Geert Wilders: Scumbag or Legend?

[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, 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.

So what?

You can't deport someone to a country that they don't have citizenship of, since that country has no obligation to take them.

And, even if he is advocating that one group not be treated equally before the law - is that something that ought to be illegal? I mean, many people are of the opinion that "affirmative action" is "not treating two groups equally before the law." Ought we not be able to advocate for affirmative action?

Almost all laws treat people differently than other people depending on the circumstances.

Moreover, immigration laws, by definition, treat non-Dutch different than Dutch born in the country. If one advocates for ANY immigration law at all, then one is advocating for people not being treated equally before the law. And, deportation for committing crimes in one's new country is not a strange or unusual punishment - it's pretty normal. Every country deports certain criminals. Is the rule going to be that we can advocate deporting some folks, but Wilders can't advocate deporting criminal Moroccans?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Not at all. They came to power by killing people.

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.

I get your point, I just disagree with it.

Hitler DID reveal how far he would go to defend it. Mein Kampf was published in Germany in the 1920's, long before Hitler came to power.

Islam is an evil force, in my view. And, every individual ought to be able to state which forces in the world they think are evil, if any.

[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.

So what?

You can't deport someone to a country that they don't have citizenship of, since that country has no obligation to take them.

And, even if he is advocating that one group not be treated equally before the law - is that something that ought to be illegal? I mean, many people are of the opinion that "affirmative action" is "not treating two groups equally before the law." Ought we not be able to advocate for affirmative action?

Almost all laws treat people differently than other people depending on the circumstances.

No, his advocating of legal inequality shouldn't be illegal. I don't think it should be illegal. I don't support the prosecution of Wilders. Get it through your thick skull: I think what Wilders does should be legal!

However, I do not agree with what Wilders says, and I think it should be opposed in the arena of public discourse.

Moreover, immigration laws, by definition, treat non-Dutch different than Dutch born in the country. If one advocates for ANY immigration law at all, then one is advocating for people not being treated equally before the law. And, deportation for committing crimes in one's new country is not a strange or unusual punishment - it's pretty normal. Every country deports certain criminals. Is the rule going to be that we can advocate deporting some folks, but Wilders can't advocate deporting criminal Moroccans?

Both groups are Dutch, didn't you bother reading my post? They are all Dutch citizens, and many of those with a double nationality are born in the Netherlands.

Not all countries deport certain criminals. The Netherlands do not deport certain criminals. The possibilities for punishment available to the Dutch state are financial punishment, incarceration, and community service. Deportation isn't among them. So no, the rule isn't going to be anything like that. As far as I'm concerned there should be no rule whatsoever. However, I oppose what Wilders advocates.

[MrJonno]

The user of violence in Hitler coming to power was of a relatively minor role through it played a part in staying in power. Poor economic circumstance, historic German bigotry/xenophobia and a highly charasmatic leader was far more important.

Campaigning to throw national citzens out of the country is a direct call to violence (does Wilders do this?). The general rule of thumb should be say whatever you want about a poltiical or religious ideology but don't make blanket calls of violence agaisnt its followers

[Coito ergo sum]

No, his advocating of legal inequality shouldn't be illegal. I don't think it should be illegal. I don't support the prosecution of Wilders. Get it through your thick skull: I think what Wilders does should be legal!

I'm going to say this to you one more time and one more time only. You will please stop turning every fucking thread into a personal insult fest. I'll not respond in kind, because you're not worth it.

However, I do not agree with what Wilders says, and I think it should be opposed in the arena of public discourse.

Good.

Moreover, immigration laws, by definition, treat non-Dutch different than Dutch born in the country. If one advocates for ANY immigration law at all, then one is advocating for people not being treated equally before the law. And, deportation for committing crimes in one's new country is not a strange or unusual punishment - it's pretty normal. Every country deports certain criminals. Is the rule going to be that we can advocate deporting some folks, but Wilders can't advocate deporting criminal Moroccans?

Both groups are Dutch, didn't you bother reading my post? They are all Dutch citizens, and many of those with a double nationality are born in the Netherlands.

There you go again with the unnecessary attack. Yes, I read your post. People can't be deported unless they also hold (or at least held) a citizenship other than Dutch, right? Holding citizenship doesn't mean that one can't still be deported. If one previously held citizenship in another country, citizenship in Holland can be revoked and one can be deported back to where one came from. If one is a Dutch citizen and also a citizen of another country, then one can also be deported to that other country. If a person with dual citizenship is a criminal menace to Holland, then it doesn't seem particularly monstrous (to me) to deport them to another country that will have them.

[JOZeldenrust]

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.

Not at all. They came to power by killing people.

Not at all, they were voted into power.

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.

I get your point, I just disagree with it.

You evidently don't get the point. The point is that a court case like this, regardless of the outcome, will have a bad result. Either free speech in The Netherlands suffers the first real blow since WWII, or we legitimize the kind of rabid Islamophobia that Wilders spews.

Hitler DID reveal how far he would go to defend it. Mein Kampf was published in Germany in the 1920's, long before Hitler came to power.

Islam is an evil force, in my view. And, every individual ought to be able to state which forces in the world they think are evil, if any.

[Coito ergo sum]

The user of violence in Hitler coming to power was of a relatively minor role through it played a part in staying in power. Poor economic circumstance, historic German bigotry/xenophobia and a highly charasmatic leader was far more important.

Campaigning to throw national citzens out of the country is a direct call to violence (does Wilders do this?). The general rule of thumb should be say whatever you want about a poltiical or religious ideology but don't make blanket calls of violence agaisnt its followers

The use of violence was not only more than "minor," it was pivotal. Hitler would never have come to power without violence and murder.

Campaigning to have CERTAIN citizens out of the country (those who have committed certain serious crimes) is not a direct or indirect call to violence. It's not a call to violence at all.

[JOZeldenrust]

No, his advocating of legal inequality shouldn't be illegal. I don't think it should be illegal. I don't support the prosecution of Wilders. Get it through your thick skull: I think what Wilders does should be legal!

I'm going to say this to you one more time and one more time only. You will please stop turning every fucking thread into a personal insult fest. I'll not respond in kind, because you're not worth it.

Not an insult. You're either thick, or intellectually dishonest, and it's structural.

However, I do not agree with what Wilders says, and I think it should be opposed in the arena of public discourse.

Good.

Moreover, immigration laws, by definition, treat non-Dutch different than Dutch born in the country. If one advocates for ANY immigration law at all, then one is advocating for people not being treated equally before the law. And, deportation for committing crimes in one's new country is not a strange or unusual punishment - it's pretty normal. Every country deports certain criminals. Is the rule going to be that we can advocate deporting some folks, but Wilders can't advocate deporting criminal Moroccans?

Both groups are Dutch, didn't you bother reading my post? They are all Dutch citizens, and many of those with a double nationality are born in the Netherlands.

There you go again with the unnecessary attack. Yes, I read your post. People can't be deported unless they also hold (or at least held) a citizenship other than Dutch, right? Holding citizenship doesn't mean that one can't still be deported. If one previously held citizenship in another country, citizenship in Holland can be revoked and one can be deported back to where one came from. If one is a Dutch citizen and also a citizen of another country, then one can also be deported to that other country. If a person with dual citizenship is a criminal menace to Holland, then it doesn't seem particularly monstrous (to me) to deport them to another country that will have them.

Deportation isn't a punishment.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Not at all. They came to power by killing people.

Not at all, they were voted into power.

Yes, and killing people. After the June 1932 elections where Hitler was decisively beaten by Hindenburg, both in the general election and the run-off election, the Nazis went on a spree of political murder and initiation of riots. The elections in November of 1932 saw the Nazis lose like 2,000,000 votes and 34 seats in the Reichstag.

On January 30, 1933, Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany, despite the fact that the Nazis never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote, and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and far fewer than 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag.

"Voted into power?" Really?

So, without having actually been voted into power in 1932, Hitler was APPOINTED by Hindenberg to the Chancellorship. What did Hitler do next? In February, 1933, he and the Nazis staged the "Reichstag Fire" incident and blamed the Communists, and they then proceeded to instigate the mass arrests and killings of German Communists.

