Korean Job Discussion Forums

[NovaKart]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/20/netherlands.geert.wilders/index.html

Actually this is just the pre-trial hearing but it's a start. He faces up to two years in prison and a 19,000 Euro fine for each charge.

Personally I think this is a major violation of free speech. The only time I would say someone should be arrested for inciting hatred would be if someone is encouraging people to actually engage in violence. Where to draw the line can be difficult. Someone like the anti-gay preacher Fred Phelps who pickets outside of funerals is someone I would like to see in jail but would it be just? Is he actually encouraging people to committ violence? Maybe not.

[Sergio Stefanuto]

[mises]

This trial will decide if in Holland it is legal to speak the truth.

Honesty might have to be criminalized (in the multi-culti world) now that Holland has a large muslim minority.

Let's wait and see.

[NovaKart]

I think Fred Phelps and his crowd protest far enough away from the funerals that it's legal. It's still incredibly indecent but I don't know what kind of law he would be violating. I don't think he's actually encouraging violence against gays but he's coming really close to that line. I think most if not all of the funerals he pickets besides Matthew Shepherds are soldiers killed in Iraq which he is against because of America's tolerance of homosexuality and for some odd reason he's linked the two. But his message is full of anti-gay rhetoric which he's dedicated his life to.

Anyway, in many western countries he would be arrested but America allows an extreme of freedom of speech. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. The idea that Geert Wilders would be arrested for making fitna seems really fascist to me. The idea that Fred Phelps would use a funeral as a platform to raise his hate speech, well I wouldn't be against his being arrested. I'm suprised a group doesn't get together and beat the feces out of him and his crowd, probably the police go out there to prevent that from happening.

[ytuque]

Geert Wilders' personal speech at pre-trial hearing
woensdag, 20 januari 2010
Mister Speaker, judges of the court,

I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.

Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.


I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:



It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial.

[beck's]

I saw Fitna, Wilders' film, a little while back. He is right. It is harsh but it's also true. He makes very accurate comparisons between the verses of the Koran and the violence that is taking place today in many parts of the world today.

Good luck to Wilders and to the Dutch people.

[Sergio Stefanuto]

David Yerushalmi:

[thecount]

I agree with theathiestconservative:

It is Europe, not Wilders, that is truly on trial here.

[Pluto]

I, as an American, simply cannot understand why such a trial would even exist. I could never imagine such a trial taking place in the US. Personally, I really didn't why Fitna was so offensive. Americans have to put up with things we consider stupid everyday. Novakart is right to point out that as annoying as Phelps and his ilk are, they shouldn't be threatened with jail; they should just be ridiculed. Mr. Wilder's predicament has been paved by the ideology of multiculturalism then I want no part of it.

As an aside, I think things are generally getting better throughout North America, including Canada. It seems that Ezra Levant's acquittal was a watershed moment in Canada's flirtation with multiculturalism.

http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/04/the-internet-saved-my-tongue

[Sergio Stefanuto]

[bigverne]

[beck's]

I think you are on to something here bigvern. There is a old joke, or maybe it wasn't meant as a joke. The definition of a moderate Muslim is that he wants Sharia law worldwide but he isn't willing to fly planes into buildings to get it.

[NovaKart]

I would say the more important issue is not if the statements made in the film are true but that he should have the right to say it. What's particulary frightening about this violation of free speech is that he's not even making hateful statements about a group of people but about a religion/ideology. In a free society people should have the right to criticize Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc.

Even if someone made a movie that portrayed a group of people such as gays, Jews, blacks in a negative way I still don't think that person should be arrested. For one thing, movies and TV shows are often accused of insulting a particular group of people, for example the Passion was accused of insulting Jews, Basic Instinct against lesbians. This could create an environment where freedom of speech is severely limited.

If someone made a movie which was blatantly hostile to a certain group then I'm not sure I would even agree with that being illegal. It could lead to further prejudice against a certain group. But then how do you decide what is blatantly prejudiced and what is not? Some media is meant to be a satire, like Randy Newman's Short People. And it's difficult to tell what reaction a movie can have on someone. Watching Pearl Harbor might lead someone to attack Japanese. Who would have thought the movie Taxi Driver would inspire a lunatic to shoot Ronald Reagan, or The Catcher in the Rye would cause someone to kill John Lennon?

The only time I would definitely limit someone's free speech is if someone is specifically inciting violence, for example an Imam encouraging believers to kill Jews.

[beck's]

Exactly. If you want to check out a film that bashes Christianity have a look at The Life of Brian, the Monty Python flic. It is a fabulous lampoon.

[bigverne]