Pages: 1

 

2010-01-20 18:54:21
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5872

Controversial Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders appeared in court Wednesday on charges of inciting discrimination and hatred that relate in part to his much-criticized film about Islam.

Wednesday's session at the Court of Amsterdam was a pre-trial hearing and a full trial was due to begin later this year. A court spokesman said the hearing was expected to last one day but could stretch into Thursday.

Wilders, who heads the Dutch Party for Freedom, said he has done nothing wrong. "I will fight," he promised in a statement Tuesday on the party's Web site.

Prosecutors initially decided not to pursue the case, saying in June 2008 that Wilders' statements were not liable to punishment, the Public Prosecutions Service said. They said that even though Wilders' comments were "defamatory and hurtful to a great number of Muslims," they fell within the limits of free speech.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with that decision and ordered that Wilders be prosecuted.

In addition to inciting discrimination and hatred, Wilders is also charged with offending a group of people, which relates to his comparison of Islam to Nazism.

"According to Wilders, the truth about Islam must be made known, even if it is painful and unpleasant for certain people," his statement on his party's site said.

The charges relate to comments Wilders made in a variety of media between 2006 and 2008. They include an October 2006 interview with the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant in which he said he wanted to stop the "tsunami of Islamisation," and another in September 2007 with Radio Netherlands in which he said the Quran should be banned.

Wilders' film "Fitna," which he released online in March 2008 to international outcry, is also part of the charges against him. The film features disturbing images of terrorist acts superimposed over verses from the Quran in order to paint Islam as a threat to Western society.

After its release, the movie drew complaints from the European Union and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as well as concern from the United States.

Wilders was denied entry into Britain in February 2009 when he flew there to screen the film.

Wednesday's pre-trial review does not cover the merits of the case, but will allow both sides to prepare for a hearing later in the year which will deal with the merits, the Public Prosecutions Service said.

If found guilty, Wilders faces up to two years in prison and a fine of up to €19,000 ($26,900) for each charge.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europ … t.wilders/
So if the Netherlands are such a free and open place why are there restrictions on free speech such as this?
2010-01-20 19:01:38
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6439|what

Macbeth wrote:

So if the Netherlands are such a free and open place why are there restrictions on free speech such as this?
Gee, idno, because of the likelihood to incite violence and riots? Discrimination and fear?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-01-20 19:02:49
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5872

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

So if the Netherlands are such a free and open place why are there restrictions on free speech such as this?
Gee, idno, because of the likelihood to incite violence and riots? Discrimination and fear?
We manage to do pretty well over here with it.
2010-01-20 19:05:25
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6809|...

appeasement
2010-01-20 19:05:47
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|5985
lol Macbeth.

Did you post this to bait half the euros/lowing?

Last edited by 13/f/taiwan (2010-01-20 19:06:06)

2010-01-21 17:38:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
hello thought crimes...

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

So if the Netherlands are such a free and open place why are there restrictions on free speech such as this?
Gee, idno, because of the likelihood to incite violence and riots? Discrimination and fear?
Imprisoning someone over a film is ridiculous.

If there is a legitimate fear that Muslims are actually so volatile that a mere film can cause a riot, then maybe they should revise their immigration policy.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-01-21 17:39:28)

2010-01-22 06:45:46
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6907|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

So if the Netherlands are such a free and open place why are there restrictions on free speech such as this?
Gee, idno, because of the likelihood to incite violence and riots? Discrimination and fear?
Imprisoning someone over a film is ridiculous.

