http://bigjournalism.com/rtrzupek/2010/01/27/truth-on-trial-geert-wilders-vs-dutch-thought-police/
How do people feel about this limitation of Dutch free-speech? Do you think it is reasonable to prosecute someone for criticizing Islam?
Seems to me to be a dangerous precedent.
I also don’t believe that a similar film on Christianity would be prosecuted. It is the fear of Islamic intolerance for free-speech that seems to be the motivation here.
Of course it wouldn’t. Islam is being treated unlike any other religion. I guess that makes sense, as some of it’s adherents act unlike any other: “OMG, Muhammad is portrayed in a cartoon—KILL EVERYONE!” Fuck that. And fuck them. I say that if they want to live in the 21st century, welcome. If you want to hold on to beliefs that were assholish even back in their day, build a time machine and go the fuck back.
Agreed. Islam should be ridiculed early and often until they come to respect free speech.
That’s probably not how we ended up with free speech in the Judeo-Christian world. Why do you think think that ridicule would work in this case?
The article is a bit misleading. First of all, the DA actually didn’t want to prosecute Wilders for these actions, since he thought he couldn’t make the charges stick. After this decision some anti-Wilders groups went to court and got a ruling forcing the DA to prsecute the case.
Now this is what is going on, his (quite hard) statements about Islam - not the movie Fitna - are being examined and the court will judge whether they are against the law (there actually is a law
againt inticing hatred). Wilders has often said that freedom of speech is more important than this law (and I might even agree with him), but that decision is not up to him, but to the legislative and the judiciary.
I personally despise Wilders and everything he stands for, but hope for an acquital. I don’t think the things he has been saying are inticing hatred, but he isn’t far off.
Anyway, this entire thing is going on because of the judicial branch of governmment (aided by action groups) and the other branches of government can’t wield any influence (as is appearant from the judge ordering the DA to prosecute), I’m quite sure they aren’t happy with this turn of events as it will only help Wilders in the upcomming elections.
We are talking about free speech in the Netherlands, not free speech in Saudi Arabia.
And actually, it is how we ended up with free speech in the Judeo-Christian world. Free speech arose in the West as a result of bloody religious wars between Catholics and Protestants and can be directly linked to the enshrining of it as a value in early American Legal documents. You know, that whole First Amendment thing.
What I think is interesting here is that they have created a martyr of Wilders and as such have probably just increased his political cachet significantly. If he goes to Prison, he will be able to write many lines on Freedom of Speech and thus become a bit of a hero for Euro-Nationalism and Western values, as he already has become to a certain set.
Certainly, he’s a bit of a tool, but he should have the right to be a tool.
Or he’ll just be murdered in prison.
And become a larger than life martyr with the gravitas of political persecution undergirding his life and death as a symbol of a political movement.
I just don’t see this trial as being to the benefit of his political opponents in any way.
This is just post hoc reasoning. The connection between the religious wars of the 17th century and restrictions placed on government interference in speech is unclear, save that one occurred after the other.
Dutch guy here.
The trial isn’t strictly about Fitna, but about Wilders’ “communications in diverse media”. The trial was approved by the court in Amsterdam after the public prosecutor declined to take on the case on the basis that criticism of a religion per se isn’t illegal.
The court is of the opinion that Wilders may be guilty of inciting hatred and “insulting muslims [as a group] in their religious dignity”. I note that AFAIK both are actually punishable acts under Dutch law, though the insulting part applies to all religious groups (though not religions per se).
Roughly translated from the site of the Dutch Supreme Court
There’s also a question of whether these kinds of trials are actually permissable under the European Convention on Human Rights. Especially article 10 (freedom of expression). ECHR article 14 guarantees a fairly restricted kind of freedom from (religious and other) discrimination, but in the Dutch constitution, freedom from discrimination is actually article #1, and much less explicitely restricted. We’ve had bans on neo-nazi type political parties based on those articles, so it’s not like this is a novel or exceptional step in Dutch law or politics over the last 30 odd years. The court feels that a certain amount of restriction of freedom of expression is warranted if “proportional”, and Dutch (if not European) law seems to be on their side.
So basically, that’s what we have. As far as Wilders is concerned, he’s going to play martyr for freedom of expression, victim of left-wing politicking and sharia courts. If he’s convicted expect his party of find even more voters - this is one of the most popular (and most hated) politicians in parliament. If he’s aquitted he’ll also come out better than he came in.
For the record, I hate the platinum blond weasel. He’s a misleading, opportunistic, nasty little demagogue who uses the same laws now used against him against Muslims, and I don’t even believe he’s actually as scared of Islam as he claimes (I think he just uses it because it’s obvious that gets you supporters) but as far as I’m concerned, any law that could convict him for what he’s said (as far as I’m aware of it) is misguided and should be repealed. This is probably not a majority opinion over here, though.
Except that in America part of the social history of the United States is the flight from religious persecution, and the resulting multi-religious polity within the country that fought out these same issues as American colonies.
If we dispute this, then you are entering into an esoteric analysis of American history that goes beyond my ken.
But if we are going with the accepted historiography of America that filters down to us squishy-heads, then it’s a direct result as the attempt was to separate America from the limitations of Continental politics and to keep religious violence down.
He’s already under permanent police protection - it’s not as if he doesn’t have enemies. If he’s actually sentenced to prison, I expect him to be safer than he is now.
This is by no means accepted historiography. It reads like a WWI-era textbook or something. As it turns out, there is rather a lot of dispute about these matters and there has been for a long time. Since this appears to matter quite a lot to your argument, I think it is worth exploring.
Heh, actually it reads like a textbook that anyone who graduated HS in 1996 would have had, as this is the way they teach it in HS. Don’t get too much into your esoteric nitpicky world that you become incapable of recognizing the way history is taught to the huddled masses. The air is more rarefied up in the Ivory Tower to be certain, but down here on the ground I can only comment on the air that I breathe. 
It is interesting, and as you know, I tend to be light on scholarship. If you have particular readings to recommend, please do. But you should recognize that it’s taught pretty much as gospel that religious infighting was a major part of the rise of freedom of speech as the Catholic/Protestant divide revolved around the sacerdotal divide in biblical interpretation. It’s hard to interpret the bible yourself if it’s illegal to speak your views on it, no?
It’d be hard for me to get anywhere near your level of scholarship on the subject to be sure, but I have noticed a trend recently to try and redact religion’s role in history in order to advance the dogma that religion really isn’t all that important.
In this case, the defense is being inundated by the plaintiff’s filing of briefs. 
Hell the first amendment protects freedom of speech AND freedom of religion. So that seems like a pretty strong piece of evidence of my position.
I should note for mswas and others that the late Dutch republic was an exceptionally free one w/r/t religions and the Dutch have something of a reputation in that regard. On the other hand, the popularity of the NSB and collaboration with the occupying Germans during WWII made many people very aware of the kind of damage xenophobic/extreme right wing type parties can do given enough support. It’s perhaps not surprising that the current article 1 of the constitution I mentioned above (freedom from discrimination) was only added in the latter half of the 20th century (1983, to be exact).
It makes more sense than trying Gene Wilder, which is how I first read the thread title.
Sure, and I am aware of that history and why it’s occurring. But ultimately, I don’t think restrictions on speech are the solution. Going after Wilders is only going to make him more influential.
As noted above by someone else, the case is not brought before the court by any political party or even the public prosecutor; I would imagine Wilders’ political opponents are not at all happy with this case.
And I agree with you in the Wilders case. On the subject of speech in general, pretty much all countries - including the US - restrict speech to more than just “shouting fire in a theater” or libel/fraud or even advocating violent actions. There’s usually law in place that handles some protection of the state/constitution itself. WRT to the US, I refer you to the Smith Act.
Now, there’s no question that Dutch law criminalizes incitement to violence, and if Wilders did that I’d have no problem with him being tried, convicted and thrown in jail. But what we have here is a paradox in the constitution, which is only increased when taking European law into account.
What I hope for in this whole miserable case is a clear and unequivocal decision in favor of freedom of speech and a general dismissal of “insulting [whatever group]” as a reason for any kind of trial. Speech is only insulting if people feel insulted. And anybody can feel insulted by anything. It’s not a good basis for a law.
However, I live in a country that values papering over fundamental differences a bit too much, so I expect Wilders to be acquitted on fairly technical grounds (which may even include that since he’s a prominent member of parliament, he should have more freedom of speech than anybody else - I doubt that kind of reasoning is strictly legal, but I’ve heard his defense is going to argue it if need be).
I can say that I have succeeded in drinking enough since high school to forget my junior year American history class. and I graduated in 96, too.
I am not an Americanist by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I have any point of view to peddle here. I am just saying that there have been a heck of a lot of interpretations, especially of the bill of rights. I am naturally interested in economic interpretations, but I find that they tend to be somewhat crude and reductionist. But they have the advantage of specifying an honest-to-goodness logical mechanism that brought us from pre- to post-Bill of Rights.
I am more comfortable on this ground now. Personal interpretations of the bible were all but verboten by the Catholic church since its inception. God was inaccessible but for the intercession of Jesus, with whom you could have a personal relationship only by the mediation of your priest. Translations of the bible from any of the languages of truth to vernacular languages is a modern phenomenon. I generalize here, but such translations were more or less impossible without the advent of the printing press.
Further, freedom of speech was not all that important to most Protestants, either. Though Martin Luther does more or less break the monopoly on God held by Catholic instutions, the end result is just more ways for people to oppress each other. Contemporary Calvinism does not exactly have a reputation for social liberality. There is nowhere in Protestant doctrine per se that values the protection of political speech. Here is what John Calvin has to say in his Institutes:
It is very difficult to go from this stuff to the Bill of Rights. I forgot my class in American history, but Yankee pantywaist that I am, I remember Euro very well. To get to the Bill of Rights, you more or less have to go through Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau.
All you have to do is read some books and have a lot of opinions. It is so easy, I am surprised more people don’t do it.
This is not exactly a recent trend. It is also somewhat understandable if you start from the premise that the impact of religion in areas like this is vastly overstated. What its proper role should be is contentious, to say the least.
It protects a bunch of other things, besides. I am not sure what we can reasonable conclude from that.