Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/geert-wilders-faces-possible-year-prison

I am not telling the Duutch what to do, only that this is interesting. Is he the opposition enemy to the party in power, hence the prosecution?

Geert Wilders Faces Possible Year in Prison for Calling Quran a 'Fascist Book'
Dutch politician on trial on hate speech charges.
Monday, October 04, 2010
By Toby Sterling, Associated Press


File photo: Dutch politician Geert Wilders following a court appearance in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on Jan. 13, 2010. Wilders went on trial Monday, Oct. 3, 2010 on charges he incited hatred against Islam. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)

Amsterdam (AP) - Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders went on trial Monday for alleged hate speech, even as his popularity and influence in the Netherlands are near all time highs.

Prosecutors say Wilders incited hatred against Muslims with remarks comparing Islam to Naziism and by calling for a ban on the Quran. Wilders argues he has a right to freedom of speech and his remarks were within the bounds of the law.

If convicted, he faces up to a year in prison. He could keep his seat in parliament.

On his Twitter account, Wilders said the start of his trial was a "terrible day."

"The freedom of expression of at least 1.5 million people is standing trial together with me," he wrote, referring to the voters that made his Freedom Party the third-largest in national elections in June.

But his lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz, told presiding judge Jan Moors at the start of the trial that Wilders would not answer questions during the trial.

"My client will, at my advice, exercise his right to silence today, tomorrow and the other days," Moszkowicz said. Moors then adjourned the case to consider a request from Wilders to explain his decision not to speak.

He swept into the Amsterdam District Court complex in a police convoy and waved to supporters as he walked into the courtroom at the start of a trial scheduled to last seven days.

The case has generated huge interest in the Netherlands and the opening was broadcast live on television.

Wilders' party has agreed to support a new all-conservative government forming this month. In return, his political allies have promised to carry out much of his anti-immigration agenda.

Immigration-related issues have dominated politics in the Netherlands and much of Europe over the past decade. Wilders has drawn comparisons with populists such as Jorg Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France as he cashed in on the growing unease and tested the limits of free speech.

Among more than 100 remarks his opponents see as offensive, an editorial in newspaper De Volkskrant stands out.

"I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate," he wrote in the paper. "I've had enough of the Quran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book."

The flamboyant bleach-blond politician has also called for taxing clothing commonly worn by Muslims, such as headscarves — or "head rags," as he called them — because they "pollute" the Dutch landscape. He may be best known for the 2008 short film "Fitna," which offended Muslims around the world by juxtaposing Quranic verses with images of terrorism by Islamic radicals.

However, his stances resound deeply with Dutch voters, who have reconsidered their famous tolerance amid fears their own culture is being eroded by immigrants who don't share their values.

The Wilders-supported government expected to take power as early as this week intends new measures to reduce acceptance of asylum-seekers and cut immigration from non-Western countries in half, notably by making it difficult for foreign spouses and children to join their Dutch citizen spouses.

It also plans to force immigrants to pay for their own mandatory citizenship classes.

A handful of anti-Wilders protesters gathered outside the court behind a banner reading "fascism rules," with a Dutch pun on Wilders' name.

Convictions for discriminatory remarks are frequent in the Netherlands, but penalties are rarely greater than a small fine.

Prosecutors were initially reluctant to bring Wilders' case to court, saying his remarks appeared directed toward Islam as an ideology rather than intended to insult Muslims as a group.

But they were eventually ordered to do so by a judge.

Prosecutors won't rule out dropping charges or asking for no penalty at all when the trial comes to the sentencing phase. A verdict is expected Nov. 4.

Mohamed Rabbae, chairman of the moderate National Moroccan Council, said outside the court that he hoped judges would force Wilders to issue an apology for his past remarks.

"We are not for getting Mr. Wilders in prison. We are for correcting him," he said.

He's simply a pillock who doesn't understand Islam and/or Nazism?

