Recently in Geert Wilders Category

I had been set to speak at this event also, but have been ill for awhile now and wasn't able to go. The speech that I had intended to give is here. I am very sorry to have missed the event. Here is the speech Geert Wilders gave there:

Thank you for inviting me to Berlin. It is an honour to be here in this beautiful city of Berlin. When I was here last year I emphasized how important Germany is for all of us. We all benefit from a healthy, democratic, self-confident Germany.

Much has happened since my last visit. In the Netherlands we were able to achieve many amazing things. We have successfully started to roll back the process of Islamization in the Netherlands.

We have done so in a peaceful way and through the democratic process. Recently, a deranged narcissistic psychopath from Norway committed a horrible crime. In cold blood he murdered nearly eighty innocent fellow citizens. The assassin pretended to be a concerned European. He said that he had committed his atrocity because “It is meaningless to participate in the democratic process.” But he is wrong! The mass murderer from Oslo murdered and maimed, and he justified his heinous crime by denying – I quote – “that it is remotely possible to change the system democratically.” – end of quote.

But he is wrong! The Oslo murderer falsely claims to be one of us. But he is not one of us. We abhor violence. We are democrats. We believe in peaceful solutions.

The reason why we reject Islam is exactly Islam’s violent nature. We believe in democracy. We fight with the force of our conviction, but we never use violence. Our commitment to truth, human dignity and a just and honourable defence of the West does not allow us to use violence nor to give in to cynicism and despair. We cherish the tradition of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Jelena Bonner, Lech Walesa and Ronald Reagan. These heroes defeated a totalitarian ideology by the power of their conviction and without firing a single shot. As the ex-Muslim and Islam-critic Ali Sina said in a reaction to the Oslo atrocity: “We don’t raise a sword against darkness; we lit a light.”

So it is. We lit the light of the truth. And the truth will set us free.

The truth is that Islam can be successfully fought with democratic means. We do so in the Netherlands. You can do so, too, in Germany! Let me tell you what we have achieved in the Netherlands since my last visit to Berlin, less than one year ago. It will encourage you. What can be done in the Netherlands can also be done in Germany.

My party, the Party for Freedom, which has 24 seats of the 150 seats in parliament, supports a minority government of Liberals and Christian-Democrats. We do this in return for measures to restrict immigration, roll back crime, counter cultural relativism, and restore our traditional Western freedoms, such as freedom of speech.

The Party for Freedom has been in this position for less than a year, but we are achieving great things. We have achieved that the Netherlands will soon ban the face-covering Islamic burkas and the niqabs!

We will restrict immigration from non-Western countries by up to 50% in the next four years! We are going to strip criminals who have a double nationality and who repeatedly commit serious crimes, of their Dutch nationality!

The Party for Freedom is bringing a message of hope to the Netherlands. The new policies will place more demands on immigrants. Integration will not be tailored to different groups anymore. There will be a tougher approach to immigrants who disobey the law. Those who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress, will see their access to welfare payments diminished.

We have also achieved that anti-Israeli activities will no longer be funded with Dutch taxes. So-called humanitarian aid organizations that directly or indirectly support anti-Israel boycotts, divestments and sanctions and that deny Israel’s right to exist will no longer get government funding.

The Dutch government will boycott the United Nation’s Durban III meeting against racial discrimination because it has been transformed into a tribunal for accusations against Israel. The government will strengthen our political and economic relations with Israel. Investment rather than divestment will be our policies towards Israel.

We stand with Israel. We love Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel is part of our civilization.

My friends, what the Party for Freedom has achieved, shows that it can be done. To borrow a phrase from President Obama: Yes, we can! We can stop the islamization of our societies. The Dutch example shows that we can win. David can defeat Goliath!

Last July, the Dutch government even did something which not a single nation has dared to do before. It spoke out firmly against the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The OIC is an international organization of 57 Islamic countries, most of them barbaric tyrannies. This OIC constitutes the largest voting bloc in the United Nation. It had criticised the fact that Dutch judges had acquitted me of all charges of group insult and incitement to hatred and discrimination. But the Dutch government made it clear to the OIC that freedom of speech will not be muzzled in the Netherlands. It told the OIC very bluntly: “The Dutch government dissociates itself fully from the request to silence a politician.” – end of quote. We will never submit to the Islamic OIC bullies!

As you probably know, for almost two years I went through the ordeal of being a suspect in a criminal case. I was dragged to court in Amsterdam on the accusation of hate speech crimes. Last June, this legal charade ended with a full acquittal.

The Dutch people learned through my acquittal that political debate has not been stifled in their country.

My acquittal was a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch people also learned that they are allowed to speak critically about Islam. They learned that resistance against Islamization is not a crime. They learned that there is hope and that liberation is near.

My acquittal marks the turning of the tide. Not only in the Netherlands, but in the whole of Europe. It is the first breach of the dyke. We have started the roll-back operation. We have sent a message to the ideologues of Islam: Don’t tread on us!

My acquittal has a significance which far surpasses the Netherlands. It has a meaning for the whole of Europe and the free world. My acquittal marks the end of an evolution whereby our civil liberties in Europe are constantly being restricted in order not to offend Islam and anger Islamic fanatics.

My acquittal legitimizes criticism of Islam. It does so also in Germany and everywhere else.

Indeed, why should you Germans not enjoy the same rights as the Dutch! If peaceful and democratic resistance to Islamization is not a crime in the Netherlands, it should not be a crime in Germany either.

So, here is my message to you: Continue your fight for freedom and freedom of speech! Do not let your politicians and judges grant you fewer rights than the Dutch!

Do not let yourselves be intimidated by Islamic or leftist opponents who shriek and yell. Do not let yourselves be intimidated by media who claim that a murderer who has lost his belief in the democratic process has anyhow been influenced by us.

My friends, when I visited you last year, even in my wildest dreams I could not have imagined that we would have been able to influence government policies in the way we have done. That is why I tell you: Never give in to the bullies! Never give up hope. Never despair! You can still turn the tide! One can always turn the tide!

It is true: Germany has been less fortunate than the Netherlands.

When I was here last year, Tilo Sarrazin had just published his book “Deutschland schafft sich ab.” Sarrazin’s book was a bestseller. It hit a nerve. It sold over one-and-a-half million copies. This shows that German society is ripe for change. But politically Sarrazin’s book has changed nothing yet. On the contrary, the German political elite raised the speed of Islamization in Germany. Bundespresident Wulff said “Islam is a part of Germany.” Chancellor Merkel said that multiculturalism is an absolute failure, but she continues to defend Turkey’s entry into the EU. The spread of Islam continues unabated in the German class rooms, on Germany’s streets, through the construction of new mosques, etcetera, etcetera.

Your situation has worsened because you do not have a party – yet – with enough electoral support to influence German politics for the better. Germany needs a rightwing party that is not tainted by ties to neo-Nazis and by anti-Semitism, that is decent and respectable, but also firm. René Stadtkewitz is working very hard to make Die Freiheit as successful as the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. René, we are here to help you! Because Germany deserves better than what it gets today!

My friends, your country is the political backbone of Europe.

Germany is the most populous country in Europe. Germany is the economic motor of Europe. If Germany is sick, we are all sick.

Last year, I urged you: Stop being ashamed of Germany. It is unfair to reduce German patriotism to national-socialism, just as it is unfair to reduce Russia to Stalinism. Be proud of your country. Only if the Germans have pride in Germany, they will be prepared to stand for Germany and to defend Germany. And you must stand for Germany, just as the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands stands for the Netherlands. We must all stand for the survival of our nation-states because our nation-states embody the democratic liberties which we enjoy.

Without the nation-state there can be no real national political freedom. That is why we must be good patriots. Patriotism is often branded as fascism. But patriotism is no fascism. On the contrary. Every democrat and defender of freedom must by definition be a patriot. A soul needs a body. The spirit of political liberty cannot flourish outside the body of the nation-state. The nation-state is the political body in which we live. That is why we must preserve and cherish the nation-state. So that we can pass on the liberty and the democracy which we enjoy to our children.

Without a nation-state, without self-governance, without self-determination there can be no security for a people nor preservation of its identity. This was the insight which led the Zionists to re-establish the state of Israel. Theodore Herzl said that there had to be a Jewish state because – I quote – “what we want is a new blossoming of the Jewish spirit.”

Dear friends, we urgently need a new blossoming of the German spirit. For decades, the Germans have been ashamed of themselves. They preferred to be Europeans rather than Germans. And they have paid a heavy price for it. We have all paid a heavy price for it.

Europe is not a nation; it is a cluster of nations. The strength of Europe is its diversity. We are one family but we live in different bodies. Our cultures are branches of a common Judeo-Christian and humanist culture, but we have different national cultural identities. That is how it should be.

Uniformity is a characteristic of Islam, but not of Europe. Islam eradicated the national identities of the peoples it conquered. The Coptic identity of Egypt, the Indian identity of Pakistan, the Assyrian identity of Iraq, the Persian identity of Iran, they were all wiped away, cracked down upon, or discriminated against until this very day. Islam wants all nations replaced by the so-called Ummah, the common identity of the Nation of Islam to which all have to be subservient and into which all national identities have to vanish.

Islam tried to conquer Europe, but never succeeded so far. That is why we Europeans were able to develop our different identities as nation-states. If we want to hold on to these we must stand together against the forces which threaten our identities. Today we are confronted by two dangerous forces: Islamization and Europeanization.

When I was here last year, I spoke at length about the threat of Islam. Today, I want to draw your attention to the threat of Europeanization. By Europeanization I mean the ideology which posits that our sovereign nation-states have to submerge in a pan-European superstate.

The European Union’s Founding Fathers held that in order to avoid a future war in Europe, Europe’s nations, and especially Germany, had to be encapsulated in what the Rome Treaty called “an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.” Robert Schuman said that the EU’s aim was – I quote – “to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.” – end of quote.

The Eurocrats think that nation states in general – and especially Germany, Europe’s largest nation-state – are the problem. They are wrong. The real cause of the Second World War had not been the German nation state – it had been Nazi totalitarianism.

There is nothing wrong with Germany. The cause of the war was the Nazi ideology. The remedy against totalitarianism is not building a superstate. The remedy is introducing more direct forms of democracy at the lowest possible levels. Instead of depriving Germany and other nation-states of their sovereignty, the post-war leaders should have introduced a Swiss-like system in our countries. Small units should have a large degree of local sovereignty. The individual citizen should be given a direct democratic say over his own fate and that of his community.

Instead, the peoples of Europe were robbed of their sovereignty, which was transferred to far-away Brussels. Decisions are now being taken behind closed doors by unelected bureaucrats. This is not the kind of government we want!

We want less bureaucracy! We want more democracy!

We want less Europe! We want to hold on to our sovereignty. We want home rule! We want to remain independent and free! We want to be the masters in our own house!

In December 1991, the Maastricht Treaty called for a single European currency. The Dutch guilder and the D-mark were sacrificed on the altar of European unification. Helmut Kohl sold this project to the German people as – I quote – “a matter of war or peace.” – end of quote. The euro was presented as “an angel of peace” which the Germans had to sponsor by giving up the mark. During the past six decades German politicians have told the Germans that the nation state, and especially Germany, was so dangerous that it had to be emasculated. The Germans had to become Europeans instead of Germans. To achieve this political project, national and monetary sovereignty was relinquished. Economic and national interests were sacrificed on the political altar of so-called Europeanization.

All the countries which joined the euro lost the power to adjust their currency to their own economic needs. They have all suffered as a consequence. The currency of some countries is undervalued, the currency of others is overvalued; they all have to share in carrying the burden of other countries, even if the latter are suffering from self-inflicted policies, corruption or fraud. The European monetary system has allowed some countries to get a free ride at the expense of others, while those who cheat are in a position to blackmail those who have to foot the bill. This charade has to stop!

The European monetary system is deeply flawed. It is also immoral. As Theodore Herzl said “The character of a people may be ruined by charity.” This applies for those at the receiving end of charity, but also for those who donate it. The so-called pan-European solidarity is literally ruining us! Germany has paid enough for Europe already!

The same applies for the Netherlands. Our citizens do not have to pay the debts of others!

My friends, your party Die Freiheit embodies the best hope for Germany. Because your party is the only party in Germany which has the courage to state loud and clear that countries which cannot pay their debts should leave the euro. I fully agree.

My friends, time is running out. We have to act for the sake of democracy and the future prosperity of our children. The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky warns that rather than preventing war, the European project makes conflicts more likely. He draws a parallel between the EU and the former Soviet Union which also suppressed feelings of national unity. When economy reality defeated the Soviets’ political project, the suppressed feelings of national identity bounced back with a vengeance and destroyed the Union. Bukovksy fears that if we do not stop the European moloch from expanding the same thing might happen in Europe.

The European leaders state that the only way to solve the current crisis is more European governance. They advocate more powers for Brussels. They are wrong. More Europe only makes matters worse. We have to oppose their attempt of further centralization.

