Death to Free Speech in the Netherlands

Remove all ads!

How is this possible? I know there are more than a few Dutch here so I was hoping to get the rest of the story as this seems unbelievable to me. I make no claim as to the accuracy or bias of the reporter and/or the website linked.

 

What the deuce?! I... am speechless.

o.0 I can go screaming in the streets "I hate God!!!!!!11," but the only thing people can legally do (at least here in the U.S.) is give me angry glares... blasphemy as LEGAL crime (as opposed to a religious crime) is... well, outrageous, at least from a U.S. view. Have the Netherlands been traditionally religious in the sense that they do not separate church from state?


Is there an article from an impartial news source besides this? (Not saying that this is wrong, only that it is mostly opinion).

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm
Here is the BBC article Saber.
I agree with you that this is unbelievable from a US standpoint but maybe not in europe(our members from there will be able to answer that).

 

Yeah, this would be illegal in Finland too most likely. When you start making comparisons to Mein Kampf around here you are bound to end up in trouble. The main reason for these laws is the preventation of violence between ethnic groups and preventing the picturing of one religion or ethnicity as inherently lesser than the other. I'd also like to point out that these laws are old, and have been in place since WWII and are mainly legacies from there. Therefore they have not been placed to appease islamism or terrorist or anything of the kind. That thinktank article is really not painting a correct picture of the event and one should rather read the BBC-article to see what it's all about since the thinktank is obviously lacking in its understanding of Dutch laws.

It's not really as Saber called it blasphemy though. That's a different law and I'm not quite sure if it exists anywhere in Europe anymore. In Finland laws about blasphemy were removed in the early 80'ies. Oh and the legal separation of church and state is not all that usual in Europe, most states have state sponsored religions which is usually the Roman Catholic Church or some local protestant church.

 

Bloody hell. This guy may end up executed for making a 10 minute video...seriously what the hell is going on.

 

No he won't, the EU does not extradict people to countries where they might face the death penalty, even less so with their own citizen. Neither do we send people to be tried for crimes that aren't actually illegal here. The claim in the article that the Netherlands are seriously considering extradition is quite simply false and shows the overall ignorance of whoever wrote that piece of tripe. Him getting killed by a radical muslim is another matter though and while I find that somewhat unlikely it has happened before.

 

I just finished reading Tarek Fateh's book Chasing a Mirage. He is a Muslim who is firmly opposed to radical Islam and free-speech stifling organizations like OIC. I highly recommend it to everyone. If the Netherlands does convict this poor fellow or even worse extradite him to a theocratic hellhole like Jordan they will lose major respect in the international community.

 

The Netherlands extraditing a Dutch MP to Jordan is absurd. I don't think any EU country would extradite anyone, probably even illegal immigrants, to a country where he can be put to the death. That Wilders would be tried in any Arabic country is about as likely as Queen Beatrice (did I spell her name right) setting up a lemonade stand in Istanbul.

However, as far as I know hate speech is a crime and if the court decides that he was guilty they should face the consequences. Personally, I found the concept of such a movie tasteless and/or offensive - not to mention it probably won't help the problem with minorities. What can be more dangerous in this case are the MPs previous comments, which as far as I can see were much more inflammatory than the movie itself. I believe any reference to the Nazi regime is taken very seriously in the Netherlands, probably more than in most other countries, due to the country's past, and the topic of "hate speech" is a sensitive one. To put it bluntly, the guy was playing with fire, . Of course, I would also hold minorities responsible to the full extent of the law for any agitation - whether from a soapbox or a pulpit - against other ethnic or religious groups. If some radicals in the Netherlands were guilty of inciting hate crimes, I hope they are called in court too. The law should be the same for everyone.

Personally, I don't think that he is in any serious danger from the court. Not everyone who is charged is sentenced, and I doubt he would get more than a minor fine.

 

"Masses"? "Rioting"

Tell me one example of this happening in a european country, please. 'Til then, I say your claim is false. You have either no idea, or you lie deliberatly.

Also, state one example besides Theo van Gogh where this has happened.



To the matter at hand:
The court overreacted. Fitna is such a trite and amateurish movie that everyone except Wilders and his extreme right followers already had forgotten. This whole affair is a major PR victory for Wilders.

Does he have the right to publish it? Yes, I think so. Does the people who feel insulted have a right to sue him? They have. Is the movie grossly stupid? Without doubt. But that is not a matter for a court to decide. Everyone with a functioning brain can see that.

 

Well, there were some protests in support of the Palestinians in Gaza during the last clash between Israel and Hamas. Doubt that counts though. Ironically, far right groups are just as, if not more, likely to take to the streets and riot.

 

Ok, here's where I'm really confused. If the movie really does consist only of quotes from the Koran and videos of radiccal Imams (presumably at least some in the Neatherlands), and it is deemed hate speach, how are the things it quotes not?

 

Tal is right.
In most cases these events won't find its way to the big media.
Just one example of my hometown Cologne:
Last year a German killed a Turk in self-defense.The Turk was a previously convicted adolescent who tried to rob the German with his gang.
As a result lots of angry people (muslim migrants) walked the streets after the process had made to the victim of the robbery, who wanted a harder punishment.
With a bit of internet recherche one can find more of these issues, I am sure.

This alone is bad enough.
But he isn't the only European victim of a religious motivated murderer.
I don't know of any other publicly known victim but there are a lot of lesser known victims.
Alone the big number of 'honor murder' cases are sad.
Not to speak of many people who have to be officially protected for fear of murder like Wilders or Ayaan Hirsi which are only two Dutch examples.
I am sure, if it weren't for the solid protection, there would be much more cases of murder, like it happened to van Gogh.

 

I agree that Geert Wilders will never be extradited.

That said, he is a demagogue and provocateur who lives off 'the Muslim threat'. Interesting article on him in Haaretz: "Far-right Dutch politician brings his anti-Islam rhetoric back to Jerusalem"

Clearly, a man of moderation. It is unsurprising that he draws violent reaction, from people no less stark in their own views as he himself. The worse part of it is that, as long as his harangues can provoke enough fundamentalists into threatening him, he can point to their predictable reaction as proof for this claims.

He's just another 'rainmaker'.

 

Ragusa, the guy may be an idiot and a rainmaker, but dammit he has the right to speak his mind. People say all sorts of ignorant stuff about Jesus Christ but nobody threatens to kill them in a liberal democracy. Yet when Muslim extremists make death threats, tons of otherwise rational people rally behind them and start making excuses for them. I say enough is enough -- we need to make it crystal clear to the Muslim community that they are totally welcome to practice their religion but they are also expected to respect the rights of others to speak their minds.

I am opposed to hate speech, as in "Let's all go out and kill all the Exxians in our country", but it is not hate speech to say "I really don't like the Exxians and what they do -- let's go out and oppose them through legal channels" The whole hate speech concept is being twisted and distorted by people seeking to stifle free speech and rational debate. We need to denounce this sort of crap.

 

At least the French riots had very little to do with religion and freedom of speech. They were social upheavals in poor immigrant dominated neighbourhoods. More akin to what happened recently in Greece or even the riots that took place after the police beat up that man in LA.

 

I know Mark Steyn can be a bit of a jerk, but take a look here -- why are we giving these people a free pass for stunninlgy unacceptable behaviour? Why is criticizing their hate speech something that we cringe at doing, and something that gets the honest criticism labelled itself as hate speech.

 

All nice and well. Never mind the Islamists, Wilders himself is a bag of trouble.

Point is, we do have laws against hate speech in my country, and what Wilders says is probably as covered by it, as the reaction of Islamists raving against him. In Germany Wilders would probably violate §§ 130 II, 166 StGB, committing the crime of Volksverhetzung (and of insulting religions confessions). That the Islamists threatening to kill this loon are committing their own crimes is another matter.

There's a limit to what is acceptable in speech, and the sort of liberal and neutral tolerance Germany had in the Weimar Republic was abused by the Republic's illiberal enemies to subvert it from within. When talk becomes inflammatory to the extent that it threatens the public peace and violates the rights of others or for instance denigrates a faith and it's faithful or ethnic groups it is no longer acceptable. I certainly know that Islamists are intolerant, but so is Wilders. They are two sides of the same coin.