It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dutch court orders anti-Islamic lawmaker Geert Wilders prosecuted on hate speech charge

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
It is damned disturbing that the thought police have sided so perfectly with the Islamics. I can't remember the last time I heard of anyone being persecuted, let alone prosecuted for "hate speech" when their speech was directed against Christians or the Christian God, yet we seem to be seeing more and more of both when the target is Islam or Allah.

For the record, since so many seem to find it needed to state their opinion, I agree with Wilders. I saw nothing that he said to be incorrect nor do I find his assumptions to be off base. He seems like a very intelligent man and I truly hope he does the right thing and hops the first boat out of the Netherlands before they can try him under the ridiculous charges that are reminiscent of England prosecuting scientists of their day for daring to suggest the Earth was round. The frightening thing is, at least the people defending the Christian church via such prosecutions at that time were openly Christian, these days we have 'leaders' and 'courts' which claim to represent no religion demonstrating completely the opposite and defending Islam at every step of the way. I don't recall ever reading in the Koran that believers should hide their faith publically to advance the intentions of Mohammed, so I have to wonder where they got this idea from.

BTW, Bodrul:
Surah 9:121- Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them.

Surah 9:73- make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home.

Surah 2:190- Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme.

That's but a few. Now, I suppose we could get into a Clinton-esque "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" argument here over the definition of 'genocide.' To discourage this, I will enlist the help of our friend Miriam-Webster dictionary, accepted by both believers and nonbelievers as an authority on the meanings of words.
www.merriam-webster.com...

Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, and cultural group.


Now, hopefully without getting into the argument of whether or not "cultural" includes a person's religious orientation, I do believe that this indicates genocide could be accurately used to describe the deliberate and systematic attempts to eliminate groups of people who don't share your religious beliefs, AKA 'unbelievers or idolaters.'

So sayeth some passages of the Koran: "Conduct genocide against non-Muslims." I seem to translate it that way and, at least based on the words and actions of Islamofascit groups like Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, (I could go on and on here if you like), Islamic Jihad, the PLF, etc I am not the only person who translates that particular book in that manner.




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   


The decision by the Amsterdam Appeals Court, the second-highest legal authority in the country, overturns an earlier ruling by the Dutch Prosecution Service, which last June dismissed hundreds of complaints against Mr Wilders on the grounds that his utterances had been made "in the context of public debate", a position that was endorsed by the Dutch Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, a Christian Democrat.

But yesterday, the appeals court argued that the criminal prosecution did not conflict with Mr Wilders' right to freedom of expression and said it based its decision on the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights.

www.independent.co.uk...


Well there you have it, this decision to prosecute is not based on dutch but on some standards set by some european court.
I think these are the new hate speech standards beeing tested out.
Welcome to the united states of europe, goodbye netherlands.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan




But yesterday, the appeals court argued that the criminal prosecution did not conflict with Mr Wilders' right to freedom of expression and said it based its decision on the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights.

www.independent.co.uk...



WOW, what a can of worms you just opened, jaamaan.

European Court of Human Rights:

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (French: Cour européenne des droits de l’homme) in Strasbourg was established under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) of 1950 to monitor compliance by Contracting Parties. The European Convention on Human Rights, or formally named Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, is one of the most important conventions adopted by the Council of Europe.

en.wikipedia.org...

I expected this to be some member of the European Union, I was mistaken. It's an arm of something called the Council of Europe. I looked that up, as well...

en.wikipedia.org...

The Council of Europe (French: Conseil de l'Europe) is the oldest international organisation working towards European integration, having been founded in 1949. It has a particular emphasis on legal standards, human rights, democratic development, the rule of law and cultural co-operation. It has 47 member states with some 800 million citizens.


No big whoop, huh? But then I read this:

The European Union is expected to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). At their Warsaw Summit in 2005, the Heads of State and Government of all Council of Europe member states reiterated their desire for the EU to accede without delay to ensure consistent human rights protection across Europe. There are also concerns about consistency in case law - the European Court of Justice (the EU's court in Luxembourg) is treating the Convention as part of the legal system of all EU member states in order to prevent conflict between its judgements and those of the European Court of Human Rights (the court in Strasbourg interpreting the Convention). Protocol No.14 of the Convention is designed to allow the EU to accede to it and the EU Reform Treaty contains a protocol binding the EU to join. The EU would thus be subject to its human rights law and external monitoring as its member states currently are. It is further proposed that the EU join as a member of the Council of Europe once it has attained its legal personality in the Reform Treaty, possibly in 2010.


If I am reading this correctly, the all powerfull EU would subject itself to governance and regulations laid down by the Council of Europe, giving up the sovreignity it has claimed and significantly lowering its status internationally, but simultaneously boosting both the status and sovreign rule of the Council above all of the member states. Further interesting is the fact that, since the EU is essentially just a conglomeration of the nations already under membership of the Council, it is curiously redundant for the EU to have its own membership on said council.

