Wilders, freedom of speech or discrimination?
Geert Wilders, the controversial Dutch politician who has been very vocal in expressing his negative opinions about Islam, is to be prosecuted for alleged hate speech and discrimination, the appeals court in Amsterdam decided on Wednesday.
Calls to try Wilders for his statements that violence is inextricably linked to Islam and that the Quran and Hiltler’s Mein Kampf are similarly fascists books, had previously fallen on deaf ears. But the court’s ruling reverses a decision made last year by the public prosecutor’s office, which said Wilders’ comments had been made as a contribution to the debate on Islam in Dutch society. His remarks may have been painful for Muslims, but they could not be deemed criminal, the prosecutor decided in response to dozens of cases filed against Wilders after he launched his anti-Islam film Fitna.
The judges, however, said they had weighed Wilders’ anti-Islam rhetoric against his right to free speech, and ruled he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians. Prosecution of Wilders is in the public interest, the court decided, because in a democratic legal system a clear line about hate speech in the realm of public debate needs to be drawn.
The Netherlands long had a reputation for tolerance towards its – largely Moroccan and Turkish – immigrant population, but the tone of the debate has changed radically in the past decade. After right-wing populist politician Pim Fortuyn, filmmaker Theo van Gogh and Somali refugee and former member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders is the strongest voice against what he calls, “the islamisation of the Netherlands.”
What do you think: should Wilders be prosecuted for discrimination and hate speech, or does he have every democratic right to voice his opinion – even if that opinion is offensive to some people?
Thursday 22 January 2009, 13:32
Laws that restrict freedom of speech are wrong, including lèse majesté, censorship, i.e., the current ban on Hiltler’s Mein Kampf or Wilders trying to ban the Quran, and also blasphemy laws, especially when they pertain to only one religion, i.e., Christianity as in current Dutch law.
However, if The Netherlands continues to have these archiac laws, they must be applied fairly and without prejudice or privilege for any specific individual or group.
Therefore, based on current laws, Wilders should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. He is trying to “have his cake ” by trying to limit Islam and ban the Quran, and “eat it too” by hiding behind a defense of freedom of speech.
It is far better to strengthen anti-discrimination laws that will protect *all* citizens and not just the Dutch elites.
Thursday 22 January 2009, 13:44
I am appalled by the appellate court’s decision, as I believe Wilders was merely expressing his natural right to freedom of speech. In an excess of political correctness, Europe is rapidly losing sight of its democratic ideals and is fast becoming an Islamist theocracy.
Thursday 22 January 2009, 14:40
All what Mr.Wilders said is true and he has the right to cretise as much as he likes just as any one has the right to beleive. When somebody claims to quote the” God” , the way Mr.Muhammed did,he may get many desciples and follwers and also many critics. They are two sides of the same coin. There is nothing to be offended in this. The people who get in the the violent and rage mode need to develop a higher threshold for getting offended understanding that their belif system is only one of the innumerable possible systems that have come and gone.But freedom of expression is here to say. Mr. Muhammed is a far greater author of hate speech than Mr. Wilders and if any one needs to be procecuted it is the hate spewing mullas all over the place venting venom.
Thursday 22 January 2009, 15:41
The comparison between the Qur’an and Mein Kampf has not really fallen on deaf ears. The whole country discussed the issue and we on nrc.nl were no exception. Not a ban on the Qur’an was taken very seriously, but decriminalizing possession (or even trade) of Mein Kampf was. Many people, including minister Plaskerk, thought that no book whatsoever should be forbidden in the Netherlands, but (only a tiny majority of) parliament decided to maintain the ban on Hitler’s book. Nearly had Wilders been successful in the promotion of Mein Kampf, even if he totally failed in his attack on the Qur’an.
Our anonymous editor also writes: “The Netherlands long had a reputation for tolerance towards its – largely Moroccan and Turkish – immigrant population, ” Excuse me! Turkish and Moroccan workers were imported (!) as cheap labour, from the 1970’s on (not very “long” ago). What does “tolerance” mean in that context? Did the white slave owners of the Americas “tolerate” their black slaves?
I would like to point out that many of these immigrants (especially from eastern Turkey) were socialist and not particularly religious at all. I know of many such families, who never fasted during Ramadan (/Ramazan), until they came to Holland. Here they were categorized as Muslims (which term conveniently covers the Moroccans and Turks), and in the course of years this label became a stigma. The relentless attacks on Islam and Muslims, among others by Wilders, combined with the demise of socialism, drove many children of these immigrants straight into the arms of Allah. Young girls now were hajib, even if their mothers don’t, because, in defiance of Wilders, it is cool, hip and modern to do so.
