Zingari Posted 18 February 2010 Posted 18 February 2010 This important trial in Amsterdam seems to have been going on slightly under the radar of mainstream media . quote It is not exaggerating to say that the Geert Wilders trial is a defining moment in the history of Western civilization. One would have to go back centuries to find a court case with as much significance for the future course of the free world Any thoughts ? Is it freedom of speech on trial ? Is Pat Condell really Thracian ? What is the Dutch for Kangaroo court ? What other questions about freedom does it raise ? Is it a storm in a teacup ? http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/02/13/...of-free-speech/ http://europenews.dk/en/node/29924 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/18/the-abs...-geert-wilders/ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasm...ling-the-truth/
Webbo Posted 18 February 2010 Posted 18 February 2010 It's a sad day when people are put on trial for having an opinion.
Jon the Hat Posted 18 February 2010 Posted 18 February 2010 There's only two things I can't stand. People who are intolerant of other peoples cultures, and the Dutch.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 18 February 2010 Posted 18 February 2010 It's just a good thing freedom of speech isn't on trial in the UK! British Jurors Dey Not Unnerstan Wot Der Bloke Inna Wig Sez Most jurors 'don't understand law' * Press Association, Wednesday February 17 2010 Less than a third of trial jurors fully understand a judge's legal directions, a ground-breaking study has suggested. Jury members also looked on the internet for information about their case, despite being told not to by the judge, the research showed. Other findings show that all-white juries do not discriminate against black defendants and juries convict more often than they acquit in rape cases, contrary to public perception. The two-year study, led by Professor Cheryl Thomas of University College London, analysed 68,000 verdicts across Crown courts in England and Wales, and also staged simulated trials. In relation to judge's directions - where a judge gives crucial guidance to jurors about what they have heard - the research team asked jurors at Winchester Crown Court to recall two key questions that the judge gave in a case where a defendant was charged with violence. Only 31% of jurors accurately identified both questions, it was found. A further 48% correctly identified one of the two questions, and a fifth did not correctly identify either question. Researchers found a written summary of the judge's directions on the law for jurors improved their comprehension of the law. Prof Thomas has recommended a pilot test of written juror guideline cards for a sample of courts to work out how they can be best introduced. In 2008, the Lord Chief Justice suggested that courts might need to present more information visually to reflect greater use of technology like the internet. The report, called Are Juries Fair?, also tested verdicts from all-white juries concerning white and black and Asian defendants. It was found that verdicts at both courts showed no tendency for all-white juries to convict a black or Asian defendant more than a white person. White defendants accused of racially motivated crimes were also not more likely to be acquitted by all-White juries than racially mixed panels. Justice Secretary Jack Straw said: "The study's findings on the fairness of jury decisions, including for people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, will help to maintain public confidence in juries and the jury system. But we cannot allow complacency about the justice system. We will carefully consider the recommendations for helping jurors do their job to the best of their ability."
Thracian Posted 18 February 2010 Posted 18 February 2010 It's a sad day when people are put on trial for having an opinion. You don't need to be in Holland. Freedom of speech has been continually eroded in this country and freedom of thought is forever having to compete with the constant, sometimes subtle, sometimes pounding mental conditioning of the Left's PC and political philosophy impositionists. Global warming is the latest major example, following on from the Weapons of Mass Destruction bullshit and Labour's facilitating multiculturalism and immigration-by-stealth as opposed to concensus.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 18 February 2010 Posted 18 February 2010 Global warming is the latest major example, following on from the Weapons of Mass Destruction bullshit and Labour's facilitating multiculturalism and immigration-by-stealth as opposed to concensus. Indeed! You're no longer allowed to mention global-warming without some right-wing bigot jumping on you and belittling your apparent lack of understanding... oh, wait a mo!
Finnegan Posted 18 February 2010 Posted 18 February 2010 Indeed! You're no longer allowed to mention global-warming without some right-wing bigot jumping on you and belittling your apparent lack of understanding... oh, wait a mo!
BoneDog Posted 19 February 2010 Posted 19 February 2010 Wilders is a twat. I don't know which club he in but the guy's got hidden motives. Shit-stirrer plain and simples.
Daggers Posted 19 February 2010 Posted 19 February 2010 Global warming is the latest major example C'mon then Tone - what aren't you allowed to say because the nasty people won't let you?
Zingari Posted 19 February 2010 Author Posted 19 February 2010 C'mon then Tone - what aren't you allowed to say because the nasty people won't let you? what you aren't allowed to say is what the trial is all about isn't it ?
Jon the Hat Posted 19 February 2010 Posted 19 February 2010 You should be allowed to say anything at all. Anything. If having said it, it results directly in a crime being carried out then you should be held partially resonsible. Simple.
Zingari Posted 19 February 2010 Author Posted 19 February 2010 You should be allowed to say anything at all. Anything. If having said it, it results directly in a crime being carried out then you should be held partially resonsible. Simple. So , do you think Geert Wilders should be allowed to say whatever about any religion ? Would any offences committed due to this be classed as Wilders being directly responsible ? Edit ; topical Could Elton John be considered partially responsible for any actions taken by loopy Christians for what he has said recently ?
Daggers Posted 19 February 2010 Posted 19 February 2010 what you aren't allowed to say is what the trial is all about isn't it ? He has used hate-speech about clouds and CO2 has he? C'mon Tone - what are you not allowed to say about Global Warming, I'm still dying to know.
Zingari Posted 19 February 2010 Author Posted 19 February 2010 Why do i get the feeling that the very same lantern jawed defenders of the right to freedom of speech will be more noticible now that it is outraged Christians who may be offended ,rather than when muslims get offended by Wilders etc My take ; Say what you like about god religion etc etc Elton , but say what you like also Wilders, and fook anyone getting upset about it
Zingari Posted 19 February 2010 Author Posted 19 February 2010 Global warming?Thracian? *cough* there can be no doubting that global warming is obviously causing all sorts of respiratory problems
Guest Posted 19 February 2010 Posted 19 February 2010 Does this bloke not say "Madeline is dead"? Not "I believe that Madeline is dead"? And doesn't he also say "The parents did it"? In which case, freedom of expression isn't the real issue. Art. 10 is a means to an end? Not sure how libel is dealt with in Portugal, to be fair. there can be no doubting that global warming is obviously causing all sorts of respiratory problems Is it bollocks. All this cold weather has made my asthma worse. My lungs are crying out for some warm weather.
Zingari Posted 20 February 2010 Author Posted 20 February 2010 Does this bloke not say "Madeline is dead"? Not "I believe that Madeline is dead"?And doesn't he also say "The parents did it"? In which case, freedom of expression isn't the real issue. Art. 10 is a means to an end? Not sure how libel is dealt with in Portugal, to be fair. Is it bollocks. All this cold weather has made my asthma worse. My lungs are crying out for some warm weather. Sorry , am I missing something obvious ? Who are you talking about and what has this got to do do with the Geert Wilders trial ? Or is it a legal point about the freedom of speech ?
Trav Le Bleu Posted 20 February 2010 Posted 20 February 2010 Global warming?Thracian? *cough* Subtle. I like it.
Guest Posted 20 February 2010 Posted 20 February 2010 Sorry , am I missing something obvious ? Who are you talking about and what has this got to do do with the Geert Wilders trial ? Or is it a legal point about the freedom of speech ? I had a bad day yesterday; the latest issue on freedom of speech decided was that nutter who reckons Maddy is dead. Just wanted to bring in another angle on freedom of speech, but should have said so first. I have to stop thinking that people think along the same lines as myself.
Daggers Posted 21 February 2010 Posted 21 February 2010 I guess Thracian isn't allowed to say what he isn't allowed to say about global warming. I never knew 'their' powers were so far reaching. Someone should do something.
Guest Bilo Posted 21 February 2010 Posted 21 February 2010 Pains me to say it but the Torygraph is spot on with this issue. Wilders may be offensive to Muslims and his views should be tackled like those of any other politician but putting him on trial for 'intentionally offending a group of people' sounds like the assault on free speech it is. As much as I loathe Nick Griffin and the BNP, I would feel very uncomfortable if he was put on trial for his views on Islam and immigration because it would imply that we have lost the political argument so criminalising him is the only way forward. The Dutch, a supposedly liberal and democratic people, should try to undermine Wilders' words through political discourse rather than take the criminal route. His speeches sound like the whinings of many a good, old-fashioned racist reactionary that have somehow rung true with some Dutch people. Perhaps the Dutch government should try thinking about why their people are listening to Wilders and tackle some of the issues he raises, as it is clear that the issues he raises regarding what he perceives as the Islamification of the Netherlands and Europe ring true with some in his country. The legal route is the easy route, the route of the coward who feels a panicked need to silence critics. It's undemocratic and sends out completely the wrong message. It sends out a message to Dutch racists that their government is indeed doing the bidding of Dutch Muslims by silencing their most outspoken critic. It makes him a political martyr. If you want to undermine his politics, tackle them head on and expose them for the racist crap that they are. That's why the far-right are little more than a joke here but a major force on the continent.
Zingari Posted 21 February 2010 Author Posted 21 February 2010 Pains me to say it but the Torygraph is spot on with this issue.Wilders may be offensive to Muslims and his views should be tackled like those of any other politician but putting him on trial for 'intentionally offending a group of people' sounds like the assault on free speech it is. As much as I loathe Nick Griffin and the BNP, I would feel very uncomfortable if he was put on trial for his views on Islam and immigration because it would imply that we have lost the political argument so criminalising him is the only way forward. The Dutch, a supposedly liberal and democratic people, should try to undermine Wilders' words through political discourse rather than take the criminal route. His speeches sound like the whinings of many a good, old-fashioned racist reactionary that have somehow rung true with some Dutch people. Perhaps the Dutch government should try thinking about why their people are listening to Wilders and tackle some of the issues he raises, as it is clear that the issues he raises regarding what he perceives as the Islamification of the Netherlands and Europe ring true with some in his country. The legal route is the easy route, the route of the coward who feels a panicked need to silence critics. It's undemocratic and sends out completely the wrong message. It sends out a message to Dutch racists that their government is indeed doing the bidding of Dutch Muslims by silencing their most outspoken critic. It makes him a political martyr. If you want to undermine his politics, tackle them head on and expose them for the racist crap that they are. That's why the far-right are little more than a joke here but a major force on the continent. a most sensible post to be expected though
Daggers Posted 21 February 2010 Posted 21 February 2010 That's why the far-right are little more than a joke here but a major force on the continent. But some of the issues aren't. The constant kowtowing to religious groups of all hues, especially the way in which we pander to Muslims, needs to be addressed. They all expect to have a direct line to law makers as they believe they have to God. My wife has to meet Muslim 'Community Leaders' as part of her job - and some of them will refuse to shake her hand. Will anyone say anything to them? Oh no, that would be far too 'culturally insensitive'. Our neighbour is a decent, hard-working, honest bloke. He's is also a rampant bigot - but if you look at how society is continually shitting on him you can appreciate why. He continues to strive to work, despite redundancy, and continues to live in his Mum's house since she was put into a care home with dementia. Now, as he struggles to pay bills, he is threatened with eviction as they seek to sell the house to pay for her care costs. Meanwhile houses in the street are bought up for the resettlement of immigrants who receive benefits - they have heating, he doesn't. It's not really fair is it? He's being penalised in the face of others who are being treated. Those on here who know me know I'm hardly a racist - but I do believe in fairness. If you act like a misogynistic twat (claiming it is Gods will) then I should be allowed to call you a misogynistic twat and refuse to have anything to do with you. If you live in the modest house you have lived in all your life then no one should make you homeless...and create another house to be used for the resettlement of immigrants, drug addicts or sex cases (as has been the case for the last 18 months here). With Labour in free-fall and oblivious to the needs of those outside the ethnic communities, the Tories pointing at pot-holes and graffiti and the LibDems all but absent - the Far Right are the only ones addressing the local issues in my constituency. It is nothing short of a fucking outrageous dereliction of responsibility by the three main parties.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.