Does this leave anyone else with the idea that all these years this Council of Europe has been quietly building some sort of globalization initiative in the background while the EU stood front and center, appearing to be the ultimate next step towards Europe's enshrinement into the NWO globalized machine? All the scrutiny has been directed at the EU while, potentially, it has been this council which will rise to prominence when the EU joins and hands over their power to the CE.

Is the Council of Europe a widely discussed topic in European countries amongst those in opposition to the NWO, or is my theory possible and they've remained relatively under the radar vs the more visible European Union?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



This is terrible information, thanks for bringing it up, it makes it painfully clear what i allways have know, the EU is let by a bunch of dark think tanks behind the screens.

This is how i think a NWO is beeing designed out of sight and it looks like it's new law guidelines are starting to line people up for procecution by some obscure non democraticly choosen laws.
And one of the few outspoken local politician who wanted to get out of the EU got shot in the head in bright daylight some years ago.

Man i realy have to let this information sink in for a moment, it is making my head spin.

Thanks for the contributions so far.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by jaamaan]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   


There are of course limits to free speech, such as calls for violence. But one doesn't need to agree with Mr. Wilders to acknowledge that he hasn't crossed that line. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements. But if freedom of speech means anything, it means the freedom of controversial speech. Consensus views need no protection.

This is exactly what Dutch prosecutors said in June when they rejected the complaints against Mr. Wilders. "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable," the prosecutors said in a statement. "Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That means that offensive comments can be made in a political debate."

online.wsj.com...


Here the rulings of the dutch courts where made very clear and they are fair in my view of traditional dutch law.
But now we face the possibility that these descissions will be over ruled by some obscure standards set by the European Court of Human Rights.



[edit on 22-1-2009 by jaamaan]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Even Foxnews starts to pay attention to the Wilders Free Speech case.

Here are some bits from an interview Foxnes did with Wilders.



A three-judge appeals panel on Wednesday ruled that Wilders' insults to Islam were so egregious that the principle of free speech was not sufficient defense.

"The court considers [Wilders' film] so insulting for Muslims that it is in the public interest to prosecute Wilders," a summary of the court's decision said. The court explained that Wilders' claims in "Fitna" and other media statements were "one-sided generalizations ... which can amount to inciting hatred."

Wilders on Wednesday defiantly stood by the public statements that could put him in prison.

www.foxnews.com...


Please take note of this judge panels reasoning.
"one-sided generalizations ... which can amount to inciting hatred."
It looks like we are on a new frontier of civil rights here in europe.
Over the last decade these "laws" and guidelines have been put in place out of the public attention and now they start to put them in action.
Off course they will start to try and procecute obvious cases first, like the case of wilders, half the country can't stand this man so he is a perfect try out to test these new "laws" , guidelines, in public.

"one-sided generalizations ... which can amount to inciting hatred." is a term that can be used is many ways and i am sure reasoning like this can be easely be used to jail your political enemies.
Research has shown that the human brain tends to think in "one-sided generalizations" so i think in the long run we should all be aware of this thought police.



The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of Oceania in George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals, using psychology and omnipresent surveillance from telescreens to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.[1] The government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labeling unapproved thoughts with the term thoughtcrime, or, in Newspeak, crimethink.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jaamaan
 


"one-sided generalizations ... which can amount to inciting hatred."

You are right about the judges stupid logic.

In my time, I have heard plenty of one-sided generalizations ... which can amount to inciting [love and peace] - they never worked. Love and Peace was never successfully incited in anyone who did not already want to have 'love and peace

Why then would the judge expect this fellow to be able to do even what skilled hypnotists cannot - which is to go against your conscience.... and perform acts of hate or violence.... Stupidity, that is why. these judges are either stupid or ruling in the furtherance of a malevolent agenda.

*I tend to believe this is really just an excuse to legislate even more Orwellian Laws into existence in Europe.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
these judges are either stupid or ruling in the furtherance of a malevolent agenda.

*I tend to believe this is really just an excuse to legislate even more Orwellian Laws into existence in Europe.


I do not think that the people behind this are stupid, the "European Court of Human Rights" seems to be set up around 1950, as i see from earlier posted info, so these guidelines have been planned out a long time ago.

They just start with cases now where they can gain some easy public support, like in the case of wilders, half the country hates the man.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Here is an opinion article on wilders in the wall street journal.