Prosecutors were initially reluctant to bring Wilders' case to court, saying his remarks appeared directed toward Islam as an ideology rather than intended to insult Muslims as a group.

Of course, because the definitive characteristic of a group has absolutely nothing to do with that group.

Also, the great shame is that Islamism actually is bound pretty tightly to fascism. Had the dude just added those last three letters the whole thing would have been pretty insignificant.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:He's simply a pillock who doesn't understand Islam and/or Nazism?

is that illegal? I'm not getting this as I thought Western European countries generally had freedom of speech (outside of Germany and the Nazi thing). Hence my Q about maybe this is shenanigans going on to deal with the opposition. So, er, whats the deal?

Convictions for discriminatory remarks are frequent in the Netherlands, but penalties are rarely greater than a small fine.

Looks like something similar to the hate speech laws in England.

England has hate speech laws? Thats not a lot of freedom of speech. Did that change? I thought you could stand in Trafalgar and say any daft thing you wanted to?

Looks like its been that way since it at least 1986.

Frazzled wrote:England has hate speech laws? Thats not a lot of freedom of speech. Did that change? I thought you could stand in Trafalgar and say any daft thing you wanted to?

You can say whatever you want anywhere. You are free to be ignorant of the consequences of whatever you do. Freedom is an absolute concept.

Fascism is a concept too - the Nazis did it in a special kind of way that doesn't really fit in with Islam as a 'method'... which it isn't.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:England has hate speech laws? Thats not a lot of freedom of speech. Did that change? I thought you could stand in Trafalgar and say any daft thing you wanted to?

You can say whatever you want anywhere. You are free to be ignorant of the consequences of whatever you do. Freedom is an absolute concept.

Fascism is a concept too - the Nazis did it in a special kind of way that doesn't really fit in with Islam as a 'method'... which it isn't.

translation: you don't actually have freedom of speech there? I am very confused now. Did this change?

You can say what you want but that doesn't make you exempt from the consequences as Arctik_Firangi points out.

You can call someone an idiot but get sued for slander or libel.

You can attack someone's religion but get prosecuted for inciting racial hatred.

Freedom of speech is not an excuse to allow everyone to spout hatred, lies and bile without recrimination.

Tired, old example: You are free to yell 'FIRE!' in a cinema. There will be consequences. If there is no fire, they may be legal consequences. It also could have been the flame from a match, and relatively harmless... so there was a 'fire', but not a 'FIRE!'

Look at Oskar Schindler, "The Good Nazi". By definition he was a Nazi. He worked in military intelligence - but he broke a lot of laws, too. Was he good or bad? Was he enough of a Nazi to be compared to Islam? Was he Islamic enough to be compared to a Nazi? As pure concepts, those questions are just absurd.

Postulating that 'Islam' is like 'Naziism' should invoke consequences if your intention is to inspire a fear of Islam. This has been claimed but not proved. Wilders is on trial - he isn't guilty of anything yet. Either way his claims are absurd.

"We are not for getting Mr. Wilders in prison. We are for correcting him"

Wow, so you don't have freedom of speech, freedom from prosection in the UK. Wow.

Frazzled wrote:Wow, so you don't have freedom of speech, freedom from prosection in the UK. Wow.

It depends what you say.

It is illegal to glorify terrorism, or incite racial hatred. I don't know about religious hatred.

We covered this a couple of weeks ago.

then how do the mosques get away with it?

Frazzled Wrote:
translation: you don't actually have freedom of speech there? I am very confused now. Did this change?

No we don't. Many people claim that we do but our laws about freedom of speech are aweful. Many americans complain about how bad it is for people to be able to say whatever they want but it's so much better than what we've got. It's getting worse aswell. People are so terrified to offend groups, they can't criticize anyone. There are too many people over here who call anyone who disagree with them racism (or alternative term) and then get support people in authority. Society has become so obsessed with political correctness it's insane.