We do not want more Europe! The EU lacks democracy, accountability and transparency. That is why we reject it. We want less Europe! Let us hope that next Wednesday the German Constitutional Court protects national sovereignty.

As a national legislator in the Netherlands I experience day by day how little we still have to say about our own fate. We are expected to rubberstamp laws which have been made by the EU Council of Ministers. The 27 EU commissioners convene behind closed doors with their colleagues. They negotiate in secret and then emerge to announce their agreement and present it. That is how the system works.

Recently, your Chancellor, Frau Merkel, went to Paris. Together with President Sarkozy she announced plans for an economic government of the eurozone.

We oppose this. We want the national parliaments to decide about our economic policies. We do not want to spend our taxpayers’ money on eurozone countries, such as Greece. Let those who have cheated us, who have mismanaged their economy or who have foolishly lived beyond their means, take care of themselves.

Moreover, the EU treaties forbid bailouts.

The Party for Freedom opposes every bail out. The Dutch minority government will never be able to count on our support in this regard. Today its wrongheaded euro policies are supported by the europhile leftist parties. I repeat: We will never support the Dutch government’s approval of the bailouts, not even if the government would lose the support of the left.

We have voted, and we will vote, against every plan to bail out other countries. Sovereign countries have to take care of their own needs. That is what sovereignty is about: freedom and the ability to take care of oneself.

Our peoples resent the fact that they have to pay for others. Our peoples resent the permanent alienation of power from their nation-states. They care about their nation because they care about democracy and freedom and the wellbeing of their children. They see their democratic rights and their age-old liberties symbolized in their national flag.

But there is more. National identity also ties an individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture. National identity is also an inclusive identity: It considers everyone to be equal, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people.

My friends, we need to give political power back to the nation-state, in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom, in the name of human dignity. By defending the nation-states we defend our own identity. By defending our identity we defend our liberties. By defending our liberty we defend our dignity.

I urge you: Stand up for the nation-state. Be proud of your country!

In his Farewell Address as American President, Ronald Reagan said that the thing he was most proud of in his presidency was – I quote – “the resurgence of national pride that I called, ‘The New Patriotism.’” – end of quote.

Europe needs new patriotisms. Europe needs dozens of new patriotisms. We need True Finns, and True Danes, True Frenchmen, and True Irishmen, True Dutchmen, and, my friends, we need True Germans!

Reagan said that we had to teach our children what our country is, what it stands for and what it represents in the long history of the world. He said that Americans need – I quote – “a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions.”

Reagan’s words apply to us, Europeans, too. We need a resurgence of national pride, a love of country and institutions. Our national parliaments are our democratic institutions. We must defend them.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, I have said enough. It is time to act. We must make haste. Time is running out for Germany, for the Netherlands, for all the other great nations of Europe. As Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”.

Here is a short summary of five things which we need to do in order to preserve our freedoms.

First, we must defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. Second, we must end cultural relativism. Our Western culture is far superior to other cultures. Third, we must stop Islamization. More Islam means less freedom. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values. Fourth, we must restore the right to decide about our own money. We should not pay the debts of others. The survival of the euro should not be used as an excuse to reward countries which have shown that they were not worth to belong to the eurozone. Fifth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Our nations are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are the free men and women of the West. We are the true men and women of the West. We do not stand for a superstate. We stand for our own country.

You stand for Germany. I stand for the Netherlands. Others stand for Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, France, Spain, and all these other beautiful freedom-loving nations of Europe. Together we represent the nations of Europe. Together we stand.

We will stand firm. We will survive. We will defend our freedoms. We will remain free.

Thank you very much.

After the anti-democratic terrorist attack in Norway, a Dutch survey was made. It contained good news for those who do not dare to speak out about their views on Islam because they think that they stand alone with in holding such views.

On Friday a survey showed that 52 percent of Dutchmen do not see any reason for Wilders to moderate his rhetoric following the terror attacks in Norway. 44 percent think he should.

29 percent say they agree with Wilders' view on Muslims.

Indeed. "Wilders accuses left of demonising him over Norway shootings," from Dutch News, August 1 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-Islam party PVV, has accused left-wing politicians of a witch hunt by trying to implicate him and his ideas in the Norwegian mass shootings of 10 days ago.

In an interview with the Telegraaf, Wilders says the left is out to demonise him by trying to connect him to shootings.

Various politicians and commentators have said that Wilders' anti-Islam speeches and his constant referrals to the 'left-wing elite' have helped create the climate in which Anders Breivik acted.

Islam-huggers

'The truth has to be told because Islam-huggers like [Job] Cohen of the Party of the Arabs [Labour party] caused the problems and have repeatedly ignored them,' Wilders said. 'I would say to Cohen and the rest of the left in the Netherlands: it is not my words, but your silence about the dangers of Islam which has the negative influences.'

In a statement last week, Wilders condemned the actions of Breivik as those of a psychopath and a lunatic....

Statement of Geert Wilders concerning the massacre in Norway

The brutal murder of dozens of innocent Norwegian civilians several days ago, has shocked the Freedom Party (Dutch PVV). We mourn and stand by the Norwegian people who suffer from a massive blow.

The manifesto of the perpetrator makes clear that this is a madman. He wants to work with Al Qaeda (which he cherishes great admiration for), crave the bombing of cities, dreams of knights themselves surgically mutilate and wants to meet his hero Karadzic.

Breivik also refers to the Netherlands. That the fight against Islam by a psychopath violently abused is disgusting and a slap in the face of the global anti-Islamic movement. It fills me with disgust that the perpetrator to the PVV and me refers in his manifesto.

PVV nor I are responsible for a lone idiot who twisted the freedom-loving anti-Islamization ideals violently abused, no matter how much some people would like that. We are democrats at heart. The Freedom Party has never, ever called for violence and will never do. We believe in the power of the ballot box and the wisdom of the voter. Not bombs and guns.

We fight for a democratic and nonviolent means against the further Islamisation of society and will continue to do so. The preservation of our freedom and security is our only goal.

Geert Wilders

In Human Events this morning I discuss the implications of Geert Wilders' narrow victory last week:

It is still legal to tell the truth in the Netherlands: Geert Wilders has been cleared. Wilders is the leader of the third-largest party in that country, and the protagonist in the largest Islamic challenge yet to the Western notion of the freedom of speech. He made a number of statements about Islam that, while entirely true and accurate, got him hauled into court on charges of “inciting hatred,” and the Netherlands came quite close to criminalizing the speaking of unpleasant truths. But Wilders was acquitted last week, and this bullet was dodged. Challenges to the freedom of speech, however, are still very much with us, and will only grow more virulent.

"It is my strong conviction,” Wilders remarked, “that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers." These things are all true and rather obvious: Every day brings fresh stories about the oppression of women and homosexuals in countries ruled by Islamic law. Then there is the escalating persecution of Christians in Muslim countries such as Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia, and the suppression of free speech and open debate about Islamic supremacism and jihad violence all over the Islamic world—in accord with the provision of Islamic law that makes criticism of Islam and Muhammad a capital offense.

Nonetheless, this is the sort of statement that got Wilders prosecuted in the first place. And even as he was acquitted, the Dutch court affirmed the false and dangerous premises that made for that prosecution, including the idea that one could and should face legal action for saying things that others deemed offensive. Amsterdam Judge Marcel van Oosten said Thursday: “The bench finds that your statements are acceptable within the context of the public debate. The bench finds that although gross and denigrating, it did not give rise to hatred.”

Apparently van Oosten would not have hesitated to fine or jail Wilders if he had determined that his words gave rise to “hatred.” This is an extraordinarily dangerous legal concept. Who decides what constitutes “hatred”? If Wilders’ words were accurate, and yet Muslims nonetheless found them offensive, would van Oosten have fined Wilders anyway? It seems so. Yet if offending someone and inciting hatred is a crime, then anyone can claim that he was offended by speech that he would like to suppress....

There is more.

The German site Politically Incorrect has an excellent commentary on the acquittal of Geert Wilders on Sharia-inspired "hate speech" charges: "A Historic Victory for Freedom!," by Frank Furter, translated by Anders Denken:

Dear PI Community,

We finally made it! The movement for Islam criticism is celebrating a great, and even historic, victory. Let’s thank those who dragged Geert Wilders into court. Those who were recruited primarily by various Muslim organizations were holding a gun to the heart of the Dutch judiciary. And the judges had to decide which values, which rights and which law was to apply in the Netherlands. Is it that law that is written down in the constitution of their land? Or that law that is gaining entry into the West with the influx of Muslims? They decided for Western law. Anything else would have been scandalous and would have forced the question of whether our Western ideas concerning law and order were only a collection of empty phrases.

The trial against Geert Wilders clearly brought to light just how greatly Western and Islamic values differ from each other. The supporters of multicultural society believe that all cultures lend themselves to combining into a flourishing society of diversity. On the surface, this seems to function where culture overflows in tradition and folklore. However, at the roots of a culture is more than just the question of what one should wear, eat and celebrate, and when, where and how. At their roots, cultures open up to the elementary questions of what one may do and not do, what is permitted and what is forbidden, what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil.

And ultimately here is where Islam collides with the Western principle of free and basic democratic order. Indeed even parts of it are completely and diametrically opposed to this order. We, the readers and writers of the PI community have sufficient knowledge regarding this. The refusal of Islamic countries to recognize the human rights declaration formulated in the West already gives more than clear reference to all the facts that we never tire of stating again and again here: Islam is first and foremost a political ideology that is – as shown here today – irreconcilable with the values of our Western system of government. And it is this very ideology that stands in the way of integration with our free society by many Muslims. Islam stands on the principle of enslavement, strives for control, for uniformity, for society’s conformity to its own values and norms. Islamization is not just a rumor or invention by rightwing spin doctors, rather a menacing process of the worst kind to be fought against by anyone that holds the freedom of future generations near to their heart.

Wilders was accused because he said and did things that were completely normal according to the consensus of values in the Western world. He criticized Islam, perhaps even coarsely as is currently indicated in various media. But that is the perfect right of any single individual in the realm of our culture to do so!

We are allowed to criticize democracy, socialism, communism and national socialism anyway. We can even criticize Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism and even Judaism, in spite of all the historic crimes of the Germans against the Jewish people. Why then should criticizing Islam be forbidden?...

Read it all.

Indeed. In America, it is all done in a subversive, samizdat manner. The Left is complicit with the Islamic supremacists. The mainstream Right is full of cowards who won't touch these issues, or will only when doing so doesn't make them stand out in a crowd. And those who do try to encourage a real debate about the nature of Islam are defamed and vilified by Islamic supremacist hate groups and their allies. So a real debate about Islam in the public square remains almost as elusive in the U.S. as it is in Europe.

"In Defense of 'Hurtful' Speech," by Geert Wilders in the Wall Street Journal, June 24 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Yesterday was a beautiful day for freedom of speech in the Netherlands. An Amsterdam court acquitted me of all charges of hate speech after a legal ordeal that lasted almost two years. The Dutch people learned that political debate has not been stifled in their country. They learned they are still allowed to speak critically about Islam, and that resistance against Islamization is not a crime.

I was brought to trial despite being an elected politician and the leader of the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament. I was not prosecuted for anything I did, but for what I said. My view on Islam is that it is not so much a religion as a totalitarian political ideology with religious elements. While there are many moderate Muslims, Islam's political ideology is radical and has global ambitions. I expressed these views in newspaper interviews, op-ed articles, and in my 2008 documentary, "Fitna."

I was dragged to court by leftist and Islamic organizations that were bent not only on silencing me but on stifling public debate. My accusers claimed that I deliberately "insulted" and "incited discrimination and hatred" against Muslims. The Dutch penal code states in its articles 137c and 137d that anyone who either "publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group of people" or "in any way that insults a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their hetero- or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished."

I was dragged to court for statements that I made as a politician and which were meant to stimulate public debate in a country where public debate has stagnated for decades. Dutch political parties see themselves as guardians of a sterile status quo. I want our problems to be discussed. I believe that politicians have a public trust to further debates about important issues. I firmly believe that every public debate holds the prospect of enlightenment.

My views represent those of a growing number of Dutch voters, who have flocked to the Party for Freedom, or PVV. The PVV is the fastest-growing party in the country, expanding from one seat in the 150-seat House of Representatives in 2004, to nine seats in 2006 and 24 seats in 2010. My party's views, however, are so uncommon in the Netherlands that they are considered blasphemous by powerful elites who fear and resent discussion.

That's why I was taken to court, even though the public prosecutor saw no reason to prosecute me. "Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society," the prosecutors repeatedly said during my trial. "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable." [...]

Though I am obviously relieved by yesterday's decision, my thoughts go to people such as Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, Austrian human rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and others who have recently been convicted for criticizing Islam. They have not been as fortunate. In far too many Western countries, it is still impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam....

Indeed. Read it all.

In FrontPage this morning I discuss yesterday's great verdict:

In a great victory for decency and sanity, the Court of Amsterdam has acquitted Geert Wilders of all of the spurious “hate speech” charges that have been hanging over his head for several years now. This is decisive defeat for the Islamic supremacist forces that have been trying to destroy the freedom of speech and compel dhimmi Western governments to label the truth about Islam and jihad as “hate speech.” It is good to be able to report that it is still not illegal to tell the truth in the Netherlands and in the West in general – but we are not out of the woods yet.

Wilders remarked: “I am delighted with this ruling. It is a victory, not only for me but for all the Dutch people.” He could have added – and for all free people the world over, who can by this ruling stave off at least for awhile longer the attempts to criminalize speaking accurately about a radically repressive ideology that would use our self-enforced silence about its nature and intentions to advanced unopposed. Wilders continued: “Today is a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch are still allowed to speak critically about Islam, and resistance against Islamization is not a crime. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.”

This should be axiomatic. It should be commonsensical. It should be taken for granted by every free person in every free society: that to criminalize criticism of any ideology or belief system establishes that ideology or belief system in a protected class, and gives it carte blanche to do whatever it pleases in the society at large. Criminalizing speech or thought is thus a clear path to authoritarian government, and the death of any free society.

Yet no one seems to grasp that, or to care. And so Wilders’ case was a close-run thing. It was not certain that the verdict would go his way, and shameful that the case proceeded at all. Amsterdam judge Marcel van Oosten said Thursday that Wilders’ statements about Islam, which were in every case true and accurate, were “acceptable within the context of public debate.” How generous of Marcel van Oosten, to determine with all the weight of his judicial authority that speaking unpleasant and unwelcome truths was “acceptable within the context of public debate”!What van Oosten should have said, had he had any clear understanding of the real implications of this case, was that the idea that Wilders should have been prosecuted at all on the charges of offending Muslims, and inciting hatred and discrimination against them, was absurd on its face.

If offending someone and inciting hatred is a crime, then freedom fighters ought to be able to bring charges against the Leftists and Islamic supremacists who routinely demonize and defame them. But of course, it never works that way. “Hate speech” laws in the Netherlands and elsewhere in the West are designed wholly and solely to criminalize non-Leftist thought — as well as criticism of Islamic supremacism and jihad, which forces such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and its allies have been largely successful in convincing Western elites to regard as “racism.”...

There is more.

In "Geert Wilders Verdict: West 1, Islam 0" at Big Government today, Pamela Geller makes some important observations about the Geert Wilders verdict:

The judges in the Court of Amsterdam delivered their verdict Thursday morning in the heresy trial of Dutch Freedom Party politician Geert Wilders. Wilders has been found not guilty of all charges of inciting hatred against Muslims. The judge, Marcel van Oosten, and the other Dutch authorities ended up doing the right thing, no matter how cowardly and compromised they may have been. They must have known how history would view them if Wilders had been found guilty: as troglodytes who ushered in the return of the Dark Ages.

When do the Islamic supremacists go on trial for inciting hatred against non-Muslims?

“I am delighted with this ruling,” Wilders said. “It is a victory, not only for me but for all the Dutch people. Today is a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch are still allowed to speak critically about islam, and resistance against islamisation is not a crime. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.”

The charges against Geert Wilders were that he had made statements that were intentionally offensive to Muslims; incited hatred against Muslims; incited discrimination against Muslims; and incited hatred of non-Western immigrants.

The Islamic supremacists who initiated the case told the Dutch dhimmi judges that the things Wilders said had led to a rise in discrimination and violence against Muslims. They had no proof, of course, of anyone committing any act of violence against any Muslim, or discriminating against any Muslim, because of anything Geert Wilders said. They just wanted to compel the Netherlands to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws.

This has been dragging on for a good while. The Wilders heresy trial began last October 4, but fell apart just a few weeks later after a special legal panel determined that the judges were biased against Wilders. No kidding. But they found more dhimmi judges and kept going.

The Islamic supremacist “plaintiffs” were seeking a one-euro fine. But it was of course never about a fine, symbolic or otherwise. The Wilders case has always been an attempt to win an Islamic supremacist triumph over the tenets of Western law and free speech. They said if they didn’t get their symbolic one-euro fine, they didn’t get it, but they said they were considering taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Ah yes, take it to the anti-humans under the guise of human rights....

Read it all.

In a great victory for decency and sanity, the Court of Amsterdam has acquitted Geert Wilders of all charges.

Wilders remarked:

“I am delighted with this ruling. It is a victory, not only for me but for all the Dutch people. Today is a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch are still allowed to speak critically about islam, and resistance against islamisation is not a crime. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.”

Pamela Geller lists these as the charges against Wilders:

1. Intentionally offending Muslims
2. Inciting hatred against Muslims
3. Inciting discrimination against Muslims
4. Inciting hatred of non-western immigrants

On each, he was acquitted. It is a great victory for common sense, and a decisive defeat for the Islamic supremacist forces that have been trying to destroy the freedom of speech and compel dhimmi Western governments to label the truth about Islam and jihad as "hate speech." But we are not out of the woods yet. The forces that were responsible for the persecution and prosecution of Wilders will not give up, and will pursue similar charges against others. We may only hope that this verdict will set a strong precedent that will make it even less likely that they will succeed in the future. Nonetheless, we will not be completely clear of this kind of Stalinist show trial until "hate speech" laws are definitively rejected as the tools of tyranny that they manifestly are.

Final remarks of Geert Wilders at his trial in Amsterdam, June 1st, 2011

Mister President, members of the Court,

I am here because of what I have said. I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo Van Gogh, and not I.

I am obliged to speak. For the Netherlands is under threat of Islam. As I have argued many times, Islam is chiefly an ideology. An ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest. It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers.

All over the world we can see how freedom is fleeing from Islam. Day by day we see our freedoms dwindle.

Islam is opposed to freedom. Renowned scholars of Islam from all parts of the world agree on this. My witness experts subscribe to my view. There are more Islam scholars whom the court did not allow me to call upon to testify. All agree with my statements, they show that I speak the truth. That truth is on trial today.

We must live in the truth, said the dissidents under Communist rule, because the truth will set us free. Truth and freedom are inextricably connected. We must speak the truth because otherwise we shall lose our freedom.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

The statements for which I am being tried are statements which I made in my function as a politician participating in the public debate in our society. My statements were not aimed at individuals, but at Islam and the process of islamization. That is why the Public Prosecutor has concluded that I should be acquitted.

Mister President, members of the Court,

I am acting within a long tradition which I wish to honour. I am risking my life in defence of freedom in the Netherlands. Of all our achievements freedom is the most precious and the most vulnerable. Many have given their lives for freedom. We have been reminded of that in the commemorations of the month of May. But the struggle for freedom is much older.

Every day the armoured cars drive me past the statue of Johan de Witt at the Hofvijver in The Hague. De Witt wrote the “Manifesto of True Freedom” and he paid for freedom with his life. Every day I go to my office through the Binnenhof where Johan van Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded after a political trial. Leaning on his stick the elderly Oldenbarneveldt addressed his last words to his people. He said: “I have acted honourably and piously as a good patriot.” Those words are also mine.

I do not wish to betray the trust of the 1.5 million voters of my party. I do not wish to betray my country. Inspired by Johan van Oldenbarneveldt and Johan de Witt I wish to be a politician who serves the truth end hence defends the freedom of the Dutch provinces and of the Dutch people. I wish to be honest, I wish to act with honesty and that is why I wish to protect my native land against Islam. Silence is treason.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Freedom and truth. I pay the price every day. Day and night I have to be protected against people who want to kill me. I am not complaining about it; it has been my own decision to speak. However, those who threaten me and other critics of Islam are not being tried here today. I am being tried. And about that I do complain.

I consider this trial to be a political trial. The values of D66 [a Dutch leftist liberal party] and NRC Handelsblad [a Dutch leftist liberal party] will never be brought before a judge in this country. One of the complainants clearly indicated that his intentions are political. Even questions I have asked in parliament and cooperation with the SGP are being brought as allegations against me by Mr Rabbae of GroenLinks [the leftist Dutch Green Party]. Those on the Left like to tamper with the separation of powers. When they cannot win politically because the Dutch people have discerned their sinister agenda, they try to win through the courts.

Whatever your verdict may be, that is the bitter conclusion of this trial.

This trial is also surrealistic. I am being compared with the Hutu murderers in Rwanda and with Mladic. Only a few minutes ago some here have doubted my mental health. I have been called a new Hitler. I wonder whether those who call me such names will also be sued, and if not, whether the Court will also order prosecution. Probably not. And that is just as well. Because freedom of speech applies also to my opponents.

My right to a fair trial has been violated. The order of the Amsterdam Court to prosecute me was not just a decision but a condemning verdict by judges who condemned me even before the actual trial had begun.

Mister President, members of the Court, you must now decide whether freedom still has a home in the Netherlands

Franz Kafka said: “one sees the sun slowly set, yet one is surprised when it suddenly becomes dark.”

Mister President, members of the Court, do not let the lights go out in the Netherlands.

Acquit me: Put an end to this Kafkaesque situation.

Acquit me. Political freedom requires that citizens and their elected representatives are allowed to voice opinions that are held in society.

Acquit me, for if I am convicted, you convict the freedom of opinion and expression of millions of Dutchmen.

Acquit me. I do not incite to hatred. I do not incite to discrimination. But I defend the character, the identity, the culture and the freedom of the Netherlands. That is the truth. That is why I am here. That is why I speak. That is why, like Luther before the Imperial Diet at Worms, I say: “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Mister President, members of the Court, though I stand here alone, my voice is the voice of many. This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of expression is the life source of our Western civilisation.

Do not let that source go dry just to cosy up to a totalitarian regime. “Freedom,” said the American President Dwight Eisenhower, “has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed – else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die.”

Mister President, members of the Court, you have a great responsibility. Do not cut freedom in the Netherlands from its roots, our freedom of expression. Acquit me. Choose freedom.

I have spoken, I speak, and it is my duty – I cannot do otherwise – to continue to speak.

Thank you.

"Prosecutors say Wilders' remarks are critical of Islam which is not the same as inciting hatred against muslims themselves." At last, some common sense. But there is no certainty that it will prevail; if it had entered into these proceedings at any point before this, Wilders wouldn't be on trial now.

"Find Wilders not guilty of inciting hatred, says prosecution," from Dutch News, May 25 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

The public prosecution department on Wednesday called for PVV leader Gert Wilders to be found not guilty of inciting hatred, as it tied up its case against the MP.

Prosecutors say Wilders' remarks are critical of Islam which is not the same as inciting hatred against muslims themselves.

Earlier in the day the prosecutors said Wilders' should be found not guilty of insulting a group because he has not stated any conclusions about muslims. Instead he has merely criticised their religion, the prosecutors said.

Reluctance

The decision to call on judges to find Wilders not guilty follows on from fact the department did not want to take the PVV leader to court in the first place.

However, it was forced to do so by the appeal court following protests from a number of ethnic minority groups....

Gee, I wonder which ones.

The great Islamic scholar Hans Jansen, who is an expert witness in the Geert Wilders show trial and charged judge Tom Schalken with witness tampering, has sent this statement on the trial to Jihad Watch:

The Dutch will, from now on, have to live with unpredictable limitations of the freedom of speech and, even worse, with the legality of attempts to sabotage the foundation of all Western politics: the separation of the three traditional powers of the Western state: the executive, legislative and judicial power.

The Amsterdam court charged with condemning the elected member-of-parliament Geert Wilders decided today that the trial must go on where it derailed last fall. In October and November 2010 it became known that Justice Tom Schalken (Amsterdam) had dinner with one of the few expert witnesses the court had allowed to the defense of Mr Wilders. This dinner took place a few days before the witness had to appear in court. These contacts could easily be understood as attempts to influence the witness. It is actually rather difficult to understand them in any other way.

Justice Tom Schalken, we now know, also had also played a role in the executive when as a functionary of the Ministry of Justice he formulated the laws that make it possible for Geert Wilders to be summoned to court by private citizens even when the state prosecutor does not see a winnable case. He, moreover, had been active behind closed doors, influencing Dutch opinion makers; and published ‘scholarly’ articles arguing the case against political dissidents like Mr. Wilders. Finally, as the crown on all this work, he had signed (and probably personally written) the order that imposed on the prosecutor the duty to go to trial to get Mr. Wilders condemned.

Nevertheless, the Amsterdam Court did not see a problem here, and Dutch justice will run its course. Or, actually, the Court did see the problems, but did not think they were relevant to what they were doing to Mr. Wilders. Only decades of studying and practicing law in the Netherlands will help outsiders to understand this decision, but it is seriously to be doubted whether sane young men and women will take the trouble to do so.

The trial, hence, goes on where it got derailed in the fall of 2010. From now on, someone who speaks in the Netherlands about Islamic theology, law or religious practice will have to be extremely careful. Librarians will have to clean their shelves: books from whatever period may have to be removed. Tourists who bring books or newspapers with them from the outside world must hope for the best. Publishers and bookshops will surely spontaneously understand their patriotic duties. The multicultural state shall have its way.

It goes without saying that Christianity, Judaism and Atheism cannot receive similar protection from the multicultural state – because if that were the case, the Koran and all handbooks of Mohammedan law would have to be forbidden because of the offensive and abusive language these religious texts employ when discussing non-Muslim religious viewpoints. And, as we all know, to forbid Islamic books would be a very unmulticultural thing to do indeed.

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."

A Warning to America
Speech of Geert Wilders, Cornerstone Church, Nashville, 12 May 2011

Dear friends from Tennessee. I am very happy to be in your midst today. I am happy and proud to be in this impressive church.

My friends, I am here to speak words of truth and freedom.

Do you know why America is in a better state than Europe? Because you enjoy more freedom than Europeans.

And do you know why Americans enjoy more freedom than Europeans? Because you are still allowed to tell the truth.

In Europe and Canada people are dragged to court for telling the truth about islam.

I, too, have been dragged to court. I am an elected member of the house of representatives in the Netherlands. I am currently standing in court like a common criminal for saying that islam is a dangerous totalitarian ideology rather than a religion.

The court case is still pending, but I risk a jail sentence of 16 months.

Last week, my friend Lars Hedegaard, a journalist from Denmark, was fined because in a private conservation, which was recorded without his knowing, he had criticised the way women are treated in islamic societies.

Recently, another friend, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a human rights activist from Austria, was fined because she had criticised islam’s founder Muhammad. She had said that Muhammad was a pedophile because he had married a 6-year old girl and raped her when she was 9.

Unfortunately, there are many similar cases.

I am especially happy to be in your midst because here I can say what I want to say without having to fear that I will be dragged to court upon leaving this church.

My dear American friends, you cannot imagine how we envy your First Amendment. The day when America follows the example of Europe and Canada and introduces so-called “hate speech crimes” which is only used to punish people who are critical of islam, that day America will have lost its freedom.

My friends, let us hope that this never happens.

Last week, we celebrated Liberation Day in the Netherlands. We celebrated the liberation from the nazi occupation in 1945. Many American soldiers, including many young Tennesseans, played a decisive role in the liberation of the Netherlands from nazi tyranny. We are immensely grateful for that. Young Americans gave their lives so that the Dutch might be free. I assure you: The Dutch people will never forget this.

Unfortunately, however, the Europe which your fathers and grandfathers fought and died for is not the Europe we are living in today.

I travel the world to tell people what Europe has become. I wish I could take you all on a visit to my country and show you what Europe has become. It has changed beyond recognition as a result of mass immigration. And not just any mass immigration, but mass immigration driven by the dangerous force of islam.

My friends, I am sorry. I am here today with an unpleasant message. I am here with a warning. I am here with a battle cry: “Wake up, Christians of Tennessee. Islam is at your gate.” Do not make the mistake which Europe made. Do not allow islam to gain a foothold here.

Islam is dangerous. Islam wants to establish a state on earth, ruled by islamic sharia law. Islam aims for the submission, whether by persuasion, intimidation or violence, of all non-Muslims, including Christians.

The results can be seen in Europe.

Islam is an ideology of conquest. It uses two methods to achieve this goal: the first method is the sword. Do you know what figures on the flag of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country where Christian churches are banned and Christians are not even allowed to wear a tiny crucifix? There is a huge sword on that flag, just below the islamic creed. The message is clear. Without the sword islam would not have been able to spread its creed.

The second method is immigration. Islam’s founder Muhammad himself taught his followers how to conquer through immigration when they moved from Mecca to Medina. This phenomenon of conquest through immigration is called al-Hijra. My learned friend Sam Solomon has written a perfect book about it.

I had a copy of Sam’s book sent to all the members of the Dutch Parliament. But most of them are worse than Saint-Thomas in the Bible. Thomas did not believe what he had not seen. Most politicians refuse to believe the things they see before their very eyes.

In Europe we have been experiencing al-Hijra for over 30 years now. Many of our cities have changed beyond recognition. “In each one of our cities” wrote the well-known Italian author Oriana Fallaci shortly before her death in 2006, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” – end of quote.

How did the Europeans get into this situation? It is partly our own fault because we have foolishly adopted the concept of cultural relativism, which manifests itself in the ideology of multiculturalism.

Cultural relativism advocates that all cultures are equal. However, cultures wither away and die if people no longer believe that its values are better than those of another culture.

Islam is spreading like wildfire wherever people lack the guts to say that their values are better than the Islamic values.

Islam is spreading like wildfire because the Koran explicitly tells Muslims that they are “the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” and that non-Muslims are “the worst of creatures.”

Islam is spreading like wildfire everywhere in the West where political, academic, cultural and media elites lack the guts to proudly proclaim, as I believe we all should proclaim:

Our Judeo-Christian Western culture is far better and far superior to the islamic culture. We must be proud to say so!

Multiculturalism is a disaster. Almost everyone acknowledges this today, but few dare say why. Let me tell you why: Multiculturalism made us tolerate the intolerant, and now intolerance is annihilating tolerance.

We should, in the name of tolerance, claim the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Let us no longer be afraid and politically correct, let us be brave and bold. Let us tell the truth about islam.

Before I continue I want to make clear that I do not have a problem with people. I always make a distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and islam.

Indeed, I have no problems with Muslims, but I do have a problem with the totalitarian Islamic ideology of hate and violence. The fact that there are many so-called moderate Muslims, does not imply that there exists a moderate islam. A moderate islam does not exist and will never exist.

And because there is no such thing as a moderate islam, the islamization of our free Western societies is an enormous danger.

Only two weeks ago, the British press revealed how the so-called “London Taliban” is threatening to kill women who do not wear veils in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.

In some neighbourhoods Islamic regulations are already being enforced, also on non-Muslims. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor-killings where men murder their wives, daughters or sisters because they do not behave in accordance with Islamic rules.

Polls show that the influence of those Muslims who live according to islam’s aggressive requirements is growing, especially among young people.

Among 15-year-old German Muslims, 40 percent consider islam more important than democracy.

Among Muslim university students in Britain, 40 percent support sharia. One in three of those students considers it legitimate to kill in the name of islam.

Christians are asked to follow the example of Jesus. Muslims are ordered to follow the example of Muhammad. That is why islam is dangerous. While Christianity preaches love, islam preached hatred and practices violence. Hatred and violence for everyone who is not a Muslim.

Muhammad personally participated in the ethnic cleansing of Medina, where half the population once was Jewish. Muhammad helped to chop off their heads. On his deathbed, he ordered his followers to cleanse Arabia of all Jews and Christians.

To this very day, Christian symbols are prohibited in Saudi-Arabia. If you wear a cross in Saudi Arabia, they sent you to jail.

And now, Europe is beginning to look like Arabia.

Just today, a poll revealed that in Brussels, the capital of the European Union, half the islamic youths are anti-semitic. It is dangerous for Jews to walk the streets in Brussels.
If you wear a cross or a kippah in certain urban areas in Europe today, you risk being beaten up. In the capital of my own country, Amsterdam, a tram driver was forced to remove his crucifix from sight, while his Muslim colleagues are allowed to wear the veil.

In June 2008, the Christian church authorities in the Danish town of Arhus decided to pay so-called “protection money” to islamic so-called “security guards” who assure that church goers are not harassed by islamic youths.

On March 31st, 2010, Muslims entered the Roman Catholic cathedral of Cordoba, Spain, and attacked the guards with knives. They claimed the cathedral was theirs.

Last month, the bishops of Sweden sent out a letter to priests advising them to avoid converting asylum seekers from islamic countries to Christianity, because the converts would risk losing their lives.

In the Netherlands, the city authorities in Amsterdam register polygamous marriages. The authorities in Rotterdam serve only halal meals in municipal cafeterias. Theaters provide separate seats for women who are not allowed to sit next to men. Municipal swimming pools have separate swimming hours for men and women, Muslim lawyers do not have to stand when the judges enter court rooms.

Meanwhile Jews are no longer safe on our streets. In Amsterdam, the city of Anne Frank, Jews are again being harassed in the streets. Even political leaders acknowledged that life has become unsafe for Jews in Holland. Do you know what they said? They advised Jews to emigrate. Jews are already running for Israel. But I say: Jews must not leave, violent Muslims must leave!

What is needed, my friends, is a spirit of resistance.

I repeat: What we need is a spirit of resistance.

Why? Because resistance to evil is our moral duty. This resistance begins with expressing our solidarity to Christians, Jews, indeed, to all people worldwide, who are the victims of islam. There are millions of them.

We can see what islam has in store for us if we watch the fate of the Christians in the islamic world, such as the Copts in Egypt, the Maronites in Lebanon, the Assyrians in Iraq, and Christians elsewhere.

Almost every day, churches are arsoned and Christians are assassinated in islamic countries.

In a report on the persecution of Christians in the world, Archbishop Twal of Jerusalem, wrote recently– I quote: “In the Middle East to be Christian means accepting that you must make a great sacrifice. All too often and in many places, Christians suffer various threats. On some occasions, their homes and churches are burnt, and people are killed. How many atrocities must we endure before somebody somewhere comes to our aid?” – end of quote.

Indeed, how many atrocities before we come to their aid?

Rivers of tears are flowing from the Middle East, where there is only one safe haven for Christians. You know where that is. The only place in the Middle East where Christians are safe is Israel.

That is why Israel deserves our support. Israel is a safe haven for everyone, whatever their belief and opinions. Israel is a beacon of light in a region of total darkness. Israel is fighting our fight.

The jihad against Israel is a jihad against all of us. If Israel falls, we, too, will feel the consequences. If Jerusalem falls, Athens, Rome, Amsterdam and Nashville will fall. Therefore, we all are Israel. We should always support Israel!

Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. The Arab peoples long for freedom. However, the ideology and culture of islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible as long as islam remains dominant.

A recent poll in post-revolution Egypt found that 85 percent of Egyptians are convinced that islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates. The press refers to the events in the Arab world today as the Arab spring. I call it the Arab winter.

Islam and freedom, islam and democracy are not compatible.

The death of Osama bin Laden last week was a victory for the free world, but we will be confronted with Islamic terrorism as long as islam exists, because islam’s founder Muhammad himself was a terrorist, worse than Bin Laden.

And here is another truth: The rise of islam means the rise of sharia law in our judicial systems. In Europe we already have sharia wills, sharia schools, sharia banks. Britain even has sharia courts.

In my own country, the Netherlands, sharia is being applied by the courts in cases relating to divorce, child custody, inheritance, and property ownership. Women are always the victims of this because sharia discriminates women.

This is a disgrace. This is not the way we should treat women.

My friends, I told you that we have just remembered Liberation Day to commemorate the young Americans and all the heroes who offered their lives to free the Netherlands from nazi tyranny. It would be an insult to them if we Europeans would give up that precious freedom for another totalitarian ideology called Islam.

That is the goal for which my party and I work day after day. And we are having success.
In the Netherlands, we are successfully starting to roll back islam. The current Dutch government is a minority government which can only survive with the backing of my party, the Party for Freedom.

We have 24 seats of the 150 seats in parliament and we support the government, in return for measures to prohibit certain aspects of sharia law.

We have achieved that the Netherlands will soon ban the burka and the niqaab.

We will also restrict immigration from non-Western countries by up to 50% in the next four years. We are not going to allow islam to steal our country from us. It was the land of our fathers, it is our land now, our values are based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism and we will pass this on to our children with all the freedoms that the previous generations have fought for.

Let those who want to rob us from our freedoms, stay in their own countries. We do not need them. If you want to wear a burqa, stay in Saudi-Arabia. If you want four wives, stay in Iran. If you want to live in a country where the islamic ideology is dominant, stay in Pakistan, if you don’t want to assimilate in our society, stay in Somalia. But don’t come over here.

We are also going to strip criminals who have a double nationality – for instance Dutch and Moroccan, and who repeatedly commit serious crimes, of their Dutch nationality. We will send them packing, back to their homeland.

My friends, what the Party for Freedom has achieved, shows that it can be done. We can fight the islamization of our societies.

Dear friends, here is my warning. Make no mistake: Islam is also coming for America. In fact, it is already here. America is facing a stealth jihad, the islamic attempt to introduce sharia law bit by bit. Last March, a judge in Tampa, Florida, ruled that a lawsuit against a mosque and involving the control of 2.4 million dollars, should proceed under Islamic law.

My friends, be aware that this is only the beginning. This is also how it started in Europe. If things continue like this, you will soon have the same problems as we are currently facing.

Leaders who talk about immigration without mentioning islam are blind. They ignore the most important problem Europe and America are facing. I have a message for them: it’s islam stupid!

