Illegal To Compare Islam with Nazism?

[Bono]

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1232576675.shtml

Illegal To Compare Islam with Nazism?

Illegal To Compare Islam with Nazism?

That's what a Dutch appellate court seems to be saying, in ordering the prosecution of Dutch member of Parliament Geert Wilders. The press release doesn't go into detail about the statements involved, but it does say, "the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the islam with the nazism," and expressly condemns as beyond the pale analogies between the Koran and Mein Kampf. Here's the entire statement:

    On 21 January 2009 the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ordered the criminal prosecution of the member of parliament Geert Wilders for the incitement to hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. In addition, the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the islam with the nazism.

    The Court of Appeal rendered judgment as a consequence of a number of complaints about the non-prosecution of Wilders for his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. The complainants did not agree with the decision of the public prosecution which decided not to give effect to their report against Wilders.

    The public prosecution [I assume this refers to the prosecutors' office, whose decision not to prosecute the court is reversing -EV] is of the view, amongst others, that part of the statements of Wilders do not relate to a group of worshippers, but consists of criticism as regards the Islamic belief, as a result of which neither the self-esteem of this group of worshippers is affected nor is this group brought into discredit. Some statements of Wilders can be regarded as offending, but since these were made (outside the Dutch Second Chamber) as a contribution to a social debate there is no longer a ground for punishableness of those statements according to the public prosecution.

    The Court of Appeal does not agree with this view of the public prosecution and the considerations which form the basis of this view.

    The Court of Appeal has considered that the contested views of Wilders (also as shown in his movie Fitna) constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law as seen in connection with each other, both because of their contents and the method of presentation. This method of presentation is characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created. According to the Court of Appeal most statements are insulting as well since these statements substantially harm the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers. According to the Court of Appeal Wilders has indeed insulted the Islamic worshippers themselves by affecting the symbols of the Islamic belief as well.

    Secondly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether a possible criminal prosecution or conviction would be admissible according to the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court based thereon, which considers the freedom of expression of paramount importance. The Court of Appeal has concluded that the initiation of a criminal prosecution and a possible conviction later on as well, provided that it is proportionate, does not necessarily conflict with the freedom of expression of Wilders, since statements which create hate and grief made by politicians, taken their special responsibility into consideration, are not permitted according to European standards either.

    Thirdly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether criminal prosecution of Wilders because of his statements would be opportune in the Dutch situation (the question of opportunity). According to the Court of Appeal the instigation of hatred in a democratic society constitutes such a serious matter that a general interest is at stake in order to draw a clear boundary in the public debate.

    As regards the insult of a group the Court of Appeal makes a distinction. In general the Court determines that the traditional Dutch culture of debating is based on tolerance of each others views to a large extent while Islamic immigrants may be expected to have consideration for the existing sentiments in the Netherlands as regards their belief, which is partly at odds with Dutch and European values and norms. As regards insulting statements the Court of Appeal prefers the political, public and other legal counter forces rather than the criminal law, as a result of which an active participation to the public debate, by moslims as well, is promoted.

    However, the Court of Appeal makes an exception as regards insulting statements in which a connection with Nazism is made (for instance by comparing the Koran with “Mein Kampf”). The Court of Appeal considers this insulting to such a degree for a community of Islamic worshippers that a general interest is deemed to be present in order to prosecute Wilders because of this.

    The Court of Appeal concludes that the way in which the public debate about controversial issues is held, such as the immigration and integration debate, does not fall within the ambit of the law in principle indeed, but the situation changes when fundamental boundaries are exceeded. Then criminal law does appear as well.

    Otherwise, the Court of Appeal emphasizes that this is a provisional judgment in the sense that Wilders has not been convicted in this suit of complaint. The Court of Appeal has only judged whether there are sufficient indications -– at the level of a reasonable suspicion –- to start a criminal prosecution against Wilders. The penal judge who will ultimately render judgment in a public criminal trial will answer the question if there is ground for conviction, and if so, to which extent.

The movie Fitna, which appears to form part of the basis for the prosecution, seems to be available here. If readers can point me to the Wilders statements (preferably in English translation) that form the basis for the prosecution, I'd love to link to them as well — of course, not because I will necessary agree with them (I suppose I might agree with some but not with others, especially if they speak broadly about Islam generally), but because seeing them is necessary to evaluate the merits of the prosecution, and the degree to which the prosecution would threaten free discussion.

Thanks to Anne Jitta for the pointer.
This would be laughed out of court in the US, but most European courts have made clear freedom of expression means nothing if it is used in ways they don't like.

Anyway, Wilders must be down on his knees praising God for this opportunity to appear as another Fortuynist martyr.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

[dead0man]

Wow.  You guys may have us beat in some areas of freedom, but you fail hard here.

[Keystone Phil]

I wasn't surprised at all when I saw who ruled on this.

The Netherlands is one of the worst jokes ever.

[k-onmmunist]

in Britain, if you criticise Islam, you will be thrown in a gulag and never seen again.

Meanwhile, knife criminals are put in a cell with a TV for 40 minutes then released.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I note that neither Nick Griffin nor Robert Kilroy-Orange-Silk are in prison.

[k-onmmunist]

I note that neither Nick Griffin nor Robert Kilroy-Orange-Silk are in prison.

They have money.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

[Matt Damon™]

Why? What gives abstract groups the right to more protection than average citizens get under libel laws?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

     As long as you aren't trying to inflict real damage on someone or something, not really. If I want to go out & say that all brunettes are communists, it's my right to do so. Sure it's a dumb thing to say, but I shouldn't have to apologize over it if the worst that happens is some folks get their feelings hurt.

[Meeker]

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

No.

[John Dibble]

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

No.

Agreed. The government doesn't exist to coddle your feelings. Unless someone's speech has unjustified and tangible damages, then you should just live with it.

[dead0man]

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

No.

[Matt Damon™]

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

NO

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

No.

[k-onmmunist]

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

NO!

Ever heard of the First Amendment?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

     As long as you aren't trying to inflict real damage on someone or something, not really. If I want to go out & say that all brunettes are communists, it's my right to do so. Sure it's a dumb thing to say, but I shouldn't have to apologize over it if the worst that happens is some folks get their feelings hurt.

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

No.

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

No.

Agreed. The government doesn't exist to coddle your feelings. Unless someone's speech has unjustified and tangible damages, then you should just live with it.

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

No.

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

NO

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

No.

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

NO!

Ever heard of the First Amendment?

WOW!

Well, in France it happens like that. When someone feel insulted by someone else he can take the other one to justice, and the trial is here to establish if there have been ungelitimate insults, or unlegitimate words toward someone.

You might have heard about Danish carricatures of Mohammed a few years ago. In France a Muslim association attacked in justice newspapers which published the carricature, attacked for insult iirc.

There have been a trial, newspapers won, in the name of the freedom of speech. But at least there have been an official explanation, with a place for it, where all arguments could have been clearly established.

Well, in fact the question could be: should a justice have some power to judge the problems of honnor between people.

OK, you answered your way. Personally, I don't know, I can deal with both ways, the one of full freedom, and the one of a justice in it.

That said, a few days ago, I spoke with a French woman who have Arab origins, very well integrated in France, passed over her Muslim and Arab origins. We were talking about freedom of speech, she was very offended that an FN mayor had hard and stupid words toward Arabs, she was saying it should be forbiden, I answered that, hey, the freedom of speech is very important, she insisted, saying it was really stupid bad insults totally missing of respect toward Arabs, and spontaneously I answered, yeah, freedom of speech has to have limits of the respect of others. My answer suits totally with the French system, and I still assume this answer.

On the other hand, I'm also intellectually ok with a full freedom of speech, debates are free for everybody and everyone has to deal with it. Well, why not, I don't know.

Isn't there the slightest restriction of freedom of speech in US? Isn't there the slightest space in the one the justice could intervene? I don't know. I ask.

[jokerman]

The limits applied to freedom of speech in the U.S. are when telling a deliberate falsehood or when the speech presents a "clear and present danger" (such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).

Comparing Islam to Nazism is a poor (and trite) analogy, but it is absurd to ban such utterances based upon the feelings of another.

[Earth]

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others?

Absolutely not.

Shouldn't insults be punished?

Absolutely not.

Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

Absolutely not.

Sorry to rub it in.

[Matt Damon™]

Islam and Muslims don't deserve respect they deserve suppression so even if such laws were in place I'd rather they were used to protect christians/athiests/jews/pagans etc from being defamed by muslims.

[k-onmmunist]

Islam and Muslims don't deserve respect they deserve suppression so even if such laws were in place I'd rather they were used to protect christians/athiests/jews/pagans etc from being defamed by muslims.

I agree with Straha.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

in Britain, if you criticise Islam, you will be thrown in a gulag and never seen again.

Meanwhile, knife criminals are put in a cell with a TV for 40 minutes then released.

[Stranger in a strange land]

     Living in a country without freedom of speech must suck.

Shouldn't the expression of speech have some limits in the respect of others? Shouldn't insults be punished? Shouldn't a justice be here to establish if the limits have been broken or not and if apologizes have to be done or not?

No. While I do believe there should be legal protections from libelous, threatening, or incendiary speech, I do not believe that you, me, or anybody else has the right to not be offended.