Fitna - Geert Wilders and Islam

[charlou]

[JOZeldenrust]

It's been a while since Pat Condell was this wrong.

[Hermit]

From what I have heard about - and by - Wilders, I have formed an opinion that he is a right wing, chauvinist racist. Perhaps his trial is indeed about hate speech rather than a show trial "where truth is irrelevant" inspired by a catastrophic instance of political correctness that is bound to bring us closer to civilisation as we know it.

Having said that, I am concerned that the issue is almost totally ignored in the main-stream media. With one exception, all Google News results can come up with are right wing blogs and fora that take the same line as Condell. If the truly liberal press is even aware of the upcoming trial, it is not letting on. You'd think it was of sufficient importance to be treated comprehensively by those purveyors of information. The fact that bugger all is forthcoming is a worry.

[Hermit]

A bit more googling brought this up:

01/20/2010

Hatred Trial in Amsterdam
Has Geert Wilders Broken the Law?
By Folkert Jensma


The trial of Dutch populist right-wing politician Geert Wilders begins on Wednesday in Amsterdam. His inflammatory anti-Muslim statements are well known. But are they illegal?

Rumor has it that Geert Wilders, the leader of the populist right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV), hopes to call Mohamed B., the man who killed Theo van Gogh, as a witness in his trial which starts this Wednesday. Probably to establish the connection between the Koran and violence that Wilders assumes. The prosecution, however, will focus on the Dutch criminal code, particularly the two articles the politician is alleged to have violated: Articles 137(c) and (d). Wilders is charged with slandering a group and inciting hatred, and discrimination on the basis of race or religion. He has targeted Muslims on the basis of their religion, the prosecution will argue, and non-Western migrants or Moroccans on the basis of their race. The trial is expected to last months.


What exactly is Geert Wilders being charged with?

The case against him involves 21 pages of quotes drawn from interviews, newspaper articles, websites and a description of Wilder's anti-Islam film "Fitna." It was initially dismissed by the public prosecutor's office which saw no chance of winning a conviction. The prosecutor consulted with its own expert think-tank on discrimination and two independent professors. All recommended against prosecution, stating that Wilders' public statements would prove insufficient to win a conviction

Don't politicians enjoy extensive freedom of expression?

Certainly. They cannot be prosecuted for what they say in parliament or local councils. But outside parliament, politicians are basically just citizens. There, they are governed by the normal limitations to freedom of speech established in Article 7 of the Dutch constitution and in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Broadly interpreted, that states that freedom of opinion is a characteristic of democracy, including opinions that are "disturbing, shocking or hurtful." Limits to that freedom can only be enacted by law and in situations where they are "urgently needed in a democratic society." To prevent people's (religious) feelings from being hurt for instance.

Where does the judge place the limits?

The judge examines whether a statement is "unnecessarily offensive" in relation to social discussion. Judges then carry out a "contextual examination": who says it, what he says, and what is the origin of the statement. Politicians, artists, columnists, imams and other professional participants in public debate get extra leeway.

Why didn't the prosecutor want to try Wilders at first?

Wilders' criticisms are largely limited to Islam, a religion, and that's allowed, after all. In general, it is accepted that Article 137(c) is intended to protect groups of believers from being attacked on the street. Not to prevent criticism of religion. The prosecutors' office also doubts whether Wilders has committed a crime as defined in article 137(d), "inciting hatred." Professor Henny Sackers said that wasn't the case. It is true Wilders has a clear aversion to Muslims, he says, but "that's all there is to it." There's no evidence of incitement or provocation. There's no "implacable desire" to "exterminate" Muslims.

"Inciting hatred" has been interpreted differently. Professor Theo de Roos thinks Wilders may have indeed infringed this article. He thinks someone has to express extremely rancorous opinions on Muslims, and promote these views to others. Wilders does do that, in his opinion, since he gives speeches and interviews and publishes statements. But is he "inciting hatred," which, according to the professor, implies "existential threat"? Considering his comparison of Islam and fascism, it is likely he is considering this. That comparison contains a threat of extreme violence.

Is that why the court forced the public prosecutor to try him?

The Amsterdam Court of Appeals found that Wilders was trying to drum up conflict and dissension. Group slander seems to be possible to prove. Wilders' statements on Islam have been so consistent that it 'seems clear' he wants to use religion to hurt Muslims as a group. The court found that freedom of political speech should lead to a socially acceptable contribution to public debate. This is not the case here. The criminal code therefore has a role to play if "the contribution to public debate is unnecessarily injurious to a group of believers in encroaching on their religious dignity, while that contribution simultaneously incites hatred, intolerance, enmity and discrimination." There are citizens, and politicians, "who have been sentenced on the ground of less far-reaching statements than Wilders'," the court stated last year.

Is there a chance that Wilders will be sentenced?

Yes, given the position the Amsterdam appeals court has taken. But the district court doesn't have to follow that position and can make its own judgment. A conviction for group slander is least likely. How the Amsterdam magistrates will pass judgment on an important politician for sowing hatred and discrimination on grounds of race or religion, remains an open question. For now.

What a fucking mess. Wilders is charged with slandering a group and inciting hatred, and discrimination on the basis of race or religion. Articles 137(c) and (d) of the Dutch Criminal Code are quite explicit regarding the bolded bit, and I think it is totally unnecessary. Inciting hatred should be an offence regardless of what it is grounded on. It is also positively pernicious because you now cannot rip into any religion without risking to be charged with "inciting hatred" of its adherents.

As it stands, the likely outcome is this worst case scenario: A racist wingnut is going to become a popular martyr because of an ill-conceived law, while fundamentalist muslims (any fundamentalist, come to think of it) will in turn seek and find protection from attacks on their particular wingnutteries.

[JimC]

There is an enormous tension in the reaction against islamic fundamentalism. On the one hand, there is virtually no aspect of islam that does not deserve a vitriolic and forthright condemnation, and it remains deeply at odds with any rational or enlightenment values.

On the other hand, the face of islam in western societies is also the face of a different race and a different culture, both triggers for right-wing xenophobia. It is perfectly reasonable for societies to have laws to protect people from slanders over race or ethnicity, and Pat Condell sometimes strays perilously close to demonstrating the fear of the other that is at the heart of such racism.

But when ethnicity and fundamentalist religion is conflated into a witches brew of mixed motivation, political correctness will try to prevent the reasonable and trenchant critique that islam is due. Rational atheistic criticism cannot afford to be bedfellows with racism in any form; but how to clearly separate the two?

EDIT: I meant to include this:

I strongly suspect that intelligent islamic fundamentalists (unfortunately not an oxymoron) are fully aware of the tension in western societies described above, and exploit it to the fucking hilt. Every over-the-top reaction redolent of racist overtones is grist to their mill, and they are ably assisted by the gaggle of academic cultural relativists who delight in a masochistic guilt trip over western imperialism of the past.

[charlou]

Most frustrating and worrisome.

Inciting hatred should be an offence regardless of what it is grounded on.

I generally agree, but consider this:

What exactly does incite hatred mean? Hatred is an emotion, not an action. The law should only act on behaviours, not emotions.

Bearing that in mind, how is the phrase 'inciting hatred' used in law? Is it restricted to incitement of hatred of people as individuals? Or does it include incitement of hatred of groups? How about inciting hatred of behaviours and ideas? Of the three, I agree whole heartedly with the first, take the second on a case-by-case basis ('hating' the KKK because of what they stand for, for instance), and would disagree strongly with the third.

[Hermit]

Most frustrating and worrisome.

Inciting hatred should be an offence regardless of what it is grounded on.

I generally agree, but consider this:

What exactly does incite hatred mean? Hatred is an emotion, not an action. The law should only act on behaviours, not emotions.

Bearing that in mind, how is the phrase 'inciting hatred' used in law? Is it restricted to incitement of hatred of people as individuals? Or does it include incitement of hatred of groups? How about inciting hatred of behaviours and ideas? Of the three, I agree whole heartedly with the first, take the second on a case-by-case basis ('hating' the KKK because of what they stand for, for instance), and would disagree strongly with the third.

Good questions. After some googling I came up with the following considerations. Hopefully they will provide answers, albeit in a rather oblique and indirect fashion.

