Goin’ to court

13 09 2009

A date has been set, and Geert Wilders is going to court. From Expatica.com:

A court in the Netherlands has ordered far-right politician Geert Wilders to stand trial on 20 January 2010. The leader of the Freedom Party is charged with inciting discrimination and hatred with his statements about Islam and Muslims.

The Netherlands – A court in the Netherlands has ordered far-right politician Geert Wilders to stand trial on 20 January 2010.

The leader of the Freedom Party is charged with inciting discrimination and hatred with his statements about Islam and Muslims.
In an interview in the conservative De Telegraaf newspaper, Wilders says it’s regrettable he has to face trial for what he says are merely political statements.

The lawyer defending him is the well-known Amsterdam attorney Bram Moszkowicz.

Wilders says he is certain he will be acquitted.

Radio Netherlands / Expatica

Read it here.




7 responses

17 09 2009

Justice is coming.

It should be pointed out that the prosecutors found cause under Dutch Law, the High-Court which is fiercly independant from political interference chose to investigate and then confirmed that the prosecutors are correct.

The fact is that Wilders has more than likely broke the law and he is spreading bigoted hatred.

His own actions are more than questionable. He has time and time again talked about freedom, such as freedom of speech ‘no matter what’ and yet he has carefully avoided being taken to task over it. In the beginning of this year in Holland we had the discussion on the subject of holocaust denial. Now logically to not be seen as a hypocrit, Wilders must support this based on his ‘no matter what’ theory. Since then, he has used the excuse of personal security to avoid being involved in any debate and as simply avoided commenting on the issue. Why? Go and check out his “next best favourite country” and were he visits on a regular basis (public record).

His other “freedom” problem (remembering the name of his party as well) is that being a member of the party is not a very “free” activity. There is no election of leadership and choice in party manifesto at all, in fact any questioning results in instant dismissal. No freedom of speech within, let alone ‘no matter what”.

We can all look forward to the preacher of hate to be found guilty and banned from Dutch and European politics and perhaps then many can get along with living their normal lives.

17 09 2009
walker morrow

You may well be right about Wilders’ character. I’m not here to defend his actions, or his character, not really. I’m just concerned about the fact that a Dutch MP is being brought to trial because of something that he said ( or put on film, or wrote in a newspaper ). That concerns me. And I think it should be concerning to all freedom-loving people. Not because of the man involved, necessarily, but because of the nature of the trial that he is being dragged into.

17 09 2009

I have an opinion about the man but as this item is about the court case and the freedom issue I also have a strong opinion.

Were is the line drawn between rules that allow freedom of speech and then rules about inciting hate – there has to be, I think Dutch law has already got it defined and that is why he is being charged (and will be found guilty).

I have absolutely no problem with someone expressing an opinion, I have no problem with people liking or even “hating” someone but what I do have a problem with, and the Dutch government agrees as well, is that when you put any hatred into the public sphere and target it to a community collectively it becomes incitement mixed with bigotry and that is a crime. People, especially with a position of public trust (such as a member of public office) are especially resonsible. Under Dutch Law, he is in what is designated as a “position of trust” and thus must, if found guilty, get the maximum of whatever punishemnt is applicable.

17 09 2009
walker morrow

Well, I can see what you’re saying, but I actually disagree with all hate speech laws. Not because I necessarily condone people expressing hatred towards certain groups; just because I think it’s the wrong way to punish them for it.

I think that people who express hatred should be ostracised, and condemned for it, and I think that they should recieve the full brunt of public opinion, but I don’t think that it’s a matter for the state to get involved in. Partially because I think that once the State gets involved in policing hatred, then it will be backing up that policing with a certain definition of ‘hatred’ that could very well be subject to change, and which could very easily be used to actually suit the purposes of hateful people. Also because I think that by nature, hate speech laws are discriminatory, because they place certain groups in a protected status, case by case ( although the group in question changes with each case ). Furthermore, I think they are discriminatory to the extent that I think they make the assumption that certain groups are not capable of defending themselves. Surely Muslims are capable of defending themselves from one Dutch MP. He’s only one man after all, you know?

17 09 2009

Interesting comments there Walker and they have merrit. Though I still disagree with you, I think they are worth considering.

I think my view is that you have to have confidence in your legal system and that the laws be correctly established to protect all groups from what is the abuse of those in public office, which for my part is the important factor. The laws should be there to protect against coordinated acts of hatred and from those abusing their status – which I do think Wilders is doing. Perhaps, with th basis of what you said, I would be inclined to ensure that the laws certainly reflect specific cases and certainly that it represents group/communit “X” and not specific groups to ensure that it is not only for certain groups.

Good discussion here.

17 09 2009
walker morrow

O.K. – I think I get what you’re saying there. And I think I agree to an extent: laws should be put in place that make sure that the people are protected from the people in public office, should the people in public office be abusing their authority.

I think my disagreement only comes in the form of a disagreement with hate-speech laws themselves, because I tend to think that they actually provide a way for those in public office ( or those in the courts ) to abuse their authority, if they want to. It provides a way for them to do so.

Yes – this is a good discussion we’ve got going here!

