http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11464025
The Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders has gone on trial in Amsterdam accused of inciting hatred against Muslims.
"Mr Wilders, whose statements have included comparing the Koran with Hitler's Mein Kampf, told the court freedom of expression was on trial.
If found guilty, he faces a maximum sentence of a year in jail.
Mr Wilders' Freedom Party is the third biggest in the Netherlands after June's elections, and is expected to play a key role in the next parliament.
Prosecutors have brought five charges of inciting hatred and discrimination, and the trial will scrutinise statements he made between 2006 and 2008.
....
any thoughts?
my thought is that if Trent Reznor founded a political party, it would be like this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom#.27Infiltration.27
In January 2010, Karen Geurtsen, a Dutch journalist from the magazine HP/De Tijd, revealed a painful breach of security in the PVV and especially around leader Geert Wilders. The Party had often been depicted as a fortress, having no members and avoiding the 'left-wing' Dutch press. In 2009, Geurtsen spent four months working for the party undercover, posing as an intern, "to find out what the party is really like". Afterwards, she claimed that she had enjoyed unchecked access to Wilders. "I could have killed him", were the first words of the article that she published about this operation. She said she had had "dozens" of opportunities to take his life.[88]
On Twitter, Geert Wilders responded that "the left-wing media had sunk to new depths". Geurtsen insisted that she infiltrated the party "as a service to potential PVV voters who want to know more". She reinforced the general image that the PVV revolved around just one person, Wilders.[89]
Originally posted by generalissimoThere is no assault on freedom of speech. Inciting hatred is forbidden for quite a long time. For as long as we have freedom of speech.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11464025
[b]The Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders has gone on trial in Amsterdam accused of inciting hatred against Muslims.
"Mr Wilders, whose statements have included comparing the Koran with Hitler's Mein Kampf, told the court freedom of expression was on trial.
If found guilty, he faces a maximum s ...[text shortened]... trial will scrutinise statements he made between 2006 and 2008.
....
any thoughts?[/b]
Originally posted by ThomasterI believe it is easy to get carried away in this business of "inciting hatred".
There is no assault on freedom of speech. Inciting hatred is forbidden for quite a long time. For as long as we have freedom of speech.
I haven't seen any act by this individual which could be qualified as "inciting hatred", his opposition is to islam, not necessarily any group of people.
This isn't any more hateful than say dawkins' the god delusion.
Originally posted by ThomasterSo if you were a judge in Germany around 1940 and someone was on trial for "inciting hatred" because he accused the Nazis of planning Genocide against Jews, would you find that person guilty of inciting hatred?
There is no assault on freedom of speech. Inciting hatred is forbidden for quite a long time. For as long as we have freedom of speech.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraseveral people filed a case against him.
The charges are pretty hopeless, the DA didn't even want to take Wilders to trial but had to because several people filed a case against him.
Didn't they think it could backfire? (if their intention was to shut him up)
Originally posted by techsouthIf you could prove that this was the aim of Nazi's, then no. In the case of the Nazi's that would be pretty easy. A Nazi by definition subscribed to the party ideology (or they wouldn't be a part of the party) which was quite clear on how Jews would be treated.
So if you were a judge in Germany around 1940 and someone was on trial for "inciting hatred" because he accused the Nazis of planning Genocide against Jews, would you find that person guilty of inciting hatred?
The difference between your example and Muslims is that Muslims, unlike Nazis are a very diverse group, with varying aims. A small majority within this group which is bent on destroying the West is no excuse for using deliberately inflammatory speech that target Muslims as a whole.
That said, I'm no expert on Wilders and I don't know what he said exactly so I do not know whether or not he should be convicted for this.
As a final note, if you find that laws like this undermine the freedom of speech, then you are against libel laws as well. The difference between this and libel is that libel targets one or at least a very limited number of people, while these laws target the same behaviour, only aimed at a large part of the population.
Originally posted by generalissimohttp://binnenland.nieuws.nl/527223
I believe it is easy to get carried away in this business of "inciting hatred".
I haven't seen any act by this individual which could be qualified as "inciting hatred", his opposition is to islam, not necessarily any group of people.
This isn't any more hateful than say dawkins' the god delusion.
"Ze zijn niet gekomen om te integreren, maar om ons te onderwerpen en te overheersen", zei Wilders.
Volgens Wilders ''raken we ons land kwijt aan Marokkaans tuig dat scheldend, spugend en onschuldige mensen in elkaar rammend door het leven gaat''.
Which means (my translation):
''They haven't come to integrate, but to subject and dominate us,'' Wilders said.
According to Wilders we ''lose our country to Maroccan scum that scolds, spits, and beat innocent people''.
Originally posted by ThomasterThese are views which I don't share with Wilders, but I believe he has a right to say what he wants without being charged with "inciting hatred".
http://binnenland.nieuws.nl/527223
"Ze zijn niet gekomen om te integreren, maar om ons te onderwerpen en te overheersen", zei Wilders.
Volgens Wilders ''raken we ons land kwijt aan Marokkaans tuig dat scheldend, spugend en onschuldige mensen in elkaar rammend door het leven gaat''.
Which means (my translation):
''They haven't come to integrat ...[text shortened]... lose our country to Maroccan scum that scolds, spits, and beat innocent people''.
Originally posted by generalissimoI think the trial just serves to enforce his anti-establishment reputation. But apparently the people who filed the case didn't agree.
[b] several people filed a case against him.
Didn't they think it could backfire? (if their intention was to shut him up)[/b]