Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
AP – Right-wing politician Geert Wilders and his lawyer Bram Moszkowicz, right, as Wilders gives a brief statement …
By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press – 30 mins ago
AMSTERDAM – The boundaries of free speech in Europe widened Thursday after a Dutch court acquitted politician Geert Wilders of inciting hatred against Muslims when he compared Islam with Naziism and called for a ban on the Quran.
Political analysts say the ruling will likely embolden Wilders and other right-wing populists across the continent to ramp up their anti-immigrant rhetoric, with remarks like Wilders' call for a "head rag tax" now squarely within the boundaries of fair political debate.
The ruling did lay down a clear limit: Calls for violence remain out of bounds. Wilders, who has lived under constant police protection due to death threats since 2004, has never called for violence or endorsed it.
Presiding Judge Marcel van Oosten said some of Wilders' comments — such as saying foreign influences are "breeding" in the Netherlands and threatening to overrun Dutch culture — may be "crude and denigrating." But he said they did not amount to inciting hatred and must be seen in a wider context of a fierce national debate over immigration policy and multiculturalism.
While the United States has enshrined the right to freedom of speech in its Constitution, many European nations introduced hate-speech laws in the wake of World War II, determined to prevent the scapegoating of minorities.
Van Oosten cited one of Wilders' most incendiary statements — "the core of the problem is the fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as laid down in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Quran" — saying that criticism of a religion and its followers is not illegal.
Wilders sat stone-faced while the judge read the ruling, but smiled broadly and shook hands with his lawyers after the verdict. His cheering supporters hugged each other in the public gallery, and Wilders waved to them and grinned as he left the courtroom.
"It's not only an acquittal for me, but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands," he said afterward. "Fortunately you're allowed to discuss Islam in public debate and you're not muzzled."
Political science professor Andre Krouwel of Amsterdam's Free University said Wilders might have been convicted a decade ago, but his ideas have since entered the mainstream. Wilders' Freedom political party is now the country's third-largest in parliament and it is propping up an all-conservative Dutch government that agrees with much of his right-wing platform.
"(The verdict) will further the inward-looking and to some extent xenophobic atmosphere in the Netherlands," predicted professor Leo Lucassen, chair of the Social History department at Leiden University.
The verdict comes a week after the government announced plans to end programs to help integrate immigrants into Dutch society, which "fuels this idea of immigrants who are basically an alien element to the Dutch people," Lucassen told The Associated Press.
The government also is moving to ban Muslim face-covering clothing and to further slash immigration.
Dutch Muslims who pressed for the trial said Wilders' strident anti-Islam tone has already led to increased discrimination and harassment against them, and even attacks on mosques. But Krouwel said seeking remedy in the courts proved an "incredible mistake" because Thursday's decision "legalized populist rhetoric."
"Inside the Netherlands and outside, politicians will now go the same way: to the edge of what is allowed," he told the AP. "Right-wing politicians in other countries will be able to point to the Netherlands and say, 'They can say it there, why not here?'"
Immigration-related issues have dominated politics in the Netherlands and much of Europe over the past decade. Wilders has drawn comparisons with populists such as the late Jorg Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France.
His stances resound deeply with Dutch voters, who have reconsidered their famous tolerance amid fears their culture is being eroded by immigrants who don't share their values. Around six percent of the Dutch population is now Muslim.
Groups that filed the complaints that led to Wilders' prosecution were disappointed with Thursday's ruling.
"What surprises me is that the judge says that what's permissible is determined by the context of the societal debate," said Aydin Akkaya, chairman of Council of Turks in the Netherlands. "In other words, if you just find a 'context' you can go nuts."
Mohamed Rabbae, chairman of the moderate National Moroccan Council, said the case has gone as far as it can in the Dutch courts and the battle will switch to another venue.
"We will go to the U.N. Committee for Human Rights in Geneva. The suit will be directed against the government of the Netherlands for not protecting ethnic minorities against racism and discrimination," he said in an email.
The court found that Wilders was "at the edge of what's legally permissible" when he described the threat Islam allegedly poses to Dutch culture as "a fight going on and we must arm ourselves."
"This has an inciting character," Van Oosten said. But because the lawmaker later added that he has no objections to Muslims who integrate and accept Dutch values, judges ruled he had not crossed the line.
The court paid special attention to Wilders' 2008 film, "Fitna," — Arabic for "ordeal" — a 15-minute series of verses from the Quran juxtaposed against news videos of violence and terrorism. The film prompted angry demonstrations and official protests around the Muslim world.
"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," the judgment said.
Even prosecutors called for his acquittal and said they are satisfied with the ruling. Despite prosecutors' initial reluctance to prosecute the politician, the court ruled last year that it was in society's interest the case be heard, given public confusion over free speech rules.
___
Associated Press correspondent Arthur Max contributed to this report.
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
Assalaamu Alaaykum
Subhaan'Allaah it is just making times more difficult for muslims their and other countries where this is happening. It is sad.
may Allaah keep the believers strong and steadfast upon their deen and protect them..
"Allah! La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), Al-Hayyul-Qayyum (the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists).".."[Al Qur'aan 3:2]
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
Not surprised.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
Can you imagine what happens if a dutch lawmaker does similar thing to jews and judaism?
Salaam,
It will make it an interesting experiment. According to the Judge, as long as the statements made towards Jews are made within the context of public debate, then they are acceptable.
Last edited by GuestFellow; 06-23-2011 at 07:31 PM.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
I agree with the ruling so long as it applies equally to all groups. As the article pointed out, we enshrine free speech in America. We have a saying: the best antidote to bad speech is not to prevent it but to have more good speech.
This is not to be taken as an endorsement of Wilders' anti-Muslim statements. I disagree with them wholeheartedly. Another saying, this one by a Frenchmen, but Americans (the ones I consider patriotic, anyway) have adopted it: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" -Voltaire
Last edited by Mister Agenda; 06-23-2011 at 10:07 PM.
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
^ There is a limit to free speech. The limitation includes hate speech towards a particular group or libel/slander against an individual.
The ruling in theory may apply to all groups, but I suspect this will not be the case in practice.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
True, even in America, inciting violence or causing panic is not legal speech, so while our limits may be broader than Holland's, we do have limits. We do not have a law against hate speech here (some states have laws against hate crimes). I recognize Holland has such a law.
And if they do not apply the ruling equally, they will be in violation of their own law. I imagine a test of that will turn up soon enough, and we shall see if they are discriminating.
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
@ Mister
When we talk about free speech, looking at it from secular camp's perspective, how is that defined and how do we implement it eaxctly? Do we have some sort of boundry or is it all free game? If there is a boundary, then why is that?
عن تميم بن أوس الداري أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: قال الدين النصيحة ثلاثا قلنا لمن يا رسول الله قال لله ولكتابه ولرسوله ولأئمة المسلمين وعامتهم - رواه مسلم
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
It would be useful to have full information about this case. Sometimes, the media does not or is unable to present the full facts.
format_quote Originally Posted by MSalman
@ Mister
When we talk about free speech, looking at it from secular camp's perspective, how is that defined and how do we implement it eaxctly? Do we have some sort of boundry or is it all free game? If there is a boundary, then why is that?
I think there will be a criteria to determine what amounts to hate speech.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
I don't know that I speak for the secular camp. I think many in the camp would put more restrictions on free speech than I would.
My feeling though is that that speech which promotes an immediate physical danger (like shouting 'fire!' in a crowded place or inciting a riot) is clearly a necessary boundary, for the sake of public safety. Parents should also have a reasonable expectation that they should be able to shield their children from being exposed to obscene speech; so some limits (based on what is considered unacceptable in the overall culture) in that regard are appropriate for public media: I can't think of any important ideas that require obscenities on TV to get across, but if someone could make that case in court, more power to them.
And of course, speech with intent to defraud or endanger should not be allowed.
I think that covers it, though I may have missed something. The important principle is that no one should be prevented by force from expressing their ideas and opinions. That doesn't mean we can't condemn or ridicule what people have to say, that is also part of free speech.
