Geert Wilders: in the wrong or not?
Geert Wilders, of the PVV, was convicted of inciting discrimination in 2016. During a
party rally in 2014, he asked a crowd if they wanted more or less Moroccans, to
which they responded: “Less!” A week before that he had also told an interviewer the
city would benefit from having less Moroccans. Over 6500 people pressed charges.
He was found guilty but received no punishment. Nevertheless, the public
prosecution thought he should have received a sentence, so they appealed against
the verdict. Again, he received no punishment. Some people were of the opinion that
these trials were political ones, meaning their purpose was to damage the political
career of Wilders. However, the Wilders trial was not a political one, because it is a
fact that he publicly discriminated Moroccans and that is a valid reason to accuse
him.
Geert Wilders had come forward with numerous statements proving his
discriminating point of view against Moroccans.
On 12 March 2014 Wilders spoke with an interviewer in the Hague:
‘’Those people (referencing Dutch people from the Hague) are voting for a safer and
more social city and if possible, less Moroccans.’’
On 19 March 2014 Geert Wilders was present at a party rally. The suspect asked the
public a question:
‘’I ask you: do you want more or less Moroccans in this city?’’
To which the public responded and shouted:
‘’Less, Less!’’
Wilders answered that with a short response:
‘’Well, then I’m going to take care of that.’’
These are clear examples of hate speech. Discriminating is treating people differently
for reasons that are not valid in that specific situation. Wilders his declarations were
in fact discriminating because, he singled out Moroccans as the people who shouldn’t
be let into the city because they cause ‘’turmoil’’. However, ethnicity is not a valid
reason of causing turmoil and therefore they should be let into the city.
These remarks are very condescending and go too far to be left without a
punishment.
Geert Wilders does not agree that his remarks were discriminating, because he only
expressed the opinions of many people. He argues that the right of freedom of
speech should prevail over the right of protection of discrimination. This has been a
debate for a long time: when is something called freedom of speech and when is it
discrimination?
According to the principle of legality, someone can only be convicted if their actions
are in conflict with the law. Wilders argues that his statements fall under the right of
freedom of speech. As stated by the accused we should be able to say such things
because we live in a free country. He also thinks that this is the truth and that secretly
many Dutch citizens believe this as well. Instead, he believes that the reason he was
charged, is to purely damage his reputation as a politician. This could be a valid
argument, because he is a politician and these trials could be a way for his
opponents to silence him. The ministry even interfered with the trials, which caused a
Geert Wilders, of the PVV, was convicted of inciting discrimination in 2016. During a
party rally in 2014, he asked a crowd if they wanted more or less Moroccans, to
which they responded: “Less!” A week before that he had also told an interviewer the
city would benefit from having less Moroccans. Over 6500 people pressed charges.
He was found guilty but received no punishment. Nevertheless, the public
prosecution thought he should have received a sentence, so they appealed against
the verdict. Again, he received no punishment. Some people were of the opinion that
these trials were political ones, meaning their purpose was to damage the political
career of Wilders. However, the Wilders trial was not a political one, because it is a
fact that he publicly discriminated Moroccans and that is a valid reason to accuse
him.
Geert Wilders had come forward with numerous statements proving his
discriminating point of view against Moroccans.
On 12 March 2014 Wilders spoke with an interviewer in the Hague:
‘’Those people (referencing Dutch people from the Hague) are voting for a safer and
more social city and if possible, less Moroccans.’’
On 19 March 2014 Geert Wilders was present at a party rally. The suspect asked the
public a question:
‘’I ask you: do you want more or less Moroccans in this city?’’
To which the public responded and shouted:
‘’Less, Less!’’
Wilders answered that with a short response:
‘’Well, then I’m going to take care of that.’’
These are clear examples of hate speech. Discriminating is treating people differently
for reasons that are not valid in that specific situation. Wilders his declarations were
in fact discriminating because, he singled out Moroccans as the people who shouldn’t
be let into the city because they cause ‘’turmoil’’. However, ethnicity is not a valid
reason of causing turmoil and therefore they should be let into the city.
These remarks are very condescending and go too far to be left without a
punishment.
Geert Wilders does not agree that his remarks were discriminating, because he only
expressed the opinions of many people. He argues that the right of freedom of
speech should prevail over the right of protection of discrimination. This has been a
debate for a long time: when is something called freedom of speech and when is it
discrimination?
According to the principle of legality, someone can only be convicted if their actions
are in conflict with the law. Wilders argues that his statements fall under the right of
freedom of speech. As stated by the accused we should be able to say such things
because we live in a free country. He also thinks that this is the truth and that secretly
many Dutch citizens believe this as well. Instead, he believes that the reason he was
charged, is to purely damage his reputation as a politician. This could be a valid
argument, because he is a politician and these trials could be a way for his
opponents to silence him. The ministry even interfered with the trials, which caused a