Having his own party liberates Mr. Wilders to speak his mind. As he sees it, the West suffers from an excess of toleration for those who do not share its tradition of tolerance. "We believe that -- 'we' means the political elite -- that all cultures are equal," he says. "I believe this is the biggest disease today facing Europe. . . . We should wake up and tell ourselves: You're not a xenophobe, you're not a racist, you're not a crazy guy if you say, 'My culture is better than yours.' A culture based on Christianity, Judaism, humanism is better. Look at how we treat women, look at how we treat apostates, look at how we go with the separation of church and state. I can give you 500 examples why our culture is better."

online.wsj.com...


Here is a quote from wilders that makes it sure for me why i dont like what wilders stands for.
Calling our culture better than others wont make you many friends in the world.
And i dont think his tactics are going to help to solve the problems he is talking about.

But i dont think its right to lock him up for voicing his political views.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by jaamaan
 


You ignore the second half of my sentence ;-)

"...ruling in the furtherance of a malevolent agenda."

Do you think the judges are then 'ruling in the furtherance of a malevolent agenda?

*Why is it so hard for you to agree? You don't need to do it in such a roundabout way...



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan
Here is an opinion article on wilders in the wall street journal.



Having his own party liberates Mr. Wilders to speak his mind. As he sees it, the West suffers from an excess of toleration for those who do not share its tradition of tolerance. "We believe that -- 'we' means the political elite -- that all cultures are equal," he says. "I believe this is the biggest disease today facing Europe. . . . We should wake up and tell ourselves: You're not a xenophobe, you're not a racist, you're not a crazy guy if you say, 'My culture is better than yours.' A culture based on Christianity, Judaism, humanism is better. Look at how we treat women, look at how we treat apostates, look at how we go with the separation of church and state. I can give you 500 examples why our culture is better."

online.wsj.com...


Here is a quote from wilders that makes it sure for me why i dont like what wilders stands for.
Calling our culture better than others wont make you many friends in the world.
And i dont think his tactics are going to help to solve the problems he is talking about.

But i dont think its right to lock him up for voicing his political views.


But is that not what immigrants are doing when they move to a host country and expressly import their own culture, setting themselves up in small communities that segregate themselves from the rest of the population? If you refuse to adopt the culture of the host country, IMO, you're just saying exactly that.

Fair play to Wilders for having the balls to stand up and tell the truth, frankly.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by jaamaan
 


You ignore the second half of my sentence ;-)

"...ruling in the furtherance of a malevolent agenda."

Do you think the judges are then 'ruling in the furtherance of a malevolent agenda?

*Why is it so hard for you to agree? You don't need to do it in such a roundabout way...


I am sorry, maybe we have a misunderstanding here.
I agree with you post.
I quote parts of a post so the topic doest get filled with to much double information.
My answer took your whole post into consideration.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth


But is that not what immigrants are doing when they move to a host country and expressly import their own culture, setting themselves up in small communities that segregate themselves from the rest of the population? If you refuse to adopt the culture of the host country, IMO, you're just saying exactly that.

Fair play to Wilders for having the balls to stand up and tell the truth, frankly.


No i dont think that is the same.
I believe it is logical that even wehn you imigrate you bring some of your own culture.
There are many examples of that, china town, italian restaurants etc.

What i dont like is when wilders tries to say "our culture is 500 times better"
In fact lot's of our culture is based on arab and persian culture to, they invented a lot of things we still happely use every day, like our alphabet for example.

I like my multi cultural country and it makes my life more interesting.
I dont let it get spoiled by a few fanatics local or from the midlle east.
Any way, politics based on extreme examples are mostly not good for the country.



[edit on 24-1-2009 by jaamaan]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Funny how those "hate speech" laws are never applied to critics of Christianity.

For the record, I disagree with all those "hate speech" laws. It's just interesting that they selectively enforce it.


Actually I would support hate speech laws to protect Christian minorities abroad. The same for any religion practised by a minority.

Discrimination against anyone for their religion is unAmerican and an act of incitement. An academic debate and investigation by experts prepared to put their credibility on the line is a wholly separate matter.

Peddling near pornographic films and baiting cartoons constitutes incitement as far as I am concerned.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan
No i dont think that is the same.
I believe it is logical that even wehn you imigrate you bring some of your own culture.
There are many examples of that, china town, italian restaurants etc.


That's not about culture, that's about supply and demand. People like the taste of that food, therefore they eat at a restaurant that serves that food.


Originally posted by jaamaanWhat i dont like is when wilders tries to say "our culture is 500 times better"
In fact lot's of our culture is based on arab and persian culture to, they invented a lot of things we still happely use every day, like our alphabet for example.


Erm...did you just make this up?

Aside from our alphabets being written in opposite directions (left-right for the Latin alphabet, right-left for Arabic) and sharing absolutely none of the same characters, I cannot see how you'd come to this conclusion.

