidity is going to boil over with some truly disastrous results.

The storm clouds are gathering. Here's my home town, this year:
YouTube - EDL Running through Stoke rioting

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm not familiar with the law with regard to freedom of speech in the Netherlands other than to say that it isn't as wide-ranging as in the US. Having said that, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said his statements have been needlessly inflammatory and provocative. I put him and that nutjob down in Florida that was threatening to burn the Qu'ran in the same boat. Freedom of speech is not absolute of course. Defining where the line is drawn will always be a nebulous endeavor at best. But if a line is going to be drawn then I can certainly understand the value in putting statements that are clearly designed to incite another ethnic or religious group on the other side of it. However, the question then becomes ... what speech is "inciting" and what is not?

OAW

In the absence of absolute freedom of speech there will always be some hard to define cases, sure, but this really isn't that difficult and those cases should be extremely rare.

It is as I said, explicit incitements of violence such as "Go and do horrible act "x" to those who are a part of group "z" should be the standard because it is statements like these that are the easiest to define as incitement. It is wrong to charge people for simply speaking general hatred, no matter how vile. Free speech isn't an absolute but it is nearly so. The line must be laid out as clear as possible, because to allow that these cases are "difficult" and "nebulous" is to allow that judges rule for and against free speech on whim. I know I don't really want to live in a world where my rights are decided by the whim of judges, conventional wisdom du jour, or whatever the current political/social fad is.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oreo, I never declared that I support restrictions on speech. I argued both sides of the coin. I'm surprised you missed that. Look at my initial reaction again:

I also made some arguments for the other side. I expressed some limited sympathy for the Muslim position! If I didn't previously make it clear, though, I generally dislike most all restrictions on speech.

Yes, and since you argued both sides, your post indicated to me that you're torn on the issue. Even the quote you give contains qualifications (`I think … may be …', `I generally dislike most …') and not clear statements.

What I've taken from your post was that your attitude on that issue is determined by which opinion is concerned: anti-muslim sentiments good, anti-religious sentiments not so good, etc. (E. g. you expressed dismay that Wilder's attitude towards Islam is motivated by a rather general opposition towards religion.) This is not a coherent stance to me, but cherry picking.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

… so when's the last time anyone in Europe was threatened with jail time for bashing Israel, or inciting hatred against Jews? (Not that this should happen in a free society, but as a standard of comparison to this incident?)

All the time. The case of Bishop Williamson made the news for some weeks last year, for instance. He was fined €10,000 by a German court and the Catholic Church got a lot of flak for not taking a clear stance in this matter and even lifting Williamson's excommunication despite knowing about his stance on the Holocaust. He could have faced up to 5 years of prison.

Again, not that I'm in favor of laws of this type (I stated my reasons for that already), but the basis of your rhetoric is just wrong: the laws that find application now were originally motivated by curbing anti-semitic hate speech long before we've had the `muslim problem.' To misinterpret them as being designed to `appease muslims' has no basis in reality.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Fine, I stand corrected that the laws were not "designed to appease Muslims".

They're just currently being used to appease Muslims, regardless of design.

And any system where someone actually faces jail time just for "denying" something has as I originally said, completely slipped off the rails of a civil society and is careening down a slippery slope toward some true ugliness.

[lpkmckenna]

According to Wikipedia, Geert Wilders has advocated:
-Having the Quran banned in Holland.
-He also suggested the taxing of women who wear the headscarf
-Ending immigration from Muslim countries
-Banning the construction of new mosques.

If anyone advocated similar policies against Jews, he'd rightly be called an anti-semite. Geert's "ideas" are hysterical nonsense.

EDIT: a statement from Wilders himself:

"I've had enough of the Koran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book."

Calling other people fascist when you're the one advocating fascist policies is beyond the pale.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

According to Wikipedia, Geert Wilders has advocated:
-Having the Quran banned in Holland.
-He also suggested the taxing of women who wear the headscarf
-Ending immigration from Muslim countries
-Banning the construction of new mosques.

If anyone advocated similar policies against Jews, he'd rightly be called an anti-semite.

But should he go to trial for his opinions? Not from what you've posted.