Travesty of justice. Sharia comes to the Netherlands, via dhimmi Dutch judges who have no idea -- yet -- of whom they're serving. Free Speech Death Watch Update: "Dutch court rejects anti-Islam MP's bias claim," from AFP, May 23:
THE HAGUE — An Amsterdam court rejected a claim by far right leader Geert Wilders that an earlier court decision was biased and that hate speech charges against him should be dropped."The request is denied," said Judge Marcel van Oosten, during a hearing broadcast on the Internet by Dutch public television. "The trial must go on."
Wilders, 47, faces five counts of giving offence to Muslims and of inciting hatred against Muslims and people of non-Western immigrant origin, particularly Moroccans.
On May 2, Wilders' lawyer Bram Moszkowicz argued his client no longer had recourse to a fair trial and that charges against him should be dropped.
In 2008, prosecutors had initially dismissed dozens of complaints against Wilders but an appeals court reversed that decision.
Wilders' defence team claims that one of the judges involved in that decision, Tom Schalken, tried to persuade Arab world expert and defence witness Hans Jansen of supporting the trial at a 2010 dinner party.
"It isn't plausible that Schalken tried to influence Jansen," said Judge van Ousten. "We cannot conclude that the defendant's rights were violated."
The allegations against Wilders arise partly from the 2008 short film "Fitna", in which he mixes Koranic verses with footage of extremist attacks.
The fact that those "extremist attacks" were inspired and motivated by those Qur'an verses doesn't seem to matter to the Dutch Sharia court.
Wilders likens the Koran to Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf".The MP, whose Party for Freedom came third in elections last year and gives parliamentary support to a right-leaning coalition, faces up to a year in jail or a 7,600 euro (10,300 dollar) fine for comments made in his campaign to "stop the Islamisation of The Netherlands."
"Wilders, 47, faces five counts of giving offense to Muslims and of inciting hatred against Muslims and people of non-Western immigrant origin, particularly Moroccans."
Never mind of course that Islam itself teaches hatred against the infidel all over the world because it is virtually a prerequisite to the faith in its fundamental practices. Apparently in the narrow minds of these judges who appear to act more like court jesters, if hate is built into the Islamic religion then we must accept it as apparently normal behavior of Muslims as they roam the streets of Amsterdam attacking infidel women nightly-- at least my reasoning seems not so far off peppered with touch of the Stockholm Syndrome.
The Dutch legal system comes across as a political tool for those who disagree with Geert Wilders politics. How long will this disgrace to Western values go on is anybody's guess.
The continuous and reverberating message this trial sends to the Dutch People is that we better not speak ill or criticize any Islamic practices or Muslim behavior, the message it sends to Muslims is that they can control the behavior of the Dutch People--INDEED A VERY DANGEROUS COCKTAIL FOR THE DUTCH PEOPLE!
"It isn't plausible that Schalken tried to influence Jansen," said Judge van Ousten. "We cannot conclude that the defendant's rights were violated."
Sounds like a pretrial conviction already. Positively Medieval logic, where "defendant's rights" were defined by clergy Church authorities, not by any modern understanding of our "universal rights", such as presumed innocence, freedom of speech, and freedom from governmental oppression. Prosecution for speaking out on the violent, anti-social and coercive aspects of the Koran and Islam (by their own admission, deeds, and 'sacred' texts) steps over the threshold of "government oppressions", which lands us right back into Medieval Europe; the same that prosecuted Galileo, Bruno, and others, because they violated the "divine laws" of the Church, now Islam. The new European Church is "Multiculturalism", which may appear secular, but in fact is grounded in faith-based Marxist doctrine, the fundamental bible of the socialist Left, serving Islam.
Geert Wilders' trial is a test for the Dutch legal system, whether it respects laws protecting our modern, universal human rights, or is an agent of social control to silence those who dare to question and offend the "authorities", in particular Islam. Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin would all have understood implicitly, that this trial is "necessary", and the "enemies of the state" must be punished. This court's (Medieval) decision to prosecute Wilders has "social controls oppression" issues written all over it. The case should be thrown out, given this court's pretrial bias, for compromising his right to a fair trial. This case cannot be decided in court, hence it must go before the people. The Dutch court has failed them. Next election will win this one, as it should.
"Wilders likens the Koran to Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf"."
Wilders is simply asking for consistent application of the Dutch law. This call for consistency from Wilders recalls the Calcutta Quran Petition of the 1980s: "Wilders, like his Hindu predecessors was fed up with Muslim abuse of similar Indian laws...and simply saying if one bans hate speech, in accord with existing Dutch Law, then the Koran is hate speech."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/02/is-geert-wilders-inconsistent-in-calling-for-banning-the-quran-and-defending-free-speech.html
The Dutch judges are simlpy parroting their role model and beloved nazi jurist Roland Freisler!
I seriously doubt they even ever heard of him. No, these guys are just your typical multi culturally correct naive people you see everywhere.
From the article:"far right leader Geert Wilders".
Whenever AFP - the supplier of this news story - or any other media outlet in the western world describes anyone who stands up to challenge Islam and the Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob, the epithet of choice seems to be 'far right'.
This is an attempt to bias the reader.
The reporter should have written simply "Dutch MP Geert Wilders". Let the readers make up their own minds.
And it seems to me that someone who deplores and opposes Muslim antisemitism , cheers for Israel, visits Jerusalem and has on more than one occasion cheerfully and wholeheartedly acknowledged the spiritual and intellectual debt that Western civilisation owes to the Jews, is no Nazi.
I teach at a school here in NYC. Virtually no one is aware of the themes of this site.
And I don't know if it's paranoia, but I feel like there are more and more veiled women in the neighborhood, and maybe worse, that non-Muslim women are actually starting to affect stylish head-covering effects out of some misguided sign of respect towards Islam and 'multicultural sensitivity'. Could someone look into this? It's scary, and I feel like everyone has lost their mind in this country sometimes.
When I go to the ballet Friday, I'll be thinking how such a thing would be impossible in an Islamic tradition. Would they arrest the ballerinas for 'immodest dress'? Maybe ABT should disband out of deference to Islamic sensibilities?
Cultural Diversity? Who sold the West this Bill of Goods? Why do we have to defer to diversity? If we do not are they going to throw sticks and stones at us or AK 47 to sky. Is our European Culture worth protecting?
Look at Islamic culture with its lack of Arts, its severe application of justice and its bag over the head women. Is this what we are deferring to if we accept the rubrics of Cultural Diversity? If we defer to Sheri-eh we are begging to first lose our God given freedoms and allowing a ridged desert code of law to ruin what it has taken thousands of years to develop. We are deferring to a code from the Quran which will not stop at bagging our women, stoping ballet or banishing Playboy. It will only cease being a threat when we all confess "there is only one God, Allah and his prophet." A world of peace under dictatorship of the Imams and the Quran.
Do we want to go there? We know what the world wide dictatorship is, the kingdom of the beast and his false prophet. We further know that the Lord God will come to set the world in order and bring his heavenly city to us if we have our name written in the Book of Life. we know there is a day when every knee shall bend before him and confess that Jesus is indeed Lord. No I don't want to go with the dictatorship of Sheri-ah and its man made peace.
Finally the economics of between Christianity and Islam are further apart than the East is from the West. They view the duty the rich with wealth to care for the needs of those without wealth. This in itself is a noble saying but prior to bathing the middle East in oil money it did not work for them because they had a most severe division between the have haves and the have nots. Look at afghan and Pakistan today which represent how few haves their Ideology position allows. Have we not spent most of the 20th century fighting a cold war over the same ideas but without the God talk.
Where are we going with cultural diversity and affirmative action. Who waits in the unemployment lines in the name of liberalism and cultural diversity while jobs are given to the most diversified
Sheri-ah doe not work where it was spawned and will not work for the West's greater good.
The criteria for justice should always be the truth and nothing but the truth; but Mr. Wilders is not being tried for the truth because he uses quran and other islamic texts that are believed to be the truth by muslims to make his point. It is obviously a case of muslims can't handle the truth.
It is also wrong according to so called human rights because if a muslim believes allah is god and a non-muslim believes that allah is not god but devil,evil or satan then non-muslim has just as much right to believe that allah is devil,evil or satan as muslim has the right to believe that allah is god.
Mr. Wilders is being tried for all the wrong reasons.