Following Geert Wilders acquittal, we get an article in the Groan from Ubaldus de Vries that seems a little confused about how free speech is supposed to work.
The court held that Wilders’s statements (including the movie Fitna) were about Islam (a religion, or, as Wilders has it, an ideology) and not Muslims (as individuals or as a group) and, hence, these remarks are not discriminatory or insulting. Nor did they incite hatred. It is about facts – what has been said. Motives are less relevant to the question of guilt. A strict interpretation of selected facts seems to justify the verdict. So it is OK to rant and rave against Islam, even though the subtext suggests that the ranting and raving is geared towards Muslims. As subtexts have no place in law it is back to politics again: there, subtext and intention is all that matters. But how best to resist Wilders and the populist mob?
This seems to me to be the correct application of the law. Subtexts are irrelevant. Wilders should be able to freely attack Islam, which is an ideology and therefore fair game. Ideologies should not be subject to legal protection. And, frankly attacking Islam is not automatically attacking Muslims. Besides, we should be able to verbally attack Muslims, too. That is how free speech works. They are entitled to shoot back with rebuttals should they so wish. That, too, is how free speech works. It is no credit to the Netherlands that this case came to court. It is to the credit of their legal system that Wilders was acquitted. This was a good outcome for the principle of free speech.
…Wilders talks about “a tsunami of an alien culture that increasingly dominates local culture”. The feeding of this fear is an attempt to increase the existing polarisation and segregation of Dutch society, potentially leading to banlieue-type unrest. Unless we all start realising the futility of the attempt – and the court should have given just such a signal.
It did. You just don’t like it.
I love it when the leftoids go on about “the populist mob”. It reveals their schizophrenia about democracy.
I’m sure you realise that freedom of speech, for these people, just means you have the freedom to say what they approve of.
To them, their ideology overrules everything else, including truth and common sense.
They’ve forced the average member of the public to say “I’m not racist, but…” anytime they want to discuss immigration out of fear of being branded racist. And I’m sure there’s some sort of irony, as they themselves are only too happy to say “I’m all for freedom of speech, but…”.
The “but” in this case, saying it all. 😉
And, of course, as in christianity, there are sects (such as the Quakers) who don’t do militancy and killing other believers or non-believers.
The Sufi, the Ismaili and Amahdi in islam – the latter are currently being viciously persecuted by other muslims – sound familiar?
XX That is how free speech works. They are entitled to shoot back with rebuttals should they so wish.XX
The touble is. They DO. And THEY do not, Wilders like, get dragged through the courts and media for it.
“Free speech” only appears to work one way.
I find it interesting that the same people who supported Labour’s anti-freedom of speech legislation (the umpteen ‘terrorism’ acts since 2000) are cock-a-hoop about Wilders acquittal. If it is acceptable for Wilders to spew hatred against Muslims then surely it must also be acceptable for Islamicists to be permitted to spew hatred as well? Or is it that the anti-freedom right are very selective about whose freedom they are interested in protecting?
a tsunami of an alien culture that increasingly dominates local culture
No problem with that statement.