It wouldn't be so much of a problem except the laws are very biased. Many favour religion over non religious groups, and it's very easy for a group to get support just by playing the racism card.

They don't, to my knowledge. The UK deports quite a few Islamist Imams.

It is illegal to glorify terrorism, or incite racial hatred. I don't know about religious hatred.

You can actually be arrested and charged now for insulting someone if it has anything to do with: Colour, size, age, gender.

Each of the catagories ive mentioned will get you arrested if you use them as an insult to the specific group.
Ie: I call someone a spanker, im being insulting, i call them a fat spanker and the gak hits the fan big time, and i will get arrested for it.

I wont derail the thread though with my mad rants

Freedom of speech = bs. No such thing, yet the FoS act was never taken down.

wow that sucks.

Frazzled wrote:wow that sucks.

Not as bad as Dakka, I can call someone a spanker here and wind up banned for it (the equivalant of a year in "internet" jail?)....I dont even have to insert the "fat" part.

Dakka's laws are worse than the U.K.'s.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:wow that sucks.

Not as bad as Dakka, I can call someone a spanker here and wind up banned for it (the equivalant of a year in "internet" jail?)....I dont even have to insert the "fat" part.

Dakka's laws are worse than the U.K.'s.

Thats because we are a malign dictatorship.

On topic though, as much as it pains me to speak on the side if 'islam' (I almost find myself wanting to give a "high five" to this government official), isnt what he's doing sort of the beginnings of what Nazism did for the Jews?

I'm not really an authority in Germany's political history, but, it all had to begin somewhere.

Essentially, isnt it innappropriate for anyone seated in a Gov't position to speak out against a religious body? I dunno if its worth a year in jail but it may deserve SOME sort of punishment, like losing one's job or whatever.

I'm not coming to the aid of Islam here, because myself I think the religion is full of a bunch of fat spankers. Too much violent "smoke" involved in that religion for it to be entirely benign in my opinion.

Course, from what I've seen...pretty much all religions get pretty hateful. Christianity is safe right now only because its so huge...they GOT the power and dont need to be beligerant. Make Christianity a 'niche' religion in the States like Islam is and you've got plenty of Christian "hate" flowing.

Religion gets so (or should I say "starts out") slowed.

Frazzled wrote:then how do the mosques get away with it?

They don't. Muslim preachers have also been arrested for hate speech.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:then how do the mosques get away with it?

They don't. Muslim preachers have also been arrested for hate speech.

have they been convicted?

Some of them have. Everyone arrested isn't necessarily found guilty, of course. I don't know the conviction rate. It is a pretty rare crime.

http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/paintball_jihad_imam_ali_al_timimi_convicted/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/imam-gets-nine-years-jail-for-racehate-speeches-599862.html

As I said in my last post religions rarely get in any serious trouble. Caling racism can let you off a lot of things. Even people working for the law are worried about the group accusing them of racism.

Your lucky that in America that religious views aren't seen as more important than everyone else's view. Overhere thats the way it's going. I've met a lot of people who think that having an unreasonable view is ok if it's based in a religion. IMO there are too many double standards.

Religious views aren't seen as more important?

I guess not as a general rule, but there's certainly a bias towards Christianity over yonder.

Quickest way to commit political suicide? Identify as anything other than a Christian, even calling yourself a non-Protestant is pushing it.

I didnt realize "inciting hatred" is a crime in the netherlands. Seems like a strait forward case of the courts trying to squash democratic government to me.

Well that's not exactly what I mean. The impression we get over here (may not be true) is that it's possible to criticize a religion and be listened to.

When you criticize a religion over here you are deemed racist (whatever you say). Religions can target who ever they like and can agrue with aethists but if the aethists argue back they could get accused of racism.

Religions can make stupid demands but when people reply the religions can say "but its my religion" and there is nothing we can do about it.

Well, you can't be arrested for it if that's what you mean.

You will probably be labeled something nasty if you criticize Christianity, and not necessarily underservedly. And you'll definitely be labeled something nasty if you criticize Islam, though not necessarily by Muslims, and not necessarily undeservedly.

And, if you criticize Judaism you will be burnt at the stake as an antisemitic cur.

Ah, the Wilders Trial!

In the Netherlands there are laws against discrimination (inc. racism, sexism etc) and slander. There was some talk about a ban on blasphemy and lese majesty (we are a monarchy after all) but I'm not sure those are in effect. By the laws on discrimination (article 1 of our constitution) and slander Wilders stands trial, because some people feel he is out-scapegoating Hitler.

I'd like to put some perspective on it. -warning

A few years ago, Geert Wilders was a long time member of the Dutch Liberal Conservative Party VVD (liberal concerning personal freedoms, free trade etc. conservative in the justice department) and a member of parliament (2e kamer). At some point in his career, about 2003 or 2004, he said something akin to "These fundamentalist Islamist hate-speech-imams are slowed for writing a book about tossing homosexuals head-first from office towers". As a result he got death-threats and hate-mail by muslim teenagers who interpreted this as insulting... while it was not at all a generalisation. Wilders got protection by bodyguards 24/7 and has been living in safe-houses ever since. At that time, Wilders said: 'I have no problems with Islam, only with the chaff of Islam (i.e. fundamentalists hate-speechers)"
However, the 24/7 wilders-saftey project got to his mind and his opinion began to slide, slide towards an obsession with the perceived evil of Islam and he retconned his erstwhile specification on terrorists and hate-imams to encompass all of Islam (a religion as varied as Christianity) This got him kicked out of the Liberal Party, after which he remained an independent MP and started his Freedom party, which can be likened to USA's Tea Party.

Geert Wilders is a smart man. It is well know on Dakka that a large group of Western European citizens are worried about islamization and immigration. Wilders exploits these sentiments to gain political power. He speaks to the citizens who voted for the murdered populist politician Fortuyn and xenophobics as well as people who are dissatisfied with the "regents" (we're back in the 1700's here) which means the seasoned politicians, and the Leftist-church: the left-wing parties like the PvdA (liberal socialists), D66 (liberal democrats) and Groen Links (progressive liberals). Because the majority of Geert Wilders' supporters are completely oblivious to how the government actually works, which parties can be held accountable for the problems the country faces and ignorant about the historical facts, he can tell them practically any fiction he wants and pass it off as truth. Off course, many people with a higher education, and the targets of these slanders themselves know better.

In fact, Wilders has not read the Quran he tells us so much about and I am quite certain he did not read mein kampf either... or did he?

All this "left-wing tries to destroy our country and is in league with islam terrorists" and "The Islam is invading and taking over till all your base are belong to Allah" is rather reminiscent of a certain well known German Politician who wrote a book that started a genocide and a world war. His whole strategy is eerily similar to Adolf's in the 30's. Blame a minority religion and a political ideology for your country's plight and discontent, seize power.

And the stupidest of stupidity here is that he will attempt use the trial to PROOF that the things he said about Islam and the Quran are true "because if it's true, it can't be tried as crime in a democracy with free speech and freedom press"

Here it goes:
Wilders Fairy Tale: "There is only one Islam, and that is the violent and oppressive Islam that oppresses women and demands all unbelievers are killed or taxed"
Truth: Islam is as diverse as Christendom, the Taliban-Islam is only one of many different kinds of Islam (check wikipedia on that) and that kind of islam truly sucks... Being mad at the Turkish Grocery Store guy for some hate-speech of the Ayatollah of Iran is like chastising a Mormon for something the Pope said about condoms for africa.
But it's what Wilders tries to do. He states that Islam in all its forms and shapes is inherrently evil and bent on our destruction like Adolf Hitler was bent on the destruction of the jews and communists. He deftly steers away people's concerns about state-dept, economical recession and heavy social issues like the AOW (old-age support plan) and redirects them to being concerned about Muslim immigration... because "they're gonna take over one day!"
Well, be that as it may, the trend is that Dutch Muslims are not islamising the Netherlands, the Netherlands are Dutchificating the Muslims. 2nd/3d generation ftw if it comes to adapting to the country they were born in. It's the parents we failed to be proper hosts to, the children will end up quite better and the bad apples of the bunch are really a slight minority.

