Wilders Is Right: Europe Needs a First Amendment
One of the most bizarre aspects of being an American in Western Europe — at least if you’re an American who has opinions and is used to expressing them freely — is getting accustomed to the fact that there’s no First Amendment over here. Some of us grew up thinking of Western Europe as part of the “Free World.” But how free is a country if it doesn’t recognize freedom of speech as a fundamental right?
I’m old enough to remember the landmark case in the late 1970s when a group of Nazis wanted to hold a march in the largely Jewish Chicago suburb of Skokie. The story made headlines nationwide and sparked intense debate. The ACLU took the case; the Supreme Court ruled for the Nazis. But it was not a victory for Nazism — it was a victory for the Constitution. It affirmed that the First Amendment really means what it says, and that the United States really is the land of the free.
I grew up hearing many Americans speak of Western Europe as if its values were somehow superior to our own. After I began traveling to Europe and then — as a European resident — began traveling extensively around Europe, I came to love many things about the old continent. But not even in my most Europhile moments did I believe that it would be a good deal to trade in the Bill of Rights for its European equivalents.
In recent years, the superiority of America on this score has been affirmed again and again, as one Western European government after another has prosecuted individuals for saying or writing things that were deemed unacceptable. In a preponderance of cases, these prosecutions have been for statements about Islam. Some of the defendants — Oriana Fallaci, Brigitte Bardot — have been famous.
But no case has been more sensational — or more bizarre — than that of the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. The Dutch general elections on June 9 propelled the Freedom Party, which Wilders founded and heads, into a position of real government power. Yet even as he was beginning to flex his muscles, he was hauled into court for speaking his mind.
I’ve met and interviewed Wilders. I liked him. He was kind enough to write a blurb for my book Surrender. In person he is thoughtful and soft-spoken — nothing like the ranting demagogue that his detractors portray. On several occasions, moreover, I’ve expressed my admiration for his courage in the face of Muslim death threats, which oblige him to live behind several layers of armed protection.
I’ve also frequently defended Wilders against those who have routinely labeled him a fascist or extreme right-winger. Taking him at his word, I’ve described him as, essentially, a libertarian, a man whose antipathy for Islam is rooted in his love of individual liberty. In criticizing Islam, after all, he habitually cites the religion’s brutal subjugation of women and violent intolerance toward gay people as reasons to be concerned about the Islamization of Europe.
A very welcomed article, it goes well with another article in today’s NRO:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249981/wilders-west-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1
and what a number of PJM readers have commented on the article:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-prosecutors-of-dutch-mp-geert-wilders-ask-court-to-acquit-on-all-charges/
Excellent body of reading about the First Amendment and islam, to an extent.
Ah, Europe… the way it is there is why our ancestors left, why we have our own country and why the Bill of Rights exists.
“(Europe)…the way it is there is why our ancestors left, why we have our own country and why the Bill of Rights exists.”
You mean what is left of the Bill of Rights after it was shredded by the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts. Despite no First Amendment, there is more “freedom” in Europe than the U.S.
What does it mean to say that there is no First Amendment “in Europe”? does it mean no right to freedom of speech in the Lisbon Treaty? [No, that would be irrelevant to Bawer, writing in Norway.] No right to freedom of speech in ANY European constitution? no right to freedom of speech in MOST European constitutions? no right to freedom of speech in Norway? I think we should be told.
Mr. Bawer could also have discussed how the lack of a First Amendment did not prevent most European countries from publishing the Danish cartoons. (The exceptions were the barbarian fringes, such as Britain and Sweden.) He could also discuss how the First Amendment did not enable most American newspapers to publish the cartoons.
But the most puzzling claim in this article is that distributing copies of the Koran to every Dutch household would prevent an American professor at SUNY Stony Brook from writing that Islam is “a religion of love”.
All the same, I agree with the last paragraph.
But the most puzzling claim in this article is that distributing copies of the Koran to every Dutch household would prevent an American professor at SUNY Stony Brook from writing that Islam is “a religion of love”.
Why ? One reading alone should put a stop to the religion of love blather.
Besides which, the soft and mystical (Mecca era) Sura have, reportedly, been superseded by the bellicose ones, like, supposedly, the last one channeled, Sura 9.
(Mohammed was having difficulty supervising the loot and the women towards the end of his life)
Do not mistake the cowardice of editors as a First Amendment failure. The editors were not warned off by the government, they were scared off by fear of Muslim violence!
