News9 mins ago
Freedom Of Speech
The final statement of Geert Wilders at his trial;
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
One of the comments touches on why we find this new world movement is emerging
"Sadly the inability of the Left to stop before they create catastrophe has always led to awful times in the past. All so unnecessary if these people were just prepared to deal with life as it is, rather than within a bubble. "
"Sadly the inability of the Left to stop before they create catastrophe has always led to awful times in the past. All so unnecessary if these people were just prepared to deal with life as it is, rather than within a bubble. "
The closing statement has over 3,200 words.
I think the problem we're going to have in this discussion is that not all of us have the time to not only read it all, but to come up with an analysis on what Wilders has said.
I will leave this, because the statement is so substantial, it would be an injustice to just pick bits of it, and comment.
I think the problem we're going to have in this discussion is that not all of us have the time to not only read it all, but to come up with an analysis on what Wilders has said.
I will leave this, because the statement is so substantial, it would be an injustice to just pick bits of it, and comment.
Yeah right Mickey. It is only recently that it all came out about Bliar to verify the beliefs of the majority. The Bliar and Bottler Government was not really labour in my opinion neither was the Camoron Government. Jury is still out on May (but not looking good). What they all are is members of the Westminster liberal elite, a bunch of self serving career politicians and so called intellectuals and luvvies who think they know better. Between them they attempted to wreck the country, as now admitted by Noo Labour.
It seems you are locked in a peculiar time warp and for some reason unable to see the bigger picture, unlike many working class labour voters.
Also you dont seem to get, along with all the liberal elite, that you and your views are the cause of the rise of the far right. So congratulations for helping to create the mess we find ourselves in.
Free speech must remain, we must be able to voice our concerns without you all slating us as racists or knuckle draggers or whatever your latest snooty put down is.
It seems you are locked in a peculiar time warp and for some reason unable to see the bigger picture, unlike many working class labour voters.
Also you dont seem to get, along with all the liberal elite, that you and your views are the cause of the rise of the far right. So congratulations for helping to create the mess we find ourselves in.
Free speech must remain, we must be able to voice our concerns without you all slating us as racists or knuckle draggers or whatever your latest snooty put down is.
YMB
But aren't there also millions of people (who don't work or live I. Westminster, nor who are 'luvvies') who also believe in liberalism?
I don't think that they should be discounted. They are ordinary folk who simply don't agree with the doctrine of the 'alt-right'.
They have always been here, and always will be. Without opposition to the Right, we enter a weird one-sided bastardisation of democracy.
But aren't there also millions of people (who don't work or live I. Westminster, nor who are 'luvvies') who also believe in liberalism?
I don't think that they should be discounted. They are ordinary folk who simply don't agree with the doctrine of the 'alt-right'.
They have always been here, and always will be. Without opposition to the Right, we enter a weird one-sided bastardisation of democracy.
"Orderlimit....I don't recall anyone saying that when Labour won by a landslide in 1997....and then again in 2001, and 2005."
The Labour administration of those years cannot, in anybody's wildest dreams, be described as "The Left" as I understand it. Profligate and irresponsible with other people's money they may have been, inept and incapable of running a whelk stall may also be descriptions levied at them by some, devious and underhand, probably. But "Left Wing" they were not.
The Labour administration of those years cannot, in anybody's wildest dreams, be described as "The Left" as I understand it. Profligate and irresponsible with other people's money they may have been, inept and incapable of running a whelk stall may also be descriptions levied at them by some, devious and underhand, probably. But "Left Wing" they were not.
I have just read Wilder's statement in it's entirety and what a bloody good speech it is. Reading it in print probably doesn't do it justice either and I can imagine him giving a rousing, passionate and courageous defence.
Unfortunately, despite the many good points, chunks of the content is likely to get the court's backs up not because of inaccuracies in the facts moreso the tone in parts.
It is a clever, articulately worded speech albeit a little repetetive, though this tactic is designed to accentuate the impact of certain detail.
He states that this is a political matter and should not be dragged through the legal channels and who decides 'intolerance'? (the same point vetuste_ennemi raised on another thread this week.)
Wilders comments that if he is convicted then the prosecutors will be very busy as millions of people agree with him! Again, pricking the court's conscience or simply sealing his fate?
I don't think I have ever seen such a stirring defence of freedom and freedom of speech, or at least for an extremely long time.
He should be commended for taking such a brave stand but courage he has known in abundance. Not because he continues to put his head above the parapet and states what many are afraid to say because of the consequences. Wilders has spent twelve years living in protection and fear.
As he states, the tide is changing. Brexit and in the US and in the future: Austria, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands itself.
The elite's bubble is bursting and the people are finding their voice. Wilders is absolutely correct in many elements of his speech which, if given by anyone less controversial, would have received rave reviews.
Alas, for Wilders as he mentions, judgment has probable already been made against him. He won't be silenced and nor should he. Millions around Europe think like him but the difference is he speaks out
If we cannot have individuals who are determined to make a stand where others cannot or refuse to do so, despite having the same beliefs, will be the day that freedoms die.
Unfortunately, despite the many good points, chunks of the content is likely to get the court's backs up not because of inaccuracies in the facts moreso the tone in parts.
It is a clever, articulately worded speech albeit a little repetetive, though this tactic is designed to accentuate the impact of certain detail.
He states that this is a political matter and should not be dragged through the legal channels and who decides 'intolerance'? (the same point vetuste_ennemi raised on another thread this week.)
Wilders comments that if he is convicted then the prosecutors will be very busy as millions of people agree with him! Again, pricking the court's conscience or simply sealing his fate?
I don't think I have ever seen such a stirring defence of freedom and freedom of speech, or at least for an extremely long time.
He should be commended for taking such a brave stand but courage he has known in abundance. Not because he continues to put his head above the parapet and states what many are afraid to say because of the consequences. Wilders has spent twelve years living in protection and fear.
As he states, the tide is changing. Brexit and in the US and in the future: Austria, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands itself.
The elite's bubble is bursting and the people are finding their voice. Wilders is absolutely correct in many elements of his speech which, if given by anyone less controversial, would have received rave reviews.
Alas, for Wilders as he mentions, judgment has probable already been made against him. He won't be silenced and nor should he. Millions around Europe think like him but the difference is he speaks out
If we cannot have individuals who are determined to make a stand where others cannot or refuse to do so, despite having the same beliefs, will be the day that freedoms die.
Togo
So was he talking about Moroccans who are unemployed or criminals, or fraudsters or just generally Moroccans?
If he was saying that he would get rid of undesirable Moroccans, that's one thing, but if he's generalising about Moroccans...hmm.
Tell you what - in situations like this, I always try swapping the defining noun (in this case 'Moroccans') for 'Jews' to see how it reads.
Not well. Not well at all.
So was he talking about Moroccans who are unemployed or criminals, or fraudsters or just generally Moroccans?
If he was saying that he would get rid of undesirable Moroccans, that's one thing, but if he's generalising about Moroccans...hmm.
Tell you what - in situations like this, I always try swapping the defining noun (in this case 'Moroccans') for 'Jews' to see how it reads.
Not well. Not well at all.
//But - can we get some context. What did Wilders actually say that saw him in court?//
Addressing his party at their conference he asked the audience if they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands, SP. That's the "hate speech".
And the context for the question is the universally acknowledged fact that Morocccans are disproportionally represented in the crime statistics. One of those crimes is homophobic attacks in the European capital of "liberal" values Amsterdam and other cities.
Addressing his party at their conference he asked the audience if they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands, SP. That's the "hate speech".
And the context for the question is the universally acknowledged fact that Morocccans are disproportionally represented in the crime statistics. One of those crimes is homophobic attacks in the European capital of "liberal" values Amsterdam and other cities.
