Wilders not guilty on all charges

Bottle_of_Smoke

MP Geert Wilders has been cleared of charges of inciting hatred and discrimination by a court in Amsterdam.

The court ruled that some of Wilders' statements were insulting, shocking and on the edge of legal acceptibility, but that they were made in the broad context of a political and social debate on the multi-cultural society.

The chief judge took some 20 minutes to dismiss the charges one by one, speaking in clear, non-legal language. There was applause from the public gallery when he had finished his statement.

The public prosecution department earlier joined Wilders’ legal team in calling for a not-guilty verdict, saying certain statements by the PVV party leader were insulting, but not criminal.

The department was forced to take the case by the high court after anti-racism campaigners protested at its refusal to prosecute Wilders.

The case began on October 4 last year, but collapsed after three weeks when a special legal panel ruled the judges may have shown partiality following a string of legal blunders. New judges were then sworn in and the case was heard again this year.


http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/06/wilders_not_guilty_on_all_char.php

Whatever you think about Wilders in general, (I for one think some of his statements and ideas are ridiculous) this is surely good from the point of view of freedom of expression. The race card is pulled at every opportunity these days and it is good the courts distinguished between racism and critiscism of a religion.

matthew8

Splendid news. Now I know I can say what I believe in public, at least in the Netherlands.

Einhard

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Whatever you think about Wilders in general, (I for one think some of his statements and ideas are ridiculous) this is surely good from the point of view of freedom of expression. The race card is pulled at every opportunity these days and it is good the courts distinguished between racism and critiscism of a religion.

I think that it's right that there is a prohibition on incitement to hatred, but I also think that offence should be extremely limited in its scope, and Wilder's comments, much as I disagree with them, fell far short of that.

matthew8

Einhard wrote: »

I think that it's right that there is a prohibition on incitement to hatred, but I also think that offence should be extremely limited in its scope, and Wilder's comments, much as I disagree with them, fell far short of that.

If incitement to hatred is a law then anyone who helped create the Koran or distributes it should be executed. But there are double standards. The problem with incitement to hatred is that the law assumes there is nothing muslims can do to stop themselves killing haters of islam and that it is a rational reaction, which it is not and that they are ticking time-bombs and anyone who dares set them off should be punished.

wes

matthew8 wrote: »

If incitement to hatred is a law then anyone who helped create the Koran or distributes it should be executed. But there are double standards.

None of the incitement to hatred laws in Europe, has execution as a punishment, in fact execution is essentially non existent in Europe. So, for your double standard to exist, then Wilders would have had to have faced execution, if he was found guilty, but no such punishment exists in the first place, then as such there is no double standard.

Also, hasn't Wilders called for the banning of the Koran? Surely, that makes him as guilty of double standards as anyone else.

matthew8 wrote: »

The problem with incitement to hatred is that the law assumes there is nothing muslims can do to stop themselves killing haters of islam and that it is a rational reaction, which it is not and that they are ticking time-bombs and anyone who dares set them off should be punished.

Normally, I would look up the law in question, but the above statement is so silly, that I am going to assume that the law in question says nothing of the sort, and you are just making stuff up. So any chance of showing any such law actually says what you claim?

As for Wilders being not guilty, I personally think the entire trial was ridiculous from the get go. The man has every right to say any and all nonsense he likes, much like anyone else can.

dsmythy

Good that the distinction between targeting a religion and targeting the people who follow the religion is recognised.

matthew8

wes wrote: »

None of the incitement to hatred laws in Europe, has execution as a punishment, in fact execution is essentially non existent in Europe. So, for your double standard to exist, then Wilders would have had to have faced execution, if he was found guilty, but no such punishment exists in the first place, then as such there is no double standard.

Also, hasn't Wilders called for the banning of the Koran? Surely, that makes him as guilty of double standards as anyone else.



Normally, I would look up the law in question, but the above statement is so silly, that I am going to assume that the law in question says nothing of the sort, and you are just making stuff up. So any chance of showing any such law actually says what you claim?

As for Wilders being not guilty, I personally think the entire trial was ridiculous from the get go. The man has every right to say any and all nonsense he likes, much like anyone else can.

