E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
An Amsterdam court said Monday it will reconsider dismissing the hate speech trial of one of the country's most popular leaders, an anti-immigrant politician who compared Islam to fascism and called for a ban on the Quran.
Preliminary objections to Geert Wilders' trial were heard by an another panel of judges last year, but that court stepped down when it became embroiled in allegations of potential bias against him.
The Wilders' defense team had a right to present its preliminary objections again, and if they are granted "then the case is over and out," Judge Marcel van Oosten said.
Leave a Comment:
The most simple way to silence someone, other than to kill them, is to define their speech as illegal or hateful. We do this also in the US by calling some opinions we do not like hate speech - effectively silencing the speaker through pressure. Fundamentally, this is wrong and antithetical to a free society.
Isn't it always better to allow speech in all things? Open speech permits all to listen and judge for themselves. Ultimately, your position in this can be defined by whether you believe that people can judge correctly, or whether we are all too stupid to discern right from wrong, in which case we should dispense with democracy and return to some tyrannical form of government. Interesting that this socialist nation has become such a tyranny.
Frankly, I'm often amazed what American politicians can get away with. Freedom of speech is one thing, but outright lies, libel and slander is quite another. Dutch politicians didn't used to be able to say stuff like that and still have a political future. People would just not vote for them anymore.
That said, Geert Wilders is on trial for inciting hatred against (primarilly, but not exclusively) the Muslim community here in the Netherlands.
The very first artical in the dutch 'Grondwet' (akin to your constitution) says: "Art 1. Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden , worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan."
In short this means that you're not allowed to discriminate on any ground whatsoever. Not on Religion, Political views, race, gender or any other reason.
Wilders' speeches are filled with discrimination and though he walks a careful line in never directly inciting people to attack anyone, he very outspoken in his treatment of Islam (comparing the Qur'an with 'mein kampf' and recommending to only allow Muslims into the country if they put parts of it through the shredder) and sometimes Muslim people as a whole (like suggesting to refuse political refugees from Islamic countries)
If this trial is thrown out of court, this will be proof to me that the Netherlands has seized to be the tolerant country that did it's best to be a shelter for everyone, and did it's best to protect minorities from demagogues.
Disclaimer: I'm Dutch, not Muslim. I am however appalled at what Wilders is doing to my country.
I think that The Netherlands is entitled to form whatever government it likes, you are a sovereign nation. Only you can decide, however;
I cannot see anything admirable in silencing the speech of Geert Wilders, no matter what he has to say. Can you really legislate hatred - do you trust Government to make such lines in political and social thought? Will you change any ones opinion or soften anyone's heart by demanding their silence?
My own guess is that you will turn their anger to hatred and then back to rage, which ends up with sorry consequences for everyone. Why be afraid of open dialogue? Did not the Third Reich demand conformity in opinion and speech as well? Was it not also illegal to speak as one chose then as well? Why is that admirable? Because your government says that his speech is hateful?
I have read some of his speech - it is quite over the top of reasonable in many circumstances, and then quite reasonable in others. Since he is not a mad man, silencing him seems more an act of fear than reason. Are the people of the Netherlands to ill equipped mentally to rebut his speech with their own?
Why is it OK to make a cartoon of Muhammad and to protest as an Islamist against Dutch culture - isn't that also hate speech? Is it not also hate speech to protest demanding Sharia law in the Netherlands and EU? As a woman, I find that particularly hateful and a threat to my security.
Seems to me that if you suppress Wilders speech, you are being selective. As the evidence in the Arab world illustrates today - open speech is a powerful weapon for populations. Unless you see your population as unbalanced, why suppress them? Utopia is a concept populated by no one of flesh and blood.
In your last statement, are you referring to the US or the Netherlands? But yes, I agree that nowadays, most opinions are simply shouted down, or the individual is personally attacked for espousing an alternative view. Our ability to debate one another has been replaced with beratement and ridicule.
That's what I think, and @!$%# you if you disagree.
That's why we don't suppress free speech here in the Netherlands. You are free to say whatever you want. No Censorship. However, if that speech is hate speech, slander, libel or discriminating, you will be held accountable.
Robert - then you do not have free speech. I fail to see where Wilders speech reached any level of being worthy of supression. Slander or libel, well I can see that since there is legal recourse by the individual who is harmed (not a government) but hate speech or discriminitory speech is simply an opinion - who should bring charges there as the wronged party? If someone (not some government) can show specific harm, then they should sue, but a government making the prosecution, no matter how hateful the speech, simply becomes tyranny by a government.
@FlyOverMe. You probably fail to see this because unlike the people who live in this country, you only got a few quotes, and not the full daily media blast over the past few years.
@RobbertM: That may well be true - we dont get it full blast here from Wilders, but we do get it from everyone else here. Have you ever heard Rush Limbaugh? I think in your country he would also be charged for what he says. David Duke?
It seems this is a fundamental difference then, I simply do not think that this prosecution is a good idea in a free society. I see it as better to allow the speech, proesecute the actions if they occur, and then combat his speech with reason. The bright light of day is the best cure of the common scum bag. I wish you all good luck.
If Rush would live in the Netherlands he would indeed be in a lot of trouble. Not so much for his opinions, however loathsome they are, He's carefull enough in staying away from actual discrimination.
His frequent lying and putting words in the mouth of others is quite another matter though.
As far as I know the US has laws concerning Slander and Libel. How come it's never used against talk Radio hosts?
Sorry, I'm not familiar with David Duke.
David Duke is a white supremacist and former head of the Ku Klux Klan. He is the very definition of hate group and hate speech, and was elected to office.
Rush states things as his opinion - so there is no prosecution available. It is not slander or libel to state an opinion, only to state something as a fact that is actually not true. So Rush can have any opinion, or David Duke, and be free to speak them without fear of prosecution. Also, libel and slander prosecution requires that it be a personal injury, not a political debate, which is protected speech. More importantly, we hold very dear here everyones right to have and speak their opinions, whatever they are. Poeple must choose to believe or not.
I respect the American views on free speech, but I do see that there are some drawbacks.
Imagine that someone repeatedly shouts the following statement over the airwaves. "I have the opinion that any member of [Religious group/gender/political minority/etc...] XYZ is a paedophiliac mass-murderer who eats human flesh on the weekend".
Now we both know that this is a ridiculous statement. But according to US law this is an opinion and thus free speech, whereas to Dutch law, if you cannot supply a good foundation for this belief, this is discrimination, punishable by law.
The discussion is not simple. I agree that censorship is a terrible thing. But so is discrimination.
The only problem I can see, since we can certainly agree that hate speech is a terrible thing, comes when someone decides that your speech is now discrimination and you are on the other side of the law - and perhaps you are right, morally. So when pedophiles feel discriminated against, will that also be a crime? Before you say its illegal behavior, let me point out Sharia laws advocated for in the EU are clearly violations of State law with regards to the status of women and children's rights, yet speaking out against it is discrimination, or so it would seem. Why would pedophilia be treated differently? (It is worth noting that the pedophilia organization NAMBLA plans to use this strategy to try and gain legal rights and status.) So essentially, what happens when your find your own speech is now deemed hateful, even on a subject most people agree is not hate? I dont expect an answer, its simply a caution - I am not sure there is a definitive answer to this. I do not think that I am completely correct either - its been a very interesting discussion for me - thank you for the time to post your thoughts. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in reality as things move forward.
What Sharia Laws in the EU?
AFAIK There has only been some experimentation in the UK, but that was restricted to individual disputes between people, where they both would have to state before a normal court that they wanted to settle it this way, and the court would still supervise to make sure that the agreed on settlement would not violate any laws.