First, you said this:

AS OUR COMMENT AWAITS MODERATION, WE NOW KNOW THAT YOU YOURSELF DO NOT ADHERE TO THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH YOU PROMULGATE. PRINT THAT!

After I disputed that, however, you said:

Our feelings exactly.

You also claim that you and I both agree with Voltaire on freedom of speech, when plainly we do not.

Thank you for your reply. You bring up some very good points that give us the opportunity to set matters straight and hopefully end this confused international discussion. (Would that the world spoke or only understood Dutch and the Dutch!)

“Holding a comment for moderation does not infringe your freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not include the right to expect media owned by other people to print whatever you happen to say.”

–Our feelings exactly. Tiny criticism: Without media, barely any political debate would be possible. We all know that and GW knows it very well.
Thus, we fail to see why GW makes such a point of what is written or said about him, in the media or in court; or of him being sued, by other citizens.
You don’t make what people say such a point, we don’t – but we were eager for your reply to that point
Now we have it, thank you, and right you are.
Your slurs on our position or that of Dutch judges lack every ground, hopefully you see that now or when reading on. Excuses in order?

“Insults may be grounds for a civil lawsuit, but they are not legitimate grounds for a criminal prosecution carrying a jail sentence on [I suppose you mean: "or", as we seem to be down to nitpicking on this 'blog'.] conviction.”

–That is the big point you forget or do not know and it is the crux of the matter. There ARE no criminal proceedings but, indeed, a civil lawsuit, as we wrote already. A suit ['legal complaint'] was brought against GW, the first judge saw no grounds for a trial; appeal followed, of course, and the next judge has returned the case to go to trial.
For everyone’s information: So far, in similar Dutch cases, all convictions were fines. But when the insults are of a discriminatory nature or promulgate hate amongst parts of the population, a jail sentence is possible.
That is all: a lawsuit from some citizens against GW. If he were on the level, he’d say what we all say: ‘Come on, sue me!’ Right?
So, you do agree then, that there’s nothing amiss with that?

Fine, matter settled. Because, like you, we wholeheartedly agree with Voltaire – our editor-in-chief did some of that defending in person, but not “to [ppp, here: 'his'] death”; luckily, he lived to tell the tale.

We fail to understand why you don’t see that we agree, with Voltaire and your points this time around: Definitely not with the misinformation you were disseminating before.

P.S. Glad you had a laugh out of us Same here.

Holding a comment for moderation does not infringe your freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not include the right to expect media owned by other people to print whatever you happen to say. You can exercise your freedom through your own blog or other media that you actually control.

Insults may be grounds for a civil lawsuit, but they are not legitimate grounds for a criminal prosecution carrying a jail sentence on conviction.

“May one not state this as a matter of historical fact?”
–Yes you may and many do so, unscathed. But W. always adds that that’s a reason for deportation of all Muslems from the NL. That, you may not say. After all, we live in a democracy with freedom for all, not for some.

Yes, you can say that, and others are free to disagree publicly. It’s called a political debate—an essential part of the democracy you purport to uphold.

When it comes to freedom of speech, Voltaire had it right: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. You and some Dutch judges think otherwise. That censorious attitude threatens genuine freedom and democracy.

“A Dutch court has ordered MP Geert Wilders to stand trial for his film Fitna”
–Wrong. It is a Dutch court of Appeal and they looked at much more than Fitna. That title, btw, is apertly wrong for what W. might have meant. No one ever saw much intelligence concerning or knowledge of his one subject in the man.

“(…)because there were “a number of complaints”.
–Yup, legal complaints under criminal law, before a higher court, according to due process and all. W. is simply sued and it is every citizen’s right to sue an other citizen. Do you dare to disagree? We live in a democracy with freedom for all, not for some, you know.

“Here you have it again: Wilders isn’t wrong.”
–No, he cannot be, as he avoids all facts.

“He’s just “insulting”. He harms the “esteem” of radical Muslims — who, apparently, are looking to Wilders for their religious validation. (Do these judges have even a simpleton’s grasp of Islam? Is any Muslim’s “religious esteem” hanging on what a Dutch MP says?)”
–H’s not just insulting (which, by the way, is just cause for a legal suit in itself, as every schoolboy knows); he’s on a campaign to incite hatred, exclusion and a Muslem-free country. Countless national and international laws forbid that. Ethnic or religious cleansing is what he wants and calls for – remember Ruanda, Bosnia? If he succeeds, he might stand trial next to Karadzic, Mladic, Bush et. al.

“There are of course limits to free speech, such as calls for violence. But one doesn’t need to agree with Mr. Wilders to acknowledge that he hasn’t crossed that line.”
–Yes he has crossed that line.He even makes a sport of doing so just to get some attention. This is wrong and that’s exactly the ruling of the court of appeals. It is also the feeling of the majority of the Dutch. W. incites hatred and violence, not only against a religion but against people as well. This is forbidden, and rightly so, since the 1930′s. Guess why? Anne Frank mean anything to you? The NSB? Majdanek?

“(…)never does the court claim that Wilders’ facts are wrong.
–That is not the job of this court but of the lower court that will soon prosecute the man. Facts do not matter, they are simply there. It is what you say about them (rather, against them), his interpretation then, that is at stake here. If there is no interpretation on his side and he really tells it like it is: he will have his day in court to prove so. Very fair, just and right.

“Wilders isn’t wrong.”
–Who knows? Do you? He has never been caught in a statement of fact.

“The charges relate to Fitna,”
–Wrong again. And again: there is so much more. Read the verdict, please. it is especially the repeated and ongoing nature of his one-liners that galled the court. He’s on a directed campaign of alienation, discimination and divison in the nation.

“flew into the Twin Towers with ‘Allahu Akhbar’ on their lips.”
–Are you compos mentis? You think W. interviewed dead people (Achmed the Dead Terrorist?). Really, no place and time for joking here, please

“May one not state this as a matter of historical fact?”
–Yes you may and many do so, unscathed. But W. always adds that that’s a reason for deportation of all Muslems from the NL. That, you may not say. After all, we live in a democracy with freedom for all, not for some.

All due respect,
drs. VHJM van Neerven MSW MA,
editor-in-chief VNCcc
Amsterdam, Netherlands

THE MEASURE OF A CIVILIZATION IS ITS TREATMENT OF MINORITIES