I used execution to emphasise how much hate is in the koran, I know that Europe rarely uses the death penalty. Wilders is guilty of a double standard, but so are the people who made the laws. I wish Wilders would consistantly stand for freedom but he doesn't, and at the same time people who made the laws won't arrest muslims who distribute a hate-filled document.

I never said that the law said what I said, I just said the establishment of such a law assumes that killing people for burning korans is more reasonable than burning it in the first place. The idea of the law is that the person who would burn the koran is the one who is causing the hatred, rather than the muslim.

Did you actually think I thought the law said that?

paulaa

matthew8 wrote: »

If incitement to hatred is a law then anyone who helped create the Koran or distributes it should be executed. But there are double standards. The problem with incitement to hatred is that the law assumes there is nothing muslims can do to stop themselves killing haters of islam and that it is a rational reaction, which it is not and that they are ticking time-bombs and anyone who dares set them off should be punished.

It would be a bit late now since the Koran was written circa 632 CE

Have you ever read the Bible or the Torah / Talmud and the incitement in both of them ?

I'll bet if it was Judaism Wilders was criticising he would have been convicted and jailed long ago. The ADL would have seen to that.

matthew8

paulaa wrote: »

It would be a bit late now since the Koran was written circa 632 CE

Have you ever read the Bible or the Torah / Talmud and the incitement in both of them ?

I'll bet if it was Judaism Wilders was criticising he would have been convicted and jailed long ago. The ADL would have seen to that.

Just pointing out the hypothetical double standard as there's no chance they'd be convicted today. There is a lot of incitement in religions but the Koran tops the lot.

paulaa

matthew8 wrote: »

Just pointing out the hypothetical double standard as there's no chance they'd be convicted today. There is a lot of incitement in religions but the Koran tops the lot.

From reading all 3 the Koran is no worse than the other 2. It's people's intepretation to suit themselves that's the problem

matthew8

paulaa wrote: »

From reading all 3 the Koran is no worse than the other 2. It's people's intepretation to suit themselves that's the problem

The fact that Mohamed (apparently this was mentioned in the Koran) was a rapist seems like something you wouldn't find in the bible and it makes rape seem acceptable in muslim society. But please say if this is a load of nonsense.

matthew8

matthew8 wrote: »

The fact that Mohamed (apparently this was mentioned in the Koran) was a rapist seems like something you wouldn't find in the bible and it makes rape seem acceptable in muslim society. But please say if this is a load of nonsense.

Something you wouldn't find in the bible??
The genocide and mass rape certainly was in the bible; nevermind the daughters offered up by Lot, etc etc


Er anyway on topic - yes, I'm glad to hear about the not-guilty verdict. Criticism of the religion is not racism or incitement to hatred!

matthew8

bluewolf wrote: »

Something you wouldn't find in the bible??
The genocide and mass rape certainly was in the bible; nevermind the daughters offered up by Lot, etc etc


Er anyway on topic - yes, I'm glad to hear about the not-guilty verdict. Criticism of the religion is not racism or incitement to hatred!

Ah yes I misphrased that, you wouldn't find Jesus raping people in the bible.

Lockstep

He's a prick of a man. Wouldn't want to see him being charged for this though, terrible precedent.

paulaa

matthew8 wrote: »

The fact that Mohamed (apparently this was mentioned in the Koran) was a rapist seems like something you wouldn't find in the bible and it makes rape seem acceptable in muslim society. But please say if this is a load of nonsense.

Wasn't he supposed to marry a very young girl ? I don't know if that was classed as rape in those times. Rape is also in the Bible and in Judaism it states that it was ok to have sex with a child as young as 3.

btw Jesus is recognised by Muslims as a prophet in the Koran

irishh_bob

the problem isnt whats written in the quoran ( which is no worse than whats in the bible )

the difference is the vast majority of christians dont use the bible as the very blueprint for every part of their lives , very different story with the muslim population of the world

paulaa

irishh_bob wrote: »

the problem isnt whats written in the quoran ( which is no worse than whats in the bible )

the difference is the vast majority of christians dont use the bible as the very blueprint for every part of their lives , very different story with the muslim population of the world

A lot of Muslims don't take the Koran literally either. Go to the UK and see how many are in pubs drinking for example. Go back 50 years in Ireland and people listened to the priests who told them God said this or God said that in the Bible and acted accordingly. Homosexuality is still a big no no with a lot of practicising Christians because the Bible says it's wrong. There are no women in any position of power in the Roman Catholic Church for the same reason.

As I said before most religions twist and spin the teachings of their books to suit whatever the agenda of the day is.

KeithAFC

Good job. He is only telling the truth. Same way with me and the Roman Catholic religion and the evil it has brought on the world.

BlaasForRafa

paulaa wrote: »

From reading all 3 the Koran is no worse than the other 2. It's people's intepretation to suit themselves that's the problem

Well the old testament was full of blood-thirsty and generally mentalist crap whereas the new testament is pretty mild-mannered by comparison. The Koran is pretty much unreadable garbage so its pretty obvious how multiple interpretations of various parts of it have been made.

nesf

KeithAFC wrote: »

Good job. He is only telling the truth. Same way with me and the Roman Catholic religion and the evil it has brought on the world.

Keith keep trolling and you'll be permanently banned from this forum.

Einhard

matthew8 wrote: »

The fact that Mohamed (apparently this was mentioned in the Koran) was a rapist seems like something you wouldn't find in the bible and it makes rape seem acceptable in muslim society. But please say if this is a load of nonsense.

By "apparently", I take it to mean that you haven't actually read the Koran? And yet you still feel qualified to speak authoritatively on the book? Do you often condemn works on the basis of second hand opinions, not having read them yourself? If you're going to condemn something, surely you should read the thing first?

wes

matthew8 wrote: »

Did you actually think I thought the law said that?

No, not really. You were engaged in what I would consider hyperbole, that made your entire line of argument be rather silly, and it still is.

paulaa

Lest we forget, Wilders agenda is heavily influenced by Israel. He receives huge amounts of funding to push his anti-Islam stance and is a regular and feted visitor there.

Zubeneschamali

paulaa wrote: »

Lest we forget, Wilders agenda is heavily influenced by Israel. He receives huge amounts of funding to push his anti-Islam stance and is a regular and feted visitor there.

And this has what exactly to do with whether he broke the law or not?

paulaa

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And this has what exactly to do with whether he broke the law or not?

His agenda is not totally pure and solely out of concern for Dutch society. He has become a rich man out of this.

paulaa

paulaa wrote: »

His agenda is not totally pure and solely out of concern for Dutch society. He has become a rich man out of this.

So?
as OP says,

Whatever you think about Wilders in general, (I for one think some of his statements and ideas are ridiculous) this is surely good from the point of view of freedom of expression. The race card is pulled at every opportunity these days and it is good the courts distinguished between racism and critiscism of a religion.

JustinDee

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Whatever you think about Wilders in general, (I for one think some of his statements and ideas are ridiculous) this is surely good from the point of view of freedom of expression. The race card is pulled at every opportunity these days and it is good the courts distinguished between racism and critiscism of a religion.

The 'race card' is pulled in this case because it is apt.
Legally he is perfectly entitled to say what he said.
Technically he is an actual xenophobe and a racist.

paulaa

bluewolf wrote: »

So?
as OP says,

So, he is being feted by some as a champion of free speech and a great defender from the evil hordes. He is nothing more than a paid lackey, although I do agree with his stance on limiting immigration

Bottle_of_Smoke

JustinDee wrote: »

The 'race card' is pulled in this case because it is apt.
Legally he is perfectly entitled to say what he said.
Technically he is an actual xenophobe and a racist.

Sorry, but that's utter bollocks. He always says he is fine with immigrants coming here who do not try to change Dutch society and values.

JustinDee

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Sorry, but that's utter bollocks. He always says he is fine with immigrants coming here who do not try to change Dutch society and values.

No need to apologise and especially no need for the "some of his best friends are [insert usual target here]"-line.

Excuse me, if I don't believe a word Wilders says.

inforfun

paulaa wrote: »

His agenda is not totally pure and solely out of concern for Dutch society. He has become a rich man out of this.

Rich?
I doubt that.
What he did get by questioning the Islam (the religion, not the muslim people) is the need for 24/7 protection by multiple bodyguards, having to move from safe house to safe house for years now. In other words, Wilders lost his freedom already but still keeps fighting to prevent we all lose our freedom to "the religion of peace".

