Geert Wilders faces trial

jverne

jverne

Newbie
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,302
Reaction score
0
The limits of free speech and Dutch tolerance are to be tested in a court case after judges ruled yesterday that a right-wing MP who compared the Koran to Mein Kampf should be put on trial for inciting hatred and discrimination.
Click to expand...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5563071.ece

For an European he is somewhat more radical...but i haven't heard him shout death threats and similar rhetoric.
IMO this trial is unjustified.
 
from the burka threads to now this

stop keepings things subtle and post a "the burkha thread" and done
 
<RJMC> said:
from the burka threads to now this

stop keepings things subtle and post a "the burkha thread" and done
Click to expand...

Jesus_facepalm.jpg



So from now on...everything i post in the politics sections will be about burkhas? oh boy
 
I dont know anything about this film and dutch law. Seems really ****ed up. But if a court ruled he could be prosecuted for this I would guess he broke some kind of law. If he didn't and the courts are just ****ing with him because he talked bad about muslims then their legal system is ****ed up.

But I suggest before you jump to any conclusions you do a bit more research, I'm not really interested in doing that for you and nothing is ever as black and white as one article tries to paint it.
 
Compared it to Mein Kampf? Big deal... that shouldn't be a criminal offense.

People are always calling each others nazis here in the states. It's absolutely retarded yes.... criminal... no.
 
“The court considers this so insulting for Muslims that it is in the public interest to prosecute Wilders,” a summary of the decision said. “By attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion, he also insulted Muslim believers. In a democratic system, hate speech is considered to be so serious that it is in the general interest to draw a clear line.”
Click to expand...

What a load of shit. They're making an example out of him to try and keep people from offending him? **** that.
 
I'd hate to side with that racist nutter, but the court's justification irritates me to no end.

“The court considers this so insulting for Muslims that it is in the public interest to prosecute Wilders,” a summary of the decision said. “By attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion, he also insulted Muslim believers. In a democratic system, hate speech is considered to be so serious that it is in the general interest to draw a clear line.”
Click to expand...

So one is not allowed to attack religious symbols? So if I question the bible I have made myself guilty of hate speech?
 
What? He's on trial? I loved him in Blazing Saddles.

But seriously folks, this guy sounds like the Glenn Beck of Europe. Between this and the anti-minaret thing in Switzerland I'm starting to think you guys aren't in much better shape than us over here.

@monkey, he's not "questioning" it, he's demonizing anyone who follows it. You have to draw the line somewhere.
 
the movie exposes how "some" women are treated by male members of their own Families,I guess they can't handle the truth.
 
I'm going to have to side with jverne and unezero on this one. This trial is just absurd, and laws of this nature are complete nonsense. You should be able to say whatever the hell you want about anybody and any idea or religion. Nobody has the right not to be offended. Everyone has the right to offend.
 
The Monkey said:
So one is not allowed to attack religious symbols? So if I question the bible I have made myself guilty of hate speech?
Click to expand...

This pretty much. I disagree with the guy's view but why should he be made to stand trial for attacking the Quran ?
 
No Limit said:
I dont know anything about this film and dutch law. Seems really ****ed up. But if a court ruled he could be prosecuted for this I would guess he broke some kind of law. If he didn't and the courts are just ****ing with him because he talked bad about muslims then their legal system is ****ed up.

But I suggest before you jump to any conclusions you do a bit more research, I'm not really interested in doing that for you and nothing is ever as black and white as one article tries to paint it.
Click to expand...

I have done some research and i conclude this trial is completely absurd. He has done nothing so serious to constitute as a criminal act. Read Krynn's post or the article.
He offended muslims, that's basically it.
I haven't once heard him talk about killing anyone the closest he came was deporting. This man is far less radical than you think it is. Glen Beck is worse IMO, he's a total paid wacko.
 
Shakermaker said:
No, he is not. He is a radical. But even radicals should be able to say what they want, so imo this trial is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Yeah a radical for our standards...compared to some imams he's a pussy. I don't really remember him preaching any violence for that matter.
 
MuToiD_MaN said:
But seriously folks, this guy sounds like the Glenn Beck of Europe. Between this and the anti-minaret thing in Switzerland I'm starting to think you guys aren't in much better shape than us over here.
Click to expand...

I still disagree with the courts taking him to trial. As much as I absolutely despise Glenn Beck, I would never support a government decision to put him on trial for the things he says.
 
I think it depends what he said, do we have a source for that?

Isn't he the guy who called for the deportation of all Muslims? In my opinion, that's borderline in terms of what is acceptable in terms of free expression. whilst not shouting 'fire' in a crowded building.
 
This trial is bullshit, but Wilders should be prosecuted. For his hair.
 
