Geert Wilders in the dock.

[Azrael]

There has been a constant stream of anti-islamic rhetoric in the Netherlands, I dont think there is any benefit to society in letting that go unchallenged, in letting a minority get constantly attacked.

It should be vigorously challenged: with words, not the criminal law. Persuasion instead of prosecution.

The courts are part of the state. A hands off part, but still a part. To my knowledge, Dutch courts have no juries, so in effect one employee of the state is being asked to approve the decision of another.

Even if Dutch courts are the embodiment of fairness and impartiality, you're still prosecuting a man for expressing an opinion, and that's death to democracy. Regression from the Marketplace of Ideas to the state censor.

 

[TomPaine]

To add to Azrael's post above, it can lead to the negative effect where by views which are repugnant, yet somehow protected are not challenged either.
There is some pretty vile stuff in the Koran for example, I would hate to think that academics would feel afraid to challenege scripture for fear of being locked up under hate speech laws. Whilst I am not aware of this happening with regards to religion directly here in the US, there was recently the case of a South African professor who was denined entry to the US for his out spoken comments against the Bush regime.

 

[Azrael]

So you now accept there is something more pernicious.

No, on balance the concept of "hate speech" is worse because, as I said, deep-down most people could work out that slinging people in the locked ward for wanting democracy was wrong.

 

[purplex]

The USA was a real place the last time I checked.

Hatred, vile as it is, is an emotion. You are punishing people for inciting an emotion, not an action. That's an incredibly slippery slope to be on. Definitions of "X hatred" will always be nebulous and broadly drawn, and consequently, such laws will frighten people into suppressing speech that is perfectly legal and legitimate.

I don't see why a multicultural society must have different "limits" than a monocultrual one. Bigots shouldn't be pushed underground because they won't stay there. Try to force the lid down on a pot and it'll boil over.

Just look at Fred Phelps of "gothatesfags" infamy. He'd now be gaoled in England, but in the USA he's descended into such depths of idiocy (picketing the funerals of US servicemen for being "fag enablers"!) that he's alienated just about everyone.

Then there's the law of unintended consequences. Banning "hate speech" makes bigots look moderate. The BNP have come to resemble a legitimate nationalist party not because their brethren had amazing self-restraint, but because they don't want to be locked up. Most people I've spoken to have no idea what sort of swivel-eyed lunatics actually inhabit the party they've just voted for.

Like all censorship, banning "hate speech" treats grown adults like children who need to be protected from themselves. It's not just the "Nazis" you're punishing; it's everyone.

You can focus purely on a few extremists without punishing everyone and setting a boundary of what is acceptable doesnt undermine the majority at all.

 

[Azrael]

There is some pretty vile stuff in the Koran for example, I would hate to think that academics would feel afraid to challenege scripture for fear of being locked up under hate speech laws.

Excellent point, this is exactly what I meant when I said that "such laws will frighten people into suppressing speech that is perfectly legal and legitimate". The English law against religious hatred shouldn't have this effect (after Labour MPs forgot to turn up, it was amended so that the speech must be "threatening" to fall foul of it) but then again, who knows, it might do.

I saw Ann Widdicombe speak a few days after it passed, and she rightly condemned the law, but ignored that fact that the Conservatives got the whole thing going by criminalising "incitement to racial hatred" and introducing an absurdly broad anti-harassment law. A Labour minister said that the laws against racial hatred had introduced the precedent that made the laws against religious hatred possible. Censor one opinion and you can't predict which one will be next.

Incitement to violence should be a criminal offence (as it is in America) but the law should be allowed to go no further.

You can focus purely on a few extremists without punishing everyone and setting a boundary of what is acceptable doesnt undermine the majority at all.

It undermines their ability to recognise and dismiss bigoted claptrap. And these laws grow ever broader: it doesn't stay restricted to "extremists". And even if it did, the laws don't work, rendering the whole exercise both dangerous and useless.

 

[purplex]

Excellent point, this is exactly what I meant when I said that "such laws will frighten people into suppressing speech that is perfectly legal and legitimate". The English law against religious hatred shouldn't have this effect (after Labour MPs forgot to turn up, it was amended so that the speech must be "threatening" to fall foul of it) but then again, who knows, it might do.

I saw Ann Widdicombe speak a few days after it passed, and she rightly condemned the law, but ignored that fact that the Conservatives got the whole thing going by criminalising "incitement to racial hatred" and introducing an absurdly broad anti-harassment law. A Labour minister said that the laws against racial hatred had introduced the precedent that made the laws against religious hatred possible. Censor one opinion and you can't predict which one will be next.

Incitement to violence should be a criminal offence (as it is in America) but the law should be allowed to go no further.

It undermines their ability to recognise and dismiss bigoted claptrap. And these laws grow ever broader: it doesn't stay restricted to "extremists". And even if it did, the laws don't work, rendering the whole exercise both dangerous and useless.

Well we dont have people like the hook populating london streets infecting impressionable young minds with their bile and the bnp have to be careful what they say now which for me is a good thing it doesnt inflame emotions at a time when we need to be building bridges not burning them.

 

[Azrael]

Well we dont have people like the hook populating london streets infecting impressionable young minds with their bile and the bnp have to be careful what they say now which for me is a good thing it doesnt inflame emotions at a time when we need to be building bridges not burning them.

Hamza was convicted under the Terrorism Act, amongst other things. You didn't need "speech crimes" to gaol him.

And the BNP have drawn unprecedented support precisely because they have to "watch what they say". Law of unintended consequences. If they were free to say "send the ******s home, no black in the Union Jack, kick the subhumans out!" etc, I imagine a great many of them would, and the public would see them for the vile, dribbling racialists that they are.

Can the USA not "build bridges"? I thought the Obama campaign had been about that very thing!

 

[TomPaine]

And the BNP have drawn unprecedented support precisely because they have to "watch what they say". Law of unintended consequences. If they were free to say "send the ******s home, no black in the Union Jack, kick the subhumans out!" etc, I imagine a great many of them would, and the public would see them for the vile, dribbling racialists that they are.

Exacly. BNP support has blossomed under Labour. Now obviously there are a variety of reasons for this, but I don't think Labour's attitude towards freedom of speech has worked particularly well at building bridges, nor upholding our right to protest etc. There are countless cases in the UK from all ends of the political spectrum where people have been punished for speaking out of line.
What I believe has happened is some members of the public see the hypocricy of the government actions and then reject everything as "PC nonsense", this in turn makes them a prime target for the BNP when reason is thrown out of the window.

 

[agricola]

Wilders is a hypocrite being hoist by his own petard, so you will forgive me if I am not especially bothered by this.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Hamza was convicted under the Terrorism Act, amongst other things. You didn't need "speech crimes" to gaol him.

And the BNP have drawn unprecedented support precisely because they have to "watch what they say". Law of unintended consequences. If they were free to say "send the ******s home, no black in the Union Jack, kick the subhumans out!" etc, I imagine a great many of them would, and the public would see them for the vile, dribbling racialists that they are.

So you think having racist sentiments as part of public discourse is acceptable?. Speech is just speech and never leads to actions?

 

[TomPaine]

Wilders is a hypocrite being hoist by his own petard, so you will forgive me if I am not especially bothered by this.

That is understandable, however if it does not go unchallenged by Dutch advocates of free speech then it isn't a particularly good sign.
What would be interesting would be to see a Muslim come out in defence of his right to free speech, it would also make this guy look like the idiot he evidently is.

 

[Azrael]

There are countless cases in the UK from all ends of the political spectrum where people have been punished for speaking out of line.

Including a protestor summonsed for calling Scientology a "cult". (Case dropped by the CPS.) To be fair, that was under the Public Order Act 1986, but Labour's attitude to free speech has been dismal, and genuinely scary.

What I believe has happened is some members of the public see the hypocricy of the government actions and then reject everything as "PC nonsense", this in turn makes them a prime target for the BNP when reason is thrown out of the window.

Yep. If the BNP were free in law to say what they think, there's a good chance they'd implode. The "tell it how (we think it) is" crowd vs. the Griffin "play it smooth" crowd. Both accuse the others of being "race traitors" and sell outs, and the vile organisation destroys itself in a grubby little civil war.

At the least, I doubt 800,000 people would have voted for them.

Wilders is a hypocrite being hoist by his own petard, so you will forgive me if I am not especially bothered by this.

As I said a page back, it's about defending a right, not a particular person or opinion. I don't know enough about Mr Wilders to comment on the allegations, but plenty more sympathetic cases will arise. To be effective you must defend them all.

If Mr Wilders is gaoled, I wonder if Amnesty International will take his case. Can't say I'm holding my breath.

 

[TomPaine]

So you think having racist sentiments as part of public discourse is acceptable?. Speech is just speech and never leads to actions?

People expressing racist views never has to be treated as "acceptable", but pushing it underground and criminalising it won't make it vanish. Challenging it in the public arena and showing up the arguments of people like Griffin to be wrong is the best approach in my opinion.

 

[sleaterkinney]

People expressing racist views never has to be treated as "acceptable", but pushing it underground and criminalising it won't make it vanish.

Not completely, but people don't become racist unless they are exposed to it and they won't do racist actions in a society where it is unacceptable to have racist views.

What about paedophilia, would your free speech cover that as well?

 

[Azrael]

So you think having racist sentiments as part of public discourse is acceptable?

Yes. So does the ACLU.

People aren't robots. Speech may influence them, but the are free agents who chose to take actions. "Hate speech" laws assume that people are children who can't control themselves.

I don't think the racialist views are acceptable. I've spent a good part of this thread condemning them in stronger language than I normally employ here, just so people are clear about that. I just don't think the law should have the power to create speech crimes.

President Obama's election shows that if you allow racialists to speak, they won't automatically control the public sphere.

 

[Azrael]

Not completely, but people don't become racist unless they are exposed to it and they won't do racist actions in a society where it is unacceptable to have racist views.

Legally unacceptable, perhaps. Socially unacceptable ... well, the law can only do so much. It can't be everywhere, or even close to it. The BNP's rise puts the lie to the "ban racialism = get rid of bigots" equation.

People can reject racialism. If they need to be bullied into it, God help us all.

What about paedophilia, would your free speech cover that as well?

How on earth do you figure that?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yes. So does the ACLU.

Ok....

People aren't robots. Speech may influence them, but the are free agents who chose to take actions. "Hate speech" laws assume that people are children who can't control themselves.

Yeah arguments do influence people, you're right.

I don't think the racialist views are acceptable. I've spent a good part of this thread condemning them in stronger language than I normally employ here, just so people are clear about that. I just don't think the law should have the power to create speech crimes.

So you can't imagine that speech would cause distress to anyone?.

President Obama's election shows that if you allow racialists to speak, they won't automatically control the public sphere.

Okay.....

 

[FridgeMagnet]

And the BNP have drawn unprecedented support precisely because they have to "watch what they say". Law of unintended consequences. If they were free to say "send the ******s home, no black in the Union Jack, kick the subhumans out!" etc, I imagine a great many of them would, and the public would see them for the vile, dribbling racialists that they are.

I'm sorry but this is just made up. You really think that if it weren't for incitement to racial hatred legislation the BNP would be out there waving "coons go home" placards? You don't think it might be a deliberate tactic that they don't do that (in public)?

 

[TomPaine]

Not completely, but people don't become racist unless they are exposed to it and they won't do racist actions in a society where it is unacceptable to have racist views.

Really? I don't think I believe that to be true in every case. I think as human's grow up they form their own opinions and attitudes to a variety of things, and some of them are simply insane and have had no or little outside stimulus. Of course being exposed to racism and indoctrinated with those ideals will probably lead to somebody harbouring those views, I'd be interested to know how you plan to stop parents doing this though and not teaching their kids they have to not mention it in public?
There where plenty of people who supported the black civil rights movement in the US because they realised the current attitude of the time was wrong. People in the US can express their opinions free from fear of prosecution for the most part and yet the majority of the US hasn't decide to go back to lynching black people and voting in Hitler cloans.

What about paedophilia, would your free speech cover that as well?

How exactly is raping a child "freedom of speech". Obviously forcing a child to perform sexual acts against their will/under the age of consent and then distributing those images has nothing to do with free speech....

 

[sleaterkinney]

Legally unacceptable, perhaps. Socially unacceptable ... well, the law can only do so much. It can't be everywhere, or even close to it. The BNP's rise puts the lie to the "ban racialism = get rid of bigots" equation.

No, the BNPs "rise" doesn't put pay to that. In fact they've only been able to get a couple of seats after they ditched the overtly racist stuff and tried to be respectable.

How on earth do you figure that?

Would you let paedophiles have freedom of speech to present their arguments?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

That is understandable, however if it does not go unchallenged by Dutch advocates of free speech then it isn't a particularly good sign.
What would be interesting would be to see a Muslim come out in defence of his right to free speech, it would also make this guy look like the idiot he evidently is.

On March 22, the Dutch Muslim Broadcasting Association (NMO) offered to air the film, on the proviso that it could be previewed for any possible illegal material and that Wilders would take part in a debate with proponents and opponents afterwards.[12][13] Wilders declined, quoted as saying "No way, NMO."[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film)#Release

 

[TomPaine]

I'm sorry but this is just made up. You really think that if it weren't for incitement to racial hatred legislation the BNP would be out there waving "coons go home" placards? You don't think it might be a deliberate tactic that they don't do that (in public)?

I think what Azrael is probably suggesting is that, those members of the BNP who felt no fear from the law of expressing their opinions would probably gob off a lot more and destroy themselves in the process.
Also the BNP have made a song and dance of the fact they got sent to court and the whole freedom of speech issue... a lot of nice publicity for them there.

 

[Azrael]

So you can't imagine that speech would cause distress to anyone?.

Of course it would. Perfection isn't an option.

You can censor opinions that have the potential to cause "distress", but the price you pay is giving the state the terrifying power to suppress views it doesn't like. Legitimate dissent will get swept up in your good intentions. I imagine the 15-year-old protestor summonsed for calling Scientology a cult was rather distressed.

Peter Tatchell and Johann Hari have both opposed laws against inciting hatred of homosexuals, because both recognise that the state will abuse powers to control speech, and forcing speech underground will only make it more dangerous.

 

[TomPaine]

Would you let paedophiles have freedom of speech to present their arguments?

I believe here in the US they do, there is some organisation called the Man boy love association or some crap.

 

[TomPaine]

Fridgemagnet> In my opinion they made the right decision and that is a good approach. It shows him to be the twat he is.

 

[Azrael]

I'm sorry but this is just made up. You really think that if it weren't for incitement to racial hatred legislation the BNP would be out there waving "coons go home" placards? You don't think it might be a deliberate tactic that they don't do that (in public)?

No, as I described a page back, I think they'd have a squalid civil war between true believers and the slimy Griffin-type wing. At the very least, you'd get more extreme parties, and the BNP split over whether to support them.

These are, by and large, not rational individuals.

No, the BNPs "rise" doesn't put pay to that. In fact they've only been able to get a couple of seats after they ditched the overtly racist stuff and tried to be respectable.

Erm, that's exactly my point: they wouldn't have ditched the overtly racialist views so smoothly without "hate speech" laws.

Would you let paedophiles have freedom of speech to present their arguments?

They already do. It's not a criminal offence (so far as I know) to argue that paedophillia should be made legal.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Of course it would. Perfection isn't an option.

So people should just get a thicker skin?

You can censor opinions that have the potential to cause "distress", but the price you pay is giving the state the terrifying power to suppress views it doesn't like. Legitimate dissent will get swept up in your good intentions. I imagine the 15-year-old protestor summonsed for calling Scientology a cult was rather distressed.

Yes and that was later thrown out so what is your point?.

Peter Tatchell and Johann Hari have both opposed laws against inciting hatred of homosexuals, because both recognise that the state will abuse powers to control speech, and forcing speech underground will only make it more dangerous.

The state has always had powers to suppress views it doesn't like. Free speech is a myth.

 

[Azrael]

I think what Azrael is probably suggesting is that, those members of the BNP who felt no fear from the law of expressing their opinions would probably gob off a lot more and destroy themselves in the process.

Yes, and more importantly, the ones who do fear the law would mouth off as well.

Mr Collett, Mr Griffin's co-defendant, clearly tried to stay on the right side of the law, but managed to call AIDS a "friendly disease" and described Winston Churchill as "a fucking cunt who dragged this country into a war against whites standing up for their race". Just imagine the idiocy he'd spew if the muzzle was off! Fred Phelps Mk II.

Also the BNP have made a song and dance of the fact they got sent to court and the whole freedom of speech issue... a lot of nice publicity for them there.

This is the killer. "Hate speech" laws manage the near-impossible: creating public sympathy for deranged hatemongers.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I think what Azrael is probably suggesting is that, those members of the BNP who felt no fear from the law of expressing their opinions would probably gob off a lot more and destroy themselves in the process.
Also the BNP have made a song and dance of the fact they got sent to court and the whole freedom of speech issue... a lot of nice publicity for them there.

They don't not say really obviously racist things in public because they're afraid of getting locked up. They don't say them because they know it's bad for the party's image. (Actually they sometimes do say really obviously racist things in public, and the platform is explicitly racist in the first place anyway.) And they get a little _publicity_ from the odd one or two times that there have been legal issues; they don't necessarily get _sympathy_.

Given that the party has made deliberate efforts to appear _less_ frothing and _more_ mainstream, moving far _below_ the level that they could be prosecuted for, the impact of incitement laws is minimal.

 

[TomPaine]

sleaterkinney> So as you seem to be an advocate of limited speech, who exactly would you charge with deciding what the bounderies are?