In FrontPage this morning I discuss the implications of the upcoming Wilders trial:
Free speech goes on trial in the Netherlands on January 20, when Dutch politician Geert Wilders appears before the Amsterdam District Court on charges of having "intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion," as well as having incited to hatred and discrimination.What did Wilders do to warrant such charges? He told the truth about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, and their roots in Islamic texts and teachings, in his film Fitna and elsewhere. But nowadays truth-telling is at such a premium that those who still dare to engage in it are threatened, harassed and prosecuted.
But Wilders is defiant: "On the 20th of January 2010, a political trial will start. I am being prosecuted for my political convictions. The freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing. If a politician is not allowed to criticise an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom. However I remain combative: I am convinced that I will be acquitted."
The very idea of trying someone for offending someone else is absurd - especially when the offended group is known to traffic in the PC multiculturalist coin of wounded feelings, so as to gain the political power that comes from victim status. That the Amsterdam District Court would aid and abet this absurdity and obvious manipulation unmasks the Wilders trial - even before it starts - as what it really is: an attempt by the nation's political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. The one who has the power to decide what is an actionable offensive statement or prosecutable incitement has the power to control the discourse - and that's what the prosecution of Wilders is all about. If offending someone is a crime, can those who find hate speech laws offensive bring suit against their framers?
The action against Wilders is taking place, moreover, against the backdrop of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference's ongoing efforts at the United Nations to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam -- including "defamation of Islam" that goes under the "pretext" of "freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security."
If they succeed in doing this, Europeans and Americans will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West -- in fact, one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis, non-Muslims subjugated under Islamic rule, is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur'an. Thus this prosecution in Amsterdam not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance.
The stakes are so high in the Wilders case also because the OIC has a new, powerful ally as it moves against the freedom of speech. In October the Obama Administration actually co-sponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations. Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council, the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."...
Where there is free speech, there is civilization. Where there is no free speech, there is no civilization.
Leave Wilders alone.
It is just a fact that as Islamic populations rise, our freedoms will slowly go away, as Islamic systems take over. We can only stop this if we stop immigration from Islamic countries, and strongly enforce our norms on Muslims. These are our countries. This persecution of Geert is the sign of more to come, hopefully he will weather this storm, and he will make huge political gains from it.
Europe is lucky to have such a man as Geert Wilders—who is courageous enough to stand for freedom of speech and the values of the West against totalitarian Shari'ah.
That such a man now faces *prosecution* for such bravery shows how far the West has fallen. I hope Wilders' is able to use this grotesque trial to open the eyes of his fellow Dutch—and fellow Europeans-to the peril they face.
Go Geert!
"We have a responsibility to bear witness to the world that the freedom of speech is a cornerstone of any free society, and that once it is gone, there is no defense against tyranny, no safeguard against the encroaching power of a protected class against whom there is no appeal, and from whose rulings there is no dissent. If Geert Wilders is found guilty, tyranny and authoritarianism will have won a huge victory in Europe, and in the world in general."
This is very true, if Geert Wilders is found guilty, then Europe will turn into the land of Mordor where the shadows lie. Without free speech Europe will return to German Nazi barbarism. Scientific research, all activities of merry making and lots of other achievements of our culure will stop and we'll go back to pre-stone age days. That will be the end of human civilisation, not only here in Europe but elsewhere as well. I'm praying for Geert and I also hope that he'll win a landslide victory in the local elections. He deserves it.
It would appear that the authorities in the Netherlands have already SUBMITTED to Islam.
An intolerant ideology wants tolerance from others.What nerve!
To avoid a worldwide Muslim orgy of multiple violent protests designed to inflict deaths of infidels and potential damage to real assets and lost revenue (something we in the west don't take lightly and the Muslims know this, thus the euro-riots) to the tune of billions of dollars, I am afraid for political reason, Geert Wilders could be convicted.
It will be a good meter to watch if our true allegiance is in our principles to save our way of life or in PC and our pocket book because this case will have legal impact in the courts and state policies in the free world.
In my opinion, if this crusade to protect freedom of expression and to discuss the truth or opinion in a civilized, non-Islamic state, is lost, it will translate into the first most important Islamic Caliphate Jihad victory over Europe after the fall of the Byzantium capitol in 1453.
This can not be overstated.
May the Prince of Peace save us from political enslavement.
It is just a fact that as Islamic populations rise, our freedoms will slowly go away, as Islamic systems take over.
Lawyers have played a central role in this sad tale, especially lawyers in black robes. It's even worse in Europe where nations have a weak constitutional basis, or no constitution at all. Wilders is in big trouble: he's viewed as an unpleasant man in a La-La-Land that will brook only pleasantries.
*** 92:8 ***
But we in America have let the lawyerly class debase our Costitution so much that it's now called a "living document" which is of course turnspeak for a dead document now relegated to a set of optional guidelines.
*** 9:3 ***
Did you secretly give a sigh of relief when abortion was shuttled in without a vote in Congress or any state house? That was nice and easy for everybody. No difficult confrontations or unnecessary hard feelings. Well, we're gonna get the same quiet shuttling in of Sharia, nice and quiet like.
*** 66:2 ***
In fact, the process is already well underway.
That Sharia is inimicable to the Constitution, the black robes will see it in, festooned with tens of pages of single spaced incoherent text that nobody will bother to read, knowing that the source of the defeat is political, not legal.
Yes, this is certainly going to be a bellwether trial. A win or loss for Mr Wilders will be a win or loss for our civilization as a whole. What the aftermath (either way) might be, is anyone's guess (well, if he's acquitted, we all know what the aftermath to that will be - Muslims rioting in the streets, most likely.) Either way, I hope it wakes up not just Europe (the Swiss minaret ban is hopeful), but other nations as well.
And I wish Mr Wilders the best of luck in getting acquitted; he doesn't deserve this crap.
We only lose our freedom if we lose the will to resist. It seems to me there is a large degree of defeatism prevalent on this blog. Perhaps lots of people blogging have forgoten the numerous people in various nationalist parties who are actively fighting against the pogrom against our values. If you really care and don't want to keep whining on join a democratic party of your choice that represents your wishes and values. If not then shut up !
...what it really is: an attempt by the nation's political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. The one who has the power to decide what is an actionable offensive statement or prosecutable incitement has the power to control the discourse...
Well said! This is why such laws should never be allowed to begin with. Those in power simply cannot resist the temptation to use them for their own political ends. This case is not about islam directly - it's about those in power silencing political opponents. If Wilders "comments" are so offensive why not debate and discredit them in the court of public opinion and the ballot box? Surely Wilders would lose, no?
OT (somewhat): But he is not losing public support, he is gaining it. Why is that? The basic issue seems to be the large number of immigrants who are not integrating very well into Dutch society. I don't solely blame the immigrants, who of course brought their own beliefs and culture with them, but rather I hold to a larger account those in power who let all these immigrants in under the ignorant and arrogant assumptions that:
1. They would want to assimilate.
2. They could be made to assimilate.
3. The native Dutch would accept and assimilate them.
This has not happened and now they are caught in a mess of their own making and are desperately trying everything, from abject appeasement to silencing political opponents, to cover up this catastrophic blunder (initiated by another catastrophic blunder called socialism).
Whatever the outcome of this "trial" my belief is that the Dutch people (and many other European peoples) will simply not accept the islamization of their nation regardless of who the elites silence, what laws they pass or what accommodations they impose. The people will, at some point, push back - hard. Wilders presents an opportunity to discuss these issues openly. It will not be easy. Hard decisions will have to be made. The alternative is to allow this to fester until the people decide they've had quite enough and act of their own accord.
Geert Wilders, and all others in the advanced West, have a right to exercise their freedom of speech, not only to subject the texts and tenets of Islam to analysis and criticism, but also to suggest whatever intelligent measures of self-defense they think the Western world is justified in taking in order to protect itself against the carriers of the ideology of Islam, who are using the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest to slowly, but inexorably, gain power in the countries of Western Europe until, by sheer force of numbers, and the spreading of fear among Infidels, they cause Islam to become dominant, and Muslims (an absolute majority is not necessary for this) to rule.
He can make suggestions, recommendations, based on an analysis of what Islam inculcates. And so can you, or I, or any man.
I Love you, Geert.
Real freedom of speech is a choice where you prove that you speak freely even when the rest of the world is telling you to shut up with bullets.
Arguably, this is the trial of the century, even though this century we're in is still very young.
Some years ago, in a partly autobiographical book, one of the notable people to make the point that no-one has the right to not be offended was John Mortimer, the much-loved left-leaning playwright and creator of the liberal character 'Rumpole of the Bailey'
If he could see the point, and it seems, most sentient humans are sane enough to reject any political or religiously motivated attempts to muzzle free people, then in theory that leaves only a small minority of seditious nuts and imbeciles to be schooled or defeated by the rest of us.
Unfortunately the real threat of more new legislation against free expression is still with us, and also as we see now in the UK, the police are even using public-order legislation to try to punish people who dare to exercise their right of free speech, as in the Vogelenzang case.
If free speech is successfully criminalised in the UK, they will have to lock me up and I hope millions more people who will not submit to the confiscation of our human rights.
Excellent article.
We need to make the UN focus on the situation in Africa, especially in countries with radical Islamist populations. Right now radical Islam is hurting Africa like nowhere else on earth.
More importantly the Islamists are very embarrassed and spend a lot of energy to keep the issue of Africa on the low down - especially in the UN.
Has anyone thought that just possibly Gert will be found not guilty and the ramifications of that?
When Geert wins and the muslims riot all over the place it'll only enforce what Geert is fighting for, what Geert has shown the world. The muslims will only be enforcing what islam is about. islam cannot hide, islam is it's own worst enemy, it's own achilles heel. Grow up and play nice like the other religions or become segregated and outcast by the rest of the civilized world where you can subjugate and murder each other in 'peace'.
WELLINGTON: "Arguably, this is the trial of the century, even though this century we're in is still very young."
As with Galileo, it is the truth that is once again on trial. Who'd have thought that Europe in the 21st century would be returning to its Medieval roots.
How can this be a free speech issue?
Geert the Ass Clown was calling for censorship and book banning?
He's a hypocrite, and I personally hope they legally flay him then toss a hand full of sea salt on him for good measure.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
"...the Ass Clown..."
Someone is projecting. Oh, and "peace" to you too, hypocrite.
AM: Hate to say it, but "out of context". Wilders said that logically speaking, if Mein Kampf was banned then why not the Koran? The difference between a logical argument and a recommendation is obvious to thinking people.
You do realize that if Wilders loses and if that eventually leads to the Hate Speech resolution by the OIC in the UN passing (and becoming binding), Ahmadinejad, all imams, all mullahs and all protesters and anyone in Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey etc., will also be required to shut up about Israel and the Jews...
Or, do you believe the Hate Speech resolution should only go one way?
Sadly, Eleanor, I do think that Muslims think that hate speech is a one-way street. Saying repulsive things about Jews and other non-believers is par for the course for Muslims who do not accord to others what they expect for themselves because they are the keepers of the true faith, but of course when Islam and Muslims are criticized (especially criticism of that psychopath who founded Islam), well, that's an entirely different matter. Muslims have no conception of real freedom (or equity), which means the right to say controversial and critical things about others and their beliefs. Freedom and Islam are polar opposites of one another, as is the case with all totalitarian ideologies.
Muslims don't even think logically or consistently. PG's retort immediately above yours is right on the money, pointing out that Geert Wilders' call for the banning of the Koran in The Netherlands is perfectly consistent with Dutch law which has banned another book because it is a tome of hate------Mein Kampf. Understand, I don't think either book should be banned but that's not the point that Wilders is trying to make. Of course, this escapes the Mohammedan, as so much does.
Did you hear that? AM advocates floggings for those who speak out against ISLAM! AM, as a citizen of the United states of America I place you under citizens arrest, and hereby order your to directly turn in or destroy your moderate Islam License and report yourself to the nearest FBI office for deportation.
***** A noteworthy review of Spencer's essay:
"Spencer's answer to the question, 'What did Wilders do to warrant such charges?', is incomplete. Wilders hasn't just spoken the truth about Islam; he has said that all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands and the West should cease, and that sharia-supporting Muslims--i.e., believing Muslims, probably a majority of the Muslim population--should be made to leave. Clearly, then, Wilders is calling for discrimination against Muslims; and since the Netherlands and the EU prohibit any form of discrimination against minority groups, Wilders is violating that prohibition; therefore the prosecution against him is based on a fundamental clash of principles between those who seek to facilitate the Islamization the West and those who seek to save the West from such a fate."
"Until Spencer acknowledges that defending the West against Islam requires discrimination against Muslims, and therefore that discrimination against Muslims is good, and therefore that the criminalization of such discrimination is bad, he will be making his anti-Islamization argument while standing on one leg."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015045.html
The fool who identifies himself as Abdullah Mikhail hates the First Amendment because it protects criticism of any religion and, of course, Islam cannot be criticized because it is the received truth. Therefore, from a Muslim perspective, the First Amendment must be neutered into oblivion. Indeed, it is evidence to the Mohammedan of error against Allah.
This loathing of liberty by Muslims is just all part of the larger problem Islam poses to free societies everywhere. Islam is awful for many reasons but one of the chief reasons is that it shuts down freedom whenever it can. Again, this is typical of all totalitarian ideologies and if Islam isn't a totalitarian ideology, nothing is.
Abdullah Mikhail,
I know allah doesn't like you to think for yourself but
please take your nose off the prayer matt for five minutes,
put the quoran down, pick up a dictionary and look up the word PEACE.
It has a very different meaning than allah has told you.
You get stupid when you repeatedly bow to a rock.
TRUTH.
Well, that's a good point; however, I think he has enough of a problem as it is, without openly advocating discrimination. It isn't just the law, it's the underlying bedrock of PC/MC - and our currently PC/MC societies- that discrimination is always bad (except, as I noted in an earlier comment, against smokers and pet owners.)
Anyone remember the Sesame Street bit about "One thing is not like the others, one of these things does not belong"? When I did have small kids to worry about - this was about 20 years ago - I remember seeing an article in the news about how some group or another wanted CTW to remove that spot completely, because it "teaches kids to discriminate". At the time, CTW responded with a big no, saying that discernment (discrimination) between different things was part of everyday life; we must learn to discriminate between, say, good food and poison; a proper tool and an inappropriate one, things like that.
I wonder if Sesame Street still has this spot now?
Can I add my own small voice to those others raised in defence of Geert Wilders? Although we must remain confident that the legal case against him will be dismissed, the very fact that it was brought in the first place stands as a ringing indictment against the craven elites who currently dominate our european legal system, for ultimately it is they who have allowed this dangerous action to go ahead. It's a farce, but a deadly one.
As gravenimage and others have pointed out, the very fact that Wilders should face censure for nothing more than speaking out in rational criticism of Islam, damningly illustrates how far we as a people have stumbled away from the very ideals on which our society is founded - ideals which Wilders and those like him are desperately hanging onto, and brandishing at us while urging us to simply remember that in our world, these principles are the very essense of the men and women we are. We need to be reminded of this truth, because once again we face an enemy who stands in opposition to our most cherished ideals. At every turn we see the true face of Islam - inherently seditious, imperialist, supremacist, expansionist, violent and repressive. This fascist creed is the opposite of everything we stand for, everything we believe in, everything that our ancestors fought and bled and died for, from Thermopylae to Baghdad. I could take a stack of paper and list the names of all the battles. It would be a mighty volume indeed.
And so, after all the sacrifice, what sort of a world did we build? Well, from ancient Greece, up through the Roman Republic, the Renaissance, the Age of Exploration, the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions, the Movement for Social Justice, the Civil Rights Movement and many more giant leaps of intellect, Western civilisation has grown into the most progressive, settled, advanced and prosperous society the world has ever known.
These great advances that enriched our civilisation did not come about by chance. They could only come about because we hold to a specific, uniquely western way of thinking. It's a way of thinking that, from its earliest days, enshrined certain freedoms, without which, none of our great advances could have been made. And it is for those freedoms that we stand today, not the symbols of the past, the flags of our free nations, knights slaying dragons or spitfires over the white cliffs of Dover, dear though they are to our hearts. In the end what we stand for is freedom, freedom and equality before the law regardless of gender; freedom to follow our conscience, freedom to choose our religion and most precious of all, freedom of thought and speech, for it is freedom of thought and the freedom to speak those thoughts that guarantees the free-flow of ideas and keeps our society vibrant and questing.
These priceless ideals, the principles for which we stand, blazing with nobility and human dignity, are the gifts offered to us from the trembling hands not only of our forefathers, but of our brothers and sisters in battle now, even as they pass into God's realm from the wounds they receive in defending them. This is what we mean when we talk about freedom.
Geert Wilders understands that this is our mission, this is our cause, to defend those freedoms. For it is they that set us apart from, and above, our Muslim adversaries. Those freedoms are our birthright, bought by the blood of men and women in their millions. And it is precisely those freedoms that Islam so urgently wishes to extinguish, for none of them, not a single one of them, exists within their philosophy. It is these freedoms that the ideological leaders of Islam so desperately fear, for if any of these ideas got loose within their enslaved thought-world, then the whole tawdry edifice of Islamic belief would crumble into dust.
The enemies of freedom will do their utmost to obtain a judgement against Geert Wilders, and by doing so, advance the jihad against us, so the gravity of this case cannot be overestimated. If we fail at this point in our history, if we allow the enemies of reason to take our freedoms from us, then we will lose everything. For make no mistake, though the fall of any civilised society into the clutches of Islam is a tragedy for humanity, the swallowing of a christian democracy is a victory they would prize above all others, for it is we more than any other culture, who have defied them and resisted them, and handed them defeat time and time again.
When the quietly-spoken, magnificently brave Dutchman steps into the dock next month, the hopes and dreams of Western civilisation step with him.
Islam is an anathema to the very essence of what it means to live in western civilization in regards to freedom of conscious at its most basic level. Basic tenants of Islam are in fact violations of the Human Rights Charter concerning apostasy, and in addition the faith, by scriptural doctrine prescribes violence if it is ridiculed. Coupling of religious norms so closely tied to judicial doctrine, and scriptural requirements that infringe on the most basic definitions of freedom of expression, and freedom of conscious make Islam at its very essence a totalitarian system. Therefore it is natural that western civilization at some point will either be destroyed, or will destroy this ideology, but they will never occupy the same space geologically as equals.
Clearly Robert Spencer's problem with this resolution is not that he supports discrimination, hostility, or violence. He has made clear many times that he does not support such things. He's saying his problem with this resolution is that in practice it tends to criminalize any criticism of Islam.
Laws that criminalize critical speech can over time provoke revolutions. If there is no legal outlet for protest and criticism in public discourse, if speech -- particularly speech that seeks to protect fundamental human rights -- is met with state violence -- then at some point the legitimacy of the state disappears, and even decent people might then find just reasons to use force in attempts to overthrow the state. We are a long way from that, at least in the U.S., but Europe appears to be advancing into new realms of censorship. In twenty years, one-third of France's adult population, according to some estimates, will be Muslim. Censorship will increase as the Muslim population continues to increase its percentage of the total population. At some point, perhaps in thirty years, the demographics combined with censorship of any criticism of Islam could lead to the tragic rebirth of fascism and civil wars in Europe.
AbdullahMikail,
You say that Wilders is a hypocrite for supporting his own freedom of speech, while calling for the banning of the Qur'an. But what Wilders replies is that, so long as Europe has laws on the books banning hate speech, then the Qur'an should be banned. There is no hypocrisy, but rather consistency, in that, insofar as the Qur'an contains a good deal of what European mores consider hate speech. The only reason significant parts of the Qur'an are not banned is power: a huge population of Muslims in Europe and around the world; many Muslims prepared to threaten, or to do violence, or to bring law suits; deluded Leftist establishments pushing a form of multiculturalism so extreme that it accepts its own gradual destruction in order to accommodate even the most fascistic and monocultural "Other." That Islam-Left alliance can attack on several different fronts, using a variety of different methods and motives, any who publicly criticize the Qur'an or Islam.
In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical of hadith collections, Muhammad said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."
In other words, if you are not a Muslim, Muhammad says your blood and property will not be safe from Muslims. If you examine the context of that hadith thoroughly, things only get uglier.
Dear Abdullah: Tell us about the freedom of speach and religion in muslim countries. I'm sure there are no censorship "ASSES" there, are they?
Abdullah Mikail,
Wilders should not be allowed to pursue any kind of censorship campaign, and, insofar as he is seen as misrepresenting and not being fair-minded with regard to Islam and the Muslim community, he should be called to account and challenged appropriately among private parties.
But that doesn't mean he should be the target of censorship, legal action, and travel restrictions. There's no good reason for a government campaign against him. Insofar as Muslims see him as being unjust, then he should be engaged in rigorous open debate on such matters.
You seem to make a number of good points on this site. Don't be sidetracked into adopting an unwise and imprudent viewpoint on this subject.
ethoman
You hit a fundamental truth when you say: "Therefore it is natural that western civilization at some point will either be destroyed (by Islam), or will destroy this ideology, but they will never occupy the same space geologically as equals." I couldn't agree more.
Here in the UK many surveys have been carried out which clearly show that the majority of Muslims regard themselves as Muslim first and British second. Surveys all over the world show similar results, that Muslim loyalty is first and foremost to Islam and only secondly, if at all, to their country. This is unique to Islam, no other religious group displays this seditious tendency. A Christian can be loyal to his country, be it Britain, France or America. A buddhist can be loyal to Malaysia or Japan, and it does not conflict with their religion - there's no reason why it should. But this issue of religion and patriotism clashing affects Muslims because it causes them to question their POLITICAL allegiance. This peculiarly Muslim phenomenon occurs because of the simple rule that no-one can serve two political masters and the very fact that this attitude is displayed by Muslims worldwide stands as clear proof that Islam is a political movement rather than a religion.
Because of the totalitarian nature of Islamic politics, that ideology can never exist within other cultures, particularly western society, without causing tension and conflict. Western-style democracy and the laws of Islam cancel one another out. In a western democracy laws are made by a legislative assembly, a Parliament or Senate, but Muslims hold that man-made laws are invalid for only God can make laws, and they're all contained within the Koran and Sharia law, so Muslims regard our governments as non-legitimate.
Western society is secular, with clear separation of church and state, but in Islam there is no such separation, they are one and the same, and Islam contains within itself a framework of government and a complete model for Islamic society, so if we accept the religion we must also accept the politics, for they are indivisible and that can never be changed. Therefore, if we tolerate the existence of the religious element of Islam within our democracies, we automatically come under pressure to also accept the fascist politics of Islam. That is why Islam is toxic to our Western civilisation.
I endorse the views of those commentators who state that Islam is a form of cultural imperialism which stands as a competitor to our western norms. If we let things continue as they are, eventually we will see secessionist movements within our own lands as we've seen in Pakistan, Bosnia, Xinxiang and other areas around the world where Muslims decide to set up autonomous enclaves. Eventually we will see the creation of a parallel Muslim societies within our borders, leading inevitably to civil strife against the indigenous population and eventually civil war as nations tear themselves apart.
The only way this can be avoided is if the nations of the free world mobilise to remove Islam in all its aspects from our societies. Unless we find the stomach and the nerve to do this, we will lose the struggle and be destroyed. It really is that simple.
Sorry this post is a bit off-subject. Let's all get back to agreeing what a great guy Heer Wilders is!
Fairuzfan,
Fair and well balanced advice, and I must admit I did cut to deeply to the quick of what this person Geert is all about.
One cannot boil down the Xenophobic hatred this person espouses against others in a few simple comments here, especially since the bias of this audience is fully in the hate camp that Geert is the little drummer boy for.
I can't really comment on the prudence that certain countries have shown in banning this person for his form of hate speech and the fact that it does cause unrest and inspire hatred and conflict.
I do as well see that Geert is adept at hiding behind other issues to make his Xenophobic comments reach their mark with every attempt at shielding himself from the responsiblity of being a hatemonger...the honest among us see right through his smoke screen.
He violated Dutch law, now let his peers judge him...it is that simple. I obey the laws of America and every one of her provinces, parishes, municipalities that I step in to.
If Geert is not savvy enough to abide by the law, then I stand by what I said and I "hope they legally flay him"... not literally, I don't wish Geert a pin prick of harm...I just want to see justice done to all, evenly, and fairly, and by the rule of law in a Democracy, which they kind of have, not all Democracies are created equal, you know...and some are Democratic principals of the highest form, governance by Shura.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
Traeh,
A good comment and inquiry, you raise personal points that are valid, thank you.
Wilders is the head of a movement to see Islam made illegal and he violated Dutch law in his rabid pursuit of this unrealistic and unreachable goal…that he would campaign for this is bad enough, but that he is a Dutch PM is even worse, it is Xenophobic in the extreme and coming from a person who claims “western” values and ideals need to be preserved, and yet raises a sword and urges others to attack with him. Not a very good rallying cry for the civilized, is it?
The Quran has to be understood in its full context along with the Hadiths in their full context and the whole must be considered together on every issue of Islamic Juris Prudence, or those things commanded by and forbidden by the religion. Many mundane things have nothing to do with that paradigm…it doesn’t matter how you plow your garden as long as you don’t plant something illegal.
Now, on the Sahih Al Bukhari reference, you must consider the context of the hadith. Many of them are not canonical commands that stand throughout all time and apply universally…that thought pattern is the realm of the damned and the ignorant. If you wish to study the hadiths, don’t stop at reading the isolated, out of context verses, and then applying your understanding to them…study the hadiths in context and understand their true meaning in light of the Quran and the current happenings at the time of the revelation.
After all, if I want to cherry pick out of context, I can isolate Quran verse, ignore everything else, and come up with the “ruling” that, “it’s okay to get drunk as long as I am sober when I pray”…any fool can string together half a dozen isolated half truths and come up with one great big lie… a talent the author of this blog has mastered, I must say.
Don’t read something and jump to conclusions…I know that is something the author of this blog profits from…but, just use your mind and learn the truth… you owe yourself that.
If you understand Islam and what it commands in truth and don’t want it, I am okay with that…I just feel sad when people have the absolute wrong idea about what it teaches and they are rejecting that instead of the truth.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
They will riot anyway. Any issue is O.K. Even if you walk on egg shells they will still riot. There is no chance they won't anyway. So push them as hard as you can. Constantly.
We must allow them to riot, and then we can identify who needs attention. We need to help these people find their way home. Collect them up and give them a nice place to live, in Israel. The NAZI PC's don't work there.
As for here if you hear they want religious accommodations at work DEMAND similar for Gentiles, Jews, and every group known to man, and force the employer into bankruptcy if he complies.
May be they see now how hiring these low cost people works for them. If we push for welfare limits they cannot feed all 12 of their spawn. That will help.
Dennis
Everyone, avoid using Shell gasoline. It's owned largely by the Netherlands royals.
I actually heard a Dutch government spokesman on the radio say "freedom of speech does not give the right to offend". It would be funny, but it is really not a laughing matter that it is an official stance of the Dutch government. Of course, I don't need to point out here that it is ONLY speech which offends someone which needs protecting in the first place. The Europeans are so smug about their superior level of sophistication compared to Americans. But, I will say one thing- for all their sophistication, we understand the concept of freedom of speech better than they do.
We all owe Mr. Wilders so much for his courage. I pray for a successful outcome, but I must confess that I'm not optimistic. Simply allowing such a ridiculous charge to proceed in a court of law bodes ill for our side. Orwell would have loved all this!
There is much more at stake here than the question of whether Mr. Wilders has or has not committed a criminal act. This, and thousands of other similar cases of lower profile, if successfully argued, will establish an adamantine dogma decreeing that to say something which is demonstrably true is a criminal act as long as there is one person anywhere on our planet who might possibly be offended thereby; compounding this fallacy will be the distressing reality that those who control and direct the legal system will be the very ones deciding whether an individual or group has been offended. Thus, culpability will be determined not by application of impartial jurisprudence or the scientific method, but rather on the highly subjective question of whose ox has been gored.
Hitler and Stalin, our politically correct world awaits your second coming - "...what rough beast slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"