But then is it not the Koran that incites the riot?
The point is that the bar for incitement to riot is so low as to not exist. Sorry you missed that.
You’re not alone.
I did, it says nothing about censoring anyone.
So? Please explain why that’s relevant.
It means that someone can cite a nonexistent incitement to riot as a reason to prosecute someone.
Even if that’s true - nobody did. So again, how is this relevant?
double post.
It wants to prevent Arab TV stations from broadcasting the views of various Arab political people by threatening to designate any TV station that does as “Specially Designated Global Terrorists”, the penalty for which would obviously not be very nice. How keen exactly would the owner of any TV station be to then broadcast an interview with somebody the US didn’t like? Would you like to become a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” ?
If you don’t see that as censorship I don’t really know what to say.
Do you have anything relevant and factual to add to this thread?
What did I do to upset you so much?
I asked you politely to take discussions of US politics outside the thread, since this is a thread about the Dutch politician Geert Wilders and his trial, not about general issues you may or may not have with US policy on Arab media.
All these questions:
- They are defenseless in the same sense that any fractured, apolitical minority is defenseless against the vigorous attacks of a political bigot. I doubt half the muslims in Holland are even eligible to vote.
- I, of course, did not say that all criticism of Islam/Koran is hate speech. Only meat-headed fundamentalist idiots would think so.
- Your perception of Western values - Islam clash is completely incompatible with a sizeable proportion of European Muslims. European Muslims probably participate in their various democracies at greater rates than Americans. In other words, your view is incompatible with reality.
- Go to Wikipedia, there are some quotes there, or google his name. He clearly wishes to ban those dangerous muslims from public life and Holland.
- I don’t think hate speech should be protected in political discourse. I’m not sure about in private or in religious venues.
- I would agree with you that such a culture is having problems but his party gets more of the vote over time. Eventually it will have enough influence to enact aspects of its platform. I doubt they will be welcoming of immigrants and their offspring into their culture.
- It is just a guess that Muslims/immigrants might be over-represented in prison. I am also guessing that Moroccans speak Arabic.
Go and ask everybody else who’s discussing it politely as well then.
I think most of what I would have to add to this thread has already been pointed out by Superfluous Parentheses, but I’d just like to contribute that it’s incredibly unlikely that Wilders, even if convicted, might face jail time*. (Of course, Wilders might refuse to pay a fine which might things slightly more complicated). Anyway, for the moment, any discussion with regard to the music that Wilders might be listening to in gaol is largely irrelevant.
- art. 137d of the Dutch Penal Code, breaking which is what Wilders is charged with, does leave room for imprisonment, especially if the incitement to discrimination and racism occured by an organization or as part of an organized effort, which one could argue that Wilders is part of. Then again, Wilders’ party (PVV) has only one member - himself - so maybe it’s not an organized effort after all
Please start a new thread for a discussion of monitoring or censorship of Arab media to another thread, Dick Dastardly.
The position that this is not a political case apparently believes the following: that Wilders was magically transported to a court where no one brought charges against him and no one is prosecuting him, and is going to be found guilty by some sort of magical ghost who represents no interest. The multiple Dutch Muslims who have been arrested for attempts on Wilders’s life or death threats against him are entirely irrelevant to why Wilders and not some other person who made anti-Muslim statements is on trial, and the multiple attempts on the lives of other Dutch people who have made anti-Muslim statements, some of them successful, have absolutely nothing to do with this matter. Wilder’s political opponents are deriving no glee from his prosecution and would surely welcome laws against “inciting hatred” being used to prosecute those who wish “death to Israel” or “kill the rich.”
Excuse me if I live in reality at least some of the time and can’t swallow the above.
Don’t tell me what you think other people think because I see so many straw men it’s a bit hard to see the field. What do you think?
I think that free speech as a principle is important on both a moral and practical basis, and that the Dutch are giving up on their principles because they were successfully the target of terrorism in the Theo van Gogh case, and should not do so.
In general, the fact that these “inciting hatred” laws are so vague as to be able to target nearly any expression of political belief (see my examples above about “death to Israel” or Marxist rhetoric, for example) but are only used for beliefs that are very unpopular or more likely to cause a Muslim to stab somebody, means that they are not only censorious but also discriminatory, and have absolutely no place in a non-totalitarian society as they can be used subjectively against anyone the government wants to shut up.
I think that this case highlights the fundamental problem with our free speech laws but l note that Wilders has always claimed he’s operating within the law, and the public prosecutor agreed with him until they were forced to take on the case.
I will also note that Wilders has repeatedly called for a ban of the Quran, “that fascist book”, and the expulsion of groups of Muslims under these exact “inciting to hatred” laws.
I believe that given the current laws, there is a case to be made against Wilders. He knew that, I know that, everybody does. I’m not happy about the case, and as for his political opponents, there’s no outcome that won’t work in Wilders’ favor, and they know it, but what’s needed right now is a clear decision on exactly what speech is allowed - since apparently nobody knows anymore. I don’t think he’ll be convicted in any case.
All of that is only really relevant if you believe that the current combination of laws regarding speech should be kept. Which I don’t.
Well yes. I agree, but the people in power who want to keep the current status quo and/or push for even more restrictions on insulting/blasphemous speech are the Christian parties who seem to think (as our queen apparently does) that the biggest problem we’re facing at the moment is a lack of manners. Oh, and Wilders.