After being acquitted by a Dutch court of five criminal charges of hate speech against Muslims, parliamentarian Geert Wilders told reporters: “This is not so much a win for myself, but a victory for freedom of speech.” While Wilders was understandably happy and relieved he is not going to be spending the next 16 months behind bars, the significance of his victory seems overstated.
As I wrote in the Corner on October 17, “The Wilders case demonstrates the continued willingness of authorities in Europe’s most liberal countries to regulate the content of speech on Islam in order to placate Muslim blasphemy demands.” Wilders’ acquittal does not change that.
The presiding judge in the case determined that Wilders’s remarks were sometimes “hurtful,” “shocking,” and “offensive.” But the Court of Amsterdam reached its decision, as Reuters reported, by noting that “they were made in the context of a public debate about Muslim integration and multiculturalism, and therefore not a criminal act.” Thus, this case was decided on the basis that Wilders’s remarks were made in the proper context — in an ongoing public debate on specifically legitimate issues. Using this subjective criterion, the court evaluated the content of Wilders’ words to determine that they were lawful. In another context, or evaluated by another court, they might not be.
Wilders is not the first Dutch parliamentarian to have faced anti-Muslim hate-speech charges, and, based on today’s decision, he may not even be the last. Before Wilders, Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali was accused of hate speech against Muslims. In 2003, Hirsi Ali, a women’s rights activist born a Muslim in Somalia, was subject to a criminal investigation for hate speech for her statements linking Islam’s Prophet Mohammed to abuses against women in Muslim communities. While that case was dropped, she was subsequently forced to stand trial in a civil action in the Netherlands for hate speech after announcing plans for a film on the treatment of homosexuals in Islam, a prospect the complainant — Holland’s main Muslim lobbying group — found to both cause “a great deal of pain” and be “blasphemous.” The court did not rule against the defendant but merely reprimanded the MP for having “sought the borders of the acceptable.”
It would seem that the public comments of an influential parliamentarian, like Wilders and Hirsi Ali, would necessarily always be in the context of a public debate, even if his or her comments initiated that debate. Wilders essentially made that argument part of his defense, without avail.
Proceedings against Wilders were in their third year, after several false starts with the prosecutors first refusing to prosecute this case, then a ruling that the initial three judges hearing the trial demonstrated possible bias against Wilders, with a new trial ordered last October, and most recently an investigation into witness tampering by the judge who initially ordered the prosecution that ultimately found no judicial wrongdoing. The dogged adjudication of the Wilders case over the past 29 months shows that Dutch courts remain all too willing to regulate speech on behalf of Islam, even when public officials are talking about matters of public interest, publicly.
Moreover, the offences of “group insult” and “incitement to hatred,” set forth in articles 137 (c) and (d) of the Dutch penal code, remain on the books, and the Council of Europe and European Union require such laws in their member countries. These laws attempt to distinguish between speech against members of a religious minority, which is banned, and speech against the religion, itself, which is allowed. Wilders claimed his speech was the latter, while the court’s deliberations show that the two are easily blurred. Not even Wilders argued against the basic jurisprudence behind these laws.
Whether the Wilders case sets any useful legal precedent for an ordinary Dutch citizen is particularly doubtful. That Wilders has substantial political clout and conducted an effective international campaign to warn that “lights were going out” in Europe with such prosecutions no doubt helped his case, as the national Dutch media pointed out. Average Dutch citizens are very much left in the dark about what they can or can’t say about Islam with legal impunity. Then, there’s the matter of violence to consider; Wilders will continue to require bodyguards against those who have threatened him with death for blasphemy against Islam.
Even without a conviction in the Wilders case, the chilling effect on free speech on and within Islam continues to widen in Europe.
— Nina Shea is director of the Hudson Institute’s Center on Religious Freedom and co-author with Paul Marshall of the forthcoming Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedoms Worldwide.
"the offences of “group insult” and “incitement to hatred,” set forth in articles 137 (c) and (d) of the Dutch penal code, remain on the books"
If these are the standards then how is any teaching of the Koran allowed? The Koran's suggested management of "infidels" can hardly be considered anything but “group insult” and “incitement to hatred” can it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusejag: Exactly. Why aren't these "hate" speech statutes used against the Islamists in Holland?