Not exactly unexpected he was not guilty on all charges if you look at the ones bringing in the complaints. Captained by a Mr Mohammed Rabbae. A former politician for the Greens in Holland who lived/lives there for 40 years and still can string 2 sentences that makes sense in Dutch.
These people only ever heard Wilders saying what they wanted him to say. Not what he was really saying.

Apparently they are now going to try to bring this case to the UN.

Nodin

inforfun wrote: »

Rich?
I doubt that.
What he did get by questioning the Islam (the religion, not the muslim people) is the need for 24/7 protection by multiple bodyguards, having to move from safe house to safe house for years now. In other words, Wilders lost his freedom already but still keeps fighting to prevent we all lose our freedom to "the religion of peace".

.

....the man has suggested all dutch muslims be paid to leave - I'm not seeing the distinction being made there. He's a rabble rousing bigot of the lowest order.

Nodin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Sorry, but that's utter bollocks. He always says he is fine with immigrants coming here who do not try to change Dutch society and values.

I'm afraid that isn't true. A small sample -

3) "We have to stop the immigration of Muslims."

Geert Wilders De Limburger, 4 September 2004

7) "The Netherlands are more than full with regard to non-Western immigrants, especially from
islamic origin."

Geert Wilders, De Volkskrant, 9 October 2004

24) Interviewer: “What will be the first thing you will change if you would be leading The
Netherlands tomorrow?”
Wilders: "The borders will be closed the very same day for all non-Western immigrants."

Geert Wilders, interview in De Volkskrant, 7 October 2006

33) "But I don't want any more muslims in The Netherlands, I would rather like to see less of them.
So I want to close the borders for migrants from muslim countries. Moreover I want to encourage
muslims to leave The Netherlands voluntarily. The demografic trend should be such that the
chances are small that again two of them will be part of the Cabinet. There is too much islam in The
Netherlands right now."

Geert Wilders, NRC Handelsblad, 24 February 2007

43) "It [is] absolutely undesirable that Amsterdam has no less than 177 nationalities".

Geert Wilders, AT5, 22 August 2007
http://www.watwilwilders.nl/images/100haatcitaten%20ENGELS.pdf

matthew8

Nodin wrote: »

I'm afraid that isn't true. A small sample -

3) "We have to stop the immigration of Muslims."

Geert Wilders De Limburger, 4 September 2004

7) "The Netherlands are more than full with regard to non-Western immigrants, especially from
islamic origin."

Geert Wilders, De Volkskrant, 9 October 2004

24) Interviewer: “What will be the first thing you will change if you would be leading The
Netherlands tomorrow?”
Wilders: "The borders will be closed the very same day for all non-Western immigrants."

Geert Wilders, interview in De Volkskrant, 7 October 2006

33) "But I don't want any more muslims in The Netherlands, I would rather like to see less of them.
So I want to close the borders for migrants from muslim countries. Moreover I want to encourage
muslims to leave The Netherlands voluntarily. The demografic trend should be such that the
chances are small that again two of them will be part of the Cabinet. There is too much islam in The
Netherlands right now."

Geert Wilders, NRC Handelsblad, 24 February 2007

43) "It [is] absolutely undesirable that Amsterdam has no less than 177 nationalities".

Geert Wilders, AT5, 22 August 2007
http://www.watwilwilders.nl/images/100haatcitaten%20ENGELS.pdf

Those were all aimed at muslim immigrants, the ones who try to change the countries they go to and implement Shariah law. I'd keep them out too and it is frightening the amount of them in continental Europe, thankfully our immigrants just come here to provide better services than we already get.

Nodin

matthew8 wrote: »

Those were all aimed at muslim immigrants, the ones who try to change the countries they go to and implement Shariah law..

No, they were aimed at immigrants, and muslim immigrants.

matthew8 wrote: »

I'd keep them out too and it is frightening the amount of them in continental Europe, thankfully our immigrants just come here to provide better services than we already get.

Would you mind explaining that? I don't quite follow you.

irishh_bob

KeithAFC wrote: »

Good job. He is only telling the truth. Same way with me and the Roman Catholic religion and the evil it has brought on the world.

as an agnostic , im not going to defend the catholic church but did it commit anymore evil than the imperilist british empire for three centurys

matthew8

Nodin wrote: »

No, they were aimed at immigrants, and muslim immigrants.