The day after the fire, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to issue a decree entitled, “For the Protection of the People and the State.” Justified as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state,” the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties, including free expression, freedom of the press and freedom to assemble, etc.

He became dictator of Germany in March, 1933 on the heels of the violence of the Reichstag Fire incident and the violence in 1932 fomenting discord. He got APPOINTED chancellor while his party was well in the minority of the Reichstag and in a year when in three different votes, the German people overwhelmingly voted for the OTHER GUYS (between 2/3 and 3/4 of Germans voted for non-Nazis).

He was only indirectly made dictator by the Reichstag voting in the Enabling Act which did away with the very civil liberties that I'm voicing my defense of.

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.

I get your point, I just disagree with it.

You evidently don't get the point. The point is that a court case like this, regardless of the outcome, will have a bad result.

I do get that point.

Either free speech in The Netherlands suffers the first real blow since WWII, or we legitimize the kind of rabid Islamophobia that Wilders spews.

Wilders right to say it is not a legitimization of what he says. It's like saying the US Supreme Court's holding in American Nazi Party vs. Skokie Illinois, "legitimized" Nazi rhetoric. The only thing it "legitimized" was free speech.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, his advocating of legal inequality shouldn't be illegal. I don't think it should be illegal. I don't support the prosecution of Wilders. Get it through your thick skull: I think what Wilders does should be legal!

I'm going to say this to you one more time and one more time only. You will please stop turning every fucking thread into a personal insult fest. I'll not respond in kind, because you're not worth it.

Not an insult. You're either thick, or intellectually dishonest, and it's structural.

Of course it's an insult. You're obviously incapable of simply discussing an issue without turning it into a fight. Maybe this is why Europeans need speech codes. You can't keep from losing control during a debate.

Moreover, immigration laws, by definition, treat non-Dutch different than Dutch born in the country. If one advocates for ANY immigration law at all, then one is advocating for people not being treated equally before the law. And, deportation for committing crimes in one's new country is not a strange or unusual punishment - it's pretty normal. Every country deports certain criminals. Is the rule going to be that we can advocate deporting some folks, but Wilders can't advocate deporting criminal Moroccans?

Both groups are Dutch, didn't you bother reading my post? They are all Dutch citizens, and many of those with a double nationality are born in the Netherlands.

There you go again with the unnecessary attack. Yes, I read your post. People can't be deported unless they also hold (or at least held) a citizenship other than Dutch, right? Holding citizenship doesn't mean that one can't still be deported. If one previously held citizenship in another country, citizenship in Holland can be revoked and one can be deported back to where one came from. If one is a Dutch citizen and also a citizen of another country, then one can also be deported to that other country. If a person with dual citizenship is a criminal menace to Holland, then it doesn't seem particularly monstrous (to me) to deport them to another country that will have them.

Deportation isn't a punishment.

It is if it's prescribed by law as a punishment. Many countries prescribe deportation for persons who have been found to have committed certain felonies - sometimes termed "aggravated felonies." Many folks being deported for having committed such crimes would indeed consider it punishment.

[Hermit]

I get your point

Actually, you don't. In April 1932 Hitler attracted 36.8% of the popular vote in a free and secret election for the presidency. While this is nowhere near the 53% Paul von Hindenburg got, you must admit that he had significant support, and that's before you add to that the 800,000 card-carrying members of the NSDAP and the 170,000 strong private army. Systematic killings of opponents did not start until Hitler was made Chancellor in 1933 and the Enabling Law went through parliament a few weeks later. Propaganda, and the ability to say what he wanted to, how he wanted to and where he wanted to was the first and initially most important weapon. Compared to Hitler's rise, Wilders is yet to reach the Munich Putsch, but he is not too far behind, considering his party is Netherland's third biggest at the moment.

[Coito ergo sum]

I get your point

Actually, you don't.

Actually, I do.

In April 1932 Hitler attracted 36.8% of the popular vote in a free and secret election for the presidency.

That's right. Precisely as I stated.

