Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been acquitted in court of charges he defamed Islam, ending a three year prosecution.
The entire trial was marked by shocking irregularities including witness tampering by biased judges and was intensely political in nature, spearheaded by the PvdA [Socialists Party] and the GroenLinks [Greens].
Those two parties were part of Leftist coalition thta allowed almost unchecked Muslim immigration into the Netherlands with the idea that they'd become socialist voters , a pattern Tony Blair used with New Labour in the UK. The Muslim population in the Netherlands is now about 9%, and Britain's pattern of a massive increase in gay bashing, violence, sex crimes, anti-Semitic incidents and welfare expenditures was repeated in the Netherlands as well.
Wilders' 'crime' was to call attention to this, and to point out the correlation between the violence, intolerance and misogyny practiced in a significant portion of the Muslim population with certain parts of the Qu'ran and to call for a curtailment of Muslim immigration . He later made a film, Fitna that has pretty much the same message. Because of that, he was tried under the Dutch hate crime statutes.
As you can imagine, the release of the film led to a major Islamo-rage fest, with Wilders needing 24-hour protection because of the death threats he received...which proved his point, if you think about it.
The other, more important vindication for Wilders came when his Freedom Party became the third largest party in the Dutch Parliament in th elast election, and a vital part of the current center Right coalition government.
This is an important victory for a great and courageous man...and for all of us who prize the West and its freedom.
10 comments:
Wilders' 'crime' was to call attention to this, and to point out the correlation between the violence, intolerance and misogyny practiced in a significant portion of the Muslim population with certain parts of the Qu'ran and to call for a curtailment of Muslim immigration.
All true. I share sympathies with Wilders in some areas and am glad that he was acquitted of the terrible crime of using speaking freely. But he should take a lesson from that and realize that all speech is free, including the Koran, which he would like to see banned and burned. So you may prop him up as a saint, but pretending that he didn't say and propose some truly Nazi-esque things is a whitewash.
which proved his point, if you think about it.
no.
that statement is not correct.
that statement is subjective.
while mr. wilders stock is rising, it had no where else to go, an increasing number of people chose to think it does not prove his point.
the party he represents may be increasing it's number of seats, but dear queen beatri[cks], and her version of cardinal richelieu, will never allow mr. wilders to influence the netherlands abdication to islam.
the netherlands will now to back to sleep, or shopping.
now that the leftists have exhausted their will in the netherlands, i feel the ICC will be calling on mr. wilders in short order.
Hello Louie,
I'm afraid I don't quite agree with you here.
Actually, Queen Beatrix has been fairly outspoken in this regard.
The tide is turning in much of Europe. Slowly, but it is turning.
Regards,
Rob
"The tide is turning in much of Europe. slowly, but it is turning." I sure wish the tide would start to turn here in America!!
Hello Anonymous,
Actually, he wants the Qu'ran banned, which I don't agree with. But you have to look at it from the Dutch perspective.
They suffered horribly during WWII under Nazi occupation, and both Mein Kampf and Nazi regalia are banned in the country.
Wilder's point is that if the Qu'ran is Nazi-like in it's presumptions, it should likewise be banned as well.
BTW, you might be interested to know that Mein Kampf is a best seller in the Arab World, where it's title translates as "My Jihad".
Regards.
Rob
anon @ 9:52:
So you may prop him up as a saint, but pretending that he didn't say and propose some truly Nazi-esque things is a whitewash.
lol
given the moral equivalent world in which you live, should you not be arguing that those who went after geert, should now stand trial?
or would that just be a teensy bit tight a fit for your thinking?
It is a minor victory. The point was still made that speaking your mind could cost you $100 of thousands in legal fees and the risk of going to jail.
@louielouie
You must have glossed over the part where I said I was glad he was acquitted. This might be a reading comprehension issue on your part, so answering might be a futile effort. But no, I don't want those who went after Geert to stand trial. I think the people who went after him were cowards and are distasteful people. But, like Geert, they haven't done anything illegal.
By the way, being a horrendous person doesn't make you automatically guilty. There are a lot of horrendous people who are indicted purely because they are awful people - some legal specialists say that John Edwards was indicted be he was scum, not necessarily because he did anything illegal (I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other, so please don't go for the ad hominem as usually happens around here).
nah.
i didn't gloss over that.
moral equivalency usually isn't.
nor did i gloss over your warning:
But he should take a lesson from that and realize that all speech is free, including the Koran,
uuuuuuhh, all us dhimmis had better take heed, 'cause if all we do is bring what's in the koran out in public, it's hate speech.
if it had been a civil trial that would be one thing, but this was not. they used the mechanism of gov't against him.
miscarriage of justice?
i just don't see how you justify/defend it.
no matter, you defend the koran if you like.
i'll be more than happy to take the opposite view/side every time.
and what is wrong with ad hominem, isn't that protected speech as well? except when your getting instead of giving? huh?
I'm not sure how many times I have to write that I disagree with his prosecution. It's written in every one of my posts. Either you have severe reading comprehension problems or you won't be happy until I sign it in blood and staple it to your forehead.
Let's review. 1) His free speech (no matter how vile) should not be infringed. 2) The Koran (also free speech) should not be banned. I myself dislike the Koran. I also dislike Mein Kampf. And neither should be banned. He should not have been prosecuted. But he is also wrong for advocating the banning of a book.
If you read those statements as a defense of the prosecutors, then you are clearly someone who can only see what they want to see.
And ad hominem is protected speech. It's also lazy. Lazy like not processing the information someone gives you.
Post a Comment