andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Is there a remark on Dutch criminal courts at about 3:30??
> If so, what the ... does he mean?

  I think he's referring to the case of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 16:26, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Is there a remark on Dutch criminal courts at about 3:30??
>> If so, what the ... does he mean?
>
>    I think he's referring to the case of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

I sure hope not. And if he does I'd like to know what sources he has for 
his statement. I think he says: "Faith disqualifies reason the way a 
Dutch criminal court disqualifies truth and witnesses and for much the 
same reason". Which seems to suggest that it is a common if not 
necessary thing in the Dutch law system.
I was actually hoping that I either misheard him or that it refers to an 
expression used by US lawyers. Sort of like the concept of a Dutch party 
where everyone brings his own food and drinks (what we refer here to as 
an American party and got much the same reason).

BTW there was a case against Geert Wilders, but that is now on hold 
while they try to find new judges. Ones that have no opinion yet on the 
case. (That probably means that it is on hold indefinitely).
Details are so hairy that I can hardly follow this case even with daily 
updates from the best lawyers. Basing an opinion on this case and 
extending that to the Dutch laws in general is not something that I 
would advise. You are probably correct in that this is the only Dutch 
court case that has gotten any international attention recently.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Basing an opinion on this case and 
> extending that to the Dutch laws in general is not something that I 
> would advise.

  I think Condell uses strong rhetoric sometimes to express his views.
Similarly to how someone saying "all men are pigs" doesn't necessarily
mean that every single male in existence is literally a jerk, but more
like a more generalized expression of frustration about a certain
phenomenon.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 20:33, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Basing an opinion on this case and
>> extending that to the Dutch laws in general is not something that I
>> would advise.
>
>    I think Condell uses strong rhetoric sometimes to express his views.

might be, but that sort of implies that his audience knows what he is 
referring to. And that implies that someone somewhere did his best to 
misinform the public and succeeded. That worries me a bit. Remember the 
Dutch are in general allies of the US. How misinformed are they about 
their enemies? (assuming this person is from the USA)

> Similarly to how someone saying "all men are pigs" doesn't necessarily
> mean that every single male in existence is literally a jerk, but more
> like a more generalized expression of frustration about a certain
> phenomenon.

So what is his frustration with the Dutch criminal courts? I might have 
missed it by being too close.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 20-12-2010 20:33, Warp wrote:
> > andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
> >> Basing an opinion on this case and
> >> extending that to the Dutch laws in general is not something that I
> >> would advise.
> >
> >    I think Condell uses strong rhetoric sometimes to express his views.

> might be, but that sort of implies that his audience knows what he is 
> referring to. And that implies that someone somewhere did his best to 
> misinform the public and succeeded. That worries me a bit. Remember the 
> Dutch are in general allies of the US. How misinformed are they about 
> their enemies? (assuming this person is from the USA)

  He's British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell

> > Similarly to how someone saying "all men are pigs" doesn't necessarily
> > mean that every single male in existence is literally a jerk, but more
> > like a more generalized expression of frustration about a certain
> > phenomenon.

> So what is his frustration with the Dutch criminal courts? I might have 
> missed it by being too close.

  I suppose he sees the whole lawsuit as a travesty against freedom of
speech.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 21:08, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 20-12-2010 20:33, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>   wrote:
>>>> Basing an opinion on this case and
>>>> extending that to the Dutch laws in general is not something that I
>>>> would advise.
>>>
>>>     I think Condell uses strong rhetoric sometimes to express his views.
>
>> might be, but that sort of implies that his audience knows what he is
>> referring to. And that implies that someone somewhere did his best to
>> misinform the public and succeeded. That worries me a bit. Remember the
>> Dutch are in general allies of the US. How misinformed are they about
>> their enemies? (assuming this person is from the USA)
>
>    He's British.

interesting

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell
>
>>> Similarly to how someone saying "all men are pigs" doesn't necessarily
>>> mean that every single male in existence is literally a jerk, but more
>>> like a more generalized expression of frustration about a certain
>>> phenomenon.
>
>> So what is his frustration with the Dutch criminal courts? I might have
>> missed it by being too close.
>
>    I suppose he sees the whole lawsuit as a travesty against freedom of
> speech.

(So the British are just as bad in understanding what goes on in another 
country. Interesting.)

I think you have to really understand who complained, who prosecutes, 
who is defending on what grounds and in particular what the result of 
the trial is to judge if it is a travesty or not.

The whole issue with freedom of speech is that you are not allowed to 
call 'fire' in a crowded cinema. But where to draw the line. This case 
was centered on finding out if what Wilders said was over the line or 
not. He was consistently trying to provoke violence towards groups of 
people by selective portrayal of individual actions as that of a whole 
group (while trying to keep within the boundaries of what is just not 
racism). He was also trying to anger a lot of Dutch people that happened 
to have immigrant forefathers, apparently hoping that one of them would 
be so angry that he would misbehave. Or so at least is one view on what 
he does.
The case against him was therefore on provoking violence and not on 
freedom of speech, just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of 
speech.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> He was consistently trying to provoke violence towards groups of 
> people by selective portrayal of individual actions as that of a whole 
> group (while trying to keep within the boundaries of what is just not 
> racism). He was also trying to anger a lot of Dutch people that happened 
> to have immigrant forefathers, apparently hoping that one of them would 
> be so angry that he would misbehave. Or so at least is one view on what 
> he does.
> The case against him was therefore on provoking violence and not on 
> freedom of speech, just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of 
> speech.

  Good to see you are not prejudiced in the least.

  Why would someone create a video critical of islam and islamic culture?
There's only one possible reason: To provoke violence towards muslims and
to anger them. Given this axiom and law of nature, the only remaining
question is how to punish such a person for such a despicable act.

  Of course at the same time videos criticizing eg. christians and
christian culture is ok, and completely under freedom of expression.

  Double standard much?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I think he says: "Faith disqualifies reason the way a 
> Dutch criminal court disqualifies truth and witnesses and for much the 
> same reason". Which seems to suggest that it is a common if not 
> necessary thing in the Dutch law system.

One of his much-earlier rants went on about this. I remember him talking 
about it at the time it happened (six months or more ago?) but I don't feel 
like trolling thru his videos to find it.

Eventually google will start indexing spoken videos, at which point it'll be 
easy to find. :-)

> expression used by US lawyers. 

I don't think so.

> Sort of like the concept of a Dutch party 
> where everyone brings his own food and drinks 

Oh. For a second there I thought you meant a Dutch political party. Heh.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2010 8:31 PM, andrel wrote:
>
> (So the British are just as bad in understanding what goes on in another
> country. Interesting.)

What! Have you no sense of history, Andrel? ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 21:48, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> He was consistently trying to provoke violence towards groups of
>> people by selective portrayal of individual actions as that of a whole
>> group (while trying to keep within the boundaries of what is just not
>> racism). He was also trying to anger a lot of Dutch people that happened
>> to have immigrant forefathers, apparently hoping that one of them would
>> be so angry that he would misbehave. Or so at least is one view on what
>> he does.
>> The case against him was therefore on provoking violence and not on
>> freedom of speech, just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of
>> speech.
>
>    Good to see you are not prejudiced in the least.

I try not to be, indeed. (unless you meant it cynical, in which case I 
would be interested to know on which side my prejudices are)

>    Why would someone create a video critical of islam and islamic culture?
> There's only one possible reason: To provoke violence towards muslims and
> to anger them. Given this axiom and law of nature, the only remaining
> question is how to punish such a person for such a despicable act.

There are a few others:
- because he really believes it
- because more people will vote for him (increased influence and another 
4 years of income)
- because it is the consequence of the path he has taken and he can not 
go off that path anymore.

>    Of course at the same time videos criticizing eg. christians and
> christian culture is ok, and completely under freedom of expression.

That really depends on the content. There have been cases of opinions of 
Imams ('you should throw gay people from the high buildings') that were 
not considered to be free to be expressed. Interestingly that lead to 
the concept that tolerance of gay people is part of being Dutch and gay 
rights to be defended by extreme right wing people.

>    Double standard much?

In general the majority in a country has to be able to get more 
criticism than a minority. If that minority is more vulnerable. Which 
means that jews, muslim, hindus and perhaps even atheists get more 
protection in western Europe from attacks by someone from the majority. 
I wouldn't call that a double standard.

Post a reply to this message