Solaris said:
Isn't he the guy who called for the deportation of all Muslims? In my opinion, that's borderline in terms of what is acceptable in terms of free expression. whilst not shouting 'fire' in a crowded building.
Click to expand...

Don't be stupid. Calling for deportation of Muslims isn't hurting anyone, and certainly isn't anywhere near the line of what is unacceptable speech. If it were then we would have several loud mouthed republicans here in america locked up for wanting Mexicans and dirty liberals deported.
 
Krynn72 said:
Don't be stupid. Calling for deportation of Muslims isn't hurting anyone, and certainly isn't anywhere near the line of what is unacceptable speech. If it were then we would have several loud mouthed republicans here in america locked up for wanting Mexicans dirty liberals deported.
Click to expand...

Agreed... what anti-freedom crack are you smoking Solaris?
 
hate crime laws are not made equal in different parts of the world. what is permissible in one country may not be permissible in another. freedom of speech is constitutionallhy protected in the US, not so in most other countries. for example the canadian charter of rights allows for prosecution of people who advocate violence towards a particular group. this is as far as I know, not a crime in the US. however this incident would most likely not be protected by hate crimes law so it's probably a non case in canada ..but obviously it's enough to convict in thye netherlands. so unless we have court transcrpts and fully understand the laws he was breaking we can only compare this case to our own experiences which isnt a good thing to do because our experience is outside of our expeeriences with our own laws.. our opinions are meaningless because of it. anyways admittedly this sounds insane however the court must uphold the law without bias.
 
CptStern said:
hate crime laws are not made equal in different parts of the world. what is permissible in one country may not be permissible in another. freedom of speech is constitutionallhy protected in the US, not so in most other countries. for example the canadian charter of rights allows for prosecution of people who advocate violence towards a particular group. this is as far as I know, not a crime in the US. however this incident would most likely not be protected by hate crimes law so it's probably a non case in canada ..but obviously it's enough to convict in thye netherlands. so unless we have court transcrpts and fully understand the laws he was breaking we can only compare this case to our own experiences which isnt a good thing to do because our experience is outside of our expeeriences with our own laws.. our opinions are meaningless because of it. anyways admittedly this sounds insane however the court must uphold the law without bias.
Click to expand...

Advocation of violence towards a particular group is ABSOLUTELY a crime in the United States.
 
if I say "you should go out and kill jews" that's inciting violence. if I say "the enemy is evil, we should kill them because they are evil" then that's not inciting because it's covered by freedom of speech. one is telling them what to do and the other is suggesting what they should do. however this is still incitement in canada
 
CptStern said:
if I say "you should go out and kill jews" that's inciting violence. if I say "the enemy is evil, we should kill them because they are evil" then that's not inciting because it's covered by freedom of speech. one is telling them what to do and the other is suggesting what they should do. however this is still incitement in canada
Click to expand...

"The Enemy" is so incredibly vague...
 
Wilders published his political manifesto, called Klare Wijn ("Clear Wine"), in March 2005.[20] It received a mixed reception in public polls, with 53% calling it "implausible" and 47% more supportive.[32] The program proposed ten key points to be implemented:

* Considerable reduction of taxes and state regulations.
* Replacement of the present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, by a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions.
* Reduction of the influence of the European Union, which may no longer be expanded with new member states, especially Turkey; the European Parliament will be abolished. Dutch financial contributions to the European Union should be reduced by billions of euros.
* An immigration ban of five years for immigrants from non-western countries. Foreign residents will no longer have the right to vote in municipal elections.
* A five-year ban on the founding of mosques and Islamic schools; a permanent ban on preaching in any language other than Dutch. Foreign imams will not be allowed to preach. Radical mosques will be closed and radical Muslims will be expelled.
* Restoration of educational standards, with an emphasis on the educational value of the family.
* Introduction of binding referenda and elected mayors, chiefs of police and prime ministers.
* Introduction of minimum penalties, and higher maximum penalties; introduction of administrative detention for terrorist suspects. Street terrorism will be punished by boot camps and denaturalisation and deportation of immigrant offenders.
* Restoration of respect and better rewards for teachers, policemen, health care workers and military personnel.
* Instead of complicated reorganisation, a more accessible and humane health care system, especially for elderly citizens.
Click to expand...

Radical...yes. But nowhere near to the likes of Hitler, Bin Laden, some muslim imams,...
 
Sulkdodds said:
This trial is bullshit, but Wilders should be prosecuted. For his hair.
Click to expand...

Mark my words: in ten years, sporting an Amadeus will be totally rad. As will be saying 'rad'.

Also: this trial is bullshit. The guy's a clown but being hilarious shouldn't be illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top