In a clear victory for free speech, Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been acquitted of all charges of incitement, racial hatred and discrimination against Muslims.

This is an open thread. Feel free to leave a comment. Rant and rave to your heart's content.

The Propagandist's Israeli correspondent Jonathan Danilowitz goes berserk on Queers Against Israeli Apartheid in the Real Israel's Blog -- not to mention their cowardly enablers in Toronto:

QAIA – a gay group – totally ignores the homophobic Arab states and they are oblivious to the massacres presently going on by Arab governments against their own protesting citizens in Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Tunis, Libya, Syria, not  to mention Turkey, North Korea, Uganda, Zimbabwe – the list is long. The racist anti-Semitism of the hate group is obvious, clear and defined.
 

 

The Toronto City Council, and especially the mayor, made it clear, and rightly so, that the Toronto Pride Parade would lose its funding from the city if the organizers allowed the hate group to fan the racist flames during the parade. All thinking people applauded the decision. Except that without the funding, the parade would not go on, and the Toronto City Council desperately wants the parade – it brings tourist, business & income to the city.
 

In an act of cowardly avarice (money-grubbing greed) the City Council of Toronto overturned their own decision, by deciding to sanitize the hate speech of QUIA by calling it “freedom of speech”. Wow.

But that doesn't stop some fans from worshipping Pat's keen insight and politically incorrect take on everyday religious fanaticism. Some great commentaries from the talented stand-up comedian-turned-atheist firebrand.

Read more

Geert Wilders, the controversial Dutch politician famously - but unsuccessfully so far - prosecuted by the Netherlands for his anti-Islamic rhetoric, never has a dull moment. Indeed, even those around him, connected to him in any way, seem to find themselves hauled into his Never-ending Controversy. 

Let's consider the past few months in the wild ride that is Geert Wilders' career. 

'A crisis within the criminal law division of the court.'

In October, Geert Wilders' prosecution ground to a halt. This was, mainly, because of two things. First, the Dutch Public Prosecutor's office said that Wilders should be acquitted on all charges. Second, all three judges handling Wilders' case were dismissed after Tom Schalken - one of the court of appeal judges that forced the Dutch public prosecutor to lay charges against Geert Wilders in 2009 - attended the same dinner function as one of Wilders' expert witness for the trial, and got into a discussion with that witness about "the rightfullness of his decision to put Geert Wilders on trial." Wilders' judges refused to call that witness to testify on this discussion, prompting Wilders' lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz, to challenge for their replacement. 

In January, a report from the Meijerink Commission, which was commissioned to look at the organization behind Geert Wilders' criminal case, found that the challenge has, in Het Parool's words, "led to a crisis within the criminal law division of the court." The effect of the challenge has been an increase in tension within the criminal administration of Holland's court system, because it did not offer enough support for the three judges in the wake of the challenge. According to the commission: "The effect of challenging in an intensive and demanding trial such as this, and on top of that in front of the eyes of the nation, is much larger than is normally the case.” Read more

The Propagandist is pleased to present a six-part feature series dealing civil rights, freedom of speech, particularly in regard to criticism of Israel, and how conspiracy theories undermine our democracy. These essays resulted from a public forum in Vancouver presented as a "face-off" over free speech and the definition of anti-Semitism.

That Kind of Talk Can Get You In Trouble

• Part 1. Freedom Of Speech For Some, Not For Others?
  
   
• Part 2. Fair Comment Versus Incitement
  
   
• Part 3. The Zionist-Neocon Conspiracy
  
   
• Part 4. Moral Equivalence and Ethical Bankruptcy
  
   
• Part 5. A Thought Experiment
  
   
• Part 6. The Danger to Democracy
  
   

The Propagandist unleashes a multi-part series reporting on a bizarre display of political indoctrination and doublespeak that occurred in a forum promoting the book "Antisemitism. Real and Imagined", co-written by English professor and 9/11 truther Michael Keefer. Ironically, Mr. Keefer made a number of statements related to Israel that reasonable people might infer as anti-Semitic. Or are these statements merely legitimate criticism of Israel (and supporters of a particular Israeli government policy)? You be the judge.

Then there's the small matter of the blockade on Gaza. Keefer was kind enough to outline the background of the situation as he saw it. "The blockade of Gaza is intended, let’s use the term, to terrorize the civilian population into reversing the position it took in what is generally acknowledged to have been an untarnished and democratic election. That blockade is a very severe violation of international law." Read more

You're reading the third part of The Propagandist's series reporting on a Vancouver event promoted as defending freedom of expression, led by 9/11 truther Michael Keefer, co-author of "Antisemitism. Real and Imagined". Hilarity ensued, along with a healthy dose of obsfucation and indoctrination.

Let's get something out of the way right away. Criticism of Israel or Israeli policy is not anti-Semitic. No one to my knowledge has ever claimed that such criticism was anti-Semitic, constituted hate speech or ought to be censored and sanctioned by the state. The phrase is a staw man worthy of the Wizard of Oz.

There are plenty of critics of Israeli policy who are obsessed with prefacing their statements with the expression, criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Some critics, like Counterpunch contributor and resplendent douchebag Michael Neumann, even put that phrase right into the headline of their articles, so no one will miss it. These types of critics tend to do this right before they slam the state of Israel for myriad "war crimes" and "human rights abuses" in order to justify the dismantling of the Jewish state. Read more

Freedom of speech is under assault from some quarters, but progress is being made in typical two-steps-forward, one-step-back fashion. Here The Propagandist highlights a few high- and low-lights.

On a positive note, Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist at the center of the infamous Mohammed cartoon controversy, apparently received the M100 Sanssouci Media Award for his contribution to the cause of freedom of speech last Wednesday night.

Meanwhile, Lars Vilks, another controversial cartoonist who has run afoul of Muslim extremists and who is a passionate campaigner for freedom of speech, will be making a tour of North America - with stops in Philadelphia, Ottawa, Toronto, and Boston come late September and early October. Read more

Do politically correct star chambers make you choke on your breakfast every morning? Perhaps you've heard the news that one of these vile institutions may be on the way out. This is very good news.

According to the Georgia Straight, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) chair Heather MacNaughton - the chief roo in this kangaroo court, you might say - and tribunal member Judy Parrack will not be getting reappointed to the BCHRT after their terms end on July 31. Meanwhile, a job posting for a part-time tribunal chair has been made on the website of the Board Resourcing and Development Office.

It also sounds like a narrower focus might be in the works from on high. Perhaps it will place a greater emphasis on labor disputes at the expense of other, arguably more important issues like the plight of lesbian women in comedy bars across the province.

Could it be? Could the BCHRT's reign of soft terror on freedom of speech in this province finally be coming to a close? Could the BC government have finally realized what an out-of-control body they've had running loose in their backyard for years? Could they finally be reining this body in?

Losing Heather MacNaughton, the woman who was there for both the Maclean's and Guy Earle trials, is a good start. Replacing her post with a part-time position is even better. A narrower focus would have me dancing in the streets, should it ever come about.

You'll recall that the BCHRT is the body that put Maclean's magazine, that bastion of centrism, through a one-week show trial for having the audacity to publish a book excerpt.

The book was 'America Alone' by Mark Steyn, a popular conservative writer and columnist, and the excerpt happened to offend a small group of Muslims who subsequently complained to Maclean's magazine, even going so far as to demand equal editorial space to rebut the offending article.

Needless to say, Maclean's didn't like having their editorial pages hijacked by offended parties, and said no. Next thing they knew, they were the subject of complaints before the Ontario and Canadian Human Rights Commissions, and the BC Human Rights Tribunal. The BCHRT was the only jurisdiction to accept the case.

There were so many things wrong with the whole affair that it's rather hard to know where to begin. For instance, there's the fact that launching three complaints in three different jurisdictions is a rather large violation of one of the basis tenets of the justice system: You can't be put on trial more than once for the same crime. But then, Human Rights Tribunals are quasi-judicial, so what do they care about legal precedent? The right to a speedy trial is pretty much out the window too.

There's also the fact that defendants in Human Rights cases have to pay their own way, while plaintiffs don't. So if you launch three complaints in three different jurisdictions and only one complaint is accepted? No big deal: it didn't cost you a dime anyway. In fact, a good portion of the process is stacked in favor of the plaintiff, which would undoubtedly be an admirable attempt to allow little people to go after big people that have wronged them, if only it wasn't such a hallmark of a kangaroo court. A defendant's life can be destroyed, thanks to the bills, thanks to the stigmatization of a process than can last years, even if they're completely innocent.

Oh, and here's the kicker: If you are innocent, and you have been dragged through this process for no reason, there's no way of recourse. Successful defendants can't sue for costs like they can in civil court.

But all that aside, the main objection to the show trial, the only objection that was really needed, is that the case was a violation of freedom of speech. This was the only argument that needed to be raised, simply because it's true: there was no, and is no reason or justification for putting a magazine on trial for its words. That is and always will be the case.

Needless to say, public outrage was provoked. A small army of bloggers, podcasters, columnists, and writers united in a determined effort to belittle, deride, and otherwise put down the entire farcical HRT process. They were largely successful, as the BCHRT quietly put out a ruling that Maclean's was innocent - although, one might argue, they were innocent of a crime - hate speech - that shouldn't be a crime in the first place.

This isn't the only time that the BCHRT has taken controversial cases. Earlier this year there was the case of Guy Earle, a stand-up comedian who went through a show trial of his own because he heckled a pair of lesbians who were heckling him at an edgy comedy club, and who was, shockingly enough, rather rude in said confrontation.

That's certainly a crime worth punishing, isn't it? Let's just take it as read that the BC Human Rights Tribunal isn't such a fan of freedom of speech. Their ruling on the Guy Earle 'case' has yet to be released, but either way the man's life has been effectively destroyed by the process. Comedy clubs won't hire him, and even though comedy wasn't his main profession that particular joy has been taken away from him while he drowns in legal bills.

MacNaughton's comeuppance is not the burning with fire that this Frankenstein's monster of worthless bureaucracy deserves. But it's a damn good start.

*a big fat tip of the hat to Jesse Ferreras for the story.

Walker Morrow is a contributing writer for The Propagandist. He can be contacted at dresdenmorrow@gmail.com or Twitter @wmorrow1