Recently in Netherlands Category

Muhammad didn't like dogs:

"Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, 'We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.'" -- Sahih Bukhari 4.54.50

"Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert." -- Sahih Muslim 10.3811

"Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? and then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time." -- Sahih Muslim 551

Hasan Küçük wants to impose Muhammad's tastes on the Dutch. "Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe," by Soeren Kern for the Stonegate Institute, January 31:

A Dutch Muslim politician has called for a ban on dogs in The Hague, the third-largest city in the Netherlands.

Islamic legal tradition holds that dogs are "unclean" animals, and some say the call to ban them in Holland and elsewhere represents an attempted encroachment of Islamic Sharia law in Europe.

This latest canine controversy -- which the Dutch public has greeted with a mix of amusement and outrage -- follows dozens of other Muslim-vs-dog-related incidents in Europe. Critics say it reflects the growing assertiveness of Muslims in Europe as they attempt to impose Islamic legal and religious norms on European society.

The Dutch dustup erupted after Hasan Küçük, a Turkish-Dutch representative on The Hague city council for the Islam Democrats, vehemently opposed a proposal by the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) to make the city more dog friendly.

According to a January 28 report in the Amsterdam-based newspaper De Telegraaf, Küçük counter-argued that keeping dogs as pets is tantamount to animal abuse and he then called for the possession of dogs in The Hague to be criminalized.

According to its website, the Islam Democrats [ID] party is "founded on the Islamic principles of justice, equality and solidarity. ID is a bottom-up response to the large gap between the Muslim and immigrant communities and local politics…ID focuses on the political awareness within the Muslim and immigrant communities. Awareness about the need to organize, but also the need for mutual support."

Paul ter Linden, who represents the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) on The Hague city council, responded to Küçük by saying: "In this country pet ownership is legal. Whoever disagrees with this should move to another country."

Dutch political commentators believe Küçük's declarations are a provocation designed to stir up the Muslim population in The Hague. Muslims -- who now make up more than 12% of the city's population of 500,000 -- view dogs as ritually unclean animals and Küçük's call for a ban on them is a sure vote-getter, they say.

The incident in Holland follows dog-related controversies in other European countries.

In Spain, two Islamic groups based in Lérida -- a city in the northeastern region of Catalonia where 29,000 Muslims now make up around 20% of the city's total population -- asked local officials to regulate the presence of dogs in public spaces so they do not "offend Muslims."

Muslims demanded that dogs be banned from all forms of public transportation including all city buses as well as from all areas frequented by Muslim immigrants. Muslims said the presence of dogs in Lérida violates their religious freedom and their right to live according to Islamic principles.

After the municipality refused to acquiesce to Muslim demands, the city experienced a wave of dog poisonings. More than a dozen dogs were poisoned in September 2011 in Lérida's working class neighborhoods of Cappont and La Bordeta, districts that are heavily populated by Muslim immigrants and where many dogs have been killed over the past several years.

Local residents taking their dogs for walks say they have been harassed by Muslim immigrants who are opposed to seeing the animals in public. Muslims have also launched a number of anti-dog campaigns on Islamic websites and blogs based in Spain.

In Britain, which has become "ground zero" for Europe's canine controversies, blind passengers are being ordered off buses or refused taxi rides because Muslim drivers or passengers object to their "unclean" guide dogs....

There is much more.

Photo from the Daily Mail.

It is one thing to be unidentifiable in a society where one is always under the control of a male guardian and a perpetual minor, but in a free and open society, full participation requires being identifiable as an individual and not merely in relation to another.

For that matter, in the West, unlike other places where the supposed equivalence has been stated very crassly, the bottom line is that the female face is not a private part.

"Dutch plan ban on Muslim face veils next year," from Reuters, January 27 (thanks to Kenneth):

(Reuters) - The Dutch minority government plans to ban Muslim face veils such as burqas and other forms of clothing that cover the face from next year. The ban would make the Netherlands, where 1 million out of 17 million people are Muslim, the second European Union country to ban the burqa after France, and would apply to face-covering veils if they were worn in public.

"People should be able to look at each other's faces and recognize each other when they meet," the interior affairs ministry said in a statement Friday.