My friends, fortunately, not all politicians are irresponsible. Here, in Tennessee, brave politicians want to pass legislation which gives the state the power to declare organisations as terrorist groups and allowing material supporters of terrorism to be prosecuted. I applaud them for that. They are true heroes.

Yesterday and today, I met some of those brave legislators. They told me that Tennessee in particular is a target of islam. Help them win their battle.

They need your support.

While Tennessee is in the frontline, similar legislative initiatives are also being taken in the states of Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Carolina, Texas, Florida, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana. It is encouraging to see that so many politicians are willing to resist islam.

This gives us hope and courage. I am not a pessimist. We can still turn the tide – even in Europe – if we act today.

There are five things which we must do.

First, we must defend freedom of speech.

Freedom is the source of human creativity and development. People and nations wither away without the freedom to question what is presented to them as the truth.

Without freedom of speech we risk becoming slaves. Frederick Douglass, the 19th century black American politician, the son of a slave, said – I quote – “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

I have already told you about my court case. This legal charade will not, however, prevent me from saying the truth. Never. I will speak out, even if they drag me before 500 courts and threaten to jail me for a thousand years.

The fact that we are being treated as criminals for telling the truth must not deter us. We are doomed if we remain silent or let ourselves be silenced. Let us not forget, this is our first and most important obligation: defend the right to speak the truth.

Second, we must end cultural relativism and political correctness. We must repeat it over and over again, especially to our children: Our Western culture based on Christianity and Judaism is superior to the islamic culture. Our laws are superior to sharia. Our judeo-christian values are better than islam’s totalitarian rules.

And because they are superior and better, we must defend them. We must fight for our own identity, or else we will lose it. We need to be warriors for the good, because the good is worth fighting for. Neutrality in the face of evil is evil.

Third, we must stop the islamization of our countries. More islam means less freedom. There is enough islam in the West already. We must stop immigration from non-Western countries, which are mostly islamic countries. We must expel criminal immigrants. We must forbid the construction of new hate palaces called mosques.

We must also close down all islamic schools because educating children in a spirit of hate is one of the worst things imaginable. We must introduce anti-sharia legislation everywhere in the free world. Enough is enough.

Fourth, we must take pride in our nations again. We must cherish and preserve the culture and identity of our country. Preserving our own culture and identity is the best antidote against islamization.

And fifth, last but certainly not least, we must elect wise and courageous leaders who are brave enough to address the problems which are facing us, including the threat of islam.
Politicians who have the courage to speak the truth about islam.

Politicians who dare to denounce the devastating results of the multicultural society.
Politicians who – without political correctness – say: enough is enough.

You and I, Americans and Europeans, we belong to a common Western culture. We share the ideas and ideals of our common Judeo-Christian heritage. In order to pass this heritage on to our children and grandchildren, we must stand together, side by side, in our struggle against Islamic barbarism.

That, my friends, is why I am here. I am here to forge an alliance. Our international freedom alliance. We must stand together for the Judeo-Christian West.

We will not allow islam to overrun Israel and Europe, the cradle of the judeo-Christian civilization.

My friends, we will stand together.

We will stand firm.

We will not submit. Never. Not in Israel, not in Europe, not in America. Nowhere.

We will survive.

We will stop islam.

We will defend our freedoms.

We will remain free.

Thank you.

Indeed, Islam from the time of the Hegira has been a political ideology. Thus Wilders' statements about Islam and Islamism have been echoed by Muslims themselves and all impartial analysts since the beginning. Only in our befogged politically correct age are they remotely controversial. And even his characterization of Muhammad has been shared by a great many non-Muslims throughout history, as well as by Muslims who acknowledged the facts but differed on their moral evaluation.

"Geert Wilders’ problem with Islam," by Jonathan Kay in the National Post, May 8:

As an editor at the National Post, I often rely on three letters to protect my columnists from human-rights tribunals: I-S-M — these being the difference between spelling Islam and Islamism.

The former is a religion — like Christianity or Judaism. The latter is an ideology, which seeks to impose an intolerant fundamentalist version of Islam on all Muslims, and spread the faith throughout the world. Declaring Islamism a menace isn’t controversial. Declaring Islam a menace is considered hate speech.

Geert Wilders’ refusal to deploy those three letters is the reason that the 47-year-old Dutch politician travels with bodyguards, and cannot sleep in the same house two nights in a row. For Mr. Wilders, the problem plaguing Western societies is Islam, full stop. Terrorism, tyranny, the subjugation of women — these are not perversions of Islam, as he sees it, but rather its very essence.

“The word ‘Islamism’ suggests that there is a moderate Islam and a non-moderate Islam,” he told me during an interview in Toronto on Sunday. “And I believe that this is a distinction that doesn’t exist. It’s like the Prime Minister of Turkey [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, said ‘There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it.’ This is the Islam of the Koran.”

“Now, you can certainly make a distinction among the people,” he adds. “There are moderate Muslims — who are the majority in our Western societies — and non-moderate Muslims.”

“But Islam itself has only one form. The totalitarian ideology contained in the Koran has no room for moderation. If you really look at what the Koran says, in fact, you could argue that ‘moderate’ Muslims are not Muslims at all. It tells us that if you do not act on even one verse, then you are an apostate.”

Unlike most critics of Islam, who tend to shy away from the explosive subject of Mohammed himself, Mr. Wilders forthrightly describes the Muslim Prophet as a dictator, a pedophile and a warmonger. “If you study the life of Mohammed,” Mr.Wilders told me, “you can see that he was a worse terrorist than Osama bin Laden ever was.”....

Read it all.

The fact that this trial continues is a telling indication of the death-wish of the West.

Final remarks by Geert Wilders at his trial in Amsterdam, May 2nd, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sharia show trial of Geert Wilders for telling the truth about Islam will continue. His attempt to have the trial judges removed for their obvious bias has failed, but that is no surprise in a proceeding which is in itself a manifestation of a relentless bias. Free Speech Death Watch Update: "Anti-Islam lawmaker's trial on hate speech charges to continue; move to dismiss judges fails," from The Associated Press, April 18:

AMSTERDAM — Appeals judges in a hate speech case against anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders have rejected a defence motion for trial judges to be dismissed because of alleged bias.

Wilders, leader of the country's third-largest political party, is charged with inciting hatred against Muslims with remarks branding Islam as violent by nature.

His lawyers had argued judges were biased after they declined to press perjury charges against a witness whose testimony contradicted earlier public statements.

An appeals panel said Monday the lower court's ruling was not cause for dismissal....

The Netherlands enforces Sharia provisions forbidding non-Muslims to speak critically of Islam. "Dutch anti-Islam politician's hate speech trial resumes, lawyer questions judge's independence," from The Associated Press, April 13:

AMSTERDAM — The hate speech trial of Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders has resumed, with defence lawyers seeking to discredit one of the judges that ordered the lawmaker to face trial for allegedly inciting hatred against Muslims.

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

Defence witness Hans Jansen testified Wednesday that appeals Judge Tom Schalken tried to talk to him at a dinner party shortly before the trial was to begin, which could be seen as improper contact....

English translation of an op-ed piece that Geert Wilders published today in the Dutch magazine “HP/De Tijd.”

To know why Islam is a mortal danger one must not only consider the Koran but also the character of Muhammad, who conceived the Koran and the entirety of Islam.

The Koran is not just a book. Muslims believe that Allah himself wrote it and that it was dictated to Muhammad in the original version, the Umm al-Kitab, which is kept on a table in heaven. Consequently one cannot argue with the contents. Who would dare to disagree with what Allah himself has written? This explains much of Muhammadan behaviour, from the violence of jihad to the hatred and persecution of Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims and apostates. What we in the West regard as abnormal, is perfectly normal for Islam.

A second insuperable problem with Islam is the figure of Muhammad. He is not just anyone. He is al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man. To become a Muslim one must pronounce the Shahada (the Muslim creed). By pronouncing the Shahada one testifies that there is no god that can be worshipped except Allah, and one testifies that Muhammad is his servant and messenger.

The Koran, and hence Allah, lays down that Muhammad’s life must be imitated. The consequences of this are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis.

There has been much analysis of Muhammad’s mental sanity. In spite of all the available research, it is rarely mentioned or debated. It is a taboo to discuss the true nature of the man whom one and a half billion Muslims around the world regard as a holy prophet and example to be followed. That taboo must be breached in the West, and here in the Netherlands.

Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim who established the organisation for apostates of Islam Faith Freedom International. In his latest book he posits that Muhammad is a narcissist, a paedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman, a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter (*). Sina has offered 50,000 dollars for the one who can prove otherwise. Nobody has claimed the reward as yet. And no wonder, as the description is based on the Islamic texts themselves, such as the hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life from testimonies of contemporaries.

The historical Muhammad was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered. The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the jewish Kurayza tribe in Medina in 627. One of those who chopped off their heads was Muhammad. The women and children were sold as slaves. Confronted with the lunacy of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out where the lunacy comes from.

In Vienna the women’s rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was recently sentenced to paying a fine for insulting a religion by calling Muhammad a paedophile. However, that is the truth. Numerous hadiths contain testimonies by Muhammad’s favourite wife, the child wife Aisha. Aisha literally says: “The prophet married me when I was six years old, and had intercourse with me when I was nine.”

According to the historian Theophanes (752-817) Muhammad was an epileptic. Epileptic crises are sometimes accompanied by hallucinations, perspiration form the forehead and foaming at the mouth, the very symptoms which Muhammad displayed during his visions.

In his book “The other Muhammad” (1992) the Flemish psychologist dr. Herman Somers concludes that in his forties the “prophet” began to suffer from acromegaly, a condition caused by a tumor in the pituitary gland, a small organ that is situated just below the brain. When the tumor in the pituitary gland causes too much pressure in the brain, people start to see and hear things that are not there. Somers’s psychopathological diagnosis of Muhammad’s condition is: organic hallucinatory affliction with paranoid characteristics.

The German medical historian Armin Geus speaks of a paranoid hallucinatory schizophrenia. A similar analysis can be found in the book “The Medical Case of Muhammad” by the physician Dede Korkut.

In his book “Psychology of Mohammed: Inside the Brain of a Prophet” Dr. Masud Ansari calls Muhammad “the perfect personification of a psychopath in power.” Muhammad had a unhinged paranoid personality with an inferiority complex and megalomaniac tendencies. In his forties he starts having visions that lead him to believe he has a cosmic mission, and there is no stopping him.

The truth is not always pleasant or politically correct. On the basis of the research referred to above it can be argued that the Islamic creed obliges one and a half billion people around the world, including the one million living in the Netherlands, to take Muhammad as their example. There is no turning back once one has become a Muslim. For even though article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the right to “change his religion or belief,” in Islam there is a death penalty for leaving the faith.

Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave personal danger – as I have experienced. And whoever attempts to escape from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risks death. We cannot continue to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad can provide insight and support to Muslims all over the world who wish to leave Islam.

Apostates are heroes and more than ever they deserve the support of freedom loving people all over the world. Party politics should not be at play in this matter. It is time for us to help these people by exposing Muhammad.

Geert Wilders is an MP in the Netherlands. He is the Chairman of the Party for Freedom (PVV)

This article was published in the Dutch weekly magazine “HP/De Tijd” of March 30, 2011

(*) http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=104835

Geert Wilders's speech at the Annual Lecture at the Magna Carta Foundation in Rome on March 25:

Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture.

Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization – the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.

As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.

It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.

I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.

It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.”
My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots.

Rome is a very appropriate place to address these issues. There is an old saying which people of our Western culture are all familiar with. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” it says. This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land.

The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. Because your norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours.

It is, indeed, appropriate to discuss these matters here in Rome, because the history of Rome also serves as a warning.

Will Durant, the famous 20th century American historian, wrote that “A great civilization cannot be destroyed from outside if it has not already destroyed itself from within.” This is exactly what happened here, in Rome, 16 centuries ago.

In the 5th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival.

Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border.

At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, crossed the river, flooded the Empire and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked.

The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book ‘The River War,’ Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote – I quote – “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” End of quote.

Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it.

This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds.

• The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said – I quote: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”.
• Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas cleric and member of the Palestinian Parliament said – I quote: “Very soon Rome will be conquered.”
• Ali Al-Faqir, the former Jordanian Minister of Religion, stated that – I quote: “Islam will conquer Rome.”
• Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi Defence Academy, said – I quote: “We will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”
Our opponents are hoping for an event that is akin to the freezing of the Rhine in 406, when thousands of immigrants will be given an easy opportunity to cross massively into the West.
• In a 1974 speech to the UN, the Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, said – I quote: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” End of quote.
• Libyan dictator Kadhafi said, I quote: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent.” End of quote.

Our opponents are aiming for a repetition of the fall of Rome in the 5th century and want to use exactly the same methods. “The strategy of exporting human beings and having them breed in abundance is the simplest way to take possession of a territory,” warned the famous Italian author Oriana Fallaci.

However, the situation today could be worse than it was when the Roman Empire fell. The Germanic Barbarians who overran Rome were not driven by an ideology. After having sacked Rome, they eventually adopted the Judeo-Christian civilization of Rome. They destroyed Rome because they wanted its riches, but they realized and recognized that Roman civilization was superior to their own Barbaric culture.

Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were as Oriana Fallaci wrote – I quote – a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again.

Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization.

Europe is islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” – End of quote.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new shariah bank, for every new islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Europe today has to some extent been deliberately planned.

In October 2009, Andrew Neather, the former advisor of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirmed that the British Government had deliberately organized mass immigration as part of a social engineering project. The Blair Government wanted to – I quote – “make the UK truly multicultural.” To achieve this end, 2.3 million foreigners were allowed to enter Britain between 2000 and 2009. Neather says this policy has “enriched” Britain.

It's always hard to choose a gold medalist. If we were compiling a list of the bravest men or women in the world, most of those who really deserved the title would be people unknown to us—South Sudanese soldiers, Pakistani Christian evangelists, daughters of Muslim families who risk honor killings by refusing to follow their parents' grim cultural script... there are so many people who really deserve our recognition whom we will never know this side of the grave. Perhaps I can stipulate that I honor all of them implicitly when today I praise Geert Wilders—a man who speaks out on all of their behalfs, who has dedicated his life to and courted death by exposing the ugly, barely concealed underside of Islamic supremacism. It's not as if our enemies have made a real effort to hide it—it's more like we've chosen to turn our faces away, as one might from the hairy plumber's crack of a machete-wielding kidnapper.

It warmed my heart today to see that paragon of mainstream respectability, the Wall Street Journal, print in its entirety an Op-Ed by Mr. Wilders, in which he informed Americans of the state of free speech in the polity he termed (quoting Vladimir Bukovsky) the EUSSR. Indeed, those of us who have spent the years since 1989 doing little victory dances over the Cold War might like to step back and wonder: Which side really won? Is Western Europe freer and safer today than it was in 1988? Or have the subsequent 23 years pushed the region further toward bureaucratic tyranny than any of us imagined was possible short of a successful Soviet conquest? I remember marching in support of Ronald Reagan's attempt to place tactical nuclear weapons in Europe precisely so that the peoples of my mother continent would not face suffocating restrictions on their free speech, the prospect of religious persecution, or stultifying laws controlling the culture. I thought that in bringing down the commissars we'd consigned such fears to the past. I was wrong.

As Wilders explains to a reading audience that might never have heard his name, he and other Europeans face criminal trials for expressing fact-based opinions about Islam and its political ambitions—trials where truth is no defense. As Wilders asks:

How can all this be possible in supposedly liberal Europe? The Dutch penal code states that anyone who either "publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group or people" or "in any way that insults a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their hetero- or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished."

Early in 2008, a number of leftist and Islamic organizations took me to court, claiming that by expressing my views on Islam I had deliberately "insulted" and "incited hatred" against Muslims. I argued then, as I will again in my forthcoming book, that Islam is primarily a totalitarian ideology aiming for world domination.

If you (who are surely better informed) need to explain the situation in Europe to others, I suggest you use this metaphor: Imagine that sexual harassment law, in its most egregious form, were applied to the whole of society—the kind of laws that penalize “unwelcome” romantic attentions, of the sort which it is impossible to determine will be unwelcome in advance. Or as the prophetic Chris Rock once said of Clarence Thomas:

Anita Hill started this whole thing. It's all about looks, you know? Because if Clarence Thomas looked like Denzel Washington, this would have never happened! She'd be all, "Oh, stop it, Clarence, you nasty! Your fine self!" So, what's sexual harrassment, when an ugly man wants some? "Oh, he ugly! Call the police! Call the authority!"

Truth doesn't matter—get it? It doesn't matter (as European courts have ruled) whether every word Geert Wilders is saying is true. It wouldn't make any difference if all he'd done was to read aloud, without commentary, the most offensive passages from the Qur'an and supporting hadiths. Objective reality, what people are actually saying, makes absolutely no difference. The future that European Muslims really do, admittedly, have in mind for non-believers, women, gays, and Jews... none of that is relevant. All that matters is whether the truth he is speaking is somehow offensive.

As Wilders writes in the Journal, “in 2008 the EU approved its so-called 'Council Framework Decision on combating Racism and Xenophobia,' and the EU's 27 nations have since had to incorporate it into their national legislation. The decision orders that 'racist or xenophobic behavior must constitute an offence in all Member States and be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.' It defines 'racism and xenophobia' so broadly that every statement that an individual might perceive as insulting to a group to which he belongs becomes punishable by law.”

“The perverse result is that in Europe it is now all but impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam, or about the effects of immigration of Islam's adherents.”

The magnificent irony is that if such laws were consistently applied, the Qur'an itself and much of its supporting literature ought actually to be illegal to distribute anywhere in Europe—not that we ought to support such an oppressive outcome. Indeed, if I were the sort of person who wanted the government to create official reading lists that every student had to master, one of the first books I would require is the Qur'an. It ought to be taught alongside Mein Kampf and Lenin's What Is To Be Done?, and the commentary that ought to accompany them should be works by Geert Wilders, Viktor Frankl, and Alexander Solzshenitsyn.

Common sense has not yet broken through, but at least it has a chance. Free Speech Death Watch Alert from Eurabia: "Judge: Anti-Islam lawmaker can seek dismissal," from the Associated Press, February 17:

AMSTERDAM (AP) -- An Amsterdam court said Monday it will reconsider dismissing the hate speech trial of one of the country's most popular leaders, an anti-immigrant politician who compared Islam to fascism and called for a ban on the Quran.

Preliminary objections to Geert Wilders' trial were heard by an another panel of judges last year, but that court stepped down when it became embroiled in allegations of potential bias against him.

The Wilders' defense team had a right to present its preliminary objections again, and if they are granted "then the case is over and out," Judge Marcel van Oosten said.

Wilders, the powerful head of the Freedom Party, faces charges of "inciting discrimination" for his remarks, which opponents say have led to more anti-Muslim discrimination. Wilders denies wrongdoing, saying he has a right to freedom of speech and that many Dutch voters support him.

Even before the first panel of judges was dismissed, prosecutors had conceded they didn't think their evidence was strong enough for a conviction.

But if the case is to be heard, then Wilders' defense lawyer Bram Moszkowicz said at a hearing last week that he wants a complete retrial with new witnesses.

Van Oosten ruled that if the case continues past preliminary objections, then Moszkowicz will be allowed to call some of the witnesses he requested. Those include Islamic scholars to testify about the evidence for Wilders' claims that it is an inherently violent religion.

However, the judge rejected requests to hear several other witnesses, including Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch-born Islamic radical who killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 over perceived religious insults.

Van Oosten said Bouyeri doesn't qualify as an expert.

"It's generally known that among the adherents of Islam, as in other religions, one can find some people who aren't shy to endorse or apply the use of violence," the judge said. "That doesn't need any further evidence."

"...as in other religions..." Hence all those Christian suicide bombers.

Moszkowicz's key preliminary arguments the first time around were that the case had been motivated by Wilders' political enemies, and that most of his alleged anti-Muslim remarks are protected speech because they were made as part of public political debate....

After booking big gains in national elections last year, his Freedom Party is propping up an all-conservative minority Cabinet in exchange for a new round of restrictions on immigration and measures such as a ban on Muslims wearing face-covering clothes in public.

Shameful. Free Speech Death Watch and Eurabia Alerts: "Judges Rule Case Against Dutch Anti-Islam MP To Continue," by Lauren Comiteau for the Voice of America, February 14:

A court in Amsterdam on Monday has ruled that the hate speech trial of Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders will go on, with new judges listening to the defense's preliminary objections to the case. Those objections were already heard by a different panel of judges last year, but a retrial was ordered because of possible judicial bias against Wilders. The populist politician is charged with inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims and other non-Western groups.

If judges accept Mr. Wilders' objections to the proceedings to be argued at a later date, then his case will be dismissed. If not, the trial will continue with Geert Wilders being allowed to question only some of the witnesses he wanted to call in his defense.

He told judges last week that he wanted to question radical Islamists, what this court referred to as Islamic experts by experience, including convicted murderer Mohammed Bouyeri, who killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh seven years ago. Wilders argues that Bouyeri is living proof that Islam leads to violence.

But judges said the court already knows there's a violent strain in some Islamic corners and limited Wilders' witness list to a few Islamic experts and a controversial judge who the politician believes biased his case.

Wilders maintains it's not Muslims but the Islamic religion and the Koran he's taken on -- something allowed under Dutch regulations concerning freedom of speech....

Speech of Geert Wilders at the resumption of his trial in Amsterdam today:

The lights are going out all over Europe. All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization. Everywhere the foundation of the West is under attack.

All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us since fourteenth centuries. An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom. The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve [a Dutch author], the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity. The ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and can only produce societies that are backward and impoverished. Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology.

My trial is not an isolated incident. Only fools believe it is. All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass-immigration, which will ultimately result in an islamic Europe - a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Anyone who thinks or speaks individually is at risk. Freedom loving citizens who criticize islam, or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between islam and crime or honour killing, must suffer and are threatened or criminalized. Those who speak the truth are in danger.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think.

This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country. It is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people. For centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology.

Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right. Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said here last year:

It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of free people - and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament - to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. Hence it is a right and a duty to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called islam. I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphant from this trial. I hope not only that I shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe.

Mohammed Bouyeri, who murdered Theo van Gogh on a street in Amsterdam in 2004 in the name of Islam, and threatened other Dutch politicians as well, doesn't foment "fear and hatred of immigrants." The Islamic supremacists in the Netherlands who regularly manifest their contempt for Dutch society and law, and intention ultimately to impose Sharia there, don't foment "fear and hatred of immigrants." No, it's all Geert Wilders' fault.

Note also: "Other documents which mention Wilders look at preparations to combat the effect of his anti-Koran film Fitna prior to its release in 2008."

"Wilders is a 'golden pompadoured maverick': Wikileaks," from Dutch News, December 15 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Geert Wilders is a 'golden-pompadoured, maverick' who is 'no friend of the US', according to a briefing document on Dutch politics for US president Barack Obama, put together in July 2009.

The document, published by whistleblower website Wikileaks and hosted by the Guardian, was drawn up by US diplomats to brief Obama ahead of his meeting with the then prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende.

In the document, the US official states: 'Wilders is no friend of the US: he opposes Dutch military involvement in Afghanistan; he believes development assistance is money wasted; he opposes NATO missions outside 'allied' territory; he is against most EU initiatives; and, most troubling, he forments [sic] fear and hatred of immigrants.' .

Other documents which mention Wilders look at preparations to combat the effect of his anti-Koran film Fitna prior to its release in 2008.

Here is the text of the speech Geert Wilders gave in Tel Aviv today:

Shalom chaveriem,

Let me start by saying that it is with great sadness that I share your grief over the deaths of more than 40 brave Israelis who lost their lives - many while trying to save others in the great fire near Haifa. My country, the Netherlands, is amongst other countries helping to put down this fire, which is threatening the lives and property of thousands of your compatriots. I offer my heartfelt condolences to the families of those who perished. My thoughts are with them.

Israel is an immense source of inspiration for me. When I came to your country for the first time as a teenager, I lived here for a year.

I am not ashamed to stand with Israel, but proud. I am grateful to Israel. I will always defend Israel. Your country is the cradle of Western civilization. We call it the Judeo-Christian civilization with good reason.

Israel is often being treated unfairly. The world looks at the plight of the Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon, Gaza, and other places, and many blame Israel. The UN claims that there are over 4.7 million Palestinian refugees, and many blame Israel. These voices say the Palestinians should be allowed to return to "Palestine." But where is Palestine? Many say Israel must solve the problems of Palestine. But is Israel guilty of the plight of the Palestinian refugees?

My answer is "No." The Arab leaders are to be blamed - and Islam is to be blamed. Let me first tell you why, and then I will tell you where Palestine can be found.

At the end of World War II, there were 50 million refugees. Today, all the refugee problems dating from before the 1950s have been solved. All, except one - the problem of the Palestinians.

Why did this problem not get solved? The reason is simple: Because the Arab countries did not allow it to get solved. And because Islam does not allow it to get solved.
In May 1948, the number of Jews in the Arab countries was estimated to be close to 1 million. Today, fewer than 8,000 Jews are left in the entire Arab world. In 1948, the Arab countries forced the Jews out and confiscated their properties. More Jews fled the Arab countries than Arabs fled Israel. Where are the Jewish refugee camps? There are none.

So, why are there refugee camps for Palestinians in areas surrounding Israel? Because the Palestinians were not welcomed in the neighboring Arab countries. There was no Arab solidarity; the refugees were forced into camps and slums, where many of their descendants still linger today.

Under international definitions the status of refugee or displaced person only applies to first generation refugees. However, the UN makes an exception for Palestinians. Descendants of Palestinian refugees are granted the same refugee status as their ancestors. Consequently, the number of so-called Palestinian refugees registered with the UN increased from 711,000 in 1950 to over 4.7 million in 2010. These refugees are being used as a demographic weapon against Israel.

Instead of blaming the inhospitable Arab regimes, many blame Israel.

Klein Verzet has the details here about how Judge Tom Schalken tried to strong-arm the great Islamic scholar Hans Jansen, an expert witness for Wilders.

"Judges told to step down in Wilders trial," from Al-BBC, October 22:

Judges in the hate speech trial of Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders have been ordered to step down by an independent appeals panel.

The move follows a request by Mr Wilders' lawyers who said they feared the judges were biased against him.

The legal process that began in January must now begin again with new judges. The trial itself started in October.

Mr Wilders faces five charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.

If found guilty, he faces a maximum sentence of one year in jail....

Common sense. "If Islam were treated equally, Mohammed would be fair game," by Lorne Gunter in the National Post, October 20 (thanks to Twostellas):

During the controversy over cartoons of Mohammed that appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2005, I received an email from a reader insisting, "This is about treating Islam equally! I am a Muslim and all we want is for our religion to be treated with the same respect as other religions."

The problem with his demand is that the cartoonists in question did treat Islam in the same way Western culture treats Christianity, Judaism and other faiths. The media typically reserves no special reverence or respect for the major Western religions (including their Prophets). And so if Islam were treated "equally," then Mohammed would be fair game, too.

How many times in the past decades can you remember lib-left media commentators disparaging the way Christian fundamentalists propped up George Bush -- typically in language that implied Christian voters were less intelligent than most? Read the Toronto Star on any day and there will be two or three references to Christians and the Harper government that drip with sneering disdain for the views and brains of both.

Of course there are also Andres Serrano's Piss Christ photograph and Chris Ofili's Holy Virgin Mary, made in part out of dung, among other artworks that have challenged Western notions of faith and perception.

Few Western media outlets would censor cartoon depictions of Christ. Danish publishers merely wanted the same lack of courtesy extended to Islam and its prophet....

If there is any justice in the Netherlands, or enough backbone to defend Western civilization, Mr. Wilders will go free.

He has already been found to be an "Islamophobe," which means someone who says things about Islam that Islamic supremacists would prefer not be known. And the fact of the proceeding itself is enough of an assertion of his guilt by the prosecutors. "Wilders has already been found guilty, says his lawyer in 14 hour speech," from Dutch News, October 19 (thanks to Mackie):

Anti-Islam campaigner Geert Wilders should never have been taken to court on inciting hatred charges because he has already been found guilty, the MP's lawyer Bram Moszkowicz said on Tuesday.

Moszkowicz was outlining the defence's case at the MP's trial in Amsterdam.

The lawyer said Amsterdam appeal court had already found the MP guilty in January 2009, when it ruled in favour of a group of individuals and organisations who wanted to see Wilders prosecuted.

Not guilty

The public prosecution department, which last week said the MP should be found not-guilty on all counts, had decided not to take him to court, saying there was no case against him.

Moszkowicz said that appeal court ruling meant Wilders could not have a fair trial. It is a 'scandal' that the court has already ruled Wilders to be an Islamaphobe, the lawyer said.

'Judges, a previous court has already decided that Wilders' statements are insulting to Muslims,' Moszkowicz, who estimates his full testimony will take 14 hours, said.

Galileo

In addition, Moszkowicz said it is important to note that at least some of the statements made by Wilders are true. He likened the MP to Galileo, who went against established church teachings in the 17th century when he argued the sun did not revolve around the earth.

'Do not shoot the messenger,' Nos tv quoted the lawyer as saying....

At least some of Wilders' statements are true? And this is his lawyer speaking?

Taliban spokesman says that the Dutch must lie down and do nothing to prevent their own conquest and Islamization -- or else. "Taliban warns Dutch government: newspaper," from Expatica, October 18:

A senior Afghan Taliban official has warned of an attack against the Netherlands if its new government implements the agenda of anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders, the Volkskrant daily reported Monday.

"If the Netherlands maintains or intensifies its anti-Islam policy, it is certain that the Netherlands will be the target of an attack by a jihadist group," Zabiullah Mujahed, a long-time Taliban spokesman, is quoted as having told the newspaper....

"If he (Wilders) succeeds in manipulating the Dutch parliament to pass more anti-Islamic legislation ... there is no doubt that Muslims from other countries will take action to help their Muslim brothers and sisters," Mujahed said.

He added that the Taliban was "very careful in its relations with the Netherlands" because "it was the first country that decided to stop the occupation of our country"....

The lead story in Monday's FrontPage is my piece about the prosecutors recommending that Geert Wilders be found not guilty of the trumped-up Stalinist crimes of which he stands accused:

Friday came the good news: Amsterdam public prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman declared Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders not guilty of discrimination against Muslims and inciting hatred against them. But his trial continues: the prosecutors' decision is not final. A judge will issue a ruling on November 5, and he doesn't have to follow the prosecutors' recommendations. So the freedom of speech still hangs in the balance in the Netherlands, as well as in Europe and the West in general.

Nonetheless, van Roessel and Velleman brought an unexpected bit of common sense to this ridiculous and ominous show trial. Regarding Wilders' much-trumpeted call to ban the Koran, the prosecutors said, according to Dutch News [1], that "comments about banning the Koran can be discriminatory, but because Wilders wants to pursue a ban on democratic lines, there is no question of incitement to discrimination 'as laid down in law.'"

Many of Wilders' critics, and even some who would otherwise support his stand for human rights against the discrimination and oppression of Sharia, have professed to find an inconsistency in Wilders' defense of the freedom of speech and call to ban the Koran. However, in this Wilders was actually calling upon Dutch authorities to be consistent themselves: the Netherlands has "hate speech" laws, under which Mein Kampf is banned. Wilders said in the Dutch Parliament that "the Koran is a book that incites to violence," and that "the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code." If Mein Kampf could be banned under that article, why not another book that manifestly incites its readers to violence and hatred?

I myself don't support "hate speech" laws or the banning of any book. While there is no justification for speech that is genuinely and legitimately hateful -- racial slurs, etc., "hate speech" laws are simply tools in the hands of those who are entrusted with deciding what constitutes "hate speech" in the first place: the powerful can all too easily use them to label their opposition "hateful" and thereby silence dissent. But as long as the Netherlands has such laws, Dutch authorities should not apply them selectively, and Wilders is not self-contradictory in standing up for the freedom of speech while calling for these laws to be applied consistently, not in a self-serving and politically manipulative manner.

Meanwhile, regarding his comparison of the Koran with Mein Kampf, van Roessel and Velleman called it "crude but that did not make it punishable," and generously acknowledged that Wilders had spoken out not against Muslims as such, but against the threat to human rights and Dutch society represented by the growing assertiveness of Islam in Dutch political and social life.

Nonetheless, the judge could still rule against Wilders, sending him to prison or levying a fine upon him. Wilders himself has ably articulated what's at stake: "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 criticize an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom."...

There is more.

This is very good news. It's not over -- the judge may overrule the prosecutors. But this is a crucial step toward sanity in the Netherlands.

Let's hope that Wilders will emerge fully acquitted, and that this will be the end of these efforts to curtail the freedom of speech. But I suspect we will be seeing much more of these kinds of trials in the future. Let's hope they all have a happy ending such as what looks more possible for Wilders with this news. "Wilders not guilty on all counts - Update," from Dutch News, October 15 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The public prosecution department on Friday afternoon stated that Geert Wilders is not guilty of discriminating against Muslims. Earlier on Friday it announced he should also be found not guilty of inciting hatred.

Prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman reached their conclusions after a careful reading of interviews with and articles by the anti-Islam politician and a viewing of his anti-Koran film Fitna.

They said comments about banning the Koran can be discriminatory, but because Wilders wants to pursue a ban on democratic lines, there is no question of incitement to discrimination 'as laid down in law'.

On the comparison of the Koran with Mein Kampf, the prosecutors said the comparison was 'crude but that did not make it punishable'.

Dealing earlier on Friday with incitement to hatred, Van Roessel and Velleman said some comments could incite hatred against Muslims if taken out of context, but if the complete text is considered, it can be seen that Wilders is against the growing influence of Islam and not against Muslims per sé.

On Tuesday, the prosecutors said the MP should not be found guilty of group insult....

UPDATE: I've revised this headline and post to reflect more clearly the fact that the judge has yet to rule.

In FrontPage this morning I discuss the ominous implications of one of the prosecutors' statements in the Stalinist show trial of Geert Wilders:

On Tuesday, as his trial resumed in Amsterdam on various charges of offending Muslims, Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders won one victory and suffered one defeat. This is welcome news for Wilders personally, since any acquittal moves him closer to the end of these nightmarish proceedings; however, the ominous implications of his trial in general for the freedom of speech were reinforced on the same day, and those implications could have deleterious effects far beyond the Wilders trial itself.

First, the good news: public prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman noted that the statements for which he is on trial referred to Islam and the Qur'an, not to Muslims as people - although they did add in the politically correct observation that Wilders' statements might nevertheless hurt Muslims' feelings. Despite that assertion, in a burst of logical thinking unusual in these proceedings, they recommended that since Wilders was speaking about Islamic texts and teachings and not Muslim people, the charge against him of group defamation should be dropped.

That was good as far as it went, although Wilders still faces charges of incitement that are as dangerous as they are vague. The danger of such charges was thrown into vivid relief Tuesday by a chilling statement that the prosecutors made: that Wilders will not be allowed to defend himself from charges of inciting hatred by arguing that what he said was true. Said van Roessel: "You can expect a politician to be aware of the impact of his words and in any case, the legal limit may not be crossed, no matter how important it may be to address supposed problems and to contribute to matters of general interest."

So if the truth is not deemed to "address supposed problems and contribute to matters of general interest," then it may not be spoken. The truth is now inadmissible in Dutch courtrooms - a chilling reality with likely reverberations far beyond the trial of Wilders himself.

By declaring the truth inadmissible in court, the prosecutors have stepped over the boundary of the rule of law into an arrogance of power that historically has led to authoritarianism and totalitarianism, powered by and only capable of being stopped by brute force. For van Roessel did not say, and indeed could not say, who would be given the right or authority to determine whether or a particular truth addressed supposed problems and contributed to matters of general interest, and could thus lawfully be encunciated. If the truth is no longer the criterion of judgment in Dutch courts, then the only thing that can fill the vacuum it will leave is the raw will to power. Judges no longer have to sift evidence and come to a conclusion based thereon; they only need to make sure they are satisfying those with the most money or the biggest guns.

In today's Europe, Islamic supremacists will be only too happy to fill this vacuum, and certainly no difficulty coming up with whatever is required in terms of money and ordnance to bring their will to power to fruition. Authoritarian states abound in the Islamic world, and a rootless and aimless Europe, having utterly severed its own cultural moorings, will be fertile soil before too long to plant new ones.

Dutch authorities have opened the door to the extinguishing not only of the freedom of speech, but of all the other freedoms, arising from the nature and dignity of the human person, that are the hard-won legacy of Western Judeo-Christian civilization. Equality of rights of all people before the law? Citizens of the new Europe will indeed be equal with one another, but only in the sense that all will be equal in having no rights before the almighty state, which alone defines what is acceptable to be thought and said and what isn't.

Europe faces this multifarious hell whether or not Wilders is acquitted of the remaining charges against him: a crucial Rubicon has already been crossed with the trial itself, and if the prosecutors' statement that the truth is no defense is not countermanded and rebuked forthwith by the highest possible relevant authorities, then the darkness will descend upon Europe even more quickly than it did during the halcyon days of the Third Reich.

Even with his partial acquittal Tuesday, Wilders' nightmare - and Europe's - could be just beginning.

As reported in this story, a Muslim's written complaint against Geert Wilders at his trial today claimed that "My family and I no longer feel safe in the Netherlands," because of his criticism of Islam and of Muslim communities' conduct while living in the West, and because of his film, Fitna.

The claim seems like a far-fetched sob story, but it was nonetheless part of a presentation intended to represent broader Muslim opinion in order to sway the court against Wilders. And it is part of a larger trend than this court case.

Indeed, as one recalls the past few months, there has been a detectable change in approach among Islam's spokespeople and apologists.

One hardly even sees anymore the formerly classic moves to deflect criticism of Islam's teachings: the old chestnuts like "You don't speak Arabic and you're missing the subtlety," or "You're cherry-picking verses and interpreting them out of context," or the magical apologetic sleight of hand by which the "Sahih," or "sound" ahadith suddenly become less "Sahih" when their accounts of appalling behavior by Muhammad are quoted critically by non-Muslims.

Rather, there is a curious uniformity lately in attempts to portray all criticism of Islam as incitement, and examples abound. Among others, there is Daisy Khan's assertion that opponents of the Ground Zero mega-mosque represent a kind "metastasized anti-semitism" aimed at Muslims. There is Reza Aslan's slanderous labeling of Stop the Islamization of America as a Neo-Nazi group, thus implying Nazi-like intentions on its part.

There is the Organization of the Islamic Conference which, according to this report, called a book about the Danish Muhammad cartoons "provocative and inciting," and that was even after the book had been sanitized of reprints of the individual cartoons to deflect anticipated Muslim outrage. Again: Incitement to what? It's a book about drawings!

But that doesn't stop the OIC or their sympathizers who argue, as a corollary, that all criticism of Islam that can't be assuaged with a little one-way "interfaith dialogue" must be motivated by hatred, and is thus necessarily both irrational and dangerous.

Never mind, speaking of irrational and dangerous behavior, that despite all claims to "incitement," the people getting hurt in the aftermath of various "insults" are either Muslims injured or killed in Muslim countries in protests that turn to rampages, or non-Muslims threatened, attacked or murdered at the hands of Muslims who feel it is their right and duty to seek blood as recompense for hurt feelings.

No, the facts won't stop them from pressing on to stop the discussion on all levels: more immediately, that means stopping whatever debate is currently in progress, like the one surrounding the Ground Zero mega-mosque. But more broadly, the goal as explicitly stated by the OIC is to implement "a legally binding institutional instrument" to do away with such speech.

It is in this context that such testimony against Wilders has come forth.

Granted, one may argue that Muslim spokespeople have been reduced to crying "Nazi" and alleging incitement out of desperation, because they have played all their other cards unsuccessfully, and the routine has become worn out. Unfortunately, the mainstream media have proven themselves willing enablers nonetheless. But the more the "incitement" card is played, however, the more obvious it should become to those who still "believe their lyin' eyes."

And one thing is certain: as long as Islamic groups believe this approach is working, we will see more of it.

"My family and I no longer feel safe in the Netherlands because Mr. Wilders is continually making hateful remarks about Islamic Dutch people." Have they been attacked? Why, no. Have marauding bands of Dutch "youth" chanting Wilders' name attacked innocent Muslims, torched mosques, burned (gasp!) the Qur'an? Why, no. Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh are still dead, however.

When a court can take seriously a complaint that Muslims no longer "feel safe" in the Netherlands because of Wilders, the rule of law is on the ropes. Law based on feelings is no law at all; it is just a club to beat the opponents of the elites and the protected classes.

Also, one wonders what resistance to jihad activity would be deemed acceptable by the Dutch elites. Islamic groups in Europe and America have never seen an anti-jihad initiative that they liked; once one starts doing their bidding, one ends up at a state of utter defenselessness fairly quickly.

"Court hears Muslims' complaints against lawmaker," by Toby Sterling for AP, October 6:

AMSTERDAM -- Muslims in the Netherlands say that remarks by politician Geert Wilders have poisoned attitudes toward them, making them feel unwelcome and at risk, according to complaints disclosed at his hate speech trial Wednesday.

"My family and I no longer feel safe in the Netherlands because Mr. Wilders is continually making hateful remarks about Islamic Dutch people," said one complaint read out by the judge. "It's getting scary. ... Soon the kids won't be able to say that they're Muslim or half-Moroccan," wrote the citizen, whose name was not released.

Dozens of similar complaints filed with public prosecutors eventually led them to file charges against Wilders, citing frequent statements he has made comparing Islam to Fascism, calling for a ban on Muslim immigration and for banning the Quran.

Wilders is charged with inciting discrimination and hatred and with insulting a people on religious grounds, punishable with up to a year in jail and a fine.

Wilders, who polls suggest is the Netherlands' most popular politician, denies any wrongdoing. He says that his opinions are protected by freedom of speech and endorsed by more than a million people who voted for him in national elections last June....

Hate? Judge for yourself

Is what Fitna says about Islam and the Qur'an accurate? See here. But it is not clear in the Wilders show trial whether or not truth is an adequate defense. "Court views anti-Islam film in Wilders hate speech trial," from AP, October 6:

The hate speech trial of politician Geert Wilders has resumed with judges viewing his anti-Islam film "Fitna," which juxtaposes Koranic verses and images of violence, and offended many Muslims worldwide when it was released in 2008.

Of course, those Muslims were not offended when Islamic jihadists juxtaposed Qur'anic verses with violence by committing violent acts and justifying them by reference to those Qur'an verses.

Wilders is charged with inciting hatred against Muslims via "Fitna" and in dozens of public remarks comparing Islam to Fascism, calling for a ban on Muslim immigration and for a ban on the Koran. In one opinion piece he wrote "I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate," adding "I've had enough of the Koran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book."

Wilders argued on Monday that he has a right to freedom of speech and that his remarks were within the bounds of the law.

"I am a suspect here because I have expressed my opinion as a representative of the people," Wilders told judges at the start of the trial.

"Formally I'm on trial here today, but with me, the freedom of expression of many, many Dutch people is also being judged," he said, referring to more than 1.4 million voters who made his party the country's third-largest in June elections....

Indeed.

The railroading of Wilders proceeds apace. An update on this story. "Dutch Court Rejects Wilders Push to Change Judges at Muslim-Insult Trial," by Jurjen van de Pol for Bloomberg, October 5 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Amsterdam district court rejected a request by Freedom Party Leader Geert Wilders, who is on trial for inciting hatred and insulting Muslims, to replace the judges hearing his case because they may be prejudiced.

"There are no weighty indications that the judges have given the impression of being prejudiced," Judge Frans Bauduin, who was brought in to rule on the impartiality question, said at the court today. The trial, which was halted yesterday, will continue with the current judges tomorrow at 9 a.m. local time.

Presiding Judge Jan Moors yesterday, on the first day of the trial, told Wilders the court "reads newspapers and watches television" and that Wilders has been blamed by others for being "good in taking a stand and then avoiding a discussion." By choosing not to testify "it seems you're doing that today as well."

Wilders, who has agreed to support the country's new minority government, challenged the impartiality of the three- judge panel because of what Moors said, claiming "a fair trial isn't possible anymore."...

In FrontPage today I discuss the Wilders trial:

How imperiled is the freedom of speech? Take this passage from Slate magazine: "In 2004, filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered after making anti-Muslim remarks, as was the anti-immigrant politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002. Why is there so much anti-Muslim rhetoric in the Netherlands?"

If Slate flipped those sentences, they'd have their answer. If there is any actual "anti-Muslim rhetoric" in the Netherlands, it is because those who dare to point out the outrages against human rights that Islamic law sanctions get murdered; and those who are still alive are vilified, marginalized, smeared, and put on trial - like Dutch politician and freedom fighter Geert Wilders, whose trial resumed Monday.

"I am on trial, but on trial with me is the freedom of expression of many Dutch citizens." So said Wilders as his trial reopened in Amsterdam. Wilders faces a year in prison or a fine of up to 7,600 euros for supposedly inciting hatred against Muslims - which he has supposedly done by telling the truth about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam themselves to incite hatred and violence against non-Muslims. If anyone should be on trial for "hate," it should be the jihadist imams depicted in Wilders' film Fitna - but in the hyper-politically correct Netherlands of today, the only offender is the non-Muslim who dared to call attention to the hatred they preach: Geert Wilders.

On Monday, after asserting that the freedom of expression of many Dutch citizens was on trial, Wilders continued: "I can assure you, I will continue proclaiming it." He added: "I am sitting here as a suspect because I have spoken nothing but the truth. I have said what I have said and I will not take one word back, but that doesn't mean I've said everything attributed to me." Then he asserted the right to remain silent for the remainder of the proceedings -- whereupon the presiding judge, Jan Moors, claimed that Wilders had gotten a reputation for making bold proclamations but then refusing to discuss them, saying that he was "good in taking a stand and then avoiding a discussion." Moors added: "By remaining silent, it seems you're doing that today as well."

At that, Wilders's attorney, Bram Moszkowicz, moved to have Moors removed for his bias, and the just-resumed trial ground to a halt. Wilders commented: "I thought I had a right to a fair trial, including the right to remain silent. It is scandalous that the judge passes comment on that. A fair trial is not possible with judges like that."

A ruling will be made Tuesday on Moszkowicz's motion, which, if granted, could delay the trial for months. But if the Dutch authorities had any sense of what is really at stake, they would drop all charges against Wilders and adjourn the trial for good. The Wilders trial is a turning point for the West: will Western authorities defend the hard-won principle of the freedom of speech as a bulwark against tyranny and the establishment of protected classes that enjoy rights that other citizens do not have, or will they - in the interests of suicidal political correctness -- allow Islamic supremacists to obliterate that freedom in the interests of establishing in the West the Sharia principle that Islam is not to be questioned or criticized, especially by non-Muslims?...

There is more.

The Telegraph is usually better than this, and does a great deal of useful reporting on stories related to the Islamization of Britain. But the choice of words to describe Wilders' demand that a biased judge be replaced is so very ironic here, considering that his own life is in danger over words and a film that insulted Islam.

He is on trial for just that. Indeed, he is the one under "attack" by the court for exercising his natural and legal rights to free speech in what happened to be politically incorrect way. This is the sort of trial one would expect to find recorded in black-and-white or sepia-toned photographs from a time long since past, spoken of in the same tones as the Scopes trial is today.

And yet it is happening right now, and most of the media is quite alright with that. "Geert Wilders trial suspended after he attacks judge," by Bruno Waterfield for the Telegraph, October 4:

The flamboyant, peroxide blond MP, who holds the balance of power in the Netherlands after coming third in recent national elections on an anti-Muslim platform, told judges that he had no regrets over the comments.

Mr Wilders is being prosecuted for describing the Koran as "fascist" and for comparing it to Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf, a text that is banned in the Netherlands.

He has a right to compare it to whatever he likes, be it the works of Adolf Hitler or Edward Bulwer-Lytton. If it hadn't been the Qur'an, no one would care. If it had been the Bible, no one would have raised an eyebrow.

In March 2008, he released a film called Fitna, Arabic for Strife, which linked the verses in the Koran to anti-Semitism, terrorist attacks in New York and London and urged that, like Nazism, "Islamic ideology has to be defeated".

Prosecutors pointed to a series of quotes and remarks he has made in recent years. In one opinion piece he wrote: "I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate," adding "I've had enough of the Koran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book."

Last year, the Dutch Court of Appeal ruled that, despite the case being dropped by prosecutors, that it considered "criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers" being compared to Nazis.

Mr Wilders faces five charges of inciting racial hatred between Oct 2006 and Mar 2008. If found guilty, Mr Wilders faces over a year in prison or a £6,600 fine.

Speaking at his trial yesterday, Mr Wilders said: "I am sitting here as a suspect because I have spoken nothing but the truth. I have said what I have said and I will not take one word back."

Throwing down an open challenge to the court, Mr Wilders, 47, attacked the three judges sitting in the Amsterdam court for prosecuting him for "stating my opinion in the context of public debate".

"I can assure you, I will continue proclaiming it," he said.

However, proceedings were suspended for 24 hours, after Mr Wilders demanded that the court's presiding judge be replaced.

After an opening statement by Mr Wilders, Bram Moszkowicz, his lawyer told the court that the defendant would exercise his right to silence and would not answer questions during the trial.

Jan Moors, the presiding judge then noted that Mr Wilders has been accused of being "good in taking a stand and then avoiding a discussion" of the issue. "By remaining silent, it seems you're doing that today as well," he said.

Attacking "scandalous" remarks, Mr Wilders and his lawyers asked for the court to be dissolved. "With this presiding judge and such a panel of judges, a fair trial isn't possible anymore," he said.

That's how he "attacked" the judge.

If the court rules in favour of the objections, new judges will need to be appointed, delaying proceedings.

He also accused the Dutch authorities of putting on trial the 1.5 million voters who backed his anti-immigration Freedom Party (PVV) during June elections, making Mr Wilders a kingmaker in Dutch politics.

He and his party's 23 other MPs have lent their support to a minority conservative government in return for key policy concessions, such as a Dutch burka ban and new curbs on immigration.

"I am on trial, but on trial with me is the freedom of expression of many Dutch citizens," he said.

That is what is at stake here. Wilders' being found guilty would be disastrous enough, but the precedent it would set for all Dutch citizens would be beyond Orwell's imagination.

Mr Wilders launched his political crusade against Islam after resigning from the centre-right VVD party in 2005 over its support for EU membership for Turkey.

Another loaded choice of words.

He then polarised the country by making the first European call for full Islamic dress to be banned. In 2005, he was given police protection after the exposure of an Islamist terrorist plot on his life.

Several communities have followed suit on the burqa, along with France, while others consider doing the same. In that regard, Wilders was prophetic, you might say.