Geert Wilders: Scumbag or Legend?

[Forty Two]

The pre-determine orchestration of responses from supporters to a particular section of his speech was considered incitement.

Indeed, it was "considered" that, but it plainly wasn't "incitement." An incitement is when you call for particular action -- "let's riot!" or "let's kill those guys!" That's inciting a riot or inciting murder. But, saying something that isn't an incitement does not become an incitement because the listener takes some sort of action as a result. We see that sort of thing here in the states with people flipping out over some speech Donald Trump makes. The fact that listerners don't control their behavior does not make their behavior the responsibility of the speaker.

What if some Christians espouses the desire to see more Christians in the country, and fewer non-Christians. We're going to organize that, he says. So what? That's what proselytizing religions do - organize to increase their followers and decrease followers of other religions. Is it an incitement? Would it be if the crowd cheered loudly?

Calling what Wilders said an "incitement" is essentially like a "heckler's veto." If a bunch of people get excited over something, then it's an incitement of those people.... only stuff that doesn't upset or excite people is permitted, in that case. Or, incitement prosecutions become pure political weapons - selectively applied against those with the out-of-bounds viewpoints.


[/quote]

He has been convicted on that basis, but not punished by the court. Apparently, because he is a politician the shame is considered punishment enough.[/quote]

It's an absurdity, up and down, not befitting a first world, civilized nation.

[Forty Two]

Well, if he can be convicted of anything for the words they say he said, then the Dutch system is a travesty. What he said was rather mild

We've discussed this upthread a couple of months ago. Wilders, once you strip out his skilful utilisation of the dog whistle, is not mild at all.

Doesn't matter if you think he's skilful or using dog whistles. He's peacefully expressing a political opinion. That ought not be subject to prosecution because of the reaction of people listening. And, free speech means non-mild viewpoints get to be heard. If only the tepid is permitted, then we do not have free speech. This is very basic and fundamental to a free society and a functioning democracy.

For instance, he said that while only a minority of Muslims use violence, the majority of Muslims support this minority.

Sounds like a factual assertion that may or may not be correct. Pew Research has some supporting evidence for that, and Sam Harris has publications and videos where he discusses the surveys about what a majority of Muslims believe, country-by-country.

Evidence he proffers not.

So, you don't need evidence for everything you say in a public speech. Neither does he. If there is no evidence for it, the remedy is counter-speech.

And yes, he proposes to expel them from The Netherlands.

So? I mean - expelling citizens who have done nothing wrong would be an alarming opinion, if he really said that (and I've not heard that once). But, expelling visa holders who are not permanently permitted to stay is a function of immigration policy. Mostly, I've heard Wilders talk about expelling those who have committed crimes, not for being Muslim.

You may argue that what he says is a "dog whistle" for what you know he really means. But, has he ever actually said he would expel Muslims base don their religion? Or, has he said that he would expel those convicted of crimes?

It is his policy only barely concealed by his dog whistling act, and it goes way beyond offending "some people".

Does it? Do you have evidence for this assertion? First, what did he say, exactly, which is "really" a "dog whistle" for other policies? And, how does it go beyond offending some people? In what way does it "go beyond?"

As for freedom of expression, Wilders himself is against it. He advocates the banning of books. I wonder what other infringements on freedom of expressions he'd pursue if he ever got into a position of forming a government. Wilders is a Muslim hating fascist whose commitment to freedom, particularly the freedom of speech is not even skin deep, and he is advocating policies to match. Those policies, if implemented, transcend hate speech.

It's part of free expression to allow those to speak out against free expression.

Was he prosecuted for advocating the banning of books? I don't think so.

What you made there is an argument for opposing Wilders, not for prosecuting him. So what if he is a fascist? It's LEGAL to "be" a fascist. It's an idea (or set of ideas). Just like it's legal to be Communist of whatever variety - Stalinist, Maoist, Leninist, Trotskyite, Marxist, whatever. It's o.k. to be a monarchist, too. Fuck, some countries today which are "democracies" are also "monarchies." Would it be legal to be a politician arguing for a strengthened monarchy, and more powers to the Crown?

People are allowed and should be allowed to express unpleasant and even evil opinions. Just because Christians think the Satanic Temple and Satanism is evil and a threat to the very fabric of our government and society, that does not mean that Satanism ought to be silenced. The same thing with fascists, communists and anarchists, etc. The fact is, there are large, significant groups that view communists in the same way you seem to view fascists. I, for one, view communists and fascists with the same level of contempt, and I view them both as dangers to liberty, individual autonomy and individual rights. Yet, I recognize that to silence them would be counter to basic values of a free society.

[pErvinalia]

And yes, he proposes to expel them from The Netherlands.

So? I mean - expelling citizens who have done nothing wrong would be an alarming opinion, if he really said that (and I've not heard that once). But, expelling visa holders who are not permanently permitted to stay is a function of immigration policy. Mostly, I've heard Wilders talk about expelling those who have committed crimes, not for being Muslim.

Targeting religions and ideologies is allowed. It's a hate crime because he specifically targeted an ethnic group. Doesn't matter whether he meant to refer to immigration policies. It's still targeting a specific ethnic group.

[Forty Two]

And yes, he proposes to expel them from The Netherlands.

So? I mean - expelling citizens who have done nothing wrong would be an alarming opinion, if he really said that (and I've not heard that once). But, expelling visa holders who are not permanently permitted to stay is a function of immigration policy. Mostly, I've heard Wilders talk about expelling those who have committed crimes, not for being Muslim.

Targeting religions and ideologies is allowed. It's a hate crime because he specifically targeted an ethnic group. Doesn't matter whether he meant to refer to immigration policies. It's still targeting a specific ethnic group.

Hate speech laws like the ones in Dutchland apply to religions too. Insulting a religious group is part of the hate speech law. And, "targeting" a religion via legislation, like making a law that disadvantages Muslims or Jews or Christians or Hindus without applying equally to all religious groups is generally not allowed. It would not be unconstitutional to set differing quotas of immigrants from different countries, or to require visas from some countries, but not others.

And, it is not a hate crime to "target" an ethnic group with speech. Well, apparently it is in the Netherregions, but that's just ridiculous to call it a crime. If suggesting that having too many foreigners, or too many non-European foreigners, or too many people from different countries is a "crime" then very little else in terms of ideas is beyond the control of the ruling government. Moreover, he did not target an ethnic group. He said "Moroccans." That's a nationality. And, just as the news refers to people in Sweden who are Arabic in ethnicity but naturalized citizens of Sweden as "Swedes," we can refer to a white Christian who is a naturalized citizen or child of immigrants to Morocco as "Moroccan."

Articles 137(c) and 137(d) of the Dutch Criminal Code operate to prohibit making public intentional insults, as well as engaging in verbal, written, or illustrated incitement to hatred, on account of one's race, religion, sexual orientation, or personal convictions. Wilders didn't do that. He referred to Moroccans, which is not a race, not a religion, not a sexual orientation, and not a personal conviction. It's a nationality, and race and nationality are not the same thing. You may think you know what he "really means" - but, he did not say what you think he means.

Also, a law that says you can't "insult" a religion or a "personal conviction" should be alarming to any thinking person, IMO. Really? So, does Wilders get the benefit of this law too? Or, does everybody who is against Wilders get to "insult" him based on his "personal convictions"? Or, will we see prosecutions of the people calling him a fascist and other scurrilous insults. Probably the reaction of some will be to say that "it's true! he is a fascist!" If that's one's reaction, then I rest my case on that. One is truly blinkered who cannot see that that Wilders also believes what he is saying is true. Yet, his truth is an illegal insult, but to insult him based on his personal convictions is a lawful truth.

[pErvinalia]

And yes, he proposes to expel them from The Netherlands.

So? I mean - expelling citizens who have done nothing wrong would be an alarming opinion, if he really said that (and I've not heard that once). But, expelling visa holders who are not permanently permitted to stay is a function of immigration policy. Mostly, I've heard Wilders talk about expelling those who have committed crimes, not for being Muslim.

Targeting religions and ideologies is allowed. It's a hate crime because he specifically targeted an ethnic group. Doesn't matter whether he meant to refer to immigration policies. It's still targeting a specific ethnic group.

Hate speech laws like the ones in Dutchland apply to religions too. Insulting a religious group is part of the hate speech law.

No it's not. That's how he got off his 2011 hate speech charge.

And, "targeting" a religion via legislation, like making a law that disadvantages Muslims or Jews or Christians or Hindus without applying equally to all religious groups is generally not allowed.

