Geert Wilders: Scumbag or Legend?

[Svartalf]

I thought Moroccans came to France by Preference, like Algeriens... You ought to get mostly Indonesians and Amazonian Indians.

[Scot Dutchy]

Plenty of them came here years ago on the coattails of the Turks. It was quite easy then and we did get a bit flooded but now the requirements are so strict that we have now negative immigration amongst the Moroccans. The boys have very big social problems and they are not treated with kid gloves and many are going back. The girls integrate much better and they are many mixed marriages these days.

Indonesians flooded in after the independence war in 1949 but very few now. Surinamers are still coming but face the same problems as the Moroccans as since independence they dont have the right to a Dutch citizenship.

[Forty Two]

Being mean to muzzies.

Moroccans, actually. There are some Christian, Jewish and Bahai Moroccans. Moroccan being a nationality, it's not the same thing as Islam. In the quotes referenced in the articles about this, he asked if people wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the country, and the crowd said fewer. He said they were going to organize that.

If he referred to Germans or Americans, nobody would bat an eye.

[Forty Two]

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

If he committed hate speech, then aren't Muslims who advocate sex segregation and preach against homosexuality, etc., committing hate speech? Theirs is far worse than his.

[JimC]

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

If he committed hate speech, then aren't Muslims who advocate sex segregation and preach against homosexuality, etc., committing hate speech? Theirs is far worse than his.

It might be so, on a case-by-case basis, but in that case those turgid evangelical christians who preach that hurricanes are god's wrath against gays should face the same penalty...

[Scot Dutchy]

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

If he committed hate speech, then aren't Muslims who advocate sex segregation and preach against homosexuality, etc., committing hate speech? Theirs is far worse than his.

It might be so, on a case-by-case basis, but in that case those turgid evangelical christians who preach that hurricanes are god's wrath against gays should face the same penalty...

The whole thing of one social group accusing another is blown out of all proportion. It seldom happens publicly and they are of so little importance. With fewer than 5% of the population attending some sort of religious service once month the whole concept of belief has been moved to the area of non-acceptance. To be religious is to be a weirdo. Even the royal family never go to church. Princess Trix like Queen Liz are from the old school.

[Brian Peacock]

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?

The context of his outpourings cannot be so easily divested from their semantic structure I fear. He has a right to express his views, of course that goes without sating, but he also has to be held to account for both the content and context of any such communication.

[Scot Dutchy]

The bible is still for sale.
We dont have imams preaching violence anymore. Immigration restrictions are very strict these days which has lead to negative immigration. The language and citizenship exams are compulsory in order to be allowed in. These exams have to be taken in their home country at the Dutch embassy. The language exam would prove difficult for many Dutch as it is third level education. Remember failure does mean either a return trip or no entrance visa. Again after five years you have to prove you can viably support yourself and dependents.
There are plenty of social and political organisations working for better and closer integration. Wilders get upset by their success and wishes to keep the bogey man alive. We dont have the problems of France or Belgium because they have never been given any room to expand.I am not saying it is paradise but it is much better than people like Wilders like to admit.

Remember another thing Wilders was brought up in Israel which might just colour his opinion.

[Forty Two]

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

If he committed hate speech, then aren't Muslims who advocate sex segregation and preach against homosexuality, etc., committing hate speech? Theirs is far worse than his.

It might be so, on a case-by-case basis, but in that case those turgid evangelical christians who preach that hurricanes are god's wrath against gays should face the same penalty...

Under Dutch law, perhaps so. But, the point is, you've got Muslims claiming Geert is committing hate speech, but they're immune from hate speech laws when they distribute the Koran, which says what it says. Irrespective of whatever a person thinks in their own head, if you're peddling the Koran, then aren't you peddling hate speech?

[Scot Dutchy]

Nope. They are not peddling hate speech. Are people selling the bible peddling hate speech?

[Forty Two]

[
The context of his outpourings cannot be so easily divested from their semantic structure I fear. He has a right to express his views, of course that goes without sating, but he also has to be held to account for both the content and context of any such communication.

What's the context that I've missed?

Also, how ought he be held to account? Fine? Imprisonment? Or, by public condemnation in the free marketplace of ideas? The last one is a way to hold people accountable, which is not censorious. Saying "the context of your political opinion is such that I think your opinion is hateful, so you're to be fined by the state and given a criminal records to hold you "accountable" after the fact..." is censorious.

A law like that has a tremendous "chilling effect" on public expression. People must not only conform with a clear proscription which is easy to follow, but they must be sure that they are not pushing into the field of gray area where reasonable minds may differ, for fear that one's opinion breaches the very wide, very grey line. It causes people to hold back in order to not take a risk. If a person has a 10% chance of being prosecuted, that is enough for a lot of people to say "I better just keep my trap shut."

it tends to politicize speech, too, and then if you factor in the growing acceptance of the notion that white people like Wilders can commit hate speech, but that the same kind of words coming from a Moroccan can't be hate speech, because the Moroccans are a margilnalized, oppressed group, and you've got a recipe for unequal application of a politically charged law.... if anything will stoke the flames of hateful ideas, that kind of thing will. Tell a group of people they're not allowed to voice their opinion, and you have just reaffirmed to those people that their opinion must be valid, otherwise "they" wouldn't need to silence it....

[Brian Peacock]

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

If he committed hate speech, then aren't Muslims who advocate sex segregation and preach against homosexuality, etc., committing hate speech? Theirs is far worse than his.

It might be so, on a case-by-case basis, but in that case those turgid evangelical christians who preach that hurricanes are god's wrath against gays should face the same penalty...

Under Dutch law, perhaps so. But, the point is, you've got Muslims claiming Geert is committing hate speech, but they're immune from hate speech laws when they distribute the Koran, which says what it says. Irrespective of whatever a person thinks in their own head, if you're peddling the Koran, then aren't you peddling hate speech?

An interesting point. If one was promoting intolerance or differential treatment for those who don't share your views, and justifying it on the basis of some self-selected 'holy' text, then perhaps that might be so, but I doubt that the texts themselves would be the problem in this case. Parts of the Qu'ran and The Bible are truly hateful, immoral, and socially divisive but I think it's too easy, and inaccurate, to classify all Muslims or Christians in those terms. Some are: most aren't.

Wilders is a racist. Defending his right to be a racist should not necessarily entail defending his racism. He's a bigot and a hatemonger who, like many-a unhinged ideologue, is trying to bend the world outside is head to conform to the one inside his head.

[Forty Two]

Nope. They are not peddling hate speech. Are people selling the bible peddling hate speech?

Under the Dutch law, arguably yes. Because the statements in the Bible, for example, which clearly state that having same sex relations are abominations (both in the Old Testament, Leviticus, and the New Testament, Book of Romans), is a statement that homosexuals are abominations. It refers to women as properly keeping silent, deferring to men, and not being teachers -- all New Testament stuff. The verses support slavery, like in the Book of Peter, where it refers to slaves being obliged to be subservient to their masters. Other pro slavery verses can be found in the Old Testament, like the Book of Exodus. The Bible calls anyone who gets a divorce an "adulterer." New Testament Book of Luke. And, of course, the notion that people of different religions, like pagans, will go to hell.

There is a ton of hate speech in the Bible.

And, let's not forget that the Bible refers not to there being fewer Philistines in the Promised Land, but actual commands that it is good and proper for the "chosen people" to commit genocide over the people of the Promised Land, and slaughter everyone and their animals, but save the virgins to do with what thy will.....

Article 137c: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.

So, if I distribute a Bible, that's public -- that's in writing -- and it expresses insultingly against women, homosexuals, pagans, etc. it even has insults against physical disabilities, like were in Deuteronomy it proscribes any man whose genitals have been damaged from entering the congregation of the Lord.

The only way it's not hate speech is if we just give it's words a pass.

Not sure how a person saying that they want to organize fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands is worse than what the Bible says.

[Brian Peacock]

The context of his outpourings cannot be so easily divested from their semantic structure I fear. He has a right to express his views, of course that goes without sating, but he also has to be held to account for both the content and context of any such communication.

What's the context that I've missed?

The context of his expressed views of many years, his political aims, associations, and his activities - basically, his history within the social setting in which he operates. What I'm essentially saying is that you can't simply assess his words as if they've suddenly sprung into existence, unbidden and without preamble, and then seek some absolute formula to determine the rectitude of his utterances.

