Dutch Populist Lawmaker Wilders Convicted of Anti-Moroccan Chants

Mr. Wilders was convicted of insulting and inciting discrimination against Moroccans. Apparently, at a political meeting, Wilders asked supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. That sparked a chant of "Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!" — to which he replied, "we'll take care of it." Sounds like nasty words but not incitement to imminent violence.

The Dutch Court concluded that "[f]reedom of speech can be limited, for example to protect the rights and freedoms of others, and that is what this case is about." IMHO, the Court in the Wilders case hollowed out freedom of speech. Hard to believe that a court in an educated and mature first world country, like the Netherlands, could decide free speech should be so limited. The answer to "bad" or "disagreeable" speech is more speech. I accept and embrace Brandenburg v, Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) where the Supreme Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

I get it. I am sure that Moroccans in general, and especially those Moroccans living in the Netherlands, were not amused by Mr. Wilders' call and response chants. However, here in the US, most still believe that no group has the right to NOT be offended by the speech of another.

PS This story sounds like an Orwell novel (such as Animal Farm).

PPS Further, the court found insufficient evidence to find Wilders guilty of incitement to hatred.

CNN link to the story: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/europe/geert-wilders-hate-speech-trial-verdict/

======================================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/12/09/world/europe/ap-eu-netherlands-wilders.html

AMSTERDAM — Populist anti-Islam lawmaker Geert Wilders was found guilty Friday of insulting and inciting discrimination against Moroccans, a conviction he immediately slammed as a "shameful" attack on free speech and an attempt to "neutralize" him.
Presiding Judge Hendrik Steenhuis said the court would not impose a sentence because the conviction was punishment enough for a democratically elected lawmaker.
Wilders was not in court for the verdict that came just over three months before national elections. His Party for Freedom is narrowly leading a nationwide poll of polls and has risen in popularity during the trial.
Wilders quickly released a video message, in English and Dutch, slamming the judgment and vowing to appeal.
"Today, I was convicted in a political trial which, shortly before the elections, attempts to neutralize the leader of the largest and most popular opposition party," Wilders said. "They will not succeed."
The politically charged prosecution centered on comments Wilders made before and after the Dutch municipal elections in 2014. At one meeting in a Hague cafe, he asked supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. That sparked a chant of "Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!" — to which he replied, "we'll take care of it."
Prime Minister Mark Rutte, speaking after the verdict, underscored that he and his Liberal Party would not consider forming a coalition with the Party for Freedom unless Wilders retracts the comments.
"That is our stance and it remains our stance," Rutte said at his weekly press conference.
Prosecutors say that Wilders, who in 2011 was acquitted at another hate speech trial for his outspoken criticism of Islam, overstepped the limits of free speech by specifically targeting Moroccans.
He had insisted he was performing his duty as a political leader by pointing out a problem in society.
On Friday, he was convicted for the interaction with the crowd of supporters in the Hague cafe, which judges said was carefully orchestrated and broadcast on national television. He was acquitted for similar comments he made in a radio interview a week earlier, which the judges said did NOT [emphasis added] amount to inciting hatred.
Steenhuis stressed that freedom of expression was not on trial.
"Freedom of speech is one of the foundations of our democratic society," the judge said. But he added: "Freedom of speech can be limited, for example to protect the rights and freedoms of others, and that is what this case is about." [emphasis added]
Abdou Menebhi, president of the Euro-Mediterranean Center for Migration and Development, welcomed the judgment.
"For us, it's a very important verdict," he told The Associated Press. "This gives the Moroccans who felt like victims a renewed belief in a democratic society."
He said it also sent a message to Wilders' supporters.
"This man is not looking for solutions for you," Menebhi said. "His is an ideology of smearing Europe, migrants, Muslims, without offering alternatives."

I find the European concept of free speech troubling. I much prefer our wider right.

Agreed.

ska said:

I find the European concept of free speech troubling. I much prefer our wider right.

RealityForAll said:

Agreed.

ska said:

I find the European concept of free speech troubling. I much prefer our wider right.

Agreed. That's why I find it maddening when the idiot we just elected president tweets the following regarding an action protected as free speech by our Constitution.

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"

Jail? ...Loss of Citizenship? ...Really?

What have we done!!!

Agreed.

stucco said:

RealityForAll said:

Agreed.

ska said:

I find the European concept of free speech troubling. I much prefer our wider right.

Agreed. That's why I find it maddening when the idiot we just elected president tweets the following regarding an action protected as free speech by our Constitution.

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"

Jail? ...Loss of Citizenship? ...Really?

What have we done!!!