The ban will also apply to balaclavas and motorcycle helmets when worn in inappropriate places, such as inside a store, Deputy Prime Minister Maxime Verhagen told reporters, denying that this was a ban on religious clothing.

Geert Wilders' anti-Islam Freedom Party (PVV), which helps give the Liberal-Christian Democrat coalition a majority in parliament, has set considerable political store on getting the so-called burqa ban passed into law.

Few Muslim women in the Netherlands wear the Arabic-style niqabs which leave the eyes uncovered and Afghan-style burqas that cover the face with a cloth grid. Academics estimate the numbers at between 100 and 400, whereas Muslim headscarves which leave the face exposed are far more common.

The coalition has agreed to submit a new law to parliament next week stipulating that offenders would be fined up to 390 euros ($510), the ministry said.

Verhagen said the ban was intended to ensure that a tradition of open communication cherished in Dutch society was upheld, and to prevent people from concealing their identity in order to do harm....

Why we don't see more Muslim reformers, part 578. And these aren't real reformers in any case, as you can see from their reference below to "Islamophobes." "Islamophobia" is a manipulative coinage invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to silence criticism of Islamic supremacism and jihad; that Manji and Dibi would buy into it casts doubts upon their interest in genuine Islamic reform. Manji, for her part, touts recovery of a fantasy Islam of her own making that she claims existed in the mythic past. Self-delusion and deception are not reform. But the fact that she dares criticize Islam in its present form in any way brought out the Allahu-akbaring thugs.

"Salafists disrupt liberal Islam debate in Amsterdam," by Heleen Sittig for Radio Netherlands, December 8 (thanks to David):

Radical Belgian Muslims disrupted a debate on Wednesday evening about a liberal approach to Islam. The leading debaters were Canadian writer and Muslim activist Irshad Manji and Green Left Party MP Tofik Dibi. Both describe themselves as liberal Muslims.

The debate at the Balie venue in Amsterdam consisted of a dialogue between Manji and Dibi about "how reformist Muslims can prevent the Islam debate from being hijacked by extremists, be they Islamophobes or radical Muslims". Irshad Manji, a known critic of Islam, is the author of The Islam Dilemma.

A group of 30 Islamists waving the Salafist flag entered the hall and began shouting "Sharia for Holland". They threatened and spat on Ms Manji. The Islamists, who also threw raw eggs, demanded that the debate participants leave the stage; the debaters refused. Mr Dibi later tweeted that the debate “about a promising new generation of Muslims” was later continued at the request of Ms Manji.

Eventually, the police were called in to remove the protestors. A police spokesperson later said that two of the 22 men involved were arrested, one for making threats, and one for insulting Ms Manji. Tofik Dibi accompanied her to the police station where she filed a report.

Tofik Dibi, speaking later the same evening on public TV talkshow Pauw & Witteman, said that “the disruption of the debate shows that it is necessary to continue the debate on a free and moderate Islam.” Ms Manji added that she had experienced her share of fierce opposition but that she had never before seen anything like this....

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders tweeted: “Dibi does not deserve eggs from radical Muslims or disruption of the meeting. He must be able to say what he wants.”

Where did he get that idea? Why, Muhammad, who is the supreme example of conduct for Muslims (Qur'an 33:21):

"The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)." -- Sahih ("sound," "reliable") Bukhari 7.62.88.

Despite apologists' various tap dances around the subject, from claiming that Aisha was much older, didn't know how old she was, or perhaps was "nine" in Galapagos tortoise years (well, we haven't seen that one yet), Muslims across the world continue to believe this account, accept it, and act accordingly. For calling attention to it and to the untold numbers of girls victimized by it, we're branded as "Islamophobes." "Outcry in The Hague over ‘pedo imam’," from Radio Netherlands Worldwide, December 6:

Labour Party MP Ahmed Marcouch wants to bar imam Mohamed al-Maghraoui from entering the Netherlands.

The controversial Moroccan imam has been invited to attend a conference in the As Sunnah mosque in The Hague.

Al Maghraoui caused an uproar in Morocco in 2008 when he issued a fatwa approving a marriage with a nine-year-old girl. The fatwa has since been nullified by the Moroccan religious authorities and the controversial imam fled to Saudi Arabia to avoid prosecution. He reportedly repeated his fatwa when he returned to Morocco in 2011.

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders has also said the imam should not be allowed to visit the Netherlands.

The As Sunnah mosque has repeatedly been the subject of controversy. Earlier, the Salafist As Sunnah Imam Sheikh Fawaz Jneid called on his followers not to integrate into Dutch society.

Don't let the door hit ya where Allah subhanahu wa-ta'ala split ya.

The mosque has declined to comment on the planned visit by the controversial Moroccan imam.

"Among the domains listed [for fake certificates] are Google, Facebook, Twitter and Skype."

Twitter and Facebook have been key organizing tools for protests, including the current bane of the regime's existence, water fights. An update on this story. "Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians," from BBC News, September 6:

Fresh evidence has emerged that stolen web security certificates may have been used to spy on people in Iran.

Analysis by Trend Micro suggests a spike in the number of compromised DigiNotar certificates being issued to the Islamic Republic.

It is believed the digital IDs were being used to trick computers into thinking they were directly accessing sites such as Google.

In reality, someone else may have been monitoring the communications.

Hundreds of bogus certificates are thought to have been generated following a hack on Netherlands-based DigiNotar.

The company is owned by US firm Vasco Data Security. [...]

Unconfirmed information published online suggested that more than 500 false DigiNotar certificates exist.

Among the domains listed are Google, Facebook, Twitter and Skype.

At the same time, it was noticed that a sizeable portion of the Dutch company's certificates were mysteriously going to users in Iran.

By August, 76.5% of DigiNotar validations were in the Netherlands. 18.7% were in Iran and 4.8% elsewhere in the world, according to security firm Trend Micro.

Iranian activity dropped off after the certificates were revoked.

DigiNotar eventually went public about the intrusion on 30 August, at which time most web browsers stopped recognising DigiNotar certificates altogether.

Soft target

There are many reasons why Iran may have been targeted using the bogus certificates, according to security experts.

The republic's tight controls on dissent mean that monitoring web traffic could yield useful information.

Iran's internet setup also makes some types of interception easier, according to Rik Ferguson, Trend Micro's director of security research and communications.

"All the internet traffic has to go through an Iranian government proxy before it goes out to the final destination.

"If you want to spy on normal HTTP traffic, that is not a problem - you get to see all the outbound requests and all the inbound responses," he explained.

For secure websites, attempts to intercept would ring alarm bells with the web browser and therefore the user.

One option is to make the Iranian national proxy server look like it is the target website - using a fake DigiNotar certificate.

The proxy then relays information to and from the real website, e.g. Google.com, but there is no indication that the secure chain has been broken.

Government involvement?

While much online debate has centred around the role of the Iranian authorities, there is no firm evidence to support such a theory.

However, a spokesman for the Dutch Interior Ministry, Vincent van Steen told the Netherland's-based ANP news agency that the cabinet was looking into claims of Iranian government involvement....

The prior report posted here noted that the nature and magnitude of the attack would require access to infrastructure that small-time vandals and crooks would not have.

Analysts noted that the nature of the attack requires access to infrastructure that a couple of small-time vandals would not have. "Dutch study possible Iran hacking of government web sites," by Gilbert Kreijger and William MacLean for Reuters, September 4:

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The Dutch government said on Sunday it was investigating whether Iran may have been involved in hacking Dutch state websites after digital certificates were stolen.

Dutch Interior Ministry spokesman Vincent van Steen declined to say whether Iranian authorities in the Netherlands or Iran had been contacted, and said more details would be published in a letter to the Dutch parliament early next week.

But van Steen confirmed the veracity of a report by the Dutch news agency ANP saying the cabinet was looking into whether the Iranian government played a part in breaking into Dutch government websites.

Such web sites may no longer be safe after the digital theft of internet security certificates from Dutch IT company DigiNotar, the Interior Ministry said in a statement.

Officials at the Iranian embassy in The Hague were not immediately available for comment nor was there an immediate reply to emails asking for comment.

Google said in its security blog on August 29 that it had received reports of attacks on Google users, that "the people affected were primarily located in Iran," and that the attacker used a fraudulent certificate issued by DigiNotar.

DigiNotar's systems were hacked in mid-July and security certificates were stolen for a number of domains, DigiNotar and its owner, U.S.-listed VASCO Data Security International, said on August 30.

Relations between Iran and the Netherlands deteriorated early this year when a Dutch-Iranian woman was hanged in Iran in January and buried without her relatives being present. She had been arrested after taking part in demonstrations and accused of drug smuggling.

In April, the Iranian embassy in the Hague criticised the Dutch government after an Iranian asylum seeker who was being extradited set himself on fire in Amsterdam and died.

A certificate guarantees that a web surfer is securely connected with a website and not being monitored by someone else. Breaking into a secure link is known as a "man-in-the-middle attack."

The stolen certificates were immediately revoked after detection of the theft but one, for the site Google.com, was only "recently" revoked after a warning from the Dutch government, DigiNotar and VASCO said.

Internet security experts said it was possible the hacking originated from Iran and involved state support.

"This is the second batch of fraudulent security certificates in the last six months with questionable links to Iranian actors," said John Bumgarner, a cyber researcher and chief technology officer for the non-profit U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit.

"The certificates in question would not only allow a state actor to access the email and skype accounts of dissenters, but also install monitoring software on their computers," Bumgarner said.

Experts use the term "cui bono test" to know who could benefit from an act and be the perpetrator.

"The 'cui bono?' test suggests Iranian state involvement. No doubt the government of Iran will try to blame some hacker group, if they say anything at all," said Ross Anderson, Professor in Security Engineering at Cambridge University.

It was possible, Anderson said, that a government used hacker groups as auxiliaries but it was not likely that a small group would do a man-in-the-middle attack on its own.

"To use the forged certificate to do a man-in-the-middle attack on gmail, you need to be in a position to be the man in the middle, which means you usually have to be an internet service provider (ISP), or in a position to compel an ISP to do your bidding. That means proximity to government," he said.

Shorter version from a different angle, showing the Queen's dawning dismay and the police escorting the Muslim preacher out:

Welcome to Eurabia. Here is yet another indication that Islamic supremacists will not allow the Infidels to maintain their practices that are forbidden by Sharia -- such as music. Expect much more of this sort of thing in the new Europe. "Man disrupts Queen's concert," a translation (error correction invited) of "Man verstoort concert Koningin," from ShowNieuws, September 3 (thanks to Ferenc):

Tonight a man was arrested at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam. There was a classical concert scheduled in the Great Hall, where Queen Beatrix sat on the first row. Concertgebouw director Simon Reinink confirmed this to ShowNieuws.

This man, neatly dressed in a suit, entered the stage and began a speech about Islam. He called himself the servant of God and invited the public to believe. One person who was present wrote on Twitter: "He said: 'There is no bomb ... I'm sorry.'"

When the guards discovered that he was not a speaker on the program, they took him off the stage and brought him over to police. According Reinink, the man did not threaten the queen. Therefore she remained quietly in her seat.

The somewhat confused man, who is known to the police, spent the next night at the police station.

Because they are already part of the EU, and are thus as European as wooden shoes and the Schreierstoren. Everyone knows that, you greasy Islamophobe.

"Turks need not integrate," from Dutch News, August 16 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Turkish nationals do not have to attend integration courses, the court of appeal ruled on Tuesday in a case brought by the Dutch government.

The ruling states that because Turkey has an association agreement with the European Union, Turkish nationals living in the Netherlands may not be forced to attend language and civic studies courses.

The agreement implies that Turkey is part of the EU and EU citizens do not have to integrate, the court said.

Two earlier courts reached the same conclusion and no further appeal is possible.

Well, glad that's settled. Now we can all retire to the nearest hashish cafe and relax.

Hey, kids! Why just seek asylum from your virtually uninhabitable homeland when you can be the reason it's that way? Well, there's also the famine, but the al-Shabaab jihadists' official position remains that the famine doesn't exist. It's just a tad dry out. An update on this story. "Extradited terrorist suspect appears in US court," from Radio Netherlands Worldwide, August 16 (thanks to Twostellas):

A 45-year-old Somali terrorism suspect, who was extradited to the United States last week, made his first appearance in court in St Paul, Minnesota on Monday.

Mahamud Said Omar is suspected of supporting the Somali rebel organisation al-Shabaab, designated by the US authorities as a terrorist organisation.

The suspect has not yet given a statement. He has requested an interpreter for the Somali Maay Maay dialect but none is available.

Local paper the Star Tribune reports that the next hearing will be on 26 August to give the defence time to prepare its case.

Mahamud Said Omar was arrested in 2009 at an asylum seekers centre in the Dutch town of Dronten. He had travelled to the Netherlands from Minnesota a year earlier. He is believed to have recruited young men in the US state for the 'holy war' in Somalia.

According to the Star Tribune, the authorities believe at least 20 Somali-Americans who left Minnesota at different times since 2007 were recruited by al-Shabaab to join its fight for control of the East African nation.

Mr Omar is one of 14 men who have been arrested in the FBI's investigation into recruitment for al-Shabaab.

FBI agent E.K. Wilson praised Dutch Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten for his role in the extradition procedures: “We would not have been able to get to this place in this particular extradition without the expertise and professionalism of this Dutch agency."

Dank u wel.

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....

Starting in Holland, "the suspect had planned to travel to Syria to join the al-Qaida network. From there, he would possible travel to Iraq or the West Bank or Gaza." With apologies again to Dr. Seuss, "Oh, the places you'll 'misunderstand' Islam!" "Dutch police reportedly arrest al-Qaida-linked suspect," from MSNBC, July 29 (thanks to Kenneth):

Police in the Netherlands have arrested a 34-year-old man on accusations he sought to join al-Qaida in order to carry out an attack in the Middle East, reports said Friday.

A report at Expatica calls him an "Iraqi man."

Details of the arrest, reported by BNO News and the Dutch-language newspapers De Telegraaf and Almere Vandaag, remained sketchy.

As reported by the by-subscription website BNO News, the country's prosecutor's office said the suspect was arrested earlier this week in the city of Almere.

"The reason for the investigation is a report from the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD)," a statement from the prosecutor’s office said, according to BNO. "The man became the focus of an AIVD investigation into jihadist networks."

BNO, citing the AIVD report, said the suspect had planned to travel to Syria to join the al-Qaida network. From there, he would possible travel to Iraq or the West Bank or Gaza to carry out some kind of attack, BNO reported.

A Rotterdam magistrate extended the man’s detention for at least two weeks, BNO reported.

Why is this tolerated?

Video thanks to Benedict.

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 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.

Mohamed Azahaf has been playing the "moderate" game for years, as you can see from this 2006 Jihad Watch post.

War Is Deceit Update: "Holland: Professional 'Moderate Muslim' Turns Out to be Radical, Pro-Terrorist Jihadist," by Barry Rubin in Pajamas Media, June 17:

Mohamed Azahaf, a 28-year-old immigrant from Morocco, was hired by the east Amsterdam district to build trust between Muslims and non-Muslims there. But a journalist did some careful research to discover he’s a supporter of Usama bin Ladin, said Muslim women who didn’t wear “proper” clothing weren’t real Muslims, and even issued death threats against those criticizing Islamic doctrine.

His response? Only after this was exposed publicly did he claim his remarks–never changed by him until that moment–didn’t represent his current views. The district council’s response? To defend him, though it’s starting to get worried.

But here’s the best part: After the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the filmmaker, by a radical Islamist, Holland’s queen met with several Muslims who supposedly represented the “real” views of the community opposing such violence. Azahaf was one of them. However, apparently she and everyone else didn’t know that Azahaf had already written that he supported the murder!...

Typical cluelessness from Western authorities.

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."

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....

Will the Netherlands survive? Or will it continue to commit slow demographic suicide by allowing in millions of Muslim immigrants who believe it to be their responsibility before god to work to transform the Netherlands into a Sharia state?

"Minister wants to slash non-EU work permits," from Dutch News, April 8 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

The cabinet on Friday will discuss home affairs minister Henk Kamp’s plan to drastically reduce the number of work permits for non-EU nationals, the Telegraaf reports.

The rules for knowledge migrants will not be affected, the paper says.

The paper says the minister wants to make it much more difficult for companies to prove they cannot find suitable staff in the Netherlands or the EU....