Many people have said America shouldn't have allowed KKK members freedom to spew their hate. However, in the long run, allowing them that freedom exposed them as the fools that they are and a once-powerful force in America is now largely a marginalized joke.
Wilders is a bigoted fool, and because he speaks out, everyone knows it. The path that leads to Naziism is smoothed when the state has apparatus to prevent people from speaking out. What is turned against a Wilders today can be turned against protestors tomorrow.
Last edited by Mister Agenda; 06-23-2011 at 11:00 PM.
Reason: added a space
In addition to the fine, it imposed a two-year probation period on the group.
Talkbacks (24)
LONDON – A Nasserite European Muslim group was fined €2,500 ($3,200) by a Dutch court earlier this month for publishing a cartoon suggesting the Holocaust was made up or exaggerated by Jews.
Overruling a lower court’s acquittal, the Appeals Court in Arnhem said on August 19 that the cartoon published on the Web site of the Belgiumand Netherlands-based Arab European League (AEL) in 2006 was “unnecessarily hurtful.”
In addition to the fine, it imposed a two-year probation period on the group.
No Free Speech in Preaching
Swedish pastor sentenced to jail for blasting homosexuality. By Lars Grip, ENI, in Stockholm | posted 8/01/2004 12:00AM
A Swedish court sentenced a Pentecostal pastor to one month in prison after finding him guilty of offending homosexuals in a sermon. The case was the first trial test of the national law against incitement as applied to speech about homosexuals.
Last year during a sermon delivered in the east coast town of Borgholm, Ake Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He called homosexuals "perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest weapon against God."
During proceedings, the public prosecutor, Kjell Yngvesson, played a tape recording from the sermon. According to the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, he justified the arrest by saying, "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but [the sermon] is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech."
In his defense, the pastor said he merely wanted to make clear the biblical view on homosexuality, not to express disrespect.
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
Conclusion:
in fine, liberal, equal-rights-for-everyone, freedom loving western countries, you are allowed to spew as much hate, blasphemy, ridicules, insults, attacks as you want against Islam and muslims, and protected by law in doing so, but it is a crime to hurt the sensitivities of the jews and the homosexuals.
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
It's been proven that it doesn't apply equally to all groups.
The ruling was only made yesterday. It's wider application hasn't even been tested yet, let alone 'proven' to apply in a particular way. Not that I disagree with your sentiments particularly; I also suspect the result might have been different if the 'hate speech' had Judaism as a target. Homosexuals aren't relevant, as the very distinction on which this case was decided only applies to accusions of inciting hated in relation to religion, not sexual orientation.
Incidently, like most similar European laws the Dutch ones have nothing to do with 'hurting sensitivities'. They are intended to prevent incitement of hatred leading to discrimination and violence.
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
it is really terrible. they really want to ban the Quran don't they. that is how much they hate islam. i think they are actually testing the waters, to see what the reaction would be. muslims should protest. even the muslim governments should do something. now it is just someone saying these things, in time they may even act on it. if they can ban women's face covering without any reaction from muslim governments, then they can even try to ban the Quran.
In addition to the fine, it imposed a two-year probation period on the group.
Talkbacks (24)
LONDON – A Nasserite European Muslim group was fined €2,500 ($3,200) by a Dutch court earlier this month for publishing a cartoon suggesting the Holocaust was made up or exaggerated by Jews.
Overruling a lower court’s acquittal, the Appeals Court in Arnhem said on August 19 that the cartoon published on the Web site of the Belgiumand Netherlands-based Arab European League (AEL) in 2006 was “unnecessarily hurtful.”
In addition to the fine, it imposed a two-year probation period on the group.
No Free Speech in Preaching
Swedish pastor sentenced to jail for blasting homosexuality. By Lars Grip, ENI, in Stockholm | posted 8/01/2004 12:00AM
A Swedish court sentenced a Pentecostal pastor to one month in prison after finding him guilty of offending homosexuals in a sermon. The case was the first trial test of the national law against incitement as applied to speech about homosexuals.
Last year during a sermon delivered in the east coast town of Borgholm, Ake Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He called homosexuals "perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest weapon against God."
During proceedings, the public prosecutor, Kjell Yngvesson, played a tape recording from the sermon. According to the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, he justified the arrest by saying, "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but [the sermon] is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech."
In his defense, the pastor said he merely wanted to make clear the biblical view on homosexuality, not to express disrespect.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
Conclusion:
in fine, liberal, equal-rights-for-everyone, freedom loving western countries, you are allowed to spew as much hate, blasphemy, ridicules, insults, attacks as you want against Islam and muslims, and protected by law in doing so, but it is a crime to hurt the sensitivities of the jews and the homosexuals.
Yes, I agree with you that the law is not applied equally. I suspect things will get worse.
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
The ruling was only made yesterday. It's wider application hasn't even been tested yet, let alone 'proven' to apply in a particular way. Not that I disagree with your sentiments particularly; I also suspect the result might have been different if the 'hate speech' had Judaism as a target. Homosexuals aren't relevant, as the very distinction on which this case was decided only applies to accusions of inciting hated in relation to religion, not sexual orientation.
Incidently, like most similar European laws the Dutch ones have nothing to do with 'hurting sensitivities'. They are intended to prevent incitement of hatred leading to discrimination and violence.
I suppose this has something to do with the new ruling:
"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," the judgment said.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
In addition to the fine, it imposed a two-year probation period on the group.
Talkbacks (24)
LONDON – A Nasserite European Muslim group was fined €2,500 ($3,200) by a Dutch court earlier this month for publishing a cartoon suggesting the Holocaust was made up or exaggerated by Jews.
Overruling a lower court’s acquittal, the Appeals Court in Arnhem said on August 19 that the cartoon published on the Web site of the Belgiumand Netherlands-based Arab European League (AEL) in 2006 was “unnecessarily hurtful.”
In addition to the fine, it imposed a two-year probation period on the group.
You have to know that there have also been convictions against people who insulted Muslims in the Netherlands. For example, a man was convicted after he put a poster on his appartment window that said 'Stop the cancer that is Islam'. In other European countries (Belgium and Germany come to mind) anti-Islamic political parties have even been banned or punished for their ideas. So these laws are certainly used to protect Muslims as well from time to time. Yes, Wilders did get acquited, but that was far from a certainty. There mere fact that there was a trial in the first place proves that criticism of Islam or Muslims is not blatantly ignored.
But you make a fair point. nevertheless. But you have to understand that it is practically impossible for judges to be completely objective in these matters. The judicial system is a part of society as a whole and cannot hover over it like some foreign entity. Everything will depend on the larger social context.
The conclusion should be obvious. Laws that infringe freedom of speech by criminalizing "hate speech" are fundamentally flawed. They cannot be applied objectively, nor indiscriminately IMHO. Countries where freedom of speech is even more limited prove as much on a daily basis.
The best way to offer equal rights to everyone is to ditch them completely. I much prefer the American approach, where virtually nothing (short of inciting violence) is considered a crime. This is best for everyone, minority and majority alike.
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
Conclusion:
in fine, liberal, equal-rights-for-everyone, freedom loving western countries, you are allowed to spew as much hate, blasphemy, ridicules, insults, attacks as you want against Islam and muslims, and protected by law in doing so, but it is a crime to hurt the sensitivities of the jews and the homosexuals.
I'll be frank, but I believe nothing Wilders has said is on par with what is written about, say, polytheists (or unbelievers in general) in many holy books. Being consistent would probably mean banning all them as well.
Re: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker acquitted of hate speech
format_quote Originally Posted by Pєαяℓ σf Wιѕ∂σм
Subhaan'Allaah it is just making times more difficult for muslims their and other countries where this is happening. It is sad.
If it is any consolation, a conviction of Wilders would not have helped Muslims in any way. He would just have gotten a fine and would be able to present himself as some kind of martyr for freedom of speech.
Turning this into a legal quarrel was an incredibly bad idea. It has bad for everyone, except Wilders...
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks