Geert Wilders on Trial for hate speech - closing argument

[Parchment]

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

And who might that be?

 

[Parchment]

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.
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

So the guy was charged.

Remember this one of Sarah Palin?

There was also one of Obama around the same time, take a guess which one was investigated as a hate crime and which one wasn't.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

I did not say that it was.... Though such laws have come about because of the public's lack of a moral ethos. And inability to check their baser instincts.

Though I can not see why anyone should have a need to take pleasure in hurting others.
That is hardly a right that needs defending.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I did not say that it was.... Though such laws have come about because of the public's lack of a moral ethos. And inability to check their baser instincts.

Though I can not see why anyone should have a need to take pleasure in hurting others.
That is hardly a right that needs defending.

And what happens when the person does not take pleasure in hurting others, but is expressing a genuine view that others deem hurtful or hateful? We quickly move onto shaky ground that infringes our freedoms to have and express our own viewpoints and ideas.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

And what happens when the person does not take pleasure in hurting others, but is expressing a genuine view that others deem hurtful or hateful? We quickly move onto shaky ground that infringes our freedoms to have and express our own viewpoints and ideas.

You can genuinely want to murder someone. If you do so it is still murder.
The Law allows few let outs for personal expressions.

Most laws covering hate crimes and protections, like race and sexuality, take the side of the victim not the perpetrator.

 

[Notanumber]

Trust the Muslim Council of Britain to get in on the act.

As I understand it, it was the reporting of hate crimes that increased. I heard it reported that there was no significant increase in the actual crimes themselves.

This quote is just as relevant now as it was then - "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." ~ George Washington

Why don’t the moderate Muslims use their free speech to publically condemn all those atrocities carried out in their name?

If it is such a serious crime that he has been accused of why aren’t the other politicians from other parties who spoke about Moroccans in court alongside him.

As he says it is a political trial, it stinks and it would be more appropriate in Turkey or Iran where they also drag the opposition to court.

It is a landmark case, but left wing as they are, they cannot convict him after hearing what he had to say. If they do, they will have become another Sweden (a ship of fools).

The establishment don’t like him - And what about police chief Joop van Riessen, who said about me on television -- I quote literally: "Basically one would feel inclined to say: let's kill him, just get rid of him now and he will never surface again"?

And in reference to PVV voters, van Riessen declared: "Those people must be deported, they no longer belong here." End of quote. The police chief said that killing Wilders was a normal reaction. That is hatred, Mr. President, pure hatred -- and not by us, but against us. And the Public Prosecutor did not prosecute Mr. Van Riessen.

We need more brave people like he is

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

So the guy was charged.

Remember this one of Sarah Palin?

There was also one of Obama around the same time, take a guess which one was investigated as a hate crime and which one wasn't.

And which one was aimed at a black man? Yeah, not that one there. The Obama one was taken more seriously because

1. He was the President or President-elect of the time and;
2. Americans have a proven history of forming lynch mobs and stringing up black people because they're black. If it can be proven that the Palin one was racially motivated then I'll agree that the two should have been given equivalent treatment.

And yes, I condemn both. Calling for someone's death is an abuse of free speech in most cases. The Palin one is one of those. It should have been prosecuted but given the overall threat to Palin, it's understandable as to why it wasn't taken as seriously as the Obama one.

 

[icehorse]

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.

As a thought experiment: Let's say we had compelling evidence that Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands were 100 times as likely to commit violent crimes than any other group. How about 1000 times as likely? Remember, countries have had, for decades, immigration policies and quotas.

Your contention is that what Wilder's has done is "bad". At what point would his concerns become appropriate?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

As a thought experiment: Let's say we had compelling evidence that Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands were 100 times as likely to commit violent crimes than any other group. How about 1000 times as likely? Remember, countries have had, for decades, immigration policies and quotas.

Your contention is that what Wilder's has done is "bad". At what point would his concerns become appropriate?

When he starts demanding that criminal immigrants be deported. But as far as I can tell he is not doing that - he is treating Moroccans as a group as a bunch of undesirables regardless of whether they've committed a crime or not. He seems to be advocating denying their right to due process simply because they're foreign. If a Moroccan is 100 times, 1000 times or 10,000,000 times more likely to commit a crime than a native Dutchman, the fact remains that they're innocent in the eyes of the law until they're proven guilty. Wilders seems to want to deport immigrants for the 'crime' of being immigrants.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As someone who's half Middle Eastern, with Middle Eastern features and a Muslim sounding name I don't blame the Dutch for choosing a politician who defends their culture vs protecting one that is alien to Europe. I would think that Islam is much more compatible with American culture than with European.

Oh, please. Islam has been in Europe for centuries. Europe has always been multicultural and multiracial.

 

[icehorse]

When he starts demanding that criminal immigrants be deported. But as far as I can tell he is not doing that - he is treating Moroccans as a group as a bunch of undesirables regardless of whether they've committed a crime or not. He seems to be advocating denying their right to due process simply because they're foreign. If a Moroccan is 100 times, 1000 times or 10,000,000 times more likely to commit a crime than a native Dutchman, the fact remains that they're innocent in the eyes of the law until they're proven guilty. Wilders seems to want to deport immigrants for the 'crime' of being immigrants.

I don't know that that was his intention. Do you have a citation for that? (This is sincere.)

 

[icehorse]

Oh, please. Islam has been in Europe for centuries. Europe has always been multicultural and multiracial.

False equivalence? Would you say - for example - that Turkey is as multi-cultural today as it was 100 years ago? (For reference, 100 years agoTurkey was 10-20% Christian, today it's .1% Christian.) So does the existence of a single immigrant make a region "multi-cultural"? I think not.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

False equivalence? Would you say - for example - that Turkey is as multi-cultural today as it was 100 years ago? (For reference, 100 years agoTurkey was 10-20% Christian, today it's .1% Christian.) So does the existence of a single immigrant make a region "multi-cultural"? I think not.

Way to misrepresent what I said. The Turks committed genocide against minority groups in the area during that time, so that's a different subject. But Islam has been a cultural force in Europe since about its beginning. For example, Albania and Bosnia have majority Muslim populations, and Spain was ruled by the Moors (and they did a great job, imo) until the Catholic loons destroyed it and committed genocide against Jews and Muslims.

 

[icehorse]

Way to misrepresent what I said. The Turks committed genocide against minority groups in the area during that time, so that's a different subject. But Islam has been a cultural force in Europe since about its beginning. For example, Albania and Bosnia have majority Muslim populations, and Spain was ruled by the Moors (and they did a great job, imo) until the Catholic loons destroyed it and committed genocide against Jews and Muslims.

A couple of points:

On Turkey, I think even if we start counting AFTER the genocide, we'd see a steady ousting of Christians.

My point was that the ratios have been changing enormously. Some cultures blend more easily, some cultural mixes are more problematic. It seems evident to me that a strong Muslim population will tend not to mix well with a strong western population. So if a country like the Netherlands had a .1% Muslim population 100 years ago (I have no idea, I'm just creating an example), and now it has a 4% population share, that's a significant change. I don't think it's accurate to lump both situations into the "always been multicultural" category.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A couple of points:

On Turkey, I think even if we start counting AFTER the genocide, we'd see a steady ousting of Christians.

My point was that the ratios have been changing enormously. Some cultures blend more easily, some cultural mixes are more problematic. It seems evident to me that a strong Muslim population will tend not to mix well with a strong western population. So if a country like the Netherlands had a .1% Muslim population 100 years ago (I have no idea, I'm just creating an example), and now it has a 4% population share, that's a significant change. I don't think it's accurate to lump both situations into the "always been multicultural" category.

That's just your Islamophobic conjecture. Muslims in general don't have a problem "mixing" with Western populations. It's just xenophobic trogs who are afraid of perceived differences and imagining problems who are creating the problems. My city has a large Muslim immigrant population (Somalis, Arabs, Pakistanis, North Africans, etc.) and we're just fine here.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Why don’t the moderate Muslims use their free speech to publically condemn all those atrocities carried out in their name?

They do. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-marc-schneier/muslims-do-speak-out-were_b_6979246.html

 

[icehorse]

That's just your Islamophobic conjecture. Muslims in general don't have a problem "mixing" with Western populations. It's just xenophobic trogs who are afraid of perceived differences and imagining problems who are creating the problems. My city has a large Muslim immigrant population (Somalis, Arabs, Pakistanis, North Africans, etc.) and we're just fine here.

If I was in a mood, I could say that your use of the term "Islamophobia" disqualifies you. But I'm not, so I'll proceed:

I'd be interested in what city you'r referring to. But regardless, I'm talking about a frequent problem, not a universal one.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If I was in a mood, I could say that your use of the term "Islamophobia" disqualifies you. But I'm not, so I'll proceed:

I'd be interested in what city you'r referring to. But regardless, I'm talking about a frequent problem, not a universal one.

Just like if we're talking about gay people and someone said "homophobia", that would "disqualify" them from the conversation, right?

I live in Columbus, Ohio. It's on my profile.

 

[icehorse]

They do. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-marc-schneier/muslims-do-speak-out-were_b_6979246.html

Of course we should welcome such episodes.That said, we'd ALL be MUCH better off if these Muslims established a new, well defined, secularism-supporting, UNDHR-supporting sect.

There is a LARGE portion of the Muslim population that decries terrorism AND is also anti-secular.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Of course we should welcome such episodes.That said, we'd ALL be MUCH better off if these Muslims established a new, well defined, secularism-supporting, UNDHR-supporting sect.

There is a LARGE portion of the Muslim population that decries terrorism AND is also anti-secular.

As anti-secular as other religious groups.