There are a number of excellent articles appearing online about Geert Wilders and the Dutch appeals court descision to try him on the criminal charge of offending Islam. Few on planet earth are more qualified to write on Geert’s situation than Canada’s Ezra Levant who faced his own very similar inquisition in Canada’s ‘human rights commission’.
This article by Ezra is a little longer than most of the others I will post or link to here but it is more than worth reading, it may be an obligation for those of us wishing to preserve any aspects of liberal democracy as opposed to the proxy sharia law more and more of the western world is now subject to. To be clear, many nations are now charging people who speak plain truth about the consequences of Islam in the west with thought crimes linked to inciting hatred. Yet none of the Muslims who advocate genocide, subjugation and beating of women, Islamic supremacy and the destruction of liberal democracy are being charged with these same crimes. Truly pointing out the hate speech of others is now the greater crime than the hate speech itself in more than just Canada but across an increasingly islamified Europe. This is sharia law. To make blasphemy of Islam a crime and no other form of blasphemy.
Below please find a few articles on Geert starting with this most excellent one by Ezra Levant.
The Dutch court of appeal has ruled that Geert Wilders, the Member of Parliament and anti-terrorism activist, must stand trial for hate speech.
You can read the English page of the court’s website announcing the decision here.
It is a national suicide note, a white flag of surrender flown by a once-great empire in the face of illiberal fascists and hoodlums. It is a homicide note, too — announcing the murder of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. And it is a warning note to other Western democracies. The warning is this: liberal democracy, multiculturalism and immigration — pick any two.
Holland has picked multiculturalism and immigration, and has heaved liberal democracy overboard.
The announcement is so eye-scratchingly stupid, it really must be read line for line. Here goes. (The spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors are from the court’s own English translation):
Amsterdam, 21 january 2009 – On 21 January 2009 the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ordered the criminal prosecution of the member of parliament Geert Wilders for the incitement to hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about moslims and their belief.
Did you catch that? It’s just like the execrable section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Incitement to… what? Violence? Murder? Riot? No. Incitement to hatred.
Hatred is an emotion. And apparently in Holland, “making” someone feel that emotion is a crime. And inciting “discrimination” is, too. Not just discrimination itself, mind you. But inciting someone to discriminate. The Dutch court has not announced the prosecution of anyone who Wilders has “incited” to discriminate against someone else. But they’re still charging Wilders with discrimination, once removed — even if that discrimination hasn’t happened, and isn’t logically tied to his political criticisms of Islamic fascism. (Question: don’t we all have a duty to incite each other to discriminate against — or at least hate — fascists who would destroy our liberal way of life?)
In addition, the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the islam with the nazism.
I appreciate the honesty. This is the criminalization of “insults”.
Of course, the comparison of radical Islam and Naziism can be found in their fascist, anti-democratic and illiberal streaks. And — something the Dutch should know — anti-Semitism. But, more practically, if comparing people to Nazis is now a crime, how about the countless comparisons of Jews to Nazis — comparisons ubiquitous at the United Nations conference in Durban, just to pick one big example?
The Court of Appeal rendered judgment as a consequence of a number of complaints about the non-prosecution of Wilders for his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. The complainants did not agree with the decision of the public prosecution which decided not to give effect to their report against Wilders.
For the movie Fitna and the rest of this most excellent article go to Ezra’s site by clicking here.
Next two articles from Gates of Vienna…
“Eroding Traditional Dutch Liberties”
by Baron Bodissey
Below are excerpts from the Wall Street Journal editorial referenced in H. Numan’s previous translation (thanks to VH for the link):
Silencing Islam’s Critics
A Dutch court imports Saudi blasphemy norms to Europe.
The latest twist in the clash between Western values and the Muslim world took place yesterday in the Netherlands, where a court ordered the prosecution of lawmaker and provocateur Geert Wilders for inciting violence. The Dutch MP and leader of the Freedom Party, which opposes Muslim immigration into Holland, will stand trial soon for his harsh criticism of Islam.
[…]
There are of course limits to free speech, such as calls for violence. But one doesn’t need to agree with Mr. Wilders to acknowledge that he hasn’t crossed that line. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements. But if freedom of speech means anything, it means the freedom of controversial speech. Consensus views need no protection.
This is exactly what Dutch prosecutors said in June when they rejected the complaints against Mr. Wilders. “That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable,” the prosecutors said in a statement. “Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That means that offensive comments can be made in a political debate.”
The court yesterday overruled this decision, arguing that the lawmaker should be prosecuted for “inciting hatred and discrimination” and also “for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism.” This is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside. But the successful integration of Muslims in Europe will require that immigrants adapt to Western norms, not vice versa. Limiting the Dutch debate of Islam to standards acceptable in, say, Saudi Arabia, will only shore up support for Mr. Wilders’s argument that Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Court Imports Saudi Rules
by Baron Bodissey
Another translation by H. Numan, this one from today’s De Telegraaf, followed by his commentary:
Court imports Saudi rules
According to the Wall Street Journal a Dutch court imports Saudi rules for the prosecution of parliamentarian Geert Wilders, in their publication on Thursday.
The concept of punishing people for insulting the religious feelings of other people approaches dangerously close to blasphemy laws as preferred by Islamic countries. The commentator scorns the decision to prosecute Wilders, for “if freedom of speech means something, it also includes the freedom to have controversial opinions.”
“The Freedom Party (PVV),” read yesterday’s press release, “is shocked by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s decision to prosecute Geert Wilders for his statements and opinions. Geert Wilders considers this ruling an all-out assault on freedom of speech.”
The appalling decision to try Wilders, the Freedom Party’s head and the Dutch Parliament’s only internationally famous member, for “incitement to hatred and discrimination” against Islam is indeed an assault on free speech. But no one who has followed events in the Netherlands over the last decade can have been terribly surprised by it. Far from coming out of the blue, this is the predictable next step in a long, shameful process of accommodating Islam—and of increasingly aggressive attempts to silence Islam’s critics—on the part of the Dutch establishment.
What a different road the Netherlands might have taken if Pim Fortuyn had lived! Back in the early spring of 2002, the sociologist-turned-politician—who didn’t mince words about the threat to democracy represented by his country’s rapidly expanding sharia enclaves—was riding high in the polls and appeared on the verge of becoming the next prime minister. For his supporters, Fortuyn represented a solitary voice of courage and an embodiment of hope for freedom’s preservation in the land of the dikes and windmills. But for the Dutch political class and its allies in the media and academia—variously blinded by multiculturalism, loath to be labeled racists, or terrified of offending Muslims—Fortuyn himself was the threat. They painted him as a dangerous racist, a new Mussolini out to tyrannize a defenseless minority. The result: on May 6, 2002, nine days before the election, Fortuyn was gunned down by a far-left activist taken in by the propaganda. The Dutch establishment remained in power. For many Dutchmen, hope died that day.