Would you mind explaining that? I don't quite follow you.

They were aimed mainly at muslim immigrants.

The general experience I get from immigrants here is people who do work faster and with less bother and with some of the asians even with a smile because they seem like they're happy to be here.

nesf

irishh_bob wrote: »

as an agnostic , im not going to defend the catholic church but did it commit anymore evil than the imperilist british empire for three centurys

Please don't respond to flame bait after a mod has warned for it.

Nodin

matthew8 wrote: »

They were aimed mainly at muslim immigrants.

.

Yes, therefore he doesn't restrict his venom to "militant Islam", fundamentalists or what have you, but muslims full stop.

matthew8

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, therefore he doesn't restrict his venom to "militant Islam", fundamentalists or what have you, but muslims full stop.

Well Islam is a very fundamentalist religion as we see with North Africa wanting Shariah law. The more Muslims that are in an area the more fundamentalist it gets because it becomes normal and they set up mosques where they preach this.

Nodin

matthew8 wrote: »

Well Islam is a very fundamentalist religion as we see with North Africa wanting Shariah law. The more Muslims that are in an area the more fundamentalist it gets because it becomes normal and they set up mosques where they preach this.

A ridiculous notion. Concentrations of muslims don't reach a critical mass and 'go Jihadi'. There are conservative branches of Islam, liberal...to generalise in such a manner is simplistic.

inforfun

Nodin,

If i may ask, where are you from and where do you live? Don't need to be too specific, country will do just fine.

Reason why i ask is that you try to come over as an expert on what Wilders has said in the past, and an expert on the problems of mass-immigration of non western immigrants in Holland.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Nodin wrote: »

I'm afraid that isn't true. A small sample -

3) "We have to stop the immigration of Muslims."

Geert Wilders De Limburger, 4 September 2004

7) "The Netherlands are more than full with regard to non-Western immigrants, especially from
islamic origin."

Geert Wilders, De Volkskrant, 9 October 2004

24) Interviewer: “What will be the first thing you will change if you would be leading The
Netherlands tomorrow?”
Wilders: "The borders will be closed the very same day for all non-Western immigrants."

Geert Wilders, interview in De Volkskrant, 7 October 2006

33) "But I don't want any more muslims in The Netherlands, I would rather like to see less of them.
So I want to close the borders for migrants from muslim countries. Moreover I want to encourage
muslims to leave The Netherlands voluntarily. The demografic trend should be such that the
chances are small that again two of them will be part of the Cabinet. There is too much islam in The
Netherlands right now."

Geert Wilders, NRC Handelsblad, 24 February 2007

43) "It [is] absolutely undesirable that Amsterdam has no less than 177 nationalities".

Geert Wilders, AT5, 22 August 2007
http://www.watwilwilders.nl/images/100haatcitaten%20ENGELS.pdf

Fair enough there is stuff there that is very bigoted, particularly the bit I bolded.

When I made that comment I was tihnking of times he's interviewed for videos and when questioned on Muslims he has said immigrants are ok if they conform to judeo-christian and humanist culture and attitudes, which is something I think fair.

That's not to say I am against mosques being built or headscarves being worn etc, but I think when an immigrant goes to a country he/she should accept the local culture to be dominant and not pull the multicultural card and demand the locals change their lifestyles because they may be offensive to the immigrant.

inforfun

Bottle of Smoke,

All these quotes are taken out of context.
NRC and Volkskrant are left wing media and will never do Wilders a favour.

The bold part you highlighted is a bit different in reality.

Wilders did say this about 2 muslim members of the last government.
Both of them (Mr. Aboutaleb, now mayor of Rotterdam and Miss Albayrak) persisted in keeping their Moroccan and Turkish passport, despite being member of the Dutch government.

And about the passport issue Wilders said: "That should never happen again"

Bottle_of_Smoke

inforfun wrote: »

Bottle of Smoke,

All these quotes are taken out of context.
NRC and Volkskrant are left wing media and will never do Wilders a favour.

The bold part you highlighted is a bit different in reality.

