Geert Wilders: Scumbag or Legend?

[.Morticia.]

a legendary scumbag

[egbert]

Uh, could someone here point out to me a single untruth in Wilder's film "Fitna"?
Maybe then the virulent anti Wilders sentiment might make some small sense...

[egbert]

Uh, could someone here point out to me a single untruth in Wilder's film "Fitna"?
Maybe then the virulent anti Wilders sentiment might make some small sense...

[Coito ergo sum]

Uh, could someone here point out to me a single untruth in Wilder's film "Fitna"?
Maybe then the virulent anti Wilders sentiment might make some small sense...

The Dutch law prohibits even truthful speech. Truth is not a defense. It's the hatefulness of the speech that is at issue. It's because Fitna makes Islam out to be bad, and that bad depiction may incite others to hate Muslims. Whether Fitna is true is quite irrelevant. That's the travesty.

[Hermit]

Uh, could someone here point out to me a single untruth in Wilder's film "Fitna"?
Maybe then the virulent anti Wilders sentiment might make some small sense...

The Dutch law prohibits even truthful speech. Truth is not a defense. It's the hatefulness of the speech that is at issue. It's because Fitna makes Islam out to be bad, and that bad depiction may incite others to hate Muslims. Whether Fitna is true is quite irrelevant. That's the travesty.

If Wilders gets convicted, free speech loses, and if he goes free, someone advocating a nationalism that is not a million miles removed from Third Reich policies, a wolf in sheep's clothing, stays loose. I suppose it's preferable for the latter to happen, at least until that outcome facilitates the next holocaust. And of course the former is preferable until the suppression of free speech gets us to the stage where we are told exactly what we are not allowed to discuss, and one of the forbidden topics being a discussion of what we are not allowed to discuss. It's Hobson's choice: What would you prefer? Another Hitler or a 1984 scenario? We just can't win, can we?

[MrJonno]

Only the Sith (and some Americans) deal in moral absolutes, everyone else has to make compromises between competing needs in society.
The Dutch have made theirs

[Hermit]

Only the Sith (and some Americans) deal in moral absolutes, everyone else has to make compromises between competing needs in society.
The Dutch have made theirs

What is the compromise?

[Coito ergo sum]

Uh, could someone here point out to me a single untruth in Wilder's film "Fitna"?
Maybe then the virulent anti Wilders sentiment might make some small sense...

The Dutch law prohibits even truthful speech. Truth is not a defense. It's the hatefulness of the speech that is at issue. It's because Fitna makes Islam out to be bad, and that bad depiction may incite others to hate Muslims. Whether Fitna is true is quite irrelevant. That's the travesty.

We just can't win, can we? If Wilders gets convicted, free speech loses, and if he goes free, someone advocating a nationalism that is not a million miles removed from Third Reich policies, a wolf in sheep's clothing, stays loose. I suppose it's preferable for the latter to happen, at least until that outcome facilitates the next holocaust. And of course the former is preferable until the suppression of free speech gets us to the stage where we are told exactly what we are not allowed to discuss, and one of the forbidden topics being a discussion of what we are not allowed to discuss. It's Hobson's choice: What would you prefer? Another Hitler or a 1984 scenario?

That's not even a difficult moral choice for me. One, I don't see Wilders saying anything very "Third Reich-ish." I think some think that's his unstated or implicit intent, but I don't hear him actually SAYING Nazi-ish things. Two, even if he was/is saying Nazi-ish things, so be it. He ought to be permitted to say what he thinks, and then folks will know his true thoughts and be able to vote him out or shout him down. Driving his views underground only portrays them as something that people think is being "hidden" from them, in which case they imbue the ideas with greater strength than they really have.

Your argument just doesn't make sense to me. The Third Reich did not get to do what it did because there was too much freedom of speech. The Third Reich got to do what it did because it was able to shut people up.

How can "free speech" get to the stage where we are told exactly what we are not allowed to discuss? If speech is free, then you can discuss what you want.

