>Er is wel een concreet element in het vonnis waar dat “aanzetten tot” duidelijk naar voren komt, zegt Vrielink. Zo heeft, staat er te lezen in het vonnis, Hoeybergs over een meisje in de klas van zijn zoon het volgende gezegd. “Ik zou ze van haar fietske trekken, allebei haar banden platzetten (…) en haar sjakoske in brand steken.”
I am not a judge, but this doesn’t sound like an “opinion” to me, as a lot of people claim he did not say any threats/call for any action
Het was een smakeloos optreden, een arts onwaardig, en zeker in een aula. Een beetje een slechte Bill Burr. Maar 10 maanden vind ik disproportioneel als je ooit naar het programma de (on)Rechtbank hebt gekeken. Daar worden mensen die echt gruwelijke dingen gedaan hebben met een tik op de vingers terug op de maatschappij losgelaten.
Now this is sensible.
Freedom of speech is no absolute right. However it should be applied as broadly as possible. Even when something said is despicable. The only line that has to be drawn is instigation of violence.
And stop giving attention to idiots.
disclaimer: Hoeyberghs is a scumbag and his opinions are not worth being written in bloody diarrhea on toilet paper, nevertheless spoken aloud in a place of higher learning.
However, something still bothers me. There’s a French author who wrote a book literally called “I Hate Men” where she argues why it’s justified to hate men as a group. Literally inciting hatred against a group based on their gender. Curiously, this person did not get a prison sentence, but gets positive coverage in mega outlets like The Guardian and NY Times. I think a case could be made that the (vague) sexism law could also be applied to this book (which I disagree with btw in the sense that I don’t think she deserves prison for publicizing such an opinion)
By all means fine this guy, make him do community service, ban him from lecturing at universities. In an ideal world, the media would have the good taste to simply not platform attention-seeking losers like Hoeyberghs and amplifying their views, but alas, we cannot rely on that. Contemporary media thrives on sensationalism, division and clicks.
IMO a prison sentence for this kind of thing is a waste of resources, in an already woefully underfunded justice system that is already under extreme pressure. It really only should be a last resort, especially if you hold a rehabilitationist view of justice.
In the other thread someone said that people who disagree with the sentence are only coming to Hoeyberghs’ defense because he’s a “straight white man”, but I’d say the same if it were an imam, or the above French author. I’m very much in favor of disbanding organizations that spread hate (like how Vlaams Blok was disbanded in 2004 or how an Islamist-associated “charity” was disbanded in the wake of the Samuel Paty murder in France) but I draw the line at throwing people in prison. For individuals is a bit trickier as you cannot “disband” them, but there are plenty of other ways to deter someone.
Saying you think someone’s sentence is too harsh is not necessarily defending them either. I mean, I disagree with theft, but I don’t think chopping off someone’s hand is a reasonable punishment, and pointing that out isn’t defending thievery.
Achja, als deze professor anoniem dergelijke uitspraak deed op /r/belgium werd hij massaal gedownvote omdat het gros van de lezers hier klaarblijkelijk fan is van disproportionele sancties voor eigenlijk niet zo’n ernstige feiten. Hij heeft volledig gelijk, overigens.
Als je hier durft te beweren dat de seksisme- en antiracismewetgeving te breed en te vaag geformuleerd is waardoor het te pas en te onpas kan worden gebruikt krijg je te horen dat je een “slippery slope fallacy” aan het gebruiken bent door mensen die nog nooit maar een blik geworpen hebben op een juridische tekst.
Het vonnis is nog geen dag oud en het werd met die zelfde argumenten al bekritiseerd door een professor discriminatierecht en een ervaren strafpleiter in deze materie. Ook een onderzoeker van het Human Rights Centre van de UGent twijfelt of de uitspraak in lijn is met eerdere rechtspraak van het Grondwettelijk Hof. Of zijn zij ook maar drogredenen aan het opwerpen?
Ben heel benieuwd of dit in beroep stand zal houden.
This guy is basically saying:
“But what does `aanzetten tot` **really** mean?”
If you go with what’s written in this piece, you only really get `aanzetten tot` if a person directly suggest or orders other people to do something. And you don’t even need half a brain to pick your words a bit carefully and avoid literally saying it. But the audience will understand…
What an ivory tower academic.
If you go with his interpretation, it’s super easy to get out from under being convicted. Avoid saying a few specific words and you get away with anything.
Meanwhile this guy is complaining the current law is too broad. The man is projecting.
It’s like he’s never heard of dogwhistles.
He seems to see laws to be directed purely at intent, yet bad actors have learned how to get around that for decades now. It’s time laws get directed at consequences, regardless of intent, and the current discrimination law is a good start.
Should he get jail time for his stupidity? No.
Should the law against sexist discrimination be lifted? No.
The real issue is that why aren’t more preachers getting dragged in court? We all know that in some churches, synagogues and mosques. There are discourses that put women under the heel of men. All we hear from authorities are cricket sounds.
Vrielnik makes one mistake in his reasoning, freedom of expression doesn’t give you right to insult a gender nor to insult anyone. If tomorrow, I was to claim that my neighbor is …(fill with some creative nasty negative words, I know you can do it) and add that I got a platform to spread my judgement of said neighbor. He could file a complaint before a judge.
Hoeyberghs is not at his first outing against women either. So it’s a reminder that he should cool it with the backwards rhetoric.
I love Bill Burr and the two have nothing in common. Burr is a blue collar dude from a big Irish Catholic family from the Boston area. He had anger issues that he worked through drumming and making stand up routines.
I know the bits you are talking about. He’s not pointing to women in general in a derogatory way. He states how men and women are different. And the few skits where he harpoons women like the gold digging whores is a more than 40yo trope ( Check Raw from Eddie Murphy) and lambast the divorce settlement of rich men and their trophy wife. Same for the stay at home mom where he critiques the fact that what is really difficult about it in today’s age where you open a TV or give a tablet to your kids to shut them up. Props to the moms that are really investing time in their kids. In fact, props to any parents that put times in their kids( virtual pat on the back you deserve it). There’s a nuance he brings and he is a comedian to be over the top is his job. Hoeyberghs thinks what he says and has a platform of like-minded lemmings.
Hoeyberghs only defense is that every day women or men are discriminated against and nobody bulge. I am also impatiently waiting that some of the toxic stuff some women say about men get judged.
I swear that I read another generalisation about men being rapist while in the same article they got on to defend one of the most virilist community(ies). I’ll hire a lawyer. ULB Girls you are warned.
> “Maar als ze zo ruim is, dan kan er natuurlijk alles worden ondergebracht, door eender wie daar zin in heeft. Het is altijd een stok om de hond te slaan”, aldus Vrielink. En da’s een mogelijk gevaar voor het recht op vrije meningsuiting. Vrielink ziet de wet dan ook liever verdwijnen. “Ik was destijds ook al tegenstander omdat het te ruim is, er waren toen al en er zijn nu ook nog genoeg andere instrumenten om op te treden tegen discriminatie, haatdragende berichten en belaging.”
Yeah right, there are so many other means of dealing with discrimination that hardly anyone gets convicted for blatant sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.
It’s interesting btw that he doesn’t say the law should be reworded to make it less broad. Nope he just wants to get rid of it.
Uiteraard dat Tom van Grieken wiens achterban bestaat uit personen die de mening van Jeffke delen meteen op zijn achterste poten gaat staan.
Jeff is een walgelijke man – ja, dat is mijn hoogstindividuele morele evaluatie van hem, maar toch gevaarlijk precedent. De seksisme-wet – om de bepalingen zo maar even samen te vatten, is niet duidelijk afgelijnd… daardoor overlapt deze met het recht op vrije meningsuiting… Interpretatie is onwenselijk gezien een rechter de letter van de wet dient te volgen. De straf is bovendien nog scherper dan die 10 maanden celstraf, zo wordt hij ook de toegang ontzegd tot openbare ambten etcetera… Dat vind ik allemaal wel wat bijzonder.
Wat me nog meer opvalt is de reactie van de Vlaamse rechtse partijen… stellingen over hoe de vrijheid in gedrang zou komen wanneer men die op bepaalde vlakken duidelijk aflijnt, is absoluut absurd. Vrijheid wordt per definitie ingeperkt door de vrijheid van de ander.
10 comments
>Er is wel een concreet element in het vonnis waar dat “aanzetten tot” duidelijk naar voren komt, zegt Vrielink. Zo heeft, staat er te lezen in het vonnis, Hoeybergs over een meisje in de klas van zijn zoon het volgende gezegd. “Ik zou ze van haar fietske trekken, allebei haar banden platzetten (…) en haar sjakoske in brand steken.”
I am not a judge, but this doesn’t sound like an “opinion” to me, as a lot of people claim he did not say any threats/call for any action
Het was een smakeloos optreden, een arts onwaardig, en zeker in een aula. Een beetje een slechte Bill Burr. Maar 10 maanden vind ik disproportioneel als je ooit naar het programma de (on)Rechtbank hebt gekeken. Daar worden mensen die echt gruwelijke dingen gedaan hebben met een tik op de vingers terug op de maatschappij losgelaten.
Now this is sensible.
Freedom of speech is no absolute right. However it should be applied as broadly as possible. Even when something said is despicable. The only line that has to be drawn is instigation of violence.
And stop giving attention to idiots.
disclaimer: Hoeyberghs is a scumbag and his opinions are not worth being written in bloody diarrhea on toilet paper, nevertheless spoken aloud in a place of higher learning.
However, something still bothers me. There’s a French author who wrote a book literally called “I Hate Men” where she argues why it’s justified to hate men as a group. Literally inciting hatred against a group based on their gender. Curiously, this person did not get a prison sentence, but gets positive coverage in mega outlets like The Guardian and NY Times. I think a case could be made that the (vague) sexism law could also be applied to this book (which I disagree with btw in the sense that I don’t think she deserves prison for publicizing such an opinion)
By all means fine this guy, make him do community service, ban him from lecturing at universities. In an ideal world, the media would have the good taste to simply not platform attention-seeking losers like Hoeyberghs and amplifying their views, but alas, we cannot rely on that. Contemporary media thrives on sensationalism, division and clicks.
IMO a prison sentence for this kind of thing is a waste of resources, in an already woefully underfunded justice system that is already under extreme pressure. It really only should be a last resort, especially if you hold a rehabilitationist view of justice.
In the other thread someone said that people who disagree with the sentence are only coming to Hoeyberghs’ defense because he’s a “straight white man”, but I’d say the same if it were an imam, or the above French author. I’m very much in favor of disbanding organizations that spread hate (like how Vlaams Blok was disbanded in 2004 or how an Islamist-associated “charity” was disbanded in the wake of the Samuel Paty murder in France) but I draw the line at throwing people in prison. For individuals is a bit trickier as you cannot “disband” them, but there are plenty of other ways to deter someone.
Saying you think someone’s sentence is too harsh is not necessarily defending them either. I mean, I disagree with theft, but I don’t think chopping off someone’s hand is a reasonable punishment, and pointing that out isn’t defending thievery.
Achja, als deze professor anoniem dergelijke uitspraak deed op /r/belgium werd hij massaal gedownvote omdat het gros van de lezers hier klaarblijkelijk fan is van disproportionele sancties voor eigenlijk niet zo’n ernstige feiten. Hij heeft volledig gelijk, overigens.
Als je hier durft te beweren dat de seksisme- en antiracismewetgeving te breed en te vaag geformuleerd is waardoor het te pas en te onpas kan worden gebruikt krijg je te horen dat je een “slippery slope fallacy” aan het gebruiken bent door mensen die nog nooit maar een blik geworpen hebben op een juridische tekst.
Het vonnis is nog geen dag oud en het werd met die zelfde argumenten al bekritiseerd door een professor discriminatierecht en een ervaren strafpleiter in deze materie. Ook een onderzoeker van het Human Rights Centre van de UGent twijfelt of de uitspraak in lijn is met eerdere rechtspraak van het Grondwettelijk Hof. Of zijn zij ook maar drogredenen aan het opwerpen?
Ben heel benieuwd of dit in beroep stand zal houden.
This guy is basically saying:
“But what does `aanzetten tot` **really** mean?”
If you go with what’s written in this piece, you only really get `aanzetten tot` if a person directly suggest or orders other people to do something. And you don’t even need half a brain to pick your words a bit carefully and avoid literally saying it. But the audience will understand…
What an ivory tower academic.
If you go with his interpretation, it’s super easy to get out from under being convicted. Avoid saying a few specific words and you get away with anything.
Meanwhile this guy is complaining the current law is too broad. The man is projecting.
It’s like he’s never heard of dogwhistles.
He seems to see laws to be directed purely at intent, yet bad actors have learned how to get around that for decades now. It’s time laws get directed at consequences, regardless of intent, and the current discrimination law is a good start.
Should he get jail time for his stupidity? No.
Should the law against sexist discrimination be lifted? No.
The real issue is that why aren’t more preachers getting dragged in court? We all know that in some churches, synagogues and mosques. There are discourses that put women under the heel of men. All we hear from authorities are cricket sounds.
Vrielnik makes one mistake in his reasoning, freedom of expression doesn’t give you right to insult a gender nor to insult anyone. If tomorrow, I was to claim that my neighbor is …(fill with some creative nasty negative words, I know you can do it) and add that I got a platform to spread my judgement of said neighbor. He could file a complaint before a judge.
Hoeyberghs is not at his first outing against women either. So it’s a reminder that he should cool it with the backwards rhetoric.
I love Bill Burr and the two have nothing in common. Burr is a blue collar dude from a big Irish Catholic family from the Boston area. He had anger issues that he worked through drumming and making stand up routines.
I know the bits you are talking about. He’s not pointing to women in general in a derogatory way. He states how men and women are different. And the few skits where he harpoons women like the gold digging whores is a more than 40yo trope ( Check Raw from Eddie Murphy) and lambast the divorce settlement of rich men and their trophy wife. Same for the stay at home mom where he critiques the fact that what is really difficult about it in today’s age where you open a TV or give a tablet to your kids to shut them up. Props to the moms that are really investing time in their kids. In fact, props to any parents that put times in their kids( virtual pat on the back you deserve it). There’s a nuance he brings and he is a comedian to be over the top is his job. Hoeyberghs thinks what he says and has a platform of like-minded lemmings.
Hoeyberghs only defense is that every day women or men are discriminated against and nobody bulge. I am also impatiently waiting that some of the toxic stuff some women say about men get judged.
I swear that I read another generalisation about men being rapist while in the same article they got on to defend one of the most virilist community(ies). I’ll hire a lawyer. ULB Girls you are warned.
> “Maar als ze zo ruim is, dan kan er natuurlijk alles worden ondergebracht, door eender wie daar zin in heeft. Het is altijd een stok om de hond te slaan”, aldus Vrielink. En da’s een mogelijk gevaar voor het recht op vrije meningsuiting. Vrielink ziet de wet dan ook liever verdwijnen. “Ik was destijds ook al tegenstander omdat het te ruim is, er waren toen al en er zijn nu ook nog genoeg andere instrumenten om op te treden tegen discriminatie, haatdragende berichten en belaging.”
Yeah right, there are so many other means of dealing with discrimination that hardly anyone gets convicted for blatant sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.
It’s interesting btw that he doesn’t say the law should be reworded to make it less broad. Nope he just wants to get rid of it.
Uiteraard dat Tom van Grieken wiens achterban bestaat uit personen die de mening van Jeffke delen meteen op zijn achterste poten gaat staan.
Jeff is een walgelijke man – ja, dat is mijn hoogstindividuele morele evaluatie van hem, maar toch gevaarlijk precedent. De seksisme-wet – om de bepalingen zo maar even samen te vatten, is niet duidelijk afgelijnd… daardoor overlapt deze met het recht op vrije meningsuiting… Interpretatie is onwenselijk gezien een rechter de letter van de wet dient te volgen. De straf is bovendien nog scherper dan die 10 maanden celstraf, zo wordt hij ook de toegang ontzegd tot openbare ambten etcetera… Dat vind ik allemaal wel wat bijzonder.
Wat me nog meer opvalt is de reactie van de Vlaamse rechtse partijen… stellingen over hoe de vrijheid in gedrang zou komen wanneer men die op bepaalde vlakken duidelijk aflijnt, is absoluut absurd. Vrijheid wordt per definitie ingeperkt door de vrijheid van de ander.