Freedom of speech under attack in The Netherlands

ChocolateSauce

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm

A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.

I find this deeply disturbing. Arguably the most liberal country in the world, the Netherlands as embarked on a lawsuit to curtail freedom of expression, arguing that Geert Wilders is guilty of hate crimes.

I reject out of hand the notion that an attack on an idea is a crime, and that is the only thing this admittedly racist and ironically anti-freedom MP is guilty of. Just because he wants to ban Islam as an idea doesn't mean anyone has a right to ban his call for a ban. Attacking an idea, even if it is a religion, any religion, is not wrong. Freedom of speech means the freedom to offend whoever you like, and sadly it appears that the most fundamental freedom a human can enjoy is now under attack.

Furthermore, the hypocrisy of the establishment is astonishing. The people who are calling for him to be silenced are exactly the same kind of people who spew religious hatred, and do they get charged for hate speech? No. But as soon as someone puts out there the idea that religion should be expunged from society, or even simply cartooned, up go the placards (in London and New York):

"Butcher those who mock our religion".

OhNoYouDidn't

There is and always will be a limit to how free speech is in any society and this court has ruled he may have crossed that line. As they have with a number of Islamic extremists, so the latter part of your post is redundant.

Big Whoop.

This line "Freedom of speech means the freedom to offend whoever you like, and sadly it appears that the most fundamental freedom a human can enjoy is now under attack" is simply untrue and shows spectacular naivity and a deliberate over simplification of the issue.

If I were to 'insult' you by calling you a peadophile in the national press, would you be quite so sanguine?

wes

Various Muslim extremists have been arrested (rightly) for hate speech, under the same incitement to hatred laws. So the last part of your rant makes no sense.

**EDIT**
Found an article on it:
Two in court after cartoon demo

So the people you mention were arrested. So there doesn't seem to be any hypocrisy here at all.

lostexpectation

the guy got what he wanted

Nodin

If he had targeted 'blacks', Jews or any other minority, he would have been reefed at the get-go.

speedboatchase

Seen the film and Bill Maher's Religulous (which is hilarious by the way) is far more offensive to nearly all religions, particularly Christian. The only "incitement to hatred" would've been Islam extremists murdering him, ala Theo Van Gogh, which thankfully didn't come to pass. Watch the clip for yourselves and decide, I personally think the Netherlands should be an example of a liberal being too liberal regarding multiculturism and allowing its own values to be undermined

SeanW

speedboatchase wrote: »

Seen the film and Bill Maher's Religulous (which is hilarious by the way) is far more offensive to nearly all religions, particularly Christian. The only "incitement to hatred" would've been Islam extremists murdering him, ala Theo Van Gogh, which thankfully didn't come to pass. Watch the clip for yourselves and decide, I personally think the Netherlands should be an example of a liberal being too liberal regarding multiculturism and allowing its own values to be undermined

Agree 100%.

Nodin

speedboatchase wrote: »

Seen the film and Bill Maher's Religulous (which is hilarious by the way) is far more offensive to nearly all religions, particularly Christian. The only "incitement to hatred" would've been Islam extremists murdering him, ala Theo Van Gogh, which thankfully didn't come to pass. Watch the clip for yourselves and decide, I personally think the Netherlands should be an example of a liberal being too liberal regarding multiculturism and allowing its own values to be undermined

Yet despite all the whining, whinging and crap about values being undermined, nobodys given a decent example of it. Are Dutch women required to cover their heads, for instance? Is the national language now Arabic? No, not a bit of it.

speedboatchase

I think the fact Wilders is being charged for making his film is a decent example :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't

speedboatchase wrote: »

I think the fact Wilders is being charged for making his film is a decent example :rolleyes:

But there is no absolute right in Dutch law, or anywhere, to make self confessed racist films. Films have always had an element of censorship and moderation of content, be it violence, sexual content or in this case, alledged racism.

Are people arguing here against the concept of hate crime and the state reacting to it or is this one of those genereic 'them mooslims are forcing us to change' polemics?