Mugged by reality into opposing the multiculturalism that is aiding the Islamization of the Netherlands. "Harrassed [sic] Gay Couple Takes Mayor to Court," from NIS News, March 22 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

UTRECHT, 22/03/11 - A gay couple from Utrecht is holding the municipality, the police and central government liable for the financial and emotional damage they suffered as a result of intimidation and violence of Moroccan youths.

The couple have made official police reports to the Utrecht police eight times in the past years. On no single occasion was a suspect arrested. Meanwhile, the two men have moved to another municipality.

The men are holding the municipality, the police and the State liable. They want to force a damages settlement from the three bodies via civil proceedings. In separate proceedings, they also want to compel judges to force the Public Prosecutor's Office (OM) to prosecute the perpetrators.

Between the summer of 2009 and 2010, the men were continually intimidated. Windows of their house were broken and their car was damaged. Because police there said they could not take action against this, the men eventually found themselves forced to sell their home at way below its estimated value.

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.

Merry Christmas, Infidel! Of course, there is no mention of the ideology driving the "terror" plot. "Dutch arrest 12 thought to be ready to launch terror attack," from CNN, December 25:

Dutch authorities have arrested 12 men of Somali origin they believe were about to carry out a terrorist attack, authorities said Saturday.

The country's intelligence service provided information that led to the arrests in Rotterdam, Public Prosecution Service spokesman Wim de Bruin told CNN.

No weapons or explosives were found and there has been no increase in the Netherlands' terror alert level, he said. The suspects are in police custody.

"The attack was said to be imminent so the national police started an investigation which led to the arrest of 12 Somalis later on Friday in Rotterdam," de Bruin said. "We are not sure about what the target was, how they were going to carry out the attack or when."

The men, between ages 19 and 48, were arrested in various locations. Police have searched a pawn shop, four homes and two hotel rooms, de Bruin said.

Six of the suspects live in Rotterdam and one is from Denmark. Some are Dutch citizens. They all are of Somali origin, de Bruin said.

The "new Jews" -- as Islamic supremacist Reza Aslan and other have grotesquely dubbed Muslims in Europe -- are driving out the old Jews. We have seen it happening in Sweden, and now in the Netherlands.

"Prominent Jews Leave Amsterdam over Anti-Semitism," by Maayana Miskin for Israel National News, December 19 (thanks to Rosanne):

A son of a prominent rabbi in the Netherlands has announced plans to move to Israel due to anti-Semitism. Benzion Evers, son of well-known Dutch rabbi Raphael Evers, told De Telegraaf that he feels "suffocated and caged" in his home country due to anti-Jewish sentiment.

"I'm fed up with the verbal abuse and the streetfighting," he told Het Parool, another Dutch paper.

"It's not that you can't leave the house, but you need to constantly hide, to be careful," he explained. He related his own cautionary measures, which include avoiding certain neighborhoods, and hiding his kippah (yalmulke) when walking through areas with a high number of Muslim immigrants....

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews..." -- Qur'an 5:82

"No future for Dutch Orthodox Jews,'" from Radio Netherlands Worldwide, December 6 (thanks to Fjordman):

Prominent VVD politician Frits Bolkestein believes there is no future for 'active' Jews in the Netherlands. The conservative politician made his remarks in an interview with freesheet De Pers.

In the interview, Mr Bolkestein says that when he talks about active Jews he means those who are recognisable as such, for instance Orthodox Jews. The former EU Commissioner says there is no future for this group in the Netherlands because of "the anti-Semitism among Dutchmen of Moroccan descent, whose numbers keep growing''.

He feels that this group of Jews should encourage their children to emigrate to either the United States or Israel, because he has little confidence in the effectiveness of the government's proposals for fighting anti-Semitism....

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....

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"....

Remind me again: which buildings did Wilders take down with those hijacked airplanes? Which Muslim filmmaker's throat did he cut on an Amsterdam street? I keep forgetting.

"Wilders is dangerous, Muslims tell court," from Expatica, October 18:

Muslims told judges trying anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders for hate speech Monday that he was dangerous, dividing a multicultural society that used to cohabit peacefully.

"Mr Wilders is a dangerous ideologist who has divided Dutch society," Naoual Abaida, a trainee lawyer with a native Dutch mother and Moroccan father, told the court.

"I am asking you to protect me as a Muslim and a Moroccan against Mr Wilders," she said, referring to his "Islam-bashing" and "insulting, polarising language"....

