The article below includes a response from Geert Wilders to the prosecution’s request to acquit him of all charges. Many thanks to VH for the translation from RTL:
OM asks acquittal for Geert Wilders
Wilders was on trial for “insulting a group of people” and “inciting to hatred and discrimination because of religion and race”. Earlier this week the OM asked acquittal for the first indictment; for the other two they did so today.
The prosecution believes that the PVV leader with some of his statements has called for discrimination against Muslims, but he is not punishable for this, because he made those remarks in the context of the political debate. The prosecutors said Tuesday that Wilders was not punishable for insulting about a group of people, because in his statements he always talks about Islam and not about Muslims.
For all charges the prosecution had established criteria to which the statements made by Wilders should conform to be punishable. Certain statements comply with some of the criteria, but none do so to all of them, according to prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman.
For insulting of a group, the prosecutors find that Wilders always clearly talks about Islam and not the believers, the Muslims. In some cases, this is also the case with statements that would incite hatred and discrimination.
Wilders ‘very happy’
Geert Wilders himself is “very happy” with the conclusion of the prosecution. This he said after the session. “I do not insult, I do not incite to hatred, I do not discriminate. The only thing I do and will continue to do is to speak the truth,” he said. The PVV leader pointed out that this was already the second time the OM has said this; the first time was when it decided not to prosecute Wilders. That he had to stand trial anyway was ordered by the court in Amsterdam.
8 comments:
The prosecutors said Tuesday that Wilders was not punishable for insulting about a group of people, because in his statements he always talks about Islam and not about Muslims.
Key point. Grand to see it upheld in court!
I do not discriminate.
Come on. Discrimination is not Evil :)
I have been reading the comments in “ De Telegraaf” a center right newspaper here in the Nederland. I would like to translate a few of the comments there are over 200 at the moment and it will give a feeling for the mood of the average Dutch person here in Holland. I keep refreshing the page and the comments are coming in at the rate at the moment of about 5 a minute. All are or 95% are very positive.
Rightly so, congratulation, pity about wasting Geert time and our money
Congratulations Geert, We know very well who incites hate.
Geert is the only politician who tell it how it is, he talks normal Dutch without pretensions and the only politician with balls great guy I wish we were all like him
At last Justice, and so goes Nederland
I come by many firms in Germany and they find it sad that they have no politicians as Wilders.
Hopefully the freedom of expression will not be further attacked, and we can say what we will in relationship too Islam. Freedom has won.
I was genuinely frightened that I would lose my faith in our justice system, I am now reassured , at last justice.
So it goes on in the same style, many complain about the cost of the court case, which implies that they should not have started it in the first place, one even suggests that they should send the bill too Hirch Ballin. They were certainly aware of the cost that the Dutch society would pay if he was convicted. It was if a sigh of relief was expressed. I have read through the bulk of the comments which is quickly heading towards 300 and I have seen about 3 that were against Wilders. The interesting thing is that there were no muslim comments so they are keeping there heads down for now. I think it will free up debate here in Holland if you don't make it personal but general you will be able to get away with a hell of a lot more. This decision has virtually ring fenced Geert from anymore prosecution. I expect that the Imams lawsuit will also fall by the way side. He is detested here in Holland and any decision in his favor would alienate even more Dutch. This has been great publicity for the PVV, it was a win win situation from the start. I see this as a turning point people will feel more free to express there feeling without the fear of these draconian political blasphemy law hanging over there heads. Political decent from the PC norm is steadily building up a head of steam and it will have reached critical mass in a couple of years. We live in interesting times.
As we say here in the States,
"the process is the punishment".
The stress, aggravation, waste of time, and not least, the high cost
of defending oneself. An innocent man was still punished by a nuisance lawsuit.
Don't think it won't happen again.
In fact, I believe there's another lawsuit waiting in the wings.
So, if in Holland it is permissible to say bad things about Islam, but not about Muslims, then I think the Dutch should consider following at least one part of the blunt advice of Ann Coulter to the USA following 9/11: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"
The Dutch don't need to invade or kill anyone, but it seems that converting the Muslims already in Holland to Christianity (Dutch Reform, naturually) would be a good idea to end a lot of the problems they are having.
It would be an interesting test for one European nation to exclude on the basis of religion, as opposed to on the basis of national origin.
It's a key point, I totally agree. And it's one that any undergraduate philsophy student is taught before they are asked to put pen to paper and write an essay about well, anything.
Writing 'to the person' comments says nothing whatsoever about the arguments contained in the text one is studying. Any student writing about John Stuart Mill's personal life when submtting an essay on (let us say) the arguments for freedom of speech contained in 'On Liberty' will be marked down, because they have said nothing that is relevant.
The flip side of that coin of course is that if one criticises a text, one is NOT criticising either the author, or anyone who has read the text. Conceptually, logically, the two things are entirely different.
Cont. - If one writes an essay, or makes a speech, on the topic of the Koran, and following accepted academic practice, one cites the relevant suras, then the assertion that one is simultaneously making comments about people who have read the same text is simply absurd.
WE LOVE YOU MR/ GEERT WILDERS I HOPE YOU KEEP IT UP LET THE NATION KNOW ABOUT THE DEVEL MOHAMAD AND THE ISLAM WE LEFT MIDDEL EAST FOR THAT..GO TO MIDDEL EAST AND SEE MUSLIMS KILLING CHERISTIAN WE NEED NO ISLAM IN USA GOD BLESS YOU MR GEERT WILDERS
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.