Wilders Trial: Not A Hater Say the Judges

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook ... ders-trial

The Wilders trial
Not a hater, say the judges

Jun 23rd 2011, 16:30 by A.U. | AMSTERDAM

*
*

THE last time he took the stand in court, Geert Wilders, the enfant terrible of Dutch politics, promised to continue speaking publicly, even if it cost him his freedom. He was visibly relieved to discover today that no such sacrifice would be demanded of him. This morning an Amsterdam court acquitted him of five counts of hate speech and discrimination.

The charges were based on a number of comments he made in the early days of his political career, including his comparison of the Koran to Mein Kampf, his warning of a “tsunami of Islamisation” and his description of Islam as a “violent religion”. The trial was initiated by a group of citizens who petitioned the justice ministry to prosecute him.

The judges found Mr Wilders's language to be “rude and denigrating” and warned him that he walked “on the edge of what is allowed.” But, they said, his public comments still fell within the limitations set by the law.

The legal distinction between Mr Wilders's words and “hate speech” was clarified in previous hearings by the prosecutors (who even suggested dropping the case; they were not allowed to do so by the Court of Appeal). According to them, Mr Wilders’s comments were addressed to a religion (Islam) rather than to the people that practice it (Muslims), and could not therefore be seen as hate-mongering against a group.

Mr Wilders called the verdict "a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands," and said he looked forward to continuing to discuss Islam freely. His relief was shared across the political spectrum—though for different reasons. The prime minister, Mark Rutte, said he was "personally glad to see Wilders freed" because of "what the process did to him." Other parties noted that they were happy to see the court strengthening the principle of free, if not decent, speech. In polls, 60% of people said they wanted to see Mr Wilders acquitted.

His views may not have moderated much over the years. But far from the provocative joker of previous years, Mr Wilders has become an important force in Dutch politics. Since last year his Freedom Party has provided backbench support for Mr Rutte's minority centre-right government and its ambitious austerity programme.

Expect a newly emboldened Mr Wilders to start expanding his range of concerns. In recent provincial elections, his party turned on the Netherlands's biggish Polish community, accusing them of crime, drunkenness and taking Dutch jobs. Similar sentiments were soon heard from both the ruling liberal VVD party and the opposition Labour Party. More recently Mr Wilders has joined the euro debate, calling for the Dutch government to reject another bail-out for the Greeks.

But Mr Wilders's ambitions go beyond offending minority groups and political opponents. His party’s agenda is broad, if eclectic, and while it comes wrapped in liberal pieties it also includes elements of social conservatism and foreign-policy isolationism. This appears to have earned it wide popular support—in polls the party remains second only to Mr Rutte's VVD.

A lot of Mr Wilders's populist ideas have found their way into the political mainstream. The Dutch now have strict immigration rules, a renewed focus on law and order (hence a move to restrict the infamous "coffee shops" to Dutch nationals only), and are turning away from what some dismiss as “leftist hobbies”—everything from social-security provisions through foreign-aid spending to culture. Ignore Mr Wilders's fiery rhetoric; it’s the quiet shifting of the tectonic plates of Dutch politics that are worth listening to.

Regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Wilders or his political views, it is good news IMO that he has been acquited.

[That NOS Guy]

I recall some years ago when Wilders gave an address to Temple University. I happened to be in attendance for that one, and I walked out after being asked to leave because I was laughing at his ideas of European cultural hegemony. I was told that he took all of one question during a Q&A afterwords, and having been challenged by said question he promptly fled the field.

The man is a a goddamned yellow coward on top of being a very dangerous idiot. It's really the worst combination of character traits.

[Pelranius]

Isn't he stupid enough to try to promote both Judeo-Christianity and humanism as integral parts Dutch national identity? (Those two aren't going to be compatible in the long run)

[Siege]

The man is a populist who copies his cues from Republican-style conservatism even when they aren't applicable to the politics of this country (like opposing legal immigrantion from Eastern Europe with exactly the same rubbish rhetoric some American politicians use to oppose illegal Mexican immigration). Expecting his views to hold up under scrutiny is probably asking too much of him. I'm glad he was acquitted 'cause the charges boiled down to pretty much "the big meanie hurt my feelings WAH!", but Wilders is still an idiot, and mercifully one whose damaging influence is limited to tacitly supporting a minority right-wing government.