Wilders Fairy Tale: "Morrocan teenage gangsters are gangers because the quran says they must opress non-muslims"
Truth: Morrocan teenage gangsters are gangsters because they have nothing better to do, are not stimulated to do other things by parents nor school teachers and generally have no interest in their religion at all, except when they can use it as excuse to pick a fight and make a nuisance of themselves. Actually, these kids try to exploit what they perceive as the freedoms of the Western world without knowing what these freedoms are... they are almost like Wilders, but violent. They'll beat somebody up and say they're allowed to because "it's a free country" or worse: "you're a racist for calling the cops on us because we beat up this old dude, you don't respect our religion!"

Wilders Fairy Tale: "The Quran is as evil as mine Kampf"
Truth: True, some jewish tribes get slaughtered in the Quran, but it also says that jews and christians should, for some extra tax, be treated with respect and have the much of same rights as muslims. Check out Al-Andalus and the medieval Middle East (the Seljuks are an exeption rather than the rule, those guys were bad news for tolerance).

Wilders Fairy Tale: "If you tear out all violent chapters of the Quran, you will be left with a volume the size of Donald Duck magazine (equal size to a single issue of a mainstream American superhero comic)"
he basically says that the Quran is full of warfare, rape and genocide... and that leaving out those paragraphs leaves you with barely a book to speak of. He does not know that, he hasn't read it. The bible has battles and genocides to... The quran has the battles of the bible and those of mohammed, so yeah, that's more war, but still... Without the violence it's just the size of the latest issue of Spiderman? It's hard to believe... Though putting it to the test would probably end up as a whole new charge or trial...

But I guess it's what implied that is insulting: because it has violent chapters about slaying the infidels, the religion is bellicose towards infidels, always has been, still is today, there is no other explanation to what is written, the muslims themselves say that the Quran is the word of god.

Last Wilders Fairy Tale unrelated to the trial but nice for perspective: "The Left-Wing parties have invited all these immigrant workers and Muslims to our country, want them to stay, and want all us Dutch People to adapt to the immigrants."
Truth: Dutch workers successfully won their rights to proper payment for their jobs in the 60-70's, the Conservative Confessionals and Conservative Liberals obliged the employers union to hire foreigners who could do the jobs cheaper and the employers did so- there they came, the Greeks, Turks, Moroccans and Italians. The left-wing parties (i.e. pro-employees-rights) were adamantly opposed but did not have a parliament majority at the time. Conclusion: conservative Right is to blame for immigration. However even if powerless to stop the immigration, the left-wing parties are humane and said "if they come, let's be good hosts" which was also kind of neglected.
To get to the problems faces nowadays, it can almost entirely be attributed to the Confessional-Conservatives (CDA) and the Conservative Liberals. the liberal-socialists and the liberal democrats certainly had their roles thereafter in subsequent governments, but the first stone was cast by those who now blame the liberals and socialists, of which half the parties did either not exist at the time, or have never been in a government coalition. Nowadays, the liberal and socialist parties are not opposed to a normal amount of immigration but are opposed of scapegoating and discriminating ethnic minorities. Wilders blows this out of proportion by saying liberals and socialists actually PLAN to have a lot of immigrants. This is a fiction, because even to these parties, there are limits. Especially since they are also (in varying degrees) environmentalist: too many people is bad for nature.

Basically Geert Wilders is scapegoating with reckless abandon and will only make things worse for this country.



He could probably sue me (and lose) for a few things I wrote here.