Fitna - Geert Wilders and Islam

[Coito ergo sum]

Hatred is an offence inflicted on the offender by the offendee. As soon as you criminalise the person saying something potentially offensive about religion then you have a law that can convict anyone of anything,

This is a trial for heresy, make no mistake about it. I don't like Wilders but that is irrelevant and I have tried to keep blogging about this regularly because if this man is convicted then it puts the Enlightenment under threat. For it to happen in Amsterdam, of all places is so ironic.

I disagree. He is not in the least bit interested in free speech or any of that.

What's the relevance of that? People who are not the least bit interested in free speech or any of that can't publish Fitna-like videos, but people who are interested in free speech are allowed to?

He just is using the free speech card to try and weasel out of an indictment.

Again, what's the relevance of that? If you had incontrovertible proof that he was using free speech to advance the cause of free speech sincerely, and in his heart of hearts, then his speech is legal? But, since he is using it to try to weasel, the same speech is illegal?

Even in the Netherlands free speech has a limit, and this trial is to determine if he crossed that line or not. Meanwhile Wilders is trying to make a political spectacle of it for his personal gain.

Once again, what's the relevance? Everything, just about, that most politicians say is at least partly an attempt to make political and personal gains. So what? How does that bear on the legality of what he said and published?

[Coito ergo sum]

Most frustrating and worrisome.

Inciting hatred should be an offence regardless of what it is grounded on.

I generally agree, but consider this:

What exactly does incite hatred mean? Hatred is an emotion, not an action. The law should only act on behaviours, not emotions.

It does not appear, actually, that you do "generally agree." It appears that you, quite rightly, generally disagree. Since you state that laws should not regulate emotions, then inciting hatred should not be an offence, right? That appears to be 180 degrees, polar opposite, of what Seraph said.

Bearing that in mind, how is the phrase 'inciting hatred' used in law? Is it restricted to incitement of hatred of people as individuals? Or does it include incitement of hatred of groups? How about inciting hatred of behaviours and ideas?

The law at issue refers to religions and races specifically.

Of the three, I agree whole heartedly with the first,

Why? Incitement of hatred is just as vague, as you pointed out, when applied to individuals. Look at all the hatred incited against George Bush and other leaders. Isn't that at the heart of protected speech?

take the second on a case-by-case basis ('hating' the KKK because of what they stand for, for instance), and would disagree strongly with the third.

What about "hating" the ACLU? If you can hate the KKK, can't the KKK hate the ACLU? What subjects are o.k. to hate, and what aren't?

[leo-rcc]

Once again, what's the relevance? Everything, just about, that most politicians say is at least partly an attempt to make political and personal gains. So what? How does that bear on the legality of what he said and published?

And then you just conveniently not quoted my answer to that. Nice.

[Coito ergo sum]

Once again, what's the relevance? Everything, just about, that most politicians say is at least partly an attempt to make political and personal gains. So what? How does that bear on the legality of what he said and published?

And then you just conveniently not quoted my answer to that. Nice.

OK, I just reread all your posts on this thread, and I can't see where you answered that. Would you mind cutting and pasting your answer to that in response here? Alternatively, could you indicate the date/time of the post you're referring to, and I'll do the cutting and pasting. If I missed something, I apologize.

[leo-rcc]

Once again, what's the relevance? Everything, just about, that most politicians say is at least partly an attempt to make political and personal gains. So what? How does that bear on the legality of what he said and published?

And then you just conveniently not quoted my answer to that. Nice.

OK, I just reread all your posts on this thread, and I can't see where you answered that. Would you mind cutting and pasting your answer to that in response here? Alternatively, could you indicate the date/time of the post you're referring to, and I'll do the cutting and pasting. If I missed something, I apologize.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 55#p398255

[Hermit]

"Inciting hatred" is far to vague a standard to base any kind of law on, and it is far too dependent on the reaction of the listener to speech rather than the actual speech.

You may have misunderstood me. What i had in mind when I said "inciting hatred should be an offence regardless of what it is grounded on" is the sort of talk that led to crystal night, concentration camps and the Ku Klux Klan, Apartheid, the massacre of Jakobites, Igbo and so on. I excluded the specific grounds usually cited, such as gender, religion, ethnicity etc because I don't think any of them are necessary to define what constitutes hate speech.

Furthermore, the law against hate crime can easily be defined in such a way that a robust shredding of any religion does not constitute an infraction of the law, no matter how insulted its adherents feel, because the distinction between islamic doctrine and its muslim adherents, for instance, is easy to make. Significantly, Wilders is totally quiet on that distinction, but to test in court if he has broken the law it ought not be necessary to mention gender, race, religion or anything else. To find him guilty, all that is necessary is that he tars an entire social group with the same brush, and I think he has done just that when he said that he wants to expel all muslims - even those who have Dutch citizenship - from the Netherlands on the sole ground of them being muslims.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Inciting hatred" is far to vague a standard to base any kind of law on, and it is far too dependent on the reaction of the listener to speech rather than the actual speech.

You may have misunderstood me. What i had in mind when I said "inciting hatred should be an offence regardless of what it is grounded on" is the sort of talk that led to crystal night, concentration camps and the Ku Klux Klan, Apartheid, the massacre of Jakobites, Igbo and so on.

What sort of speech is that?

I excluded the specific grounds usually cited, such as gender, religion, ethnicity etc because I don't think any of them are necessary to define what constitutes hate speech.

Furthermore, the law against hate crime can easily be defined in such a way that a robust shredding of any religion does not constitute an infraction of the law, no matter how insulted its adherents feel, because the distinction between islamic doctrine and its muslim adherents, for instance, is easy to make.

Not really as easy as you might think. The adherents take insults to their religion as insults to them. Further, I reserve the right as a human being to insult Muslim adherents too. It's sort of an arbitrary distinction to say that free speech means you can insult religions, but not its adherents.

Significantly, Wilders is totally quiet on that distinction,

I'm not sure if he is or isn't quiet on that. But, in my view it is a distinction without a difference. There is just as much a right to be able to mock a race as it is to mock a religion. If it wasn't, then comedians would be out of a job, like Sarah Silverman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3RYrQSi ... L&index=11

but to test in court if he has broken the law it ought not be necessary to mention gender, race, religion or anything else. To find him guilty, all that is necessary is that he tars an entire social group with the same brush,

Why would it be illegal to "tar an entire social group with the same brush?" That's a worse standard than incitement to hatred.

and I think he has done just that when he said that he wants to expel all muslims - even those who have Dutch citizenship - from the Netherlands on the sole ground of them being muslims.

So, you think it should be illegal to say "we should expel all Muslims?"

Moreover, he did not say he wants to expel all Muslims. But, that's beside the point, really.

[Coito ergo sum]

Once again, what's the relevance? Everything, just about, that most politicians say is at least partly an attempt to make political and personal gains. So what? How does that bear on the legality of what he said and published?

And then you just conveniently not quoted my answer to that. Nice.

OK, I just reread all your posts on this thread, and I can't see where you answered that. Would you mind cutting and pasting your answer to that in response here? Alternatively, could you indicate the date/time of the post you're referring to, and I'll do the cutting and pasting. If I missed something, I apologize.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 55#p398255

You pointed out Wilders' political motive, and that he's not doing this for good reasons but to rather make a political statement and for personal gain. I asked, "so what?" And, you told me the following is your answer:

But it is irrelevant to a court of law. If what Wilders did was indeed unlawful then the prosecution is warranted. No matter what you or the general public or even the prosecuters feel about the topic themselves, if someone is suspected to have broken the law he or she can be taken to court. If you have a problem with that, though. Move to have the laws changed, but until then the court case against Wilders is fully justified. Whether or not he will be convicted is a totally separate issue.

That doesn't seem to be really on point, but am I correct in that what you are saying is that his political and personal motive is not relevant? It's just about whether what he said is in violation of the law?

That I definitely agree with. His motive is not relevant. So, if that's what you mean, then we agree. Is that what you mean, or something else?

[leo-rcc]

That I definitely agree with. His motive is not relevant. So, if that's what you mean, then we agree. Is that what you mean, or something else?

That is exactly what I meant. His actions or motive aside, this trial is about establishing if what he has done is in violation of Dutch law or not. And people, even here on this forum, are already making it out like this is some kind of witch hunt where he already found guilty before he's even set a foot in court. He is still presumed innocent. If the OM thinks it has a case, Wilders thinks he has a good defense, they will both have their days in court.

[Cunt]

He has no interest in "criticism" in islam he just wants to use it as a card to gain votes.

But that is the point. You don't prosecute idiots. You ridicule them. We really shouldn't ban ideas, no matter how stupid.

If it was a legitimate idea then yes i'd agree with you when its just bigotry and racism dressed up then it should be banned we should not give those people a leg up by saying its freedom of speech its not its an abuse of it and often to further goals that would deny others their rights and freedoms.[/quote]
I watched Fitna and didnt see any 'racism'. Where did you see it?[/quote]

Racism is only part of the issue. The law he is being prosecuted under protects against not only incitements to hatred against a race, but also incitements to hatred against a religion.

I would argue that even if it is racist, it doesn't deserve prosecution. It's just a video. If racist videos are to be criminalized, then we can't go back and see what the monsters of the past published. I couldn't watch the Hitler shows on History International Channel because of all the hate speech on there. I wouldn't be able to watch "Birth of a Nation" to see for myself what all the hubbub is about. I couldn't watch "Triumph of the Will" or read "Mein Kampf" to know what disgusting tripe men have dreamed up.

Throwing a blanket over bad ideas doesn't do anybody any good, IMHO. It actually in a weird way legitimizes the awful opinion by driving them underground and turning them into ideas that "They" don't want you know....[/quote]

leo-rcc said that, not me. (it's okay to let it slide, I just wanted you to know)

[Coito ergo sum]

He has no interest in "criticism" in islam he just wants to use it as a card to gain votes.

But that is the point. You don't prosecute idiots. You ridicule them. We really shouldn't ban ideas, no matter how stupid.

If it was a legitimate idea then yes i'd agree with you when its just bigotry and racism dressed up then it should be banned

Bigotry? You mean, like "religious bigotry" such as calling religion or belief in god a "delusion?" Or, suggesting that the Jewish and Christian God is a homocidal maniac, or that religious folks are idiots?


Also, I did not say the "don't prosecute idiots" line. That was someone else. I agree with it. I just didn't write it.

[Coito ergo sum]

That I definitely agree with. His motive is not relevant. So, if that's what you mean, then we agree. Is that what you mean, or something else?

That is exactly what I meant. His actions or motive aside, this trial is about establishing if what he has done is in violation of Dutch law or not. And people, even here on this forum, are already making it out like this is some kind of witch hunt where he already found guilty before he's even set a foot in court. He is still presumed innocent. If the OM thinks it has a case, Wilders thinks he has a good defense, they will both have their days in court.

However, all that goes without saying. We know he's getting his day in court. The issue that most of us have, I think, is that the content of one's political speech and one's opinions are the subject of criminal prosecution in the first place. I mean, you could make a law that says "The uttering of any blasphemous or offensive words are prohibited and punishable by a fine or imprisonment." And, then say "if you break the law you'll be tried and if found guilty then you're guilty." That's a truism. The issue is whether there is a fundamental right at issue here that should preclude the machinery of the state from being used to shut a person up.

The prosecution of people for expressing their opinions, even vile opinions, leaves a lot of people at risk. If Wilders is prosecutable, then so are cartoonists who ridicule Allah and Mohammed and thereby "incite hatred" of Muslims. It is wholly unacceptable to most people, I think, that the decision should turn on a subjective evaluation of a person's intent or whether they espouse a desirable political philosophy in general.

[leo-rcc]

The prosecution of people for expressing their opinions, even vile opinions, leaves a lot of people at risk. If Wilders is prosecutable, then so are cartoonists who ridicule Allah and Mohammed and thereby "incite hatred" of Muslims.

That's already been done. Look up "Gregorius Nekschot" .

edit: found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorius_Nekschot#Arrest

It is wholly unacceptable to most people, I think, that the decision should turn on a subjective evaluation of a person's intent or whether they espouse a desirable political philosophy in general.

Still not relevant to this trial. Your freedom to swing your fists about ends where my face begins. Freedom of speech is not the same as you can say whatever the hell you want. There is accountability.

[Coito ergo sum]

The prosecution of people for expressing their opinions, even vile opinions, leaves a lot of people at risk. If Wilders is prosecutable, then so are cartoonists who ridicule Allah and Mohammed and thereby "incite hatred" of Muslims.

That's already been done. Look up "Gregorius Nekschot" .

edit: found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorius_Nekschot#Arrest

Not always and not in all places. But, yes, it has been done. That doesn't make it right.

It is wholly unacceptable to most people, I think, that the decision should turn on a subjective evaluation of a person's intent or whether they espouse a desirable political philosophy in general.

Still not relevant to this trial. Your freedom to swing your fists about ends where my face begins.

No fist swinging is alleged here. Just words. My freedom to express my words on my own dime in a public forum has nothing to do with fist swinging.

Freedom of speech is not the same as you can say whatever the hell you want. There is accountability.

That's true - you can't defame people (make false and defamatory statements that cause actual injury) - you can't conspire to commit violent crimes - you can't threaten people's lives or hire them to commit murder using words - you can't falsely claim there is a fire in a crowded theater, etc.

However, the point here is not anything like that. We're talking about a man who expressed political opinions and religious opinions, and opinions about immigrants. The issues of swinging fists and speech that causes harm or involves the commission of actual crimes is totally different.

Just saying "there is accountability" tells us nothing. What accountability? Are all our political opinions to be subject to a state review board?

[leo-rcc]

That's true - you can't defame people (make false and defamatory statements that cause actual injury) - you can't conspire to commit violent crimes - you can't threaten people's lives or hire them to commit murder using words - you can't falsely claim there is a fire in a crowded theater, etc.

However, the point here is not anything like that.

As you see it. The OM seems to think otherwise or this trial would never take place. You assert things

What accountability? Are all our political opinions to be subject to a state review board?

No, just the laws that every Dutch citizen has to adhere to, including me. As I said before, I don't give a shit about Wilders or his politics. But if he has indeed broken the law, than he can and should be tried.

If you don't like that law, though.