[General Mung Beans]

Isn't he stupid enough to try to promote both Judeo-Christianity and humanism as integral parts Dutch national identity? (Those two aren't going to be compatible in the long run)

No because there is such a thing called Christian Humanism.

[Metahive]

You mean this?

Question, why dilute and burden humanism with any sort of religious baggage? Instead of going for a severely watered-down version of Christianity it'd be easier to just give up on it altogether.

[Simon_Jester]

There are a lot of people, still, for whom that would not be at all "easy." Or desirable. I don't expect them to cast away their religion; why should you?

[cosmicalstorm]

Here in Sweden you can take a bunch of pictures of an actor pretending to be Jesus while surrounded by muscled up gay men. The next day it will be a popular event written about in newspapers and discussed with passion as an important statement in the culture pages of the newspapers. The artist behind the move would have every chance of having a successful career afterwards.

However if anyone were to do something similar and replace Jesus with Mohammed it would create a firestorm, the artist would spend the rest of his career defending his decision, he would be labeled by many writers in the media as an Islamophobiac and Swedish merchandise would probably be banned in many Muslim countries, our embassies might be attacked by crazed crowds of young Muslims. He might be attacked by crazed muslims in public, he would certainly receive many threats to his life. The newspaper that published it would run a risk of being attacked by suicide bombers.

This is not a hyperbole as the past few years have taught us.

[Simon_Jester]

That Christians in Sweden, such as they are, aren't obsessively touchy about religion doesn't mean that said religion doesn't exist. Or that they should be expected to cast it away in order to satisfy Metahive's desire for an intellectually tidy society.

[Metahive]

There are a lot of people, still, for whom that would not be at all "easy." Or desirable. I don't expect them to cast away their religion; why should you?

That's frankly none of my concern. Eventually children have to be told that Santa isn't real and be allowed to grow up. Religion with its promotion of infantile magical thinking is there only a hindrance.

But what has that to do with what I said? My question was why the Dutch should accept a watered-down version of Christianity-cum-Humanism instead of just humanism? Are the Dutch that pious?

[Zed]

The man is a populist who copies his cues from Republican-style conservatism even when they aren't applicable to the politics of this country (like opposing legal immigrantion from Eastern Europe with exactly the same rubbish rhetoric some American politicians use to oppose illegal Mexican immigration). Expecting his views to hold up under scrutiny is probably asking too much of him. I'm glad he was acquitted 'cause the charges boiled down to pretty much "the big meanie hurt my feelings WAH!", but Wilders is still an idiot, and mercifully one whose damaging influence is limited to tacitly supporting a minority right-wing government.

Mercifully? Wilders has all of the benefits of government (getting to take pride in success and grabbing the resulting electoral results) and none of its disadvantages (having to take any responsibility for government and its possible failures).

[Simon_Jester]

But what has that to do with what I said? My question was why the Dutch should accept a watered-down version of Christianity-cum-Humanism instead of just humanism? Are the Dutch that pious?

My answer is: why not?

It's not really a question of what the Dutch do; it's a question of what they choose to do. Some of them will choose to adhere to religious beliefs you think are silly. Others will not. We've seen this before and will see it again.

Trying to stop the process means imposing what you'd call rationality on the people you'd call irrational. When other people try the same, it usually doesn't end up well. I doubt you're an exception to that rule.

Speaking for myself, I am quite content to accept that some people will fold religious beliefs into their views on society- I don't regard the existence of religion as a personal affront and talk about how it needs to be 'corrected.' Why do you?

[CJvR]

The newspaper that published it would run a risk of being attacked by suicide bombers.

No Swedish paper would dare to publish something like that. It is much easier, and above all else safer, to show how brave you are by picking on the King.

The freedom of speach also includes the freedom to shut up.

[Pelranius]

Isn't he stupid enough to try to promote both Judeo-Christianity and humanism as integral parts Dutch national identity? (Those two aren't going to be compatible in the long run)

No because there is such a thing called Christian Humanism.

My understanding of reading Wilder's platform (English translation) is that he believes both are equally important contributions of identity to Dutch society ('Christian humanism' would be Christianity influence. Humanist Christianity would be Christianity with humanist influences) Which is amusing because that arrangement will only last as long as nothing controversial comes up (unless he's dishonest enough to reinterpret Judeo-Christianity or humanism into something so chimerically confabulated to suit the needs of the other one).

Here in Sweden you can take a bunch of pictures of an actor pretending to be Jesus while surrounded by muscled up gay men. The next day it will be a popular event written about in newspapers and discussed with passion as an important statement in the culture pages of the newspapers. The artist behind the move would have every chance of having a successful career afterwards.

However if anyone were to do something similar and replace Jesus with Mohammed it would create a firestorm, the artist would spend the rest of his career defending his decision, he would be labeled by many writers in the media as an Islamophobiac and Swedish merchandise would probably be banned in many Muslim countries, our embassies might be attacked by crazed crowds of young Muslims. He might be attacked by crazed muslims in public, he would certainly receive many threats to his life. The newspaper that published it would run a risk of being attacked by suicide bombers.

This is not a hyperbole as the past few years have taught us.

I doubt you could do the same in say, Uganda (the whole Jesus actor and gay men. Though the Ugandans might settle for trying to burn down your home with you in it instead of the whole suicide bombing thing.

[Siege]

Mercifully? Wilders has all of the benefits of government (getting to take pride in success and grabbing the resulting electoral results) and none of its disadvantages (having to take any responsibility for government and its possible failures).

At the same time it allows the center-right government to compromise with the left-wing parties when it comes to matters of social security or European policy, where Wilders and his band of yokels have strayed so far into conservative nutbar territory even the VVD doesn't want to follow them. If the price to pay for having a country that's at least somewhat sensibly run some of the time is that PVV electoral results take a little longer to implode, that's what I'd call a bargain.

My understanding of reading Wilder's platform (English translation) is that he believes both are equally important contributions of identity to Dutch society ('Christian humanism' would be Christianity influence. Humanist Christianity would be Christianity with humanist influences) Which is amusing because that arrangement will only last as long as nothing controversial comes up (unless he's dishonest enough to reinterpret Judeo-Christianity or humanism into something so chimerically confabulated to suit the needs of the other one).

Like I said, he's a big fan of lifting talking points straight from American conservatism and repackaging them for local consumption. This "Christianity is integral to Dutch society" silliness is just one more example. I suspect it's nothing more than yet another inane soundbite that hasn't been given more thought than it took to translate it, but if there's anything more to it than that it was probably thrown in there to placate the Christian Democrats and convince them that Wilders isn't railing against all of religion but against Islam specifically.

[General Mung Beans]

It should be noted Mr. Wilders is an agnostic.

[That NOS Guy]

It should be noted Mr. Wilders is an agnostic.

He's as agnostic as I am a lesbian. Hint: I'm not.

[General Mung Beans]

It should be noted Mr. Wilders is an agnostic.

He's as agnostic as I am a lesbian. Hint: I'm not.

How is that not No True Scotsman fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

Religion None (agnostic).

[That NOS Guy]

How is that not No True Scotsman fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

Religion None (agnostic).

Oh boy a wiki quote. I've been fucking compelled into silence from a wikipedia article. Are you goddamned shitting me? Seriously? I know you're not the sharpest tack, but this is absurd.

Furthermore, it's not a No True Scotsman, because an actual agnostic wouldn't push a decidedly Christian agenda for policy. If it walks like a duck, quacks like one, etc. it's probably a duck.

[General Mung Beans]

How is that not No True Scotsman fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

Religion None (agnostic).

Oh boy a wiki quote. I've been fucking compelled into silence from a wikipedia article. Are you goddamned shitting me? Seriously? I know you're not the sharpest tack, but this is absurd.

Furthermore, it's not a No True Scotsman, because an actual agnostic wouldn't push a decidedly Christian agenda for policy. If it walks like a duck, quacks like one, etc. it's probably a duck.

All he is advocating is that basically Judeo-Christianity is an integral part of Dutch culture and that isn't without precedent actually-the founder of Action Francaise was also agnostic until he converted late in life.

[That NOS Guy]

All he is advocating is that basically Judeo-Christianity is an integral part of Dutch culture and that isn't without precedent actually-the founder of Action Francaise was also agnostic until he converted late in life.

I do not think that advancing the example of a fascist is a good example to use, but that could just be me. He's not advocating that simply Christianity is the way of things Dutch, he's advocating it's the only way and that Islam is fundamentally evil while Christianity, with it's assorted baggage, is not.

Trying to throw "Judeo-Christianity" in there is also sort of a funny political smokescreen. The number of Jews in Dutch society is virtually nil, after having the community nearly wiped out in the Second World War (which in of itself is fairly odd, since the rest of Western Europe had far lower death rates) so invoking "well, the Jews too!" is incredibly disingenuous.

Mr. Wilders is carrying on an explicitly religious fight, and has made it abundantly clear which side he identifies with. it makes little sense for an "agnostic" to hold the Christian line and only that line.

[General Mung Beans]

All he is advocating is that basically Judeo-Christianity is an integral part of Dutch culture and that isn't without precedent actually-the founder of Action Francaise was also agnostic until he converted late in life.

I do not think that advancing the example of a fascist is a good example to use, but that could just be me. He's not advocating that simply Christianity is the way of things Dutch, he's advocating it's the only way and that Islam is fundamentally evil while Christianity, with it's assorted baggage, is not.

Trying to throw "Judeo-Christianity" in there is also sort of a funny political smokescreen. The number of Jews in Dutch society is virtually nil, after having the community nearly wiped out in the Second World War (which in of itself is fairly odd, since the rest of Western Europe had far lower death rates) so invoking "well, the Jews too!" is incredibly disingenuous.

Mr. Wilders is carrying on an explicitly religious fight, and has made it abundantly clear which side he identifies with. it makes little sense for an "agnostic" to hold the Christian line and only that line.

As far as I can see, Mr. Wilders is simply advocating this for Dutch society to maintain cohesion and order (actually that's why many agnostics or atheists are supportive of religious ethics or even pretend to be religious) and he believes Islam to be a threat and Christianity not due to modern history-there has been no Christian-inspired terrorism in the Netherlands but some Islam-inspired terrorism (ie assassination of Theo Van Gogh)

And technically there are also "Christian Atheists" (people who accept Christian ethics but not its metaphysics).

[That NOS Guy]

As far as I can see, Mr. Wilders is simply advocating this for Dutch society to maintain cohesion and order (actually that's why many agnostics or atheists are supportive of religious ethics or even pretend to be religious) and he believes Islam to be a threat and Christianity not due to modern history-there has been no Christian-inspired terrorism in the Netherlands but some Islam-inspired terrorism (ie assassination of Theo Van Gogh)

The idea that you can defend "supress freedom of religion" with "simply advocating for cohesion and order" is a veritable invitation for Godwin's Law. Christ, it's fucking perfumed and plays a song when I open it up. Here goes:

I think Mr. Wilders forgets 60 years ago a terrorist group with "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckle ransacked Holland and dragged away 100,000+ to be put into death camps for religious affiliation, but it was forgettable enough I suppose.

And technically there are also "Christian Atheists" (people who accept Christian ethics but not its metaphysics).

And I accept my car without a chassis.

[Metahive]

My answer is: why not?

It's not really a question of what the Dutch do; it's a question of what they choose to do. Some of them will choose to adhere to religious beliefs you think are silly. Others will not. We've seen this before and will see it again.

Trying to stop the process means imposing what you'd call rationality on the people you'd call irrational. When other people try the same, it usually doesn't end up well. I doubt you're an exception to that rule.

Speaking for myself, I am quite content to accept that some people will fold religious beliefs into their views on society- I don't regard the existence of religion as a personal affront and talk about how it needs to be 'corrected.' Why do you?

So I ask again, how pious are the Dutch that they need christian methadone for their share of humanism? Got any numbers? Also, had accommodating and mollycoddling people in their delusions ever brought any success in making them go away?

As for Mung Beans, Wilders is using "Judeo-Christianity" as just another method to drive a wedge between the Dutch "natives" and muslim immigrants, that's all. Religion is just one of the most prominent tools for such purposes.

[Shroom Man 777]

What would you propose, Metahivemind? If some flying Dutchmen want to believe in Jewsus, so? Who gives a shit if they don't conform to some proscribed set of things to believe in or not believe in? Their society is more liberal and progressive than America, so there isn't much religulous bullshit that's holding them back aside from some fringe assholes.