Dutch court finds political candidate guilty of “hate speech” for proposing change in immigration policy

A special report from our friends at American Freedom Law Center: 

Dutch court found leading political candidate Girt Wilders guilty of hate speech. Read the article and contemplate the words of the presiding judge.

Before declaring Wilders guilty, [presiding Judge] Steenhuis stressed that freedom of speech was not on trial as Wilders had claimed during the case.

Freedom of speech is one of the foundations of our democratic society," the judge said.  But he added: "Freedom of speech can be limited, for example to protect the rights and freedoms of others, and that is what this case is about." 

Of what exactly was Mr. Wilders found guilty? He proposed during a campaign speech for the office of prime minister that he would change the legal policy toward immigration, especially as to Moroccans who have flooded into the country and created a criminal underclass. 

Let’s repeat that: Wilders spoke about a legal policy change to address what he considered a social harm. He did not threaten anyone or any class of people with criminal behavior (i.e., this was not a criminal threat); he did not incite violence; and he was not accused of defaming anyone. In other words, Mr. Wilders was convicted for his pure political speech. 

In the Netherlands, political speech is now hate speech if it upsets Muslims or those among the Progressive establishment who seek to destroy Dutch national existence via open borders. 

Think of the Netherlands as the Advanced Case of the Western Affliction. HRC, and the rather imposing cast of like-minded Progressives with whom she travels, have long adopted the Dutch court’s view of our fundamental liberty to speak freely on political matters. That is, political speech is only free speech if it fits conventional PC norms. 

President-elect Donald Trump appears to have stalled this Western Affliction as it relates to this fundamental liberty to speak truth to power, although at times he has attacked this liberty when it is in the hands of his critics. 

As with most of Mr. Trump’s potential, we’ll have to see what fructifies and what doesn't. 

But, one thing is for certain: the Western Affliction is here. The only question is whether we can muster our internal anti-bodies to resist it. 

When you ponder that last query, consider the results of the last popular vote for president. Indeed, while a Trump presidency provides a good measure of hope, a majority of Americans still voted for HRC.