If there is a legitimate fear that Muslims are actually so volatile that a mere film can cause a riot, then maybe they should revise their immigration policy.
Agreed. There shouldn't be a fear of violence over such things as a film/words etc.. especially when it comes to a religion in these modern times. I can understand, race/ethnicity hate speech that can cause violence etc.. but not religion. Even then, it depends on what kind of hate speech. If he's saying kill all Muslims ok I can understand a violent response from some people because that's stepping over some lines, but if he's just saying some other stuff, merely criticising the religion, then why the hell does that give them the right or a reason to act like a complete dick and incite violence/hatred of their own.
2010-01-22 08:27:13
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6576|Éire
Geert Wilders, the 'champion' of free speech and Western freedom... who supports administrative detention (internment without trial) and admires the way countries like Israel do business. He doesn't represent me or my way of life, he should stop trying to pretend he does. For the sake of free speech I hope he is cleared, but I think the man himself is a cunt. There's a fine line between free speech and incitement to violence... I believe a gentleman called Hitler used to enjoy exploiting the principle of free speech to its fullest.

Also, before all the Islam-bashers jump in, consider this - it is illegal in several countries to verbally question the holocaust. Freedom of speech indeed. One rule for one religion and another rule for everyone else?

Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-22 08:28:30)

2010-01-22 08:43:52
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6907|London, England

Braddock wrote:

Also, before all the Islam-bashers jump in, consider this - it is illegal in several countries to verbally question the holocaust. Freedom of speech indeed. One rule for one religion and another rule for everyone else?
Questioning the Holocaust and Criticising Islam are two different things anyway, although I do think the whole idea of "Holocaust denial" being illegal and to face fines/prison for it is actually fucked up. I can maybe understand countries like Germany and Poland doing it, but not others.

I do think the Holocaust is given too much attention to Jews and not enough to others though, and the figures are probably inflated abit. Something like only around half of that style of victimisation by the Nazi's were Jews yet all the attention is given to the Jews. Rather than the ethnic Slavs/Gypsies/Gays/Disabled etc.. I could probably be arrested for saying that publicly in some countries, and yep, it's fucked up.


But still. Questioning the Holocaust and criticising religions are different anyway. There's no laws saying you can't criticise Christianity/Judaism/Islam, if there were laws saying you're not allowed to say anything about Christianity or Judaism, but you are about Islam, maybe you'd have more of a case. It's sort of different like that.

The Holocaust was more of a historical even of genocide rather than blanket criticism of a religion. Holocaust Denial =/= Criticising Jews/Judaism.
2010-01-22 10:19:58
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6868|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

hello thought crimes...

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

So if the Netherlands are such a free and open place why are there restrictions on free speech such as this?
Gee, idno, because of the likelihood to incite violence and riots? Discrimination and fear?
Imprisoning someone over a film is ridiculous.

If there is a legitimate fear that Muslims are actually so volatile that a mere film can cause a riot, then maybe they should revise their immigration policy.
Not thought crimes. This comes under the same sort of bracket as libel and slander.

Do you have any problem with libel cases?
2010-01-22 11:25:51
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6576|Éire

Mekstizzle wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Also, before all the Islam-bashers jump in, consider this - it is illegal in several countries to verbally question the holocaust. Freedom of speech indeed. One rule for one religion and another rule for everyone else?
Questioning the Holocaust and Criticising Islam are two different things anyway, although I do think the whole idea of "Holocaust denial" being illegal and to face fines/prison for it is actually fucked up. I can maybe understand countries like Germany and Poland doing it, but not others.

I do think the Holocaust is given too much attention to Jews and not enough to others though, and the figures are probably inflated abit. Something like only around half of that style of victimisation by the Nazi's were Jews yet all the attention is given to the Jews. Rather than the ethnic Slavs/Gypsies/Gays/Disabled etc.. I could probably be arrested for saying that publicly in some countries, and yep, it's fucked up.


But still. Questioning the Holocaust and criticising religions are different anyway. There's no laws saying you can't criticise Christianity/Judaism/Islam, if there were laws saying you're not allowed to say anything about Christianity or Judaism, but you are about Islam, maybe you'd have more of a case. It's sort of different like that.

The Holocaust was more of a historical even of genocide rather than blanket criticism of a religion. Holocaust Denial =/= Criticising Jews/Judaism.
I know they're not the same but it still boils down to free speech and the age-old fact that if you want free speech you might have to listen to the odd idiot every now and again. You either have free speech or you don't, once you start you making exceptions here and there you're in trouble, doesn't matter what the exception relates to.
2010-01-22 12:18:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Braddock wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Also, before all the Islam-bashers jump in, consider this - it is illegal in several countries to verbally question the holocaust. Freedom of speech indeed. One rule for one religion and another rule for everyone else?
Questioning the Holocaust and Criticising Islam are two different things anyway, although I do think the whole idea of "Holocaust denial" being illegal and to face fines/prison for it is actually fucked up. I can maybe understand countries like Germany and Poland doing it, but not others.

I do think the Holocaust is given too much attention to Jews and not enough to others though, and the figures are probably inflated abit. Something like only around half of that style of victimisation by the Nazi's were Jews yet all the attention is given to the Jews. Rather than the ethnic Slavs/Gypsies/Gays/Disabled etc.. I could probably be arrested for saying that publicly in some countries, and yep, it's fucked up.


But still. Questioning the Holocaust and criticising religions are different anyway. There's no laws saying you can't criticise Christianity/Judaism/Islam, if there were laws saying you're not allowed to say anything about Christianity or Judaism, but you are about Islam, maybe you'd have more of a case. It's sort of different like that.

The Holocaust was more of a historical even of genocide rather than blanket criticism of a religion. Holocaust Denial =/= Criticising Jews/Judaism.
I know they're not the same but it still boils down to free speech and the age-old fact that if you want free speech you might have to listen to the odd idiot every now and again. You either have free speech or you don't, once you start you making exceptions here and there you're in trouble, doesn't matter what the exception relates to.
No what it boils down to is fear. What happens when someone denies the Holocaust? Nothing. It is illegal to deny the Holocaust out of guilt and nothing more I suspect.

It is illegal to bash religions (Islam) out of the fear of incitement and outrage that might follow because of it. and as far as the libel claim, was there something in the film that was not true, or was it simply offensive?

Don't remember anyone going to jail over documentaries about Christianity, I suppose this is because there wasn't any right?

Why didn't they arrest MEl Gibson and all involved for his movie The Passion of the Christ? I suppose they just didn't show it in Europe.

Last edited by lowing (2010-01-22 15:10:27)

2010-01-22 13:34:21
Ticia
Member
+73|5621
Geert Wilders is for Islam what Michael Moore was for the Bush Administration. Only difference Moore was right and Wilders isn't.

Still if we were to shut up every fool in the public eye today there would be no media around.

No one is obliged to agree with the guy or listen to what he says but in a free democracy we have to demand his right to speak is protected.
2010-01-22 13:47:24
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

hello thought crimes...

AussieReaper wrote:


Gee, idno, because of the likelihood to incite violence and riots? Discrimination and fear?
Imprisoning someone over a film is ridiculous.

If there is a legitimate fear that Muslims are actually so volatile that a mere film can cause a riot, then maybe they should revise their immigration policy.
Not thought crimes. This comes under the same sort of bracket as libel and slander.

Do you have any problem with libel cases?
Englands libel laws are ridiculous. It's become big business for your solicitors though. All the international libel cases have been going to London to plead their case. Why? Because your retarded law proclaims that the person accused of libel is guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-22 18:06:15
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Braddock wrote:

Geert Wilders, the 'champion' of free speech and Western freedom... who supports administrative detention (internment without trial) and admires the way countries like Israel do business. He doesn't represent me or my way of life, he should stop trying to pretend he does. For the sake of free speech I hope he is cleared, but I think the man himself is a cunt. There's a fine line between free speech and incitement to violence... I believe a gentleman called Hitler used to enjoy exploiting the principle of free speech to its fullest.

Also, before all the Islam-bashers jump in, consider this - it is illegal in several countries to verbally question the holocaust. Freedom of speech indeed. One rule for one religion and another rule for everyone else?
If it's any consolation, I believe that Holocaust denial should be allowed.  It's equally as ridiculous to ban that.
2010-01-22 18:11:40
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

hello thought crimes...

