Criminal Speech?

Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings.
- Heinrich Heine

A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. The statements in question stem from Geert Wilders film "Fitna", and on top of the film, statements likening the Quran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

An article on the court ordered prosecution can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm

The film Fitna, which I must caution contains graphic imagery, may be found here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020472.php

It is about 15 minutes long and while I simply intended to sample it, wound up watching it from beginning to end. It is a series of vignettes of Koranic verses, news imagery, and extremely radical Islamic preaching cut together in a brilliant propaganda piece to espouse a quite harsh message regarding Islamic encroachment on the west.

One might argue that the verses are taken out of context, but they are the verses nonetheless. The imagery seems to be predominately news footage, leaving only the question of the accuracy of the superimposed translations. That is easily ascertained, although unfortunately not by me.

Even the statement equating the Koran with Mein Kampf, however distasteful, is the expression of an opinion, it is a political equation highlighting the speakers belief that fundamentalist Islam poses a threat to the secular and libertarian traditions of his native country.

To me, as an American, these are all protected forms of speech, one is left wondering when the Dutch charges against Bill Maher for Religulous will be forthcoming.

The United States has perhaps a slightly more liberal view on free speech than our western counterparts, the Constitution's "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,". Our courts have upheld that with few exceptions, being predominately the "incitement to immediate lawless action or violence", The key term being 'immediate', that the Freedom of Speech is virtually absolute.

Our European brethren have caveatted the Freedom of Speech, or 'Expression' as they term it, with restriction in both the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR Article 19. The restriction being "with respect for rights and reputations of others" and in the European Convention on Human Rights, which has virtually the same restriction. Fortunately for us, the United States while a signatory to the ICCPR has rendered it non-executable, much to the chagrin of our European allies. However, as an American...

I have no desire for a convention granting me more restricted rights than I already possess. European civil rights have been shaped more in response to the legacy of Nazi domination than towards guaranteeing the freedom of their populace, whereas the United States tends ideologically to err on the side of freedom, Europe tends to pragmatically err on the side of caution. From an American perspective this seems a rather 'head in the sand' approach, assuming that if racism and discrimination can not be voiced, it will go away.

It is under this legal concept that they charge Geert Wilders with 'hate crimes'. While under the American standard we have neo-nazi and Klan marches and the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at military funerals with signs such as "God hates Fags" and "Fag Troops". Which while I find such attitudes and behavior repugnant, it is not quite so repugnant as the act of silencing them.

"The Dutch appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement. "The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders."

So in pointing out the intolerant, hateful, violent, and ignorant speech of one group, one becomes considered "intolerant, hateful, violent, and ignorant".

I fear that the Dutch have gone, from the tale of Hans Brinker, the little Dutch boy with his finger stuck in a hole in the dike to the image of the Dutch judge with his nose stuck in another hole, unfortunately this hole is not in the dike.