The prosecution service asked the court for his acquittal last Friday, saying his criticism, though hurtful, was not criminal...

"We are the daily target of xenophobic statements," Mohamed Rabbae, politician and activist, told the judges as Wilders looked on, occasionally lifting his eyebrows or making faces.

"Our children have become unsure about their future ... in this climate of discrimination, hate and enmity as propagated by Mr Wilders."

This in turn caused "anger, bitterness and a deepening of the divide between Muslims and native Dutch", said Rabbae....

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.

Maybe they needed to free up a cell for Geert Wilders. "Court Cuts Jail for Plot to Kill US Troops in Iraq," from AP, October 13:

Rotterdam, Netherlands (AP) -- Prosecutors say a Dutchman convicted and sentenced to 25 years in the United States for plotting to kill American troops in Iraq is to be released after a court in Rotterdam slashed the sentence to eight years.

With time he has already served in jail and under Dutch sentencing guidelines, al-Delaema is expected to be released Wednesday.

Wednesday's decision to cut Wesam al-Delaema's sentence had been widely expected after al-Delaema was sent back to the Netherlands, where sentences are far more lenient than in the U.S.

Al-Delaema, who was born in Iraq, returned to his home town of Fallujah in October 2003, after the U.S. invasion. He videotaped himself showing off roadside bombs and praying to Allah that the explosives would kill American troops.

Another misunderstander of Islam!

This development should help to upset the mainstream media's apple cart of epithets like "right wing," "far right," "hard right," and so forth for those who criticize Islam. And it goes to show what should be abundantly clear across the political spectrum: this is ultimately not a "right-wing" issue, even though those from that background have often been more willing to speak out.

Rather, it is a fundamental issue of human rights: free speech, freedom of conscience, and all the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness upon which Sharia openly infringes through the death penalty for apostasy, the subjugation of non-Muslims, and so many other abuses.

Will the nanny-state-in-jackboots come after this politician as it has Geert Wilders? "GroenLinks Calls on Left to Criticise Islam," from NIS News, October 12 (thanks to David):

THE HAGUE, 12/10/10 - Leftwing Green (GroenLinks) leader Femke Halsema believes that progressive politicians and thinkers should dare to make more criticisms of Islam. They are too often accepting the pressure that radical Muslims put on the Islamic community, in her view. Halesema says it is high time that leftwing politicians view the position of women and homosexuals within Islamic communities just as critically as they do when it comes to Christianity. This does not happen at present because there is too much black-and-white thinking, in her view. "There are two flavours: you are either a multiculturalist or an Islam haters," she said in a lecture on freedom of religion in Utrecht's Jacobi church.

Halsema condemns this view. As far as she is concerned, everyone can believe how and what they wish, as long as it is a free choice. "Many Salafist, orthodox views have broad support within the Dutch Islamic community. (...) These views are forcefully imposed from above and have great consequences for the freedom of women and homosexuals in particular." "The passion that we exercise to this day to give practising homosexuals access to Reformed Christian schools (...) we should also display to ensure Islamic gays and women are allowed to make their free choice," said Halsema. Halsema considers that leftwing politicians should support the board of a Belgian school which wants to introduce a ban on headscarves to prevent their forcible imposition. On the other hand, everyone who wants to wear a headscarf of their own free will should be able to do so, including police officers, according to Halsema.

Halsema seems to be trying to establish her own concept of a middle ground here, and she seems to leave open the idea of a problematic "radical" Islam that is distinct from Islam's core texts and teachings. Notably, and unfortunately, she also does not mention Geert Wilders by name, at least in this report, despite the fact that he is at the center of any discussion of criticism of Islam in the Netherlands right now. Nonetheless, she will likely still find herself accused of "hate," and perhaps even "incitement" for pointing out some of the elephants in the room.

"I am convinced that there are thousands of Muslim women in the Netherlands who - due to prescriptions enforced by Islamic authority and complied with faithfully by fathers, uncles and sons - have too little freedom of movement. (...) In my own neighbourhood, I see too often that girls are abused if they do not wear a headscarf," said Halsema afterwards. "That I call coercion. Just like suggesting that it is your own fault that you are raped if you do not wear a headscarf."