That's not speech. That's action.

And in any case, if you accept this, why did you use his alleged immigration policy as a defence of his speech? If it's not acceptable to target religious groups via legislation why did you think it would be acceptable to target Moroccans via legislation?

And, it is not a hate crime to "target" an ethnic group with speech.

The court disagrees with you.

Well, apparently it is in the Netherregions, but that's just ridiculous to call it a crime. If suggesting that having too many foreigners, or too many non-European foreigners, or too many people from different countries is a "crime" then very little else in terms of ideas is beyond the control of the ruling government.

That's not what he suggested, though. He specifically targeted Moroccans.

Moreover, he did not target an ethnic group. He said "Moroccans." That's a nationality. And, just as the news refers to people in Sweden who are Arabic in ethnicity but naturalized citizens of Sweden as "Swedes," we can refer to a white Christian who is a naturalized citizen or child of immigrants to Morocco as "Moroccan."

99% of Moroccans are Berber ethnicity. It's probably safe to assume that the vast majority of Moroccans in Netherregions are Berber.

He referred to Moroccans, which is not a race, not a religion, not a sexual orientation, and not a personal conviction. It's a nationality, and race and nationality are not the same thing. You may think you know what he "really means" - but, he did not say what you think he means.

You may think you know what you are talking about, but you don't. 99% of Moroccans are the same ethnicity.

[Forty Two]

And yes, he proposes to expel them from The Netherlands.

So? I mean - expelling citizens who have done nothing wrong would be an alarming opinion, if he really said that (and I've not heard that once). But, expelling visa holders who are not permanently permitted to stay is a function of immigration policy. Mostly, I've heard Wilders talk about expelling those who have committed crimes, not for being Muslim.

Targeting religions and ideologies is allowed. It's a hate crime because he specifically targeted an ethnic group. Doesn't matter whether he meant to refer to immigration policies. It's still targeting a specific ethnic group.

Hate speech laws like the ones in Dutchland apply to religions too. Insulting a religious group is part of the hate speech law.

No it's not. That's how he got off his 2011 hate speech charge.

It's in the law. That's not how he got off his 2011 charge. You're just flat wrong.

And, "targeting" a religion via legislation, like making a law that disadvantages Muslims or Jews or Christians or Hindus without applying equally to all religious groups is generally not allowed.

That's not speech. That's action.

Right - free speech requires that every citizen be allowed to "target" any ideas they want to target, and even groups of people. Free speech means that Black Lives Matter can insult cops and white people all they want.

And in any case, if you accept this, why did you use his alleged immigration policy as a defence of his speech?

It wasn't a policy - he made a public statement about what his beliefs are. There is nothing more fundamental than that. Whether a constitution allows the action a person advocates is a completely different legal question. It's like if I advocate that white people should lose the right to vote. Free speech means I can advocate that all I want. Would it be constitutional? The right to "say" an idea does not mean the idea would be lawful if put into law. Like the 10 Commandments - fine to advocate if that's your thing - but, unconstitutional in the US if attempted to be put into law.

If it's not acceptable to target religious groups via legislation why did you think it would be acceptable to target Moroccans via legislation?

It should be acceptable to target religious groups via speech. In the Netherlands, Article 137 ,however, makes it illegal to do so in the Netherlands and that is an atrocity.

It is acceptable to target Moroccans via speech.

Whether a given piece of legislation will survive legal challenge is a wholly different matter. It's free expression to advocate stuff that is illegal, and stuff that would be illegal if put into law.

And, it is not a hate crime to "target" an ethnic group with speech.

The court disagrees with you.

I already clarified, in the post to which you responded, that in the Netherlands, it apparently is a hate crime. That's the problem. It shouldn't be. In a modern, civilized country, there would be no such prohibition or "hate crime" for what Wilders said.

Well, apparently it is in the Netherregions, but that's just ridiculous to call it a crime. If suggesting that having too many foreigners, or too many non-European foreigners, or too many people from different countries is a "crime" then very little else in terms of ideas is beyond the control of the ruling government.

That's not what he suggested, though. He specifically targeted Moroccans.

Morocco is a country - he asked if the crowd thought there were too many people from that country. He asked if they wanted more or less of them in the Netherlands. They wanted less, and he said "we're going to organize that." It's EXACTLY what he suggested - not just suggested. It's exactly what he said, literally.

Moreover, he did not target an ethnic group. He said "Moroccans." That's a nationality. And, just as the news refers to people in Sweden who are Arabic in ethnicity but naturalized citizens of Sweden as "Swedes," we can refer to a white Christian who is a naturalized citizen or child of immigrants to Morocco as "Moroccan."

99% of Moroccans are Berber ethnicity. It's probably safe to assume that the vast majority of Moroccans in Netherregions are Berber.

It's safe to assume the vast majority of people in Sweden are of nordic, but that doesn't mean that a ethnic Berber born or naturalized in Sweden is not a "Swede." So what? Referring to wanting fewer Swedes in Morocco is no more an attack on an ethnicity than referring to fewer Moroccans in the Netherregions.

He referred to Moroccans, which is not a race, not a religion, not a sexual orientation, and not a personal conviction. It's a nationality, and race and nationality are not the same thing. You may think you know what he "really means" - but, he did not say what you think he means.

You may think you know what you are talking about, but you don't. 99% of Moroccans are the same ethnicity.

LOL - you don't even know what the law in the Netherregions says, and you deign to insult me as if I don't know what I'm talking about? What a laugh. Will you admit that the law does refer to religion, and does NOT refer to nationality? Or are you still going to persist with this dopey idea that "Moroccan" means (wink wink) "Berber ethnicity." You probably think the United States is ethnically white since the "vast majority" of U.S. Americans are white, so if anyone say "we don't want so many U.S. Americans in our country" they're really (wink wink) making a racist statement.

[pErvinalia]

....

[pErvinalia]

So? I mean - expelling citizens who have done nothing wrong would be an alarming opinion, if he really said that (and I've not heard that once). But, expelling visa holders who are not permanently permitted to stay is a function of immigration policy. Mostly, I've heard Wilders talk about expelling those who have committed crimes, not for being Muslim.

Targeting religions and ideologies is allowed. It's a hate crime because he specifically targeted an ethnic group. Doesn't matter whether he meant to refer to immigration policies. It's still targeting a specific ethnic group.

Hate speech laws like the ones in Dutchland apply to religions too. Insulting a religious group is part of the hate speech law.

No it's not. That's how he got off his 2011 hate speech charge.

It's in the law. That's not how he got off his 2011 charge. You're just flat wrong.

Well you better tell the defence, prosecution, judges, and legal experts that they are wrong too.

And, "targeting" a religion via legislation, like making a law that disadvantages Muslims or Jews or Christians or Hindus without applying equally to all religious groups is generally not allowed.

That's not speech. That's action.

Right - free speech requires that every citizen be allowed to "target" any ideas they want to target, and even groups of people. Free speech means that Black Lives Matter can insult cops and white people all they want.

Non-sequitur. You were talking about legislation targeting religion. Now you've moved back to speech.

And in any case, if you accept this, why did you use his alleged immigration policy as a defence of his speech?

It wasn't a policy - he made a public statement about what his beliefs are.

This is going to be another one of these fucking conversations, isn't it? You were using his alleged immigration policy as an excuse for allowing what he was saying:
But, expelling visa holders who are not permanently permitted to stay is a function of immigration policy. Mostly, I've heard Wilders talk about expelling those who have committed crimes, not for being Muslim.

You may argue that what he says is a "dog whistle" for what you know he really means. But, has he ever actually said he would expel Muslims base don their religion? Or, has he said that he would expel those convicted of crimes?

If it's not acceptable to target religious groups via legislation why did you think it would be acceptable to target Moroccans via legislation?

It should be acceptable to target religious groups via speech. In the Netherlands, Article 137 ,however, makes it illegal to do so in the Netherlands and that is an atrocity.

Non-sequitur. And despite the bit you quoted from that Article, the whole Dutch legal profession sees it another way. There are probably further clarifying articles, in a similar fashion to our section 18 of the constitution. People focus on 18C without reading the qualifiers in 18D.

And, it is not a hate crime to "target" an ethnic group with speech.

The court disagrees with you.

I already clarified, in the post to which you responded, that in the Netherlands, it apparently is a hate crime. That's the problem. It shouldn't be. In a modern, civilized country, there would be no such prohibition or "hate crime" for what Wilders said.

In most modern civilised countries there are hate speech laws. Not in the land of the haters and the "free", of course.

Well, apparently it is in the Netherregions, but that's just ridiculous to call it a crime. If suggesting that having too many foreigners, or too many non-European foreigners, or too many people from different countries is a "crime" then very little else in terms of ideas is beyond the control of the ruling government.

That's not what he suggested, though. He specifically targeted Moroccans.

Morocco is a country - he asked if the crowd thought there were too many people from that country. He asked if they wanted more or less of them in the Netherlands. They wanted less, and he said "we're going to organize that." It's EXACTLY what he suggested - not just suggested. It's exactly what he said, literally.

It's literally not, as he was referring to a single country, not plural as you stated above.

Moreover, he did not target an ethnic group. He said "Moroccans." That's a nationality. And, just as the news refers to people in Sweden who are Arabic in ethnicity but naturalized citizens of Sweden as "Swedes," we can refer to a white Christian who is a naturalized citizen or child of immigrants to Morocco as "Moroccan."

99% of Moroccans are Berber ethnicity. It's probably safe to assume that the vast majority of Moroccans in Netherregions are Berber.

It's safe to assume the vast majority of people in Sweden are of nordic, but that doesn't mean that a ethnic Berber born or naturalized in Sweden is not a "Swede." So what? Referring to wanting fewer Swedes in Morocco is no more an attack on an ethnicity than referring to fewer Moroccans in the Netherregions.

Another non-sequitur. You said he did not target an ethnic group. When 99% of a country are the one ethnicity, then he clearly is targeting an ethnic group.

He referred to Moroccans, which is not a race, not a religion, not a sexual orientation, and not a personal conviction. It's a nationality, and race and nationality are not the same thing. You may think you know what he "really means" - but, he did not say what you think he means.

You may think you know what you are talking about, but you don't. 99% of Moroccans are the same ethnicity.

LOL - you don't even know what the law in the Netherregions says, and you deign to insult me as if I don't know what I'm talking about? What a laugh.

I've provided you with the evidence of how you are wrong. Laugh all you want. The rest of us have been through this nonsense with you enough in the past to just ignore it.

Will you admit that the law does refer to religion, and does NOT refer to nationality?

The particular section of the law that you quoted does refer to religion. Have you read the rest of the relevant sections? The defenders, prosecutors and judges have and they concluded that it wasn't hate speech in 2011 because religion is an idea, not a group of people.

Or are you still going to persist with this dopey idea that "Moroccan" means (wink wink) "Berber ethnicity."

Yes, me and the CIA are going to (wink wink) persist in the silly idea that facts matter. Although, in the post-truth world of a Donald Trump supporter, I'm not surprised you don't accept inconvenient facts.

You probably think the United States is ethnically white since the "vast majority" of U.S. Americans are white, so if anyone say "we don't want so many U.S. Americans in our country" they're really (wink wink) making a racist statement.

You've really lost the fucking plot. 99% of Moroccans are the one ethnicity. It's a simple concept.

[Forty Two]

Well, the difference between a nationality and a race or ethnicity is so simple, it's amazing you can't seem to get it. You also are wrong about why Wilders won in 2011.

Also, it shouldn't MATTER if he targeted an ethnic group, because saying "we want fewer Berbers (or whatever) in the Netherlands" is not hate speech and even if it was it should not be illegal. Also, one does not have to be Berber to be fucking Moroccan, so only a fucking god damned ignoramus would say that referring to "Moroccans" is the same thing as referring to Berbers. So fuck off.

Your reference above about me referring to "multiple countries" is you being an idiot again. In that post, I refer to someone advocating fewer people from "multiple countries" or a single country. I didn't ONLY refer to multiple countries you dishonest fuck. I have been very clear about this, but you are....

Already -- I've been trolled again.

I'll just leave you with fuck off, you person who posts like a fucking lame brained half wit, and move on. God you post like a loathsome creature.

[pErvinalia]

Well, the difference between a nationality and a race or ethnicity is so simple, it's amazing you can't seem to get it.

What don't you understand about Morocco being largely ethnically homogeneous? It's as simple a concept as one could hope to find.

You also are wrong about why Wilders won in 2011.

Great rebuttal. I linked to an article with quotes from all the parties involved who explicitly prove that you are wrong.

Also, it shouldn't MATTER if he targeted an ethnic group, because saying "we want fewer Berbers (or whatever) in the Netherlands" is not hate speech and even if it was it should not be illegal.

It most definitely is hate speech, as reflected in his conviction. And I disagree that it "should not" be illegal. There's arguments for and against the concept of hate speech. It's not a simple one-sided calculus like you want to suggest.

Also, one does not have to be Berber to be fucking Moroccan, so only a fucking god damned ignoramus would say that referring to "Moroccans" is the same thing as referring to Berbers. So fuck off.

99% of Moroccans are Berber. It's simple. When he refers to Moroccans he is within 1% of literally referring to Berbers. And while you may think "A ha! Gotcha, not 100%!", the courts are virtually never 100% black and white. His history will be taken into account when deciding what context his comments were made.

Your reference above about me referring to "multiple countries" is you being an idiot again. In that post, I refer to someone advocating fewer people from "multiple countries" or a single country. I didn't ONLY refer to multiple countries you dishonest fuck.

You're getting close to getting reported again. That is about the 10th attack you've made on me in the last week or so. You'd be wise to cut it out. And if you could read the quotes properly you'd see the bit I was responding to was this: "Well, apparently it is in the Netherregions, but that's just ridiculous to call it a crime. If suggesting that having too many foreigners, or too many non-European foreigners, or too many people from different countries is a "crime" then very little else in terms of ideas is beyond the control of the ruling government.". If you'd stop fucking up the quoting continually, perhaps you'd be able to follow the quote trail better.

I'll just leave you with fuck off, you person who posts like a fucking lame brained half wit, and move on. God you post like a loathsome creature.

I've presented you with facts and links. You've presented little more than empty rhetoric.

[Forty Two]

Well, the difference between a nationality and a race or ethnicity is so simple, it's amazing you can't seem to get it.

What don't you understand about Morocco being largely ethnically homogeneous? It's as simple a concept as one could hope to find.

It doesn't matter if it's largely ethnically homogenous. So is Sweden. But Swedish is a nationality, not an ethnicity. A Berber national of Sweden is a Swede. A nordic national of Morocco is a Moroccan.

You also are wrong about why Wilders won in 2011.

Great rebuttal. I linked to an article with quotes from all the parties involved who explicitly prove that you are wrong.

The reason he was acquitted was because what he says was taken in context and in total, it was not "inciting hate." It wasn't the fact that "religion" is not covered by the law the same as "race." Rather, it was that the details of what he said the first time around was ruled "not an incitement." If it was an incitement, then the fact that it was toward a religion rather than a race would make no difference.

"You are being acquitted on all the charges that were put against you. You have spoken in a hurtful and also shocking way. Even so, the court finds, in the broadest context, that you have the right to propagate the message of such a film [Fitna]. Given the film in its whole, and the context of societal debate, the court finds that there is no question of inciting hate with the film."

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2225 ... -acquitted

So, you are wrong - insult of religion IS, in fact, covered by the law. It's in the text of Article 137, and the court did NOT rule otherwise in 2011.

Also, it shouldn't MATTER if he targeted an ethnic group, because saying "we want fewer Berbers (or whatever) in the Netherlands" is not hate speech and even if it was it should not be illegal.

It most definitely is hate speech, as reflected in his conviction. And I disagree that it "should not" be illegal. There's arguments for and against the concept of hate speech. It's not a simple one-sided calculus like you want to suggest.

It's hate speech in the Netherregions, yes. But, the court's opinion in that regard is complete and utter bollocks, and dangerous bollocks at that. It most certainly should not be illegal.

I never suggested it is one-sided. People can argue whatever sides they want. But, the argument that insulting Berbers is illegal hate speech is a dangerous thing, because it opens the door to massive censorship of criticism of groups. What Wilders said was an idea -- we want fewer Moroccans in the Netherregions. That in no way should be hate speech, and if it is, it really puts folks in danger that discussing the propriety of immigration restrictions or deportation rules will cast one afoul of hate speech rules.

it's pretty apparent, though, that this kind of prosecution will only be leveled politically. Wilders is right that this is a political attack. If it wasn't, there would be a massive number of these kind of hate speech cases.

Also, one does not have to be Berber to be fucking Moroccan, so only a fucking god damned ignoramus would say that referring to "Moroccans" is the same thing as referring to Berbers. So fuck off.

99% of Moroccans are Berber. It's simple. When he refers to Moroccans he is within 1% of literally referring to Berbers. And while you may think "A ha! Gotcha, not 100%!", the courts are virtually never 100% black and white. His history will be taken into account when deciding what context his comments were made.

Simple to an idiot, yes. Moroccan is a nationality. Berber is an ethnicity. You do not have to be Berber to be Moroccan.

And, the notion of a court taking "context" of a comment into account is another dangerous absurdity. That's just an arbitrary test. pErvin can say X, Y or Z because in the "context" of what he writes, it's not as insulting as when 42 says the exact same thing. That just means, if we have a bad opinion of 42's motives, then he can't speak, but if we have a good opinion of pErvin's motives, then he can say what he wants.

Your reference above about me referring to "multiple countries" is you being an idiot again. In that post, I refer to someone advocating fewer people from "multiple countries" or a single country. I didn't ONLY refer to multiple countries you dishonest fuck.

You're getting close to getting reported again.

Go ahead. You're getting close to being suspended again.

That is about the 10th attack you've made on me in the last week or so.

I respond to your bullshit the way you address me. You are disrespectful and insulting. You do it in your backhanded horsehit way, but you know what you're doing.

You'd be wise to cut it out.

Shove your threats up your ass.

And if you could read the quotes properly you'd see the bit I was responding to was this: "Well, apparently it is in the Netherregions, but that's just ridiculous to call it a crime. If suggesting that having too many foreigners, or too many non-European foreigners, or too many people from different countries is a "crime" then very little else in terms of ideas is beyond the control of the ruling government.". If you'd stop fucking up the quoting continually, perhaps you'd be able to follow the quote trail better.

Oh fuck the fuck off. It is not any different to refer to one country or three. What kind of an argument is that? It's beyond the pale to say "do we want fewer Moroccans here?" But, just fine to say "do we want fewer Moroccans, Saudis and Nigerians here?" What sort of nonsense are you puking now?

I'll just leave you with fuck off, you person who posts like a fucking lame brained half wit, and move on. God you post like a loathsome creature.

I've presented you with facts and links. You've presented little more than empty rhetoric.

You haven't. You've presented your own nonsense peppered with your usual insults, and then threatened to report me for reacting to your style. You like to troll, apparently, and as you have outright stated in other posts in the past, and unfortunately, today I succumbed to it. That's my bad.

[Brian Peacock]

The pre-determine orchestration of responses from supporters to a particular section of his speech was considered incitement.

Indeed, it was "considered" that, but it plainly wasn't "incitement." ...

Tell it to the judge.

[pErvinalia]

Well, the difference between a nationality and a race or ethnicity is so simple, it's amazing you can't seem to get it.

What don't you understand about Morocco being largely ethnically homogeneous? It's as simple a concept as one could hope to find.

It doesn't matter if it's largely ethnically homogenous. So is Sweden. But Swedish is a nationality, not an ethnicity. A Berber national of Sweden is a Swede. A nordic national of Morocco is a Moroccan.

Go and learn some set theory and logic, ffs.

You also are wrong about why Wilders won in 2011.

Great rebuttal. I linked to an article with quotes from all the parties involved who explicitly prove that you are wrong.

The reason he was acquitted was because what he says was taken in context and in total, it was not "inciting hate." It wasn't the fact that "religion" is not covered by the law the same as "race." Rather, it was that the details of what he said the first time around was ruled "not an incitement." If it was an incitement, then the fact that it was toward a religion rather than a race would make no difference.

"You are being acquitted on all the charges that were put against you. You have spoken in a hurtful and also shocking way. Even so, the court finds, in the broadest context, that you have the right to propagate the message of such a film [Fitna]. Given the film in its whole, and the context of societal debate, the court finds that there is no question of inciting hate with the film."

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2225 ... -acquitted

So, you are wrong - insult of religion IS, in fact, covered by the law. It's in the text of Article 137, and the court did NOT rule otherwise in 2011.

You clearly didn't read the article I linked. Go and read it. It explains it clearly.

Also, it shouldn't MATTER if he targeted an ethnic group, because saying "we want fewer Berbers (or whatever) in the Netherlands" is not hate speech and even if it was it should not be illegal.

It most definitely is hate speech, as reflected in his conviction. And I disagree that it "should not" be illegal. There's arguments for and against the concept of hate speech. It's not a simple one-sided calculus like you want to suggest.

It's hate speech in the Netherregions, yes. But, the court's opinion in that regard is complete and utter bollocks, and dangerous bollocks at that. It most certainly should not be illegal.

I never suggested it is one-sided.

My disagreement is with your use of the "should" imperative. There's too many counter arguments to just blithely suggest is should be one way and not the other.

But, the argument that insulting Berbers is illegal hate speech is a dangerous thing, because it opens the door to massive censorship of criticism of groups.

In what way?

What Wilders said was an idea -- we want fewer Moroccans in the Netherregions. That in no way should be hate speech, and if it is, it really puts folks in danger that discussing the propriety of immigration restrictions or deportation rules will cast one afoul of hate speech rules.

This is a strange line of reasoning. Of course committing hate speech puts people in danger of being convicted of hate speech. That's the whole point of a law.

Also, one does not have to be Berber to be fucking Moroccan, so only a fucking god damned ignoramus would say that referring to "Moroccans" is the same thing as referring to Berbers. So fuck off.

99% of Moroccans are Berber. It's simple. When he refers to Moroccans he is within 1% of literally referring to Berbers. And while you may think "A ha! Gotcha, not 100%!", the courts are virtually never 100% black and white. His history will be taken into account when deciding what context his comments were made.

Simple to an idiot, yes.

Last warning.

And, the notion of a court taking "context" of a comment into account is another dangerous absurdity.

Bullshit. Courts are regularly called to determine (prior, or otherwise) intent from actions alone. You are getting ridiculous.

Your reference above about me referring to "multiple countries" is you being an idiot again. In that post, I refer to someone advocating fewer people from "multiple countries" or a single country. I didn't ONLY refer to multiple countries you dishonest fuck.

You're getting close to getting reported again.

Go ahead. You're getting close to being suspended again.

Ok. Don't whinge and carry on as usual when you are sanctioned again.

That is about the 10th attack you've made on me in the last week or so.

I respond to your bullshit the way you address me. You are disrespectful and insulting. You do it in your backhanded horsehit way, but you know what you're doing.

Oh ok. So the rules shouldn't apply to you?

I'll just leave you with fuck off, you person who posts like a fucking lame brained half wit, and move on. God you post like a loathsome creature.

I've presented you with facts and links. You've presented little more than empty rhetoric.

You haven't. You've presented your own nonsense peppered with your usual insults, and then threatened to report me for reacting to your style. You like to troll, apparently, and as you have outright stated in other posts in the past, and unfortunately, today I succumbed to it. That's my bad.

Waah waah waah. You are wrong about the 2011 trial. The link I provided proved that. And Moroccans are Berbers. I've provided a link that proved that. I've explained to you how courts regularly have to interpret context and other issues involving grey areas. That's why the concept of precendence exists. If laws were all solid black and white then there would be no weight placed on precedence. You're wrong, but can't see that because you are so offended by laws that seek to protect minorities from the violence and hate of the majority.

[Forty Two]

The link I provided proved you were wrong. Most Moroccans are Berbers, but Morocco is a country and Moroccan is a nationality. There is no dispute that there are a vast majority of Moroccans who are Berbers. That does not make Moroccan a race or an ethnicity. It's a nationality.

Sanctioned again? When was I sanctioned before? I've been warned. But, unlike you, not suspended. And, when I was warned earlier this year, my "whinge" was to say "it's a fair cop." Can't you ever be honest?

And, don't give me warnings - do what you want to do. You aren't concerning me in the least.

And, yes, the whole point of the law is to put people in danger of being convicted of hate speech. Not only is that the "point" of the law, as you put it -- it's the "problem" with the law, and it is one of the reasons it's a terrible, awful, oppressive law, which is fit only for an authoritarian system where the people cannot be given freedom of thought and expression to discuss political ideas (except in a milquetoast way which does not upset anyone).

[pErvinalia]

The link I provided proved you were wrong.

What link?

And, yes, the whole point of the law is to put people in danger of being convicted of hate speech. Not only is that the "point" of the law, as you put it -- it's the "problem" with the law,

So laws actually functioning as laws is a problem?