|
Weather 
Friday: Cold and sunny everywhere. Heavy frost at night. Similar Saturday but thaw possible Sunday
     |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cartoonist arrest is 'testing boundaries'Wednesday 21 May 2008 Wednesday's Volkskrant publishes three of the controversial drawings by cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot which led to his arrest last week on charges of inciting racial hatred and asks legal experts if they think the case will succeed. Henny Sackers, a law professor at Radboud University, does not think Nekschot will be found guilty if the case ever comes to court. Judges are notoriously keen on defending the right to freedom of expression, he points out. Aernout Nieuwenhuis, a professor at Amsterdam University, says he had expected the cartoons to be far worse than they are. One drawing, featuring a Moroccan saying that the Koran does not require you to do anything in return for 30 years of social security benefits, could be considered 'hurtful', he tells the paper. But both professors suggest the public prosecution department is using the Nekschot case as a way of establishing the boundaries to freedom of expression. © DutchNews.nl
Why weren't the publishers of the newspaper arrested? The cartoons were only offensive to people who saw them. People only saw them because they were published in the newspaper. Who is really to blame - the person who created the cartoon or the people who distributed it? I think if we were talking about cocaine, the answer would be that the producer and the distributor were responsible. By Tim Lee | May 22, 2008 1:32 PM Okay, let's apply parity. Start arresting anyone who makes fun of Catholicism or the Pope. Sheesh ... what a nation of "scaredy cats"! By Gy de Poer | July 13, 2008 4:03 PM
Comments have been closed for this article. |
| Newsletter | | | RSS | | | Advertising | | | Business services | | | Mobile | | | Friends | | | Contact | | | About us | | | Tell a Friend |
|
The statement that the Prosecution Department is using the Nekschot case as a way of establishing the boundaries to freedom of expression, is nothing more than a cover up to hide the embarrassing protectionism of anything having to do with the Islamic religion. In other words, an undercover attempt from the minority to shove something down the throats of the majority under the umbrella of justice for all. This whole controversy has been brought to the foreground only after the bastardly attacks brought on by the hijacked version of the Islamic faith. Let's be honest and take a good look at what the news media allows to be printed in the papers, or spoken about on the airwaves. Lies can be told, vulgar remarks and insults can be directed towards politicians or foreign dignitaries without impunity yet, when it applies to an isolated position of faith and faith alone, we shiver from fear that it may offend someone, or to be called racist. Is this is a form of legal blackmail? What possible justification can there be allowing certain individuals to holler:"fire in the theater" and arresting others doing the same. That in my mind, is an objectionable form of discrimination, originated by a few and directed towards the many. Definitely worth the cost of investigating, because it may protect our freedom of choice and our freedom of expression.
By hank | May 21, 2008 3:40 PM