Islam, Christianity, and most religions are a threat to 'true freedoms' in society. Whether it be ridiculous defamation laws preventing anyone to express an opinion about the hypocrisy of religion, to fundies proclaiming that being Gay, fucking doggie style, or eating Meat of Fridays is the work of the devil and deserves execution or some such shit.

"If something is true, how can it be illegal?"

Food for thought.

Don't know the big picture here...heard he was stirring up shit...but I can't stand fundamentalists be they Muslim, Christian, or Jew.

Any third-party, observationist Dutch wanna chime in?

Here's the film that got him into this: http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/134506

BEWARE: graphic images and nauseatingly poor style


Long live free speech, even for those who don't use it well!

To me, there is a very significant difference between a person making use of his or her freedom of speech, and intentionally inflaming and entire people and hiding behind it. Geert Wilders isn't on trial because of what he said, but because he showed incredibly poor judgement in how he chose to say it.

While what he said may be "true", there are definately ways to say it that are both rational, well thought out and based on valid arguments. But when he instead chooses to make a movie based mainly on disgusting images and emotional porn, you have to wonder whether he truely wanted to tell the "truth", or simply wanted to poke at the bees nest to create publicity. If so, he has made a mockery of the freedom of speech he is touting to his defense.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

Godspeed Wilders. We need millions like you.

Well rougy,

Dutch 'liberal' here, not a Wilders fan.

The court case is completely ridiculous, of course he should be able to say what he wants, especially since he is a politician and has to be able to express things even if they defy laws (since politicians define laws), and because he represents a large constituency of Dutch voters (8 percent in last election, could be up to 30% according to some polls).

However, this speech, man he or his (famous) lawyer seemed to have cobbled together all divine phrases of free speech and wrapped them together in a nice little presentation. Anybody can put together a speech like this ("wasn't it Voltaire who said 'as much as I despise your opinion, I will defend your ability to speak it'" is a staple of such speeches, and no it wasn't Voltaire).
You must understand that Wilders' other thoughts include a tax of say (pinky to mouth) a thousand dollars per hijab (islam head scarf) to fix the economic crisis.

The situation on free speech in the Netherlands is super unclear. Because we are such a liberal free country, nobody really bothered/ bothers to ensure those rights are also legally documented. So on some fronts the freedoms of speech are very limited if prosecution occurs (almost yearly people are put in prison over making pretty tame references to the queen, giving somebody the finger is technically an offense).
In this particular case, the Dutch DOJ first decided not to sue, then some hippy who can't deal with anybody not agreeing him (Rene Danen) forces the DOJ to reconsider, if you read the verdict of that case you can see it is all about Nazi Germany references, a big no-no in the Netherlands (Wilders compares the Quran to Mein Kampf, as in both books that cause people to do bad things).

Anyway, this is just part of the whole Wilders big clown extravanganza show that is going on for years now. He is just making outregeous claims and getting in trouble everywhere to drum up support (actually I am most impressed by the way he does these things, as he does really little press or other public things yet gets the press to talk about him constantly). I think it is unclear what will happen if he gets into power (which probably won't happen all too soon, in part because of him the Dutch political landscape is superfragmented now, any coalition created in the next four years will be crazy enough without him in it).

good analysis...

here is a selection of statements he made and for which he is currently being prosecuted:

Fitna(film)
"The Islam wants to conquer, subjugate and destroy our civilization. In 1945 Nazism was conquered, in 1989 Communism, and now we most conquer the Islamic ideology"
The movie show images of a future Holland as a Islamic country. A postcard of The Netherlands which s only shows minarets, a violent decapitation and images of terrorist attacks.

Volkskrant, 08-08-2007
"The root of the problem is the fascistic Islam, the sick ideology of Allah en Mohammad demonstrated in the Islamatic Mein Kampf: The Qur'an. The texts of the Qur'an leave little to the imagination."
as sanderbos said, referring to Mein Kampf is a big no-go in Western Europe.

"Ban that book (the Qur'an). Just like Mein Kampf!”
It is still illegal to sell Mein Kampf in the Netherlands. You are allowed to own it and trade it but not to buy it however.

De Pers, 13-02-2007
"Enough is enough. Close the borders, no more Muslims for the Netherlands, export as many as possible. Take away the Dutch passport of Muslim criminals"

Volkskrant, 07-09-2006
"Close the borders for non-western immigrants'
“We have to stop the tsunami of Muslims. It is a matter that touches our heart.”

>> ^sanderbos:
Well rougy,
Dutch 'liberal' here, not a Wilders fan.
The court case is completely ridiculous, of course he should be able to say what he wants, especially since he is a politician and has to be able to express things even if they defy laws (since politicians define laws), and because he represents a large constituency of Dutch voters (8 percent in last election, could be up to 30% according to some polls).
However, this speech, man he or his (famous) lawyer seemed to have cobbled together all divine phrases of free speech and wrapped them together in a nice little presentation. Anybody can put together a speech like this ("wasn't it Voltaire who said 'as much as I despise your opinion, I will defend your ability to speak it'" is a staple of such speeches, and no it wasn't Voltaire).
You must understand that Wilders' other thoughts include a tax of say (pinky to mouth) a thousand dollars per hijab (islam head scarf) to fix the economic crisis.
The situation on free speech in the Netherlands is super unclear. Because we are such a liberal free country, nobody really bothered/ bothers to ensure those rights are also legally documented. So on some fronts the freedoms of speech are very limited if prosecution occurs (almost yearly people are put in prison over making pretty tame references to the queen, giving somebody the finger is technically an offense).
In this particular case, the Dutch DOJ first decided not to sue, then some hippy who can't deal with anybody not agreeing him (Rene Danen) forces the DOJ to reconsider, if you read the verdict of that case you can see it is all about Nazi Germany references, a big no-no in the Netherlands (Wilders compares the Quran to Mein Kampf, as in both books that cause people to do bad things).
Anyway, this is just part of the whole Wilders big clown extravanganza show that is going on for years now. He is just making outregeous claims and getting in trouble everywhere to drum up support (actually I am most impressed by the way he does these things, as he does really little press or other public things yet gets the press to talk about him constantly). I think it is unclear what will happen if he gets into power (which probably won't happen all too soon, in part because of him the Dutch political landscape is superfragmented now, any coalition created in the next four years will be crazy enough without him in it).

You know what? Fuck you and your point of view. Relax, I'm going to make a point. By saying something so rude, and stupid. I understand your point more than most.

Right. In the US you can say what you damn well please so long as they are not "fighting words". Directly calling someone out.

Now, here is where it is different: Fuck you and your point of view. That is an expression of my distaste for your position on the matter at hand. Had I said, Fuck You! Then you can construe that as fighting words. That is not, under the law correct free speech. You must put context with the situation.

However, context for saying Fuck You may be given by the situation at hand. If I were being wrongly accused of some wrong doing, and so frustrated that I yelled out "Fuck Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!" then given the situation it can be construed as expression of your stressful state, and in Philadelphia is protected free speech.

So what he showed in the video, was by United States standards, freedom of speech and expression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck#Freedom_of_expression

Just because it offends someone does not make it illegal free speech, and in fact it would be censorship to say so. Iran's leader came here and spoke his mind, but we did not silence him, and he isn't even a US citizen!

>> ^Mysling:
To me, there is a very significant difference between a person making use of his or her freedom of speech, and intentionally inflaming and entire people and hiding behind it. Geert Wilders isn't on trial because of what he said, but because he showed incredibly poor judgement in how he chose to say it.
While what he said may be "true", there are definately ways to say it that are both rational, well thought out and based on valid arguments. But when he instead chooses to make a movie based mainly on disgusting images and emotional porn, you have to wonder whether he truely wanted to tell the "truth", or simply wanted to poke at the bees nest to create publicity. If so, he has made a mockery of the freedom of speech he is touting to his defense.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Now, here is where it is different: Fuck you and your point of view. That is an expression of my distaste for your position on the matter at hand. Had I said, Fuck You! Then you can construe that as fighting words. That is not, under the law correct free speech. You must put context with the situation.


I see your point, but in my opinion both the examples you use should never be used in a debate, or publicized. By anyone, no matter what viewpoint they are representing.

I see neither "fuck you!" or "fuck you and fuck your opinion" as arguments. They are meant purely to provoke, and bring nothing to a discussion. In that respect, I see Fitna as a giant "fuck you an fuck your opinions" with incredibly little rational discussion or debate. Bringing that into the public arena is an extreme lapse of judgement as it creates much more emotional harm than rational discussion.

While you may be technically right that Fitna can be considered as freedom of speech, I don't feel anything deserves that label if it doesn't take itself seriously enough to atleast compose its arguments in a rational manner.

Look up the word 'demagogue'.

Wilders is revealed for what he is by putting the word "Jew" in place for every occurance of the word "Muslim" and "Judaism" in place of the word "Islam". He says he doesn't want to be associated with extreme fascists like LePen or the UK's BNP, but that is exactly the company he belongs with.

demagogue: "A politician who arouses fervor by appealing to the lowest emotions of a mass audience, such as fear, hatred and greed."

Another Dutch Liberal here. Also not a Wilders fan.

I havent voted for years. If there is a chance that Wilders can make it into government I will finally vote again. Against him. It is good to have someone shake up the place once in a while so we stop and think about the direction we are heading in, and the rules we setup to get there. Actually giving the lunatic power will only show that in reality he is more dangerous then those he says he opposes.

All this is such a waste of energy. Best guess at the moment is Muslims make up 5-6% of the Dutch populace. Though there might be a minority causing more then their fair share of problems, muslims in general or not a problem at all. That minority probably has nothing to do with being Muslims.

Wilders grows on fears and fears alone. He has so far not proven in any way he is able to make positive contributions. In my book he is screaming to be ignored.

>> ^Mysling:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
Now, here is where it is different: Fuck you and your point of view. That is an expression of my distaste for your position on the matter at hand. Had I said, Fuck You! Then you can construe that as fighting words. That is not, under the law correct free speech. You must put context with the situation.

I see your point, but in my opinion both the examples you use should never be used in a debate, or publicized. By anyone, no matter what viewpoint they are representing.
I see neither "fuck you!" or "fuck you and fuck your opinion" as arguments. They are meant purely to provoke, and bring nothing to a discussion. In that respect, I see Fitna as a giant "fuck you an fuck your opinions" with incredibly little rational discussion or debate. Bringing that into the public arena is an extreme lapse of judgement as it creates much more emotional harm than rational discussion.
While you may be technically right that Fitna can be considered as freedom of speech, I don't feel anything deserves that label if it doesn't take itself seriously enough to atleast compose its arguments in a rational manner.


But, once again it is in your opinion that they mean to provoke, that is why there is a Judicial system in place, to solve these conundrums. Hence the reason that Philidelphia supreme court protected David Hackbart right to give the bird to a citizen, and a peace officer, because he was expressing his distress with his current situation.

http://news.aol.com/article/pittsburgh-city-council-awards-david/786635

In fact the city gave him 50,000 to settle the matter.

If curse words were not freedom of speech then men like George Carlin would still be in prison.

But I think we are arguing two different things, however related. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, which are invariably tied. You cannot have one without the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin

An example of Carlin's thought process. This argument is exactly why the Wilders is in court in the first place.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

But, once again it is in your opinion that they mean to provoke, that is why there is a Judicial system in place, to solve these conundrums. Hence the reason that Philidelphia supreme court protected David Hackbart right to give the bird to a citizen, and a peace officer, because he was expressing his distress with his current situation.
In fact the city gave him 50,000 to settle the matter.
But I think we are arguing two different things, however related. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, which are invariably tied. You cannot have one without the other.


I admit that this is purely my opinion, and you are probably right, judicially this sort of rhetoric needs to be covered by the freedom of speech. If nothing else, then to ensure that people cannot be censored merely for being hot headed or lacking judgement in the heat of the moment.

However, I still feel that relying on emotional offense is an inexcusable element to bring to a discussion.

The problem with the way Carlin, and for that sake Wilders, seeks to offend people while proving his point, is that the point only reaches the people who already agree with him. When you give people on the opposite side of the spectrum, the people you really need to reach, an excuse to get offended, they switch off and ignore the central message entirely. That is immensely counter-productive when trying to spread ideas, and trying to actually make a difference in the world.

In the end, I guess it makes little difference when looking at which ideas flourish across the entire political spectrum, and which do not. Carlins words, and people like Wilders, will continue to be ignored by people on the opposite side of the political spectrum due to their reliance on offending people to convey their message.

My only hope is that the people out there with ideas, which could actually change the world for the better, don't fall into the same trap

I can see why it is illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. It can cause panic because people have no time to assess the validity of the statement.

Anything less direct must be protected by law, or everything will be lost. Fuck people's hurt feelings. Hurting someone's feelings is not like breaking someone's arm. And incitement to violence? Again, only if it is a very short term situation, where people feel they must rely on the source of the information or their lives will be at risk.

Making claims that an incoming ideology is cancerous to a society is not a life or death immediate situation. There is time for people to discuss the point and embrace or dismiss it based on their own findings. If I were to claim that all short people steal babies, then some moron goes and kills a midget "to protect his child", that is entirely the fault of the idiot who failed to invalidate my claim. There was no life or death spur of the moment decision that needed to be made.

Our laws must respect our need to bring up topics of concern for discussion, even if they are emotionally charged. Even if one side eventually is proven wrong. We must be able to debate, or society will collapse into some form of fascism like in Orwell's 1984.

Now society, on the other hand, can and should be allowed to shun whatever idiots come up with stupid claims. Scientology, for instance. Nobody should ever try to make it illegal, but if people want to picket in front of their buildings and point out how stupid they are, great! That's debate, and it will help people make more informed decisions.

And similarly, if Wilders (no relation btw) wants to make terrible films describing his feelings about Islam, I don't care how emotionally charged and obscene they are. I don't even care if they are completely wrong! He must be able to speak, otherwise the ability to hold open debate on any topic is in jeopardy. It is the responsibility of the listener to interpret and work through the validity of the claims he makes, and abstain from any action until reaching their own informed opinion. It should never be done in a court.