beginning this week in the Netherlands, one that indirectly also for
South Africa is important. This is the case against the notorious
extremist-right politician Mr. Geert Wilders.
He is charged with groepsbelediging of Muslims and incitement to
hatred and discrimination. It is based on various public statements
from him in which he compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf,
that prohibited most Muslims want to deport and build mosques appears.
The case is even more bizarre because the public prosecutor's office
Wilders in the first place would not be prosecuted simply because the
considered opinion that he was not in any wetsoortreding guilty.
Following a petition by a group of academics and students, the
Amsterdam prosecutor to the Supreme Court (in a step that South Africa
would be unheard of) tasked to Wilders still complaining.
Some observers are predicting that the prosecutor at the end of the
case itself justification for Wilders asked.
The Dutch constitution - unlike that of South Africa - indeed no
mention of hate speech. What freedom of speech in our hate-speech to
convert the element of violence, but the Dutch Constitution is silent
about it.
The only ground that the prosecutor would have been possible with
Article 1, which is equality before the law field and discrimination
"because of religion, belief, political affiliation, race, sex or on
any grounds whatsoever" prohibited. Wilders encouraged, as was argued
could be because of people to discriminate.
The case comes before the week in which the Dutch coalition government
finally, more than four months after the election, is formed. This is
a unique construction, a minority government by Wilders's party
"patient" will be in exchange for significantly tighter rules on
immigration and integration of Muslims.
The case became even stranger when Wilders's lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz,
Judge Jan Moors asked to withdraw. When it became clear to him Wilders
on his right to remain silent action and not testify, the judge even
said something as critical of Wilders could be interpreted.
A separate bench that was hastily called hearing, but it was rejected.
"Curiouser and curiouser" as Alice in Wonderland experienced. Whatever
the legalities, it's clear that this was a political blunder of the
first order is to prosecute Wilders. As if the public party political
debate by a judiciary can be decided.
Do not make no mistake, Wilders is a real Rottevanger of Hamelin with
a complex problem with simple and fairly extreme methods to approach.
His "solutions" for example, will not only violate Dutch law, but also
several European conventions that the Netherlands was signed.
Moreover, he stigmatize all Muslims as sly, dishonest, indescribably
power-hungry and out to Europe and walk down to the Islam issue. Many
studies that highlight that only a significant minority of his
karikatuurbeeld met and that they most fairly good or very good
change, ignore it.
Through his offensive remarks he really Muslims at a lot of chasing
and let radikaliseer. Limited extent does it already.
But that does not mean that Wilders's statements, the simplistic and
insulting even, part of the harshness with which political debates are
increasingly also in Europe, fought it. It's unfortunate, but it is
so.
A mature democracy is indeed characterized by co recognizing the
rights of even those whose pronouncements your disgust. No wonder that
many highly regarded lawyers their doubts about the court expressed
it. It will be extremely interesting to the conduct of the trial
continue to follow because the judge's eventual ruling will largely
determine the political debate in the Netherlands.
It would be a pity if this debate hofsale conducted and should be
resolved. It does not belong there.
No comments:
Post a Comment