13 08 2010

This is atrocious. It is tyrannical. I only found out about Geert Wilders about a week ago, by accident searching out facts about Mohammad and what the Quran commands about killing infidels. There is a media blackout here (USA), what little bit is given to Mr. Wilder that I’ve seen (one interview) was insulting, unfair and short shrift. I was ashamed of the host. Geert Wilders is to me, a hero – courageous, logical, kind, ultimately fair. How is reporting the truth bigoted? should we ignore our own danger, not speak about the threat to our lives, which is spoken by those who are followers of a murderer and profess murderous intent so clearly in their own words, and the words of Allah and his prophet? Is this ‘pursuit of happiness’ and ‘life and liberty’ when they are intoning, screaming, our imminent death to be acceptable, in our constitution? I see his film just last Friday, and although I was already well-familiarized with these diabolical precepts of Islam, will never be the same. Geert Wilders did a brilliant thing. And no Westerner says one word. It is genius. Why is everybody (the media) ignoring it, and why are certain leaders and members of Dutch parliament acting so upset about the film itself? Are they against the truth being aired? What they should be upset about are the facts of Islam’s doctrine which Fitna introduces to the free world’s naive trusting, ignorant infidels, telling in the Quran’s own words. There is no other ‘interpretation’ which can say ‘kill infidels wherever you find them’, ‘slit their throats’ ‘strike their heads’ ‘live with them in peace for a time…’ does not mean just that, over and over, many examples provided by the prophet himself. Now, its not just that Islam’s holy book and holy man Mohammed say to do those things, but that many Muslims are doing them, not only in their own countries, but in ours, and what they say (my Muslim ‘husband’ who also said this) are not just idle words, but threats, which are acted on, proven over and over again. That makes them criminals. (Even if they don’t carry out their threats to kill us, the threat itself is a crime, last time I checked…) so why are we standing aside, letting Geert take the abuse he is dealt not only by the Muslim community in his own land, but by his supposed ‘fellow Dutchmen’ of the free world? Why is he who is altruistic in alerting and exposing for us all who are unaware of much of these truths being prosecuted, and not the criminals who threaten his life, and others’ lives? Why should he have to be protected from their murderous intentions, in his own country? Why are they allowed to do this to free people in their own land? Why? Geert Wilders is just showing us where their toxic poisonous intentions derive from, from their holy book the Quran, in its own words, and from the Imam’s own words, calling for our destruction as a people and a culture. Their doctrine is outright hateful and intolerant of any freedom to think and act outside of the Islamic doctrines, and we are not Muslim for the most part, so the conclusion we have to draw, is to believe they are serious, and I do, as they swear by their mother’s lives they mean every word and their acts show and prove beyond any shadow of doubt that they obediently intend to follow through if they are able. Why should we continue to make it so easy for them to destroy what we have built and what we believe should be our rights? What our forefathers fought so hard for, and would die all over again if they saw what we have succumbed to – the cowardly fear of offending our avowed enemies, by reporting and talking about their own desire/intent/commands to destroy us? and the Muslims complain they have ‘been offended’!! what is offensive to them about their own religion? What is offensive to them to hear the truth about their book’s teachings outside of their mosque, out in the free open air, where everybody can hear it? Why are they offended about the truth? They know the truth, yet, don’t want the rest of the world (us infidels) to know exactly what they believe, because then, being on to them, their religious goal taught in the Koran cannot be achieved: everyone who refuses to bow to Allah and follow and revere Mohammed, killed – which is what it says clearly. Deception is paramount to achieve this, and intimidation. Lying is not only common but encouraged and actually necessary to achieve their goals, because if we knew what the Koran/quran commands them to do, and how they are told to achieve this, we would take their threats as the declarations of war that they are. Why is it now ‘hate’ speech to report the truth? And it is not hate threats to declare death to us infidels, screaming that they will dominate us in the end? Those who say this is ‘offensive’ are understating the case. We should be frightened, not only offended. and the Muslims who say they are ‘offended’ by the truth of their religion being exposed to outsiders, reported by enlightened infidels, well, sorry, your game of lies to cover the truth and your taqia (deliberate deception instructed by Mohammad in order to ‘fool’ us stupid infidels) is up. That and only that is what Muslims find ‘offensive’. They know all the rest, these facts and more, and have not so far found any of the Quran’s coersive inhumane evil offensive. Everybody needs to know the facts of the Quran and Mohammed’s life, its readily available. It should not be kept secret, and indeed, how can it be, when Muslims who are obedient to it’s tenets and doctrines are out in our countries declaring our deaths? And what about the little children here in the West who are being indoctrinated with Quranic racism and death-dealing, is that what the West thinks falls under ‘pursuit of happiness’ and ‘their business’? For a Dane to draw a picture of a man who was a criminal in every area, and to be targeted by those Muslims in their streets screaming ‘We Want Danish Blood!’, who is dangerous? For a man to make a film (Theo van Gogh) about the oppression of women in Islam to be viciously murdered by a Muslim for exposing this oppression, and it be soft pedaled by the Western media, ‘because he offended’ the Muslims by speaking about that truth, and now they are coddled because…of what? We don’t want to ‘offend’ them any more with the facts, or – we are afraid of them to that extent? If we are really afraid, and from what I know, we should be, we should only seek out the facts and deal straightforwardly and forget finally about ‘offending’ those who still hold strongly to this murderous doctrine which is the penultimate expression of brutal intolerance and hatred – not only for us Westerners and non-Muslims, but their ‘own’ fellow Muslims.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: