Pat Condell weighs in on Geert Wilders situation in Holland.

geertbannerlarge1

I know as soon as I heard about Geert’s new charge in the Netherlands, I was hoping Pat would come out with a new video. I’m delighted to see that he has. Here it is.

A response to Pat Condell from youtube

Another stellar article about Geert WIlders in the Netherlands from GOV

It’s time for a change!
by H. Numan

Free Geert!Last week Geert Wilders was indicted for highly questionable charges by a kangaroo court that already convicted him before his trial has yet begun. In fact, his case hasn’t even been placed on the agenda of the court as yet. Already convicted? Yes, because of a legal loophole (art. 12 wetboek van strafvordering) and biased judges. The court found that the public prosecutors hadn’t done their homework properly and decided that Wilders must sentenced after all, which means a trial is actually just for show. They already indicated clearly what their verdict will be.

The loophole? Well, any interested party, being a person or juristic body, can force the court to prosecute a case that was rejected by the public prosecutor. Our left wing friends and lots of Muslims jumped at it. (art. 12 wetboek van strafvordering)

The government, by means of (in)justice minister Hirsh Ballin, lied (as he usually does) that it will not be a political trial. This is the same minister who refuses to abolish the obsolete blasphemy law (art. 137 wetboek van strafrecht) against the wishes of the House, and actually wants to strengthen it by abolishing it, but placing it elsewhere as a discriminatory criminal offense. Where it can and will be used to muzzle anyone. Guess who first? And yes, this very same minister that sent the dogs of justice to devour Gregorius Nekschot. That minister.

Of course it is a political trial. What else can it be? If Wilders is prosecuted for inciting hatred, why aren’t all the imams that do so on a daily basis on trial, imam Fawaz leading the line? If one can compare the Bible with Mein Kampf, why not the Koran? If a book, religious or not, is above criticism, we are in effect setting up a totalitarian regime.

I will go even further: compared with a common telephone directory the Koran is worthless. A telephone directory doesn’t contain as many errors and is much better organized. Also, a telephone directory is based on verifiable facts. Not fairy tales and horror stories. Nor does it promote hatred.

But I think our multicultural friends have bitten off far more than they can chew. For, can we change? Yes, we can! And even better: we are already changing! There is a very good reason why the left can’t manage the Internet. Remember the times when a newspaper bluntly stated “this or that has a 95% approval rate”? You knew it was wrong. Everybody you talked with said so. But nothing was and could be done about it. Yes, you could write a letter to the editor. Usually it would not be printed. If it was, nine out of ten selected letters supported the approval rating. Yours was added for variety’s sake.

Enter the Internet. “Wilders will be indicted”. Headline in De Telegraaf. Within one hour (!) eight thousand comments adorned the article supporting Wilders. The blogging world, at least in Holland is currently almost overloaded. People investigate who are the judges, the accusers and the whole case. Facts that are normally hidden are suddenly published for everybody to see. The official plea (pdf) ‘magically’ dropped in somebody’s mailbox.

Suddenly the accusers as well as the judges are in the spotlight. And boy, how they hate it! Their agendas are open for everybody to peruse. The left hand touches another left hand. Dark liaisons between government subsidies, non-functional ‘art groups’ and judges who (surprise, surprise) are in their board of directors or trustees…

For the rest of this article please click here….

A pat Condell video I would like to dedicate to Geert Wilders

geertbannerlarge

It’s worth thinking about the nature of the charges against Geert and the meaning of due process in this case. He was charged among other similar things with comparing the Koran with Hitlers Mein Kampf. Imagine if you would that the Dutch court after trying this charge on the basis not of whether or not one may say this thing, but whether or not it is a fair comparison which appears to be the direction of the proceeding. Even if it isn’t it will be percieved to be as such. Imagine if the courts found that it was (as it in fact is) a reasonable comparison to make. The Dutch courts may well see the start of even more profound open hostility to the indigenous Dutch than already exists in Holland. If I can see this the court of appeals can. In essence, this is not a charge against Geert Wilders but a conviction with a slight delay before sentencing.

On a quasi related matter, here is an article about how a British holocaust survivor begged his family to leave the UK for the same reasons his family left Germany right before the war. Just in case we thought England was still a liberal democracy.

Ezra Levant writes on Geert Wilders

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.

Holland’s national suicide note

|

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.

Continue Reading →

Geert Wilders in Jerusalem. video speech

I believe I have posted this before. But having watched it again, I believe it is worth posting again. Geert is in the news again for his views but this time because his own government in Holland, a government of which he is an elected member, has turned on him and charging him with crimes of speech and thought. George Orwell would not be proud. But neither would he be surprised.


Mark Steyn on Geert Wilders and the Dutch courts. As expected, Steyn nails it.

Each incident that Mr. Steyn mentions in this article has been clearly detailed and documented here on Vlad. You can dig around for the links if you want to verify any of it. Its worth mentioning that as usual, Mark understated his own case. The Dutch policy of ‘non escalation’ was the grounds to prevent Dutch news crews from filming the destruction of the mural mentioned here in this article. But ultimately its to one purpose. To create a false impression of Islamic tolerance of it’s host nation.

From National Review…

Dutch courage [Mark Steyn]

Last year, The New York Times ran a story (front page, above the fold, gosh) on my troubles with the Canadian “thought police”, at the end of which I’m quoted as follows:

“Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”

The latest jurisdiction to get way too “comfortable with the regulation of opinion” is the Netherlands. As Andrew noted below, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal has ordered prosecutors to put the politician and film-maker Geert Wilders on trial for “making anti-Islamic statements”.

The Dutch, like the Canadians, think they can maintain social peace by shriveling the bounds of public discourse and bringing what little remains under state regulation. But one notices that the coercive urge, which comes so naturally to Euro-progressives, only goes in one direction. The Swedish Chancellor of Justice shuts down the investigation into the Grand Mosque of Stockholm for selling tapes urging believers to kill “the brothers of pigs and apes” (ie, Jews) because that’s simply “the everyday climate in the rhetoric”. The masked men marching through the streets of London with placards threatening to rain down another 9/11 on the infidels are protected by a phalanx of Metropolitan Police officers. The PC nellies of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, happy to hound the last neo-Nazi in Saskatchewan posting to the Internet from his mum’s basement, won’t go anywhere near Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus al-Hayitia, the big-time Montreal imam whose book says infidels are “evil people”, Jews “spread corruption and chaos”, and homosexuals should be “exterminated”.

Instead, the state’s response to explicit Islamic intimidation is to punish those foolish enough to point out that intimidation. You don’t have to be as intemperate as Minheer Wilders can sometimes be: In the Netherlands even the most innocuous statement can get you into trouble. To express his disgust at Theo van Gogh’s murder, the artist Chris Ripke put up a mural outside his studio showing an angel and the words “Thou shalt not kill”. But the cops thought this was somehow a dig at the local mosque and so came round, destroyed the mural, arrested the TV news crew filming it, and wiped their tape. The Dutch have determined to commit societal euthanasia, and dislike fellows pointing out it might not be as painless as they’ve assumed.

Petition to the Dutch Government objecting to the prosecution of Geert Wilders.

As many of you already know the Dutch Government has seen fit to reverse a previous decision to not persecute Geert Wilders for speaking out against the destruction of liberal secular Dutch values by an increasingly powerful Islamic presence within Holland.

I have not blogged anything about this as there is so much good information all over the net on Gates of Vienna for example and elsewhere. I will however post the link to the petition so as many people can sign it as easily as possible. Please have a look and consider this one small action of civil disobedience. The Dutch Government and by proxy all governments really need to understand that the people of the world or at least many of us, take freedom of speech very seriously even if we do not agree with it but for the love of (insert god of choice) especially when we do.

From the venerable Gates of Vienna…

“I Will Not Stand Trial Alone”

by Baron Bodissey

There’s one thing you can say about the Dutch political establishment: it is thoroughly immune to irony.

The images of burning cars and firebombed synagogues have barely faded from the TV screens of the Netherlands.

The cries of “Heil Hitler!” and “Jews to the gas!” that mingled with “Allahu akhbar!” are still echoing in the glass-strewn streets.

Yet Geert Wilders — who speaks out against these barbaric forces, and proposes to halt the Islamization of his country in order to put a stop to them — is the one who is being prosecuted for “hate speech”.

The true heirs of National Socialism rage unimpeded through the streets of Europe, while Geert Wilders is the one who “incites hatred” and “insults groups of people”.

Go figure.

According to Elsevier, as translated by our Flemish correspondent VH:

Wilders: Court decision is an assault on free speech

By Claudia van Zanten

The PVV leader said he was deeply affected by the ruling of the court in Amsterdam. The court decided Wednesday to prosecute PVV leader Geert Wilders for “discrimination, incitement to hatred, and insulting groups of people.”

“This is apparently is the way the Netherlands sticks together. If you give your opinion, you run the risk of being prosecuted. Taking part in the public debate has become a dangerous activity,” Wilders said in a response.

Islamization of the Netherlands

“If I have to stand trial, I will not be alone, stand trial alone, but also with the hundreds of thousands of Dutch people who reject the Islamization of the Netherlands,” says the PVV leader.

“Their opinion is only represented in The Hague [parliament] by the Party for Freedom. Who else will stand for our culture when I have to remain silent? This strengthens me in these harsh days,” he continues.