Hitler would not have been prevented by outlawing Mein Kampf. Outlawing Mein Kampf makes it more appealing to many people. An idea that is outlawed is empowered, not defeated. One of the reasons people didn't know Hitler's mind before WW2 was because the non-German translations were "abridged" and tended to cut out the more nasty portions and more anti-semitic portions. Had the unabridged copies been widely published in the 1920s and 1930s, folks in the UK and the US who were slow to recognized his danger might have had it rubbed in their faces a bit earlier.

Before Hitler came to power, Mein Kampf was legal, and was basically a dud with low sales and hardly anyone took it seriously. After Hitler came to power, the government legislated it, and made it mandatory - every couple who got married HAD to buy one.

The problem is not freedom. The problem is the government legislating what can and can't be spoken or written peaceably.

I have read Mein Kampf, and it had no effect at convincing me to become a Nazi. It's like reading the Bible or the Koran. When most people actually sit down to read these tomes, they tend to be repulsed by the nasty portions. It's only through mental gymnastics and through aligning oneself with a "team" that is held together through worship of those tomes that one looks past the actual words and joins the cause.

[Coito ergo sum]

Only the Sith (and some Americans) deal in moral absolutes, everyone else has to make compromises between competing needs in society.
The Dutch have made theirs

It's not moral absolutism to say that individuals ought to be able to peaceably say what they want to say, irrespective of whether some other people find it hateful or potentially incitements to hate.

The Dutch rule is not merely a compromise, it's playing with fire. The rule they are enforcing is not far away from blasphemy (hate speech against religion) is illegal. In fact - not only is it not far away, it is precisely what is at issue in the Wilders case. It's not a "slipper slope" which implies that this particular action may be good, but if taken to its logical conclusion we my wind up with a bad result down the line. It's actually a travesty in its current state - he is being prosecuted, in part, for criticizing a religion. That's not "the Dutch making a compromise" - it's the Dutch government trying to shut up unpopular speech critical of religion. They're selling out their birthright and shutting up a man for speaking to appease those who would suborn his murder.

[JOZeldenrust]

Uh, could someone here point out to me a single untruth in Wilder's film "Fitna"?
Maybe then the virulent anti Wilders sentiment might make some small sense...

Wilders presents his criticism as universally valid for all of Islam, which is of course bullshit.

The anti-Wilders sentiment isn't so much about Fitna. The issue is much more that he's hollowing out our democratic system: he wants to send criminals with a dual nationality - Dutch citizens - to their other country. That violates the basic premisse of equality before the law. He's claimed that if the court should convict him, that would prove that Dutch courts are part of some left wing conspiracy.

Inciting hatred is illegal under Dutch law. Many of the critics of Wilders think this law is senseless. Many of the critics of Wilders do not want to see him convicted in this criminal case. That doesn't mean they have no real criticism of the man.

He's a threat to the legal protection of non-Western minorities, he's a threat to the economic development of the Netherlands and Europe, and he's a threat to the quality of public discourse. Anyone who disagrees with him is painted with the brush of a politically correct pansy at best, or a conspiritor to enable the establishment of an international califate at worst. Any time Muslims counter his claims of the inherent barbarism of their religion, he falls back on the - inherently unfalsifiable - position of Taqiyya.

Wilders isn't protecting Western values, he's threatening them by excluding Muslims from Western society.

[MrJonno]

Only the Sith (and some Americans) deal in moral absolutes, everyone else has to make compromises between competing needs in society.
The Dutch have made theirs

It's not moral absolutism to say that individuals ought to be able to peaceably say what they want to say, irrespective of whether some other people find it hateful or potentially incitements to hate.

The Dutch rule is not merely a compromise, it's playing with fire. The rule they are enforcing is not far away from blasphemy (hate speech against religion) is illegal. In fact - not only is it not far away, it is precisely what is at issue in the Wilders case. It's not a "slipper slope" which implies that this particular action may be good, but if taken to its logical conclusion we my wind up with a bad result down the line. It's actually a travesty in its current state - he is being prosecuted, in part, for criticizing a religion. That's not "the Dutch making a compromise" - it's the Dutch government trying to shut up unpopular speech critical of religion. They're selling out their birthright and shutting up a man for speaking to appease those who would suborn his murder.

