Text 13323, 137 rader
Skriven 2010-12-18 10:29:01 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Geert Wilders
=====================
Hello Roy,

On Friday December 17 2010 15:16, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> 2) They were not all Muslims.

 RW> So Wilders picked on some other culture he didn't like.

Some others jumped on the bandwagon.

 MvdV>>>> So they charged him with seeding hatred.

 RW>>> Which he was/is guilty of.

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

 RW> Then you're wrong. If they're innocent, why does your law enforcement
 RW> require bail before they release you? You say; to ensure that the
 RW> 'innocent' person appears in court. If the innocent are innocent, then
 RW> they should be trustworthy enough to be released on their own
 RW> recognisance.

Innocent and trustworthy are too different things.

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

 RW>>> Dumbass.

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

 RW> Obviously the case has some merit, as the court proceedings have been
 RW> ongoing beyond what the prosecuter would like it to be.

How the case proceeeds is not completely in the hands of the prosecution. once
started, procedure has to be followed or else it could be a mistrial.

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

 RW>>> Of course, they were in the right.

 MvdV>> That remains to be seen.

 RW> If there are anti-descrimination laws in Holland, then they are well
 RW> within their rights to seek a legal remedy.

Sure. That is what I wrote before: everyone has the right to present his case
to court. Does not mean he will win the case.


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

 RW> To the point where he has created rioting by those he derides? Free
 RW> speech doesn't mean he has the right to do that.

Riots? What riots did Wilders create?

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

 RW> One would have to actually be there to witness what they said,

It was all on TV...


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

 RW> Too bad none of it will spill over to our news sources.

Why? It's a storm in a tea cup.

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

 RW> That's interesting. The prosecuter should aggressively persue the
 RW> prosecution and make sure Wilders' found guilty.

That is not how it works in this country. The job of the prosecution is not to
get a conviction per se. Its job is to seek justice. In most cases this equates
to seeking a conviction. But not always. As in this case.

 RW> But then, Wilders would find that a reason to seek more publicity.

Wilders sate tha any outcome other than his acquital would mean that he is
treated unjustly. IOW, he has no faith in the system.

Of course he does not hesitate to appeal to the same system when it suits hos
agenda...

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

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

 RW> We have the same freedom, but you can be charged with inciting to riot
 RW> and/or racial or homosexual descrimination by some things you say.

It is more or less the same here. I do not think everyone has ever been
convicted for inciting riot, just by vocal means though. And convictions for
discrimination in speech have been rare. Especially when it concerns
politicians. I can recal only one case. The case of extreme right wing
politician Janmaat who said something nasty about jews. That was 30 years ago
and he his fine was some EUR 100.

It is not entirely impossible to get convicted for what you say in this
country, but it is very hard...

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

 MvdV>> There is no law against racial bias in speeches. There are laws
 MvdV>> against discrimination though.

Plus that there is a law against seeding hatred. That is the main accusation
this time.

 MvdV>> We obviously have a conflict between the corns on somebodies toes
 MvdV>> and the right of free speech. I expect free speech to prevail.

 RW> It should.

It will.

Cheers, Michiel

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