Tomk1

The minute I saw the title of this post I knew exactly what it was going to be about, anything mentioning that peaceful religion in a realistic direct manner is considered "Hate Speech" even Wikipepia was being classed as blasphemy as they have a picture of Mr.Mo.

When the true hurts hide it dehind the courts, How can you call left wing liberists "right wing" by a group so right wing they make Hitler&Christianity look like daisy. You know the old saying don't mix politics with religion, its their stone age beliefs not mine.

Nodin

speedboatchase wrote: »

I think the fact Wilders is being charged for making his film is a decent example :rolleyes:

Not really, as for one the claims precede the charges.

Now, are there some concrete examples or nay?

OhNoYouDidn't

Tomk1 wrote: »

The minute I saw the title of this post I knew exactly what it was going to be about, anything mentioning that peaceful religion in a realistic direct manner is considered "Hate Speech" even Wikipepia was being classed as blasphemy as they have a picture of Mr.Mo.

But its very clearly more to this than just "mentioning that peaceful religion in a realistic direct manner".

Tomk1 wrote: »

When the true hurts hide it dehind the courts, How can you call left wing liberists "right wing" by a group so right wing they make Hitler&Christianity look like daisy. You know the old saying don't mix politics with religion, its their stone age beliefs not mine.

I repeat my question, are you arguing against the concept of hate crime?

ChocolateSauce

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If I were to 'insult' you by calling you a peadophile in the national press, would you be quite so sanguine?

The press is constrained by law and obligation, you are not. You have a right to call me a peadophile, but the press does not have a right to print that without evidence to back it up. Wilders has a right to express his opinion, and the press has a right to report his opinion. Furthermore, the claims he made about the Koran can be either verified or refuted, but your peadophile idea is based on conjecture. Wilders claimed the Koran incites violence, a demonstratable fact.

If he had targeted 'blacks', Jews or any other minority, he would have been reefed at the get-go.

Blacks and Jews are ethnic groups, Muslims are not.

Yet despite all the whining, whinging and crap about values being undermined, nobodys given a decent example of it. Are Dutch women required to cover their heads, for instance? Is the national language now Arabic? No, not a bit of it.

I gave an example: A Dutch man is in legal trouble for exercising his right to freedom of speech. This is a value being undermined. The claims do not precede the charges, as the court has ordered a previous ruling overturned, and are demanding he be brought to trial, meaning in essence they've already decided he is guilty and the trial is just for show.

I repeat my question, are you arguing against the concept of hate crime?

I'll take this one. I do believe hate crimes exist, but a hate crime must be a crime, a wrong. So-called "hate speech" is no crime. Speech cannot be a crime, because there is nothing which can be said which is not either true or refutable. If it is refutable, it should be refuted, not banned, and if it is true it must be said.

Wes: I stand happily corrected. Nevertheless, calling for murder and insulting someone are two very different things, and the offense of the people in your link vastly outweighs the offense of the people they were protesting against.

speedboatchase

"But there is no absolute right in Dutch law, or anywhere, to make self confessed racist films"


Not true, Wilders has always said that he doesn't hate Muslims, he hates Islam.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/17/netherlands.islam

wes

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Wes: I stand happily corrected. Nevertheless, calling for murder and insulting someone are two very different things, and the offense of the people in your link vastly outweighs the offense of the people they were protesting against.

The same hate speech laws are being used against both groups, there are differing degrees true, but the laws seem to cover them both. There doesn't seem to be any changes being made to them to get Wilders btw, also him being an elected official also seems to have some bearing on this. Also, I don't know enough on what Wilders has said tbh, but I assume the courts would do, they seem to think that what he has done are crimes under these incitement laws and it doesn't seem to be for a single instance, but for several.

However, if the laws are going over board, then they need to be changed, but such changes could also protect the Islamic fundamentalists as well.

OhNoYouDidn't

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The press is constrained by law and obligation, you are not. You have a right to call me a peadophile, but the press does not have a right to print that without evidence to back it up. Wilders has a right to express his opinion, and the press has a right to report his opinion. Furthermore, the claims he made about the Koran can be either verified or refuted, but your peadophile idea is based on conjecture. Wilders claimed the Koran incites violence, a demonstratable fact..

Rubbish. Slander law prohibits me from calling you a Peado. Libel laws prohibit the press from doing so.

There is not an absolute right to state your opinion publically, especially if it means that there is an incitement issue. Whether this chap has committed a hate crime or not is up for debate, I suspect not, but the underlying issue is he has potentially broken the law.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Blacks and Jews are ethnic groups, Muslims are not..

Jews are an enthnic group but Muslims are not? Run that one by me again?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I gave an example: A Dutch man is in legal trouble for exercising his right to freedom of speech. This is a value being undermined. The claims do not precede the charges, as the court has ordered a previous ruling overturned, and are demanding he be brought to trial, meaning in essence they've already decided he is guilty and the trial is just for show..

No, it means an appeal was lodged.

But the substantive point is that you are claiming he has an absolute freedom of speech that is being oppressed. This is patently nonsense. The state has a right to curtail an individual propegating an opinion that it considers to be against the greater good. They are simply doing so. Whether this specific case is incitement is up to the courts.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'll take this one. I do believe hate crimes exist, but a hate crime must be a crime, a wrong. So-called "hate speech" is no crime. Speech cannot be a crime, because there is nothing which can be said which is not either true or refutable. If it is refutable, it should be refuted, not banned, and if it is true it must be said.

Speech can be a crime. Thats not in dispute.

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Wilders claimed the Koran incites violence, a demonstratable fact..

Were we to take this line we could show that the Torah, Bible, Vedic scriptures and Sikh texts "incite" the same. Its a biased sampling, based on bigotry, to prove a pre-existing prejudicial belief.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Blacks and Jews are ethnic groups, Muslims are not...

Judaism is a religon, there is no single Jewish "race". "blacks" is a generic term used by the ignorant to describe a wide range of diverse peoples, very few of whom could be truly described as actually being a black colour. It should be pointed out that disparaging catholics and protestants in such a manner would be equally taken as "hate speech".

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I gave an (.....)is just for show....

I was asking for examples to back up this.....

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I personally think the Netherlands should be an example of a liberal being too liberal regarding multiculturism and allowing its own values to be undermined ....

...which has the implication that other cultures are to blame. As the individual is being prosecuted under Dutch civil law and not Sharia, its hardly applicable.

speedboatchase wrote:

Not true, Wilders has always said that he doesn't hate Muslims, he hates Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilders

Sectarianism doesn't really strike most of us as an acceptable stance either.....

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Wilders stated that Muslims "have to give up this stupid, fascist book" (the Quran) in order to be able to assimilate.

Rather reminiscent of rants against Catholics, I think.

ChocolateSauce

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Rubbish. Slander law prohibits me from calling you a Peado. Libel laws prohibit the press from doing so.

There is not an absolute right to state your opinion publically, especially if it means that there is an incitement issue. Whether this chap has committed a hate crime or not is up for debate, I suspect not, but the underlying issue is he has potentially broken the law.

So it boils down to which takes precedence, a constitutional right to freedom of expression, or a law curtailing freedom of expression. Legally, the constitution takes precedence. I would therefore be of the opinion that if such a law exists, it should be struck down, and ignored until such a time as it is struck down. I'm really more interested in what is right than in what is law, as there are plenty of misguided, illegal and/or immoral laws out there. If I heard in the press someone was calling me a pedo, I'd probably sue, but if I heard in my local pub the same thing, I'd just have to quash such speculation. It the end, it would be the person slandering me who would become ostracised.

Jews are an enthnic group but Muslims are not? Run that one by me again?

The Jews are an odd one, unique in being both an ethnicity and a religion, but think, how many famous atheist Jews have their been? Ever heard of an atheist Muslim? Muslims can be Arab, Indian, Persian, Serb, Indonesian or any other colour because it is a religion.

