Moroccans want Wilders prosecuted

Well at least Rabbae is using 'due process'. If it were to go to a legal debate it could force it out into the open.

There are times when guts, principle and nerves of steel are called for. This is one.

Go Geert.

Wait till its released

That would just make him "bigoted" in the PC parlance. What is very interesting is that the Dutch justice department hasn't flat out said "No". What has me curious is this, are European "constitutions" as open ended about free speech as the US Article 1 of the Bill of Rights? I mean many have tried passing laws limiting free speech, with limited success, regardless of how one views McCain-Feingold and the hate crime laws. Are the European versions as open ended or are they more nuanced?

Is Mohamed Rabae a citizen of the Netherlands? If he is, how did he, how did his fellow members of this "Moroccan Council" come to be citizens? How did they arrive in the Netherlands? What kind of questions were they asked, what kind of tests did they undergo, in order to quallify to obtain that precious, rare gift for anyone from a place like Morocco: citizenship in a country of the advanced West, every principle of every legal and political institution of which is flatly contradicted by the texts and tenets of Islam.

Is Mohamed Rabae aware of the development of freedom of speech in the West, and of the solicitude for individual rights, as opposed to the collectivism of Islam, where the individual does not matter, but ony that individual's usefulness to the Army of Islam, that developed in that West, not least in the Netherlands, where the true father of the Enlightenment, Spinoza, had his works and days?

Isn't it time to re-examine the question of who is fit to come to the Netherlands, who is fit to be allowed even to be considered for citizenship, and what an adequate test for such citizenship -- a test possibly that needs to be re-given to each naturalized citizen every few years -- would look like?

Meanwhile, the complaints about a movie not yet shown, and the idiotic charge of "racism" have to both be clearly refuted, by someone who will not be too diplomatic, trying too hard to hide his fury and his contempt.

Yeah,got it...

Mo Rabbae is an Infidelaphobe.

Suggestions as to what would constitute an intelligent examination of those hoping to become citizens of the Netherlands -- which is not quite the same thing as becoming Dutch -- were given in an article, "Going Dutch," that appeared first at this website as a posting and then, in a revised form, at www.newenglishreview.org. in July 2006:

Going Dutch

The Dutch government has decided that immigrants, by which is meant mainly Muslim immigrants, should have made available to them government-sponsored courses in the Dutch language, Dutch history, Dutch culture. And with those courses on offer, there will be new requirements. Immigrants will be required, within a very generous five years, to demonstrate a minimal knowledge of that language, that history, that culture. It is an act born of hope and despair. The hope is that these Muslim immigrants will, in learning these subjects, not simply be thereby better able to manipulate Dutch infidels, to make demands and to subvert the laws, customs, understandings of local Infidels using tools provided by those same Infidels, but will, instead, come to appreciate that Dutch society, (as Ayaan Hirsi Ali so clearly did), and instead of wishing to Islamize the locals or to have Islam dominate the Dutch, will themselves be in fact so transformed by this new knowledge, having acquired a knowledge of, and therefore deep appreciation for, Dutch freedoms, Dutch individualism, Dutch laws and understandings, Dutch thought and Dutch art, that they will not only profess loyalty to the Netherlands, but when they profess it, mean it.

To date Muslims in Holland, as elsewhere in Western Europe, have not demonstrated such loyalty or a desire to integrate through the acceptance of certain basic understandings. Instead, the younger generations of Muslim immigrants seem filled with fervor that increases rather than diminishes, and have created a situation that is unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous for Infidels in all of the countries of what Muslims call Dar al-Harb (the Domain of War) or the Bilad al-kufr (the Land of Infidelity, or Lands of the Infidels). They are taught to despise Infidels, to express hostility toward them, even at times to “cut off the heads” of the Unbelievers.This kind of sentiment, repeated so often in the Qur’an and the Hadith, has its effect.

The despair of the Dutch government is shared by the governments of other Infidel countries in Western Europe. They do not know quite what to do. Like other Western governments that of the Netherlands appears to believe that it simply has no choice, but cannot expel – why not? on what peculiar theory? – those who remain adherents of a belief-system that uncompromisingly divides the world between Believers and Infidels, and tells Believers that it is their duty to strive for the day when all parts of the world have removed all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam, so that the entire world will become part of Dar al-Islam. And the despair is felt most by those who have taken the time to thoroughly investigate the nature of Islam, not only the contents of Qur’an and Hadith, not only the example of Muhammad and the implications for Infidels of that example, but also to study the history, over the past 1350 years, of Muslim Jihad-conquest, and Muslim subjugation of many different non-Muslim peoples, all of whom suffered under Muslim rule in ways that one would, if one did not know about Islam, and the conception of the “tolerated” non-Muslim, the dhimmi, and his legal status, would be regarded as amazingly, rather than unsurprisingly, similar.


Whether they belong to the party of those Infidels who think the truth about the belief-system of Islam should be stated, or to the party of those who think one should avoid stating the truth, for fear of making that grim truth even truer, Europeans recognize that the belief-system of the millions of Muslims permitted into their midst poses an unprecedented and unique problem. For Islam is not quite like any other undeclared mental baggage brought by any other kind of immigrant. Dimly, or brightly, Europeans are beginning to understand that this business of a strict division in the world between Believer and Unbeliever, Muslim and Infidel. Muslims are taught, is taken to heart and is not theoretical. It is vividly alive for most of the world’s Muslims, no matter where they may be. T he Qur’an instructs them “not to take Jews or Christians as friends, for they are friends only with each other” and Muslims are taught never to participate in, nor to recognizae, the religious holidays of others. They are told to obey only those Infidel laws, in the Infidel countries they happen to live in, that Muslim scholars tell them do not conflict with Islam. They are taught that, as always, their sole loyalty must be to the Umma, the Community of Believers. Islam is a collective faith; it has no time for individualism or the individual. Muslims determined to carry on campaigns of Da’wa among vulnerable and carefully targeted groups of Infidels, ordinarily the psychically or economically marginal, are not trying to save souls so much as they are attempting to gather recruits for the army of Islam. And once recruited, those new soldiers are never allowed to leave Islam – or if they try to, they will be punished as deserters.

Muslims are taught that they are the best of people; that non-Muslims ideally should be subjugated to them; that the lands of the world’s peoples belong to Allah and to the Believers, and that in the end the entire world will, in fact, belong to them. They are taught to regard with contempt non-Believers, and the legal status of “dhimmi” that is imposed on non-Muslims (should they manage to be considered as “protected peoples”—which is only guaranteed to Christians and Jews as “ahl al-kitab” or “People of the Book”) is so onerous that over time many, to escape its burden, converted to Islam.

Holland needs to toughen its test for those wishing to become citizens of Holland. It should not be some multiple-choice farce, but so constructed as to constitute a serious inquiry into the mental makeup of the takeover. . To halt the tide of Muslim immigration that is now flooding not only low-lying Holland, but all member states of the European Community, more than a finger in the crumbling polder-dike of present immigration laws will be needed. The testing of would-be immigrants for Holland should make them no longer regard the country they have landed in as just one more part of the Bilad al-kufr, the Land of Infidelity or of the Infidels, an incidental variant on the them of the Kuffar. Those in England must learn all about England, those in France all about France, and those in Holland, all about Holland.


An immigrant must want to come to the Netherlands, for more than the free medical care, free education, free or subsidized housing and generous living allowances that Muslims all over Europe have become masters at exploiting beyond anything the creators of these welfare states ever contemplated. He must not merely be seeking an initial foothold to which he can be admitted, so that subsequently all of Europe will be open to him – to find the best way to be supported, and to work to undermine the very peoples and societies whose generosity he is exploiting for aims that those peoples and societies are only now beginning to comprehend.

It is a great privilege for someone from the world of Islam, a world that denies many forms of artistic expression, that discourages at every step free and skeptical inquiry by the Believers, that limits the freedoms of women, that encourages Believers to treat non-Muslims under Muslim rule at best as “dhimmis,” that is those non-Muslims subject to carefully constructed legal system, whereby all kinds of disabilities are inflicted on those dhimmis, the sum of which is a status of humiliation, degradation, and permanent physical insecurity. Mere geographic presence in Holland does not make one Dutch, and it certainly does not allow one to both inherit the legacy of a thousand years or more of Dutch history, and then to attempt to change, to mutilate, that very legacy, as one inferior to the only legacy that counts: that of Islam. .

The government of the Netherlands might wish to consider suggestions from outside. As a well-wisher, who prefers to keep Miep Gies in mind, or the retiring Professor van der Horst, rather than Menten or the wife of Wim Duisenberg, I have prepared a test that might fit the bill.

Here it is:


1) List five achievements of the Dutch East India Company from the time of its founding in 1602.

2) In appraising Dutch rule in the East Indies during the period 1880-1940, what acts of the Dutch were most deserving of praise, and what most deserving of blame?

3) When Jews expelled from Spain came to Amsterdam after 1492, many came and settled in Amsterdam. Why were they made welcome? How did this minority, quite foreign in many ways to the Dutch in language and culture, contribute in succeeding centuries to Dutch life? If you wish, you may concentrate on the figure of Spinoza and his role in the Enlightenment.

4) Who was Anne Frank, and why is the house in which she and others hid during World War II visited by people from all over the world? What is the historical significance of Anne Frank? Who was Menten, and what is his historical significance?

5) This question counts for one-third of the total grade on the entire examination.. So think carefully about its full significance before answering. Discuss three of the ten paintings listed below. Choose the painting that you find most appealing and the one you find least appealing and discuss your reasons for those choices:

a) Jan Vermeer's Woman With a Turban
b) Rembrandt's The Jewish Bride
c) Lucas van Leyden, The Last Judgment
d) Gerrit Dou, Young Woman Dressing
e) Henrick Avercamp, Winter Scene on a Canal
f) Geertgen tot Sint jans, The Assumption of the Virgin
g) Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights OR The Marriage Feast at Cana
h) Frans Hals, The Merry Drinker
i) Vincent van Gogh, Self-Portrait

6) Describe the part of the terraqueous globe most closely associated with each of the following:

a) Henry Hudson
b) Abel Jansz Tasman
c) Willem Barents

7) Describe briefly the significance of any three of the buildings listed below:

a) Pieterskerk in Utrecht
b) Grote Kerk in Breda
c) Mauritshuis in The Hague
d) Rembrandtshuis in Amsterdam
e) Erasmushuis in Rotterdam
f) Portuguese Synagogue in Amsterdam
g) Beguin Convent in Amsterdam


9) Among the famous foreigners who came to Holland seeking refuge were John Locke, Descartes, and Pierre Bayle. Choose any one of the three, discuss his significance, and explain why that person sought such refuge, and whether he found in Holland what he sought?

10) What was the effect on Holland of:

a) The Treaty of Utrecht
b) The Peace of Munster
c) The Treaty of Breda
c) The Maastricht Treaty


That's ten; there are two score more. Ten of those questions will be devoted to short but representative passages from Dutch intellectual history. The original Latin of some of the writers chosen – Erasmus, Grotius, Spinoza – will have been translated into Dutch. Ten more questions will be devoted to Dutch literature, and will range chronologically from Jacob Cats to Cees Nooteboom and Harry Mulisch. And a final twenty will be devoted to the most important text in Dutch history, the one which informs so much of its artistic and philosophical legacy. That text, or those texts, consist of the Old and New Testaments. Familiarity with the Bible stories without which no one can enter, say, the Rijksmuseum, and comprehend much of its contents, or without which so much of Dutch literature and history remains a puzzlement, will be essential for all those who will wish to partake of the civilizational legacy which the Dutch are generously inviting non-Dutch to share.

Extra credit? Well, we’ll give that a little thought. Possibly a paper, written outside of the examination room, on Pieter Geyl’s essays on historiography, or a paper on Huizinga’s “Homo ludens.” Yes, an essay on the spirit of “Homo ludens” will do nicely.

It won’t be an easy examination. But it shouldn’t be. Think of all the people who labored and invented and painted and wrote political tracts or a tractatus theologicus, and established joint-stock companies, and went exploring in distant lands austral and septentrional, from Van Dieman’s Land to Hudson’s Bay, and even from time to time went to war from time to time, all of which went into making the Dutch, the Dutch.

Standards will be high. The task of reading and judging examination answers should come to be regarded as among the most solemn duties for the citizens of Holland – that is, the indigenous Infidels who wish to keep Holland Holland. That is as it should be. No one has a right to complain, least of all those who come from societies far more violent, primitive, and collectivist than that offered to them, practically on a platter, by the people of The Netherlands, whose country it is. Obtaining Dutch citizenship, after all, is a very high privilege indeed. It can, and should, be made available only to the deserving – the deserving few.

I very happy about the effort to censure Wilders. Then more people will want to see the movie. I am curious, green.

'Isn't it time to re-examine the question of who is fit to come to the Netherlands, who is fit to be allowed even to be considered for citizenship, and what an adequate test for such citizenship -- a test possibly that needs to be re-given to each naturalized citizen every few years -- would look like?'

Would that do it Hugh? The trouble is that (as we've seen) people can become indoctrinated by Islamist theology once in Holland.

I think it would be interesting to see what a court case would bring. Possible outcomes:

1. Geert is told he is out of line.
2. Rabbae et al is told he is out of line.
3. A draw.

If (1) Geert would see where the real enemy lay - the lack of guts of the Dutch legal system. But surely he could appeal. The specific grounds of objection could be re-exmined, combed over, attacked, refined.

If (2) then any hysterical Muslim reaction would clearly be illegal, in which case Geert would have effectively forced the authorities to back his line.

If (3) (my bets on this) then at least some kind of line could be drawn in the sand. Both parties would of course try to change that line, but at least the terms of debate would come down to some sort of rational process whereby skill in argument and reason could prevail.

I would love to download this flick and send it to everyone I know and then ask them to do the same. That's a "chain e-mail" I can get behind.

"Moroccan organisations in the Netherlands want Geert Wilders prosecuted for discrimination against Muslims -- for a film no one has yet seen."

I don't think Geert will be discriminatory, on the contrary, I'm sure that there will be plenty of muslims in his film.

Moroccan organisations in the Netherlands want the public prosecution department to prosecute Freedom party PVV leader Geert Wilders for discrimination against Muslims.

What has Wilders done that constitutes discrimination?

Can all Dutch Muslims be prosecuted for the same offense against non-Muslims? If not, why not?

He's a racist, but not toward a race. Got it.

from Robert

You know we should give them a break on these things.
Slang doesn't come easy to someone who understands the vaunted language the Koran is in.

This "racism" stuff has got to end...Islam is a religion not a race. Islam's own claims is that it is to be the religion for ALL races. There is nothing racial about speaking out about an idiology.

First, Ayaan Hirsi Ali said the film was "too provocative," (!) and now Moroccans are already warming up their ululations for their unseen-movie-jihad.

This is the type of advertising campaign that money just can't buy. They've got Muslim Rage Boy (and thousands of his closest, most enraged friends) advertising for the movie for free.

It's working. I can't wait to see it now.

...what have Morrocians done for the world lately?...

Islam is the perfect example of what discrimination is.

irish_infidel said

...Islam is a religion...

I think only part of your post, "Islam is a brutal, intolerant, oppressive ideology in the guise of a religion", got through. Maybe Robert can kick the servers, see if that fixes it.

irish_infidel said

...Islam is a religion...

I think only part of your post, "Islam is a brutal, intolerant, oppressive ideology in the guise of a religion", got through. Maybe Robert can kick the servers, see if that fixes it.

Sorry for the double post.

Sorry for the double post.

How come Christians didn't come out in droves protesting and suing this Iranian guy who made blasphemous movie about Jesus recently? Can you imagine Christians protesting in any Muhammedan country without there being wholesale slaughter?

Our laws are not made to cope with the evil of Islam. These immigrants are at best economic migrants, at worst asylum seekers. But asylum from what? From not being able to practice their 'religion' freely in the Islamic country where they came from?

That absurdity is true in many cases. Many rabid Islamo-loonies (Ayatollah Khomeini comes to mind) have been given refuge in Western countries because they are too radical for the official Islam back home. This is unacceptable. We have no obligation to help them spread their poison in the West.

How come Christians didn't come out in droves protesting and suing this Iranian guy who made blasphemous movie about Jesus recently? Can you imagine Christians protesting in any Muhammedan country without there being wholesale slaughter?

Our laws are not made to cope with the evil of Islam. These immigrants are at best economic migrants, at worst asylum seekers. But asylum from what? From not being able to practice their 'religion' freely in the Islamic country where they came from?

That absurdity is true in many cases. Many rabid Islamo-loonies (Ayatollah Khomeini comes to mind) have been given refuge in Western countries because they are too radical for the official Islam back home. This is unacceptable. We have no obligation to help them spread their poison in the West.

Rabid Rabbae said,"Wilders is a racist with regard to Islam. His comments are not aimed at a race, but at a religion and population group," Now I ask you, how does one be a racist against a group, probably of mixed orgins, language and ethenic backgrounds. Is this to say Mr. Wilder is a racist against everyone. Prehaps Mr. Rabbae should explain how Islam hates everything non-Muslim. This would be far more enlightening than Mr. Wilder's 10 minute movie.

They want want want.. Yadda yadda yadda...

They need to pay pay pay their taxes for staying in our beautiful lands instead..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/24/wdutch124.xml

The pressure seems to be working. Wilders has said he will delay the film's release for two weeks. In addition the Dutch government, in order to defuse tensions, will announce tomorrow that it will not implement any ban on the burqa.

This is the "best" definition of racism I have ever seen, and yes, I'm being sarcastic!

Besides no one has seen this 10 minutes movie, and it will be like the movie of Theo Van Gogh(Submission). I hate those people who can't live with an offensive remark without issuing a fatwa or suing someone! Come on, hurt feelings can take an extraordinarie amount of time to heal...isn't it? Imagine... someone loosing a leg because a muslim terrorist blew up close to him is nowhere as terrifying, painful and traumatic as a hurt feeling of a muslim, because his no-good prophet was mocked or because of a movie... really... like Pat Condell once put it; "...a dick in one hand and the koran in the other!..."

[-------The LBM, which claims to represent 200 organisations, says that Wilders is waging "racist politics" by constantly insulting Muslims and discriminating against them. "Wilders is a racist with regard to Islam. His comments are not aimed at a race, but at a religion and population group," says Rabbae.--------]

Lovely definition is it? So... let's see, if I say Jesus did a bitch-dog-on-heat for satan I'm being racist towards christians, but not aimed at a race... ok...got it! We are all racists, because if you become pagan, you become a pagan race, if you are an atheist, you are from atheist race! Cool! I think we must rewrite the book in race definition for criminal profiling and victim identification, its not Caucasian, African or Asian descent anymore... now it is identified its race by...religion! ...No wait? Blasphemy has a new definition, its racism!!! Come on... does this guy OWN a bloody f***** dictionary?

Sorry...I'm just a bit angry../.

What the counterjihad needs is a web site for uploading any video that the mahometans, fifth-columnists, and panderers at Google don’t want free, thinking people to see. Call it something like bannedbyutube.com. A home for videos that make fun of kemal ataturk, for example, without caring a fig-nor-a-fart what the turks think, or the sure-to-be-banned video from Wilders. Of course, it will be invisible to google, but then there’s a chance for those other search engines to show they can find web sites that google can’t. Where are those enterprising Indian or Israeli techies?

I'm "racist" against lima beans.

Insofar as racist apparently now means choosy on the basis of pertinent qualities of any sort whatsoever.

Speaking of movies, you all should head over to your local artsy theatre and see Persepolis.

It is a beautifully animated movie by an Iranian woman (now in France) who lived through the revolution, grew up on the Bee Gees and Iron Maiden, went to an art school where all the artists models wore chadors ("she looks the same from evey angle except for her big nose!"), hated the headscarf, had an uncle who made wine in his basement, and another with a PhD in Marxism from Russia who was put to death, and so on. Very interesting.

She also draws not Muhammad but God Himself, with a long white beard. She relates her childhood desire to be the last prohphet of the cosmos, and works in the role and naivete of the Marxists with respect to revolution in the Islamic world.

It also has a more Judeo-Christian view of God, in that it explictly credits evil acts (like murder of political dissidents such as her uncle) to the men who do them, and not God directly. (This could also be a Shiite influence, I suppose; or just her own reasoning to Truth.)

There are some side jabs at the Western powers and oil that are a little overly simplistic (sadly probably not too far off base, the idiotic way we've been running our foreign and energy policies over time), but it is a movie definitely worth seeing.

Forgot to add some other fav points on the movie:

The regime put a window washer in charge of a hospital -- a hospital! -- because he is very religious. When the heroine's uncle comes down with heart failure, and needs a passport to get out of the country for proper medical treatment, the paperwork for the passport requires the hospital head's signature.

His reply to the request for the signature?

If God wills it, if God wills it.

The uncle dies without the passport.

Fatalism plus authoritarianism is, uh, fatal. (Bad pun bad, I know I know.)

Another:

The movie points out something Western don't typically point out. For religious resons in Islamic regimes virgins can't be put to death. So, they're raped first, as part of a forced "marriage", so that they can be executed.

This happens to a minor character in the film.

Oh, and it's a true story. Based on the author's graphic novel autobiography.

Frankly,the demands of that community in Holland are becoming more and more outrageous.

Frankly,the demands of that community in Holland are becoming more and more outrageous.

Once the movie is released Muslims will show the world how wrong it is and how peaceful Islam actually is by burning pillaging and killing. As they generally do. And thus convince a few million more westerners that they're not fit to have as neighbors and need to be isolated from civilization in the rat hole countries that they reside in.

Go Geert. Play it safe, be safe, but sock it too em...

I feel sorry for the Dutch, French, Swedes, and all people that have to live with the threats and intimidation of their Muslim populations.

But who's fault is it that they live that way? All these nations are democracies. They elect the people that govern them. They know what their leaders stand for, yet keep electing the same people to office.

I saw a poll of the Dutch people recently in which 63% responded that they don't believe that Islam is compatible with the values of the Dutch people.

I think those results would be duplicated in a poll of just about any country in Europe.

So why don't they elect leaders that will do something, instead of the same old ideologues they keep electing?

It's largely their own fault. They have to do something to save themselves.

People in democracies get the government they deserve. It applies not just to Europe but to all democracies. If we want certain issues to be addressed we have to be willing to take the steps necessary - like voting for other than generic candidates. If we want our government benefits to take priority then that's the government we'll get. We have to be willing to switch parties from time to time. How many people are just too set in their ways? (Ted Kennedy was reelected after pushing amnesty and denouncing all who opposed it.)

"What the counterjihad needs is a web site for uploading any video that the mahometans, fifth-columnists, and panderers at Google don’t want free, thinking people to see."

While I've been thinking of this, I think it's dangerous in a way, too. I believe the better approach is to teach the ISP's, Google etc. that in the modern age they have a part in defending our freedoms, too.

Those freedoms where in part won by newspaper writers and editors, too, and they have part in staying the ground.

Also, a single anti-Jihad server would be easy to block in Turkey and worse places.

Islam means submission, and anyone who does not want that and says that in public is an enemy to the principle of Islam.

Freedom is the end of Islam.

Mo should eat a cookie and just be quiet.

Wilderwas on national news last night, and did everything but quote the Koran. He only drew personal conclusions about the book.

Mistake. The disc jockey reporting the piece went on to sneer at the camera and editorialize that this incident is a matter of the Koran being hated and therefore misrepresented by Wilder; nowhere was it said that he could be right about it.

All Wilder had to do was to let the Koran -- and thereby Allah -- speak for itself.

In fairness, however, maybe he did and that film ended up on the cutting room floor.

Those hurling absurd charges of racism againt Geert Wilders should be told to look at his backround. Wilders knows what it is like to be from a minority group - he was raised Roman Catholic in the officially Protestant Netherlands.

Wilders did not come to his opinions about the threat of Islam lightly. After his high school years, Wilders worked for two years in Israel, near the border with Jordan, while also visiting other countries in the Middle East. During his time in Israel that he was very close to the local Palestinian Christian community. From them he was first warned about the reality of Islam. The truth of these warning were confirmed to him during his travels throughout the Middle East including a visit to Iran in 1990.

Nor is Wilders a knee-jerk Dutch nationalist, despite the smears by the left-wing media. In fact, his wife, whom he married in 1992, is Hungarian. Rather than "right-wing" he is more accurately described as a populist who is respected by honest conservatives and liberals alike.

On 15 December 2007, Wilders was declared politician of the year by NOS-radio, a mainstream Dutch radio station. The parliamentary press praised his ability to dominate political discussion and to attract the debate and to get into publicity with his well-timed one-liners. The editors eventually gave the title to Wilders because he was the only one who scored high both among the press as well as the general public.