Geert Wilders on Trial for hate speech - closing argument

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The answer isn't removing a foundation of free society.

If freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to say racist things (which it doesn't) then nothing is being removed. Would you be so accommodating if Wilders was known for saying "Do we want more or fewer Christians in the Netherlands? Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!"?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to say racist things (which it doesn't) then nothing is being removed. Would you be so accommodating if Wilders was known for saying "Do we want more or fewer Christians in the Netherlands? Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!"?

Yes of course I would be, I don't advocate suppressing someone's speech for the petty reason of it offending me.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to exchange ideas, regardless of whether we label them as 'racist', there was never some historical limitation on speech for cases of 'racism', these were introduced more recently in hate speech laws.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Inciting racism? In what way? You can argue what he said was racist, but why should a racist idea be banned or suppressed?

Because if you normalise racism & xenophobia then it allows such toxic, divisive ideologies to spread into mainstream life where it becomes far more likely that it will worm its way into somewhere where it can achieve actual harm rather than just promoting it. Europe has experienced first hand where that sort of thinking can lead.

Unless it's directly inciting violence we should not be suppressing and banning anyone's views from being expressed.

And this is why Americans think it's okay to call for the death of President Obama because they don't like the idea of a black man in the Oval Office. As long as you're not openly calling for someone to die in America, you can say what you want. That's so ****ed up.

And yes, I think the guy who made this was charged but it's the fact that America's ridiculously lax approach to freedom of speech and refusal to sideline supremacist, xenophobic ideas has created a climate where this man is far from alone

Yes of course I would be, I don't advocate suppressing someone's speech for the petty reason of it offending me.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to exchange ideas, regardless of whether we label them as 'racist', there was never some historical limitation on speech for cases of 'racism', these were introduced more recently in hate speech laws.

What if such anti-Christian speech contributed to a climate where Christians were living in fear, even if it wasn't an outright call for violence? Say some national government or some politician used the Christian blood libel as a way of ramping up anti-Christian sentiment which resulted in churches being burned? Would you be okay with it then? Because that's what ideology like this leads to - people putting the rhetoric of politicians into action. You're correct, there never was any such limitations on speech for cases of racism in the States because it wasn't until recently that black people & natives in America started being treated as equal citizens. Even then...

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Because if you normalise racism & xenophobia then it allows such toxic, divisive ideologies to spread into mainstream life where it becomes far more likely that it will worm its way into somewhere where it can achieve actual harm rather than just promoting it. Europe has experienced first hand where that sort of thinking can lead.

Respecting someone's right to say what they think is not 'normalising' their belief. So should every undesirable belief be suppressed? If we allow anyone to say anything remotely undesirable, are we normalising it?

You make it sound as though before hate speech laws came in, Naziism and racism were rampant everywhere. They weren't, the laws are unnecessary and dangerous to our freedoms.

And this is why Americans think it's okay to call for the death of President Obama because they don't like the idea of a black man in the Oval Office. As long as you're not openly calling for someone to die in America, you can say what you want. That's so ****ed up.

And yes, I think the guy who made this was charged but it's the fact that America's ridiculously lax approach to freedom of speech and refusal to sideline supremacist, xenophobic ideas has created a climate where this man is far from alone

It's not just America's, but the historical understanding of free speech as articulated both in British and American tradition. People should be able to express what they want to say, unless it directly incites violence.

What if such anti-Christian speech contributed to a climate where Christians were living in fear, even if it wasn't an outright call for violence? Say some national government or some politician used the Christian blood libel as a way of ramping up anti-Christian sentiment which resulted in churches being burned? Would you be okay with it then? Because that's what ideology like this leads to - people putting the rhetoric of politicians into action. You're correct, there never was any such limitations on speech for cases of racism in the States because it wasn't until recently that black people & natives in America started being treated as equal citizens. Even then...

You would have to be pretty direct to even come close to creating this climate. I suppose even without directly inciting violence, it is possible to create this hypothetical anti-Christian climate, but I would combat such ideas with debate and engagement, not suppression. I stand by a person's right to say what they want, even if it offends me. Anything else and we go down a dangerous path of defining what is hateful and what is not, and people suppressing others' views simply because it offends them.

 

[icehorse]

GS -

Let me ask you this: Who do you think is smart enough to determine what you cannot hear?

I've never heard of a person so smart that I'd be happy to let her determine what I can and cannot hear.

 

[Flankerl]

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.

The term "Dutch Indonesians" does not imply that they are "mixed". It means they are descendants of Europeans who moved there.

 

[MD]

Wilders isn't talking about Muslims here though. He's talking about Moroccans - a nationality - and wants them removed from the Netherlands. That's racism. Here in the UK the man who murdered the late MP Jo Cox was sentenced earlier this week. The rhetoric and beliefs he espouses is strikingly similar to that spouted off by Geert et al - 'get the foreigners out'. Far-right individuals like Britain First members, American neo-Nazis and Wilders may not have literally given this man the gun he used but their rhetoric gave him the motivation to pull the trigger. They need to suffer for that. The entire far-right needs to suffer for that.

Leftists like Bahar Mustafa and Lena Dunham routinely call for white men to be exterminated, killed or go extinct. Islamists keep on talking about Shariah takeover and a new caliphate. If you're going to prosecute the far Right, then you should also prosecute the far Left. Otherwise you're simply pushing a narrative.

 

[Kirran]

The term "Dutch Indonesians" does not imply that they are "mixed". It means they are descendants of Europeans who moved there.

I think nowadays they're a Eurasian people (Indo people, they're called) but this might well not have been the case back when his ancestors moved back to the Netherlands.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Respecting someone's right to say what they think is not 'normalising' their belief.

Yes it is. If you give them the space to articulate their opinions freely and openly then that lends to a climate where such opinions become normal.

So should every undesirable belief be suppressed?

Yes. And before you say it, I'm well aware that such a position opens a can of worms of 'who decides what is undesirable?'. That is a very poignant question for another thread.

f we allow anyone to say anything remotely undesirable, are we normalising it?

Yes!

You make it sound as though before hate speech laws came in, Naziism and racism were rampant everywhere.

Nazism wasn't but racism was everywhere. Look at how blacks and natives were treated in America before their respective civil rights movements - blacks had to sit at the back of the ****ing bus for Christ's sake. Native Americans weren't even allowed to practice their respective cultural beliefs - a right guaranteed to all Americans - until 1978. They couldn't even vote in American elections (despite being citizens) until 1968 and even today they face some problems. And let's not even mention the huge problem Americans seem to have with black people.

Elsewhere, countless empires told their citizens that they were superior to the peoples conquered by imperial forces.

• Churchill, that paragon of British courage and grit, ****ing hated Indians to the point where he willingly let millions starve to death to ensure Britain was fed enough to keep up the fight.
• The anti-Semitism that was rampant across Europe until the end of WW2 and still exists (but, thanks to hate speech laws, on the fringes of society) to this day.
• The hangovers of British racism in apartheid South Africa.
• The Japanese empire's horrible treatment of the Chinese, Koreans et al because they were deemed inferior peoples.

They weren't, the laws are unnecessary and dangerous to our freedoms.

Spoken with true white privilege. Because you're in a position where you don't have to suffer racial or religious discrimination in every day life like blacks, Muslims, native Americans, Poles etc, you decide these laws are worthless. Hate crimes against foreigners sky-rocketed in Britain (mostly in England) in the wake of the Brexit vote. Do you believe hate speech laws shouldn't applied to some of these instances?

It's not just America's, but the historical understanding of free speech as articulated both in British and American tradition. People should be able to express what they want to say, unless it directly incites violence.

Argument from tradition fallacy - just because that was the understanding then does not make it the best one. Our understanding of what constitutes 'free speech' has evolved over time as society has come to recognise that democracy can't just be a tyranny of the majority - it must protect the rights of the otherwise voiceless.

You would have to be pretty direct to even come close to creating this climate. I suppose even without directly inciting violence, it is possible to create this hypothetical anti-Christian climate, but I would combat such ideas with debate and engagement, not suppression.

Which isn't really helping Egypt's Copts or the Christians in Pakistan or northern Nigeria, is it? Debate only works when the other side holds a rational position and can be persuaded with reason. Like what we're doing here.

I stand by a person's right to say what they want, even if it offends me. Anything else and we go down a dangerous path of defining what is hateful and what is not, and people suppressing others' views simply because it offends them.

How magnanimous of you to shoulder the responsibility of deciding on behalf of all minorities that the risk just isn't worth taking.

GS -

Let me ask you this: Who do you think is smart enough to determine what you cannot hear?

I've never heard of a person so smart that I'd be happy to let her determine what I can and cannot hear.

I am.

My facetiousness aside, I appreciate the point you're trying to get across. As I said to Sultan, it's a messy can of worms that such a position will inevitably open and one I think should be discussed more.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Leftists like Bahar Mustafa and Lena Dunham routinely call for white men to be exterminated, killed or go extinct. Islamists keep on talking about Shariah takeover and a new caliphate. If you're going to prosecute the far Right, then you should also prosecute the far Left. Otherwise you're simply pushing a narrative.

And where these people and groups of people break the law they should be punished likewise, I agree. That said, this is all deflecting from what Wilders has done and is being charged with. At the very least all you can say is they're as bad as he is.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Yes it is. If you give them the space to articulate their opinions freely and openly then that lends to a climate where such opinions become normal.

Yes. And before you say it, I'm well aware that such a position opens a can of worms of 'who decides what is undesirable?'. That is a very poignant question for another thread.

Yes!

Then that is no longer a free society. We cannot be so afraid of ideas spreading that we suppress and ban them. Those are the tactics of authoritarians.

Nazism wasn't but racism was everywhere. Look at how blacks and natives were treated in America before their respective civil rights movements - blacks had to sit at the back of the ****ing bus for Christ's sake. Native Americans weren't even allowed to practice their respective cultural beliefs - a right guaranteed to all Americans - until 1978. They couldn't even vote in American elections (despite being citizens) until 1968 and even today they face some problems. And let's not even mention the huge problem Americans seem to have with black people.

Elsewhere, countless empires told their citizens that they were superior to the peoples conquered by imperial forces.

• Churchill, that paragon of British courage and grit, ****ing hated Indians to the point where he willingly let millions starve to death to ensure Britain was fed enough to keep up the fight.
• The anti-Semitism that was rampant across Europe until the end of WW2 and still exists (but, thanks to hate speech laws, on the fringes of society) to this day.
• The hangovers of British racism in apartheid South Africa.
• The Japanese empire's horrible treatment of the Chinese, Koreans et al because they were deemed inferior peoples.

• Before hate speech laws were introduced in the UK there was not rampant racism. And the racism that did exist then still exists today, perhaps there is a little less of it, but hate speech laws haven't changed any of that.

Spoken with true white privilege. Because you're in a position where you don't have to suffer racial or religious discrimination in every day life like blacks, Muslims, native Americans, Poles etc, you decide these laws are worthless. Hate crimes against foreigners sky-rocketed in Britain (mostly in England) in the wake of the Brexit vote. Do you believe hate speech laws shouldn't applied to some of these instances?

No, hate speech laws shouldn't be applied in any of these instances, awful as they are. If they happened to me I'm sure I would be very offended, intimidated, what have you, but I still would defend their freedom to say what they say.

And I don't know what this white privilege is you speak of either, I'm afraid I must have misplaced mine.

Argument from tradition fallacy - just because that was the understanding then does not make it the best one. Our understanding of what constitutes 'free speech' has evolved over time as society has come to recognise that democracy can't just be a tyranny of the majority - it must protect the rights of the otherwise voiceless.

Rights of the minorities and the voiceless should be protected, sure, not their feelings.

Which isn't really helping Egypt's Copts or the Christians in Pakistan or northern Nigeria, is it? Debate only works when the other side holds a rational position and can be persuaded with reason. Like what we're doing here.

A British culture of common decency no doubt also helps. I speak of free speech as applying to more developed Western countries. (Not that I would ever suppose that such persecution cannot happen here, only that it is far less likely.) And of course in Pakistan, the persecution is real, not just words. I'm sure Christians in Pakistan would take words over actions any day. And that is why said actions should be illegal, and that is where the police are supposed to step in.

How magnanimous of you to shoulder the responsibility of deciding on behalf of all minorities that the risk just isn't worth taking.

Why thank you.

And correct, I will not risk the foundations of free society on the feelings of people being offended, myself included!

 

[Augustus]

The term "Dutch Indonesians" does not imply that they are "mixed". It means they are descendants of Europeans who moved there.

That's why I used the term 'Indos' which does.

Was just highlighting that the Indonesians who emigrated to Holland tended to be Christians which pretty much goes without saying for the ethnic Dutch.

 

[MD]

And where these people and groups of people break the law they should be punished likewise, I agree. That said, this is all deflecting from what Wilders has done and is being charged with. At the very least all you can say is they're as bad as he is.

They're both bad, but the Left gets away with. How many jihadist preachers were calling for violence for years before anything happened? Look at Anjem Choudary, dude was on the street preaching hate for years. How many feminists who call for killing white men get charged? None.

The fact is the Left is playing it's own game where they silence opposition and push their narrative. If given more power the Left would employ camps and death squads. It's immoral.

Either allow all people to express their views, or clamp down equally on everyone who talks ****. Prosecuting some while ignoring others shows that there is an agenda at play..

 

[Augustus]

Then that is no longer a free society. We cannot be so afraid of ideas spreading that we suppress and ban them. Those are the tactics of authoritarians.

I'm with Popper on this:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

The principle of reciprocity is a good and ethical starting point. People cannot claim rights for themselves that they are advocating removing from other people.

So, for example, no right to free speech for those who oppose free speech as a principle.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I'm with Popper on this:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

The principle of reciprocity is a good and ethical starting point. People cannot claim rights for themselves that they are advocating removing from other people.

So, for example, no right to free speech for those who oppose free speech as a principle.

I'm not with Popper on this. Suppression doesn't work. We challenge views we don't like, not ban them. There is no 'onslaught of the intolerant' going on, there is no necessity for hate speech laws, and suppression only encourages these people, vindicates them and adds to their persecution complex.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

"or hate crimes"
How do you define what is a 'hate crime' is? When it offends someone, or is rude about someone, or nasty about a certain set of people? It's one thing to directly incite violence, and another to say something mean which others find hateful, and we quickly get onto shaky territory where the free exchange of ideas is under threat.

Hate crimes are defined in their respective laws. As are all "crimes"

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Hate crimes are defined in their respective laws. As are all "crimes"

Simply because something is a law doesn't make it a good or useful law. Legal definitions for hate speech are broad, and fall into the danger of restricting people's ideas and free speech. We can't prosecute people for saying mean things, then before you know it anyone can claim any unpopular view they don't like is offensive and hateful.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Simply because something is a law doesn't make it a good or useful law. Legal definitions for hate speech are broad, and fall into the danger of restricting people's ideas and free speech. We can't prosecute people for saying mean things, then before you know it anyone can claim any unpopular view they don't like is offensive and hateful.

Unfortunately hate laws have become necessary because peoples personal ethos often run roughshod over other peoples rights of equality under the law. Even basic rights of black and coloured people as well of those of different sexual orientation, or indeed people with disability are mocked or diminished by people who do not respect either these rights or uphold the laws concerning them. were they to do so perhaps these laws would become redundant.
But that likelihood seems far off.

Laws are not just matters of personal opinion.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Unfortunately hate laws have become necessary because peoples personal ethos often run roughshod over other peoples rights of equality under the law. Even basic rights of black and coloured people as well of those of different sexual orientation, or indeed people with disability are mocked or diminished by people who do not respect either these rights or uphold the laws concerning them. were they to do so perhaps these laws would become redundant.
But that likelihood seems far off.

Laws are not just matters of personal opinion.

Mocking someone isn't infringing their right, saying mean words and hurting someone's feelings is not nice, but the law isn't supposed to prevent impoliteness and hurt feelings.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Persoanlly I admire him for his conviction, and no he most definately should not be prosecuted at all - he should be given a position of leadership - as clearly he is willin got do a great deal to protect his country....Its not HIS views as he said -it is the vie wof near HALF the population according to that article....So -are they going to prosecute all those too..??...

And big deal - so he speaks plainly and forthright - SO WHAT..??....Isnt that better than the usual bs and manipulation..??...Id much rather have truth given plainly than half truth and deception - or truth brushed away or covered if its inconveniant - .show it all plainly I say.....And no NOT RACIST - so what if he mentions Morrocons specifically....Did you miss the description and adjective first - CRIMINAL Morrocans..??.....THOSE are the ones he speaks against...CRIMINALS - just so happens that country has a spate of crime committed BY Morrocans SPECIFICALLY - and it s obviously a very serious problem indeed because look what he says :

I can give tens of thousands of other examples -- almost everyone in the Netherlands knows them or has personally experienced nuisance from criminal Moroccans. If you do not know them, you are living in an ivory tower.

Such a problem he says that ALMOST EVERYONE has had a negative encounter with them at some point !!! Iy is NOT RACIST to defend society form such things - is it..??...

I feel a great empathy for him - can directly relate here and know just how frsytrated he feels - as we have a similar element - the so called "traveller" pikee community that is rife in the UK..A similar CRIMINAL element - wholly disrespectful element who see themself as outside our society even whilst they live among us - but yet again - political correctness here ensures their despicable actions can be defended whilst those who speak plain truth against them are caught in fiascos such as this "freedom of speech" here.....Speak PLAIN TRUTH always Folks - then all this bs can stop once and for all....Tell it always, the way it REALLY is and damn that political malarky as nonesense..