Geert Wilders on Trial for hate speech - closing argument

[icehorse]

Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who is openly against the Islamification of the Netherlands and the west in general. At a political rally in 2014 this exchange occurred:

Mr Wilders asked the crowd whether they wanted “fewer or more Moroccans in your city and in the Netherlands”.

After they audience shouted “fewer, fewer”, he replied: “We’re going to organise that.”

Largely due to this exchange he has been on trial for hate speech and racism. Here is his closing argument:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9404/wilders-trial-closing-statement

Anyone here think Geert should be convicted?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No he shouldn't be, if that's all he said, a clear violation of freedom of speech.

 

[Kirran]

It's his frequent incitement towards racist sentiments which I think is more concerning. He doesn't say 'Do we want to successfully challenge the theocratic and misogynist ideas within Islam?' he says 'Do we wanna kick out the Moroccans?'

 

[MD]

He's part Indonesian, I bet that plays a huge role in his views.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

He's part Indonesian, I bet that plays a huge role in his views.

Ooh, didn't know that.

It's his frequent incitement towards racist sentiments which I think is more concerning. He doesn't say 'Do we want to successfully challenge the theocratic and misogynist ideas within Islam?' he says 'Do we wanna kick out the Moroccans?'

Concerning, indeed, prosecutable, not so much.

 

[MD]

Ooh, didn't know that.

Yea either 1/4 or 1/8.

Many Dutch Indonesians who left Indonesia after independence did not like Islamic Indonesian society. They did not like to be identified as 'Muslim' or 'Immigrants' after arriving in Holland as well.

The actor who portrayed Zack Morris from Saved by the Bell is also part Indonesian.

 

[icehorse]

Yea either 1/4 or 1/8.

Many Dutch Indonesians who left Indonesia after independence did not like Islamic Indonesian society. They did not like to be identified as 'Muslim' or 'Immigrants' after arriving in Holland as well.

The actor who portrayed Zack Morris from Saved by the Bell is also part Indonesian.

How does any of this impact the trial? Shouldn't the arguments stand or fall on their own, independent of the speaker?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

He hasn't said anything that other Dutch people haven't said just as publicly. I suspect this is just the Dutch establishment trying to disable a rising political party that's challenging them.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

He hasn't said anything that other Dutch people haven't said just as publicly. I suspect this is just the Dutch establishment trying to disable a rising political party that's challenging them.

That's quite worrying that that should even be possible to do by any ruling party.

 

[Augustus]

Many Dutch Indonesians who left Indonesia after independence did not like Islamic Indonesian society. They did not like to be identified as 'Muslim' or 'Immigrants' after arriving in Holland as well.

Almost all mixed race 'Indos' would have been Christian. Even most of the fully Indonesian immigrants were Christians from Maluku and North Sulawesi who had fought for the Dutch.

 

[MD]

Almost all mixed race 'Indos' would have been Christian. Even most of the fully Indonesian immigrants were Christians from Maluku and North Sulawesi who had fought for the Dutch.

Oh really? I didn't know that, thought some would be Muslim by heritage.

 

[Rival]

No, he should not be prosecuted. And I'm part Moroccan.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Yes he should be prosecuted. It's no different to some BNP or Britain First bloke saying "We should get rid of all the Poles" here in the UK. If he had meant Muslims he'd have said Muslims. He didn't.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Yes he should be prosecuted. It's no different to some BNP or Britain First bloke saying "We should get rid of all the Poles" here in the UK. If he had meant Muslims he'd have said Muslims. He didn't.

Prosecuted for what? Mean words? Whatever happened to free speech?

 

[Nietzsche]

Prosecuted for what? Mean words? Whatever happened to free speech?

Because the last time a politician with an accent similar to his said things like that..

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Because the last time a politician with an accent similar to his said things like that..

So you do what, suppress speech, ban words? People should be able to say what they think in a free society, and those who disagree engage with them, not suppress them. Suppression doesn't work.

 

[Nietzsche]

So you do what, suppress speech, ban words? People should be able to say what they think in a free society, and those who disagree engage with them, not suppress them. Suppression doesn't work.

How do you feel about people shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Do they deserve to be punished?

Think carefully, because how you answer this is going to be important later.

 

[icehorse]

For the "pro-prosecution of Wilders" crowd, remember that most countries have long standing and strict immigration policies and quotas. How is Wilder's speech not simply a reminder that those immigration rules can be amended?

 

[Twilight Hue]

What would the sentence be if found guilty?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

How do you feel about people shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Do they deserve to be punished?

Think carefully, because how you answer this is going to be important later.

I agree with the historical limitation on speech being intent to cause physical harm or directly inciting people to commit violence, as it has been from the early days of free speech. I am not saying that there should be no limits on speech whatsoever, which is what the crowded theater analogy is meant to address, but that the actual point of free speech is upheld, the free exchange of ideas, no matter how poisonous or unsavoury we may think these ideas are, being able to hold to our own opinions and express them as we so wish, as a free person.

Shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre is deeply irresponsible, but is not illegal, at least not in the US and even if it causes physical harm from the panic, it is not yet a real problem that needs to even be addressed by the law. Regardless of whether this should be legal or illegal, it has no bearing on the point of free speech, that being the exchange of ideas, which prosecuting Geert Wilders would be infringing.