AussieReaper wrote:


Gee, idno, because of the likelihood to incite violence and riots? Discrimination and fear?
Imprisoning someone over a film is ridiculous.

If there is a legitimate fear that Muslims are actually so volatile that a mere film can cause a riot, then maybe they should revise their immigration policy.
Not thought crimes. This comes under the same sort of bracket as libel and slander.

Do you have any problem with libel cases?
Libel and slander apply to individuals.  They don't apply to groups -- at least, that's how it works in America.  I don't know how it specifically works in the U.K., but here, libel and slander require singling out a person or family and spreading lies about them.

Let's compare...

If Wilders called all Muslims murderers and fanatics, that's not libel or slander.

If he specifically picked out a Muslim individual and said, "This guy is a pedophile", then he could be sued for both slander and defamation of character if the claim wasn't true.

As far as I know, Wilders has said hateful things about Muslims as a group, but he has not singled out individuals and made false claims.

I don't agree with Wilders's views but I support his freedom to speak his mind, as I also support the freedom of others to condemn his speech.  Restricting and prosecuting him for speech is not warranted though.
2010-01-23 06:49:08
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6868|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

hello thought crimes...


Imprisoning someone over a film is ridiculous.

If there is a legitimate fear that Muslims are actually so volatile that a mere film can cause a riot, then maybe they should revise their immigration policy.
Not thought crimes. This comes under the same sort of bracket as libel and slander.

Do you have any problem with libel cases?
Libel and slander apply to individuals.  They don't apply to groups -- at least, that's how it works in America.  I don't know how it specifically works in the U.K., but here, libel and slander require singling out a person or family and spreading lies about them.
Precisely. That is the only difference.

Other than that it's the exact same thing.

So why is this such an outrageous concept? It's just the application of libel laws across a specific group. It's not like there are not similarly applied anti-discrimination laws applying to such groups - so group application of these concepts is nothing crazy and new.

If you've said stuff which would be considered libellous against an individual, why should it not also be considered in the same way against a group?
2010-01-23 06:54:25
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6868|SE London

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

hello thought crimes...


Imprisoning someone over a film is ridiculous.

If there is a legitimate fear that Muslims are actually so volatile that a mere film can cause a riot, then maybe they should revise their immigration policy.
Not thought crimes. This comes under the same sort of bracket as libel and slander.

Do you have any problem with libel cases?
Englands libel laws are ridiculous. It's become big business for your solicitors though. All the international libel cases have been going to London to plead their case. Why? Because your retarded law proclaims that the person accused of libel is guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around.
That't not true. The reason is because you can have separate charges for each instance where it has been said/printed.

The burden of proof is on the person who wrote/said the defamatory remarks. If they can demonstrate what they said is the case, then they are innocent. That's the way it should work. Because if you publish something defamatory about someone, you should really have checked that it is true first.

If you say bad stuff about people, you should have the proof to back it up. Otherwise the burden of proof is on the maligned party - which seems far less fair.
2010-01-24 23:02:04
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

If you've said stuff which would be considered libellous against an individual, why should it not also be considered in the same way against a group?
So I should be charged with libel if I said all Brits have dental problems?   It's an obviously false stereotype, but is it really worth taking someone to court over?

As Galt already mentioned, your country's libel laws are ridiculous enough as it is.

I recently read about the "Libel Tourist".  Some douchebag Saudi extremist has been suing various people for mentioning his connections to terror -- connections that there is actual proof for.

So basically, you guys have gone way too far in the politically correct direction.

It looks like the Netherlands is taking it well beyond the U.K. though.  Of course, I guess that's to be expected given the fact that the Netherlands has let in a very large amount of Muslims to the point that they have affected the cultural balance there.

Oh well, I hope they enjoy dhimmitude in the near future.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-01-24 23:02:33)

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard