Free Speech on Trial

**Phier** · January 21, 2010, 09:51 PM

Geert Wilders hate speech trial started today, I hunted around a bit but I found his opening statement.

Wilders: 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.

I find it interesting that while people react to the US getting to much free speech (See the latest supreme court ruling) the Netherlands are working to directly curtail it.

Hate, love, or don't care about Wilders, Islam, or otherwise, I can't see how anyone who cares about freedom could, for a moment support the idea he should be in prison for his words.

**xcorps** · January 21, 2010, 09:58 PM

Interesting that a man who wanted to ban the Koran is using free speech in his own defense.

Not that I support his being jailed for a speech.

**Phier** · January 21, 2010, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by xcorps

Interesting that a man who wanted to ban the Koran is using free speech in his own defense.

Not that I support his being jailed for a speech.

From what I understand he has been against hate speech laws from the start but said that if the law was evenly applied the Koran should be banned since it is hate speech under Dutch law. Based on what is in the Koran he is correct, though I'm sure the anti-homosexual parts of the bible would qualify it as hate speech as well.

**~~Exarch~~** · January 22, 2010, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by Phier

From what I understand he has been against hate speech laws from the start but said that if the law was evenly applied the Koran should be banned since it is hate speech under Dutch law. Based on what is in the Koran he is correct, though I'm sure the anti-homosexual parts of the bible would qualify it as hate speech as well.

then the bible and the torah/talmud would be hate speech and they are actually, but try to apply that to the jesus freaks in congress.

**xcorps** · January 21, 2010, 10:15 PM

Isn't he the guy that had to hire bodyguards after he made a short documentary about Islamic violence in the Netherlands?

**Phier** · January 21, 2010, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by xcorps

Isn't he the guy that had to hire bodyguards after he made a short documentary about Islamic violence in the Netherlands?

Yep though I dont' know if it was limited to the Neither lands or not in scope..

**bushbush** · January 21, 2010, 10:57 PM

i am not fan of people who try to provoke people and cause conflicts just to make a point on free speech. Free speech's purpose is to make society function better, not to break down the society.

**Phier** · January 21, 2010, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by bushbush

i am not fan of people who try to provoke people and cause conflicts just to make a point on free speech. Free speech's purpose is to make society function better, not to break down the society.

Sounds like something the CCP would say

Added, the most interesting thing is that he wants to prove his case being that the truth should never be considered hate speech. Using your definition of the purpose of free speech would mean that free speech would become quickly perverted and anything which would interfere with the government or social institutions would be considered not protected under free speech.

**bushbush** · January 21, 2010, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Phier

Sounds like something the CCP would say

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...10#post6612610

pwned?

**Phier** · January 21, 2010, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by bushbush

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...10#post6612610

pwned?

Where do you think I got the idea to mention the CCP?

**bushbush** · January 21, 2010, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Phier

Where do you think I got the idea to mention the CCP?

I don't know? try to troll me because of my background even though I disagree completely with the CCP on the issue of free speech?

Originally Posted by Phier

Added, the most interesting thing is that he wants to prove his case being that the truth should never be considered hate speech. Using your definition of the purpose of free speech would mean that free speech would become quickly perverted and anything which would interfere with the government or social institutions would be considered not protected under free speech.

what kind of truth lol? his truth? my truth? your truth? THE truth? I gotta agree with Bill O'Reilly on this issue. Is it really necessary to go on such length just to piss people off? What exactly is he achieving except making more people angry, giving ammos to extremists and making moderates looking bad? To combat extremism, we don't need people like him.

**Sher Khan** · January 22, 2010, 12:37 AM

He has the right to say what he wants without undermining another citizen's freedoms, though as the law stands from what I can tell he doesn't have much of a chance of winning. At best most of his comments will be dropped but a few will stick to present a solid case. Then it'll be up to the jurors (is there a jury?). And that opening statement is an all too familiar kind of forced rhetoric we see even here on our own forums.

The trial isn't about his freedom to say what he wants but rather if he said anything that would be considered criminal under a law or two in the Dutch legal system, yes?

He should learn a thing or two from Daniel Pipes about how to intelligently express a learned opinion on the nature of religion and violent extremism.

**boofhead** · January 22, 2010, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

He has the right to say what he wants without undermining another citizen's freedoms, though as the law stands from what I can tell he doesn't have much of a chance of winning. At best most of his comments will be dropped but a few will stick to present a solid case. Then it'll be up to the jurors (is there a jury?). And that opening statement is an all too familiar kind of forced rhetoric we see even here on our own forums.

The trial isn't about his freedom to say what he wants but rather if he said anything that would be considered criminal under a law or two in the Dutch legal system, yes?

He should learn a thing or two from Daniel Pipes about how to intelligently express a learned opinion on the nature of religion and violent extremism.

So do you think he's committed a crime?

**Simon Cashmere** · January 22, 2010, 01:42 AM

Not many people here, at all would know whether he has committed a crime or not.

Here is a copy of the charges against him if you care to read it:

http://ifps-images.s3.amazonaws.com/...sh-version.doc

From:

http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/12/charges-against-geert-wilders-english/

Remember however, that the Prosecutors in the Netherlands refused to charge Wilders, and then an Appellate Court ordered them to. Can you imagine in the US, an appellate Court telling the cops they had to go and arrest and charge someone? The FBI says it declines to proceed, and then 9th Circuit tells the Director to get his agents together and bring a charge? Very odd.

He was charged under 137C of the Dutch Penal Code, which provides as follows, well sort of:

# Article 137c

1. Anyone that openly, orally or in writing or in an image, is intentionally insulting to a group of persons because of their race, their religion or philosophy of life, their hetero- or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or intellectual handicap, is punished with imprisonment of up to a year or a monetary fine of the third category. *

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR000185...tum_22-01-2010

Sorry Dutch only.

You don't seem to have the right of freedom of speech or freedom of political association in the Netherlands. It appears it would be constitutional to ban political parties and speech about particular topics.

Although civil law has always seemed a strange creature to me compared with the common law, so who knows what they will do. Remember, Geert Wilders is a politician with a particular point of view as part of his party platform.

Everyone has to be free to start their own party and say what they want in that party, and other people can criticise him if they wish in their own party. Once you start saying that one party cannot present a point of view, it becomes very dangerous, and democracy ceases to be democracy. The Muslims can create their own Sharia Party and criticise Geert Wilders, that is the way disputes over political rhetoric are meant to be settled in democracies, not through the Litigation Jihad. Even worse is that the resources of the state are used to silence a politician who provides a view that is at odds with conventional wisdom.

If Wilders loses, and loses on appeal - he still has the ability to bring an Article 10 application to the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of expression grounds. And Article 6 if they refuse his application to bring certain witnesses into court to testify about Islam.

**boofhead** · January 22, 2010, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by Phier

Geert Wilders hate speech trial started today, I hunted around a bit but I found his opening statement.

Wilders: 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.

I can't see where this guy spoke falsehood.

What he says is true. It may piss some people off but bad luck. Go suck a saveloy.

**RTW Fan** · January 22, 2010, 02:16 AM

Originally Posted by Phier

Geert Wilders hate speech trial started today, I hunted around a bit but I found his opening statement.

Wilders: 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.

I find it interesting that while people react to the US getting to much free speech (See the latest supreme court ruling) the Netherlands are working to directly curtail it.

Hate, love, or don't care about Wilders, Islam, or otherwise, I can't see how anyone who cares about freedom could, for a moment support the idea he should be in prison for his words.

Totally agree. Fundamental freedoms are under attack in western society due to the amount of levity that has been granted to pinkos and multiculturalists in attempting to create a society that facilitates the easy passage of exploitable labour.

As an Australians sign me up to anything that can be done to stop it!

**boofhead** · January 22, 2010, 02:21 AM

# Article 137c

1. Anyone that openly, orally or in writing or in an image, is intentionally insulting to a group of persons because of their race, their religion or philosophy of life, their hetero- or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or intellectual handicap, is punished with imprisonment of up to a year or a monetary fine of the third category. *

i.e., the riot caused by others is the yardstick by which your offense will be measured. Otherwise this vague, generalized law would not be enacted.

Fanatical muslims win.

**RTW Fan** · January 22, 2010, 02:32 AM

Yes that truly is a ridiculous law and constitutes tyranny. A man is traditionally free in our society to speak as he wishes on all subjects so long as he is not genuinely threatening violence.

**mongrel** · February 11, 2010, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by RTW Fan

Yes that truly is a ridiculous law and constitutes tyranny. A man is traditionally free in our society to speak as he wishes on all subjects so long as he is not genuinely threatening violence.

So threatening to persecute and deport people because of what they do on Friday evenings is okay?