1887
Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In this article it is shown that the institutional preconditions of the activity type adjudicating a freedom of speech case leave much room for strategic manoeuvring with topical selection. To this end, an analysis is presented of the argumentation of the District Court in a case against the Dutch anti-immigration politician Geert Wilders. In order to show the space for manoeuvring, this argumentation, resulting in acquittal, is compared with the argumentation put forward by the Court of Appeal, which had ordered, after the Public Prosecution Service’s refusal to do so, that Wilders be prosecuted. The analysis shows that the District Court made ample use of the space for manoeuvring provided at the normative level concerning the interpretation of legal rules and case law, and the space provided at the factual level of classifying the contested facts in light of the previously identified meaning of a rule.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.2.01jan
2017-10-16
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Buruma, Y.
    (2008) Strafvervolging van een kamerlid [Prosecution of a Member of Parliament]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 83(13), 749–750.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2009) Note to Hof Amsterdam [Amsterdam Court of Appeal]21 January 2009, NJ 2009, 191, 1795–1798.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2010) Een politiek proces [A political trial]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 85(37), 2401.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. de Roos, T.
    (30January 2009) Juridisering islamdebat kan averechts werken [Juridifaction of the Islam debate can be counterproductive]. De Volkskrant. Retrieved from: www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/juridisering-islamdebat-kan-averechts-werken~a2452735/.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2011) In afwachting van een uitspraak ten gronde in de zaak Wilders [In anticipation of a decision on the merits of the Wilders case]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 86(1), 28–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dommering, E. J.
    (29January 2009) Gerechtshof had gelijk [The Court of Appeal was right]. NRC Handelsblad. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2009/01/29/gerechtshof-had-gelijk-11675266-a1155874.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hartlief, T.
    (2009) Geloven in strafrechters [Belief in criminal courts]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(4), 233.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hof Amsterdam [Amsterdam Court of Appeal]
    Hof Amsterdam [Amsterdam Court of Appeal]21January 2009 Retrieved fromdeeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2009:BH0496.
  9. Jansen, H. , & van Klink, B.
    (2November 2016) Met ‘de context’ kan Wilders alle kanten op [The ‘context’ gives Wilders much room for manoeuvre]. De Volkskrant, 27. Retrieved from: www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/met-de-context-kan-wilders-alle-kanten-op~a4406867/.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Janssen, E. , & A. Nieuwenhuis
    (2012) De verhouding tussen vrijheid van meningsuiting en discriminatie in het Wilders-proces: een analyse van ‘het proces van de eeuw’ [The relationship between freedom of speech and discrimination in the Wilders trial: An analysis of ‘the trial of the century’]. NTM/NJCM Bulletin, 37(2), 177–201.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Janssens, A. J. L. M.
    (1998) Strafbare belediging [Criminal insult]. (Dissertation University of Groningen.)
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lawson, R.
    (2008) Wild, wilder, wildst. Over de ruimte die het EVRM laat voor de vervolging van kwetsende politici [Wild, wilder, wildest. On the margin allowed by the ECHR for prosecution of offensive politicians]. NJCM Bulletin, 33(4), 469–484.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (29January 2009) Proces Wilders moet gevoerd worden [Wilders trial must take place]. De Volkskrant. Retrieved from: www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/proces-wilders-moet-gevoerd-worden~a2452703/.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Maris, C. W.
    (2011) Vrijheid van discriminerende uitingen? [Freedom of discriminatory expressions?] Caribisch Juristenblad, 1(2), 93–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Mevis, P. A. M.
    (2003) Note to HR [Supreme Court]14January 2003 ( Pastor Herbig ), NJ 2003, 261, 2097–2100.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2010) Note to HR [Supreme Court]10March 2009 ( Cancer case ), NJ 2010, 19, 198–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Nieuwenhuis, A. J.
    (2009) Note to Hof Amsterdam [Amsterdam Court of Appeal]21January 2009 Mediaforum, 21(3), 131–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Nieuwenhuis, A.
    (2011) Na de zaak Wilders: is nu de wetgever aan zet? [After the Wilders case: Is it now the legislator’s move?] Ars Aequi, 60(12), 866–869.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Nieuwenhuis, A. J. & Janssen, E.
    (2011) De onduidelijke verhouding tussen vrijheid van meningsuiting en discriminatie: een analyse van de groepsbelediging en het haatzaaien [The unclear relationship between freedom of speech and discrimination: An analysis of insulting a group and incitement to hatred]. Mediaforum, 23(4), 94–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Prakken, T.
    (2009) Wilders: verbieden of toestaan? [Wilders: Ban or allow?] Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(6), 363–366.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court]
    Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court]23June 2011 Retrieved from: deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2011:BQ9001.
  22. Requisitory of Public Prosecution Service
    Requisitory of Public Prosecution Service (25May 2011) Retrieved from: https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuwsberichten/@24436/requisitoir-wilders/
  23. Rozemond, K.
    (2009) Vertrouw op de vrijheid, 150 jaar On Liberty van Mill en de strafrechtelijke vervolging van discriminerende uitlatingen [Trust in freedom, 150 years of Mill’s On Liberty and the criminal prosecution of discriminatory expressions]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(40), 2614–2618.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Rozemond, N.
    (2012) Het Wildersvonnis vanuit strafrechtelijk perspectief [The Wilders verdict from the criminal law perspective]. Note to Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court] 23June 2011 Ars Aequi, 61(4), 288–289.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Rosier, Th.E.
    (1996) Vrijheid van meningsuiting en discriminatie in Nederland en Amerika [Freedom of speech and discrimination in the Netherlands and America]. (Dissertation Vrije Universiteit.) Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Rummens, S.
    (2011) De vrije mening van politici [The free opinon of politicians]. Rechtsfilosofie & Rechtstheorie, 40, 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Sackers, H. J. B.
    (2009) Art. 137c Sr, godsdienstkrenkingen en het publieke debat [Art. 137c Dutch Criminal Code, religious insults and the public debate]. Strafblad, 7(3), 220–232.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Schutgens, R. J. B.
    (2012) Het Wildersvonnis vanuit staatsrechtelijk perspectief [The Wilders verdict from the constitutional law perspective]. Note to Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court]23June 2011 Ars Aequi, 61(4), 290–294.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Veraart, W. J.
    (2010) Beledigen kan alleen in context. Kanttekeningen bij het ‘belediging islam’-arrest van 10 maart 2009 [Insult is only permitted in context. Notes to the ‘insult of Islam’ verdict of 10 March 2009]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 85(12), 724–730.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. van Eemeren, F. H.
    (2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. (Argumentation in Context 2.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  31. van Eemeren, F. H. , Garssen, B. , Krabbe, E. C. W. , Snoeck Henkemans, A. , Verheij, B. , & Wagemans, J. H. M.
    (2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [Google Scholar]
  32. van Eemeren, F. H. , & Houtlosser, P.
    (2002) Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In Eemeren, F. H. van & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp.131–159). Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. van Noorloos, M.
    (2011) Note to Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court]23June 2011 Mediaforum, 23(9), 280–282.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Vermeulen, B.
    (2011) Strafbare belediging van God, godsdienst, godsdienstigen [Criminal insult of God, religion, religious people]. In P. H. P. H. M. C. van Kempen et al. (Eds.), Levend strafrecht, strafrechtelijke vernieuwingen in een maatschappelijke context, Liber amicorum Ybo Buruma (pp.481–490). Deventer: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Zwart, T.
    (2009) Wilders: ja toestaan! [Wilders: Yes, allow!] Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(6), 367–369.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.2.01jan
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error