Novum, Wednesday 01.21.2009 –
Geert Wilders should be prosecuted for hate and discriminatory statements. This is what the Amsterdam court decided Wednesday. The DA decided earlier not to prosecute the PVV leader. The DA now has to do so.
According to the court, there are sufficient indications that Wilders is guilty of criminal offenses. The court has come to that verdict because of, among other things, the rhetoric of the public statements of Wilders and the way he presented his views. He did it in a way which the court finds one sided, strongly generalizing, radical, fierce and frequently repeated. Therefore it could be seen as bigotry.
In addition, the statements of Wilders are also offensive to Muslims, because they are affected in their religious dignity. Wilders did this by attacking one of the symbols of the Muslim faith, the Koran.
Wilders compared the Koran to the book "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler. The court believes that certain offensive remarks are not under the criminal law, but should be resisted in the social and political debate. This is not the case for the comparison with 'Mein Kampf', says the court, because it is so offensive to Muslims that it is of importance to prosecute Wilders.
The court does not believe that the freedom of speech is at stake with the decision to prosecute Wilders. The European Convention on Human Rights protects the right emphatically, but according to the court, in the European context, these statements are unacceptable. Prosecution also doesn't affect Wilders in his freedom of speech, provided that the possible sentence is proportionate.
Finally, the court considers that prosecution of Wilders serves the Netherlands. The hate speech in the democratic rule of law "is so serious that there is a public interest to draw a clear line in the public debate".
In July, a special discrimination section of the DA decided not to prosecute the PVV-leader for a number of statements in the media and in his film 'Fitna', against which several charges were pressed. Some chargers, including the anti-racism organization "Nederland Bekent Kleur", were not pleased with that decision of the DA and objected [to the verdict of] the court to nonetheless prosecute him.
Justice has received dozens of charges against Wilders in the last years. Those were for statements in de Volkskrant, De Pers and in an Internet column. Different people and organizations thought that the PM conducted an incitement to hatred and discriminated. The charges were gathered in Amsterdam and viewed by the discrimination section of the OM. They advised not to prosecute.
When the trial starts against Wilders is not yet known.
I have to confess that I'm quite pleased that Wilders is being prosecuted. I think the trial will draw much attention to what's going on in Europe. READ MORE.
19 comments:
Not only that, David, but we have some imam here in Holland called Sheikh Fawaz Jneid, who has openly been calling for Theo van Gogh to be punished by Allah by sowing cancer in his throat. Same goes for Ayaan Hirsi Ali. He has also been caught calling for gays to be thrown from high buildings, head-first. Was he ever prosecuted? NOPE!
This country is so extreme left, that it will use it’s own laws against it’s own citizens to appease Islam. It reasons about the things that are wrong until they can call it good.
Will the same happene to the muslims who follow a corrupted book which inspires religious viollence? which is so insutuous to jews an not onlie? will that happen to muslims apologistes who attack other religious simbols?
David wrote: "I think the trial will draw much attention to what's going on in Europe."
Will there be any *concrete* change coming out of the trial? I am not so optimistic. I think most people will moan and groan during the trial, and then, as soon as it is over, go about their business as usual.
Professor Wood,
You should refrain from discussing what's "going on in Europe" until you understand the european context, for there is very little you could possibly know about Europe as you have neither lived here for any substantial amount of time nor personally witnessed militant Islam, unless you call that Qur'an only "Muslim" who heckled at your talk Militant.
Yahya,
Here I have no clue what you're talking about. I see European governments bending over backwards to avoid offending Islam, and attacking anyone who dares criticize Islam. I'm not sure how living in Europe would change my perspective.
Here we have another feeble Muslim attempt to silence criticism.
The Muslim Method of Silencing Opposition:
(1) If someone criticizes Islam, kill him.
(2) If you can't kill him, tell him he shouldn't speak about Islam unless he's mastered Arabic.
(3) If the first two options don't work, pretend to be victims, so that people will feel bad about criticizing Islam and hurting your feelings.
(4) And now we have: If someone is criticizing European governments because they're bowing to Islam, tell him that no non-Europeans can criticize what happens in Europe.
David, your in quite a paradox here, a very bad one. for starters this story involves Geert Wilders, now you seem to be offended by the fact that he might get punished for what he said, which as I said, you are offended by this, and feel this is an attempt at silencing critique against Islam which is against freedom.