Wilders is worried of the costs of the court case. “We depend on small donations. The PVV is the only party that is not conditional on making itself dependent on subsidies. The ruling of the Court will endanger the survival of the Party for Freedom. The hundreds of thousands we will loose on the costs are impossible for us to afford.”

“A Black Day”

For the rest of this post please click here.

Dutch courts decide to prosecute Geert Wilders after all.

This will be a trial to watch closely. It will have repercussions for freedom of speech all over the world as well as a nations ability to be self determining. Should Wilders be convicted and sentenced in any way for his pro Dutch and western values and his stance against unbridled Islamic immigration and the values Islam carries, it will almost certainly add fuel to any fire against those few in other western nations who would preserve anything traditionally western and by this I mean liberalism. Keep a close eye on this matter.

From NYT Herald Tribune

Dutch court rules that anti-Islamic lawmaker should be prosecuted

A right-wing lawmaker should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred with anti-Islamic statements that include calling the Quran a “fascist book,” a Dutch court ruled Wednesday.

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made headlines around the world in March 2008 with his film “Fitna,” which juxtaposed Quranic verses against a background of violent film clips and images of terrorism by Islamic radicals.

In 2007, Wilders called for a ban on the Quran “the same way we ban ‘Mein Kampf.'” He said both Adolf Hitler’s work and the Muslim holy book contain passages that contradict Western values.

The Amsterdam Appeals Court called Wilders’ statements in his film, newspaper articles and media interviews “one-sided generalizations … which can amount to inciting hatred.”

The court’s ruling reverses a decision last year by the public prosecutor’s office , which said Wilders’ film and interviews were painful for Muslims but not criminal.

Wilders told Dutch media it was a “black day for myself and for freedom of speech.”

The decision set the stage for what will likely be a highly charged trial touching on the declining Dutch tolerance toward a large immigrant population from Muslim countries, mainly Morocco and Turkey. Dutch attitudes shifted markedly after the 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a radical Dutch Muslim.

Wilders, whose party has nine lawmakers in the 120-seat lower house of Dutch Parliament, has built his popularity largely on tapping into fear and resentment among Dutch voters of Muslim immigrants.

“I’ve had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate,” he wrote once in national newspaper De Volkskrant. “I’ve had enough of the Quran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book.”

The three judges said they had weighed Wilders’ anti-Islamic rhetoric against his right to free speech, and ruled he had even gone beyond the normal leeway given to politicians.

Because Wilders has not yet been charged, it is not clear what maximum penalty he could face if convicted.

While judges in the Netherlands generally are loathe to become involved in public debate, the court said it was making an exception in the case of Wilders’ comments about Islam.

“The court considers this so insulting for Muslims that it is in the public interest to prosecute Wilders,” a summary of the court’s decision said.

Gerard Spong, a prominent lawyer who joined Islamic groups in pushing for Wilders’ prosecution, welcomed the decision.

“This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Naziism,” Spong told reporters in Amsterdam.

UK video on Islam in Europe. Its views of freedom of conscience and homosexuality.

This is fantastic. I am so pleased someone made this superb documentary. I will add this to the movie page of Vlad so it won’t disappear down the time line.



Geert Wilders speaks in Jerusalem.

Thank you Pam Geller, Tundra Tabloids, Freedombloggers.ca and all who help to get the facts out. Geert you rock.

Please pay close attention to what Geert is saying. If it was not for Israel, we would be seeing the same thing problems most likely against Spain and then everywhere else. As if this wasn’t already happening.

Here is the speech by British politician Enoch Powell Rivers of Blood that Wilders refers to.

Geert Wilders on Fox News. (Thanks Jamie)

Geert actually has the guts to say it as it is. Imagine if English was his first language how well he could articulate his points. The interviewer of course makes the classic modern fallacy. The idea that because an idea may offend a large number of people it should not be said. If Geert Wilders was the only man alive who opposed the racist fascist violent teachings of Islam he would still be correct and the rest of us wrong.

This interview is also older, it was before he released Fitna and I may have posted it before but its still just as good and still needs to be seen if you have not already done so.

I cannot seem to find part 2 of this video. If anyone has a link post to the comments.

Geert Wilders writes article about Mumbai. From Klien Verzet

Today Mumbai, tomorrow Amsterdam

Mumbai train attacks in 2006
Yesterday Geert Wilders (PVV) published this story (NL) in Dutch newspaper Trouw, here is my translation:

The media likes to ignore the Islamic character of Mumbai attack.

Mumbai is still burning, but the pundits and self confessed experts are arguing on TV if this is an attack by Al’Qaeda, the ISI or the Deccan Mujahideen.

But who looks at [the details of] this gruesome attack sees the contours of something bigger. According to [the Belgium] newspaper de Standaard the non-Muslims were separated from the Muslims in Hotel Oberoi. Only the kafir were shot down. In this city of millions the perpetrators directly went to a tiny Jewish center. There they, according to the Indian website Rediff News, gruesomely tortured the Jewish people before they were killed. [Also] are there many indications that the terrorist were looking for Western people, they wanted to kill them, if possible by the thousands. The only surviving terrorist now says he did a good job.

All the talk, about which organization is responsible, misses the main point: the ideology [that drives these terrorists]. It gives us the impression that if only we could stop or obstruct a certain organization, we can solve this problem. But this ignores [the fact that] jihadist constantly attack India and other countries.

Progressive Western media rather embrace meaningless terms like ‘liberation movements’ and try to ignore the Islamic character of this terror as much as possible. They rather be political correct than that they might offend somebody.

India is [just] one of the countries on the fault line of the Jihad. In ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ Samuel Huntington claims that the Islam has bloody borders: Israel, Sudan (Darfur), Kosovo, Indonesia (Aceh), Thailand and the Philippines. Where Islam is in direct contact with other civilizations, there is a constant source of tensions and often war. This is also the case in Europe. [In] a Europe that is fast Islamizing. What happened yesterday in Mumbai can happen tomorrow in Amsterdam.

Continue Reading →

Fjordman on yet another embarrassing Nobel ‘Peace’ prize

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded for Appeasement of Jihad

The Fjordman Report

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

Granting this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to Finnish diplomat Martti Ahtisaari, known for his role in establishing a Jihadist state in Kosovo, makes the Peace Prize even more of a joke than it already was. Those who want an alternative view on the situation in the Balkans can read the essays of Serge Trifkovic and his book Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terrorism Can Be Won — in Spite of Ourselves.

As Chief United Nations negotiator for Kosovo, Ahtisaari caused anger in Serbia when he stated that “Serbs are guilty as a people,” implying that they would have to pay for it, possibly by losing Kosovo. It is one thing to criticize the Milosevic regime. It is quite another thing to claim that “Serbs are guilty as a people.” If anybody in the Balkans can be called guilty as a people, it is the Turks, not the Serbs. The Turks have left a trail of blood across much of Europe, Asia Minor, and the Mediterranean for centuries, culminating in the Armenian genocide in the 20th century, which Turkey still refuses to acknowledge, let alone apologize for.

As I’ve indicated before, if the Peace Prize is supposed to serve any real purpose, it needs to be awarded to persons who confront Jihad, not appease it like Martti Ahtisaari and Jimmy Carter, or promote it like Yasser Arafat:

As I have written previously in “Give the Nobel Peace Prize to Ayaan Hirsi Ali”:

In my view, the Norwegian Nobel Committee will soon have to make a choice: If they want the Nobel Peace Prize to be a Global Celebrity Award for Outstanding Achievements in Political Correctness, they can give the next one to Bono of rock group U2. Or, they can do something meaningful, something that will actually advance the cause of peace and human liberty around the world, and award the Nobel Peace Prize to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Since members of national assemblies and parliaments can nominate candidates for the Prize, I hereby challenge MPs from the Progress Party in my country, or MPs from any infidel nation, to nominate Hirsi Ali. Other alternatives can be mentioned, too. Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina and Wafa Sultan are all worthy recipients of the Prize for their work and for championing the rights of one of the most abused and oppressed groups of people on the planet: Former Muslims who defy the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam.

Continue Reading →

Speech by Geert Wilders. This is tomorrow’s newspaper today.

Geert tells it as it is in Europe and will be tomorrow in North America. I would call this urgent reading. For Geert’s movie Fitna you can see the original here

Europe’s Last Stand

By Geert Wilders
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Below is a speech by Geert Wilders, chairman of “Party for Freedom” in the Netherlands. The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute, delivered at the Four Seasons, New York, on September 25 2008 and announced the upcoming “Facing Jihad Conference” in Jerusalem. –The Editors

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.

It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course, without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the Old World. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This is not only a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself; it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of 4 parts: first, I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks: the Eiffel Tower, Trafalgar Square, Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. Mosques stand on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore.” Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France, school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can, in many cases, no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England, Sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week, a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call “respect.” And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in – to give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept Sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence – for example, against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim Intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers,” because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mention is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping Sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim; Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed, the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a paedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence, Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means “submission.” Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is Sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to Communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims, the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guides every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world,” and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

Which brings me to my movie, “Fitna.” I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism, but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack.

Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of “Fitna.”

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel, because, very soon, we will get together in its capital. The best way for a politician in Europe to lose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders.” Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behaviour, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as “right-wing extremists” or “racists.” The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us, to stand up for centuries of civilization – to defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all similarly-minded parties in Europe. They are gaining a foothold in the political arena, one voter at a time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big, something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch “Fitna” in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks to its location, it is safe from jihad and Sharia. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America – as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom; it was offered to us on a silver platter by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

To watch “Fitna,” click here.