A Dutch court has acquitted the
Arab European League, which had been charged with engaging in "hate speech" because they had published a
cartoon questioning whether or not the Holocaust had ever happened.
The court ruled that "Freedom of speech need not come second in this case to the right of others to be free from discrimination. The right of the AEL to make such a statement must be guaranteed."
Fair enough.
Meanwhile, the trial of
Geert Wilders, charged with committing "hate speech" for his criticisms of Islam, is ongoing. Attempts to have the charges thrown out on the grounds of protecting freedom of speech have been rejected.
The court hearing Wilders case has also refused to allow any witnesses from testifying as to whether the statements made by Wilders concerning Islam are factually accurate!
Wilders had wished to call witnesses who would substantiate statements that he has made, such as:
Islam is a totalitarian ideology, a doctrine of hate, and it is not difficult to find in the Quran what Muslims are expected to do with unbelievers: they are to be killed. Just look at Surah 4 verse 56, or Surah 47 verse 4, to name a few.
But those seated in judgement over Wilders agreed with the prosecution, who had argued:
It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct. What’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.
