My friend Douglas Murray has a great piece in the Telegraph on the Wilders case: "Geert Wilders: on trial for telling the truth," January 28:
[...] The Dutch courts charge that Wilders 'on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion'.I'm sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man's on trial because he 'offended a group of people'? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don't try to press charges.
Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of 'offending a group of people', Wilders faces up to two years in prison. [...]
Parts of Fitna - which is a compilation of documentary footage - are very disturbing. And very offensive indeed. The clips of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels. Very offensive. The clips of Muslims holding banners saying 'God bless Hitler'. Very offensive. The clip of a three-year-old Muslim girl indoctrinated and brain-washed to describe Jews as 'Apes and Pigs'. Very offensive. The passage of the Koran, Surah 47, verse 4: 'Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.' Very offensive.
Just to confirm - I find all these things very offensive. But Wilders didn't say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some - in some cases many - Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders....
Wilders is also being tried for saying things which some Muslims deem to be rude about the Koran. Another dangerous precedent. Will the Dutch courts now come after Ricky Gervais for the rude things he says about the Bible in his show Animals (on sale in Holland)? Why the special laws for hurt Muslim feelings? Just wait till the others get on the band-wagon! There won't be room in the courts to prosecute the murderers and muggers. They'll be too full up with the religious. Dutch Calvinist pastors madly petitioning for the extradition of Billy Connolly....
Geert Wilders will return to the UK to show Fitna in the House of Lords, speak to the members and answer questions.
"The man's on trial because he 'offended a group of people'?"
Utter and complete insanity.
The civilized West submitting to a bunch of 7th century Barbarians. Who would have ever thought it? But then again, who would have ever thought that one man would actually think about burning millions of people in ovens, and do it? For years and years, before the world caught on?
So, utter and complete insanity DOES happen in the world at times, and the current early 21st century pandering to Barbaric Islam by the civilized West is one of those times.
And as the Nazis were stopped, the Muslims must be stopped. Since there is an enormous, colossal, difference in demographics between the two, we must stop them NOW, before they proliferate further.
"The man's on trial because he 'offended a group of people'?"
Utter and complete insanity.
The civilized West submitting to a bunch of 7th century Barbarians. Who would have ever thought it? But then again, who would have ever thought that one man would actually think about burning millions of people in ovens, and do it? For years and years, before the world caught on?
So, utter and complete insanity DOES happen in the world at times, and the current early 21st century pandering to Barbaric Islam by the civilized West is one of those times.
And as the Nazis were stopped, the Muslims must be stopped. Since there is an enormous, colossal, difference in demographics between the two, we must stop them NOW, before they proliferate further.
Here is a video that speaks powerful volumes to what is happening in the former home of my grandparents in the Netherlands.
http://loganswarning.com/2010/01/27/netherlands-warning-to-the-usa-video/
"Just to confirm - I find all these things very offensive. But Wilders didn't say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some - in some cases many - Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders...."
Exactly what I've been saying in previous threads on the Wilders trial:
Mohammed said that the Koran tells Moslems to kill the unbelievers.
Countless imams and muftis over the centuries have said that the Koran tells Moslems to kill the unbelievers.
Now Wilders points out that the Koran tells Moslems to kill the unbelievers.
And HE's the only one on trial!
To be sure, Mohammed is long gone, but there must be dozens of still-living imams, just in the Netherlands, who have said the same thing. Why aren't they all on trial?
Wrong! Dead Wrong!!
Geert Wilders isn't on trial! The fanatic Islam and its fanatic Qur'an is !
They just shot themselves in the leg and are limping away on one foot before a second "Work accident" accurse!...
They will not allow it to go on ! THEY WILL STOP IT !
My suggestion to the Judge is:- Up-date your will, consult with you Life Insurance agent and contact Mr. _____ (you know what I mean)!...
.
What you will note in the Dutch Penal code charges filed against Geert Wilders; Article 137c, and 137d that are to be found at the bottom of the Charges submitted in the PDF that Douglas Murray offered up in his excellent article below.
The first thing you will note is these Dutch Penal codes have completely eliminated the right of anyone to be critical of a religion either publicly,or through writing or even an image (remember the Mohammed cartoon). Imagine if America had such laws on the books, of course the left and liberal keep trying to crush America's first amendment all the time. Without freedom of speech Islam would get a total free ride into Western Countries as they are in the Netherlands.
You will note in 137c and 137d ; both penal codes do not even address whether telling the truth about a religion (Islam is really a political ideology) is acceptable. Thus if you are charged with criticizing Islam than your only defense is ;did you tell the truth.
Article 137c Dutch Penal Code
o 1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
o 2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.
Article 137d Dutch Penal Code
o 1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or in an image, incites hatred against or discrimination of people or violent behavour against person or property of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their gender or hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
o 2. If the offense is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.
The most troubling aspect of this case is that Geert Wilders is being prosecuted not by Muslims in a Muslim state, but by our own increasingly submissive Infidel legal system.
That European courts are now allowing themselves to be utilised as weapons in the religious war being prosecuted against us is sharply and depressingly underlined by the faces of the judges in the courtroom, which look every inch the epitome of staunch Dutch respectability.
The real problem isn't about opposing Islam in debate with the Muslims themselves. There's little chance that we could ever sway more than a very few. The real challenge is in presenting our case, clearly and convincingly, to our own people, while effectively averting the inevitable negative accusations that are levelled at us along the way. Just look at Geert Wilders and Mark Steyn.
It is a salutory experience to realise how few of us there are speaking out about the global jihad threat. Even though to we few this threat is a transparently obvious, self-evident truth, we are nonetheless, little more than the sound of a voice crying in the wilderness.
The fact that there are so few of us, and that our opinions are considered so very controversial, places us firmly outside the flow of mainstream opinion in the West. Ironic then, that we are so often characterised as hawkish right-wing reactionaries or absurd Canute-like traditionalists attempting to hold back the historic tide of human growth from our thrones on the beach.
This attempt to dismiss us as retrograde defenders of the status quo is very far from the truth. The perceived wisdom of today is, after all, based firmly upon staunch political correctness and irreversible multi-culturalism. Not our kind of status quo at all. In fact it is precisely the current status quo that stands in the way of any widespread public comprehension of the real threats our nations face.
That we are so very few in number and that our message is perceived to be so controversial, and so widely condemned by our governments and our media, and as a consequence, by the man in the street, means that we are an entirely different animal from our media portrayal.
We no longer represent the view of The Establishment, or of any establishment view currently displayed by any government on Earth. We are, indeed outsiders, but as such find ourselves liberated from any accusation that we represent the forces of reaction. The truth is that we as a group have become the dissenters. Ours is the voice of the agitator and the subversive.
In a very real sense we have become revolutionaries.
The mildest description we could give of ourselves might be pro-democracy activists. Yet the very fact that we might need to describe ourselves as such in our own democratic countries, and that by merely doing so we attract criticism from other democratic Westerners, is in itself a damning indictment, not so much of any evil state of play within our societies, but of how far into retreat we have allowed ourselves to be driven.
Of course, there is another way to describe a small group of people who, though widely critised and viciously attacked, persevere in the face of all odds to profess their crucial yet unwelcome message to the world. And that word is vanguard.
In years to come the world will look back on the Geerts and Roberts, the Pamelas, Hughs and Marisols, and yes, many of the folk who post their thoughts in these threads, and see them for the visionaries they really were, way back in the early 21st Century. So maybe that's how we should view ourselves and our fellow antijihadis: dissenters, subversives and revolutionaries, yes, reviled by many, yes; but also the vanguard of a new awareness that could, if we only persevere, grow and offer at least some hope for our humanity and the values of civilisation.
John the Baptist was in his time, a starving, ragged voice crying in the wildeness, yet he was the vanguard of a religious movement that swept the world and transformed empires. And it is from such tiny acorns that mighty oaks grow.
Hey Robert,
Any chance you may be called as a witness for the defense? That would be AWESOME!!!
Boston Tea Party:
Robert Spencer is on Geert Wilder's list of 17 witnesses that he is requesting for his trial.
Thanks Mackie. I thought I had read that somewhere, but I couldn't quite remember. I hope Robert keeps us updated!
Amsterdam's double-standards:
"Wilders, No! Criminals, Yes!"
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/01/wilders-no-criminals-yes.html#readfurther
The Arabic locution is literally translated as "smite at their necks!". But a more effective English phrasing would be "behead them!". A surgeon friend of mine watched a decapitation film from the Religion of Peace. He tells me it's not a clean chop like a Tudor headsman used, or a Samurai warrior, but a sawing technique... Takes about 20 minutes...
Visit unclecephas.blogspot.com in a few hours.
Hard Rain's comment above is astonishingly revealing and characterizes rather well a good part of this body which represents most of us, JW participants.
The only small doubt I have to his comment,based on my personal experience relates to the actual number of our fellow citizens who are disgusted with islamists, and who given the chance would prefer if muslims would stay in muslims countries.I live in a large metropolitan city with people of all colors and stripes, and I have discoverd that when the subject of islam and muslims comes up, almost all have some degree of antipathy. Even if only passably , some even on the left, instinctively realize that something is not right with these people who adhere to the book of hate, who even if "moderate"and inactive, they hold dear the book of osama and every other lunatic which kills in the name of their god.
wakingwest
I agree with you that there is a large groundswell of public opinion which finds Islamic doctrine disturbing. My point is that although there may be a silent majority, relatively few of us are actually speaking out.
To be honest I think that a lot of non-Muslim 'men-in-the-street' are uncomfortable about Islam, but they are often hazy about their reasons for feeling that way, usually because they haven't yet taken the time to have a good hard look at the issues.
I've met many people whose aversion to Islam appears to be almost instinctive, they seem to sense that something is wrong there, but often can't clearly articulate any really cogent or specific reasoning to explain their feelings. So when they voice their misgivings it all too often comes out sounding like blind prejudice. I once read of an English Defence League (EDL) member who said he didn't like Muslims because "They spit a lot". Disheartening, isn't it?
That sort of idiotic prejudice can only damage a movement like ours, as it seeks to open peoples' eyes in a rational way to the dangers we all face. As I've said before, people tend to ignore a problem until it directly affects their personal lives. The problem with Islam, though, is that if you wait until it's actively affecting your daily life, it's probably too late.
Those of us who are speaking out are usually moving under the radar, talking in forums like this one but keeping our real identities secret and preserving our anonimity. There are pertinent reasons for our caution - we risk assassination if we break cover and the jihadis have permanently silenced opposition voices before. Many of us have families whose safety would be jeopardised, and the UK, like the entire EU, now has a battery of laws to muzzle free speech which could be used to bring legal action against us if we are exposed.
Insane it may well be, absurd it certainly is, but we are all, as I said, now viewed as subversive revolutionaries and will be treated as such, as and when we are recognised.
Just a few days ago, on January 21st, Robert posted a tape of Kathy Shaidle talking in Toronto. Her message had a huge impact on me. She spoke in support of Geert Wilders and argued that we must all become more vocal, more active, more visible. More like Geert in fact. Now she is my kind of revolutionary!
Since then I've come to a decision. If Geert wins his case and is acquitted, then he'll probably go on to win the next Dutch elections and begin the de-Islamification of the Netherlands, a move that will probably (hopefully) encourage the rest of Europe to follow suit. In which case I'm going to carry on as I am now, talking to you guys and keeping my head down.
However, if Geert Wilders is committed to prison then I intend to speak out openly. If that man is behind bars I won't be able to justify keeping silent any longer. Kathy Shaidle is right, we need to break cover. Let them bounce us all through the courts one by one. Every court appearance challenges the validity of the laws with which they seek to gag our right to free speech. Every court case gives us a platform to spread the message. If enough of us speak out, then surely our governments have to listen.
And if our governments won't listen, then surely our people will.