Geert Wilders Found “Not Guilty” In Victory For Free Speech

Post Reply New Topic

http://blogs.forbes.com/abigailesman/2011/06/23/geert-wilders-found-not-guilty-in-victory-for-free-speech

Geert Wilders, Holland’s most controversial political figure, has been found “not guilty” after a lengthy judicial process in which he had been accused of fomenting hate against Muslims. Wilders, 47, has called the Koran “fascist” and compared it to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which is banned in the Netherlands. His film “Fitna,” which juxtaposes footage of Islamic terrorist attacks and warns of the dangers of Islamism, propelled him to international renown even before it was made: Dutch officials attempted to censor the movie, and protests against Wilders were held in a number of Muslim countries. Ironically, once the film actually appeared (aired on You Tube when no Dutch broadcaster would touch it), the response was minimal: that night, only a handful — less than 20 — of Dutch Muslims protested in the Hague.

Speaking at the trial, according to Bloomberg, Judge Marcel van Oosten reprimanded the politician for speaking in “a hurtful and also shocking way,” but determined that, “in the broadest context [...] you have to be able to propagate the message of such a film.” The court, according to Dutch press reports, further found that Wilders’ remarks and actions had been not against Muslims themselves, but against certain principles of Islam, and therefore do not constitute “hate speech” but are part of a “general debate” about values, morals, and culture.

Wilders is an extremely popular figure in the Netherlands and has a strong following abroad as well, largely for his defense of free speech, and his conviction that Muslim immigrants to the West cannot and should not be allowed to change the democratic principles of the countries and societies that host them. While even the public defender’s office has previously requested he be cleared of all charges, the plaintiffs in the case are now considering bringing the issue to the UN and European courts.

For anyone who believes in the sanctity of free expression, such an action suggests a true threat to democracy that must not be allowed. For the moment, however, the findings in the Wilders case are reassurance that the ideals of the Enlightenment and of all democratic people stand strong.

Fine, but don't mistake Wilders for a friend of the Enlightenment. He'll gladly trample on freedoms with which he disagrees.

Wilders is now in a position of supporting the government from parliament. Certain positions the government are taking on certain subjects are bad for personal freedom and privacy. Besides calling to ban the Koran is not a really 'free speech-principle'.

What most people forget is that with values like freedom of speech and democracy there come other things like responsibility, carefulness and respecting minorities. I hope all parties will respect those values as well.

Geert Wilders has the tendency to use facts and present them in a way that can be rude and and problematic. Also he has no real solutions. That is his 'problem'.

He wants to ban the Quran in the same way that Mein Kampf is "banned" in the Netherlands.

The right to "trample" verbally or philosophically is what free speech is all about. Pleasant free speech needs no protection. Ugly, hateful, grotesque free speech is what requires protection.

Short of inciting a riot or panic any speech should not be restricted (in the public domain). Overt acts of violence can and will be dealt with forcefully. That is what Law and Order are all about.

If you want to curtail (private) free speech do it in on your turf and nowhere else.

ruveyn

I am pretty sure muslims have banned the christian bible and the jewish tora in some of their countries so what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Some muslim islamist extermists will catch him or his bodyguards slipping and will kill him or get him and a crowd of innocents in bomb attack they would take out a whole city block if they have too to smite their enemies of their twisted version of islam.

Last edited by Todesking on 25 Jun 2011, 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Huh? Trample away, IDGAS, I support all kinds of freedom. Wilders wants more restrictions, but only on people he doesn't like.

Does this even go so far as bullying people individually for their beliefs and using intimidation tactics but avoiding overt threats or harm?

No threats. That is assault. On overt action which is a felony. Insults, however are permitted.

Example: the following is out of bounds: "You n****r lover, I will bust your head!". The following is in bounds: "You n****r lover."


ruveyn

What if you got random, but quite serious abuse from people in your community for something you'd said, did or are - I'm especially thinking of cases whereby you dissent from the majority, or have exposed wrongdoing.

Put up with it or move.

ruveyn