Text 13302, 107 rader
Skriven 2010-12-17 13:08:16 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 13286 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Geert Wilders
=====================
Hello Roy,

On Thursday December 16 2010 16:48, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> You left out the prequal. There were TWO trials. Some long
 MvdV>> toed radicals wanted Wilders curbed.

 RW> Muslims. It's only natural that someone who's degrading a race of
 RW> people would want to have him silenced.

1) "Muslim" is not a race. Some claim it is a religion. Wilders claims it is a
culture.

2) They were not all Muslims.

 MvdV>> So they charged him with seeding hatred.

 RW> Which he was/is guilty of.

Says you. We say: innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 MvdV>> The DA rejected the charges and refused to prosecute.

 RW> Dumbass.

How so? A DA is not always compelled to prosucute. He/she is authorized to drop
a case if he/she thinks it has no merit.

 MvdV>> The long toowed radicals then took the DA to court to force him
 MvdV>> to prosecute. They won THAT case.

 RW> Of course, they were in the right.

That remains to be seen.

 MvdV>> The case that started Oct 4th, is the follow up case where the
 MvdV>> procution was forced to prosecute. In that case, we had the odd
 MvdV>> situation that both the defence and the prosecution asked for
 MvdV>> an acquittal. Much to the dismay of the long towed radicals
 MvdV>> that started the whole thing.

 RW> No doubt, they hadn't received justice.

I understand why they are pissed off. Wilders has some despicable ideas. I do
not like what he says. But I will defend his right to say it...

 RW>>> The judges were dismissed because Wilders' claimed that they
 RW>>> were biased against him and asked for a new set of judges be
 RW>>> assigned.

 MvdV>> That part you got right. Although it was going for an acquittal
 MvdV>> Wilders requested new judges. Officially because he claimed
 MvdV>> they were biased.

 RW> Which they probably were.

The ruling of the appeal court was that although they has no reason to believe
that in fact there was bias, the defendants fear that they were biased was
justified.

 MvdV>> Unofficially to get media attention...

 RW> And you know this because?

Observation. Media attention is what politicians want. Media attention is what
Wilders got. And he will get more, lots more in the redo.

 RW>>> Apparently somebody agreed with Wilders because the judges are
 RW>>> no longer sitting on the bench.

 MvdV>> True. In a few month, there will be a new trial in which again
 MvdV>> there will be an acquittal...

 RW> Maybe.

Almost certainly. Although there will be new judges, the prosecution will be
the same. And so it stands to reason that in the redo the prosecution will
again ask for an acquittal. And of course the defence will do the same. In
theory it is possible that the court will rule otherwise, but this is highly
unlikely.

 RW>>> It's a free speach issue where the government is trying to
 RW>>> silence him by charging him with 'incite to hatred'.

 MvdV>> Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is not the government that tries to
 MvdV>> silence Wilders. It is those long towed radicals.

 RW> Can't blame them for wanting a racially biased person silenced.

Understandable. .. However... this is a free country. We still have free
speach. And there is a conflict...

 MvdV>> Everyone has the right to take his case to court. The long
 MvdV>> towed radicals are using that right. And in all likehood will
 MvdV>> loose...

 RW> Not if there are laws against racial bias in public speeches.

There is no law against racial bias in speeches. There are laws against
discrimination though. We obviously have a conflict between the corns on
somebodies toes and the right of free speech. I expect free speech to prevail.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)