So Muslims should not resent Wilders too much and realize that he makes a major contribution to the spread of Islam.
Thursday 22 January 2009, 15:58
There is a political and social dimension to this decision that must be noted. The Netherlands has a large Muslim community whose feelings must be taken into consideration if for no other reason than to maintain law and order. The gutting of Theo van Gogh I think caused many nonMuslim Dutch to realize the time has long gone when exclusively Western values can be assumed to permeate all social strata. Unless the nonMuslim population is willing to use robust “technical” and “logistical” means to meet the challenge of the Muslim presence, the only other option is compromise.
Thursday 22 January 2009, 15:58
While I have a strong dislike of Mr. Wilders and his rantings, I do not believe that he should be prosecuted for hate speech. He should have the ability to say whatever he wishes, as long as he does not threaten violence upon others. I believe that is a simple democratic principle that speech be protected.
Instead, I believe that the prudent course is for the government to rebuke Wilders whenever he makes one sided and bigoted comments. A censure would show that the Dutch government both tolerates freedom of speech, but does not tolerate open bigotry in its political leaders as a matter of principle. Wilders’s inability to see Muslims as a diverse group, just like virtually every religion and ideology, is more than disappointing. Both Wilders and his adherents bring shame to another wise noble country.
While his racist comments are intolerable in any decent society, the underlying issue that raises it is cause for concern. Unlike a country with the a great capacity to accept immigrants, such as the United States, immigration is a far more pressing issue in the Netherlands. This issue of immigration is a complicated one, and it is understandable that there is a degree of anxiety in the Dutch populace. However, for it to descend into the depths charted by Mr. Wilders and his associates is not acceptable, and only raises further complications.
Thursday 22 January 2009, 16:07
We, dutch citizens, allow foreignors to violate our own laws and support the dictator ship of extremist views which are proclamated in the name of a so called higher authority as Allah in some moscs in the Netherlands. In the name of Allah planes flew in the Twin Towers of New York, artist and filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered, Hirshey Ali was threatened and the writer Salmon Rushdy lived years undercovered because of a man in Iran has provoked a Fathwa over him.
Now mr. Wilders has to be silent .Its the world turned over.!
Our four Freedoms spoken by Roosevelt has to be an example also for the extreme moslim world. I hope the new US president B. Houssein OBAMA is also aware of these 4 freedoms. Especially 1)
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH for any one anywhere in the world.!!!!
Thursday 22 January 2009, 17:12
The Dutch are dangerously sacrificing their freedom values in order to please muslims, who share none of those.
The truth is, they will not even acknowledge the favor.
Thursday 22 January 2009, 17:19
Patrick Faas says: “Turkish and Moroccan workers were imported (!) as cheap labour, from the 1970’s on (not very “long” ago). What does “tolerance” mean in that context? Did the white slave owners of the Americas “tolerate” their black slaves?”
first of all, i am more then confident those people were not “imported” as a product, as you refer to them, but were invited to come over to work. it was a choice they made, because it was a great opportunity for them taking into consideration their situation back home. now, “tolerance” you are trying to mock, is manifested in the fact that they were ALLOWED to stay, or stayed illegaly, something that i doubt was done by force. the tolerance is expressed in the fact that while none of us would be allowed to practice our religion other than islam in their countries, they are allowed to practice it, openly express it, and lead lifestyles that are obviously contradictory with our societal values.
now they are taking it too far, by trying to MOLD our western values under the pretext of “offensiveness”…you know what, if they are so offended by freedoms we have here, why don’t they just go back to where they came from?
Thursday 22 January 2009, 19:14
@9 Julia.
Neither Turkey nor Morocco is ruled by sharia, but even under sharia Christians and Jews are allowed to practice their religion. Turkey is a secular state and, as you probably know, Islam is very much curbed in that country. You will not find any civil servant wearing hijab* in Turkey, something that is quite normal in Holland.
I wonder what you mean by “lifestyles that are obviously contradictory with our societal values.” One contributor to the discussions on this forum, Smartannabeth, primarily pointed at the use of alcohol. She thought not-drinking was anti-social and the sight of a veil in the vicinity, made her feel uncomfortable about her own habits, just like seeing a Catholic nun might have done. Not a very convincing argument.
Regarding the position of women and gays, I have seen tremendous modernization in Turkish and Moroccan families, who were largely analphabetic only a few decades ago, but now send their children to universities and learn from their educated offspring. The progress of emancipation in the West took much more time.
Sending people back to where they came from will not relief you of Islam, since many Muslims were born here and will continue to be born here. But your desire to banish other ethnic or religious groups from ‘your’ country, does explain something to Muslims. It shows what Jews had to endure for centuries, although they had no country to go “back” to.
@ All. I’m not sure how clear I was earlier, but I am opposed to silencing Wilders. Let the man speak, how ever much we disagree. Sticks and bones and all that.
*sorry for the typo in my earlier reaction.
Thursday 22 January 2009, 19:23
However, the genie cannot be put back into the bottle. Remember the Netherlands was the first European country to openly allow Muslims to practice bishree rituals and today most Muslim mosques in the Netherlands have functioning bishrees of varying sizes. The main mosques in Amsterdam have pits to accommodate thousands of mammals at a time. Since 2000 Muslims have been permitted to carry portable “pickle” bishrees and to sip from the broth within. The combination of exposure to the gases and liquids is an ominous combination in terms of acceleration of the anatonomical deviation between Muslim and nonMuslim citizens and increases the aggressive tendencies of the Muslim population. Indeed, anatonomical variation amongst Muslims exceeds by many score the variation found amongst other human populations. It is speculated that the varied genetic material encountered in both the gas and broth accounts for this rapid diversification within a population defined (soley) by its participation in Islamic bishree rituals.
The fact that Muslims of all varieties can attend the Haj without a lot of violence (albeit under the forceful scrutiny of the Saudi government) argues that the increased aggressiveness of European Muslim communities need not necessarily result in social discord. However, it remains to be seen for how long nonMuslim European populations can comfortably acquiesce in the ever growing physical and behavioral changes between themselves the their Muslim populations. This is where, in my opinion, good pre-emptive and sensitive social legislation that removes conditions for increased aggression on the part of Muslims can be very effective. “Logistic” options are always available, but public sentiment makes the legislative approach the more tenable.
Thursday 22 January 2009, 22:18
My companion-in-discussion Patrick Faas (with whom i can also disagree from time tot time but always on the basis of mutual respect) drew my attention to this forum where people of many nationalities discuss a very serious probleem in The Netherlands.
My opinion as a Dutch citizen is that for the sake of freedom of speech, use of that freedom should be based on respect for other people. Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to insult, affront or offend.
I am proud to be a Dutch. We have a tradition of tolerance. We have often tried to give protection to refugees (and we made mistakes also – the role of Dutch people in protecting the jews during WorldWar II has been a shame to our nation). For those reasons I can not accept that a minority in the Netherlands is blamed for its religion.
In my opinion Wilders is always seeking to insult, affront and offend islamics. And to intimidate them.
I have also the opinion that all politicians have special responsabilities: they must give the good example to the people. Wilders does not want to accept this special responsibilty.
I am in the rather happy position that i can choose between Dutch and French nationality. If Wilders cannot be stopped by law in blaming and bashing a minority in the Netherlands, i shall apply for the French nationality. He is troublemaker. And enjoys that (pre-Obama) role.
I appologize for my bad knowledge of the English language.
Thursday 22 January 2009, 22:22
As long as the Netherlands is a country based on Law and Good Governance, violators of the law should be prosecuted accordingly. Mr. Wilders should not be excluded from his right to defend himself in front of a judge. These principles need to be followed to try to keep a just society.
His work as a politician in parliament is not in any way affected as he has legal immunity in regards to comments made in parlement. If he feels that the law needs te be changed, I wonder why he hasn’t made any proposal to ammend the law? For crying out loud, the guy has been a MP for 10 years.
Friday 23 January 2009, 12:31
Mr. Wilders is a man of remarkable courage, willing to risk his life in the defense of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and liberty.
This trial will actually be a good thing. All Mr. Wilders needs to do is quote the Koran, cite the Hadith, reference the Sunnah and Sira. The violent truth of Islam will come out in a public for the world to see, and he will be exonerated.
Mr. Wilders is trying to stop Europe from once again sliding into another horrible war – not one triggered by the assassination of an archduke, or the war of a deranged madman, but one that pits the followers of a brutal religion against the non-believer. This will be a war of submission to Islam. The battles have already started in Paris, and the Islamic “brownshirts” are already intimidating the public in every European capital.
