General discussion

Free Speech on Trial In Holland

Imagine if a leader within the tea party movement were able to persuade its members to establish a third political party. Imagine he succeeded?overwhelmingly?and that as their leader he stood a real chance of winning the presidency. Then imagine that in anticipation of his electoral victory, the Democrats and Republicans quickly modified an existing antidiscrimination law so that he could be convicted for statements he made on the campaign trail.
No one has ever accused Mr. Wilders of being diplomatic. He's famously compared the Quran to "Mein Kampf" and described it as a "fascist book," he's called Muhammad "the devil," and he's proposed policies?such as banning the construction of mosques and taxing women who wear the burqa?to halt further Islamification.

At first, Mr. Wilders was dismissed as a far right-wing extremist. But since splitting from the Liberal Party six years ago, his star has only risen. In the national elections held in November 2006, his party won nine seats in parliament. When the Dutch government fell again this year, June elections saw his party take 24 seats in the 150-seat body.

This has spooked Dutch parliamentarians, particularly those wedded to multiculturalism. That's why, in the fall of 2009, they modified Article 137C and 137D of the Penal Code to make it possible for far-left organizations to take Mr. Wilders to court on grounds of "inciting hatred" against Muslims.

Political correctness run amuck!

Discussion is locked

Reply to: Free Speech on Trial In Holland
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Free Speech on Trial In Holland
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
If you can't see te whole article...
- Collapse -
inticing hatred a crime

Good for them!

- Collapse -
inciting hatred is a crime

good for them

to some, inciting hatred is Enticing

- Collapse -
when telling the truth

incites hatred, then it means it probably is deserved.

- Collapse -
Whbether it's true or not doesn't matter...

FREE SPEECH is a sacred right. He's not inciting anything. This is political oppression, pure and simple.

Endorsed by some. Disgusting.

- Collapse -
I heard Joe Biden inciting hatred against Republicans...

last night, lying and ranting.

Obama too.

Arrest them!

- Collapse -
There ya' go

Exercise YOUR right to FREE SPEECH, you're certainly not inciting me. I don't even have a thrill going up my leg ala Chris Matthews.

Oh yes...and you can be disgusted also, if you want.

- Collapse -
(NT) De,ms ar enow runnig hbate ads...falsely claimoing Kar4l ovf
- Collapse -
Okay, I did NOT submit that...

Dems now running hate ads claiming Karl Rove and the US Chamber of Commerce accepted foreign funds for campaigns, which is a crime. It's a LIE meant to incite HATE. Can we arrest the Democratic Party for hate speech now?

Oh, right, this is a free country, not Holland.

- Collapse -
Holland is not a free country ??????

You have evidence of course? For centuries Holland has published books banned everywhere else from the Tyndale Bible in English through to the present. It has protected religious thinkers viz. Erasmus who were at risk in their home country from Inquisition. They can write anything they want, they can publish anything they want, they can smoke anything they want, they can read anything they want. The social services supports sexual activity for the disabled (meaning they actually pay for the prostitute, occasionally).

Karl Rove has been clearly proven by numerous sources to be lying, there is a very good article on Think about the 800+ foreign companies who are contributing to the Chamber of Commerce a total of $800,000 which is being funnelled exclusively to Republican candidates.

Check your lies, Ed, you may find there's evidence to contradict you.


- Collapse -
History of Holland...

If you want to consider their history of things like book publication, there are also other things to be considered.
The first twenty black slaves had arrived from the West Indies in a Dutch vessel and were sold to the governor and a merchant in Jamestown in late August of 1619. They entered the slave trade in 1621 with the formation of the Dutch West Indies Co., and in 1624, imported blacks to serve on Hudson Valley farms. According to Dutch law, the children of manumitted (freed) slaves were bound to slavery.
Bottom line, they did both good sand bad things in their history.

- Collapse -
Which is worse?

Selling slaves or buying them?

Or are they equal?

- Collapse -
I don't care how many lefty things they allow...

When they curtail free speech so blatantly they have forfeited their claim to be a free nation.

BTW, it IS a lie that Rove and the US Chamber of Commerce are using foreign funds in US campaigns. here is NO evidence that they are. Absolute none. It is a LIE.

(note the usual absence of evidence or a link to the bogus claim. Not that it would matter. "Think" "Progress" is notorious for lying and distorting reality. No one seriously credits anything they publish.)

- Collapse -
Paying for prostitutes...

Didn't the Japanese do that in WW2? Is that the standard for a liberal democracy nowadays?

- Collapse -
Free Speech is a Constitutional Right, a Legal Right

But not a "Sacred" right, which would require Biblical and Theological Sanction.

And the man is a pariah in Holland. If they didn't have proportional representation instead of the English American Canadian, "first past the post" plurality based system, he'd never have been elected. There enough arch conservatives and racists in the whole of Holland that he can get enough votes to occupy one seat. You don't see anyone holding the same views getting enough votes to be seated do you?


- Collapse -
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion...

and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

- JS Mill, On Liberty

Geert Wilders? trial in the Netherlands for allegedly inciting hatred against Muslims is a damning indictment of the state of free speech in that country. I strongly disagree with most of Mr Wilders? statements on Islam ? most of the problems associated with mass immigration could be resolved by limiting the welfare state?s privileges for migrants, and Mr Wilders also makes little distinction between his objection to the Islamic faith and to Islamic people themselves. This is unpleasant, but irrelevant. The law cannot pick and choose between the statements it likes and does not like, and nobody should be restricted from saying something simply because it is unpopular.

Shame shame shame on the Dutch for this.

- Collapse -
RE: only one person were of the contrary opinion

and what if that one person thought it was "hate" speech and not "free" speech?

Still shame?

- Collapse -
do tell

what do YOU think?

- Collapse -
RE: what do YOU think?

I said it twice

Good for them!

- Collapse -
Boy, now that's hypocrisy. Quoting a Pnilosopher with whom

you have consistently opposed. And J.S.Mill would have been down on the US legal system for the legal contortions of the G.W.Bush and Barack Obama like a ton of bricks. But he was writing before 9/11, though I don't believe that would change his opinion.

"Utilitarianism holds for the greatest good for the greatest number." John Stuart Mill

- Collapse -
(NT) By the way, for thos with only super4ficial understandoinsg.
- Collapse -
(NT) This forum softwareis npot good.
- Collapse -
I'll try again...


- Collapse -
Not only was I QUOTING an article written by someone else.

But it is totally clear that Mill was a champion of individual liberty, exactly as I have always been.

On Liberty (1859) is a philosophical work by British philosopher John Stuart Mill. It was a radical work to the Victorian readers of the time because it supported moral and economic freedom of individuals from the state.

Perhaps the most memorable point made by Mill in this work, and his basis for liberty, is that "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign". Mill is compelled to make this assertion in opposition to what he calls the "tyranny of the majority", wherein through control of etiquette and morality, society is an unelected power that can do horrific things. Mill's work could be considered a reaction to this social control by the majority and his advocacy of individual decision-making over the self. The famous Harm Principle, or the principle of liberty, is also articulated in this work: people can do anything they like as long as it does not harm others. All branches of liberalism?as well as other political ideologies?consider this to be one of their core principles. However, they often disagree on what exactly constitutes harm.

John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher and civil servant. An influential contributor to social theory, political theory, and political economy, his conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state control. He was a proponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham, although his conception of it was very different from Bentham's. Hoping to remedy the problems found in an inductive approach to science, such as confirmation bias, he clearly set forth the premises of falsification as the key component in the scientific method.[3] Mill was also a Member of Parliament and an important figure in liberal political philosophy.

So much for the facile judgments of intellectual poseurs.

- Collapse -
Made up quote?

"Utilitarianism holds for the greatest good for the greatest number." John Stuart Mill

Hmmm... I don't believe he actually ever said or wrote that.

- Collapse -
?The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the founda

tion of morals and legislation?
Jeremy Bentham quotes ( Philosopher and Activist. 1748-1832)

Wikipedia on Jeremy Bentham: Bentham's ambition in life was to create a "Pannomion", a complete utilitarian code of law. Bentham not only proposed many legal and social reforms, but also expounded an underlying moral principle on which they should be based. This utilitarianism philosophy argued that the right act or policy was that which would cause "the greatest good for the greatest number of people", also known as "the greatest happiness principle", or the principle of utility. He wrote in The Principles of Morals and Legislation:
? Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think...[13] ?
He also suggested a procedure for estimating the moral status of any action, which he called the Hedonistic or felicific calculus. Utilitarianism was revised and expanded by Bentham's student John Stuart Mill. In Mill's hands, "Benthamism" became a major element in the liberal conception of state policy objectives."

Interesting that you are so attracted by classical "liberal" philosophers, but you are right it is not J.S.Mill. It is however the accepted definition of Utilitarianism in any discussion of the Philosophy of the 19th Century, and Mill knew Bentham well and was his philosophical heir. He is also considered to be man with the highest IQ that can be reasonably estimated. Read the entry in Wikipedia. Latin at 3 and Greek at 4, and reading intellectually challenging material, even in English, for University students at those ages.


- Collapse -
Jeremy Bentham is also quoted as writing ?It is the greatest

good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.?

Jeremy Bentham quotes ( Philosopher and Activist. 1748-1832)

Sloppy minds, or oldish folk such as myself sometimes conflate the works of Bentham, Mill senior and Mill junior (the well known one). You are nonetheless right James, and I apologize for being sloppy.

This quotation has become the rubric for all discussion of Utilitarianism and its most famous quotation.

- Collapse -
You are correct that Mill spoke passionately on individual

rights, and that is why I like him. You are also correct that the quotation that follws was a paraphrasal rather than a direct quotation. If you would like a more accurate quotation Utilitarianism strives "for the greatest good for the greatest number." "On Liberty" was part of my First year undergraduate Philosophy course so I have read it thoroughly, and have indeed read it several times since, just as I have read Thoreau's Walden more than once.

Do not confuse, however, On Liberty with Libertarianism, it is emphatically NOT, it is Utilitarianism, ask any Philosophy professor

- Collapse -
Wikipedia's list of Liberal Thinkers

which includes a lot of thinkers who have been hijacked by the right like Adam Smith and Friedrich von Hayek. While there are no significant discussions in a list which starts with Laozi (whom I was always taught to call Lao Tzu, author of the Tao Te Ching) Aristotle and Nicolo Macchiavelli whom I certainly wouldn't include in a list of "liberal thinkers"

None the less it is interesting to pass down the list and see how you react to them as they come up, it's sort of a printed list Rohrschach Test (spelling?)

Many thanks James and Ed for stimulating my brain in this way, you've made me very happy. Oh, and J.S.Mill's father was James Mill, not John senior as I mis-named him. My remarkable recall of things has certainly taken a beating in the last year. Fortunately I still remember my name,

- Collapse -
In any event, Mr. Wilders was exonerated!

Dutch legislator Geert Wilders was found not guilty on October 15 of charges that he had discriminated against Muslims in the Netherlands. Prosecutors stated the the controversial politician should be found not guilty of inciting hatred. Wilders has been banned from the United Kingdom as a possible disruption to public order because of statements deemed to be injurious to the feelings of Muslims.

Prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman reached their conclusions after reading interviews with Wilders, as well as articles written by the politician. He is known around the world for his film "Fitna" for which he has received numerous death threats. Wilders lives in constant fear for his life and is under constant guard.

The Dutch prosecutors stated that comments about banning the Koran can be discriminatory, but because Wilders wants to pursue a ban along democratic lines, there is no question of incitement to discrimination 'as laid down in law'. Of Wilders' comparison of the Koran with Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler's famous book - the prosecutors said the comparison was "crude but that did not make it punishable".

Dealing earlier on October 15 with incitement to hatred, Van Roessel and Velleman said some comments could incite hatred against Muslims if taken out of context, but if the complete text is considered, it can be seen that Wilders is against the growing influence of Islam and not against Muslims per s?.

While Mr. Wilders' words may be crude and even offensive to some - especially those of the so-called "Religion of Peace" who have threatened him with the same fate as, say, Theo van Gogh - he does have the right to speak his mind.

I find it strangely fascinating that Mr. Wilders and Bruce Bawyer - a gay liberal American who catalogued what Mr. Wilders inveighed against in the book While Europe Slept - share many if not most of the same opinions of Islam and Muslims. I suspect that there's a lot of truth in these allegations.

The short film Fitna is available for viewing at Just note that it's in 4 parts, so make sure that you click on all 4. I do caution that parts of the video of Daniel Pearl's murder and beheading is in Part 1, so if your stomach is weak...

CNET Forums

Forum Info