Saturday, February 07, 2009

The Dutch Law Used Against Geert Wilders

Free Geert!

I asked our Flemish correspondent VH if he could locate the specific law that is being used to prosecute Geert Wilders, and he found that the relevant text is contained in the Dutch Penal Code, Articles 137c and 137d.

VH translated both these articles, and sends the following report:

According to Afshin Ellian, the Dutch Law Professor and columnist, the Amsterdam Court orders Geert Wilders to be prosecuted for inciting hatred and discrimination (Penal Code, Article 137d) and the insult of a group (Penal Code, Article 137c).

The web pages with the Penal Code articles Afshin Ellian links to in De Volkskrant contain the following:
- - - - - - - - -
The Dutch Penal Code; Article 137c [Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr); Artikel 137c | Sr, Boek 2, Titel 5]

1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.

The Dutch Penal Code; Article 137d [Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr); Artikel 137d | Sr, Boek 2, Titel 5]

1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or in an image, incites hatred against or discrimination of people or violent behavior against person or property of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their gender or hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
2. If the offense is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.

At the request of members of parliament Rouvoet (CHU, Christian Historic Union; Leftist Christian party) and Van der Staaij (SGP, Political Reformed Party; orthodox Christian party) in 1999 and then approved by a majority of the members of Parliament, an insert was added to Article 137 on disabilities. The insert (or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities) cannot yet be read in the linked Articles but is in the most recent version (January 2009) here (in Dutch).

8 comments:

Homophobic Horse said...

Liberalism in action, the "freedom of the individual." Non discrimination on the basis of group attributes which are presumed to be passive attributes.

Czechmade said...

Or let us try:

Who might tell the truth and find more than two people ready to share the same view...from the catalogue of thruths our government did not aknowledge as such...might be punishable for disrupting the funny fair rule of the miselected donkeys...up to full sharia bonus.

Gregory said...

So why don't they ever arrest and try the stinking muslims for their insulting Jews and 'anyone who insults' that stinking prophet?

Joanne said...

So the man himself, who requires 24/7/365 security of his life, is the one being charged with inciting 'hatred against or discrimination of people or violent behavior against person or property of people because of their' religion, Islam? Whose life weighs in the balance here anyhow - the Muslims' or Geert Wilders'? It seems very clear that it is Wilders who has had hatred and violent behaviour incited against him by Muslims, not the other way around. Maybe these bozos should look at the facts, and quit bending over for their masters - they aren't goats!

Czechmade said...

We might accept islam as a fanatical religion, if they showed their readiness to fast and prey themselves to death...to save the soul of Geert.

kitman said...

Interesting translations, it is always nice to have the more acurate wordings. The first thing that comes to mind is, that these two paragraphs apparently protect individuals from uncomfortabel "mental states". The first one protects against feeling insulted the second one against feeling hated. In a way they are mutations of traditional laws securing citizents against defamation and incited violence, however with a couple of crucial differences;

1. Truth is no defense. Traditionally you would be convicted for defamation if you were a) lying about another person b) defamed his reputation publicly unwarrented.
If the defamation is unwarrented you can be convicted in spite of your statements being true.This however does not apply to publicly known persons. Because people have a general interest in their moral character. This could make for an interesting arguments in court: Are Allah and Muhammad public figures, whose moral character is thus of general interest to the public?
(I suspect the muslims would get all worked up about Kafirs even debating this stuff.)

2. With regard to inciting hatred, it is clearly an absurd rewrite of the laws against inciting violence. However laws against inciting violence make sense, because you can look for linguistic markers, imperatives etc. and you can look for... yup! VIOLENCE similar to the one advocated. But with incitement to "hate", how can that be distinguished from "criticism" in general. Criticism usually consists in inciting some dose of "dislike" or "hate" for something or someone, and no psychologist has ever been able to tell these apart.
Secondly it shows that the social democrats are running out of neo-nazis, there is no assaults on immigrants anymore who can justify their thought policing, so instead they just lower the bar. If they had their will, you could be jailed for being "too negative" in a couple of years.

All in all I believe this case is gonna be very interesting to follow, and I hope Wilders goes for full disclosure of all documents, so that the sickness of these new prohibitions against certain "states of mind" can be brought to show. And the kafkaesque proceedings of trials without any deeds and evidense can play out in full public. Remember the people behind the prosecution of wilders sponsored a schoolbook compairing him to Hitler)

When I saw FITNA the first time, I must admit I was a bit disappointed, because I already new many of the clips and qoutations, but now I see how important it was to cover his back. Working only with raw fotage and qoutations from news and the quran it self, he really dealt himself a good hand, for this second round. Good thinking wilders, one step ahead!

zebulon9 said...

If Geert Wilders falls, then Freedom of speech is dead in Europe. We are launching an extensive International Action SITA including two possible texts ; one comparing Wilders and Winston Churchill and another Wilders and Charlie Chaplin:


http://sitamnesty.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/i-support-democrat-geert-winston-wilders-against-islamic-fascism-and-its-dhimmis

http://sitamnesty.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/i-support-democrat-geert-charlie-wilders-against-islamic-fascism

To support Geert Wilders and our dearly acquired freedoms please participate to the 2 suggested actions and transmit this message to your friends owners of a website in order they publish it.

An other way to support Geert Wilders is to give some money. To donate: www.geertwilders.nl

alexandra said...

I along with some friends have put a group funded donation for Geert Wilders Legal funds already. Clearly, Geert Wilders is a victim of a politically motivated and bogus charges. Geert Wilders is an international hero of free speech!

A.S Vigileos