Geert Wilders: Scumbag or Legend?

[Coito ergo sum]

Three cheers for Wilders!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/ ... 0P20110623

Dutch populist politician Geert Wilders was acquitted of inciting hatred of Muslims in a court ruling on Thursday that may strengthen his political influence and exacerbate tensions over immigration policy.

"The acquittal means that the right of minorities to remain free of hate speech has been breached. We are going to claim our rights at the U.N.," said Mohamed Rabbae of the National Council for Moroccans.

Wilders, who has received numerous death threats and has to live under 24-hour guard, argued that he was exercising his right to freedom of speech when criticizing Islam.

"Minorities" do not have rights - "individuals" have rights, and the majority and the minority have the same rights (or, should have the same rights). And, neither the minority nor the majority has (or should have) any "right to be free of hate speech." Hate speech is at the core of the right of free expression, and hate speech is what allows artwork like "Piss Christ" and other such blasphemous expressions to be freely expressable. The same principle applies to statements denigrating any religion or religious practice, or groups of people like "immigrants" or "Moroccans." To say directly, "I hate [Moroccans/immigrants/Islam/Muslims/Christians/Christianity/whatever] and I think you should hate theme too," MUST be freely expressable, and if it is not then the entire right of free expression is completely eviscerated and emasculated.

Congrats Geert. I wonder how much money he had to spend to defend his right to voice a political opinion?

[Atheist-Lite]

He's a dangerous man and now they've given him a taste of victory and he will want more.

[Coito ergo sum]

He's a dangerous man and now they've given him a taste of victory and he will want more.

Yes, he may do some more "dangerous" things like call for stricter controls on immigration, deportation of criminal immigrants, and he might even say a course word or two about Islam.

[Atheist-Lite]

He's a dangerous man and now they've given him a taste of victory and he will want more.

Yes, he may do some more "dangerous" things like call for stricter controls on immigration, deportation of criminal immigrants, and he might even say a course word or two about Islam.

He will push at the door, yes. I doubt he's gonna just sit on this.

[Coito ergo sum]

That bastard. He will hurt people with his words, I just know it....

[Atheist-Lite]

That bastard. He will hurt people with his words, I just know it....

There are words that can hurt. I think 'fire' is really bad when you're the one wearing the blindfold.

[HomerJay]

To say directly, "I hate [Moroccans/immigrants/Islam/Muslims/Christians/Christianity/whatever] and I think you should hate theme too," MUST be freely expressable, and if it is not then the entire right of free expression is completely eviscerated and emasculated.

Yup, where would we be without the right to hate?

[Coito ergo sum]

To say directly, "I hate [Moroccans/immigrants/Islam/Muslims/Christians/Christianity/whatever] and I think you should hate theme too," MUST be freely expressable, and if it is not then the entire right of free expression is completely eviscerated and emasculated.

Yup, where would we be without the right to hate?

Your irony aside, exactly right. If we state that hateful ideas are not permitted, then there is no way to protect ideas that are merely distasteful rather than hateful. We already see Muslims characterizing "criticism" as "hate," and "blasphemy" as hate. Yes, I claim the right to hate, and to express hatred for Islam, Christianity, religion in general, religious zealots, abortion doctor murderers, Republicans, Libertarians, Teabaggers, slave owners, dictators, and a host of other persons, things and abstract concepts. Where, indeed, would we be without the right to hate? You tell me.

[Atheist-Lite]

To say directly, "I hate [Moroccans/immigrants/Islam/Muslims/Christians/Christianity/whatever] and I think you should hate theme too," MUST be freely expressable, and if it is not then the entire right of free expression is completely eviscerated and emasculated.

Yup, where would we be without the right to hate?

Your irony aside, exactly right. If we state that hateful ideas are not permitted, then there is no way to protect ideas that are merely distasteful rather than hateful. We already see Muslims characterizing "criticism" as "hate," and "blasphemy" as hate. Yes, I claim the right to hate, and to express hatred for Islam, Christianity, religion in general, religious zealots, abortion doctor murderers, Republicans, Libertarians, Teabaggers, slave owners, dictators, and a host of other persons, things and abstract concepts. Where, indeed, would we be without the right to hate? You tell me.

A more advanced civilization will overpower a inferior one - size is ir relavant.

Holland like the US has hate whilst the UK has and will have oil.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13857046

[HomerJay]

To say directly, "I hate [Moroccans/immigrants/Islam/Muslims/Christians/Christianity/whatever] and I think you should hate theme too," MUST be freely expressable, and if it is not then the entire right of free expression is completely eviscerated and emasculated.

Yup, where would we be without the right to hate?

Your irony aside, exactly right. If we state that hateful ideas are not permitted, then there is no way to protect ideas that are merely distasteful rather than hateful.

Don't get hysterical, there's no slippery slope argument here.

Public order is the most used excuse for curtailing free speech, it doesn't have the slightest effect on our political speech though, works just fine.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not hysterical, and of course there is a slippery slope argument here. There is hardly a better scenario for the "slippery slope" argument. One person's distasteful or "offensive" speech is another person's hate speech. If one person says "those damn immigrants ought not be allowed in our country!" - I've heard folks call that "hate speech." Is it? What about "Those damn Mexicans...."? The slope is slick as KY, my friend.

Public order is also the most used excuse for curtailing political speech. To say it doesn't have the slightest effect on our political speech is just about the most ludicrous and ill-informed statement that could be made on the subject.

Governments routinely, almost habitually, advance the rubric "public order" (or words to that effect) to squelch speech that they do not agree with. It is public order that behind most hate speech laws in the first place - the suggestion that if one expresses hatred toward some person or group, or makes statements that might induce others to hate a person or group of people, that it will tend to disrupt public order and create disorder.

Moreover, it is public order that is invariably the excuse used by police to break up public demonstrations and people exercising their free speech. When Cohen was arrested in 1968 wearing a "Fuck the Draft" jacket, he was arrested and convicted of "disorderly conduct." The US Supreme Court overturned his conviction, finding that the words were protected free speech and constituted "political speech" which is the most protected. See Cohen v California. Of course the government advanced "public order" as their reason for shutting Cohen up - they arrested him for dis-"order"ly conduct.

In the Nazi Party vs. City of Skokie, IL, the ACLU represented the Nazi party, who were denied a permit to march in Skokie, IL, because their demonstration would cause people to throw things at them and otherwise engage in violence (i.e. public order would be effected). The US Supreme Court held that the Nazis had the same right as anyone else to march in Skokie Il, and the content of their message was irrelevant, even if they were going to be spouting hateful things about Jews and the holocaust. The role of government was to protect the speaker from the crowds that would do violence against them, not to silence the speaker in anticipation of violence.

[HomerJay]

I'm not hysterical, and of course there is a slippery slope argument here.

Time and Place is meh.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hate speech laws are not time and place laws. They are content laws.

[Tyrannical]

Oh, I can hardly wait to see how Geert steps up his resistance to Islam now. Perhaps a national referendum on the acceptance of Muslims and Islam in Holland?

[JimC]

I'm glad he was acquitted, and I defend his right to point out the evils of Islam.

However, underneath that, I strongly suspect he has a deeply racist and nationalist agenda, so, if I was a Dutch voter, I would oppose him politically...