No where in the world can you say anything you want peacefully without restriction, reading out state secrets will get you arrested regardless of what manner you do it in, same with at least some forms of libel (the UK version is too restrictive but all countries have it), you also have speech instigating fraud.

Then you have what exactly is meant by 'peaceful', speech likely to start an immediate riot regardless of what you say can also be restricted. Burning a Koran/bible in your backgarden isnt/shouldnt start a riot in a civilized country but try it outside a church or mosque and you are risking disruption of the peace.

I think in the Dutch case unless he is directly asking to throw muslims Dutch citizens out of the country or kill them then the law is going to far not being a dutch speaker I couldnt say

[JOZeldenrust]

Only the Sith (and some Americans) deal in moral absolutes, everyone else has to make compromises between competing needs in society.
The Dutch have made theirs

It's not moral absolutism to say that individuals ought to be able to peaceably say what they want to say, irrespective of whether some other people find it hateful or potentially incitements to hate.

The Dutch rule is not merely a compromise, it's playing with fire. The rule they are enforcing is not far away from blasphemy (hate speech against religion) is illegal. In fact - not only is it not far away, it is precisely what is at issue in the Wilders case. It's not a "slipper slope" which implies that this particular action may be good, but if taken to its logical conclusion we my wind up with a bad result down the line. It's actually a travesty in its current state - he is being prosecuted, in part, for criticizing a religion. That's not "the Dutch making a compromise" - it's the Dutch government trying to shut up unpopular speech critical of religion. They're selling out their birthright and shutting up a man for speaking to appease those who would suborn his murder.

It's not "unpopular speech". The man is the leader of the third party of the country. His speech is plenty popular.

Thing is, under Dutch law, groups of people can appeal for prosecution, and if the call for prosecution is loud enough, the public prosecuter can be forced to prosecute. This makes sure that the judicial system can't brush anything under the carpet, but it also means sometimes people will be prosecuted that shouldn't be. It isn't the Dutch government choosing to prosecute Wilders, government has been forced, through legal means, to prosecute him.

What the hell does a birthright have anything to do with this? The Netherlands isn't some historic haven of free speech. We've always had laws against (hurtful) blasphemy, and no, those laws don't make a whole lot of sense. They do exist, however, and unlike in the US, in the Netherlands courts aren't political institutions, so they carry out the law to the letter.

[Hermit]

The Third Reich did not get to do what it did because there was too much freedom of speech.

The Third Reich came to power in part precisely because the fascists were given free reign to promulgate their ideas.

It seems you are not getting my point, which is this: depending on the outcome of this sort of court case, we may either finish up in the fry-pan or the fire. Also, the Germans of the Weimar Republic were no more of Hitler's final solution as we are of Wilders' aim. Both rail against the evil forces threatening civilisation as they know it, and neither would reveal just how far they would go to defend it.

[JOZeldenrust]

Only the Sith (and some Americans) deal in moral absolutes, everyone else has to make compromises between competing needs in society.
The Dutch have made theirs

It's not moral absolutism to say that individuals ought to be able to peaceably say what they want to say, irrespective of whether some other people find it hateful or potentially incitements to hate.

The Dutch rule is not merely a compromise, it's playing with fire. The rule they are enforcing is not far away from blasphemy (hate speech against religion) is illegal. In fact - not only is it not far away, it is precisely what is at issue in the Wilders case. It's not a "slipper slope" which implies that this particular action may be good, but if taken to its logical conclusion we my wind up with a bad result down the line. It's actually a travesty in its current state - he is being prosecuted, in part, for criticizing a religion. That's not "the Dutch making a compromise" - it's the Dutch government trying to shut up unpopular speech critical of religion. They're selling out their birthright and shutting up a man for speaking to appease those who would suborn his murder.

