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.
It’s coming here too. We now have a leftwing government. Look for them to tell us within the coming year that we can’t say anything negative about Islam.
“I’ve wondered at terms such as “hate crimes”. Why isn’t the penalty for the crime itself sufficient?”
It seems that the primary motive of the advocates of the “hate crime” label is to force everyone to think like they think.
Coming soon to a republic near you...
Not exactly.
First of all, it is my understanding that there are objective truths that cannot be considered as a defense, such as referring to certain cases where someone has served his time for an old conviction. Plus, it doesn't matter if Liberace were gay...the defense is valid only if you can prove it (i.e., burden of proof is on the defendent).
The ability of “hate laws” to circumvent that long standing legal absolute is what makes them so potentially dangerous.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
You can say whatever you care to that disparages Christianity...
Yep. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE
Coming to our own soil already. Next up will be ‘hate thought’ which will be prosecuted upon evidence of:
1. Rolling. widening or narrowing of eyes toward intended victim.
2. Lifting of any part of lip toward intended victim.
3. Downward turn of either or both sides of mount toward intended victim.
4. Toss of head in any direction toward intended victim.
5. Release of breath at any pressure from nose or mouth in direction of intended victim.
6. Willful refusal to respond when intended victim confronts perpetrator and demands satisfaction for such vile behavior which dehumanizes, demoralizes and humiliates intended victim.
That’s a matter of semantics. Obviously I have to be able to show that my assertion was true, but then I couldn’t prove Liberace was gay if he wasn’t. If something is true, then there can be no slander or libel in disclosing it.
Similarly, if someone has done time for some offense, and you state they have done that time, that isn’t libel. Other people may very well jump to the wrong conclusions about someone based on that truthful statement you make, but that’s not your problem. You aren’t responsible for their prejudices.
I’m sorry I dont know what you mean by the disclaimer: IANAL comment...
Nothing so unsubtle. It will be a series of laws allowing prosecution for derogatory comments about someones sexual preference, gender identity, race & religion. Theoretically that means someone who says something negative about straights, whites and christians could be prosecuted, but in practice they never are. Then slowly, what constitutes an offense will be broadened, the severity of punishment will be increased. Then one day you wake up and you realise you can say and do nothing but the party “line”.
See FITNA here...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/03/watch-fitna.html
—
Someone else posted a YouTube interview of Geert Wilders
First part of 6 parts...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGh3WNsfTb4
“a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line”
I find this highly ironic.
Even Netherlands has adopted the stupid term “hate speech”?
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.