Democracy is not about voting. In the Soviet Union and under Saddam Hussain, the public could vote. Rather, true democracy is about having an actual choice.
Geert Wilders is on trial in the Netherlands because he dared suggest, that, if elected Prime Minister of the Netherlands, he would tilt immigration away from the group responsible for nearly all the crime in that country, not to mention fomenting violent revolution against liberalism itself to create a sharia based state.
These are facts, and immigration is a major component of government policy.
Yet if you disagree with the current government's policies on it, you will be charged with a crime.
Yes, a member of the largest opposition party (and, if polls are to be believed, the man who would be prime minister today if an election was held now) is on trial for the third time for holding opinions on government policy — policies few of the indigenous Dutch approve of.
Even on social media, and even for regular Dutch citizens, you may well get a visit from the police for opposing mass Muslim immigration.
Truth, in a democracy, is also an absolute defense.
If you say something publicly which is true, you cannot be convicted for it. Not in criminal law or in a civil suit.
At least that used to be the case.
Because truth can be "hate speech" and media does "do something about it". (See video in above link)
Canada is no better. When Mark Steyn was prosecuted by the "Human Rights Commission" no one made the claim that the thesis of his book, "America Alone," was not true, only that he should not be allowed to present this truth. Hence, no democracy. Without choice, without a full information portfolio, you cannot be said to have a choice.
The heavy handed way is to force you to vote for one person like in Third World totalitarian states.
Whereas, in First World totalitarian states, they just make sure you don't know enough to make a real choice, and criminally prosecute those who would tell you the truth.
The difference is the level at which they operate. But not in intent, or result.
And today we see the editor of the largest newspaper in Austria arrested and charged with a "hate crime" for opposing the European Union position on mass Muslim immigration, and writing a fact based opinion piece about this.
An editor of Austria’s largest paper, Kronen Zeitung, is to be tried for hate speech over a commentary he wrote about the migrant crisis last year. [...]
Calling the majority of the migrants “testosterone-driven Syrians”, Mr. Biro recounted the multiple reports of migrants carrying out, in his words, “extremely aggressive sexual assaults”.
He also detailed Afghan men had slashed the seats of the trains that were transporting them to Germany because they refused to sit where Christians had previously sat.
Calling them "testosterone driven" is opinion. And if applied to any white male sports team who had not done anything criminal but maybe got caught leering at a cheerleader, it would be perfectly fine. Apparently you cannot use that adjective if you are talking about genuinely horrific behaviour like mass rape, or groping gangs of thousands of Muslim migrants organized on Facebook. The rest however is either true or it is not.
If true, then like the Netherlands, Canada, the US sometime shortly after November 8, and various other European nations under the rubric of the European Union, any public opinion, factual or not, in opposition to the far-left-wing extremist positions of international socialism will be punished.
And to drive home the international socialist agenda, ladies and gentlemen, a suicide note from Germany and Sweden: