ScumbagWatch: Wilders

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited January 2014
Far-Right scumbag Nazi wanker Geert Wilders goes on trial today. Fuck, I wish I'd trained to be a judge sometimes...



Link



What will happen?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Either way free speech and individual rights take a hit over this.
  • Reply 2 of 46
    Do you think Wilders was a nazi? I doubt it. he is to smart to be a dumbkopf!
  • Reply 3 of 46
    segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post


    Do you think Wilders was a nazi? I doubt it. he is to smart to be a dumbkopf!



    You think he's smart? Very odd. How so?



    He's clearly an idiot with very little knowledge of the things he talks about.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post


    Either way free speech and individual rights take a hit over this.



    Yes, raises interesting questions: if free speech allows people like Wilders to gain power - people who will ban the free speech of others and suppress books etc - then what is it worth?
  • Reply 4 of 46
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
  • Reply 5 of 46
    segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine



    It's a nice quote but it doesn't tell us anything.



    In this case how do you approach it?



    His platform is - among other things - to ban the Qu'ran and remove freedom of religion from Muslims only.



    That's his running platform - when (and it is when) he gets in who knows what he will think up?
  • Reply 6 of 46
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    It's a nice quote but it doesn't tell us anything.



    In this case how do you approach it?



    His platform is - among other things - to ban the Qu'ran and remove freedom of religion from Muslims only.



    That's his running platform - when (and it is when) he gets in who knows what he will think up?



    First question is how likely is he to become elected? In the US we have some nutty folks with crazy ideas to but none ever get close to getting elected. What are the probabilities in this case? I'm asking because I'm trying to gauge whether or not the concern it warranted or whether this is merely a hypothetical corner case.



    Second, why not embark on a campaign against him? I don't necessarily mean that you run for office but actively campaign and lobby against him during the election?



    Third, if he does get elected, does he actually have power to do what he promises. Again, in the US lots of politicians (presidential candidates in particular) make lots of promises sounding like they will dictate this or that or the other thing and then, once elected, find out that there are actually rules they need to follow and don't really get to bark out that many orders and get that many things done. This was by design I think. But whatever the cause, the reality of what they can do it often far more limited than people realize.
  • Reply 7 of 46
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    I agree with FloorJack.



    Whatever the outcome, the rights of the individual are going to be infringed. That means we all lose.
  • Reply 8 of 46
    segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    First question is how likely is he to become elected? In the US we have some nutty folks with crazy ideas to but none ever get close to getting elected. What are the probabilities in this case? I'm asking because I'm trying to gauge whether or not the concern it warranted or whether this is merely a hypothetical corner case.



    Very likely he will end up in power - most likely through a deal with the ruling party.



    Quote:

    A pact to allow Dutch centre-right parties to form a government with the support of anti-Islamist populist Geert Wilders has cleared another hurdle.



    The Christian Democrats (CDA) ratified the deal at a meeting on Saturday by 68% in favour, with 32% opposed.



    Link



    Quote:

    Second, why not embark on a campaign against him? I don't necessarily mean that you run for office but actively campaign and lobby against him during the election?



    In the Netherlands no-one wants to. He has massive support. I think there are about 20 people protesting outside the court against him. That's pretty accurate.



    He reflects Dutch Society almost 90% I would say.



    But it does raise another issue that is behind this: He is merely a symptom of a deeper Islamophobic wave worldwide.



    I think that many Muslims would prefer to just set up organizations that promote peace and community integration than actually oppose people like Wilders. I agree with them.



    But what happens when they do? Look at the NYC Community Centre for example.....a moderate Imam providing a US-centric space for Muslims who define themselves primarily as American and work in the financial district - committed to opposing extremism.



    The opposition is based on the Centre being:



    A mosque

    A Hamas base

    An Al Qaeda recruiting ground.



    And that's the response against Moderate US Muslims who want to join the fight against extremism.





    Quote:

    Third, if he does get elected, does he actually have power to do what he promises. Again, in the US lots of politicians (presidential candidates in particular) make lots of promises sounding like they will dictate this or that or the other thing and then, once elected, find out that there are actually rules they need to follow and don't really get to bark out that many orders and get that many things done. This was by design I think. But whatever the cause, the reality of what they can do it often far more limited than people realize.



