"A majority of parties argued that offering religious groups an extra layer of legal protection is outdated."
Good news? Not so much. See the update below. "Blasphemy law ditched by the Dutch," by Hans Andringa for Radio Netherlands, November 1:
A controversial anti-blasphemy law is being scrapped by the Dutch government. The move is remarkable as two of the current three members of the ruling coalition are Christian parties and they had originally wanted to maintain the ban.
In scrapping the law the cabinet is meeting the demand of parliament where a majority of parties argued that offering religious groups an extra layer of legal protection is outdated.
As an alternative the cabinet is now seeking to strengthen anti-discrimination laws against groups whatever their background, thus taking the religious component out of the equation.
Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin (photo right), says the law will now offer the same protection to all.
Freedom of speech/from discrimination
There has been much discussion about the balance between freedom of speech and the right not to be discriminated against in the past few years in the Netherlands, particularly around the role of Islam in society.
Populist politicians like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has now left the Dutch political scene, and Geert Wilders, have been constant critics of what they see as the negative influence of Islam on society. [...]
Threat of prosecution
The Dutch anti-blasphemy law was much talked about - against the backdrop of the continual criticism of Fitna and of its maker Geert Wilders - as a possible means of redress for those who felt offended. Stand-up comedians and cartoonists who sought to satirise extremist Islam have also found themselves being threatened with possible prosecution under the anti-blasphemy law in the past few years.
The discussion about the use of the law, which dates back to the 1930s, made a lot of people worried that the right to freedom of speech was being eroded and that the rights of the religious not to be offended was being given the upper hand....
UPDATE: Several readers have pointed out that this is simply a bait-and-switch. "Dutch blasphemy law - the bad news," from Media Watch Watch:
It appears we were a little hasty in celebrating the demise of the Dutch blasphemy laws.
Danish journalist Flemming Rose has contacted MWW, relating the concerns of a Dutch colleague about this supposed repeal. All is not as it seems.
The intention is to introduce the concept of “indirect insult” and expand an existing law which protects people on the basis of race, age, disability, and sexual orientation to include protection on the basis of religion or “conviction”. This means that remarks directed at Islam, Christianity, Buddism or - depending on your interpretation of “conviction” - even homeopathy and astrology, could be interpreted as indirect insults to people, and prosecuted as such.
According to a commenter on the original story, this law carries a maximum sentence of 12 months, whereas the original defunct blasphemy law carried a maximum 3 month sentence.
Writes Rose:
This spring the Dutch minister of justice Hirsch Ballin wrote a note to parliament asking them to consider stiffening blasphemy laws. In the aftermath of the scandal surrounding the arrest of Gregorius Nekschot parliament refused to go along, and this proposal is the compromise that the government came up with.
The good news - blasphemy is no longer a crime. Bad news - blasphemy of Christianity is what will be popular, not blasphemy of Islam
No, the real bad news is that this was brought out like good news only to be put in the shadow of some really bad news two days later.
Now an older article has been updated instead. Actually restricting freedom of speech even more by making the law even more vague and applying it to a wider range of thought schools.
So no, this is not good news. It is bleak news and one step closer to an Islamofacist state.
I've gotta see this article, Harlekein. Discrimination and criticism are two different things. It's also totally possible to discriminate against Muslims for reasons that have nothing to do with Islam, like slovenly appearance or 3rd-world (non/mis)education, a lack of basic logical faculties, questionable associations, or an unwillingness to do legitimate work. It's a victory for free speech.
Not as good news as it first appears.
There's nothing good about this news. Just like you cannot expect anything good from Hirsch Ballin. He's the guy that put the kibosh on Gregorius Nekschot, remember? He is the primus inter pares of the polder taliban.
And he is now replacing the old law with a new law that not only penalizes criticism of religion, but criticism of all established ideas and convictions. Not that he cares about other convictions, it's just that this call for equal treatment provides him with the opportunity to screw independent thinkers over in a much more thorough manner.
Oh, and don't take anything from Radio Netherlands Worldwide at face value, they are part and parcel of the government's bamboozling plot.
I wouldn't pop those champagne corks just yet. Once the Netherlands has been subsumed against its will into the EUSSR who knows what protection Islam could enjoy?
The sceptics are quit right.
The old blasphemy laws were totally unworkable and effectively abolished.
Now Hirsch ballin has placed the blasphemy under the rascism, discrmination etc, laws. Making possible a longe sentence and easier conviction.
Basically what he is doing, is playing the same game, but with a new deck of cards.
If you click on the link posted above at 3:14 a.m. the following story appears:
"It appears we were a little hasty in celebrating the demise of the Dutch blasphemy laws.
Danish journalist Flemming Rose has contacted MWW, relating the concerns of a Dutch colleague about this supposed repeal. All is not as it seems.
The intention is to introduce the concept of “indirect insult” and expand an existing law which protects people on the basis of race, age, disability, and sexual orientation to include protection on the basis of religion or “conviction”. This means that remarks directed at Islam, Christianity, Buddism or - depending on your interpretation of “conviction” - even homeopathy and astrology, could be interpreted as indirect insults to people, and prosecuted as such.
According to a commenter on the original story, this law carries a maximum sentence of 12 months, whereas the original defunct blasphemy law carried a maximum 3 month sentence.
Writes Rose:
This spring the Dutch minister of justice Hirsch Ballin wrote a note to parliament asking them to consider stiffening blasphemy laws. In the aftermath of the scandal surrounding the arrest of Gregorius Nekschot parliament refused to go along, and this proposal is the compromise that the government came up with.
This whole scenario looks very similar to what we went through here in the UK with the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill - when we came very close to getting a universal blasphemy law imposed on us. We won that battle by a narrow margin, thanks to an alliance of convenience between artists, secularists and Christians.
Will the Dutch see the danger and mobilise in time to prevent a free speech disaster?"
I've updated the posting. Thanks to everyone who pointed out the other side of the story.
If Islamic scripture remains protected hate speech, then a new anti-jihad religion should be established and be held as equally valid.
How's that for a transformative revelation?
The very first case which should tried under this new law should be against the Quran for its numerous anti-Jewish and anti-Christian statements. Example: "The unbelievers among the people of the Book (i.e., Christians and Jews) and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures." (Surah 98:6) There is ample case material from a similar test of an anti-defamation statute promulgated in India in the 1980's, commonly known as the Calcutta Quran Petition.
What the Islamists and their supporters fail to appreciate is that anti-blasphemy laws cut both ways.
This preoccupation with “insults” is somewhat foreign to Americans, but it makes sense in the European social model going back to ancient seignorage, where deference was shown publicly as a mandatory politeness, and insults were not tolerated. (In past centuries an “insult” was just cause for a duel, even in the USA, though no longer acceptable.) So European laws try to legislate “politeness” with laws prohibiting “indirect insult” which may be a throwback to ancient subservience days of seignorage. Taken to the religious model, any criticism that is deemed insulting (especially to Islamists), no matter how absurd, falls under this old mindset of “respect” demanded by authority, and consequently by law. We Americans don’t legislate “respect” or “politeness”, so let’s keep it that way to avoid the social model trap of restrictions on free speech. Across the pond, they may be coming around to the same conclusion. Freedom of speech is more precious than seignorage for a free people.
Every Friday khutba is at least an "indirect insult" to every non-Muslim in the Netherlands.
Somehow I don't see the jails filling with imams, though.
The very exsistance of Islam is a direct insult to non muslims.
The very exsistance of Islam is a direct insult to non muslims.
Posted by: Mr.Fitnah
--
I couldn't agree more. Their very presence in our lands is a menace.