Netherlands / Court of Appeal Amsterdam / Case no. 23-003966-13 ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:828

Country

Netherlands

Title

Netherlands / Court of Appeal Amsterdam / Case no. 23-003966-13

ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:828

View full Case

Year

2016

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Wednesday, March 09, 2016

Incident(s) concerned/related

Other forms of hate speech

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Court of Appeal Amsterdam (Gerechtshof Amsterdam)

Key facts of the case

In a documentary about the Dutch politician Geert Wilders a man, presented as a follower of Geert Wilders, spoke about Arabs as “fervent ass crashers” (fervent kontenbonkers), who also “fuck young boys”. According to him this is “normal in their culture”. The Court of Appeal decided that these statements do not constitute an insult of Muslims on the ground of their religion, under Article 137c of the Dutch Criminal Code. The Court believed that the accused meant Muslims when he talked about Arabs and thus, he stood trial for publicly and intentionally insulting Muslims on the ground of their religion.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Court considered that the statements made by the accused were unmistakably insulting. The Court also considered, on the other hand, that the statements of the accused were made during a public debate, more specifically during an interview before an anti-Islam demonstration. According to the Court it cannot be said that these kinds of statements serve no useful purpose in public debate. The question was ultimately whether the expressions used were gratuitously offensive. If so, the context of the public debate overrides the insulting character of the statements. The Court answered that question in the negative, stating that everyone who wants to raise topics of common interest should be free to do so, even if the statements are offensive, shocking or disturbing.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

A statement about a group is insulting if it impairs the self-respect or honour of the group, or discredits the group, because it belongs to a particular race, religion or belief. The context is particularly important for the determination of liability under Article 137c Sr. If the statements were made in the context of, for example, a public debate, this can reduce the punishable insulting-character of the statement. However, this is only when the statements are not gratuitously offensive. The Court decided that these statements were not gratuitously offensive. The Court answered that question in the negative, stating that everyone who wants to raise topics of common interest should be free to do so, even if the statements are offensive, shocking or disturbing.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

Statements which are insulting to a religion are not punishable under Article 137c of the Penal Code if these statements serve a purpose in public debate and are not gratuitously offensive.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"Ten slotte dient onder ogen te worden gezien of de uitlatingen in dat verband onnodig grievend zijn te noemen. Het hof beantwoordt deze vraag ontkennend. Degene die, zoals hier, in een politieke context zaken aan de orde wenst te stellen die in zijn ogen van algemeen belang zijn, dient daartoe daadwerkelijk in staat te zijn, ook als zijn uitlatingen kunnen kwetsen, choqueren of verontrusten. Het gaat in dit geval weliswaar om niet onderbouwde, door de verdachte veronderstelde feitelijkheden over moslims in het algemeen die hij in onsmakelijke bewoordingen te berde heeft gebracht – en dat dat laatste ook zijn bedoeling was, is onmiskenbaar –, maar het maatschappelijke debat in dezen kenmerkt zich wel vaker door provocerend en onsmakelijk taalgebruik van de deelnemers aan dat debat."

"Finally, it has to be considered whether or not the statements of the accused are gratuitously offensive. The court answers this question in the negative. The person who want to address matters he deems of the public interest, should actually be able to do so, even if his statements can hurt, choke or disturb. Even when the statements of the accused lack substance and the accused uses, on purpose, distasteful words, the public debate concerning Islam and Muslims is often characterized by provocative and distasteful language."

The Netherlands,Court of Appeal Amsterdam (Gerechtshof Amsterdam) (2016), Case No. 23-003966-13,ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:828, 9 March 2016, available at: http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:828

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.