But the substantive point is that you are claiming he has an absolute freedom of speech that is being oppressed. This is patently nonsense. The state has a right to curtail an individual propegating an opinion that it considers to be against the greater good. They are simply doing so. Whether this specific case is incitement is up to the courts.

I simply do not agree. An elected government does not have the right to determine what constitutes "The greater good", and even less of a right to enforce its own view of this. An opinion may be a bad or wrong opinion, but the state does not get to decide this. That is a core principle of liberal democracy.

Speech can be a crime. Thats not in dispute.

I dispute it. Lying in the public domain with the aim of damaging someone is and should be a crime, but expressing an opinion is not, and must never be. All he did was attack a religion, using its own text as his evidence or his claims, and argue to convince people that he was right. If he is wrong, people will know and won't listen. By saying he hasn't got a right to say something means you don't have a right to hear something. Can you honestly say you trust a government to tell you what is and is not suitable for you to hear? Aren't you smart enough to listen to all points of view and decide for yourself? Of course you are, everyone is.

OhNoYouDidn't

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

So it boils down to which takes precedence, a constitutional right to freedom of expression, or a law curtailing freedom of expression. Legally, the constitution takes precedence. I would therefore be of the opinion that if such a law exists, it should be struck down, and ignored until such a time as it is struck down. I'm really more interested in what is right than in what is law, as there are plenty of misguided, illegal and/or immoral laws out there. If I heard in the press someone was calling me a pedo, I'd probably sue, but if I heard in my local pub the same thing, I'd just have to quash such speculation. It the end, it would be the person slandering me who would become ostracised.

The (Irish) constitunal right to freedom of expression has caveats. Agreed?

Are you seriously arguing that Libel and Slander laws are unconstitutional?

And then state you would use those laws you think are illegal to defend yourself? Makes no
sense.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The Jews are an odd one, unique in being both an ethnicity and a religion, but think, how many famous atheist Jews have their been? Ever heard of an atheist Muslim? Muslims can be Arab, Indian, Persian, Serb, Indonesian or any other colour because it is a religion.

Jews can be can be Arab, Indian, Persian, Serb, Indonesian or any other colour because it is a religion.

I really don't see where you are going with this one?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I simply do not agree. An elected government does not have the right to determine what constitutes "The greater good", and even less of a right to enforce its own view of this. An opinion may be a bad or wrong opinion, but the state does not get to decide this. That is a core principle of liberal democracy.

This is utter libertarian drivel, and incoherent at that. A core Liberal Democracy is the state not taking a stand on what is legally right and wrong?

If the government doesnt decide what the 'greater good' is, who does?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I dispute it. Lying in the public domain with the aim of damaging someone is and should be a crime, but expressing an opinion is not, and must never be. All he did was attack a religion, using its own text as his evidence or his claims, and argue to convince people that he was right. If he is wrong, people will know and won't listen. By saying he hasn't got a right to say something means you don't have a right to hear something. Can you honestly say you trust a government to tell you what is and is not suitable for you to hear? Aren't you smart enough to listen to all points of view and decide for yourself? Of course you are, everyone is.

Thats all very well and good but entirely irrelevant to the topic in hand. Holland has a certain curtailment of freedom of expression and the authorities suspect he has violated it. They are prosecuting and now its up to the courts. What you are arguing is the state has no right to impose any form of curtailment on speech and thats simply ludicrious, and contraditcs your stance that you would sue if a paper labelled you a paedophile.

ChocolateSauce

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The (Irish) constitunal right to freedom of expression has caveats. Agreed?

Yes, but I find the Irish constitution sorely lacking, and if it were strictly enforced, freedom would diminish. The US constitution is the greatest model, as it absolutely prohibits any curtailment of speech.

Are you seriously arguing that Libel and Slander laws are unconstitutional?

And then state you would use those laws you think are illegal to defend yourself? Makes no sense.

No, I am not. I'm saying laws which stop someone from expressing an opinion about an idea are illegal. Laws which stop people and media from spreading untruths are not. This does however bring to mind the sickening state of affairs in some western countries where someone can be done for libel/slander, even if what they say is true.

Jews can be can be Arab, Indian, Persian, Serb, Indonesian or any other colour because it is a religion.

I really don't see where you are going with this one?

I'm really not sure what's so hard to grasp about what I said. Although I would like to see "Jews" as an ethnic marker disappear because it is a religion, it is widely held that a Jew is a member of an ethnic group who is descended from the children of Israel. Muslims, on the other hand, or people of many descents who converted to a religion started by the Arabs.

This is utter libertarian drivel, and incoherent at that. A core Liberal Democracy is the state not taking a stand on what is legally right and wrong?

If the government doesnt decide what the 'greater good' is, who does?

That's right, the government does not. The people do, and this is supposed to be reflected in the constitution of a state. The constitution is supposed to serve as a guideline to what a government can do and can not do, and in a country where the constitution promises freedom of expression, any government which tries to restrain it is acting against its mandate and against the people. The common good is always up for debate, but a constitution is assumed to embody the foundations of that common good, which may be built upon by laws passed which are in accordance with that constitution. If the government thinks the common good is served by going against the constitution, it is automatically wrong in the legal sense.

Thats all very well and good but entirely irrelevant to the topic in hand. Holland has a certain curtailment of freedom of expression and the authorities suspect he has violated it. They are prosecuting and now its up to the courts. What you are arguing is the state has no right to impose any form of curtailment on speech and thats simply ludicrious, and contraditcs your stance that you would sue if a paper labelled you a paedophile.

I already said that media has a responsibility to report the truth. Media isn't a person and isn't subject the the same rights as individuals. I have in no way contradicted myself by calling for both legal media responsibility and absolute individual freedom.

May I ask you, what exactly do you think gives a government the right to tell you personally what you cannot say? In conversation, for example?

There is a wider issue at stake here. If he is convicted, it will set a precedent whereby it is illegal to criticise one religion in particular. This is a dangerous situation. If one can't criticise Islam, why can they do so to other religions? It is in essence a return to anti-blasphemy laws, along with the deluded notion an idea held dearly should be protected from harm. There are disturbing parallels throughout history where people who criticised a religion (or governments for that matter) were persecuted. Only by ensuring that all ideas, all walks of life, and all governments can be criticised strongly in the public domain can one ensure that those same powers do not gain a controlling state in society.

Nodin:

Were we to take this line we could show that the Torah, Bible, Vedic scriptures and Sikh texts "incite" the same. Its a biased sampling, based on bigotry, to prove a pre-existing prejudicial belief.

Most likely. The bible is a book of blood after all, more horrific than than the Koran in many respects. But the issue is with Islam because that is the religion Wilders got in trouble for criticising.

Judaism is a religon, there is no single Jewish "race". "blacks" is a generic term used by the ignorant to describe a wide range of diverse peoples, very few of whom could be truly described as actually being a black colour. It should be pointed out that disparaging catholics and protestants in such a manner would be equally taken as "hate speech".

I can't help but feel you're calling me ignorant, so I'll point out I'm not the one who used the term. Nevertheless, I defend the term blacks, as is also a useful and non-racist term to refer to a vast array of peoples in one short word. It is also very pedantic to point out that they're actually brown. When talking about colonial history, we call Europeans whites. Is this also ignorant? We're actually pinkish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocolateSauce
I personally think the Netherlands should be an example of a liberal being too liberal regarding multiculturism and allowing its own values to be undermined ....
...which has the implication that other cultures are to blame. As the individual is being prosecuted under Dutch civil law and not Sharia, its hardly applicable.

I didn't actually say this, you've misquoted. I do have an opinion though. The Dutch are so caught up in being liberal and tolerant of frankly bad ideas imported by immigrants that they're afraid to say "no" for fear of being branded a racist. There is nothing racist about strongly disagreeing with the religious values of another culture. Racism is about skin colour or some other genetic factor, not about culture or values. If you shared a flat with a man who treated his wife as property, you'd be outraged; it doesn't matter where he's from or what colour he his. He could be an Afghan Muslim or a white atheist, it would still be wrong.

inforfun

It is the left wing, muslim hugging establishment at it again.

Yes indeed... again.

In the 1990's they managed to shut up Mr. Janmaat, of the Centrum Democraten, by dragging him into court because he stated: "Holland is full" as a protest against almost unlimited immigration from non EU countries.

Holland being tolerant is killing the country.
Because you can not afford being tolerant towards the intolerants.

speedboatchase

I smell a 70+ page thread here. Has anyone here watched Fitna? I felt it was deliberately meant to appeal to the open-minded and as such was very toned down from his Wilders' usual rhetoric. I'm dismayed by the Dutch governments decision as I think it's a dangerous precedent considering the actual material. I think the point most people Wilders defenders are making is that the actual clip itself isn't that offensive at all, but that the government is stifling Wilder's free speech to appease any kind of possible Islamic violent reaction, which never actually happened after it was broadcast. Strange..

OhNoYouDidn't

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Yes, but I find the Irish constitution sorely lacking, and if it were strictly enforced, freedom would diminish. The US constitution is the greatest model, as it absolutely prohibits any curtailment of speech.
.

The US curtails freedom of expression to some extent just like every other society. To say the US constitution "it absolutely prohibits any curtailment of speech" is empty rhetoric.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

No, I am not. I'm saying laws which stop someone from expressing an opinion about an idea are illegal. Laws which stop people and media from spreading untruths are not. This does however bring to mind the sickening state of affairs in some western countries where someone can be done for libel/slander, even if what they say is true.
.

If that opinion is to agitate for violent action or criminal activity, it can be deemed as illegal.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm really not sure what's so hard to grasp about what I said. Although I would like to see "Jews" as an ethnic marker disappear because it is a religion, it is widely held that a Jew is a member of an ethnic group who is descended from the children of Israel. Muslims, on the other hand, or people of many descents who converted to a religion started by the Arabs.
.

Hair splitting.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

That's right, the government does not. The people do, and this is supposed to be reflected in the constitution of a state. The constitution is supposed to serve as a guideline to what a government can do and can not do, and in a country where the constitution promises freedom of expression, any government which tries to restrain it is acting against its mandate and against the people. The common good is always up for debate, but a constitution is assumed to embody the foundations of that common good, which may be built upon by laws passed which are in accordance with that constitution. If the government thinks the common good is served by going against the constitution, it is automatically wrong in the legal sense.
.

The idea of the greater good in this instance is fluid and changes with technology.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I already said that media has a responsibility to report the truth. Media isn't a person and isn't subject the the same rights as individuals. I have in no way contradicted myself by calling for both legal media responsibility and absolute individual freedom.

No, you are arguing that you should have the right to say what you like about anyone while reserving the right to sue if you dont like whats said about you. Thats an untenable position.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

May I ask you, what exactly do you think gives a government the right to tell you personally what you cannot say? In conversation, for example?
.

Yes. I am constrained by what I say to and about gay, disabled or non-national workmates by employment law. Very few would argue against that.

Ditto I am constrained by law in my conversations with the Gardai and courts, abusive or innacurate conversations may result in a sanction.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

There is a wider issue at stake here. If he is convicted, it will set a precedent whereby it is illegal to criticise one religion in particular. This is a dangerous situation. If one can't criticise Islam, why can they do so to other religions? It is in essence a return to anti-blasphemy laws, along with the deluded notion an idea held dearly should be protected from harm. There are disturbing parallels throughout history where people who criticised a religion (or governments for that matter) were persecuted. Only by ensuring that all ideas, all walks of life, and all governments can be criticised strongly in the public domain can one ensure that those same powers do not gain a controlling state in society.

I disagree. There is an inherent difference with the Nietzchien (PC in its proer form) idea that words have power and minority groups should be protected from certain types of idea and speech (hate crime for want of another label) and the state crushing dissent.

oscarBravo

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The US constitution is the greatest model, as it absolutely prohibits any curtailment of speech.

Including yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Thank you (sincerely) for expanding on my point. There is a myth abroad that such a thing as completely unrestricted free speech exists, or is even desirable. The question is, where does the line get drawn?

ChocolateSauce

Oscar and Donegalfella:

I guess I was speaking a bit too literally by claiming "absolutely unrestricted", the fire example is certainly convincing. What you say and how you say it are points of note.

I'm convinced you must be allowed to say anything you like, but how you say it may certainly be open to scrutiny. Threats and harassment impinge on the liberty of others, perjury is interfering with the very legal apparatus designed to ultimately protect people's rights, and defamation I've covered above. As for obscenity, I can't think of anything so obscene I think it should be illegal to say, and provided it doesn't curtail the rights of anyone else, I can't think of anything obscene enough to ban doing. Fighting words relate not so much to what is said but to how it is said.

I smell a 70+ page thread here. Has anyone here watched Fitna? I felt it was deliberately meant to appeal to the open-minded and as such was very toned down from his Wilders' usual rhetoric. I'm dismayed by the Dutch governments decision as I think it's a dangerous precedent considering the actual material. I think the point most people Wilders defenders are making is that the actual clip itself isn't that offensive at all, but that the government is stifling Wilder's free speech to appease any kind of possible Islamic violent reaction, which never actually happened after it was broadcast. Strange..

Indeed, this whole thing is about Fitna. I have seen it, and it is very much a civilised short. It does not call for any form of discrimination and it does not attack Muslims in The Netherlands, it attacks Islam. Wilders is somewhat racist (not just anti-immigration, outright racist), and by calling for the banning of the Koran he exposes himself as anti-liberal, but it really isn't about him at all. He's in trouble for the content of Fitna, which isn't any different in content from books by Dawkins and Hitchens, it's just delivered in a much more combative way, and the fact that a far-right politician is the author plays a role in its reception.

If that opinion is to agitate for violent action or criminal activity, it can be deemed as illegal.

I guess it is how it is said. I don't think talking about anything should be a crime, even violent action or criminal activity. It's too closely related to thought crimes and not rooted enough in actual harm done.

No, you are arguing that you should have the right to say what you like about anyone while reserving the right to sue if you dont like whats said about you. Thats an untenable position.

No, that is not what I am saying. I wouldn't ever hold a double standard like that. I would never use media to say non-factual things about individuals, and I would hold the media responsible if they allowed it to happen. I have no legal qualm with individuals saying non-factual things about me, provided mass media aren't involved.

I disagree. There is an inherent difference with the Nietzchien (PC in its proer form) idea that words have power and minority groups should be protected from certain types of idea and speech (hate crime for want of another label) and the state crushing dissent.

They should be protected from discriminating actions, as actions, right or wrong, have real consequences regardless of fairness. They should not be protected (legally) from words, as these words are either true or false. If a minority is under a wrongful attack, it only reflects badly on the attacker.

So, to re-sum up: Fitna is a fair criticism of Islam, and is not guilty of inciting hatred or violence. All it says is essentially "Islam is dangerous, lets make sure it doesn't take over", which is an opinion. For this opinion he is facing criminal charges. This is wrong, and no amount of Muslims crying "offense!" or others crying "intolerance" will change that. Offending people and being intolerant isn't against the law.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm convinced you must be allowed to say anything you like, but how you say it may certainly be open to scrutiny.

Is it OK to say "all f*cking n*ggers must be hung"? Is it OK to stand outside a primary school wearing a sandwich board saying "children are sex objects"?

[Wilders is] in trouble for the content of Fitna, which isn't any different in content from books by Dawkins and Hitchens, it's just delivered in a much more combative way...

Doesn't that fall under the caveat you introduced above: "how you say it may certainly be open to scrutiny"?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.