The English alphabet comes directly from the Latin alphabet which in turn was adapted from the Greek alphabet which in turn came from the Phoenician alphabet, which then goes into the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, which lands us between 1500-1000BC.

While Arabic is also descended from Phoenician, that doesn't mean their culture has had any impact on the evolution of the English alphabet at all.

Frankly, give me any Arab "invention" and I will be able to show you how it has been discovered first, by the Greeks, most likely, as they took a lot of this knowledge from the Byzantine Greek empire during the Muslim conquests. Honestly, give me any famously-touted "Arab" inventions, and I'll give you another source. If you want, I can even tell you why the Arabs didn't invent this stuff. It's not their fault, it's simply an accident of geography.

But apologists often try using misinformation like this to somehow justify ignoring and throwing away everything Western societies have accomplished over the past 2000 years. I honestly don't know why we're ashamed of everything we've managed.



Originally posted by jaamaanI like my multi cultural country and it makes my life more interesting.


Yeah, but it's not just your country, is it? There are obviously Dutch people who dislike the fact that immigrants come over and hold scant regard for the people already there, and since you're a democracy, these people should be able to have their say, should they not? Who are you to tell them they shouldn't voice their opinion, or that their opinion is less valid than yours?



Originally posted by jaamaanI dont let it get spoiled by a few fanatics local or from the midlle east.


Good, because extremists for any subject are bad.



Originally posted by jaamaanAny way, politics based on extreme examples are mostly not good for the country.
[edit on 24-1-2009 by jaamaan]


Well, it depends to the depth of feeling of the general population. If the people want something they are being denied, then there will be an inevitable polarisation of the populous.

This whole "multicultural experment" is an interesting one, because it's been foisted on the masses by the liberal governments for the pure interest of making money (more people = more tax) without consulting the population in any way.

You wake up one day and suddenly you're in a multi-cultural society, whether you like it or not, and now you aren't even allowed to say you don't like it.

I'm sick of liberal fascism. I will damn well say what I think, and I will not reign in my opinions simply because others may take offense at them, nor will I ask that of others.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher

Actually I would support hate speech laws to protect Christian minorities abroad. The same for any religion practised by a minority.

Discrimination against anyone for their religion is unAmerican and an act of incitement. An academic debate and investigation by experts prepared to put their credibility on the line is a wholly separate matter.


There is a large difference between "hate speech" and discrimination.
Most western countries have laws against discrimination that work fine if used in the right way.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
Yeah, but it's not just your country, is it? There are obviously Dutch people who dislike the fact that immigrants come over and hold scant regard for the people already there, and since you're a democracy, these people should be able to have their say, should they not? Who are you to tell them they shouldn't voice their opinion, or that their opinion is less valid than yours?


I think you have to re read my posts again, i am sticking up for every one voicing their opinions , even the one of wilders, and i realy dont like what he say's.

Re-read please and see.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by jaamaan]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Hate speech laws can have only two effects.

1. They undermine democracy by suppressing reasonable viewpoints from public debate.

Hate speech laws chill speech which violates or comes close to violating the law. Some of this speech can contain reasonable viewpoints. Democracy only works if all reasonable viewpoints are aired in the forum of public debate. Therefore, hate speech ultimately undermines Democracy.

2. Hate speech laws help advance the causes of people with unreasonable viewpoints

People with unreasonable views will continue to air those views, regardless of whether there is a "hate speech" law in place. These people, will move underground with their views. Their views will not be subject to the ridicule they deserve, and therefore will be allowed to flourish. Furthermore, trying somebody for "hate speech" only serves to give them free publicity.

If you felt that this Duth MP was a blathering idiot whose views were caustic, the worst thing you could do is make a fuss about him. Now that he is being tried on "hate speech" charges, many curious people cannot help but listen to his words and see what the fuss is about. Many more cannot help but sympathise with him, especially since it appears hate speech laws are not being applied fairly. (e.g. Muslims are free to say hateful things about Christians, but not vice versa.)



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan

I think you have to re read my posts again, i am sticking up for every one voicing their opinions , even the one of wilders, and i realy dont like what he say's.

Re-read please and see.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by jaamaan]


Ah, my apologies, I'll be honest, I just read your last post, which should explain my own.

However, I still feel I raise valid points, as does Wilder.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth


Originally posted by jaamaanWhat i dont like is when wilders tries to say "our culture is 500 times better"
In fact lot's of our culture is based on arab and persian culture to, they invented a lot of things we still happely use every day, like our alphabet for example.


Erm...did you just make this up?

Aside from our alphabets being written in opposite directions (left-right for the Latin alphabet, right-left for Arabic) and sharing absolutely none of the same characters, I cannot see how you'd come to this conclusion.


Yes my mistake.
I ment "Arabic numerals"

en.wikipedia.org...




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join