tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post1366659084263123349..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Geert Wilders goes on trial, and so does the NetherlandsRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-25740849041963987802010-01-26T13:33:35.657+11:002010-01-26T13:33:35.657+11:00I think the Dutch law and any law that purports to...I think the Dutch law and any law that purports to criminalise "incitement to hatred and discrimination"is a very slippery slope towards thought crime. <br /><br />English common law on "incitement to violence" needs no extensions and has served the test of time IMO. If this was the operative law of Holland applicable to Wilders statements, there would be no prima facie case for a prosecution any more than John Howard's inherent discrimination and dog whistling: "We will decide who comes to this country..."<br /><br />From the link:<br />http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Amsterdam+Court+of+Appeal+orders+the+criminal+prosecution+of+the+Member+of+Parliament+of+the+Dutch+S.htm<br /><br />"The Court of Appeal has considered that the contested views of Wilders (also as shown in his movie Fitna) constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law as seen in connection with each other, both because of their contents and the method of presentation. This method of presentation is characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created. According to the Court of Appeal most statements are insulting as well since these statements substantially harm the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers. According to the Court of Appeal Wilders has indeed insulted the Islamic worshippers themselves by affecting the symbols of the Islamic belief as well."<br /><br />Really pathetic that is: "Hate is created...insulting...harm the religious esteem" <br /><br />Clearly the Dutch never had cause to look at for example, the blog comments from a multitude of people here (including yours truly) made "inciting hatred and discrimination" towards John Howard over the years, (a worthy political cause IMO that is ongoing and ends hopefully in his prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity). The big difference is that we never advocated violence against him or his supporters, and likewise nothing Wilders has said has incited violence against Muslims. The question here of course is what difference is there (in the context of political discourse/debate) between the vile despicable acts of some Muslims and the vile despicable acts of one John Howard? <br /><br />The mistake inherent in any 'incitement to hatred/discrimination' legislation is that it conflates hatred with violence, ie it criminalises a legitimate (though subjectively vile from a liberal perspective) political anti-Muslim expression. A legitimate criticism that the catholic Church may well be "evil" in the anti-condom stakes in Africa--would that be inciting hatred and discrimination for secularists to propose deporting Catholic immigrants from an African country on the basis of perceived support for anti-condom policies?<br /><br />Substitute neo-Nazi skinhead practises in Germany for example for the Muslim conduct that Wilders attacks (real or perceived)and ask: Would prosecution be valid for inciting that hatred and discrimination against Neo Nazis?<br /><br />So, we arrive at the truth of the matter for Holland, it's OK to incite hatred and discrimination against practitioners of a political ideology but not practitioners of a religious ideology. A very slippery slope indeed if the Dutch judiciary is so stupid as to convict this obnoxious person for his political convictions where he does NOT incite violence.Peter Kempnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-79192561038051622132010-01-25T02:51:30.900+11:002010-01-25T02:51:30.900+11:00@Peter Kemp: indeed, the judge may well decide tha...@Peter Kemp: indeed, the judge may well decide that Wilders' remarks are within the bounds of "political communication". This appears to be the tack that his defense will be taking. But since the comments in the complaint are made in public media, not in parliamentary discussions, and given the nature of the remarks themselves (see above), he may have gone beyond what is allowed by that protection. Apparently, there is precedent.DEENhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01038312556912179499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-34028040229452537152010-01-25T02:02:18.718+11:002010-01-25T02:02:18.718+11:00@Dick Alstein: you're right, people from outsi...@Dick Alstein: you're right, people from outside of the Netherlands focus way too much of Fitna, and don't usually know much of the context. <br /><br />However, Fitna is definitely a part of the case against Wilders, as you will find a description of it in the list of charges that Sigmund linked. However, Fitna is in my opinion probably one of the least damning parts of the complaint.<br /><br />Here's a few more things that Wilders has said in the Dutch media that are included in the complaint. Hopefully that gives the people from outside the Netherlands a bit more context. Translated by me from the official summons at http://pvv.nl/images/PDF/dagvaarding%20NL.pdf:<br /><i>"I'm fed up with Islam: no more Muslim immigrants. I'm fed up with the worship of Allah and Mohamed in the Netherlands: no more mosques. I'm fed up with the Quran in the Netherlands: ban that fascist book.<br /><br />Enough is enough."</i><br /><br /><i>"Everybody adapts to our dominant culture. Those who don't, won't be here twenty years from now. They'll be kicked out of the country."</i><br /><br /><i>"Those Moroccan boys are really violent. They beat up people because of their sexual orientation. I have never used violence."</i><br /><br /><i>"We want enough. Close the borders, no more islamists into the Netherlands, many Muslims out of the Neterlands, denationalization of Islamic criminals."</i><br /><br /><i>"Former chief of the Mossad Efraim Halevy says that the Third World War has started. I'm not using those words, but it is accurate."</i>DEENhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01038312556912179499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-79292381169150611512010-01-24T03:42:47.191+11:002010-01-24T03:42:47.191+11:00Two distinctions seem to be forgotten by many comm...Two distinctions seem to be forgotten by many commenters, here and on Jerry Coyne blog.<br /><br />The first is that Wilders is not on trial for Fitna, but for other things he said.<br /><br />The second point, as Drosera already remarked, is that the question is whether Wilders incited hatred against a group. Criticizing religious views is protected by the right to free speech, even if you would call those views "vile", compare them to Nazism, or any other strong term. But if you apply the same label to the _people_ who hold such views, you are crossing a line.Dick Alsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-6799575477575114702010-01-23T08:12:06.346+11:002010-01-23T08:12:06.346+11:00Deen said:
"The majority of the complaint con...Deen said:<br />"The majority of the complaint consists of accusations that Wilders is inciting the breaking of these laws.[ie discrimination] I think a decent case can be made for this."<br /><br />Perhaps not. In an Australian context, with various anti-discrimination laws, possibly compatible with the Netherlands, I'd say the case is weak. If as some Islamaphobes say here that immigration of Muslims should be stopped, should that attract a prosecution? I'd say a definite no to that, and even if it did our implied rights of political communication in the constitution would say otherwise. (Lange v ABC; Theophaneous v Herald & Weekly Times)<br /><br />Wilders may well be accused of being a virulent racist/Islamophobe but that in itself is not a crime: Fitna shows selected incitement to violence on the part of certain Islamic rabble rousers, but calls for restrictions or cessation of immigration of a minority (Islamic) is not prima facie evidence on incitement to break discrimination laws. It is legitimate "political communication" (and arguably applicable in Holland) however offensive it may be to Muslims and liberally minded multiculturalists.<br /><br />As for incitement to violence, there is non in Fitna (except as above from the selected Islamic rabble rousers) and there is no evidence that I've seen yet emanating from Wilders on that front, but I stand to be corrected.Peter Kempnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28994241227762944732010-01-22T02:58:38.279+11:002010-01-22T02:58:38.279+11:00While I have no sympathy at all for Islam, or any ...While I have no sympathy at all for Islam, or any other religion, it should be noted that Mr. Wilders is not on trial for criticizing Islam, but for inciting hatred against a minority.<br /><br />Wilders has said quite a few nasty things about Muslims living in the Netherlands, which, if they had been Jews, would have made him sound like a rabid anti-semite.<br /><br />And while he is in my opinion correct in that the Koran in some ways resembles Mein Kampf, the same can be said about the Bible, but Mr. Wilders will never do so. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I don't think he should have been put on trial, and I hope that he will be acquitted. <br /><br />Sadly, he will win either way. If he gets fined he will be seen as a martyr for free speech, if he is acquitted it will be perceived that everything he said was okay.Droserahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07674382873433807855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-91001806841059234622010-01-22T02:48:00.553+11:002010-01-22T02:48:00.553+11:00Russell, I think most of us would agree that makin...Russell, I think most of us would agree that making Fitna should not be a crime. The court case against him is, however, based on a lot more than Fitna. Perhaps someone can do a translation of the charges into English (its a scanned PDF).<br />http://pvv.nl/images/PDF/dagvaarding%20NL.pdf<br />There is a distinction between incitement to racial violence and plain and simple racism. In the UK both white racists and islamic fundamentalists have fallen foul of the former law.Sigmundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00262375488263086844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-9888088642378461962010-01-22T02:43:04.532+11:002010-01-22T02:43:04.532+11:00I'm not sure why the complaint against Wilders...I'm not sure why the complaint against Wilders included insulting Muslims based on their religion. I don't think our law includes the right to not be offended. I imagine that this complaint will probably be thrown out rather quickly. <br /><br />However, we do have a law that says that you have the right to not be discriminated against based on ethnicity or religion. The majority of the complaint consists of accusations that Wilders is inciting the breaking of these laws. I think a decent case can be made for this.<br /><br />Fitna is indeed a part of the complaint, but I think it is probably one the least damning parts. Comments that the borders should be closed for Muslims and "non-Western" immigrants, or that Muslims should be deported, are much worse than anything said in Fitna. These comments are clearly discriminatory and go well beyond criticizing Islam. <br /><br />Despite the many people that claim that free speech is under attack in the Netherlands, or other such hyperbolic comments, I see no reason yet to assume that the courts won't carefully weigh the consequences of this case for free speech.DEENhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01038312556912179499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-84676016331299623512010-01-21T23:57:44.092+11:002010-01-21T23:57:44.092+11:00Just an interesting bit of trivia. In the first vo...Just an interesting bit of trivia. In the first volume of his history of the Second World War, <i>The Gathering Storm</i>, Churchill compares <i>Mein Kampf</i> with the Koran. Here are his words: "All was there [in <i>Mein Kampf</i>] - the programme of German resurrection; the technique of party propaganda; the plan for combating Marxism; the concept of a National-Socialist State; the rightful position of Germany