Posted on 01/21/2009 11:42:04 PM PST by stevelackner
The BBC reports that "a Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. 'In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line,' the court in Amsterdam said. Mr Wilders said the judgement was an an 'attack on the freedom of expression'." He further said that "participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted."
It is interesting that Geert Wilder's comparisons of Islam and Nazism recieve such condemnation. It is little known what history's greatest opponent of Nazism, Winston Churchill, wrote about Islam:
"How dreadful are the curses which Islam lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Islam is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.” (The River War, Volume Two, pages 248-250)
This is not to say that one must agree with either Geert Wilders or Winston Churchill when it comes to Islam. It is certainly odd, however, to think that were Winston Churchill alive today in the Netherlands he would be put on trial for hate speech.
Furthermore, the recent pro-Palestinian rallies from around the world showed protesters dreaming Hitler's dreams as they waved the flag of the genocidal terrorist organization Hamas. From Toronto to Fort Lauderdale to Copenhagen protesters were heard proclaiming their anti-Jewish genocidal fantasies for the world to hear. Comparisons between Israel and the Nazis, between Israel's defensive actions against a terrorist enemy and the Holocaust, are not hard to find in pro-Palestinian circles. Yet for some reason there is a special sensitivity to Nazi comparisons made by Geert Wilders?!
The fundamental right to free speech is under attack under the guise of fighting hate speech. Whether one agrees with Wilders's film Fitna or not, charging Wilders with crimes for being critical of Islam is ridiculous. Let the Muslims of the Netherlands speak up and provide the counterarguments to Wilders's assertions. The fact that people filed complaints against Wilders with the Court of Appeal suggests that the preferred method is to silence Wilders by force.
To watch Geert Wilders's fifteen minute film Fitna and decide for yourself whether or not it is hate speech, visit stevelackner.com.
So what if he is correct? Is it still illegal to make a negative comment if it’s true? Or is it a crime to say anything negative regardless of it’s truth?
BREAKING NEWS; I’m going to bed. Good night.
Time to be grateful that we still have truth as defense in America. In the U.K. a newspaper was found guilty of slander for saying Liberace was gay...
This is chilling!
TERRORISM PAYS!!
BTTT
I saw that Bloomberg reported that more than 40 people reported the editorial to the police...
Not that UK law has to make sense, but the definition of slander has at it's core the requirement that it's a false statement. I've wondered at terms such as "hate crimes". Why isn't the penalty for the crime itself sufficient? Why does it need to be magnified if some special group is the victim? Shouldn't all citizens be equally protected under the law?
>>I’ve wondered at terms such as “hate crimes”. Why isn’t the penalty for the crime itself sufficient? Why does it need to be magnified if some special group is the victim? Shouldn’t all citizens be equally protected under the law?<<
Agreed. Even for heinous crimes like lynching black people it would seem like terrorism laws would cover it rather than special laws for a race or religious group.
ping
Half the Koran is hate speech. The rest is Mohamed’s hallucinations
Actually, slander is a vocal slur. A newspaper commits libel.
So, the issue would be: a) is it true? Was Liberace gay? If he was, then there is no libel. Truth is the ultimate defence against any such charge.
b) if Liberace was not gay, did the newspaper know that and yet continue its assertion? In other words, were they knowingly lying? Difficult to prove.
c) Even if the assertion was true, would it still matter? Libel implies a negative connotation, but we are constantly being told now that sexuality is either implicit in your genetic makeup, or merely a lifestyle choice, and one that is “equally valid” with anything else.
In the first case if the newspaper was guilty of that they could presumably be sued for making any kind of comment on someones personal characteristis, like alleging that someones eyes are blue.
If the second, the suers are implying that gayness impugns the character and is therefore a “bad thing”. If that is so, I think they could be guilty of a “hate crime” myself :)
I noted that implication of their claim as well. I wonder if that was too subtle for them to grasp.
The reference was to the UK, not to the US.
I don’t know about Dutch laws.. but this is scary... You know who had comparable “Hate” crime laws? Josef Stalin. do you know what the “hate” was? Anything the state disagreed with..
Completely bogus. We should start a fund and do a protest.
No matter how small, the message would be delivered.
You can say whatever you care to that disparages Christianity, Jews or Hindus, ya just can’t say anything that disparages islam.
Well I would be in jail of beheaded cause I certainly say awful things about islam and its insane f-ed up followers.
Probably. Not that it would matter. To these people “rights” are the preserve of only certain sections of society.
Doesn’t matter. In either UK or US legal systems, truth is the ultimate defence against any charge of libel or slander.
The ability of “hate laws” to circumvent that long standing legal absolute is what makes them so potentially dangerous.
Agree!
We should find an effective way to show support for WILDERS and furthermore for freedom of speech about religions,thoughts or opinions...
Liberal leaders in Europe,and in USA now,are trying to appease the islamic word and the muslims...as they don’t seem exactly to get the right nature of the threat from a world-wide totalitarian foundamentaly aggressive and warrior religion fueled by a high level of frustration against the developped “free” western countries.
Muslim leaders also understand that the “western”,previously judeo-christian,world is weakened by doubdts,divisions,cultural and psychological troubles and low demography
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.