Also, how ought he be held to account? Fine? Imprisonment? Or, by public condemnation in the free marketplace of ideas? The last one is a way to hold people accountable, which is not censorious. Saying "the context of your political opinion is such that I think your opinion is hateful, so you're to be fined by the state and given a criminal records to hold you "accountable" after the fact..." is censorious.

A law like that has a tremendous "chilling effect" on public expression. People must not only conform with a clear proscription which is easy to follow, but they must be sure that they are not pushing into the field of gray area where reasonable minds may differ, for fear that one's opinion breaches the very wide, very grey line. It causes people to hold back in order to not take a risk. If a person has a 10% chance of being prosecuted, that is enough for a lot of people to say "I better just keep my trap shut."

it tends to politicize speech, too, and then if you factor in the growing acceptance of the notion that white people like Wilders can commit hate speech, but that the same kind of words coming from a Moroccan can't be hate speech, because the Moroccans are a margilnalized, oppressed group, and you've got a recipe for unequal application of a politically charged law.... if anything will stoke the flames of hateful ideas, that kind of thing will. Tell a group of people they're not allowed to voice their opinion, and you have just reaffirmed to those people that their opinion must be valid, otherwise "they" wouldn't need to silence it....

You're fond of citing some kind of declared exceptionalism as a justification for the charge of a double standard, but the question remains, is racism, and all that it entails, acceptable in the context of the times in which we live? If not, then perhaps we should seek to limit it's influence. If, on the other hand, one thinks it is acceptable then you're probably a racist.

[Forty Two]

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

If he committed hate speech, then aren't Muslims who advocate sex segregation and preach against homosexuality, etc., committing hate speech? Theirs is far worse than his.

It might be so, on a case-by-case basis, but in that case those turgid evangelical christians who preach that hurricanes are god's wrath against gays should face the same penalty...

Under Dutch law, perhaps so. But, the point is, you've got Muslims claiming Geert is committing hate speech, but they're immune from hate speech laws when they distribute the Koran, which says what it says. Irrespective of whatever a person thinks in their own head, if you're peddling the Koran, then aren't you peddling hate speech?

An interesting point. If one was promoting intolerance or differential treatment for those who don't share your views, and justifying it on the basis of some self-selected 'holy' text, then perhaps that might be so, but I doubt that the texts themselves would be the problem in this case. Parts of the Qu'ran and The Bible are truly hateful, immoral, and socially divisive but I think it's too easy, and inaccurate, to classify all Muslims or Christians in those terms. Some are: most aren't.

Get off the issue of whether "all" Christians or Muslims believe the same thing. I'm not talking about individual beliefs in people's heads. I'm referring to what the Koran and the Bible say. They way what they say, so if it's hateful and insulting to groups like homosexuals, women, etc., then it is hate speech. Shouldn't it be banned?

And, if a person, regardless of their own personal beliefs, distributes hate speech, is it not still hate speech? Or, can Geert Wilders get away with whatever he wants to say, if he just hires someone who doesn't agree with his beliefs to read his ideas out loud for him or distribute texts of his ideas for him? The guy he hires can say "I'm not committing hate speech myself, I'm just distributing the hate speech someone else wrote down..."?

[

Wilders is a racist.

Maybe. And, if he is, people can oppose him politically. What's that got to do with whether or not he can try to persuade people that he is right about his ideas? I've followed Wilders closely for almost 10 years. I've never read anything he said that appeared "racist" to me. He has certainly been against Islam, the Koran, Muslim immigration and in particular Moroccan immigration. But, that isn't necessarily racist.

[
Defending his right to be a racist should not necessarily entail defending his racism. He's a bigot and a hatemonger, who like many-a unhinged ideologue, is trying to bend the world outside is head to conform to the one inside his head.

So are lots of Muslim Imams. I don't see them being prosecuted for hate speech. The reason is exactly what Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris and Dennett and the rest of the new atheists spent over a decade shouting from the rooftops. Religion is getting a special pass. Calling something religious seems to automatically mean we can't criticize it or attack it. So, prosecuting an Imam for hate speech would result in massive unrest from the religious community, claiming that the law is persecuting them for their religious beliefs. That's not unique to Islam. The Christians do the same thing - claim the right to discriminate because they say their religious beliefs require it.

All politicians try to bend the world outside their heads to conform to the one inside their head. Banning hate speech or ciminalizing it, just uses the power of the State to shut one's political opponents up without having to win in the political field of battle.