at the summit of the world. Here was a new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message." (55)<br /><br />Perhaps Wilders does it badly - and I know nothing of his politics besides his short film <i>Fitna</i> - but the Qu'ran, so far as I can tell, having read it, and having been appalled by it, is a hateful book, and it has created a religion which is also, and intrisically, I believe - and Wilders is so far right - violent, intolerant and imperialist. There are distinct parallels between the Qu'ran and <i>Mein Kampf</i>. Mohammed was a warlord too, and he killed people - or had them killed - who disagreed with him. It is also essentially imperialist, devouring anyone who has not submitted to Allah and the Prophet's voice, and the Qu'ran provides the programme, a programme written in blood and slavery around the Mediterranean litoral, as well as along all the trading routes running through Asia from Mesopotamia. Consider the fate of Asian Christianity and the Zoroastriaans of Persia, and be afraid. (See Bat Ye'or, <i>The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude</i>)<br /><br />There is very little in Christianity to commend it to our attention. There is nothing in Islam. To criminalise someone who points this out is really to undermine freedom. And remember, please, that Geert Wilders began his opposition to Islam after Theo van Gogh was murdered, and Ayan Hirsi Ali's life was threatened, because they showed the implications of the Qu'ran for women. He himself has been under police protection since he released <i>Fitna</i>, whatever you think of it. Doesn't this suggest that he is right, and that Islam is, in fact, a dangerous and unpredictable force?Greywizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04125006513512601904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-14088110389888851612010-01-21T21:19:34.081+11:002010-01-21T21:19:34.081+11:00Random Pedestrian, yeah I actually blogged about t...Random Pedestrian, yeah I actually blogged about that. I'm too lazy to track it down now, but it's there somewhere.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-87785840640733930462010-01-21T20:46:34.743+11:002010-01-21T20:46:34.743+11:00You may not have seen this, but when David Miliban...You may not have seen this, but when David Miliband decided to ban Wilders from Britain, his argument was that "there is no right to shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre". I thought then about Mill and the corn dealers too.<br /><br />How do we end up with such politically illiterate donkeys in the great offices of state?Elephanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03949830327417287322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-4182076913002885722010-01-21T13:31:23.638+11:002010-01-21T13:31:23.638+11:00Well, now that you've clarified that sentence,...Well, now that you've clarified that sentence, I have no choice but to see it as garbled — but your clarification makes it all clear again. (-:Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-82820053636575221892010-01-21T13:08:30.914+11:002010-01-21T13:08:30.914+11:00One sentence that I wrote now strikes me as a bit ...One sentence that I wrote now strikes me as a bit garbled:<br /><br />"However, when the Koran is held out as a holy book of timeless application, it's not surprising that some Muslims, and of course some non-Muslims, interpret those passages as God-backed calls for ongoing violent struggle against Jews, Christians, pagans, and the non-Muslim world in general."<br /><br />I hope the drift of this was clear. Obviously, I hope, I don't really mean that the non-Muslims think that these passages really are sanctioned by God. But they may well think that the natural or "correct" way of reading these passages, or the way in which the passages are likely to be received by Muslim readers, is as warlike passages that <i>claim</i> a God-backed sanction, applicable in all time, to struggle violently against infidels. If many Muslims themselves hold out the passages as having a significance beyond the particular circumstances when they were addressed to Muhammad's followers - and plenty of Muslims have historically said this - it's not surprising if they are taken that way by some non-Muslims. Or at least it's not surprising if some non-Muslims take the passages as being open to "still applicable today" kind of interpretation.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-87204823437406180002010-01-21T13:00:58.539+11:002010-01-21T13:00:58.539+11:00Cheers, Rob!Cheers, Rob!Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-88159509823635437842010-01-21T12:57:22.996+11:002010-01-21T12:57:22.996+11:00Hi Russell,
Great to hear your views on this. I p...Hi Russell,<br /><br />Great to hear your views on this. I probably haven't mentioned this to you, but I'm writing my D.Phil on racial and religious vilification laws, so obviously the Wilders case is one that I'm keenly interested in. You've articulated the standard liberal position very nicely here! I'm rather more sympathetic to the idea of racial and religious laws in principle than you are, but nevertheless I tend to agree with the various concerns you raise regarding the handling of this particular case.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />- Robert.Robert Simpsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-22136715758167038122010-01-21T12:39:00.587+11:002010-01-21T12:39:00.587+11:00Students going through introductory film studies e...Students going through introductory film studies encounter a few well-known cases where a movie is remembered for technical innovation combined with moral backwardness. The names of Griffith and Riefenstahl loom large under this subject heading; but <i>Fitna</i> is no <i>Triumph of the Will,</i> which we queasily respect for its visual power while deploring the ends to which that power was bent. I mean, if that's not the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_(typeface)" rel="nofollow">Papyrus font</a>, it looks just like it.<br /><br />Making a crappy and manipulative movie is not a crime.Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.com