Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 1/25/2009 9:35:50 AM EST
Last week a dutch Court decided to prosecute Geert Wilders, a dutch member of parliament who has expresed his disgust of the "islamisation" of western culture in general and the Netherlands specifically.

Here's a little clip of a man called Pat Condell (UK) who understands what is happening and shares his thoughts.

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhrf88x6lqo

(The other Patt Condell vids on youtube are also well wurth your time..)

What you need to know is that the majority of the dutch public is against this. Approval ratings of Geert Wilders' politicalparty PVV  have shot up since this news.
The legal proceedings however threaten to drain te limited funds the party has available and has appealed to the world to donate funds.

http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1475&Itemid=103

p.s. I know he has a rediculous haircut, but thats not the point.



Link Posted: 1/25/2009 9:47:24 AM EST
[#1]
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 9:48:27 AM EST
[#2]
he speaks for me .


well exept the peace bit

coc prevents bla bla bla
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 9:53:16 AM EST
[#3]
A must read:  
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 10:04:05 AM EST
[#4]
I thought that country banned Islam?
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 10:04:52 AM EST
[#5]
That's "specifically".




CJ
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 10:05:42 AM EST
[#6]
We live in a very sick, upside-down world.

HH
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 10:10:02 AM EST
[#7]
Crimethink leads to joycamp.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 10:30:15 AM EST
[#8]







Quoted:
Last week a dutch Court decided to prosecute Geert Wilders, a dutch member of parliament who has expresed his disgust of the "islamisation" of western culture in general and the Netherlands specificly.
Here's a little clip of a man called Pat Condell (UK) who understands what is happening and shares his thoughts.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhrf88x6lqo
(The other Patt Condell vids on youtube are also well wurth your time..)
What you need to know is that the majority of the dutch public is against this. Approval ratings of Geert Wilders' politicalparty PVV  have shot up since this news.






The legal proceedings however threaten to drain te limited funds the party has available and has appealed to the world to donate funds.













http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1475&Itemid=103
p.s. I know he has a rediculous haircut, but thats not the point.
Very disturbing indeed.
Edit: I couldn't make the second link work, but it pastes fine.
 
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 8:42:27 AM EST
[#9]
Holland is not the only country where free speech is threatened. In Austria a member of parliament was convicted last week for saying the prophet muhammed was a pedophile, for he married a thirteen year old. She (Susanne Winters)  faces a 24.000 euro fine and a suspended prison sentence of three months!

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=rJJT4aG1VUg&NR=1

Needless to say, I'm sick of this sh**.

http://defendgeertwilders.wordpress.com/



Link Posted: 1/26/2009 9:03:49 AM EST
[#10]
Quoted:
Holland is not the only country where free speech is threatened. In Austria a member of parliament was convicted last week for saying the prophet muhammed was a pedophile, for he married a thirteen year old. She (Susanne Winters)  faces a 24.000 euro fine and a suspended prison sentence of three months!

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=rJJT4aG1VUg&NR=1

Needless to say, I'm sick of this sh**.

http://defendgeertwilders.wordpress.com/


WTF?




Link Posted: 1/26/2009 9:21:13 AM EST
[#11]
Amsterdam Court of Appeal orders the criminal prosecution of the Member of Parliament of the Dutch Second Chamber Geert Wilders

Amsterdam, 21 january 2009 - On 21 January 2009 the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ordered the criminal prosecution of the member of parliament Geert Wilders for the incitement to hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. In addition, the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the islam with the nazism.

The Court of Appeal rendered judgment as a consequence of a number of complaints about the non-prosecution of Wilders for his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. The complainants did not agree with the decision of the public prosecution which decided not to give effect to their report against Wilders.

The public prosecution is of the view, amongst others, that part of the statements of Wilders do not relate to a group of worshippers, but consists of criticism as regards the Islamic belief, as a result of which neither the self-esteem of this group of worshippers is affected nor is this group brought into discredit. Some statements of Wilders can be regarded as offending, but since these were made (outside the Dutch Second Chamber) as a contribution to a social debate there is no longer a ground for punishableness of those statements according to the public prosecution.

The Court of Appeal does not agree with this view of the public prosecution and the considerations which form the basis of this view.

           The Court of Appeal has considered that the contested views of Wilders (also as shown in his movie Fitna) constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law as seen in connection with each other, both because of their contents and the method of presentation. This method of presentation is characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created. According to the Court of Appeal most statements are insulting as well since these statements substantially harm the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers. According to the Court of Appeal Wilders has indeed insulted the Islamic worshippers themselves by affecting the symbols of the Islamic belief as well.

Secondly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether a possible criminal prosecution or conviction would be admissible according to the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court based thereon, which considers the freedom of expression of paramount importance. The Court of Appeal has concluded that the initiation of a criminal prosecution and a possible conviction later on as well, provided that it is proportionate, does not necessarily conflict with the freedom of expression of Wilders, since statements which create hate and grief made by politicians, taken their special responsibility into consideration, are not permitted according to European standards either.

Thirdly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether criminal prosecution of Wilders because of his statements would be opportune in the Dutch situation (the question of opportunity). According to the Court of Appeal the instigation of hatred in a democratic society constitutes such a serious matter that a general interest is at stake in order to draw a clear boundary in the public debate.

           As regards the insult of a group the Court of Appeal makes a distinction. In general the Court determines that the traditional Dutch culture of debating is based on tolerance of each others views to a large extent while Islamic immigrants may be expected to have consideration for the existing sentiments in the Netherlands as regards their belief, which is partly at odds with Dutch and European values and norms. As regards insulting statements the Court of Appeal prefers the political, public and other legal counter forces rather than the criminal law, as a result of which an active participation to the public debate, by moslims as well, is promoted.

           However, the Court of Appeal makes an exception as regards insulting statements in which a connection with Nazism is made (for instance by comparing the Koran with “Mein Kampf”). The Court of Appeal considers this insulting to such a degree for a community of Islamic worshippers that a general interest is deemed to be present in order to prosecute Wilders because of this.

           The Court of Appeal concludes that the way in which the public debate about controversial issues is held, such as the immigration and integration debate, does not fall within the ambit of the law in principle indeed, but the situation changes when fundamental boundaries are exceeded. Then criminal law does appear as well.

Otherwise, the Court of Appeal emphasizes that this is a provisional judgment in the sense that Wilders has not been convicted in this suit of complaint. The Court of Appeal has only judged whether there are sufficient indications – at the level of a reasonable suspicion – to start a criminal prosecution against Wilders. The penal judge who will ultimately render judgment in a public criminal trial will answer the question if there is ground for conviction, and if so, to which extent.


LJ Nummer
BH0496


Bron: Gerechtshof Amsterdam
Datum actualiteit: 21 januari 2009

http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Amsterdam+Court+of+Appeal+orders+the+criminal+prosecution+of+the+Member+of+Parliament+of+the+Dutch+S.htm
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top