    The Dutch society is right now virulently racist and Europe is also in the throes of the same spectre that spawned the horrors of the last century. It is the European Disease. And it's back.
  • Reply 9 of 46
    floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    It's a nice quote but it doesn't tell us anything.



    In this case how do you approach it?



    His platform is - among other things - to ban the Qu'ran and remove freedom of religion from Muslims only.



    That's his running platform - when (and it is when) he gets in who knows what he will think up?



    You see in the US there is no mechanism to ban a book. The laws you want to use against Wilder's he could use against you. The best solution is the remove the weapon of politically motivated bans on speech. Everyone wins.



    Free speech also cuts every which way. He can say the Qu'ran is evil and should be banned and 100 other people can make a thousand arguments about why he is wrong. In the US we don't live in fear of free speech like Europeans do.
  • Reply 10 of 46
    segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post


    You see in the US there is no mechanism to ban a book. The laws you want to use against Wilder's he could use against you. The best solution is the remove the weapon of politically motivated bans on speech. Everyone wins.



    Free speech also cuts every which way. He can say the Qu'ran is evil and should be banned and 100 other people can make a thousand arguments about why he is wrong. In the US we don't live in fear of free speech like Europeans do.



    I don't want to use any laws against Wilders - I am in favour of him saying whatever he wants. I am just bring attention to it and canvassing other people's thoughts.



    BUT - I would say this: It does lead to aggro. I don't live in the UK anymore but when I did if the fascists tried to march in my hometown (they often did) there would be hundreds of people there to stop them and a ruck would kick off with Police ending up truncheoning everyone.



    I don't mind this actually - I don't make a distinction between fighting these Nazis today and fighting them in the 30s in Berlin. In fact people should have done it more in the 30s and a lot of problems would have been avoided.



    But this is my confusion: the same people who are pro-free speech are anti violence (Trumpy for example) whereas one leads to the other in these sort of cases. Not with Wilders because the Dutch have embraced Neo-Nazi ideology but certainly in the UK.



    For example - today the Home Secretary banned a march by the EDL (Quasi-miltary Neo-Nazi thugs)



    Link



    It seems they will flout the ban and march through Muslim areas provoking people and aggro will ensue. Fair enough.



    But that is what you get if you have an open policy.



    It's a balancing act. And btw, I know the US does this sort of thing far better and that the lunatic Nazis have not ever gained power there or spread their hate too much on the streets but I think it's in the post...it will happen there and happen soon so the US Halcyon days (which depended on the sanity and rationality of the people) may well be coming to an end and you may well have to learn how to deal with this European stye bullshit.



    Certainly looks that way from the hate I'm surprisingly seeing at various demos.
  • Reply 11 of 46
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    The Supreme Court is taking up a similar issue. I posted this on another thread on Free Speech @

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...26#post1725626



    First the Constitution of the Netherlands @

    http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/nl00000_.html



    Quote:

    Article 1* [Equality]

    All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances.* Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.



    Article 7* [Expression]

    (1) No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.

    (2) Rules concerning radio and television shall be laid down by Act of Parliament.* There shall be no prior supervision of the content of a radio or television broadcast.

    (3) No one shall be required to submit thoughts or opinions for prior approval in order to disseminate them by means other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.* The holding of performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age

    may be regulated by Act of Parliament in order to protect good morals.

    (4) The preceding paragraphs do not apply to commercial advertising.



    Article 11* [Personal Integrity]

    Everyone shall have the right to inviolability of his person, without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.



    Article 23* [Education]

    (1) Education shall be the constant concern of the Government.

    (2) All persons shall be free to provide education, without prejudice to the authorities' right of supervision and, with regard to forms of education designated by law, its right to examine the competence and moral integrity of teachers, to be regulated by Act of Parliament.

    (3) Education provided by public authorities shall be regulated by Act of Parliament, paying due respect to everyone's religion or belief.?....

    (5) The standards required of schools financed either in part or in full from public funds shall be regulated by Act of Parliament, with due regard, in the case of private schools, to the freedom to provide education according to religious or other belief........



    The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:



    Quote:

    PREAMBLE



    Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,



    Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,......



    Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,



    Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,



    Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,....



    Article 1.

    \t\tAll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.



    Article 2.

    \t\tEveryone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.



    Article 7.

    \t\tAll are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.



    Article 18.

    \t\tEveryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.



    Article 19.

    \t\tEveryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.



    Article 20.

    \t\t(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

    \t\t(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.





    As a citizen of the Netherlands, Geert Wilders may have the right to free speech, but where that speech infringes on the rights of others to practice their religion which is guaranteed in Constitution of the Netherlands and in the UN Declaration of Human Rights it goes too far. As a member of the parliament of the Netherlands, he is held to a higher standard than a regular citizen as he represents all the people?not just those who support his viewpoints.



    Christian Science Monitor Article on 1st Amendment:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...irst-Amendment
  • Reply 12 of 46
    segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    The Supreme Court is taking up a similar issue. I posted this on another thread on Free Speech @

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...26#post1725626



    First the Constitution of the Netherlands @

    http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/nl00000_.html



    The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:



    As a citizen of the Netherlands, Geert Wilders may have the right to free speech, but where that speech infringes on the rights of others to practice their religion which is guaranteed in Constitution of the Netherlands and in the UN Declaration of Human Rights it goes too far. As a member of the parliament of the Netherlands, he is held to a higher standard than a regular citizen as he represents all the people?not just those who support his viewpoints.



    Christian Science Monitor Article on 1st Amendment:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...irst-Amendment



    What are the hate-speech laws in the US?



    Can you say whatever you like? Defame racial groups as part of a political platform for example?
  • Reply 13 of 46
    floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    I don't want to use any laws against Wilders - I am in favour of him saying whatever he wants. I am just bring attention to it and canvassing other people's thoughts.



    BUT - I would say this: It does lead to aggro. I don't live in the UK anymore but when I did if the fascists tried to march in my hometown (they often did) there would be hundreds of people there to stop them and a ruck would kick off with Police ending up truncheoning everyone.



    I don't mind this actually - I don't make a distinction between fighting these Nazis today and fighting them in the 30s in Berlin. In fact people should have done it more in the 30s and a lot of problems would have been avoided.



    But this is my confusion: the same people who are pro-free speech are anti violence (Trumpy for example) whereas one leads to the other in these sort of cases. Not with Wilders because the Dutch have embraced Neo-Nazi ideology but certainly in the UK.



    For example - today the Home Secretary banned a march by the EDL (Quasi-miltary Neo-Nazi thugs)



    Link



    It seems they will flout the ban and march through Muslim areas provoking people and aggro will ensue. Fair enough.



    But that is what you get if you have an open policy.



    It's a balancing act. And btw, I know the US does this sort of thing far better and that the lunatic Nazis have not ever gained power there or spread their hate too much on the streets but I think it's in the post...it will happen there and happen soon so the US Halcyon days (which depended on the sanity and rationality of the people) may well be coming to an end and you may well have to learn how to deal with this European stye bullshit.



    Certainly looks that way from the hate I'm surprisingly seeing at various demos.



    Okay so all anyone needs to do to shut down speech they don't like to to get violent and then claim they were incited. Nice trick to shut your opponent up. Often used by the left.
  • Reply 14 of 46
    segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post


    Okay so all anyone needs to do to shut down speech they don't like to to get violent and then claim they were incited. Nice trick to shut your opponent up. Often used by the left.



    With respect I am having an objective conversation minus any political bias (other than Fascists being total wankers but that transcends party politics) so if you want to dialogue with me you should do the same.



    I can be far more partisan than you - far more extreme too. But I'm leaving it at the door so do me a favour and give it a go yourself.
  • Reply 15 of 46
    floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    What are the hate-speech laws in the US?



    Can you say whatever you like? Defame racial groups as part of a political platform for example?



    There are no "hate-speech laws" like you think of them. As long as someone doesn't cross the line to advocating actual crimes and violence then they are in the clear. "I hate gays" fine, "Let beat up a gay guy" not fine. When you conspire with or direct someone to commit a crime your speech is no longer protected.
  • Reply 16 of 46
    segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post


    There are no "hate-speech laws" like you think of them. As long as someone doesn't cross the line to advocating actual crimes and violence then they are in the clear. "I hate gays" fine, "Let beat up a gay guy" not fine. When you conspire with or direct someone to commit a crime your speech is no longer protected.



    Ok..it's kind of different. You can get jail for denying the Holocaust for example...many people have.



    I don't know what the laws of the Netherlands are in detail but the UK seems different. He would be arrested if he said things which COULD incite violence - this does not have to be 'kill Muslims', could be enough to go to a Muslim area and say his general stuff and kick off a riot - but probably not for 'hate speech' per se.
  • Reply 17 of 46
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    What are the hate-speech laws in the US?



    Can you say whatever you like? Defame racial groups as part of a political platform for example?



    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...dment/(page)/2



    Above article sums it all up. The ACLU answers below.



    Quote:

    Q: I just can't understand why the ACLU defends free speech for racists, sexists, homophobes and other bigots. Why tolerate the promotion of intolerance?



    A: Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone's rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice. For example, in the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago, the ACLU successfully defended an ex-Catholic priest who had delivered a racist and anti-semitic speech. The precedent set in that case became the basis for the ACLU's successful defense of civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s and '70s.



    The indivisibility principle was also illustrated in the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was successfully defended by the ACLU. At the time, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, whose relatives died in Hitler's concentration camps during World War II, commented: "Keeping a few Nazis off the streets of Skokie will serve Jews poorly if it means that the freedoms to speak, publish or assemble any place in the United States are thereby weakened."



    http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus



    You might remember that I cited the Skokie, Illinois case in the New York Mosque thread--and got pummeled. As I mentioned, the Supremes who opened the first day for the 2010-2011 session today will take up a 1st Amendment--Free Speech issue in the Westboro Baptist Church case.



    Some Rulings from the Supremes regarding Free Speech:



    Quote:

    POLITICAL SPEECH



    1969: The Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the First Amendment for an Iowa school district to suspend high school students for wearing black armbands with peace symbols.

    1969: The First Amendment protects speech advocating criminal activity and even the overthrow of the government, the Supreme Court ruled in a case reversing the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader in Ohio. In contrast, the court said incitement to imminent lawless action by a speaker is not protected free speech.

    1978: The right of a neo-Nazi group to march through Skokie, Ill., a largely Jewish community, was upheld by a federal appeals court. While hurtful, the threatened march ? which never actually happened ? was deemed a protected expression.

    1989: On free speech grounds, the Supreme Court upheld the right to burn or desecrate the American flag for protest. The court said government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.

    2010: The Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal campaign finance law that made it illegal for corporations and labor unions to spend money to influence federal elections. The court said corporate officials and union leaders have a free speech right to spend money for advertisements and forms of political speech during election season.



    Free speech: Some First Amendment landmarks

    By Leigh Montgomery, Staff Writer / October 2, 2010--lost link
  • Reply 18 of 46
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post


    Okay so all anyone needs to do to shut down speech they don't like to to get violent and then claim they were incited. Nice trick to shut your opponent up. Often used by the left.



    and the Right---right?
  • Reply 19 of 46
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Ok..it's kind of different. You can get jail for denying the Holocaust for example...many people have.



    I don't know what the laws of the Netherlands are in detail but the UK seems different. He would be arrested if he said things which COULD incite violence - this does not have to be 'kill Muslims', could be enough to go to a Muslim area and say his general stuff and kick off a riot - but probably not for 'hate speech' per se.



    The difference is when speech becomes conduct targeting an individual or group.



    Quote:

    Q: Does the ACLU make a distinction between speech and conduct?



    A: Yes. The ACLU believes that hate speech stops being just speech and becomes conduct when it targets a particular individual, and when it forms a pattern of behavior that interferes with a student's ability to exercise his or her right to participate fully in the life of the university.



    The ACLU isn't opposed to regulations that penalize acts of violence, harassment or intimidation, and invasions of privacy. On the contrary, we believe that kind of conduct should be punished. Furthermore, the ACLU recognizes that the mere presence of speech as one element in an act of violence, harassment, intimidation or privacy invasion doesn't immunize that act from punishment. For example, threatening, bias-inspired phone calls to a student's dorm room, or white students shouting racist epithets at a woman of color as they follow her across campus -- these are clearly punishable acts.



    http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus



    Quote:

    AMENDMENT I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



    AMENDMENT XIV

    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



    - United States Constitution



  • Reply 20 of 46
    segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Updates: Wilder tried to get the judge removed and petulantly refused to speak until that happened.



    A conclave found no evidence the judge was biased and so the trial continues with Wilders still silent. Shame he hasn't been for the last years. Still he may have some time to think if he gets banged up which still seems highly unlikely.
Sign In or Register to comment.