Also from the GI earlier this year:-
The remarks Wilders made about Moroccans, as they target only one nationality rather than immigration in general, may sound ill-judged or distasteful to some. But do Wilders's comments, that there should be fewer Moroccans, actually incite hatred or violence? His remarks do not suggest that people attack Moroccans or that people should hate Moroccans; they simply suggest that there should be lower levels of immigration from Morocco.
While Wilder's comments could certainly be convincingly portrayed as preying on people's anti-immigration sentiment, does that actually make them an insult to Moroccans, or is he simply supporting policies he thinks would benefit his country? As Wilders himself said in court last week, "What if someone had said, 'Fewer Syrians?'"
As a society, individuals are responsible for their actions, so if someone acts upon a distortion of Wilders's words, or is violent because of them, Wilders should not be held responsible for their actions, even if he might choose his words more carefully in the future. A line is dangerous to draw: if we start criminalizing people who have anti-immigration views, poorly expressed or not, then where do we stop?
Is it also possible that because Wilders is labelled as politically "far right," people on the political "left," instead of proposing counterarguments, would like to shut him up by branding him a "racist"?
Here are several more statements, none from Wilders; no one who said them has been prosecuted:
"We also have s*** Moroccans over here." Rob Oudkerk, a Dutch Labour Party (PvDA) politician.
"We must humiliate Moroccans." Hans Spekman, PvDA politician.
"Moroccans have the ethnic monopoly on trouble-making." Diederik Samsom, PvDA politician.
One can see that these statements by politicians of the Labour Party, which is one of the current governing parties of the Netherlands, are more inciting, condemnable statements against Moroccans than anything Wilders has said. Yet no prosecution has been initiated against these individuals.
Would it not be better to discuss a nuanced immigration policy openly, like adults, and thereby eliminate prejudice through rational argument?
Prosecuting Wilders has only emboldened the anti-immigrationists, making them less responsive to reason and discussion. Ironically, this trial has moved many left-liberals, who might be criticizing his views, instead to defend his fundamental rights.
The remarks Wilders made about Moroccans, as they target only one nationality rather than immigration in general, may sound ill-judged or distasteful to some. But do Wilders's comments, that there should be fewer Moroccans, actually incite hatred or violence? His remarks do not suggest that people attack Moroccans or that people should hate Moroccans; they simply suggest that there should be lower levels of immigration from Morocco.
While Wilder's comments could certainly be convincingly portrayed as preying on people's anti-immigration sentiment, does that actually make them an insult to Moroccans, or is he simply supporting policies he thinks would benefit his country? As Wilders himself said in court last week, "What if someone had said, 'Fewer Syrians?'"
As a society, individuals are responsible for their actions, so if someone acts upon a distortion of Wilders's words, or is violent because of them, Wilders should not be held responsible for their actions, even if he might choose his words more carefully in the future. A line is dangerous to draw: if we start criminalizing people who have anti-immigration views, poorly expressed or not, then where do we stop?
Is it also possible that because Wilders is labelled as politically "far right," people on the political "left," instead of proposing counterarguments, would like to shut him up by branding him a "racist"?
Here are several more statements, none from Wilders; no one who said them has been prosecuted:
"We also have s*** Moroccans over here." Rob Oudkerk, a Dutch Labour Party (PvDA) politician.
"We must humiliate Moroccans." Hans Spekman, PvDA politician.
"Moroccans have the ethnic monopoly on trouble-making." Diederik Samsom, PvDA politician.
One can see that these statements by politicians of the Labour Party, which is one of the current governing parties of the Netherlands, are more inciting, condemnable statements against Moroccans than anything Wilders has said. Yet no prosecution has been initiated against these individuals.
Would it not be better to discuss a nuanced immigration policy openly, like adults, and thereby eliminate prejudice through rational argument?
Prosecuting Wilders has only emboldened the anti-immigrationists, making them less responsive to reason and discussion. Ironically, this trial has moved many left-liberals, who might be criticizing his views, instead to defend his fundamental rights.
Latest Posts
News12 mins ago
And Even More Good News From Labour.
News18 mins ago
Brexit Hit To Uk Trade Less Than...
News19 mins ago
