Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Posts Tagged ‘Geert Wilders’

How to Confront the Islamic State

by Geert Wilders

geert_New2
The Islamic State is an Islamic cancer. It is a poisonous snake based on the Quran and the life of Muhammad, a criminal who 14 centuries ago went, murdering and decapitating, from Medina to Mecca. His self-appointed successor Caliph Baghdadi is now at the gates of Baghdad and Damascus. He has followers all over the world, including in our country, our cities and streets.

Again, people are beheaded according to the Koranic commands such as Sura 47 verse 4: “When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and when ye have caused a bloodbath among them bind a bond firmly on them.” Even moderate Muslims cannot escape violence because, according to the Koran and the Sharia, they are apostates.

All the gullible minds who say that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam are committing a serious politically-correct error, whether they are Obama, Cameron, Rutte or Samsom.

We are at war. War has been declared against the free West. Our freedom, our culture, the future of our country and our children are at stake. We must strike back hard, in the Netherlands, in the rest of the West and also in Iraq and Syria. Hence, my party supports the Government’s decision to deploy Dutch F16s against the Islamic state. We say: Let us bomb them.

But we have no understanding for the fact that we are only going to bomb in Iraq and not in Syria. Is it OK for the Government that people are beheaded, women raped and genocide committed in Syria because a mandate under international law is missing? What a cowardice. The government says it understands the United States when they bomb the Islamic State in Syria, but it does not participate itself. Understanding, but no participation, what a cowardly half-heartedness.

Even more important than fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is fighting Islamic terrorism in the Netherlands. The security of the Netherlands should be priority number 1. Our citizens have to be safe on the train, in the streets, when walking their children to school and shopping. That is what truly matters. In its letter to Parliament, the Government only devotes two paragraphs to national security. There is even more attention for issues of gender and the position of women in the Arab world. That is a travesty.

Madam Speaker, we must protect the Netherlands. That is why we were elected. To protect our citizens. Not only the citizens of Iraq and Syria, but also and especially our own people here in the Netherlands. Why is the army not deployed to protect our railways stations? And in their uniforms and heavily armed, of course.

And why do we try to stop jihadists when they want to leave our country? Last Sunday, the Minister of Security and Justice proudly said that the passports of 41 jihadists had been canceled so they could not leave to Syria or Iraq. What a stupid act. Now they walk around here, in our streets. People who want to wage jihad elsewhere, decapitate, commit attacks, walk our streets because of the decision of the Minister.

I have been saying it for ten years and I will repeat it once again:

Close the borders to immigrants from Islamic countries. Enough is enough. The Islamic culture of hatred does not belong in the Netherlands. 65 per cent of the Dutch agree with this.

Let jihadists leave the country, but let them never come back. Reintroduce border controls.

Evict everyone who expresses sympathy for the Islamic State, deprive them of their Dutch passports. Let everyone with a passport from an Islamic country to sign an anti-Sharia declaration.

Wake up, I say to the Government. Protect not only the Iraqi people against the Islamic State, protect the Dutch against the Islamic terrorist threat in our own country. That is your job and that is your responsibility.

Take that responsibility. Do your duty.

How to Confront the Islamic State

geert_New

When this prescient heroic man, who was a harbinger of things to come, initially spoke out against Islamofascism he was maligned and excoriated. He was put on trial in his own country (The Netherlands) on charges of inciting hate and discrimination. He was subsequently cleared of all charges by the judge.
His views are now becoming more mainstream as Islamists continue with their own campaign of persecution and hatred of all non-Muslims.

Below is a speech delivered by Geert Wilders in the Dutch Parliament during the recent parliamentary debate about the military mission to fight ISIS in Iraq:

How to Confront the Islamic State, by Geert Wilders

Madam Speaker,

The Islamic State is an Islamic cancer. It is a poisonous snake based on the Quran and the life of Muhammad, a criminal who 14 centuries ago went, murdering and decapitating, from Medina to Mecca. His self-appointed successor Caliph Baghdadi is now at the gates of Baghdad and Damascus. He has followers all over the world, including in our country, our cities and streets.

Again, people are beheaded according to the Koranic commands such as Sura 47 verse 4: “When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and when ye have caused a bloodbath among them bind a bond firmly on them.” Even moderate Muslims cannot escape violence because, according to the Koran and the Sharia, they are apostates.

All the gullible minds who say that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam are committing a serious politically-correct error, whether they are Obama, Cameron, Rutte or Samsom.

We are at war. War has been declared against the free West. Our freedom, our culture, the future of our country and our children are at stake. We must strike back hard, in the Netherlands, in the rest of the West and also in Iraq and Syria. Hence, my party supports the Government’s decision to deploy Dutch F16s against the Islamic state. We say: Let us bomb them.

But we have no understanding for the fact that we are only going to bomb in Iraq and not in Syria. Is it OK for the Government that people are beheaded, women raped and genocide committed in Syria because a mandate under international law is missing? What a cowardice. The government says it understands the United States when they bomb the Islamic State in Syria, but it does not participate itself. Understanding, but no participation, what a cowardly half-heartedness.

Even more important than fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is fighting Islamic terrorism in the Netherlands. The security of the Netherlands should be priority number 1. Our citizens have to be safe on the train, in the streets, when walking their children to school and shopping. That is what truly matters. In its letter to Parliament, the Government only devotes two paragraphs to national security. There is even more attention for issues of gender and the position of women in the Arab world. That is a travesty.

Madam Speaker, we must protect the Netherlands. That is why we were elected. To protect our citizens. Not only the citizens of Iraq and Syria, but also and especially our own people here in the Netherlands. Why is the army not deployed to protect our railways stations? And in their uniforms and heavily armed, of course.

And why do we try to stop jihadists when they want to leave our country? Last Sunday, the Minister of Security and Justice proudly said that the passports of 41 jihadists had been canceled so they could not leave to Syria or Iraq. What a stupid act. Now they walk around here, in our streets. People who want to wage jihad elsewhere, decapitate, commit attacks, walk our streets because of the decision of the Minister.

I have been saying it for ten years and I will repeat it once again:

Close the borders to immigrants from Islamic countries. Enough is enough. The Islamic culture of hatred does not belong in the Netherlands. 65 per cent of the Dutch agree with this.

Let jihadists leave the country, but let them never come back. Reintroduce border controls.

Evict everyone who expresses sympathy for the Islamic State, deprive them of their Dutch passports. Let everyone with a passport from an Islamic country to sign an anti-Sharia declaration.

Wake up, I say to the Government. Protect not only the Iraqi people against the Islamic State, protect the Dutch against the Islamic terrorist threat in our own country. That is your job and that is your responsibility.

Take that responsibility. Do your duty.

Dutch Lawmaker Geert Wilders: ‘If You Are Waving an ISIS flag You Are Waving an Exit Ticket. Leave!’

While US politicians coddle the Islam ideology, engage in taqiyyah regarding Islam and in general practice Islamic PC, ISIS advances and threatens all non-Muslims. The US government allows those citizens who leave our country to fight alongside ISIS re-entry with impunity back into the US, increasing the jihad threat in America. British Prime Minister David Cameron is exploring measures to keep British Muslims from leaving the UK to fight alongside civilization’s enemies, as if that is going to lessen the threat to Britain. Dutch lawmaker and head of the “Party for Freedom” (PVV), Geert Wilders indicates in his address to parliament in the Hague, Netherlands that those who are supportive of ISIS, wishing to fight in Iraq and Syria, should be allowed to leave and never return.

According to CNSnews.com, Wilders, once put on trial for his views on Islam, expressed to the Dutch parliament in his address, “Anyone who expresses support for terror as a means to overthrow our constitutional democracy, as far as I’m concerned, should leave the country at once. If you are waving an ISIS flag, you are waving an exit ticket. Leave!”
Wilders disagrees with the British prime ministers approach of trying to keep jihadis from leaving the country to go fight with ISIS.
Very plainly and succinctly, Wilders firmly stands his ground on his ideas of how these citizen jihadis should be treated.
“Let them leave, with as many friends and family members as possible. I will go to Schiphol (airport) to wave them goodbye, if that helps. But, don’t let them ever come back – that’s the condition. Good riddance.”
“Deprive all jihadists of their passports – even if they only have a Dutch passport. Let them take an ISIS passport,” Wilders declares.
Wilders has been harshly criticized over the years for his warnings about Islam. However, it appears the rise of ISIS is vindicating Wilders by confirming his warnings. In 2008, Wilders was vilified and prosecuted for a documentary entitled “Fitna” (meaning strife in Arabic) which “interspersed passages from the Qu’ran with footage of terror attacks, along with clips of Muslim clerics endorsing violence.” Turning on the news these days, Wilders claims anyone can watch on television what his documentary covered as the world is witness to a “clash between barbarism and civilization.”
Despite Wilders’ best efforts, the Dutch government is much like our own – downplaying the threat of jihad and Islam. But just like in America, Dutch Muslims are displaying the flag of ISIS and jihad. Rallies are being conducted in the Netherlands with Muslims chanting “death to Jews” while waving the ISIS banner. But, the Dutch government claims that these “jihadis” are small, insignificant groups with Wilder citing a poll showing “73 percent of Dutch respondents of Moroccan and Turkish origin regarded those who go to fight in Syria as ‘heroes.'” Granted, the poll addressed Muslims going to fight in the civil war in Syria; however, it would be a logical assumption they would be “heroes” fighting with ISIS for the creation of a caliphate.
Wilders teaches the truth about Islam. Unfortunately, a Dutch court instructed prosecutors to indict him for “inciting hatred and discrimination.” Wilders was even denied a visa to enter Britain in the past.

All of this sounds eerily familiar, doesn’t it? Speech about Islam, contradictory to the propaganda, is hateful and discriminatory, deserving of punishment when it is the truth found in the teachings of Islam. The only ones who get upset at the “truth” regarding Islam are Muslims, Muslim supporters and the multicultural left leaning liberals.
Because of the “controversy” surrounding what is now termed “foreign fighters” – a term describing citizens of other nations traveling to fight alongside ISIS – Obama will be hosting a United Nations Security Council session on the issue. What business does the UN have to meddle in how nations deal with traitors and insurgents? The UN is not responsible for the security of the United States or any other nation. Each nation is responsible for its own security, immigration and naturalization laws and laws dealing with revocation of citizenship. It’s best the UN steer clear of trying to interfere with a free, constitutional republic.
Wilders has the right idea when it comes to citizenship regarding those who leave to fight alongside ISIS – revoke it and do not allow them re-entry. He is also spot on in regard to Islam, along with many who have been warning the US and the world about this barbarous political system. He refuses to back down into the political correctness game or engage in propaganda. For that, he has been targeted by Muslim clerics urging Muslims to kill him by beheading for denigrating Islam.
Some, in the Netherlands, may be waking to the dangers of Islam as Wilders’ party won the third most votes of the 11 parties that entered the Dutch parliament, in the most recent general election.
While Obama, his ilk, and the other Muslim trash occupying positions in the US government continually try to downplay Islam and the threat it poses, people are waking up – slowly, but they are waking. In the meantime, US citizens should make it loud and clear to Congress that the UN, nor any other country for that matter, has no business meddling in the laws of sovereign nations to include when to revoke citizenship; and, Congress should communicate that loud and clear to the UN.
Geert Wilders is standing strong for the Netherlands, despite being criticized, vilified and prosecuted. Is there a “Geert Wilders” somewhere in our Congress? So far, Michele Bachmann is fighting to revoke citizenship for those fighting alongside ISIS. But, America needs a member of Congress to tackle the truth about Islam and proclaim it without shame, in the same manner as Wilders. Unfortunately, America may be waiting a long time.
It is time the US declare that those who stand in support of ISIS and Islam leave this nation as American values are incompatible with Islam or be prepared to be treated as enemy combatants. Those in support of the establishment of the caliphate should be more than willing to leave and live under Islamic ISIS rule – take your friends and family with you – as this is what is being supported. Any US citizen who leaves to fight alongside ISIS should plan on never returning – you are not welcome in the US. ISIS has declared the US its enemy; those citizens fighting with ISIS are enemies of the US. No one is forcing you to stay or even asking you to reconsider. Make your choice and pack your bags for good. Many will be there to wave you goodbye and good riddance.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/dutch-lawmaker-geert-wilders-if-you-are-waving-an-isis-flag-you-are-waving-an-exit-ticket-leave/#DjJXLeBgJlsEtx1r.99

Geert Wilders’ speech in Ukraine debate

Western Civilization< Text of Geert Wilders’ speech in Ukraine debate Mr Verhofstadt and Van Baalen [Members of European Parliament (MEPs), Guy Verhofstadt is Belgian and Hans van Baalen is Dutch] went to Kiev. They wanted to make history. There they stood in a square full of people, including National Socialists, Jew-haters and other anti -democrats. People with helmets and baseball bats. They went where the revolutionaries hang out. On stage, they tried to stir up the mob even more. Mr Verhofstadt spoke in no uncertain terms. He talked about a fight, a fight. That is what Brussels supports. And with money. The leader of the VVD [Party for Freedom and Progress], Mr Van Baalen, stood beside him cheering, clenched fists held high. Shame on them. These shameless Europhiles and their dreams of empire. Now we have always been told that the EU stands for peace. But now that these two characters have appeared on stage, we know better. The EU stands for war provocation. Ukraine is still a big mess. Dutch taxpayers are on the hook to fix it. The country tops the list of corrupt countries. All the money you send there disappears. Last week, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mr. Rutte, said that tax cuts for the Netherlands is not in the cards. Netherlands craves lower taxes and lower excise duties. But Prime Minister says that won’t happen. However, they’ve managed to scrape together 11 billion euros, including Dutch money, for the Ukraine. Meanwhile excise taxes are still high, income taxes are sky-high. Meanwhile, nursing homes are being shuttered. But there’s plenty of money for Ukraine. Matter of priorities. It would be good if the prime minister had the intestinal fortitude to explain this here tonight, but he has to campaign. He’s sitting tonight in a cafe in the beautiful Roosendaal to tell you why everyone should vote VVD. He thinks this is more important than being accountable to Parliament for that 11 billion being sent to Ukraine. Mr Rutte holds the voter in low esteem. Now if you need help and want to stay in a nursing home in the Netherlands you’re out of luck. But if you live in Ukraine these days, you’ve got it made. That country takes the prize. At one time, we could support Greece. And all the other countries in the South. Now our money is going towards the bottomless pit of ultra- corrupt Ukraine. Now this cannot and should not be. Hence the following motion: The Chamber, having heard the deliberations, whereas the European Commission proposes to give billions of euros of European money, including Dutch money, to Ukraine, believes that not one penny of Dutch tax money should be given to Ukraine, and requests that the government makes certain that not one penny of Dutch tax money goes to Ukraine, and proceeds to the order of the day.

Netherlands Sliding into the Abyss

In a new interview in the Dutch magazine Panorama, Geert Wilders talks about a variety of things, including his forthcoming book about Islam, which will be published in the U.S. in April.  In it, he says, he’ll document the fact that “Islam is a dangerous ideology” and that “Muhammed really is one of the big bad guys” of history, whose negative influence continues to be felt today.  Yes, Wilders acknowledges, there are genuinely moderate people who call themselves Muslims, and if they want to call themselves Muslims that’s fine with him – but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

What, asks the interviewer, is his great fear?  Answer: that “if we don’t put an end to Islamization, it will slowly but surely insinuate itself into our society, at the cost of our freedom.  And bit by bit things will go the wrong way.  That’s why I’m extending this warning.  Otherwise someday our children and grandchildren won’t have freedom any more.”  To which the interviewer replies: “And if people say: come on, Geert, it’s not really so bad, is it?…What do you say then?”  “I say: it’s worse than you think.”

It’s hard to believe that in the year 2011 there exist Dutchmen – outside of the perennially clueless cultural elite, that is – who are still able to believe that things aren’t “really so bad.”  But, alas, there are.  There are.

To be sure, thanks largely to pressure from Wilders and his Freedom Party, the last few years have seen reforms in Dutch immigration and integration policies.  But has it been too little, too late?   For the unfortunate fact is that one set of indicators after another continues to head south.  Take a new reportcommissioned by the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and produced by Risbo, a research institute at Erasmus University.  It shows that of males in the Netherlands’ “Moroccan community” between the ages of 12 and 24, no fewer than 38.7 percent have come to the attention of the police at least once during the last five years in connection with some offense – mostly violent crimes and thefts.

The winner in this dubious sweepstakes is the historic city of Den Bosch, about fifty miles south of Amsterdam.  In Den Bosch, just under half of young Moroccan males between 12 and 24 – 47.7 percent, to be exact – have police records.  (That’s up from 45 percent last year.)  In a long list of other cities – Zeist, Gouda, Veenendaal, Amersfoort, Maassluis, Oosterhout, Schiedam, Nijmegen, Utrecht, Ede, Leiden, and The Hague – the figure also topped 40 percent.  In every municipality that was studied, incidentally, the scores for Moroccan youths far outstripped those for ethnic Dutch kids, among whom an average of 13 percent of boys in the same age cohort had come in for similar police attention during the same period.

One person who knows a good deal about the Dutch Moroccan youth milieu is filmmaker Roy Dames, who spent eight years – imagine! – working on Mocros, a documentary about young Moroccans in Rotterdam.  (The film opened on November 10 in Amsterdam and Nijmegen, and will be aired on Dutch TV early next year.)  In an interview with the Dutch edition of MetroDames, whoseprevious work includes documentaries about criminals, prostitutes, alcoholics, and homeless people, says that he “wanted to make a documentary about the Moroccan boys in the street, the street kids that you see everywhere.  In 2002, when I started Mocros, Moroccan boys had a poor image. They still do.  Many Moroccan boys are kicked out of school, cause trouble in the streets, and are in danger of leading a life of crime.”

The ones he’s been following around all these years with his camera now average about twenty-three years old.  They’re on welfare and get “an occasional job.”  One of them has spent some time in prison.  It’s not easy to get them to open up, he says, because they “live in a culture of silence and shame” in which pressure from family, friends, and community “is enormous.”

Spending all these years in the company of these youths hasn’t exactly protected Dames from their not-so-chummy side.  At one point he was filming a (shall we say) uncongenial encounter between thirty of his young subjects and some hapless “youth workers” when suddenly the boys “turned on me” aggressively.  Dames jumped in his car and sped off just in time – and had to put the project on hold for six months.  (Apparently it took that long for the kids to cool down.)

One gathers that while Dames has a certain degree of sympathy for at least some of these kids, he also doesn’t pull any punches, and shows things how they are – which is not pretty.  (A snotty little review in De Telegraaf gripes that the film, intentionally or not, will confirm all the prejudices of ethnic Dutch viewers – and the reviewer ends with that line, as if to make it clear that the last thing he wants to do is to explore the disturbing implications of this observation.)

It seems significant that the profile of Dames appeared in the Dutch edition ofMetro, of all places.  Metro is a chain of urban newspapers that can be picked up for free in subway stations and other such places (the Dutch trains are always full of discarded copies), and over the years I’ve noticed that the Dutch and Swedish editions of Metro are – scandalously – often the only places you’ll find news stories that are too politically incorrect for those countries’ “real” media to touch.  Apparently Dames’s documentary falls into that category.  Mocros has received “little attention in the media,” he laments, because “the Dutch press is politically correct” and would prefer not to have a “real debate” about the issues raised by films like his.

Well, we knew that already – heaven knows Geert Wilders does.  But after the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, the hounding of Ayaan Hirsi Ali out of the country, and the prosecution of Wilders – all because they dared to express their opinions about Islam – and given the increasingly out-of-this-world statistics such as those included in the Risbo report, one wonders exactly what it would take to persuade the Dutch media that it’s time, at long last, to permit a truly wide-open, no-holds-barred discussion of Islam in the Netherlands.  One fears that by the time some of the media moguls realize it’s time to let ‘er rip, it’ll already be much too late.

DUTCH COURT ACQUITS LAWMAKER OF HATE SPEECH FOR ANTI-ISLAM COMMENTS

by Jonathon M. Seidl
A Dutch court acquitted populist politician Geert Wilders of hate speech and discrimination Thursday, ruling that his anti-Islam statements, while offensive to many Muslims, fell within the bounds of legitimate political debate.
Presiding judge Marcel van Oosten said Wilders’ claims that Islam is violent by nature, and his calls to halt Muslim immigration and ban the Muslim holy book, the Quran, must be seen in a wider context of debate over immigration policy.
The court said his public statements could not be directly linked to increased discrimination against Dutch Muslims.
Wilders sat stone-faced while the judge read the ruling, but smiled broadly and shook hands with his lawyers after the verdict was announced. He waved to cheering supporters who hugged each other in the public gallery, and grinned as he left the courtroom.
Wilders, one of the most powerful and popular politicians in the Netherlands, was accused of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims through numerous public statements, and with insulting them by comparing Islam with Naziism.
“I’m incredibly happy with this acquittal on all counts,” Wilders said outside the courtroom.
“It’s not only an acquittal for me, but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands. Fortunately you‘re allowed to discuss Islam in public debate and you’re not muzzled… An enormous burden has fallen from my shoulders,” he said.
Groups that filed the complaints against Wilders that ultimately led to his prosecution said they were disappointed with the ruling.

Geert Wilders made his final statement in court yesterday

Geert Wilders made his final statement in court yesterday where he is still on trial for telling the truth about Islam. This, as often noted, is a judicial outrage, a public nightmare, and an existential threat to liberty as we have known it which doesn’t end because bin Laden is dead. There is a raw, ugly fear of Islam in the non-Islamic world, and the grotesque reflex of the frightened power classes is to side with the raw, ugly power of Islam, which, never let it be forgotten, is derived solely from their own fear. The results are to be seen in the travesties around us from the Netherlands’ campaign to silence, penalize and make an example of the courageous Wilders, to the USA’s grotesque staging of a dignified, Islamically correct “funeral at sea” for a mass murderer whose corpse should have been disposed of as the human trash that it was.

Reading Geert’s words is a sobering experience, spoken as they are in the face of a thoroughly craven but still powerful establishment-machine. In this desperate hour for free speech, they sound an SOS we seem powerless to answer. But they are inspiring, too, for the example they set. Here in the 21st century is a man whose allegiance to liberty is paramount.

Geert Wilders:
Mister President, members of the Court. I recently tried to have Your Honors removed from the case for your refusal to register a statement of perjury against Mr. Hendriks. My challenge of the court did not succeed. I must accept that. I do wish to say, however, that I was more annoyed by another declaration of the President of the Court on the day of the official hearing of Mr. Jansen. He said that I was a free man, that I could not be compared to Mr. Nekschot because I was a free man.

Mister President, you could not be more wrong. For almost seven years now, I have not been a free man. I lost my freedom in 2004. I live as a prisoner with guards without you having convicted me. Without protection I am even less certain of my life than I am now. Mister President, you would not use the words “free man” if you could change places with me for one week.

Mister President, members of the court, I am here as a suspect again today. I have said so before: This penal case is a political trial. An attempt is being made here to silence a politician who speaks on behalf of one and a half million people and who already pays a heavy price for that every single day. Formally, only I stand on trial here, but in practice the freedom of speech of millions of Dutchmen is on trial.

This trial is not merely a political trial. It is also an unjust trial. When you look at the order of the court (to prosecute me) it is clear that the verdict has already been passed. The court has issued an order to prosecute me in which it concludes that I am guilty of incitement to hatred. The court has concluded that my statements as such are of an insulting nature. The court has concluded that I am guilty of the most serious charge: the incitement to hatred and discrimination. The court has concluded that it expects that the criminal prosecution will indeed lead to a conviction. Mister President, members of the court, the court has already done your job. Long before I was brought to trial before you, I was found guilty and was condemned. Hence my right to a just trial has been violated.

Alas, this is but the tip of the iceberg. Without any doubt, the judges who presided this case have conveyed a semblance of partiality. I have been denied 15 of the 18 witnesses whom I wanted to call. Every high representative of the judicial power has given his view on this case, and often to my disadvantage. But Counselor Schalken was the worst.

Counselor Schalken, who co-authored the decision to prosecute me, makes a habit of discussing my trial and arguing his case at elegant dinner parties for intellectuals. Counselor Schalken dined with my witness, Mr Jansen – note that he was one of the only three witnesses whom I was allowed to call – three days before Mr. Jansen was to be interrogated by the court. During this dinner Mr. Schalken TRIED to influence Mr Jansen. The fact that he did not succeed is irrelevant.

Mr. President, members of the court, stop this unfair, political trial. Respect our Dutch freedoms. If this trial continues, despite the fact that the principle of the presumption of innocence has been violated, and if I am convicted, not only my freedom will be infringed, but also the right of all Dutch people to hear the truth. The 19th century black American politician Frederick Douglass, the son of a slave, put it as follows: “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

Mr. President, members of the court, I end with a quote of George Washington, who said: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Mr. President, members of the court, do not let this warning become reality. Stop this charade, this political trial where I have already been convicted by the court even before I was a suspect. Stop it now. If you do so, and I passionately hope you will, this will benefit freedom of speech as well as the respectability of the judicial power and the rule of law.

 

Dutch anti-Islam hate speech trial resumes

By TOBY STERLING

Defense lawyers sought Wednesday to discredit a judge who ordered Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders to face trial on charges of inciting hatred against Muslims.

Wilders, leader of the country’s third-largest political party, says he has done nothing wrong by expressing his opinions that Islam is a violent ideology comparable with fascism, and that the Quran should be banned.

Defense witness Hans Jansen, a retired professor of Arabic and Islamic studies, testified that he had been approached at a dinner by appeals judge Tom Schalken to discuss the Wilders case shortly before the trial was to start. Defense lawyers argue that contact was inappropriate and grounds for dismissing the hate speech case.

Schalken sat on the panel that ordered Wilders’ case to proceed, even after prosecutors had declined to press charges and a trial court had endorsed that decision.

“Do you think that he(Schalken) tried to influence your testimony?” defense lawyer Bram Moszkowicz asked Jansen.

“Yes. I think he did,” Jansen answered.

Schalken, testifying later, denied trying to influence Jansen or having committed any impropriety. He said he was surprised to learn that Jansen considered Wilders’ prosecution a “witchhunt.”

Schalken said he didn’t think that Jansen understood the appeals panel’s reasoning, so he tried to explain it to him “so he could form his viewpoint on the basis of the right foundation.”

Judges are expected to rule on the motion for dismissal on Friday.

Wilders says the trial is about his right to free speech. Dutch Muslims who pressed for the trial say it is about their right to practice their religion freely. They say Wilders’ strident anti-Islam tone has led to increased discrimination against them and even attacks on mosques.

Wilders is charged with inciting hatred against Muslims based on their religion or race, and for “making statements insulting to Muslims as a group.” Each charge carries a maximum sentence of one year imprisonment, although a fine would be more likely if he were found guilty.

Nearly 100 public remarks by Wilders have been entered into evidence. Typical among them was an interview published in De Volkskrant newspaper in which he said: “The core of the problem is the fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as written down in the Islamic Mein Kampf.”

Wilders’ international profile grew after his short film “Fitna” aired in 2008, which equated Islam with violence and led to protests in Muslim countries. He announced earlier this month he is making a new film, this time about the life of the Prophet Mohammed.

His party is supporting a conservative minority Cabinet, in exchange for a promise of new rules curtailing immigration and banning Muslim face-covering clothing.

 

 

A MESSAGE FROM GEERT WILDERS

LET FREE SPEECH REIN The Lost Case Against Geert Wilders

The case against the Dutch politician has backfired in every way imaginable.

When even the prosecution calls for a defendant’s acquittal and the trial judges have been disqualified for the appearance of bias, maybe it’s time to drop the charges. Rather than a retrial, a dismissal would be the best outcome in the case of Geert Wilders, the Dutch lawmaker accused of insulting and inciting hatred against Muslims.

Mr. Wilders is not shy in his criticism of Islam. He has called for banning the Quran, which he has compared to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” Mr. Wilders became famous by making a short film, “Fitna,” which juxtaposes Quranic verses calling for jihad with footage of the aftermath of Islamist terror attacks.

As unattractive as his expressed sentiments may be, they also qualify as free speech, which is why Dutch prosecutors initially dismissed complaints against Mr. Wilders. “No doubt his words are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims,” prosecutors said in 2008, but “freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society.”

That should have been the end if it. However, an appeals court overruled the prosecution last year, forcing Mr. Wilders to stand trial. But the prosecutors still believe that no crime has been committed. “Criticism of a religion is not punishable,” prosecutor Birgit van Roessel told the Amsterdam district court 10 days ago.

Then the politically charged trial took another twist last week when one of Mr. Wilders’ expert witnesses, the Arabist Hans Jansen, wrote on his website that a member of the judiciary had tried to influence him. He said that at a dinner party before he was supposed to testify, one of the appeals judges whose decision compelled the prosecutors to press charges tried to “convince me of the correctness of the decision to take Wilders to court.”

To further complicate matters, the trial judges then denied a defense request to question Mr. Jansen in court about his allegations. An oversight panel of jurists finally granted the defense’s request to dismiss the presiding judges, calling their colleagues’ refusal to hear the witness “incomprehensible.” The trial, which was supposed to end next month, theoretically must start over with new judges.

Prosecuting Mr. Wilders has backfired in every way imaginable, not least politically. The trial has seemed to confirm his charge that avoiding debate over the implications of Muslim immigration leads to the erosion of Western freedoms, most notably freedom of speech. Despite, or perhaps because of, the trial, Mr. Wilders’ Party for Freedom became the third-strongest parliamentary faction in last June’s elections. This allowed Mr. Wilders to become a political king-maker by backing the new center-right minority government.

Meanwhile, as part of his defense Mr. Wilders has been putting the entire Muslim religion on trial. His defense includes not only invoking free speech but also calling expert witnesses to testify on the accuracy of his views of Islam. Before the judges could rule on whether it’s a hate crime to compare the Quran to “Mein Kampf,” Mr. Wilders wants them to rule on whether he was correct to make the comparison. This is only contributing to further religious animosity.

A retrial will achieve nothing but exacerbate these tensions. It’s time to drop the charges against Mr. Wilders before it further undermines the credibility of the Dutch legal system and the country’s tradition of free political discourse.

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
SEO Powered By SEOPressor