Do not mistake the cowardice of editors as a First Amendment failure.
I don’t; sorry if I gave the impression that I do.
The editors were not warned off by the government
Not explicitly, but Bush criticized the cartoons without commenting on the riots, so draw your own conclusions.
“…Bush criticized the cartoons…”
You’re seeing something that was never there. Critcism is not the same thing as threats backed by the force of law. Do you honestly think that the US media wouldn’t have taken the first chance to publish the cartoons had Bush demanded they didn’t, just to poke another finger in his eye?
Try again.
He could also discuss how the First Amendment did not enable most American newspapers to publish the cartoons.
GREAT POINT!
Basically, only three major dailies published any of them.
What’s even more sickening is is Yale’s refusal to include them in a book about them
Please note that Wilders has said that he favors banning the Koran in The Netherlands for the same reason Hitler’s Mein Kampf is banned-because The Koran, like Mein Kampf, is a fascist book which incites violence. This is not merely Mr. Wilder’s opinion. It is explicitly stated in the Koran itself, which Wilders has documented time and time again.
We can all agree that banning any book is not desirable, under any circumstances. However, such freedom must also come with the freedom to discuss any book, under any circumstances. So, in that context, I disagree with banning the koran and so I disagree with Wilders on this specific point.
What many of us find appalling is that in a Western Republic (like the US) or Democracy (like the Netherlands) discussions about the koran, islam’s “prophet” and islam’s past history are censored, banned, at least discouraged as a matter of informal or often explicit public policy. Oftentimes, as is the case in many countries within the EU, such discussions are even legally prohibited on very shaky legal and Constitutional grounds. As someone has already noted, this is a new form of “obscurantism.”
Distributing a koran to everyone isn’t the answer either. Instead, allowing everyone access to various views about the koran, the “prophet” and islam must be facilitated both as a public policy and law.
You’re twisting Mr. Wilders’ words.
What he in fact stated was that were the Koran to be treated like Mein Kampf, it would be banned.
He never said he favours banning either book. And favouring freedom of speech, I doubt he does favour banning either or any book.
Another Dutchman – Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) – also had problems with the Dutch Establishment. You could pick any country and find people who were designated “enemies of the Establishment” throughout recorded history. When the Establishment veers left, then conservative speech is designated vile and suppressed. When the Establishment veers right then lefty speech receives the same treatment. When the Establishment goes green, then brown speech is suppressed, and so it goes.
“The Economist” magazine is a good example of how the Establishment changes its spots. It is the essential mouthpiece of the British Establishment. When Margaret Thatcher represented the Establishment, the Economist dutifully presented her conservative values. When Tony Blair became the Establishment, then The Economist dutifully became the Establishment mouthpiece for progressivism.
The need is for public speech to be protected from suppression by the Establishment of the day. America’s first amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I think this is the best attempt to guarantee free speech, free religion and free assembly ever placed in any constitution. It doesn’t always work in practice though because government and the Judiciary can find many ways to subvert it.
Not all countries have a written constitution – see Britain. The EU has a sort of constitution in the Lisbon Treaty, but The EU is more about government interference than it is about liberty and freedom. I think the countries that do have a written constitution should just xerox the US first amendment and include it in their constitution (Canada that includes us). If they wouldn’t do that because “that’s American” is considered evil, then they could rewrite it in local speak. Where they don’t have a written constitution they would need some legislation. Just putting words into a document is necessary but it isn’t sufficient. People must also speak. The Establishment of the day will always try to suppress speech that it doesn’t like, with or without legal or constitutional attempts to guarantee free speech.
Wilders is no angel of freedom but his prosecution for coherently arguing his anti-Establishment opinions is indefensible.
…fundamental rights that are enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but that in Western Europe are incredibly fragile — a fragility of which the “soft jihadists” haven taken full advantage.
Just as they’ve taken advantage of “libel tourism”, getting European governments to bring cases against authors who are less than positive in their observations on Islam.
Or taken advantage of the existence of so called “human rights” commissions in Canada to harass and cause great expense to individuals like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.
The soft jihadists take full advantage of the bend over and spread ‘em mentality of the politically correct.
Political correctness is like death by a thousand papercuts. And the jihadists who have their own agendas for Europe and Canada (not to mention the rest of the planet) know it.
On Wilders’ call for banning the Koran in Holland: I believe he did this because in Holland, Hitler’s Mein Kampf is banned.
Well the literal meaning of “Mein Kampf” is “My Jihad,” so Wilder’s may have a point.
Effectively banned, in reality however it’s not.
What has happened is that after WW2 the Dutch government took the publication rights of Mein Kampf as war booty, ascertaining for themselves the copyright for all eternity of any language version.
This makes it impossible to print any copies of the book in the Netherlands. It is however not illegal to posess a copy, merely to create one.
What would happen if a Dutch store were to try importing copies printed abroad I don’t know. The public backlash against the store for being “neo-Nazi” and “radical right wing extremists” would be enough to prevent anyone from doing so publicly, no reason for government action (it’s quite possible some used book stores do once in a while import authentic 1940s vintage copies for customers on assignment, but they wisely don’t advertise the service).
“May God Have Mercy on My Enemies, Because I won’t!”
“The quality of mercy is not strain’d,/ It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven.”–Portia, The Merchant of Venice
Don’t tell that to America’s great generals. Four pithy quotations from four great wartime generals:
“War is hell.”–General William Tecumseh Sherman, (after raining hell on Atlanta in 1864)
“May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.” –General George S. Patton (during World War II)
“In war there is no substitute for victory.”–General Douglas MacArthur, Farewell Address to Congress, 1951
“I believe that forgiving [those who aided and abetted the 9/11 terrorists] is God’s function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting.” –General Norman Schwartzkopf (during World War III)
Those words of military wisdom have much in common and much can be learned from them during our ongoing war with Islam.
Since the Allies’ victory over Germany and Japan in World War II, America’s political leaders and America’s military leaders, with some few exceptions including, briefly after 9/11, President George W. Bush and Generals MacArthur and Schartzkopf, have ignored that wisdom. They didn’t forget it, they simply chose to ignore it which explains our stalemate in the Korean War and our defeat in the Vienamese War.
They chose to remember that war is hell but ignored the fact that Sherman had no compunction over executing that hell on his enemy. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2256)
What point are you attempting to make with these assorted quotes?
Europe has admitted millions of Muslims into its midst, largely from the third world, yet has failed to assimilate them into their modern Western cultures. This, combined with the far higher birth rate among Muslim immigrants creates the prospect of the much discussed “Islamification of Europe”.
Europe has an unfortunate history of a lack of will to confront difficult problems. This purchases an extended period of ease, but at the price of rendering moderate solutions inadequate at a later date.
My great fear is that Europe will continue to avoid implementing serious, thoughtful policies to deal with this problem until the last possible moment. Then, with their cultural and political survival at stake, they will revert to historical form and react with extreme measures.
I foresee a day, perhaps a generation from now, perhaps two, when fear of Islamification will propel openly Fascist political parties into power on the simple platform of defending Europe from Islam. I predict the day will come when Islam will be criminalized. European Muslims will subjected to loyalty tests, and given the choice between renouncing core elements of their faith or deportation. And millions of European Muslims, emboldened by their numbers, will resist.
As Muslims violently oppose draconian anti-Islam policies, native Europeans will counter with even harsher measures. Violence will erupt across Europe. Millions will flee. Millions more Muslims will be rounded up. They will placed in camps, to await forced expulsion.
Europe will be in flames, and the flames will spread. Russia will at minimum use its military to secure its western border, and may intervene in Eastern Europe to stabilize its “near abroad”. Muslim nations, seeing their co-religionists at war, will not remain silent. Oil exports will be shut off and western interests will be attacked. It is unrealistic to expect that already troubled region not to destabilize.
There will be blood and ethnic cleansing from the British Isles to the Persian Gulf. All because Europeans are too arrogant to accept assimilated Muslims as their equals, yet too insecure to respect their own culture.
Those are my fears, also. Liberals and leftists have a tendency to ignore big problems caused by minorities, assuming that anyone who complains about them must be insensitive, intolerant, a racist, etc. Decades can go by before they finally get around to acknowledging that there’s a problem.
On the front page of today’s NY Times, there’s an article about how sociologists, generally liberals and leftists, had refused to acknowledge that culture (for example, the culture of unwed mothers among blacks) can keep people enmeshed in poverty. It was thought that this was blaming the victim, so liberals and leftists didn’t want to touch it.
It was first pointed out 45 years ago by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. 45 years! How long will it take for liberals and leftists to acknowledge that there are some legitimate problems concerning Muslims that need to be dealt with? If it’s soon, then we can avoid the bloodshed you talk about, but if not, watch out.
Sorry but I think this is about Wilders and his willingness to be heard speaking the truth as he sees it. He has been found not guilty so to some extent the legal system worked, and I think it also an indication that at least some people believe him. Free speech is under attack in the USA from thew White House and the DOJ. I know it isn’t PC, but “hate crime laws are just liberal crap. If you kill a gay guy isn’t murder enough of a charge? In a lot of places murder can be a death penalty crime and a ” Hate Crime” on top of death is just stupid.
The fact that the western public is literate does not mean we should be allowed to print just anything. There are some books that just have to be banned. No question about it. To allow everything….is a cop out and a lowering of ones ability of discernment.
The right to ban is as important as the right to print. We should not throw out the baby with the bath water. Do we really have a discernment problem?
For instance, child porn is banned and for good reason.
When a publication that has much hard evidence and facts to show the direction that readers take to be of hatred and evil….ban it.
You can not call child porn other than what it is. Nor can you call the promotion of hatred other than what it is.
In the real world there are things which scream to be banned. Are we listening?
Sorry pal, this is not just about the First Amendment. Its about Islam and the war that they are waging against us.
They will never have a first without a second. . . just as we would not have a first without the second.
Speaking of “superior values,” like the last one, I’m sure leftists will continue supporting the attacks on the middle east’s one democracy http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/freedom_flotilla_2_set_for_dec.html
Europe is not the only place that needs a First Amendment. We need the First Amendment and all the rest of them along with the Constitution of the United States reaffirmed right here in this country. Over the years the politicians, lawyers, and judges have been eating away at those documents until they are barely recognizable anymore. Our Founding Fathers would not be pleased with us for allowing our Republic to be taken from us without a shot being fired.
Didn’t the Soviet Union have a wonderful sounding constitution? What matter is respect by the lawmakers, regardless of which branch they are in, respecting the difference between governing and ruling.
Take a look at this by Norman Tebbit, who was one of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet ministers, and now sits in the British House of Lords: MapleLeafForEver and aasvogel both raise the question of the future of the Commonwealth. I have to confess to having changed my mind about that. Twenty years ago I was very dismissive of the Commonwealth, but I now think I was wrong and that it has some important strengths derived from its diversity, which is balanced by its use of the English language, its common heritage of past British rule and the political and legal systems which have largely survived de colonialisation. It is an asset not enjoyed by any other nation and I now think it worth developing.
So, the choices made by those in the legislative branch, the judicial branch, or the executive branch (regardless of the country) matters.
willow
“To allow everything….is a cop out and a lowering of ones ability of discernment.”
Prove it.
Yes, we should be allowed to print just about everything we want. The alternative is allowing those in power to determine what it is we are allowed to read and write.
If you don’t see a problem with that, then I don’t know what to say.
Sharia is rule by theocrats. All that is necessary to prove the previous two sentences is to examine the countries in which Islam holds political power.
And when the MSM bans cartoons that show Mohammad and even one’s that don’t depict Mohammad, but merely mention him, it displays a true fear of Islam.
And as an above commenter mentioned, failing to address Islamic supremacy now will lead to a massive backlash later.
Sorry folks, you have the wrong target in your crosshair; the fight isn’t (unfortunately) simply against islam – if that were the case, the outcome would have been clear and easy to attain.
The fight instead is with ‘fundamentalist liberalism’ the mother of almost unlimited “tolerence” and “political correctness” to all things non-western in nature – a far more complex, incendiary and dangerous foe; and this fight (unfortunately) you can’t win anymore. The West’s psyche has been corrupted for good.
Through this ‘fundamentalist liberalism’ the West in effect has committed harakiri.
I’ve been reading your articles for a while now, and find them thoughtful, insightful and poignant. Thank you.
I spent some time in Oslo a few years back — my friends a group of one-off types, gathering in the pubs of a little neighborhood I can’t recall the name of now, fervently discussing politics, philosophy & etc., reminding me very much of days of yon in Greenwich Village when it was cheap to live there — a conglomeration of all types. They were fun — idealistic to the point of — I don’t know what — and all heart. If I’d stayed another week, though, I’d be dead, because of the amount of drinking they do!
Disturbing, though, especially in light of their well-meant intentions — is their deafness and blindness when it comes to their attitudes toward Israel. But then, their media — it’s a constant grind of propaganda.
And a phone call not so long ago, where I wanted to talk about the Islamic influence, and my friend shut me up — because she said it wasn’t okay to discuss it on the phone! She was afraid to talk about it!
I wish you luck in your life there, in Norway. Somewhere I’m sure you both love and …
And I look forward to more of your articles.
I’ll bet a pay check there are liberal fools thinking Wilders is outside the mainstream for exposing the enemy, or placing a name to the enemy.
Check all Mosques for hate speech, weapons, and C-4. The death cult following Mohammad can’t wait to murder in the name of their moon god.
I was disappointed to learn that Wilders had taken on as a personal assistant the reactionary Catholic writer Paul Belien, who is associated with the poisonous Vlaams Belang Party in Belgium and who has made clear not only his contempt for gays but also his distaste for liberal secular democracy. This hire seemed at odds with Wilders’s own oft-declared concern for the preservation of secular democracy and for the rights and well-being of gays.
-Bruce, this is rather an odd thing to say about a director of the International Free Press Society and the editor of a journal that is constantly criticizing the EU for its anti-democratic nature. It’s a cheap way of not explaining or seriously exploring your differences with Belien & Co. He believes, it seems to me, that liberal secular democracy has been a product of Judeo-Christian culture, and that when liberalism turns on its origins, like the son who desires to kill the father, it sooner or later kills itself. He believes that Dutch society’s celebration of homosexuality is but one of various signs of that society’s forgetting the kind of family life on which liberal secular democracy is ultimately dependent.
Argue he’s wrong, if you will, instead of depending on cheap shots and your stature as a writer will be surer still. I am not aware that Belien has ever written against the basic rights of gays (I’m not one to see gay marriage as a basic right but if this is the main point where you disagree with Belien’s take on rights you should specify this and not rely on a general smear). Rather, it seems to me, he believes individual rights must be universal, or they don’t really exist for anyone, but he thinks they are, in some degree, nonetheless dependent, culturally, on Judeo-Christian civilization’s elaboration of the individual, the loss of which, he speculates, won’t lead to greater liberal freedom for all, but rather to greater submission to totalitarian forces. That argument may seem to put gays in a bind but it should be possible to argue coherently against it, or to qualify it in various respects, if it’s wrong.
I would also like to know just why you think the VB, as it exists today, is “poisonous” – is this simply a question of its take on the family?
belive it or not europe isn’t the worst offender on lack of rights. My country lacks any constituional bill of rights.
Guess what my country is?
Mein Kampf means My Struggle. Let’s not reduce everything to the obsession du jour.
As for the sainted First Amendment, college campus speech codes seem to be its kryptonite.
I do wish Americans would stop preening. And coat-trailing. You are the people who gave the world Political Correctness, after all. Now we all swim in its waters. And yes, yes, your scuba gear is better than ours.
Small consolation, I would have thought.
“I’ve also frequently defended Wilders against those who have routinely labeled him a fascist or extreme right-winger”
If you meant to imply that fascism is “right wing”, I must strenuously disagree.
I was talking to a person I know – who claims to be educated in political science. Like the quoted satement implies, he honestly believes that a “fascist” is extreme right wing. This, of course is false. Fascism has always been left of center Politics. Not as far left as Socialism but still left. Fascism demandsw central control – as does Socialsism, the diffeence is that Fascism will allow private ownership – if the private onership and operatiosn agrees with the goals of the people in charge of the fascist government.
” After all, the freedom to express “unacceptable” opinions — especially about religion — lay at the very heart of the Enlightenment and remains an unnegotiable cornerstone of American liberty.”
What a hypocritical statement!
Your Quaker forefathers and their off springs in the name of religious freedom fled old Europe ,settled and in the process WRESTED Indian native lands .
You talk about freedom of speech etc, etc, etc but discard justice and fairplay to the rubbish bins.
In the course of my work I recently had the opportunity to visit a small church-affiliated Christian school (K through grade 12) in my town in California. Their curriculum is based on a classical portfolio. They begin with ancient civilizations and work their way to the present. They study EVERYTHING, indluding (in the upper grades) Karl Marx and Hitler’s Mein Kampf. I find it impressive that they go to the source. Evil does not come with a label. You have to learn to discern it. I ask you, who has a better grasp of the scholarly complexities and moral pitfalls of these above-mentioned thinkers — the kids in that school or the drunken babblers in Norway whose intellectual superiority cannot be assailed?
I suppose I should moderate my reference to Norwegians. I’ve been to Norway. I love the country and the people. The point is, the Europeans would do well to read some of their banned books and stop pontificating about everything. The books, including the Koran, should be read and discussed. To ban them increases the mystery and the allure. The best ideas of civilizations always prevail. I think what some ideologies fear most is to become irrelevant. Or laughed at.
Free speech in America has always been a lie of the corporate propaganda that monoploizes American political discourse. European nations make sure that messages of compassion and love and not just hate and greed are available to their people. While the American media uncritically cheered the Bush genocide of the Iraqi people, and remains silent about the continuing Israeli genocide of the Palestinians, the European press reported the truth. So-called terrorism is the only tool the voiceless victims of poverty and racism have.
While Osama Bin Laden and Hamas might not be the ideal fighters for social justice, they represent those who share a common struggle with the American working class against the forces of global corporate oppression. It is no wonder the corporate overlords have completely censored Muslim voices from the American media.
You Americans have no reason to look to Europe in general for the sources of your freedoms, because they are not there, which, in essence, is the basic reason the US as we know it even exists. However, you may perhaps thank some of the European individuals who desired to be free and had enough initiative to shape their own destiny, and thus decided to move to America. Europe in general is not a source of freedom, on the contrary. Throughout its history, with few exceptions, Europe has been rife with injustice, serfdom and subjugation.
Not only do we Europeans need our own First Amendment; in order to survive we are most likely also going to need our own Second Amendment. But, considering Europe’s feudal history where the common people were nothing but expendable pawns to be whipped, subjugated and from time to time used as cannon fodder, neither a first nor a second amendment is likely.
vakiri goomaap. bush was a wimp and a small l appeaser
This article is ok except for the contempt of Christians who don’t agree with homosexuality or liberal secular democracy! Many Christians may not agree with homosexuality but do they called for the murder or torture of the gay communities like in Islam – further, freedom speech should also be extended towards Christians as long as such freedom is not promoting real evil crimes? And the problem with liberal secular democracy is that it has ultra and fascist-like contempt for any religion and considers itself superior to religion. It looks like the author has forgotten that Judeo-Christianity, which built the foundation of modern and enlightened Europe amidst freedom of speech as taught by our Lord Christ Jesus, especially against any oppression. The tyranny of the liberals, especially of God-hating ones, which has caused so much mess in Europe/West right now, such as enforcing imbalance multiculturalism as dominated by Islamic culture instead of genuine multiculturalism from all kinds of culture, and defending even the false rights of Islam to promote evil violence (thus Nazism, which promotes equally evil violence, should not be allowed to march under similar context) under false political correctness, is what is causing such modern and enlightened Europe to fell down crashing on the ground! Thus, Mr. Wilders should be respected for his support of progressive Judeo-Christian values and heritage also, not just for promoting individual liberty,as taught by our Lord Christ Jesus!
“But how free is a country if it doesn’t recognize freedom of speech as a fundamental right?”
This is simply not true; Dutch constitution guarantees freedom of speech (expression/publication of opinion) in article 7. The dutch constitution is also bound by the European treaty on human rights which guarantees freedom of speech in article 10. It’s not the same as the american first amendment but freedom of speech is recognized as a fundamental right.
Wilders is in court for a charge of incitement to hatred; A debatable limitation on free speech. In his case, freedom of speech will most likely prevail because his statements have been found not to incite hatred by the public prosecutor.
As a dutch man I feel perfectly free to express my opinion. I do not wish to incite hatred or violence so as far as I am concerned those limitations on free speech are justified and they do not limit my freedom. I have yet to see an argument why the freedom to incite hatred and/or violence is a good thing.
Eurabia doesn’t need a first amendment;it needs a pair of balls.Unfortunately,it lost them in 2 instances of self-destructive, homicidal hysteria,and has decided to substitute the fantasy of multiculturalism for testosterone. It is terminally corrupt,and irrelevant.The US should encourage people like Wilders to emigrate to the US.As for the Dhimnis,let ‘em rot under Sharia!
Can be blogengine a lot better than wp somehow? Needs to be because it’s progressively more popluar as of late.