As in the previous trial of Geert Wilders last year, the state prosecution office (Openbaar Ministerie, or OM) finds itself reluctant to recommend convicting the defendant on charges that obviously have no basis in law or justice. The prosecutors were compelled by the Amsterdam court to retry Mr. Wilders, but as of today they have decided he should be found not guilty of two of the charges against him — “incitement to hatred” and “insulting a group”.
No prosecutorial opinion on the remaining charge — “incitement to discrimination” — has been issued yet.
If I understand the Dutch justice system correctly, such statements by the prosecution do not bind the panel of judges in the case, who may ignore OM’s opinion and find the defendant guilty or not guilty as they see fit.
According to Dutch News:
Find Wilders Not Guilty of Inciting Hatred, Says Prosecution
The public prosecution department on Wednesday called for PVV leader Gert Wilders to be found not guilty of inciting hatred, as it tied up its case against the MP.
Prosecutors say Wilders’ remarks are critical of Islam which is not the same as inciting hatred against muslims themselves.
Earlier in the day the prosecutors said Wilders’ should be found not guilty of insulting a group because he has not stated any conclusions about muslims. Instead he has merely criticised their religion, the prosecutors said.
Reluctance
The decision to call on judges to find Wilders not guilty follows on from fact the department did not want to take the PVV leader to court in the first place.
However, it was forced to do so by the appeal court following protests from a number of ethnic minority groups.
The final charge against Wilders, incitement to discrimination, will be discussed later today.
Hat tip: C. Cantoni.
8 comments:
Just reblogged it. Very interesting.
Nietzsche talks about the revaluation of values. That is when what was once thought of as good is now determined to be bad. It is done in an underhanded way by the losers as a means to overthrow those who benefit from the existing value system. I like how what was once called loyalty is now called incitement to discrimination.
“insulting a group”
Well, put me in jail then. The fact I am white and male (through no choice of my own, but rather a consequence of being born) insults so many groups I've lost count.
Geert Wilders incites hatred and cultural superiority.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/lw-exclusive-shocking-video-of-geert-wilders-hate-speech-on-us-soil/
William: ISLAM and Muslims incite hatred and cultural superiority.
The difference between the West and the many countries already been conquered by Islam over the last 1,400+ years is that the West has the slim chance to avoid being conquered - IF Westerners wake up from their mass delusions about Islam being a peaceful religion.
The reality of Islam is that Islam is an intrinsically violent totalitarian religious dictatorship which has the goal to rule everyone in the world by Sharia Law.
Sharia Law legalizes Muslims as a preferred and superior class over non-Muslims - with all men also being preferred and superior over women and children.
Islam is the cause of war amongst Islam sects and against all non-Muslims, terrorism against as many innocent non-Muslim civilians as possible, violent murder using beheadings and stonings, torture particularly amputations and canings, forced clitorectomies, forced marriage, cousin marriage, rape of non-Muslims especially gang rape and pedophile rape, animal torture for halal meat, etc.
Shall we check out the laws of any "moderate" majority-Muslim country? Take Dubai, where being a VICTIM of rape can land you in jail - not to say a Muslim woman having anything to do with a non-Muslim man... something straight out of the US Deep South, 1800s-style eh? Geert Wilders can only dream of coming up with something 10% as hateful.
Yep - Islam is a totalitarian dictatorship. And Loonwatch is its propaganda machine. And looks like William is one of the masses of its "useful idiots".
OF COURSE saying something about a belief, be it religious or not, is entirely different from saying something about a human being. Any first year philosophy student will tell you (after learning the basics of logic) that making ad hominem comments about someone does not address whatever argument they may have put forward for the student's consideration.
That is to say: whatever I may say about John Stuart Mill himself has no bearing whatsoever on the arguments for free speech contained in 'On Liberty'.
The other side of this coin is that it is OF COURSE possible to say something about an assertion that someone has made (obviously not the same thing as the person who made the assertion) or a belief someone holds (not the same thing as the one holding it) or an argument contained in a book (not the same thing as the author of that book).
Anyone who has been taught how to think rationally knows perfectly well that one can say something about a belief - while saying nothing whatsoever about believers.
Saying 'Mohammad did not fly around the sky on a horse' is a statement about the truth value of an assertion found in Islamic texts. Nowhere in that statement is there any reference to anything (or anyone) else.
And even if there was - too bad!
Nick -
"That is to say: whatever I may say about John Stuart Mill himself has no bearing whatsoever on the arguments for free speech contained in 'On Liberty'."
JSM, personality:
- reclusive; socially inapt; disturbed/ambivalent relation with father; wacky girl-friend (starring as co-author); extremely sentimental; arrogant; near zero real-world experience; obsession with traditional religion of Europe; hyper-elitist worldview (core trait among progressives); utter disdain for common folk; extremely low opinion of fellow countrymen (as compared to the people of France).
JSM, political activism (or philosophy):
- political religion: "Religion of Humanity"; "Social Good" (read: social engineering) before traditional idea of the sanctity of the person; free speech as tool, a temporary device for attack on tradition and organized religion; separated economy from "social" issues; used input from French totalitarian thinkers; his lifelong attack on tradition/Church laid ideological foundation responsible for changing free market liberalism into welfare-state liberalism; influence perhaps as devastating as Marx/Engels but because of moderate tone less easily recognizable.
;-)
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Post a Comment