Yet David here is the irony, this man Geert Wlders has OPENLY called for the BANNING of the Quran, in other words he wants to silence Muslims from their freedom of their own beliefs and thoughts! so your complaining about an attempt to silence a man who seeks to silence millions of European Muslims! David why are you not equally appaled and offended by Wilders calls for such an act? surely if you were really offended by trying to silence people, and take away freedoms you would have been the first to speak up and say YO GEERT, NO BANNING THE QURAN, THEY ARE FREE TO BELIEVE IN IT ETC ETC, yet you have done no such thing, rather you posted his Fitna video etc etc.
So David im sorry but your really in no position to be complaining, for as I said, this is a HUGE paradox, complaining about silecning the guy who wants to do the very same thing to the Muslims! if it was up to Geert then i wouldnt have been able to quote the Quran in none of our 3 debates, and my debate with Dr. James White etc etc. Everyone can see the paradox and inconsistency my friend.
Where have you seen European Governments bending over backwards Wood? care to give us some examples, give me at least 7 major cases from at least 4 different countries in Europe, then I might say you have a point. I doubt you could do that.
"Yet David here is the irony, this man Geert Wlders has OPENLY called for the BANNING of the Quran, in other words he wants to silence Muslims from their freedom of their own beliefs and thoughts! so your complaining about an attempt to silence a man who seeks to silence millions of European Muslims! David why are you not equally appaled and offended by Wilders calls for such an act? surely if you were really offended by trying to silence people, and take away freedoms you would have been the first to speak up and say YO GEERT, NO BANNING THE QURAN, THEY ARE FREE TO BELIEVE IN IT ETC ETC, yet you have done no such thing, rather you posted his Fitna video etc etc. "
Well, Sami, I would disagree. Things would be very different if people would be able to speak freely about Islam. That is not the case, since every time people open their mouths about Islam, you are being accused of bigotry by the Muslim community and it's sympatisants. Or they will get violent.
Geert Wilders doesn't only see that, but he also sees people walking in Middle Eastern clothing, women veiled, Muslim children not respecting non-Muslim elders, Muslims living in Holland for years and still not being able to pronounce so much as one decent sentence in Dutch, people not adapting, parents not watching their children which results to those children displaying criminal behaviour, etc. It gets from bad to worse and he is about the only one in the DP that has the nerve to call a spade a spade. He does so also when it comes to other ethnic groups, such as people from the Dutch Antilles. But somehow word only gets out when he criticizes Islam.
That he wants to put a ban on the Qur'an is because he sees Muslims referring back to the Qur'an when they misbehave. For the ten thousandth time: Is it, then, strange that non-Muslims have such an aversy against Islam and especially the Qur'an?
Now, there are a lot of Muslims in Holland doing a great job. They have integrated perfectly and do good work socially. But there are a couple of hard-core groups here in Holland, especially in The Hague, where Muslim boys are just totally out of control.
But it's very ironic that the DA will persecute Wilders for calling a spade a spade, but does absolutely nothing when an imam repeatedly and openly calls for the death of a PM, such as Hirsi Ali. Or that it seems totally permissable that people scream "Hamas, Hamas, Joden aan het gas!" (Hamas, Hamas, Jews should be gassed!) But when a parliament starts saying things about a religion, they accuse him of racism. That is like charging a thief for murder. Being a Muslim is not a racial thing! You are a Muslim by creed, not by birth.
What the DA is doing here in Holland, is totally irrational and just plain stupid.
Nakdimon
"Where have you seen European Governments bending over backwards Wood? care to give us some examples, give me at least 7 major cases from at least 4 different countries in Europe, then I might say you have a point. I doubt you could do that."
Ah, please, Yahya. You know this is happening. It's happening here in Holland, it happens in France (we can't forget France), it happens in Germany, in the UK, In Belgium, The only country that is not taking any crap from Muslims is Spain. But you hear it everywhere. Maybe I should keep a chart with all these things happening on this continent.
Nakdimon
Yahya,
You somehow find great irony in the fact that I don't believe that Wilders should be prosecuted, despite the fact that he believes the Qur'an should be banned.
I think you're once again struggling to find an inconsistency in my thinking.
I don't agree with Wilders that the Qur'an should be banned. But I believe he has a right to hold his opinion and speak his mind without the government interfering. I also believe that Muslims have the right to hold their opinions and speak their minds without the government interfering.
Now if the government of Holland were to begin prosecuting Muslims for reading the Qur'an, and if I were to say, "This is great," then you would have reason to accuse me of inconsistency. As things stand, my position is that governments should keep their noses out of people's right to free speech, and on this issue I'm completely consistent. So . . . try again.
David im sorry the point remains, and you know it does, if Geert had it his way he would get rid of these freedoms you want, its no good saying well he hasnt done that, hes just calling for it, its the same thing! he just doesnt have the power to do it, thats why, the fact is is thats his intention and hes spreading this message which is gaining support, which is essentially to ban the freedom you are fighting for, the point remains im afraid.
the point remains, Geert wants the same thing thats happening to him, only difference is that he doesnt have that power, yet if he did have it, we all know he would, and we do know he is moving for that power, so i repeat, the point remains, your in a paradox, your complaining about an attempt to silence someone who wants to do the very same thing.
Nakdimon, in the UAE i saw half naked women, westerners wearing and doing what they want, etc etc, even eating out during ramadan, doing the very same things you mention. so i fail to see any point there.
Nakdimon, you say imams in the holland call for death, well thats not bad, theyre not doing it, theyre just calling for it, they have a right to their opinion, hey, im using David's logic here, since no action was really done, then ppl are more than free to say what they want.
Sami,
I'm really perplexed as to how you and Yahya don't understand a basic point.
A few days ago, there was a man named Joel writing in the comments section. He advocated deporting all Muslims. Do I agree with him? No. I don't agree that Muslims should be deported.
Now suppose the government said: "We're going to deport Joel because we don't like his views." Here I would have the same objection. I think it's wrong to deport people because of their views, so I would object to deporting Joel.
Yet you and Yahya would say: "Face it David! You've got a paradox! This man advocates deporting people, and you don't believe he should be deported. So you've got a paradox. Yep! A paradox!"
No, I don't. If I believed that it's okay to deport people I disagree with, surely I would say that both Joel and Muslims should be deported.
Similarly, if I believed that it's okay to prosecute people who hold views different from mine, I would say that both Wilders and Muslims should be prosecuted. But I don't. I'm consistent.
You and Yahya are the ones who are inconsistent. You're quite pleased that Wilders is being prosecuted for his views; yet if Holland were to turn around and do the same thing to Muslims, you would be outraged.
So who's inconsistent here? Muslims. Just remember, my friend, that if European countries get in the habit of prosecuting people because of their views, this might not go the way you want it to go.
Inconsistency? No! This is extremely simple, let's see if you can understand.
Geert should have his right to free speech. Muslims should have the right to read the Quran.
Where is the inconsistency? Sometimes you guys just try too hard to poke holes in others' logic.
Nabeel that free speech calls for the banning of a the second largest religion of Europe, and how do you put that in a ban, is that going to take place peacefully? i dont think so, and whats gonna happen when ppl are caught with a Quran??? you make it seem thats he is simply propagating simple ideas when we all know hes not, he is propagating an extreme agenda.
As to David, now your being consistent you admit BOTH are wrong, that was what i was mainly asking for, so that issue is closed now and we both agree.
i think the best way to deal with Geert is to refute his arguments (as many have done) and challenge him for debates, i dont think we should silence him, but i do think ppl shud come out and admit he is an extremist rather than saying oh yeah its just his opinion, but i dont think he should be silenced, why? well because hes giving great attention to Islam, the Quran was widely sought after his documentary, his effots are doing much more than any Muslim could hope for in making people interested in Islam, so why should i want to silence someone who is giving so much attention to Islam? i mean its a fact that many will convert to Islam thanks to him after he made them go learn about Islam. :) he is an asset, not a liability. as Allah said, as they plans, he plans too, and he is the best of planners, using his own enemies to let people go and look into Islam which opens many of their eyes.
Well then I guess we need to prosecute Zakir Naik and a number of other Muslims too.
And how about Muslims who advocate the killing of apostates.
And I can assure you Wood, living in Europe that the situation is as bad as in USA.
Just take the present case in Glasgow.
Nakdimon, in the UAE i saw half naked women, westerners wearing and doing what they want, etc etc, even eating out during ramadan, doing the very same things you mention. so i fail to see any point there.
Sami, I am not talking about tourists, I’m talking about people that live here. Now if you are talking about people that live over there who behave that way, then I think that is wrong it the people over there don’t accept this. They have to adapt to the customs and rulings over there. But that counts for here also. If people want to live here, they have to integrate.
Nakdimon, you say imams in the holland call for death, well thats not bad, theyre not doing it, theyre just calling for it, they have a right to their opinion, hey, im using David's logic here, since no action was really done, then ppl are more than free to say what they want.
I think you grossly misunderstand David. Calling for a ban on a book that is seemingly justifying violence and destruction to those that don’t adhere to it, is something else than calling for the killing of people whose opinion you don’t like. THAT is hate speech and even can be seen as corroboration to murder. That should be punished, NOT the opinion that a book should be banned.
Nakdimon
Sami: “Nabeel that free speech calls for the banning of a the second largest religion of Europe, and how do you put that in a ban, is that going to take place peacefully? i dont think so, and whats gonna happen when ppl are caught with a Quran??? you make it seem thats he is simply propagating simple ideas when we all know hes not, he is propagating an extreme agenda.”
Sami, I think you completely miss the point here. The point is that the Qur’an, whether you understand it correctly or not, incites hatred! It tells you not to befriend Christians and Jews, it tells you to kill infidels, it tells you to demean others. I have no problem with the Qur’an telling us that if we don’t believe we will go to hell. Because that is ultimately the judgment of God. But I have every problem with a book that claims to be divine, that shows clear human origins, and calls human beings, in an open ended fashion, to kill other humans “wherever you find them”. Now, again, you might say that this is an incorrect interpretation of this text, but fact remains is that people use these texts to do all kinds of evil stuff. And you might say, again, that this is something that is not a problem with the texts, but with the adherence. Granted! But then we should see the following thing happening:
Which is that Muslims should take a stand against the Muslims that misuse these texts, which is something we are NOT seeing. And since you keep telling us that this isn’t the correct way of application and you are not doing anything about your fellow Muslims’ profanity of what you deem as sacred text, we take your words to be just hot air and their interpretations of the text to be valid. Especially because we see their behaviour reflected in the early Muslim sources and your authentic traditions. And when we see you completely re-interpret those sources to validate the behaviour of the first couple of generations of Muslims and being pacifistic about the behaviour of contemporary Muslims, your actions speak louder than your words and we just don’t buy into the fact that the behaviour of the Muslims today is supposedly “unislamic”.
If their behaviour is so “unislamic”, then why don’t we see you take a stand against those Muslims, that are actually hypocrites, as you do against the “unislamic” behaviour of the infidels? Why do you criticise the infidels so fiercely for their “unislamic” behaviour without them appealing to your religious book, while you are totally pacifistic when it comes to the “unislamic” behaviour of your fellow Muslims who DO appeal to your book? Isn’t that an even worse thing? I say YES since it profanes not only your holy book, but also Allah and therefore it deserves an even stronger opposition from you who claim that their behaviour is so unislamic. If you disagree, then I suggest you show me where I went wrong. If you can’t show me where I went wrong, then I suggest you strongly consider that point. Because as things stand now, YOU are being slandered because of the misbehaviour of your fellow Muslims, which you fail to stand up to either because of your unwillingness to do so or because you have nothing to stand on from theological standpoint in the first place.
Think about it: 1.7 billion Muslims on earth and the overwhelming majority is supposedly moderate. Which of the two voices should be the loudest? Then how come we don’t hear the voices of the moderates against those who are supposedly radical? Instead, we see the failure of the moderates to act against the radicals. All we see is moderates jump in defence of the radicals when non-Muslims criticize Islam because of the behaviour of the radicals. What do you think that tells us? But somehow we aren’t allowed to draw any conclusions from your pacifistic attitudes.
And then, when someone as Wilders stands up and says something about this, HE is the one that is being prosecuted for bigotry. Go figure.
Nakdimon
I just saw the woman claiming that Jews believe that its all over when you die. This woman, just like Muhammad, is so ignorant of what others believe, its almost painful to see how Muslims claim that their prophet was the epitome of wisdom. For the Muslims that don’t know yet, let me put you on notice so that you would stop misrepresenting Jewish beliefs and customs like your holy book does:
The Jewish concept of live in the here after is the understanding of the “Olam haBah”, which means “the world to come”. Jews believe in an afterlife.
They DON’T believe and have never done so, that life ends with our death here on earth. NOR do they believe that Ezra was the son of God, NOR do they believe that there were kings and prophets before Moses, NOR do they think that Christians have a quiblah (which we haven’t! Go figure, Jews know this better than Allah!), etc., etc., etc…
Post a Comment