Philosophical Vegan Forum

So this is the topic of the month in the Netherlands, and I'm curious for some outsider opinions.

Geert Wilders is the leader of the nationalist/populist/far-right Party for the Freedom. The party currently controls 8% of parliament seats, but is predicted to become the largest party in 2017 by most polls. He's best known for his criticism of Muslims and anti-pc attitude (he did it before it was cool, guys.). A while back he held a rally where he asked the people "Do you want more or less Moroccans?". The people shouted "Less, less, less!" and he said "Then we'll take care of that."

What we see here is a basic tension between two Dutch constitutional rights; the right not to be discriminated versus the right to free speech. The Public Prosecution Service decided to charge him with discrimination for what he said above. The judge finally ruled that he was guilty, but there would be no punishment. Wilders reacted by questioning the Judges' integrity (claiming the judges are loyal to his rival party, D66, among other things) and claiming that anybody who claims Morrocans are a race is racist, because Morrocan is not a race.

Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnEGGfjyfow

I've got two questions; do you think what he said should be legal, and do you think it's okay for a politician to rage against the judicial system like that?

IMO he's a disgusting person, but freedom of speech.

Who the fuck is Geert Wilders?

I don't believe in unrestricted freedom of speech, but I don't think "discrimination" is a sensible or useful limit. It makes sense to discriminate against actual dangers and bad ideas.
I think speech being accurate and honest from an empirical perspective is more important (basic fact checking, and liability for overt dishonesty and some even for irresponsibility).

I don't know much of what he said, but it's a fair guess that there are some lies and myths mixed in with the discrimination that would be fair to prosecute him on if that were the case rather than some vague notion of discrimination.

I'm all for free speech. If people weren't allowed to rage against the judicial system, it would never change, for worse or better. I'm even for allowing outright hate speech, provided it isn't to incite violence. ("I hate Eskimos!!" is fine, but "Let's kill the Eskimos!! is not.)

By prohibiting speech what you are really doing is legislating morality. Let the idiots speak; it makes them easier to identify and avoid.

RedAppleGP wrote:Who the fuck is Geert Wilders?

miniboes wrote:Geert Wilders is the leader of the nationalist/populist/far-right Party for the Freedom.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't believe in unrestricted freedom of speech, but I don't think "discrimination" is a sensible or useful limit. It makes sense to discriminate against actual dangers and bad ideas.
I think speech being accurate and honest from an empirical perspective is more important (basic fact checking, and liability for overt dishonesty and some even for irresponsibility).

I don't know much of what he said, but it's a fair guess that there are some lies and myths mixed in with the discrimination that would be fair to prosecute him on if that were the case rather than some vague notion of discrimination.

How about hate speech and incitements of violence? This is not what Wilders was convicted for (the judge said he's convicted for 'group offending' and 'incitement to discrimination', which both sound like stupid reasons to me), but there's an argument to be made that what he said breeds hatred for a group of people, which could lead to violence and other problems. He normally sticks to criticizing Islam, but in this case he was targeting an ethnic group. It wasn't criticism either; it sounded more like a threat.

miniboes wrote: How about hate speech and incitements of violence?

That's more difficult to define until it happens.

miniboes wrote: the judge said he's convicted for 'group offending' and 'incitement to discrimination', which both sound like stupid reasons to me

Yes, very.

miniboes wrote: but there's an argument to be made that what he said breeds hatred for a group of people, which could lead to violence and other problems.

There are plenty of things we might think could lead to violence and other problems. On that basis, Christianity should be outright banned because the Bible says to go make Christians of all nations, and talks of Jesus coming with a sword.

Pretty much any idea can lead to violence except radical nonviolence.

Sounds like a stupid law. Discrimination can be perfectly sensible, e.g. if there are important differences between X and Y. Maybe Morrocans are identical to native Dutchmen in all significant behavioral outcomes, in which case I think it would be OK that Wilders was found guilty of something... However, I'd more or less blindly wager all my earthly belongings that Morrocans are massively overrepresented in all the bad statistics of the Netherlands, and that they're not just randomly being hated on. And as long as we don't have a magical soul-reading device to identify the specific troublemakers, it makes sense to ban broad categories of people from entering your country if they are on net balance a detriment to society. Or was his statement of "less Morrocans" seriously interpreted as "kill the Morrocans"? That would be even sillier.

knot wrote:Or was his statement of "less Morrocans" seriously interpreted as "kill the Morrocans"? That would be even sillier.

No, it's interpreted as deportation.