Geert Wilders: Scumbag or Legend?

[Santa_Claus]

Wilders is simply a result of Western style govts systimatically lying to there populations, to a point where most now don't even know they are lying.........the BIG lie? "We are here to protect your interests" (but that can never happen when someone in Bongo Bongo land - or Belguim! has exactly the same rights and entitlements to me, but I am expected to pay for that happy clappy wishful thinking stupidity couple with legalised looting of the national treasury on an industrial scale - all at the price of me and mine going short.

My bet is that if most soldiers in WWII were told what the outcome would be for there grandchildren (get to the back of the Q) they would never have fought.......or would have swapped sides.

[charlou]

This ...

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.

... coupled with this ...

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...

cover it for me.


*As an aside, I'm wondering if being against prosecution (instituting legal proceedings) is (ironically, in this case) censorial too ... I mean, if the law protects free discourse, and the system is working, prosecution is an aspect of that? If wilders had been found guilty and convicted, then something would have been very wrong.

[Atheist-Lite]

This ...

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.

... coupled with this ...

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...

cover it for me.


*As an aside, I'm wondering if being against prosecution (instituting legal proceedings) is (ironically, in this case) censorial too ... I mean, if the law protects free discourse, and the system is working, prosecution is an aspect of that? If wilders had been found guilty and convicted, then something would have been very wrong.

I'm not female but I do understand 'male politics' could be involved here. The last thing the authorities want is for Wilders to become a prisoner of conscience, a martyr attracting the neutral quarter on this issue.

[charlou]

I'm not female but I do understand 'male politics' could be involved here. The last thing the authorities want is for Wilders to become a prisoner of conscience, a martyr attracting the neutral quarter on this issue.

Could be something to the martyr thing re the acquital, though I doubt it's the key motivation .... In any case, what does gender have to do with that concern?

But, if yours was a response to my aside, I think you've missed the point.

[Atheist-Lite]

I'm not female but I do understand 'male politics' could be involved here. The last thing the authorities want is for Wilders to become a prisoner of conscience, a martyr attracting the neutral quarter on this issue.

Could be something to the martyr thing re the acquital, though I doubt it's the key motivation .... In any case, what does gender have to do with that concern?

But, if yours was a response to my aside, I think you've missed the point.

He is a non-reproductive male.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wilders is simply a result of Western style govts systimatically lying to there populations, to a point where most now don't even know they are lying.........the BIG lie? "We are here to protect your interests" (but that can never happen when someone in Bongo Bongo land - or Belguim! has exactly the same rights and entitlements to me, but I am expected to pay for that happy clappy wishful thinking stupidity couple with legalised looting of the national treasury on an industrial scale - all at the price of me and mine going short.

My bet is that if most soldiers in WWII were told what the outcome would be for there grandchildren (get to the back of the Q) they would never have fought.......or would have swapped sides.

[Coito ergo sum]

*As an aside, I'm wondering if being against prosecution (instituting legal proceedings) is (ironically, in this case) censorial too ... I mean, if the law protects free discourse, and the system is working, prosecution is an aspect of that? If wilders had been found guilty and convicted, then something would have been very wrong.

By that logic, the State ought to be permitted to prosecute anyone for anything, and only if there is a conviction would it be wrong. To rationally sustain a prosecution, however, there must be a law prohibiting certain conduct that reasonably informs people what conduct is not permitted, the law must be within the authority/just power of the State to make, and then there must be some reason to believe that the person in the dock may have committed the crime.

In this case, the case of Wilders, it was good that he was acquitted, but in my view he was acquitted for the wrong reasons. The law in Holland is still there, and everyone in Holland must be on guard to govern their words. If one's opinion is that immigrants ought to be deported for committing crimes, and that immigration laws should be strengthened, and Koran is like Mein Kampf, etc., then one can still be subject to prosecution for it, if the State decides to do it. The law needs to be repealed or otherwise rendered unenforceable. Until then, folks are at risk of criminal prosecution if some group of people are "offended" by what folks say and report it to the authorities.

[Forty Two]

The trial, which will now start on October 31, focuses on comments made at a March 2014 election rally in The Hague, when Wilders asked supporters whether they wanted "fewer or more Moroccans in your city and in the Netherlands?"

When the crowd shouted back "Fewer! Fewer!" a smiling Wilders answered: "We're going to organise that."

His lawyers argued Wilders had merely "put forward his party's political programme", and insisted he had a fundamental right to freedom of speech.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dutch-court- ... 47386.html

So, if this article is correct, he is being prosecuted for "hate speech" for saying he wants to organize fewer foreigners, from a particular country, in their city or country. Nothing about "Moroccan" is "racist." Just like when people of Arabic ethnicity become Swedish citizens, the news reports them as being a "Swede" or "Swedish," a Moroccan could be any ethnicity, as long as he or she is born or naturalized in Morocco.

Also, the issue of whether immigrants from a particular nation are admitted to the country, or deported when their visas expire or when they commit given offenses (and what offenses merit deportation) is a political one. A country need not treat all other countries equally when it comes to immigration and naturalization, and there isn't a single country in the world that does treat all foreign countries equally in that regard. So, whenever one is arguing immigration and naturalization, one is always debating whether there should be more or fewer persons of a given nationality admitted. Why is that hate speech?

And, even if wilders said - I don't like Moroccans. My political party platform is to reduce the number of Moroccans in this country. I plan to eliminate benefits paid to Moroccans and I plan to deport as many as possible. This is an illegal opinion in the Netherlands?

But he has drawn heavy flack recently from fellow MPs after saying he would close all mosques and confiscate Korans -- which he famously compares to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" -- should he win the elections.

Why would he get flack for that in the Netherlands? I mean, hate speech is apparently illegal, and you can be bound over for trial on charges of "saying you want to organize fewer Moroccans in the country....", but it's o.k. to publish and disseminate a book that calls for the murder of infidels? Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" and, Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". And, Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…" And, Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

So, it's hate speech for Wilders to call for the confiscation of Korans and closing of Mosques ...but, it's not hate speech for Mosques to distribute the Koran freely, publish it, print it, teach it, and preach it in the Netherlands?

If the answer is that the trial will proceed, and the judge will determine based on the facts whether Wilders meant something hateful in his speeches...then can't the same be said for the Imams and others opening distributing Korans and quoting from it and teaching/preaching it? Just prosecute them, and let the legal system decide whether they are preaching hate or not, right?

[Forty Two]

Will they televise this trial?

[Scot Dutchy]

Nope

[Forty Two]

Crap. Such a ridiculous display should be broadcast for all the world to see.

[pErvinalia]

What's he being charged for? Inappropriately large hair?

[laklak]

Being mean to muzzies.

[JimC]

If he dared, he would use the words "Final Solution" in reference to Dutch muslims...

[Scot Dutchy]

During a public meeting he asked the crowd if there were too many Moroccans in the Netherlands and should their numbers should be limited.