Please support Mr. Wilders. He is one of the few who has the courage to speak the truth.
Friday 23 January 2009, 13:05
Europeans must understand that the prosecution of Mr. Wilders is a “Man in Front of the Tank” moment, where a single brave individual is standing up against tyranny.
In this case, it’s not standing up against the tyranny of the Chinese Communist Party, but rather the tyranny of Islamic supremacism.
In response to #10 Patrick Faas, your assertion that “even under sharia Christians and Jews are allowed to practice their religion” is patently laughable. The sharia laws governing the practice of Christianity and Judaism are extremely restrictive and oppressive. It’s easy to look them up.
Of note, Jews practiced their faith on the Arabian Peninsula, in Mecca and Medina, for centuries before Islam ever existed. Muhammed initiated the genocide of the Jews in Arabia. This is a fact recorded in the Islamic holy books, and easy to find.
Now, can anyone show me any Jews (or Chistians for that matter) freely and openly practicing their faith in the homeland of Islam? Maybe as subjugated dhimmis, but I doubt it.
Infidels are being systematically exterminated in Iraq, Iran, Egypt and many other Islamic countries.
Friday 23 January 2009, 13:24
Long study of censorship convinces me that the law under which Mr Wilders will be prosecuted is badly framed. It responds not to prospective acts, that can be later proven (assault, arson etc.) but to states of mind (hatred, hurt feelings), ‘incited’ by someone expressing thoughts, emotions, predictions, etc.
Law has difficulty enough restraining or sanctioning proposed or threatened acts. Attempts to sanction thoughts or sentiments shows a four thousand year history of disaster and futility.
Obsequious devious dishonest speech often incites hatred in me. So what. Sex-heavy advertisements for automobiles and shoes offend me. So what. The term ‘old testament’ insults Judaism, for it supposes Judaism replaced by Christianity. So what. ‘Nirvana’ is often used in contexts insulting to any Buddhist, the term ‘jesuitical’ in ways insulting to Roman Catholics, and one could go on for pages this way.
Had Mr Wilders advocated assaulting Muslims (or people with red hair or identical twins) or burning down mosques (or McDonalds or sex shops) that should/could reasonably be actionable at law. But this prospective prosecution is a grievous mistake for the Netherlands and for Europe. It also insults, and betrays, half a millennium of Dutch history.
Saturday 24 January 2009, 6:27
As a Canadian, I looked forward to this moment where I could read what the Dutch themselves thought of this development. To see people like “Stanley Featherstone” speak of compromise here makes me cringe in disdain. Wilders, funny blond pompadour and all, is truly a hero, not just for Holland, not just for Europe but for the world. Any Dutch who can’t see that are fools.
Saturday 24 January 2009, 19:17
Geert Wilders should not be prosecuted for his opinions. He has not encouraged violence. He has attacked ideas. He has used direct quotations and video clips of what others have done in the name of Islam to support his opinions. He alone is the only person who has been threatened as a direct result of his opinions. The threats to his person only strengthen his thesis. The current charges against him will in the end reduce liberty and the search for truth at a time when it is needed most.
Sunday 25 January 2009, 22:39
I’m sorry, would I hurt your feelings if I said that my recipe for meatloaf was superior to yours? Would you be offended if I said that my political ideology was better? Would you be angry if I said that your daughter’s imaginary friend didn’t exist?
Why is it any different when we question celestial dictatorships? I can chide a child who believes in the tooth fairy, yet I can’t question someone’s belief in a man who walked on water or another who arose to married a nine year old?
As repugnant as he may be, we all must defend Mr Wilders right or one day you may find yourself on the rack for saying the world is not flat.
Tuesday 27 January 2009, 5:03
Wakey, wakey,
Perhaps, then, in Canada politics is conducted without regard to what is possible given social conditions and practices. I live in the US, not the Netherlands, but I do not see the point of ignoring the feelings of a large minority when it comes to their request that the legal process attend to what they believe to be a legitimate violation of law.
That being said, from the juridical perspective of this decision, I read nowhere in the story that Gilder’s has been declared guilty ipso facto the decision of the court to prosecute. I read nowhere in the story that Gilder’s is being prosecuted because “Muslim’s have hurt feelings”. The story clearly states that Gilder’s is being prosecuted because the court believes “..in a democratic legal system a clear line about hate speech in the realm of public debate needs to be drawn.” Please identify where it states the Muslim community is prosecuting Mr. Gilders?
There are three components to this issue: Mr Gilder’s statements, the Muslim community’s reaction, and the court’s determination to prosecute. Now certainly the second influenced the court to consider the issue. But is it beyond the realm of possibility that the court actually considered the merit of the case based on Mr. Gilder’s statements and the court’s understanding of the law? Is the Muslim community’s integration into Dutch society so complete, and the influence of this minority so total, that the court felt itself under such overwhelming duress as to render such a decision?
Tuesday 27 January 2009, 13:07
Since we’re not desert- or cave dwellers, calls to try Wilders for his statements defy any belief. Any system which give room to ghastly principles creates incentives to maliciousness. Pharisaic Dutch citizens, together with a bunch of muddle-headed hangers-on who feel fanatic Islamics breathing down their neck, appear to use the judiciary to hunt down Dutch lawmaker, Geert Wilders. In the name and/or with the help of Allah they expect to find sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution against the controversial legislator.
Generally, Muslims are very sensitive about their religion. It’s quite understandable: there is a clear crusade against their tenet, at least according to those who identify a prejudice known as “profanity”. There was a time when most European institutions would probably have rejected headscarves purely on the grounds of irreconcilability with Christian standards.
From 9/11, though, those days are behind us. Yet otherwise-enlightened citizens still seem inclined to reject fellow-citizens on sight, purely on grounds of Islamic appearance. Apparently they don’t want to risk practising idolatry. Fair enough. It is particularly striking that our legal system show signs of inclination to Islamic jurisdiction.
Mr Wilders might be given an honourable discharge. Hopefully, leaving the oleaginous creeps, called politicians, with nothing further to say. It’s about time to expose some idle and useless members of ethnic minorities, who use all sorts of ‘isms’ as cover for their misdemeanours.
As to the dodgy plaintiffs, they probably would have realised that to suggest that Geert Wilders is a racist, would not just infuriate the leader of the country’s third largest political party, but also lay mindless apostles of political correctness open to the charge that they are themselves racists.
Their indictment is just a storm in a Church of Socialists Hypocrisy teacup. I assume that – if anything – it should enhance PVV’s chances of spreading the Wilders gospel. Perhaps even promoting them to office within the foreseeable future.
It is perfectly obvious when someone is being racist, and that is indeed unacceptable, but it is not very difficult for bona fide law students to distinguish between such behaviour and observing parliamentary duties. It seems however, that the press and politicians lack this form of emotional intelligence altogether – or, which is worse, pretend that they do, out of sheer cowardice.
There is one thing that worries me about moral standards among Members in the Dutch houses of representatives and other councils of this democratic society, however: that those institutions could contain the sort of persons who would betray a colleague for the sake of a pat on the back from a religious ideology of physical abuse and oppression. The thirty silver coins Judas Iscariot received for being unfaithful to Jesus Christ. There is nothing new under the sun, is there?
Tuesday 27 January 2009, 14:10
Even if Geert Wilders will be discharged from the indictment, it will cost him and his political party a lot of money and time.
And it makes it more risky for others in the Dutch public debate to speak out ‘freely’.
Reminds me of the libel cases in the UK.
Wednesday 28 January 2009, 6:15
I may not have any legitimate weight on this issue, being that I am not from the Netherlands nor considered European. However, from what I have read about this case, if the Dutch Court decides to prosecute Wilders for his speech and views, then they should receive the unfettered support from the people of its sovereignty. This is not a simple freedom of speech issue; the person to be summoned is a member of Parliament- a functional civil servant and representative of that country’s democracy. And as such, he has a responsibility -above all- to uphold the meaning of that very word ‘democracy’.
I had a chance to view the film he is purported to have scripted (and believe me- just for conceiving such a childish YooToob-like flick he should be convicted!)- but one thing stood out of it that was scary. Towards the last five minutes of the film, it turns into direct propaganda against a distinct class of citizens that exists in this world. It made me feel like I was watching ‘Triumph des Willens’:
“The government insists that you respect Islam. But Islam has no respect for you.” its credits state at the end.
That statement in impact undermines the Dutch government as being wrong in its current policy -the will of the people- related to that religion and its set of worshipers; people whom many of them are either born Dutch or are citizens. And to compound this idea, Wilders -in a BBC interview last year- goes on to add to this message:
“So I propose also in my own Parliament that we get a new Article 1 of our Constitution, which states that we have a dominant culture in the Netherlands that is based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism.” (HardTalk with Stephen Sackur, March 2008)
If this person were to have gone outside of his capacity as a member of Parliament, protested and said these things and showed these films or passed flyers or whatever- as a private citizen- then I would say that his freedom of speech needs to be defended. However nauseating, he does -under that condition- have the right to say and promulgate these ideas. But when the person espousing these ideas speaks in behalf of the power of a nation, and has power and influence to make policy within- whether you are of the right faith or non-faith, these words are dangerous to hear… Intimidation and incitement in order to change policy. And later policy becomes segregation. And later it becomes deportation. And later it becomes criminal. And what next? Who is next?
By principle, ‘democracy’ is intended to give equal access of power so that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. What I hear with these words I quoted from Wilders is a person whom is trying to strip those freedoms from a distinct class of population in his society. That is not democracy.
So, I apologize for the diatribe, but I am saddened to read that under the guise of phrases such as ‘screw political correctness’ and ‘protect these freedoms’, the European nations may err to still not learn from its not-so distant mistakes. And take it from someone whom lives in “The Land of the Free”- no freedom is absolute.
Wednesday 28 January 2009, 7:52
If you look up the European convention of human rights as well as the european court previous cases(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingens_v._Austria), you will see that any possible conviction has a chance
of standing only if his facts are wrong, which certainly is NOT the stated reason for prosecution.
Therefore the prosecution is pursuing this case
for reasons that have NOTHING to do with the public interest or justice. This IMHO is a clear abuse of the power and function of the prosecutor. On the contrary the VanGogh murder of the prize for Salman Rushdie’s head are not hypothetical, but real reasons to prosecute the otherwise tolerant islamic leaders.
Wednesday 28 January 2009, 19:04
The Court of Appeals is prosecuting because it believes statements in Fitna”…constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law”. Just because the religion involved in the supposed offense is Islam, and just because Muslims have felt offended by the film, and just because Muslim organizations have asked for his prosecution, does not mean he is being prosecuted by the religion of Islam. Wilder’s is being prosecuted by a Dutch court that believes he violated Dutch law. If an individual is prosecuted in Germany for publicly denying the Holocaust, is he being prosecuted because Jewish groups are upset, or because he violated the German Holocaust Law, specifically defaming the dead?
In the US nothing in Fitna would violate law (unless some copyright). While its intent is obviously to create discord and alarm it is not a crime in the US to present simplistic visions of Islam uninformed by any real knowledge of its variety and then to equate this highly selective portrait of Islam with Nazism. However, this seems to be what the issue is about in the Netherlands: that such an equation is a violation of the “insulting” laws. Its no surprise to me that the typical Muslim would find the comparison of his/her daily spiritual practice to Nazism. But I suspect most nonMuslims who know something about Islam would find it insulting too. So of course as citizens they should bring this to the attention of the courts. If you don’t want to prosecute someone for making stupid remarks like this then eliminate the “insulting” laws.
Scot: So you believe all or most Muslim leaders advocate and support Van Gogh’s killing or the Rushdie death sentence? I’m sure any “leader” that openly endorses such acts would run afoul of the law in any country (save Iran). Sure there are extremist elements in Islam just as there are numerous uneducated unintegrated members of that community who might think van Gogh had it coming, but addressing and educating that mind set is a public policy problem, not a religious one.
Wednesday 28 January 2009, 19:17
Yes, Geert Wilders should be procecuted, for freedom of speech is an alltogether other thing than insulting an entire religion and their followers for the sake of insulting only. Oil on fire, hence all sorts of heated debate.
He should have tackled this gouvernment for being soft in stead of hard boiled. By importing migrant workers from Spain, Italy and later Northern Africa this State made a couple of huge mistakes; not being able to mend these ommissions Wilders seized the opprotunity to keep going on a like a raving lunatic.
Politics isn’t about polarisation, but about finding some common ground. We have one outstanding example for this kind of politicians: Barack Obama. This fresh president will do what he promissed to do, but I believe he will also try his utmost best finding these common grounds, an almost obsolete phenomenon known as diplomacy.
Wilders has been quit the opposite, more of a, in Dutch, gifmenger. Him playing murdered innocense now is rather hilarious, proof of which can be found in his copy and paste videoclip Fitna (never ever, by whatever definition to be called a ‘film’). Violence, murder, terrorists: all these wrongdoings perpetrated by Muslims. I think we as Europeans should memorise 17 octobre 1961, Paris, France as a place in time on which a great evil occured. An outburts of state terrorism by the police gunning down unarmed, peaceful protesting Algerians (those awfull muslims, remember) with machineguns no less. Downtown Paris, mind you. Although this demonstration was forbidden their protest against the OAS validated this march, as did Martin Luther King did with his March a few years later.
Thursday 29 January 2009, 11:49
One more thing: According to the EU, national law(and I am not saying prosecution is valid under dutch law, but assume it is) is subordinate to European law and the quote I gave makes it clear where european law stands. I doubt the prosecutors are unaware of that info. If they are, they should not be in that position.
Monday 16 February 2009, 11:26
After viewing the film Fitna, I can see nothing in it which I hadn’t already figured out for myself over the years through general media reports of terrorist incidents. More chilling than the terrorist acts themselves, is the apparent pattern observable around the world ranging from mild suppression of such facts to such trials of those, such as Wilders, who dare to speak out. Canada is another country which facilitates the trial of people who dare to point out unpleasant facts.
I support Wilders 100%. And I don’t call him a right-wing populist either. It isn’t characteristic of right-wing politicians to support gay rights, for example, as Wilders does in opposition to the radical Islamist’s avowed policy of throwing them off the top of buildings. Also, it is a strange populist indeed who sacrifices his freedom to live under 24/7 guard for fear of the radicals who deem him worthy of death. He isn’t the first in Holland or elsewhere to be persecuted as such.
Sunday 1 March 2009, 2:45
I was born in the Netherlands in 1942. Have lived in the USA since 1956.
I have always been very proud to be Dutchman. In my travels all over the world I find the Dutch are highly respected . This attempt to muzzle Geert Wilders is a black eye for the Netherlands. It makes me sad to see my beloved country selling out to Muslim terrorists. What has happened to my great and freedom loving country..
Saturday 14 March 2009, 17:40
Even “Hate-Speech” needs to be protected, for it assists us in identifying these pathetic bigots; silence them with prosecutions, and you’re committing the exact crime they want to —excluding and isolating a group of peoples merely because they’re different. Let them speak; they condemn themselves with every syllable. Ain’t Liberty grand? It can be self-regulating … if we’re smart enough to allow it.
Benjamin Franklin wondered whether we were smart enough to keep our freedoms; let Geert Wilders rant as much as he wishes, and we will prove we can.
Tuesday 24 March 2009, 18:24
Islam is not a religion. It is a political strategy.
And historically a very effective one.
Seems we must now add Holland to the list of intolerant Islamic nations.
Thursday 26 March 2009, 17:24
ALL Islamic countries have zero tolerance for any view that does not agree with Islam.
Looks like Netherlands has already been been Islamised.
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death for your right to say it.” ~”The Friends of Voltaire” (1906)
Friday 3 April 2009, 12:31
Here are my 2 cents; The Netherlands administration usually consists of at least one christian party so protecting religion from ridicule and critisism is a mainstay of policy. This is also true for followers of christianity who may not be discriminated for adhering to that religion. Once Islam made it’s entrance on the dutch scene these rules applied to them aswel. We even allow for sub-standard schools to exist to accomodate Islam religion because there are catholic & protestant schools aswel.
This is the ONLY reason why the state is trying to prosecute GW. (I cannot/will not write the name out fully because I cannot stand his stupidity).
But me being principled have to agree with the previous post; “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death for your right to say it.” ~”The Friends of Voltaire” (1906)
Thursday 1 July 2010, 3:01
If Wilders’ comments are free speech, I guess so is pestering at schools of fat, disabled, ginger-haired etc.
Also the same for pesteering colleagues at work.
Those that confuse this for free speech just have to look at this comparison and hopefully they don’t agree that people have the right to pester another at all.
If a guy would walk into a train
Thursday 1 July 2010, 3:12
sorry, pressed the wrong button..
If a guy would enter a train and swear at everyone he sees and the passengers complain, are they not completely in their right to do so? It is a lot different from the guy commenting on kids spilling beer on the floor that happen to have another skin color. The second is what Wilders tries to appear to do, but his program and comments show he is just another racist. He is not just “for freedom of speech against islam”, GW thinks anyone with another skin color should be treated differently in certain cases. Try finding positive comments from him on non-muslim other minorities. Without scapegoats extreme-right would cease to exist, so they have to find and maintain one no matter what.