While this is nowhere near the 53% Paul von Hindenburg got, you must admit that he had significant support,

Who said otherwise?

and that's before you add to that the 800,000 card-carrying members of the NSDAP and the 170,000 strong private army. Systematic killings of opponents did not start until Hitler was made Chancellor

The SA was formed in 1920, and the SS was formed in 1925. Are you suggesting they did not engage in violence and killings until 1933?

There was also the Beer Hall Putsch in 1924.

Throughout the 1920's the Nazis and the SA participated in, orchestrated and encouraged violence and killings of opponents.

in 1933 and the Enabling Law went through parliament a few weeks later.

[/quote]

Exactly as I said. He wasn't elected Chancellor - he was appointed to that position. He never was elected. The Enabling Law was not a popular election, it was the vote of Parliament that made him dictator AFTER he was already appointed Chancellor, and AFTER the Reichstag fire.

Propaganda, and the ability to say what he wanted to, how he wanted to and where he wanted to was the first and initially most important weapon. Compared to Hitler's rise, Wilders is yet to reach the Munich Putsch, but he is not too far behind, considering his party is Netherland's third biggest at the moment.

So long as the Netherlands protects everyone's civil rights, there would be no possibility of a Hitler. Despotism comes when people give up their rights, not when they defend them.

[Coito ergo sum]

Geert Wilders steps up anti-Islam rhetoric
Geert Wilders has stepped up his anti-Islam rhetoric by describing the Prophet Mohammed as an "insane, paedophile, rapist murderer" just two weeks before the opening of his trial on charges of inciting race hatred.

The leader of hard-Right Dutch Freedom Party will be prosecuted in an Amsterdam court on April 13 for previous comparisons of Islam to Nazism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... toric.html

It's interesting that nobody is being prosecuted for calling Wilders a Nazi or a fascist. People seem to do that without apology. Yet, he can't compare Islam to Nazism without being prosecuted?

"The historical Mohammad was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered," Mr Wilders claimed in the Dutch magazine HP/De Tijd.
In the article, Mr Wilders, whose Freedom Party MPs control the balance of power in the Dutch parliament, attacked fines levied on an Austrian feminist "for insulting a religion by calling Mohammad a paedophile".
"However, that is the truth," he wrote, citing the Muslim prophet's consummation of a marriage to a wife who claimed she was a child aged nine at the time.

Mr Wilders, who lives under police protection following attempts by Islamist terrorists on his life, hypothesised that Mohammad suffered from a brain tumour causing the "paranoid schizophrenia" that led him to found the Muslim faith.
"Mohammad had an unhinged paranoid personality with an inferiority complex and megalomaniac tendencies. In his forties he starts having visions that lead him to believe he has a cosmic mission, and there is no stopping him," he wrote.
In a ruling on Wednesday, an Amsterdam court ruled that Dutch prosecutors were entitled to indict Mr Wilders, if found guilty, he could face up to a year in jail or a £6,700 fine.

So......what's wrong with any of that? Sounds like he is accurately describing Islam, and is certainly entitled to hold that opinion....well, maybe he's not...

[Coito ergo sum]

Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave personal danger – as I have experienced. And whoever attempts to escape from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risks death. We cannot continue to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad can provide insight and support to Muslims all over the world who wish to leave Islam.

Apostates are heroes and more than ever they deserve the support of freedom loving people all over the world. Party politics should not be at play in this matter. It is time for us to help these people by exposing Muhammad.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4714

[egbert]

PVV leader Geert Wilders is to make a formal complaint to the police of perjury against one of the witnesses at his inciting hatred trial.

On Monday, a special court panel refused to honour the Wilders’ camp call for new judges, because they refused to investigate statements made by Middle East expert Bertus Hendriks.

Wilders and his lawyer Bram Moszkowicz claim Hendriks lied in court about the motives for inviting another witness, Arab languages expert Hans Jansen, to dinner last May.

During that dinner, Moszkowicz claims a third witness tried to pressure Jansen about his evidence.

Following Monday’s decision, the case against Wilders can now continue.

‘The circus will go on,’ Wilders told the Telegraaf in a reaction.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2 ... plaint.php