You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
The Geert Wilders Trial, Day 3
2010-10-13
Blogger Sappho has all the details, in English (scroll down past the photo).
I turned around to look at the journalist of the high brow Trouw (‘Loyalty’), a newspaper which had originated in the Second World War as Dutch Resistance’s pamphlet. All week I had sat next to him and today he confided to me what most of his colleagues had said earlier: “Wilders is an obnoxious fellow, but he got his facts and figures right. His perspective is highly defendable. I’ve now seen Fitna for the first time in one go, it’s extrapolation can be criticized, but it’s not bad at all. It’s like those legal experts claimed: there are no grounds for a conviction. People feel insulted, but that’s no justification to shut him up.”
The trial is being broadcast live, so everyone can see to draw their own conclusions.
Posted by:

#7  So if he was to insult the Church of the SubGenius, that would be a crime? I mean, if you disagree with the tenets of a religion doesn't that also imply that the followers of that religion are, to say the least, mistaken? And is that not then an insult? So how are we to discuss the relative merits of different religions? Does Dutch law say we cannot do this? Then Dutch law is a jackass.

Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2010-10-13 19:32  

#6  ....so by extrapolation -

a newspaper which had originated in the Second World War as Dutch Resistance's pamphlet.

could be prosecuted for insulting or inciting hatred against a group of people, ie Germans? [rhet question] Given that a number of the Dutch seemed to have supported them, I make a reasonable bet that the prosecutor in this case probably would.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-10-13 18:46  

#5  The Scotsman reports

However, prosecutors have dropped one charge against him, of insulting a group on the basis of its religion, noting that his statements have been mostly directed toward Islam as an ideology, rather than Muslims.

He is still charged with inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims. Under Dutch law, it is illegal to insult or incite hatred against a group of people on the basis of gender, religion, race or sexuality.

It remains to be seen whether the judges will agree with the prosecutors' recommendation -- they didn't agree with the original prosecutorial decision not to prosecute, after all.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-10-13 17:13  

#4  Since when is Islam a race?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-10-13 14:04  

#3  The judges of the Court of the city of Amsterdam, however, decided that Wilders had to face charges on racism, group insult, discrimination, hate speech and blasphemy.

These are crimes? Then why don't they ban the Koran? These people better wake up before it's too late.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2010-10-13 12:24  

#2  One wonders if they are going to actually play fitna at the trial

According to Sappho they did, CrazyFool. Hence the journalist's comment.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-10-13 11:01  

#1  One wonders if they are going to actually play fitna at the trial.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-10-13 09:34  

00:00