No where in the world can you say anything you want peacefully without restriction, reading out state secrets will get you arrested regardless of what manner you do it in, same with at least some forms of libel (the UK version is too restrictive but all countries have it), you also have speech instigating fraud.

Then you have what exactly is meant by 'peaceful', speech likely to start an immediate riot regardless of what you say can also be restricted. Burning a Koran/bible in your backgarden isnt/shouldnt start a riot in a civilized country but try it outside a church or mosque and you are risking disruption of the peace.

I think in the Dutch case unless he is directly asking to throw muslims Dutch citizens out of the country or kill them then the law is going to far not being a dutch speaker I couldnt say

He wants to deport Dutch-Moroccan youths in place of prison sentences. That means that Dutch citizens with a single nationality can only be imprisoned, but Dutch citizens with two nationalities can also be deported. IOW, the two groups are no longer equal before the law.

[Coito ergo sum]

Only the Sith (and some Americans) deal in moral absolutes, everyone else has to make compromises between competing needs in society.
The Dutch have made theirs

It's not moral absolutism to say that individuals ought to be able to peaceably say what they want to say, irrespective of whether some other people find it hateful or potentially incitements to hate.

The Dutch rule is not merely a compromise, it's playing with fire. The rule they are enforcing is not far away from blasphemy (hate speech against religion) is illegal. In fact - not only is it not far away, it is precisely what is at issue in the Wilders case. It's not a "slipper slope" which implies that this particular action may be good, but if taken to its logical conclusion we my wind up with a bad result down the line. It's actually a travesty in its current state - he is being prosecuted, in part, for criticizing a religion. That's not "the Dutch making a compromise" - it's the Dutch government trying to shut up unpopular speech critical of religion. They're selling out their birthright and shutting up a man for speaking to appease those who would suborn his murder.

No where in the world can you say anything you want peacefully without restriction,

Except as to content neutral time, place and manner restrictions, in the US you can say anything you want peacefully and without restriction. Unless you are advocating immediate criminal and violent conduct (i.e., saying "let's go out right now and kill people"), or suborning the murder of specific persons, etc., that kind of thing, you can say whatever you want in the public square, print what you want in a newspaper, or publish what you want in the form of a video.

reading out state secrets will get you arrested regardless of what manner you do it in, same with at least some forms of libel (the UK version is too restrictive but all countries have it), you also have speech instigating fraud.

Sure, all of which is completely different than saying you can't say bad things about Islam or Christianity.

Fraud is about the damage caused by false statements on which people justifiably rely, and not merely a prohibition on false statements. Reading out state secrets will not get you arrested in the US, as a matter of fact, unless you are in the government and duty bound not to. In the case in the 1970s involving the famous Pentagon Papers, the NY Times got a hold of top secret classified documents and published them, and they were within their rights. It's also why the US can't arrest the Wikileaks guy - the Wikileaks guy didn't break the law by merely publishing leaked documents.

Then you have what exactly is meant by 'peaceful', speech likely to start an immediate riot regardless of what you say can also be restricted. Burning a Koran/bible in your backgarden isnt/shouldnt start a riot in a civilized country but try it outside a church or mosque and you are risking disruption of the peace.

Well, in the US, you can burn a flag or a Bible in public as a demonstration. Doesn't matter what others' "reaction" is. They are held to govern their own behavior, and the State is to punish violence, not speech that pisses people off.

I think in the Dutch case unless he is directly asking to throw muslims Dutch citizens out of the country or kill them then the law is going to far not being a dutch speaker I couldnt say

Of course you can say. Just because you're not Dutch doesn't mean you can't voice an opinion.

Moreover, I would say that he ought to be allowed to say that Muslims ought not be allowed in the country. If that's what he thinks, so be it. Lots of people hold similar opinions - some on this forum site hold similar opinions, not just about Muslims - they hold very strong anti-religious opinions about all religions.

As for advocating that Muslims be killed, if he's advocating immediate criminal violence, then sure. That's different than Fitna, though, which advocates no course of action at all.