This week in the strange death of Europe: 6 months prison for "Stop Islamization" banner

[Metaphor]

The original story, in Dutch:
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/05/26/vonnis-voorpost/

I've used an online translator to translate the story. I have inserted [in square brackets] my own 'translation' where the machine translation appears to be misleading because of lack of context. Emphasis mine.

4 members of radical-right group Outpost convicted of inciting hatred and violence over banner "Stop Islamisation"

The correctional court in Mechelen has convicted 4 members of the radical right-wing organisation Voorpost of inciting hatred and violence during a demonstration in May last year. A banner reading "Stop Islamisation" showed some women in burqas or nikabs, and that combination went too far, according to the court. Several MPs from Vlaams Belang have protested against the verdict in Mechelen.


It was on Saturday, May 30, 2020 on the Saturday market in Mechelen that the radical right-wing organization Voorpost held a demonstration against what it says is Islamization. In addition, some members also held up a banner with the words "Stop Islamization". Below those words was a row of women with niqab, and a second row of women with burqas.

According to the criminal court in Mechelen, that banner is going too far. "By carrying such signs and banners, the defendants aim to sow fear and create hatred in society by convincing the spectators of the idea that in the future Islam may dominate Flanders," the verdict read.

"They portray an imaginary danger whereby every woman as a result of this so-called Islamization would be obliged to wear a burqa or a niqab or every woman would wear a burqa or a niqab as a result. Such ideas try to avoid fear and niqab in others [?]. to nurture or stir hatred against the Muslim community so that they are encouraged to engage in similar hateful and fear-mongering behaviors themselves," the judge said.

The four members of Outpost were all sentenced to 6 months in prison. For three of them this was with delay [suspended sentence?], for one of them the punishment was effective. Their lawyer Luc Deceuninck is now examining whether they will appeal. But that seems very likely. "This was just free speech, a political statement, no different from that," Deceuninck said in an initial response to the statement.

"When they say stop Islamization, you do not say stop Islam. They say stop the pervasive influence in our society of certain Islamic practices. That is what they are talking about. Actually, the court does not answer our arguments," said the disgruntled one. lawyer.

Several members of parliament of Vlaams Belang protested in Mechelen against the verdict of the criminal court of Mechelen. On the Grote Markt they unfolded banners with the same message, supplemented with posters with the message "Stop censorship".

"The criminal conviction of the four Voorpost activists is far beyond a miscarriage of justice. This is an attack on freedom of speech, democracy and the ability to wage opposition. Opposing Islamization is not inciting hatred or violence. That is. just freedom of speech. That is protecting what is dear to us, our identity ", said Vlaams Belang chairman Tom Van Greeks in" Het journaal ".

Most of the leaders of the party were present, including chairman Tom Van Greeks, federal party leader Barbara Pas, Member of the European Parliament Gerolf Annemans and 25 members of parliament, including Flemish Members of Parliament Filip Dewinter, Sam Van Rooy, Anke Van dermeersch and Guy D 'haeseleer.

 

[prideandfall]

inflammatory news story + questionable translation and/or complete lack of history or context + metaphor posting it = 100% chance this is complete bullshit, and once whomever on this forum researches it and provides links showing it's 100% complete bullshit the usual cabal of circle-jerkers will ignore that entirely and insist this is evidence of the holocaust of white people.

 

[Metaphor]

inflammatory news story + questionable translation and/or complete lack of history or context + metaphor posting it = 100% chance this is complete bullshit, and once whomever on this forum researches it and provides links showing it's 100% complete bullshit the usual cabal of circle-jerkers will ignore that entirely and insist this is evidence of the holocaust of white people.

Sure hun.

 

[laughing dog]

This link is a report in English https://netherlandsnewslive.com/outpost-quartet-convicted-of-hate-speech-after-anti-islam-banner/162741/

 

[zorq]

Where does hate speech begin? Where is that line? Hopefully in jurisdictions where it is illegal, there is some guidance in text of the law to help citizens understand their limits and guide courts when considering verdicts.

Does using a slur affect it's status?

(Slurs) are evil.
(Slurs) are criminals.
Don't trust (slurs).​

vs.

(identity group individuals) are evil.
(identity group individuals) are criminals.
Don't trust (identity group individuals).
​

Or is it more about the message?

Fucking (identity group individuals).
We don't want (identity group individuals).
(Identity group individuals) are ugly.
(Identity group individuals) aren't welcome here.
(Identity group individuals) have above average rates of (negative behavior).
(Identity group individuals) have beliefs and behaviors which are incompatible with our culture.
(Identity group individuals) like (something unpopular because it is subjectively distasteful).​

Some of those are probably hate speech and some of them aren't. Some of them might depend on the context of the message and the specific identity group involved.
Hate speech is a problematic concept.

In my opinion, and informed only by my gut instinct and not the text of the law that the judge in the OP was interpreting, the banner in the OP article and it's message don't quite amount to "hate speech"... but if I were responsible for drawing a line to define hate speech, I don't know if I could.

 

[Jarhyn]

Where does hate speech begin? Where is that line? Hopefully in jurisdictions where it is illegal, there is some guidance in text of the law to help citizens understand their limits and guide courts when considering verdicts.

Does using a slur affect it's status?

(Slurs) are evil.
(Slurs) are criminals.
Don't trust (slurs).​

vs.

(identity group individuals) are evil.
(identity group individuals) are criminals.
Don't trust (identity group individuals).
​

Or is it more about the message?

Fucking (identity group individuals).
We don't want (identity group individuals).
(Identity group individuals) are ugly.
(Identity group individuals) aren't welcome here.
(Identity group individuals) have above average rates of (negative behavior).
(Identity group individuals) have beliefs and behaviors which are incompatible with our culture.
(Identity group individuals) like (something unpopular because it is subjectively distasteful).​

Some of those are probably hate speech and some of them aren't. Some of them might depend on the context of the message and the specific identity group involved.
Hate speech is a problematic concept.

In my opinion, and informed only by my gut instinct and not the text of the law that the judge in the OP was interpreting, the banner in the OP article and it's message don't quite amount to "hate speech"... but if I were responsible for drawing a line to define hate speech, I don't know if I could.

So, I read the copy of the article posted by LD. Looks like a far right hate group got bagged for distributing far-right propaganda to create a political out-group.

Considering the history of the region with respect to the Nazis, and the laws of that area which have grown up to prevent the recurrence of Nazi ideologies and hate propaganda, I can't seem to find anything wrong with this action. They were arrested for protesting people's rights to be themselves and participate in government, and focusing this on religious lines.

It's as much the fliers slandering Islamic people for praying. Of course prayer is allowed and propaganda against people and their rights to exist as people in the country they live in is not.

 

[untermensche]

A banner reading "Stop Islamisation" showed some women in burqas or nikabs

Some would say the clothing is "Islam", not "Islamisation", whatever that is. My spell check does not recognize the word.

 

[Elixir]

inflammatory news story + questionable translation and/or complete lack of history or context + metaphor posting it = 100% chance this is complete bullshit, and once whomever on this forum researches it and provides links showing it's 100% complete bullshit the usual cabal of circle-jerkers will ignore that entirely and insist this is evidence of the holocaust of white people.

Sure hun.

I love it when confirmation takes this form.

 

[Metaphor]

inflammatory news story + questionable translation and/or complete lack of history or context + metaphor posting it = 100% chance this is complete bullshit, and once whomever on this forum researches it and provides links showing it's 100% complete bullshit the usual cabal of circle-jerkers will ignore that entirely and insist this is evidence of the holocaust of white people.

Sure hun.

I love it when confirmation takes this form.

Confirmation of what? In what universe has anything of what prideandfall said come to fruition?

 

[Metaphor]

So, I read the copy of the article posted by LD. Looks like a far right hate group got bagged for distributing far-right propaganda to create a political out-group.

Considering the history of the region with respect to the Nazis, and the laws of that area which have grown up to prevent the recurrence of Nazi ideologies and hate propaganda, I can't seem to find anything wrong with this action.

Jarhyn has no problem with the government criminally punishing people for speech. Quelle surprise.

They were arrested

And criminally convicted

for protesting people's rights to be themselves and participate in government, and focusing this on religious lines.

Even if what you said is true (it's not--they did not protest "people's right to be themselves"), that protest isn't something the government should forbid.

 

[Metaphor]

A banner reading "Stop Islamisation" showed some women in burqas or nikabs

Some would say the clothing is "Islam", not "Islamisation", whatever that is. My spell check does not recognize the word.

Islamisation would include incremental cultural and legal changes that reflect the values (such as they are) of Islam.

For example, the decision to suspend a teacher for showing an image of the Islamic prophet Mohammed is an example of the Islamisation of Britain. Britain no longer has a blasphemy law--unless Muslims are offended.

Islamisation is hundreds of Muslim parents protesting a school because it has an LGBT curriculum that conflicts with their religious values.

Islamisation is the rise of a parallel legal system governing Muslim affairs.

 

[bilby]

Jarhyn has no problem with the government criminally punishing people for speech. Quelle surprise.



And criminally convicted

for protesting people's rights to be themselves and participate in government, and focusing this on religious lines.

Even if what you said is true (it's not--they did not protest "people's right to be themselves"), that protest isn't something the government should forbid.

Says you. But clearly the government of The Netherlands disagrees. Freedom of Speech is an idea, not a physical law or characteristic of nature. And almost nobody believes in completely unabridged freedom of speech (eg shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre).

So your objection here is just that your opinion on exactly where to draw the line isn't being elevated above the opinions of the people who actually make the laws in The Netherlands.

I think you will find that nobody cares. You are just not that important, nor that unquestionably correct.

 

[Metaphor]

Jarhyn has no problem with the government criminally punishing people for speech. Quelle surprise.



And criminally convicted

for protesting people's rights to be themselves and participate in government, and focusing this on religious lines.

Even if what you said is true (it's not--they did not protest "people's right to be themselves"), that protest isn't something the government should forbid.

Says you. But clearly the government of The Netherlands disagrees. Freedom of Speech is an idea, not a physical law or characteristic of nature. And almost nobody believes in completely unabridged freedom of speech (eg shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre).

So your objection here is just that your opinion on exactly where to draw the line isn't being elevated above the opinions of the people who actually make the laws in The Netherlands.

I think you will find that nobody cares. You are just not that important, nor that unquestionably correct.

Of course that's my objection. Why else would the incident bother me if I felt they'd been justly convicted?

But you'll find a number of MPs disagree with the ruling, so perhaps this is enough momentum to change the law. Then the people who make the laws in Belgium (not The Netherlands) will be more in agreement with me.

 

[Patooka]

It's not as though The Netherlands has a problem with mounting Islamophobia. Just ask Geert Wilders. What can I say? I think the sentence is excessive and I'm very curious as to the criminal history of the 3 convicted, but I refuse to be a fluffer in Metaphor's latest production of Outrage Porn 9.

 

[Metaphor]

It's not as though The Netherlands has a problem with mounting Islamophobia. Just ask Geert Wilders.

This incident was in Belgium, not The Netherlands. I already corrected bilby about this.

 

[Ford]

So we're still doing this "OMG Europe is going to become the Islamic State" thing?

Really?

 

[Metaphor]

So we're still doing this "OMG Europe is going to become the Islamic State" thing?

Really?

Who is "we"?

The purpose of this OP was to bring to light government punishment of speech.

 

[Patooka]

So we're still doing this "OMG Europe is going to become the Islamic State" thing?

Really?

Who is "we"?

The purpose of this OP was to bring to light government punishment of speech.

The biggest culprits are Russia, China and Saudi Arabia for that. The Philippines, Syria and Turkmenistan are close runner ups. Belarus made it to the news for an even more extreme example of suppression of speech. Never seen you outraged about any of them. You only seem to have a massive throbbing erection for targets the alt right jizz over. Just own it man, there's great money to be made in right wing outrage porn.

 

[Ford]

So we're still doing this "OMG Europe is going to become the Islamic State" thing?

Really?

Who is "we"?

Sorry, you.


Did you claim that this was the "death of Europe" or not?

 

[Trausti]

This is supposedly an atheist/agnostic board. Yet here, apparently, be apologists for blasphemy laws. Da fuq.