Thanks again to everyone who read the article and, in particular, to those who entered the fray.

I’ll see you in the future!

Thanks so much for your responses.

The key issue for the Dutch is whether or not one believes that Wilders’s key claim – that there is an intrinsic relationship between Islam and terrorism – should be classified as a scientific proposition to be debated or if the topic itself is essentially toxic to democracy. If the latter, then someone who tries to discuss it publicly, i.e. Wilders, is an enemy of the civility necessary for free speech in a democratic society. Issues of the content of every speech by Wilders and whether he made any references to skin color or his perceived hatred of other non-Dutch ethnicities (i.e., Jews) are then used to determine his intention – whether he is a bigot or a lover of democracy.

Various notes:
1. On freedom of speech: The Islam versus democracy debate is controversial. Some view it as a quarrel between “civilizations” (Samuel Huntington), some see it as a fight between fundamentalism and modernity (Paul Berman), some believe Islam intrinsically hostile to non-believers (Wafa Sultan), and many would classify the line of inquiry as xenophobia (pace Edward Said). Wafa Sultan’s case is an interesting one: her professor was murdered by the Muslim Brotherhood in front of his class. Sultan has been debated on Aljazeera for holding a position Wilders is being persecuted for espousing. In short, Aljazeera thinks that this issue can be debated, but many in the West do not. http://www.youtube.com/user/WafaSultan2008

2. On the issue of race and bigotry: I was struck recently by a BBC News story about a recent census in Nigeria. Nigeria is both the most “black” country in the world and, with over 250 ethnicities, one of the most factious. There was a recent controversy about
whether even asking people their ethnicity would rekindle the intra-Nigerian bigotry that has long plagued the country. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4512240.stm

In closing, I’d like to invoke Rodney King’s question: “People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?” King, you may recall, is an African-American man who was severely beaten by non-African-American members of the California Highway Patrol (CHiPs) for resisting arrest for DUI because it would be a violation of his parole for a robbery conviction. The broadcast of video of the incident ignited a series of riots in which there were “53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damages to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

First of all David, thanks for the compliments! Now we will sit under the table and blush for a while. Hey, there’s no escaping Dutch calvinism. Merit is ok but not too much, as the local saying goes: act normal, then you already act strange enough!

Now, turning right away to the Wilders’ prosecution. Wilders will probably be charged with violating Dutch penal code articles 137 d & e, I say ‘probably’ since the public prosecutor, after being ordered by the court to do so, has still not instigated prosecution. Here are the relevant articles:

art. 137c. 1. A person who publicly, either orally, or in writing, or by image, intentionally makes a defamatory statement about a group of persons on the grounds of their race , religion or personal beliefs, or their hetero- or homosexual orientation, is liable to a term of imprisonment of a period of not more than one year or a fine of the third category. [11-14-1991]
2. When the offence is committed by a person who makes it a profession or habit to do so or when the offence is committed by two or more persons in association, this is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than two years, or a fine of the fourth category.

art. 137d. 1. A person who publicly, either orally or in writing or by image, incites hatred of or discrimination against persons or violence against their person or property, on the grounds of their race, religion or personal beliefs, their sex or their hetero-or homosexual orientation is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than one year , or a fine of the third category. [11-4-1991]
2. When the offence is committed by a person who makes it a profession or habit to do so or when the offence is committed by two or more persons in association, this is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than two years, or a fine of the fourth category.

Looking at the material, I assume the Prosecutor will focus on ‘defamatory statements about a group of persons on the grounds of their religion’ (137e) and ‘incites hatred of or discrimination against persons or violence against their person or property, on the grounds of their religion’(137d-1),although in some instances Wilders made statements that refer to skin color.

So that’s the situation. None of his critical remarks about Islam or the Koran are covered by the penal code, and they shouldn’t. Being able to freely criticize religion is an important and fundamental right. We’re dealing here with a possible prosecution on the basis of discrimination and/or incitement to hatred or violence against a group of people because of their religion. Insults against a religion (blaspemy!) are not covered by article 137. To make it more complicated, the Netherlands actually still has an anti-blasphemy law on the books, but it is a dead letter that has not been used since the fifties. Nor does any sane prosecutor or politician want to revive it. See our publication ‘Blaspemous matter’ over here: http://www.magenta.nl/news#blasphemy

The latest in the Wilders saga: although Geert Wilders prides himself on being a friend of Israel and the Jews, his ‘Party for freedom’ faction in the European Parliament (one MEP) participated in a meeting last week with the right wing extremists in the EP: Le Pen/Front National, BNP, Flemish Block and others, of which some notable Holocaust deniers and antisemites. Seems like Wilders’ stance on Israel and his philosemitism do not ring quite true. You can read the full story on the meeting in the New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/07/party-griffin-bnp-european

As for your points on freedom of speech versus hate speech laws: it is an old and heated debate. If you want to know my stance on it have a look at these two speeches:
http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2008/11/and-sun-kept-shining-over-auschwitz.html
http://www.inach.net/content/speech-ronald-eissens-INACH-berlin-conference-2007.pdf

I don’t think I should post those here, they’re quite large.

Lastly, hate speech laws are not a cure, I grant you that. We need them to a certain extent to protect people. Even U.S. legislation agrees that some speech is harmful. So what is the real cure? Education.

Best wishes,

Ronald Eissens

I personally think that the more eclectic society gets, the better. That does require cosmopolitanism, or some framework of openness that says we’re better of with more voices, not less, and dismisses cultural purity for the bullshit it is.

Suzette Brunkhorst and Ronald Eissens are heroes, activists in the best sense of the word. They saw injustice and have acted with every resource at their disposal to stop it.

I hope she recovers well and swiftly. They’ve done a world of good and I have no doubt that they’ll do much more.

What’s all the more impressive is that they’ve done so without being wealthy, without being leaders of a major country or influential politicians. They’ve done it through hard work, organizing, innovation and pure guts.

Hell, they pulled off an airlift in the middle of the Bosnian war! And then shipped food into a warzone by boat! If everyone who wanted to change the world had that attitude, that tenacity, if everyone who wanted a more just society managed half as much, we’d be monumentally closer to seeing those dreams a reality. I also respect immensely their “take on all comers” attitude towards discrimination. It’s far too rare.

That said, they’re dead wrong on hate speech laws, which end up being both repressive and ineffective.

This section of the Dutch law (there are similar ones throughout Europe and Canada) draws the definition of incitement of violence, or speech that “restricts another’s freedom,” in an extremely broad manner. It can cover cartoons or films made by right-wing MPs

Are the above examples noxious racist crap? Yes. But barring direct provocation to violence, that shouldn’t be illegal. No citizen in a free society should have to go before judges or bureaucrats to justify why their speech shouldn’t be banned when someone files a complaint. Even if they’re wrong and even if it’s hateful dreck.

While such laws often come from understandable outrage, they have a nasty tendency to spread. that’s exactly what’s happened with the Dutch code. In 1971, they passed the first, fairly strictly defined, hate speech laws. In response to a wave of anti-semitism in the 80s and 90s, anti-Holocaust denial laws came into effect. Then in 1994 far-right politicians were prosecuted for their views.

Now, in the current day, Geert Wilders (aforementioned MP) is facing charges not just for “inciting hatred” but for “insults.” So not getting your feelings hurt is now a human right? Brunkhorst and Eissens are, correctly, against blasphemy laws, but if there’s a difference between those and being prosecuted for speech that would supposedly “substantially harm the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers” I’m not seeing it.

No society has absolute free speech, about that they’re correct, but where that line is drawn makes a huge difference. I think the Netherlands, or any country with hate speech laws, have gone way past the few necessary restrictions (on fighting words and threats) and into territory that gives government far too much power. Such laws are easily abused, and I shudder to think what a hard-right government would do with that authority.

Importantly, the hate speech laws also don’t seem to have stopped or slowed the problem they’re intended to combat. By both Brunkhorst and Eissen’s admission, it’s actually gotten worse. The work that the Magenta Foundation does to track online hate, something similar to what the Southern Poverty Law Center does over here with racist groups, is sorely needed. But Invoking the law to remove a tirade on the internet doesn’t mean the racist, or the hatred, goes away. They just retreat farther underground, making them harder to track, harder to call out and finally, giving them a rebel’s cachet they don’t deserve.

There are a lot of issues with how the US has handled racism, and it’s still endemic in many areas of our society, but one of the reasons that, as Jeff points out, “racial bigotry has long since fallen into disrepute” was because open racist hate, legal under the First Amendment, is easier to track, discredit and combat.

It is still a battle, but I think that approach has worked far better than “these things are too horrible for anyone to hear or see. You’re fined and here’s a year in prison.” Let the assholes have their say — and then fight them. Yes, atrocity begins with words. So does its cure.

Agent Double Oh No, I greatly appreciate your tone when interviewing. No sucking-up or fucking around. Just honest queries. I imagine, some might see it as caustic. I applaud. Opposite side of the same coin: Ronald’s immediate answering back with the same gravity deserves hefty respect. Sugar-coating gets us nowhere.

I’ve oft referred to myself as an “inhabitant of the world”. Patriotism irks me to no end. There are no borders. As has popped up here in COILHOUSE before, “There is no fucking ‘they’.” The EARTH is our motherland. I can’t help but row with cynicism over a world-wide nation…minus the creepy globalisation stuffs, but I long for it.

I’m reminded of Bill Hicks’ excellent bit on the subject: “I was over in Australia and everyone’s like “Are you proud to be an American?” And I was like, “Um, I don’t know, I didn’t have a lot to do with it. You know, my parents fucked there, that’s about all. You know, I was in the spirit realm at that time, going ‘FUCK IN PARIS! FUCK IN PARIS!’ but they couldn’t hear me, because I didn’t have a mouth. I was a spirit without lungs or a mouth, or vocal cords. They fucked here. Okay, I’m proud.’”

I think it’ll take much longer than anyone suspects, to reach the point where “race”/gender/sexual orientation/religion/whateverelsewe’refightingabout no longer separates us, but we can damn sure start, here, now.

And congratulations with your new president, whatever he does, thinking of who were before him, he can only be a succes!
May he(and you people) live long and prosper!

Big Smiles from Denmark! :D