Geert Wilders: Scumbag or Legend?

[Brian Peacock]

Some people think what he said, in that context and situation, was fine and others don't. The justice system formed a judgement, in law and on evidence. Some people think that judgement was fine and others don't. Where's the drama in that?

Personally, I'd rather society resisted the free vilification of people and groups based on arbitrary conditions such as geography, skin colour, or perceived cultural association. Some people agree with me and others don't. So what?

[Forty Two]

Some people think what he said, in that context and situation, was fine and others don't. The justice system formed a judgement, in law and on evidence. Some people think that judgement was fine and others don't. Where's the drama in that?

The drama is in a person being convicted for saying "Do you want there to be more or fewer Moroccans here?" And, the crowd answering "fewer!" and then the speaker saying "O.k., we're going to organize that!" There is a serious issue as to whether the justice system indeed formed a judgment based on law and evidence, or merely engaged in an arbitrary and capricious use of a very vague and overbroad piece of legislation which is more politically motivated than founded on any legitimate issue of fact or law.

Personally, I'd rather society resisted the free vilification of people and groups based on arbitrary conditions such as geography, skin colour, or perceived cultural association. Some people agree with me and others don't. So what?

So what? Because the method by which society resists that kind of vilification can impact fundamental individual liberties which have, since the days of Magna Carta, and as a fundamental principle of the rights of free people, as embodied in modernity by the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and various core documents and principles of free nations in the world. The risk of allowing the State to determine through legislation, as interpreted by courts, what political messages are verboten and which are permissible is patently obvious.

One major risk is that such laws are very susceptible to being enforced politically. The machinery of the State, once controlled by a political group or coalition, can be brought to bear to silence opposition under the rubric of incitement and hate speech.

[JimC]

The link I provided proved you were wrong.

What link?

And, yes, the whole point of the law is to put people in danger of being convicted of hate speech. Not only is that the "point" of the law, as you put it -- it's the "problem" with the law,

So laws actually functioning as laws is a problem?

To be fair to Forty Two, he was clearly criticising this particular law, which is always a reasonable thing to do, whether you agree with the critique or not.

Personally, I think that laws like that are on a tricky boundary, with squashing legitimate free speech on the one side, and allowing hate-mongers to foment anger against certain groups, just as the Nazis did to the Jews in the 30's. The impact of a given rabble-rousing speech may not be immediate, but the effect can be cumulative, and can easily end in violence.

And in context, it is fairly clear that Geert was implying violence against a particular group, even if his weasel words may be interpreted several ways.

[Brian Peacock]

It's just one long slippery slope to some.

[JimC]

It's just one long slippery slope to some.

A slide coated in baby oil, with a group of naked young ladies waiting at the bottom...

[Brian Peacock]

That doesn't sound so bad when you put it like that. Can somebody help me up the steps please?

[pErvinalia]

The link I provided proved you were wrong.

What link?

And, yes, the whole point of the law is to put people in danger of being convicted of hate speech. Not only is that the "point" of the law, as you put it -- it's the "problem" with the law,

So laws actually functioning as laws is a problem?

To be fair to Forty Two,

What's this...? I thought the secret cabal had agreed not to be fair to Forty Two.

[JimC]

[Hermit]

42 doesn't seem to get the concept behind dog-whistle politics. It is conveying a message without having to actually spell it out. Much of the time it is an underhanded but essentially innocuous trick to appeal to a particular target audience without alienating another. So, for example, a politician may make repeated references to "family values", which is pretty much what can be described as a "motherhood issue": nobody objects to it. But when a politician addresses an assembly of fundies and bangs that particular drum, that audience understands he means "family values" as interpreted on Christian fundamentalist principles. He does not need to actually say that he opposes equal marriage rights or anything else LGBT communities clamour for. There's an expression for that: "It goes without saying." It applies particularly so if that politician has never ever been heard to say a word in favour of gays specifically or the LGBT communities in general.

This gets a bit hairy when the politician uses the dog-whistle ploy to convey a message to an audience that is in favour of expelling all Muslims. The general public is only meant to hear that Wilders is going to reduce or stop the influx of Moroccans. His audience understands, and is meant to understand, that he advocates the expulsion of all Muslims, be they citizens, or not. Again, he does not need to actually say that. Knowing his audience he knows they know what he means, especially since he does not differentiate between different kinds of Muslims. To him they are all the same: undesirables in The Netherlands. I have already quoted him earlier on that.

The usual crowd disagrees that Wilders is guilty of incitement to commit hate crimes on the grounds has not actually uttered any words necessary to convict him. The Dutch court has disagreed with those grounds. It has determined that Wilders has used not actual words, but the dog-whistle technique to incite hate crimes. It does not make dog-whistling itself a crime generally, nor the crime of incitement to commit hate crimes, but in the opinion of the court the latter is exactly what Wilders has done.

[pErvinalia]

[Animavore]

[Forty Two]

Was Geert Wilders involved?

A lot of people held vigils and tributes to her. They occurred right in her neighborhood in Minnesota, too. https://www.gomn.com/news-categories/so ... lis-police and https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/na ... video.html