Wilders did say this about 2 muslim members of the last government.
Both of them (Mr. Aboutaleb, now mayor of Rotterdam and Miss Albayrak) persisted in keeping their Moroccan and Turkish passport, despite being member of the Dutch government.

And about the passport issue Wilders said: "That should never happen again"

Perhaps, but they do kind of prove my earlier post a bit wrong.

Now, I mostly have issue with the one I bolded compared to the rest.

"The demografic trend should be such that the
chances are small that again two of them will be part of the Cabinet"

I really really don't like this statement because it suggests to me he thinks that Muslims are inherently incapable of having a secular, or Dutch outlook, and therefore shouldn't be in cabinet. Also, it suggests only Muslims voted for them, which I don't think is true.

I often wonder what Wilders would make of Ireland, or even Britain, because in my experience Dutch Muslims tend to be a lot more "Dutch culture" and integrated, compared to Irish Muslims in Ireland or British Muslims in Britain.

Finally, I see nothing wrong with dual passports, Geert's wife has one lol. I think it perfectly possible someone could have two nationalities without it interfering with their job. If I found out Leo Varadkar also has an Indian passport I could not care less

inforfun

What is wrong with it is that the Turkish and Moroccan government give voting advise to their fellow country men abroad.

Now in with Aboutalebs, or Moroccans in general, i need to add that it a person born out of Moroccan parents, where ever in the world they live, automatically gets a Moroccan passport. Which is pretty hard to get rid of for them.

I dont know where you get your experience with Dutch muslims but i see that completely different. The majority of Turkish and Moroccans see themselves as Turkish or Moroccan.

This is a voting station in Amsterdam 1 year ago.

Who do you think they vote for?

Nodin

inforfun wrote: »

Nodin,

If i may ask, .................

No, you may not.

inforfun wrote: »

Who do you think they vote for?

A political party?

inforfun

Thought so much.

Must be hard to run into a person who actually is capable of listening and understanding to what Wilders is saying, in stead of just going blind on some quotes that have been taken out of context by media with an agenda.

And you can do better with that 2nd answer.

Here, let me give you another picture so you can try again:



I ll help you out. That is an election poster for the PvdA (Dutch labour party) of 1 year ago. Language on that poster is not Dutch but Turkish.

Bottle_of_Smoke

inforfun wrote: »

What is wrong with it is that the Turkish and Moroccan government give voting advise to their fellow country men abroad.

Now in with Aboutalebs, or Moroccans in general, i need to add that it a person born out of Moroccan parents, where ever in the world they live, automatically gets a Moroccan passport. Which is pretty hard to get rid of for them.

I dont know where you get your experience with Dutch muslims but i see that completely different. The majority of Turkish and Moroccans see themselves as Turkish or Moroccan.

The difference I see is mainly social. Most Muslims I see in Ireland seem very devout. Whereas in netherlands you'll see a bunch or turk or maroc girls - some could be dressed islamically but the girl beside her dressed like a westerner. In the supermarkets you'll have girls in headscarves serving on the tills but they just seem more european than the ones you meet in Ireland. Then the young lads hanging around the shops at night all seem to dress very western. Overall just seem more integrated

This is a voting station in Amsterdam 1 year ago.

Who do you think they vote for?

I do not know. However I think it quite bigoted to suggest they would only vote for a muslim

inforfun

I have been called worse, i dont care.

Point is that i lived for 35 years in a major Dutch city.
I think i know what it looks like for an outsider but be assured that i do know for sure what it is to live there.

Point is that I know what Wilders says and i can read how he is quoted in the newspapers.

Bottle_of_Smoke

inforfun wrote: »

I have been called worse, i dont care.

Point is that i lived for 35 years in a major Dutch city.
I think i know what it looks like for an outsider but be assured that i do know for sure what it is to live there.

Point is that I know what Wilders says and i can read how he is quoted in the newspapers.

I'm not saying you're a bigot but saying a muslim will only vote for a muslim is a bigoted statement.

I accept you have a greater experience but I have been living in a major dutch city for the last year. Muslims just don't seem to be a problem and do seem more integrated than the ones in Ireland.

And yeah Wilders does get a harsher time from the press than he deserves but at the same time many (and most I know) dutch people can't stand him. not just people in their 20s either.