Wilders is being charged under articles 137 c and d of the Dutch Penal Code, which - if translated correctly read

• He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.

and

• He who publicly, verbally or in writing or in an image, incites hatred against or discrimination of people or violent behaviour against person or property of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their gender or hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.

respectively.*

I had to read those words slowly and several times to work out what they say and what they don't say. They do proscribe certain actions against people. They do not proscribe ripping shit out of any religioin, criticism of genders or sexuality or discussions regarding mental or intellectual disabilities. In short, it is OK to allege that "There is no moderate Islam. Islam is as I see it is a fascist ideology."** but it is not OK to conclude from that: "Let us reconquer our streets. Let us ensure that finally the Netherlands really looks like the Netherlands. […] Time for the big clean-up of our streets."** I'll reiterate in terms almost all forumers will understand, in case I have not made my point clearly enough: It's OK to hate, vilify and insult an idea. It is not OK to do the same to the person holding such an idea.

Wilders and his supporters conflate the two concepts, and they do that in two ways. Firstly, because islam is a fascist, murderous religion, no muslim is fit to live in the Netherlands. Secondly, anybody who accuses Wilders of racism is ipso facto denying the truth (that Islam is a plague on civilisation). Thus, they say, the trial is one of political correctness versus truth in general and islamic terrorism and world domination versus liberty, freedom and the American Dutch Way.


*Hudson New York
**Radio Netherlands Worldwide

[JimC]

Seraph quoted:

He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.

The trouble is in defining "insulting"... Islamic people could say that any trenchant criticism of their religion (or the prophet, may his beard be infected with mange) is an insult. All it takes is a judge who agrees, and bang goes freedom of expression.

However, I agree that Wilders is most likely conflating a religious critique with some form of racism, or at the least a xenophobic reaction to the presence of other cultures in his homeland.

[Hermit]

Seraph quoted article 137 c of the Dutch Penal Code:

He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.

The trouble is in defining "insulting"... Islamic people could say that any trenchant criticism of their religion (or the prophet, may his beard be infected with mange) is an insult.

Ironically, that is the exact same conflation as that of Wilders and his supporters, except as perpetrated from the other side. In the end two wongs don't make a white.

[JOZeldenrust]

As it stands, the likely outcome is this worst case scenario: A racist wingnut is going to become a popular martyr because of an ill-conceived law, while fundamentalist muslims (any fundamentalist, come to think of it) will in turn seek and find protection from attacks on their particular wingnutteries.

Not exactly. The most likely outcome is that Wilders will be acquited. Wilders has tread carefully, always making the distinction between a religion and its adherents when asked specifically about that point, but it's clear that it's a distinction he doesn't really care about, it just serves to keep him out of legal trouble.

Personlly I don't care if anyone incites hatred. Anyone who does is an idiot, and anyone who listens to them even more so, but I don't think stupidity should be a criminal offence. As it is, however, Dutch law does include some pretty stupid clauses protecting the sensibilities of all kinds of groups. They're remnants from the fifties, when Dutch society was divided along ideological lines.

It might well be that the Wilders trial will lead to the conclusion that all those laws are no longer tennable, or no longer enforcable. If Wilders makes a completge ass of himself in the process, the Netherlands might actually start making some sense again.

Right now I don't really care. I just hope the cabinet falls next friday over the NATO request for continued military involvement in Afganistan.

[leo-rcc]

It's been a while since Pat Condell was this wrong.

Indeed. And it's not that people haven't pointed that out to him before.

[AshtonBlack]

I stopped watching pat when he stopped being genuinely funny.

[JimC]

I stopped watching pat when he stopped being genuinely funny.

But he vents his spleen so beautifully...

[Cunt]

Can someone direct me to the film 'Fitna', by Geert Wilders?

He has been taken to court, Pat Condell has talked about it, and I can't find it. Fuck I have even searched 4chan...

Anyone heard of it?

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Can someone direct me to the film 'Fitna', by Geert Wilders?

He has been taken to court, Pat Condell has talked about it, and I can't find it. Fuck I have even searched 4chan...

Anyone heard of it?

Google video.
http://vodpod.com/watch/892913-fitna-th ... ogle-video