The statutes would soon disappear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor the same reason the tax laws of the United States do not apply to Rangel & Geithner
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomeone should file a complaint against national leaders for speaking in favor of war with Libya, saying it is hurtful to Muslims.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe can only hope that Geert Wilders becomes prime minister of the Netherlands and proceeds to do away with fuzzy laws restricting free speech.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGiven the profound, even unimaginable wars, chaos and death that Europe experienced just in the past century, to preserve a way of life that centered on the notion of freedom, it boggles the mind that collective memory can be so fleeting. Is it actually a minority of so-called elitists who espouse dogmatic adherence to political correctness that promotes these suicidal laws? Or is the broad swath of Europe's population supportive of eliminating the very freedoms that so many fought and died for in the 20th Century? The subject or bone of contention at hand happens to be "insulting Islam." It could just as well be something completely different. This truly boggles the mind. And of course it therefore is disconcerting, to phrase it politely, to consider that there is indeed a stealth jihad underway in America that will lead in the same direction. Truly mind-boggling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse....what man learns from history is that man does not learn from history....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEurope did not actually fight for freedom during WWII. The United States and England did. Europe fell quickly (the "great" France in less than a month)with hardly a whimper to the Nazis. Without the US they would all be speaking German today. Europe is not the home of freedom, America is. All Europeans who wanted freedom left Europe for America during the past two hundred years. Those that remain care not for freedom.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis charade was never about convicting Geert. How could they? He was telling the God honest truth.
The goal was to have him serve as a warning to others who don’t have the time, money or inclination to defend themselves against elements in our society who don’t want us to hear the truth about this dismal “religion” called islam.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's extremely disappointing that the governmental powers in Europe would so easily, mindlessly, and without pause contort themselves such as to avoid offense to Muslims, thus trying to make themselves second-rate citizens in their own countries.
If they are not willing to defend free speech and other fundamental liberties, they don't deserve them, and will not keep them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan Europeans even BE incited to anger anymore? Besides responding to the outcome of a soccer match?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe European Papers are filled with commentary on Mr Wilders , 90% of it a depressingly familiar refrain of essentially, do not antagonize your enemy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Europeans do not seem to have the stomach for free speech if it means inconvenience and division. Truthfully free speech was never that important to them.
While this analysis is already far more complete than the first response of Mark Steyn in The Corner, the key points have to be made again and again for Americans.
1. Europe has experienced a political group rising to power by exciting hate against minorities. Overrunning with its armies nearly all countries and starting hunting for its favorite scapegoats: Gypsies, Homosexuals, Disabled Persons and above all Jews.
2. The Netherlands still has full Montesquean separation of the three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. In this case an Appeals Court in Amsterdam of the Judiciary branch ordered the Prosecuters to prosecute Wilders. To the dismay of both the Legislative and the Executive branch. But they could not stop the trial.
3. It is obvious there is a thin line between inciting hated against a religion's adherents vs critizing a Religion. In the Netherlands the 1960s created a jurisprudence where critising Christianity could go very, very far. Today the Courts are busy to define the limits for critising Islam. And again one is allowed to go very, very far.
4. Off course it is not funny to be subject of civil suits or criminal charges from easily offended Muslims as a politician. Those charges, first against Ayaan Hirsi Ali then against Geert Wilders, were brought because many people told Muslims that instead of death threats and backstabbing Theo van Gogh, they should bring court cases.
5. So they did just that and they ended up with empty hands repeatedly.
The result may be a victory for free speech, but also induce a lunatic who feels that the courts will not give him justice. So decides to take it in his own hands.
6. It might be helpful to signal that most of the hard-left terrorism of the late 1960s and early 1970s was due to people who rejected the court system, seeing it as "class justice". A renewed rejection of the Court System as biased is risky.
I am however curious about the legal articles / directives of the European Union where it is mentioned they require the existence of "hate speech laws". Could Nina Shea provide a pointer. Because I recall that articles 137(c) and 137(d) in Dutch Law were introduced in 1935, when there was an aggressive nation across the border under dictatorial control of a party that revelled in hate speech.
That country tried to create supporters for their branch of politics in The Netherlands too. Cheering them to go out in their black-shirts and engage in threatening acts against minorities in The Netherlands.
Will the United States of America introduce such laws too, when brownshirts are marching the streets and smashing the windows of Muslim shopkeepers in Dearborn, MI?
It is rather flattering for Nina Shea to call for a repeal of those hate speech laws from the armchair at the Hudson Institute. It must mean that she thinks Europe is way past its trauma from having generated the political excesses of National Socialism.
Many people in Europe will probably disagree and consider Wilders' PVV, Austria's FPÖ or Britains UKIP as too close to the well-known fascist parties who regularly operate with party riot militia: Vlaams Belang (Belgium), Front National (France), NPD (Germany) or the British National Party (UK).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMuslims have the Western world by the short hairs because some of them have used extreme violence to express displeasure.
In America, even our Attorney General has approved of threats of violence by certain groups (who've proven themselves by past violent acts).
The only possible conclusion to be made by regular citizens is that extreme violence gets you the results you want. It makes governments take you seriously, while paying taxes and abiding by the law merely makes them squeeze you harder. You see your taxes raised, you see the money going to the likes of Patty, Selma, and the Octomom.
It's pretty obvious that the fear tactics of Islamic extremists have worked. Let's see how many other groups derive inspiration from their proven success stories.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeter Halferding - Your comments are so sad. Feedom is not free. The people who would threaten others for expressing the truth about something are the real culprits. The real heroes here are people like Geert Wilders who are willing to expose Islam for what it is, which is a not a religion of peace but "religion" of submission to the will of the ummah (actually the tyrant controlling it). As I have repeatedly said, Islam is not a religion, it is a murderous political totalitarian ideology. Until and unless we realize that, the West will be doomed.
BTW Another point is that the Muslim call the places they rule, Dar es Salaam - the abode of peace - and the rest of the world, Dar al Charb - the abode of war. I think they have it backwards.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMs. Shea only barely really understands the Dutch situation and the history of the case. At the same time, oddly, even Dutch commenters here seem either to be avoiding the reality of Islamic influence on Dutch society, or refusing to acknowledge the significance of this particular case. Yes, Muslims should bring court cases instead of killing people. But if the end up with their hands empty, as Mr. Halferding complains, it is because they are attempting, also via the courts, to repeal some of the basic tenets of liberal democracy, of Western values. Whether they attempt to do this via the courts or via violence, it is imperative that we refuse those efforts in every possible way.
As for whether private citizens will be free to criticize Islam in the wake of the Wilders decision - yes, they will. But that does not mean that they will be safe -- any more than Wilders is safe. Such is the tragic state of affairs in the Netherlands today.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid NRO condemn the French rioters who recently vandalised the work of art, "P--- Christ"? Is this really about free speech, or is this about attacking Islam? After all, NRO supported suspending the First Amendment in order to halt construction of an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan. Freedom cuts both ways, you see.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWilder (and European society) doesn't truly win until laws like this are stricken from the books. What is stopping the filing of new "hate crimes" against him? None!
They should never had been there to begin with.
In the US "laws" like that would be unconstitutional. Not like that's going to stop some from trying (and maybe succeeding at it). Even our neighbor to the north has a law like the EU states have.
"Hate crime" laws have already caused erosion of the constitution. So taking more so called "rights" to protect groups from individuals could easily happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRich, remember that the USA "hate crime" is fundamentally different from the European.
In the USA, a "hate crime" is not an offense in itself; it is generally a senetencing severity enhancement to a "real" crime.
In much of Europe, however, a "hate crime" is an offense in mere speech, verging upon a thought crime.
To NRO: the location of your Captcha is ambiguous and confusing; it seems part of an advert.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCongratulations to Geert Wilders. This is an important victory for freedom of speech, victory that never should have been questioned and a trial that never should have happened.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMay I ask all of you to pray for me and support me. My trial in Austria is still ongoing; the verdict is currently being appealed.
Best, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff