 June 23, 2011 - An enormous victory for free speech was won in the Netherlands (Holland) on June 22, 2011. Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been fighting charges of "inciting hatred" by speaking out against sharia law and other Islamic practices. Wilders' Freedom Party is the Netherlands' third largest political party in the nation's parliament. (Below is a video report by AlJazeera, followed by a video titled "Geert Wilders' Warning to America.") "The acquittal yesterday of Dutch anti-Islamic politician Geert Wilders on charges of inciting hatred," reports The Independent (UK), "has split the Netherlands down the middle as effectively as the populist MP's right-wing rhetoric." The report about the acquittal of Geert Wilders noted that the judge "ruled that some of Mr Wilders' comments may have been "crude and denigrating" but they did not amount to inciting hatred against Muslims and remained within the boundaries of free speech." “I am delighted with this ruling,” wrote Geert Wilders on his own website today. “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.” Wilders's final remarks in his Amsterdam trial were powerful. You can watch a video Wilders' closing remarks on YouTube (in Dutch with English subtitles).
Source: Chicago News Bench
 by Moorthy Muthuswamy The recent criticism of Geert Wilders’ views on Islam by the leading lights of the conservative movement has created much indignation and surprise in certain quarters. If conservative analysts with strong national security credentials couldn’t be convinced of Islam’s threat, getting the point across to the centrist politicians who define and execute policy will indeed be even tougher. In a particularly striking criticism of Wilders, conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer asserts that “What he [Geert Wilders] says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam]. The untruth of that is obvious.” Without commenting on the merits of Dr. Krauthammer’s critique, it is pertinent to note that it is his opinion. This is true of Geert Wilder’s reasoned views on Islam as well. After all, both have not quoted any scientific study to back their assertions. If Islam is a threat as some claim, what would it take to persuade that certain fundamental attributes of Islam enshrine it a violent ideology of conquest?
The key to settling what Islam stands for is to let science, not opinion, dictate the debate. This is reality crystallized by an analogy: There was a time when a male lion was seen as an embodiment of a great and dominant hunter of a pride. This perception reflected the majority of opinions at a certain time. However, various studies conducted in ensuing years told a different story: that female lions were the real hunters of a pride. That is, statistics of female lions hunting for their pride dominated the overall hunting pattern of a pride. These statistics put to rest the specific question of who hunted the most in a pride. In fact, these statistics form the definitive scientific basis of these studies. More than a few Muslims have claimed that they engage in jihad (a religious war waged to advance the cause of Islam at the expense of unbelievers) because Islamic scriptures command them to do so.
Even nations representing Muslim communities—Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran—have taken to sponsoring jihad worldwide, on the basis of the scriptures.
There are widely varying opinions on the root cause of this—the dominant one is that the relevant Islamic scriptures have been misinterpreted. As with the discussion of the lions, a corresponding scientific query would be to find out the extent or the statistics of dislike of unbelievers and their conquest in the Islamic doctrines. Recently, Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam has carried out a groundbreaking statistical analysis of Islamic doctrines.
I summarize his studies by noting that about sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. Moreover, about seventy five percent of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers. While there might be some subjectivity to the above analysis, the overwhelming thrust of the inferences should be noted.
This overall thrust exposes the sheer absurdity of excusing the Koran-inspired terror on the so-called “selective interpretation” of the Muslim holy book or its “verses being taken out of context.” The burden of scientific or statistical evidence suggests that Islam is an intolerant religion that drives its followers toward a violent conquest of unbelievers. If such is the thrust of the Islamic doctrines, their propagation would lead to increased violence directed at non-Muslims. Indeed, rise in Muslim extremism of the past decades is directly correlated with hundreds of billions of dollars spent by government-linked Saudi charities to “propagate” Islam worldwide. Not surprisingly, even in the modern context, manifestations of Islamic supremacy and conquest are the norm, rather than the exception. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden outlined a condition for terror attacks against America to cease: “I invite you to embrace Islam.” During the past sixty years most non-Muslim minorities—tens of millions—in all Muslim-majority regions of South Asia were terrorized into leaving for nearby non-Muslim-majority lands. All of this points to conquering land and people for Islam. America’s policy approach to the Muslim world has been clouded by misrepresentations of Islam’s character. For instance, in one of the most important foreign policy initiatives of his presidency, in the now-famous Cairo speech, Obama observed that “[America and Islam] overlap, and share common principles—principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” We are left with the grim reality that at the fundamental level America’s policies toward the Muslim world are based on false premises—and hence, are untenable. This reality must be acknowledged widely before alternate policies can be devised. We live in the era of science that has brought unprecedented security, development, health and prosperity. Yet, we have allowed opinions to dictate debate and policy on an existential threat. The importance of letting science drive policy couldn’t be clearer on the subject of Islamic radicalism. The writer is a U.S.-based nuclear physicist and author of the book Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War. His email is moorthym@comcast.net. With thanks to The West, Islam and Sharia
 Free speech is not merely an ornamental bauble found in liberal democratic societies. It is the well-fought ground upon which the structures of such societies have been constructed.It is free speech in practice, or its ideal subscribed to, that has distinguished Europe and western civilization from all others past and present. Its absence or suppression is the main feature of totalitarian culture. Yet free speech has never been entirely free from siege by special interests. Except for the United States where free speech is constitutionally protected by the first amendment, the exercise of free speech can still be constrained by the guardians of public interests as we see in the case of the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, indicted and brought to court for offending Muslims in Holland. The trial of Wilders is as much a step backward from the ideal of free speech as it is indicative of how free people willingly compromise their freedom by forgetting their history. In indicting Wilders for hate speech, the Dutch, and their Western supporters, have turned their backs to the long line of defenders of free speech as the cornerstone of liberty, from Spinoza and Voltaire to Emile Zola. Mere footnotes No modern thinker has written as clearly and forcefully on liberty, and what it means in the most fundamental sense of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, as did John Stuart Mill. All subsequent writings on the subject are mere footnotes or parenthetical circumlocutions of those who have not abandoned the quest of abridging free speech — even as they present themselves as defenders of freedom — by claiming to protect the rights of others. Mill contended it would be wrong any time for a government, even if it represented completely the will and opinion of the entire people under its rule, to control or suppress the opinion of an individual. Such coercion, in Mill’s view, was illegitimate. He wrote: “The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exercised in accordance with public opinion than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” Western societies in general have fallen short of Mill’s expressed ideal of liberty, but any infringement of that ideal has smacked of bad faith. In recent years, multiculturalism was propounded as if to ease the conscience of liberals — those who believe in liberty as Mill wrote about — when they do illiberal things such as penalizing free speech. Solvent The irony lost upon those eager to protect others from being offended by the exercise of free speech, particularly when it comes to the subject of religion, is that such offence was the necessary solvent for the reform of Christianity and the church — reforms that contributed to the making of the modern, secular, liberal and democratic West. In protecting Muslims from those who offend them, the West ill-serves Islam and those Muslims who seek its reform. Muslims need untrammelled free speech to awaken to the awareness of how totalitarian and comatose is their culture. Source: Toronto SunH/T: Poste de veille
 La liberté d’expression n’est pas simplement un colifichet décoratif des sociétés démocratiques libres. C’est le fondement durement acquis sur lequel ont été érigées les structures de ces sociétés. C’est la pratique de la liberté de parole, ou l’accord avec cette idée, qui distinguent l’Europe et la civilisation occidentale de toutes les autres civilisations, passées et présentes. Son absence, ou sa limitation, sont le trait majeur des cultures totalitaires. Pourtant, la liberté d’expression n’a jamais été complètement exempte des assauts que lui livrent des intérêts particuliers. Sauf aux États-Unis, où elle bénéficie de la protection constitutionnelle du premier amendement, l’exercice de la liberté de parole peut toujours être limité par les gardiens des intérêts publics, comme on le voit avec le cas du député hollandais Geert Wilders, inculpé et traîné en justice pour avoir offensé les musulmans en Hollande. Le procès de Wilders représente tout à la fois un pas en arrière par rapport à l’idéal de liberté d’expression et une illustration de la manière dont des peuples libres laissent sans s’y opposer remettre en cause leur liberté en oubliant leur propre histoire. Lire la suite...Source: Toronto Sun (Traduction par Poste de veille)
 by SIOE
Note that Stop Islamization of Europe (SIOE) has no formal links with Geert Wilders's PVV Party, but supports its efforts to stop Islamisation of the Netherlands and Europe.
Today Churchill, the most stalwart anti-Nazi, would be arrested in Holland whereas Hitler would be free to promote Islam unmolested
As reported by the BBC, Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put elected politician Geert Wilders on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.
"The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement. "The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.
How things have moved to the worst since Europe defeated Nazism in 1945. The most prominent European fighting Nazi tyranny had this to say about Islam:-
“How dreadful are the curses which Islam lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Islam is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -the science against which it had vainly struggled -the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.” ~~ Sir Winston Churchill~~
Nazi leader Himmler had this to say about Islam:-
"Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all -- Our Fuehrer."
In his memoirs Albert Speer wrote about Hitler’s enamour of Islam:-
Speer’s narrative includes a discussion which captures Hitler’s effusive praise for Islam, “…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament.” Hitler, according to Speer’s account, repeatedly expressed the conviction that, “The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”
Churchill likened Islamist terrorism to Nazism:-
"In truth though, just as the British stoicism recalls the same from 65 years ago, so too, there is a deep and instructive similarity between the Nazis and the Islamic-fascist forces that attacked then and attack today. The fact of the matter is that even more important than invoking the famous British "stiff upper lip," to fight this current war to victory requires understanding and accepting the similarities between the Nazis and the Arab-Islamic terrorist armies." Geert Wilders (among many others) likened the Koran to Mein Kampf Jihad means “personal struggle” (supposedly) Mein Kampf means “my struggle” JUSTICE WILL FIND GEERT WILDERS NOT GUILTY AND THE KORAN GUILTY Islam Watch 
 In twenty years of working as a cop in the Colorado Criminal Justice System, I never heard anything from a judge like what the Amsterdam Chief Judge said yesterday at the opening of Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders’ criminal prosecution. Wilders, who is on trial for producing his movie “Fitna” and for opposing the Islamization of Europe, sat motionless as the litany of charges was read aloud. The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling. I could laugh at this sadistic inanity, but the defendant is on trial for his freedom. All that is missing from this proceeding is the thumbscrew or the rack. And like Galileo (pictured above during trial), who faced his Inquisitors in 1633, Wilders is playing against a stacked deck. From Radio Netherlands Worldwide comes this report from John Tyler: “Geert Wilders sat expressionless next to his lawyers at the defendant’s table while the public prosecutor read out the charges, including incitement toward hatred of Muslims, incitement toward hatred of Moroccans, and discrimination against Moroccans and non-western immigrants… …The panel of three judges said it was unnecessary, but did instruct the prosecutor to read out Mr Wilders’ statements on which the case is based. After the statements had been read, the senior judge had the following exchange with the defendant (translated): Judge: “Mr Wilders, I can see that you are listening very intently, but what are you feeling right now? I cannot sense any emotion in you whatsoever.”
Wilders: “Indeed, I have been listening intently, but some things were missing. Particularly the quotes from Fitna [his anti-Islam video, ed.], I was trying to reconstruct it, to see if they were right. Some were, some weren’t.”…” Wilders claims the quotes attributed to him in the Charges are not accurate – as if that should matter to the prosecution and to this Court. Perhaps the Judge expected Wilders to break down in tears and confess his guilt, like some soppy Perry Mason TV episode from the 1960s. I don’t know. I do know that this entire proceeding has taken on a medieval Inquisition-like countenance.
But this time it is the 21st Century Dutch Government, intimidated by and acting as a de facto agent of the World of Islam, that is persecuting one of its own elected public officials in a scene that is a throw-back to the Middle Ages. It is a sham. It is a shame on all the governments of Europe that have chosen to surrender to Sharia and silence their patriots rather than to resist Islamization. And if you think this cannot come to The United States, you had better think again. NewsReal Blog
English translation: Mister Speaker, judges of the court, I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes. Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now. I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident. I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here. I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom. Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands?
Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country. Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it. Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear: It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial. In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court. This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth.
Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech.
But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial. With thanks to JihadWatch
  The Dutch Legal System for cowering to Political Correctness and Islam, and thereby destroying Free Speech.
 The depths of treachery, mind-numbing legal prejudice and undisguised prosecutorial malice in the upcoming trial of Parliamentarian Geert Wilders within Amsterdam’s Criminal Court are a truly alarming indication of how deeply Islam has sunken its tentacles into the Dutch government. Wilders goes to trial on January 20 for numerous accusations that are crafted to kill Free Political Discourse.
A December 4, 2009 indictment was handed down after Muslims voiced objections to Wilders’ movie “Fitna”, which exposes bellicose Koranic verses, acts of Islamic violence and the in-progress Islamization of Europe. The fix is in, ladies and gents. Members of the Press were summarily barred from a January 13 pre-trial hearing, prosecutor Paul Vellerman said that the trial will not occur in a “super-secured” Courtroom, and more charges were added, to wit: Racism Against Muslims and Moroccans.
The tentacles of Islam and PC have a strangle-hold. There will be no fair trial. Besides facing two years in prison if convicted, Wilders’ life will be at risk. The trial will be held in a Courtroom that is not equipped to afford adequate security, making him more accessible to jihad assassins. Diana West’s take is in her blog here. Danish Free Press’ Arthur Legger’s coverage is here: “Any one who still claims that the trial against Geert Wilders MP, leader of the Party for Freedom (9 seats in Parliament and 27 in the polls), which starts on the 20th of January, is not a political process: get a grip. Accused by the Dutch ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ exactly a year ago for insulting Islam, comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf and delivering hate speeches, the coming trial against Wilders suddenly got a Kafkaesque and potentially murderous twist… … “It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct”, the ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ stated, “what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”… This is incredible. It does not matter to the prosecutor that Wilders might be telling the truth.
It is illegal to speak the truth. Please, awaken me from the nightmare and tell me that this cannot be happening in a “free” nation in the 21st Century. “…(the indictment) which Wilders received on the 4th of December and sums up in verbatim all of his Islam and Koran critique in interviews and Fitna, was amended with new accusations of racism against muslims (sic) and Moroccans… Paul Vellerman, the public prosecutor of the Amsterdam Court decided that the Wilders trial had to be regarded as “an ordinary trial open for public and with a normal procedure, which doesn’t deserve the Department of Justice’s highly secured bunker…” Really? Parliamentarian Pim Fortuyn and film maker Theo van Gogh, outspoken Dutch opponents of Islamic doctrine and Islamization, were both murdered on public streets, in the day time, in plain view of passers-by. A Muslim killed van Gogh and a pro-Muslim-immigrationist dispatched Fortuyn. Vellerman, knowing full-well Wilders’ status as a marked target of Islam, refuses to give him the protection of a properly secured Courtroom during trial. This is dastardly. It is villainy. A squid kills by attaching its tentacles and drawing the victim toward its beak-like mouth, where it is torn apart and eaten. We are now witnessing no less than the devouring by prosecution of an unarmed and innocent prey in The Netherlands’ Court. NewsReal Blog
 Geert Wilders, the far-right MP who likens the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, goes on trial today in a politically charged test of the limits of tolerance and free speech in the Netherlands. Mr Wilders, 46, leader of the Freedom Party, is charged with incitement and discrimination against Muslims over his outspoken comments attacking Islam and for his film, Fitna, which juxtaposed images of 9/11 and beheadings with verses of the Koran.
He has called the Koran “a fascist book” and described Islamic culture as retarded. Mr Wilders, who has made no secret of his ambition to become Prime Minister, has called his indictment a political trial but the Amsterdam Court of Appeal decided that it was in the public interest to prosecute him because his comments have been “so insulting to Muslims”. “I am being prosecuted for my political convictions,” Mr Wilders said this week. The maverick politician was banned from Britain last February on the grounds that he would “threaten community harmony and therefore public security” but travelled to London in October when the restriction was dropped. He faces up to two years in prison if convicted but his opponents fear that, win or lose, his Freedom Party will receive a boost in next year’s election where it is expected to challenge the ruling Christian Democrats for the largest party vote. In last summer’s European Parliament elections Mr Wilders’s party took 17 per cent of the vote, second to the CDA of Jan Peter Balkenende, the Prime Minister, on 19.9 per cent. Mr Wilders has received numerous death threats for his campaign against the “Islamisation of our societies” views but has built a large following by exploiting a backlash against relaxed Dutch immigration policies, vowing to close Holland’s borders if he comes to power. “My supporters say, ‘At last there is someone who dares to say what millions of people think’. That is what I do.” Today’s hearing in Amsterdam district court is a formal opening session to determine who will be called as witnesses and whether they will all be heard in public. A spokeswoman for the Public Prosecution Office said that the demand for the case came from a variety of individuals and organisations which complained about comments made by Mr Wilders. “The Court of Appeal determined that statements equating Islam to Nazism were a punishable insult to Islamic worshippers and therefore constituted ground for criminal prosecution,” she said. In its judgment ordering the prosecution of Mr Wilders the Court of Appeal stated: “The court considers this so insulting for Muslims that it is in the public interest to prosecute Wilders.
By attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion, he also insulted Muslim believers. In a democratic system, hate speech is considered to be so serious that it is in the general interest to draw a clear line.” Times Online
 Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I do so because he is best placed to deal with the Islamic challenge facing the continent.
He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure. That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population's withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari'a)? Wilders, 46, founder and head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), is the unrivaled leader of those Europeans who wish to retain their historic identity. That's because he and the PVV differ from most of Europe's other nationalist, anti-immigrant parties. The PVV is libertarian and mainstream conservative, without roots in neo-Fascism, nativism, conspiricism, antisemitism, or other forms of extremism. (Wilders publicly emulates Ronald Reagan.) Indicative of this moderation is Wilders' long-standing affection for Israel that includes two years' residence in the Jewish state, dozens of visits, and his advocating the transfer of the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem. In addition, Wilders is a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader who has rapidly become the most dynamic political force in the Netherlands. While he opines on the full range of topics, Islam and Muslims constitute his signature issue. Overcoming the tendency of Dutch politicians to play it safe, he calls Muhammad a devil and demands that Muslims "tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands." More broadly, he sees Islam itself as the problem, not just a virulent version of it called Islamism. Finally, the PVV benefits from the fact that, uniquely in Europe, the Dutch are receptive to a non-nativist rejection of Shari'a.
This first became apparent a decade ago, when Pim Fortuyn, a left-leaning former communist homosexual professor began arguing that his values and lifestyle were irrevocably threatened by the Shari'a. Fortuyn anticipated Wilders in founding his own political party and calling for a halt to Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. Following Fortuyn's 2002 assassination by a leftist, Wilders effectively inherited his mantle and his constituency. The PVV has done well electorally, winning 6 percent of the seats in the November 2006 national parliamentary elections and 16 percent of Dutch seats in the June 2009 European Union elections. Polls now generally show the PVV winning a plurality of votes and becoming the country's largest party. Were Wilders to become prime minister, he could take on a leadership role for all Europe. But he faces daunting challenges. The Netherlands' fractured political scene means the PVV must either find willing partners to form a governing coalition (a difficult task, given how leftists and Muslims have demonized Wilders as a " right-wing extremist") or win a majority of the seats in parliament (a distant prospect). Wilders must also overcome his opponents' dirty tactics. Most notably, they have finally, after 2½ years of preliminary skirmishes, succeeded in dragging him to court on charges of hate speech and incitement to hatred. The public prosecutor's case against Wilders opens in Amsterdam on January 20; if convicted, Wilders faces a fine of up to US$14,000 or as many as 16 months in jail. Remember, he is his country's leading politician. Plus, due to threats against his life, he always travels with bodyguards and incessantly changes safe houses. Who exactly, one wonders, is the victim of incitement? Although I disagree with Wilders about Islam (I respect the religion but fight Islamists with all I have), we stand shoulder-to-shoulder against the lawsuit. I reject the criminalization of political differences, particularly attempts to thwart a grassroots political movement via the courts. Accordingly, the Middle East Forum's Legal Project has worked on Wilders' behalf, raising substantial funds for his defense and helping in other ways. We do so convinced of the paramount importance to talk freely in public during time of war about the nature of the enemy. Ironically, were Wilders fined or jailed, it would probably enhance his chances to become prime minister. But principle outweighs political tactics here. He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization. The outcome of his trial and his freedom to speak has implications for us all. Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Daniel Pipes
 In a major victory for the increasingly embattled freedom of speech, the Texas Supreme Court has just denied a petition by the Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas and six other Texas-based Islamic organizations to review their case against human rights activist (and FrontPage Magazine writer) Joe Kaufman. The case has already gone against the Islamic groups in the initial decision as well as on appeal, but they seem determined to silence Kaufman, and could conceivably try now to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit itself is a manifestation of the global assault on free speech that is picking up steam more quickly than ever now, with conservative voices shouted down and physically threatened on college campuses, and warriors for free speech such as the Dutch politician Geert Wilders facing trial for exercising this fundamental right. The Islamic groups’ suit against Kaufman is a cynical attempt to silence him and prevent his dissemination of truths about them that they would prefer unwary Infidels didn’t know – specifically, the terror ties of Islamic groups in the U.S. Ironically, however, none of the groups that sued Kaufman were actually mentioned in the article they claimed libeled them. Kaufman explains: “In October 2007, I had a lawsuit and a restraining order brought against me by seven Dallas-area Islamic organizations, who objected to an article that I had written for FrontPage.
Not one of the groups was mentioned in the article. It was concerning information I had personally discovered linking the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) to the financing of terrorism abroad. My allegations regarding this were and are backed up by irrefutable proof.” As frivolous as their charges against Kaufman manifestly were, their implications were ominous. Leftists and their Islamic supremacist allies, unable to refute the evidence and arguments their opponents present, are resorting to intimidation both legal and physical.
While Kaufman has been harassed in the courtroom for over two years now, conservative speakers at campuses all over the country routinely face the specter of being physically attacked simply for expressing views out of sync with politically correct dogma. Speaking at the University of Southern California on November 4, 2009, David Horowitz noted that this was a relatively recent development: “It used to be a pleasure for me to speak on a college campus like USC. I can remember the days when I could stroll onto the USC campus and walk over to the statue of Tommy Trojan where College Republicans had erected a platform for a rally to support our troops in Afghanistan after 9/11 at which I was to speak. Now, however, I can’t set foot on this campus – or any campus – without being accompanied by a personal bodyguard and a battalion of armed campus security police to protect me and my student hosts.” He said this while protected by a bodyguard and twelve armed campus security officers. Both of these forms of intimidation are being directed now at Geert Wilders, the Dutch Parliamentarian who produced the film Fitna, which shows how Islamic jihadists use violent passages of the Qur’an to justify violence and supremacism. For this and other alleged acts of “hate speech,” Wilders goes on trial in the Netherlands on January 20, for charges including having “intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion.” It is a sad day for the freedom of speech when a man can be put on trial for causing another man offense. If offending someone were really a crime warranting prosecution by the civil authorities, the legal system would be brought to a standstill.
But of course what Dutch authorities and Muslim groups in the Netherlands really want to bring to a standstill by trying Wilders is his truth-telling about the nature of Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacism – an honesty that has made his party one of the most popular in the Netherlands. The trial is an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. Wilders delineates the implications of his trial: “On the 20th of January 2010, a political trial will start. 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 criticise an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom. However I remain combative: I am convinced that I will be acquitted.” Even if he does prevail, however, Wilders is still not free. “I would not qualify myself as a free man,” he has explained. “Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate.” Will American defenders of the freedom of speech also soon have to be under permanent guard, and spending thousands of hours defending themselves in court from frivolous charges that are intended only to silence them? We have already started down that road.
Joe Kaufman has won another victory this week, but the Islamic supremacist machine in the United States has by no means given up its larger jihad against free speech and free thought. Those who are determined not to be silenced must settle in for a long, hard fight. FPM
 The Tundra Tabloids had contacted the Dutch embassy in Helsinki on Thursday, 14.01.10, and spoke with one of its representatives, who agreed with the TT that such a court proceeding against Geert Wilders would never see the light of day in a US court.
The TT also brought up the fact that it was the grossest of ironies that the man who vindicated Osama Bin-Laden in a mock court trial on Dutch tv, Gerard Spong, was also the individual responsible for filing charges against the Dutch politician.
So it's interesting that the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Washington D.C. has posted this notice on its website, which basically says that: "there's no political influence going on here, so please move on, nothing to see……..". KGS
January 14, 2010"In September 2009, the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ordered the criminal prosecution of Mr. Geert Wilders, Member of the Dutch Parliament, for inciting hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about Islam. Various people and organisations had asked for his prosecution. In June 2008, the Public Prosecutor had determined that his statements were not against the law and had dropped the case, but the plaintiffs appealed this decision before the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal determined that statements equating Islam to Nazism were a punishable insult to Islamic worshippers and therefore constituted ground for criminal prosecution.
The Court of Appeal did not convict Mr. Wilders of a crime, but ordered the Public Prosecutor to start a criminal procedure against him before the District Court of Amsterdam.
On January 13th, the District Court in Amsterdam dismissed a motion made by Mr. Wilders to limit the charges against him. The Court ruled that the indictment was in line with the decision of the Court of Appeal and that there were no new facts that would give reason to limit the scope of the indictment.
On January 20th, the District Court in Amsterdam will start the proceedings in the case. Ultimately, it will decide whether or not mr Wilders has committed a criminal offense.
The Court of Appeal and the District Court are fully independent from the Dutch government. As the procedure is ongoing, any further comment by the Netherlands government on the case itself would be inappropriate. Mr. Wilders is a member of parliament and continues his work while the case goes through the legal process."
 Last year in an unprecedented event at CPAC, Geert Wilders met Joe Sixpack, and it was good. This year, Atlas does not disappoint. We are ratcheting it up a few notches. Robert Spencer and I are organizing a joint venture to educate, elucidate and scare the bejeezus outta ya. THIS IS A NOT A CPAC EVENT - THIS IS A GELLER-SPENCER EVENT. Jihad: The Political Third Rail
What they're not telling us about the war on America It's Friday, February 19th from 10 am until Noon. We are still firming our speakers up, but here is a list of the invited: Wafa Sultan [confirmed]
Doctor, author, “A God Who Hates" Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff [confirmed]
Criminal complaint filed for “hate speech” under Austrian law
Human Rights Activist Steve Coughlin [confirmed]
Leading Islamic Specialist at the Pentagon, who was fired by Islamic infiltrators Simon Deng
Former Slave in Sudan, leading human rights activist against jihad Lt. Colonel Allen West [confirmed]
Running for Congress, Future Leadership Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer Invited: Rifqa Bary [invited]
teenage apostate Kurt Westergaard [invited] Danish cartoonist targeted for death by axe-wielding Muslim Marriott Wardman Park Hotel 2660 Woodley Road, NW Washington, District Of Columbia 20008 10 am until Noon
The latest assassination attempt on Kurt Westergaard's life by an axe-wielding Muslim (in his home with his five year old granddaughter present) has thrown an axe a wrench into this ............ Rifqa Bary is a free American. She should be free to speak anywhere she wants. Should she not? Plan to be at CPAC this year, or at least in DC, and set aside Friday, February 19th from 10 am to noon. I need your help getting it off the ground. I will not be charging for attendance, but it costs. No one underwrites me. No one. Not a penny. All of these right wing organizations have donors, big donors, small donors .... and fund raising arms. They are, by their very nature, fund raising machines. Not Atlas. More details at Atlas. With thanks to Atlas
 While many of us here at Women Against Shariah do not believe in banning books, the Netherlands is hypocritical for choosing to ban some violent and hateful texts, such as Hitler's "Mein Kampf," and permitting other texts. That is exactly what Wilders has pointed out-- the hypocrisy.Meanwhile hate-mongers like Anjem Choudary are free to incite hatred in the UK and Europe. Whether or not you agree with Wilder's assessment that Islam is a problematic religion which advocates violence (which it does and is a reason to support reformers), he should have every right to free speech as he does not advocate for harming Muslim people. From Dutch News: Wilders faces five counts of religious insult and anti-Muslim incitement.
News agency AFP says Wilders is charged with insulting Muslims by describing Islam as a fascist religion and calling for the banning of the Koran, which he likens to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
The MPs is also accused of inciting hatred and discrimination for stating Moroccan youths were violent, for calling for Holland's borders to be closed to all non-western immigrants and urging an end to 'the Islamic invasion'.
AFP says he faces up to one year in jail if convicted.
The case against Wilders is due to start next Wednesday, when the legal framework and timetable will be set out. The main process will begin later in the year.
 At last, the toon is here! One of the world's premier anti-jihad cartoonists, David Washburn, has graced us with the above toon of the 2009 Jihad Watch Award winners: American Anti-Dhimmi: Rifqa Bary
Anti-Dhimmi Internationale: Geert Wilders
American Dhimmi: Barack Obama
Dhimmi Internationale: Gordon Brown with thanks to JihadWatch
 Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Pamela Geller, founder, editor and publisher of the popular and award-winning weblog AtlasShrugs.com. She has won acclaim for her interviews with internationally renowned figures, including John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, Natan Sharansky, and many others, and has broken numerous important stories — notably the questionable sources of some of the financing of the Obama campaign.Her op-eds have been published in The Washington Times, The American Thinker, Israel National News, Frontpage Magazine, World Net Daily, and New Media Journal, among other publications. She is the co-author (with Robert Spencer) of the soon to be released, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (forward by Ambassador John Bolton). FP: Pamela Geller, welcome back to Frontpage Interview. I would like to talk to you today about a mass Muslim immigration plan that is going into the works in Europe and not too many people know about it. Can you enlighten us please? Geller: Thanks, Jamie. The disastrous and suicidal pact called the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership is in the process of going into effect, with little fanfare or examination. It boggles the mind that such a consequential and seismic cultural shift could be mandated and put into play without so much as a murmur from the mainstream media. The European human rights group called Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) has been working tirelessly to expose the mass Muslim immigration plan of the Euro-Med Partnership. A statement on the SIOE website criticizes the secrecy of the process: “It was shocking to hear about the plans and at the same time knowing that Danish politicians and a [cowardly] Danish press — who is otherwise proud to be critical — has told nothing to the Danish people about this project which begins already in January next year [2010]. This also showed clearly at the conference. Only very few politicians showed up and no media. Those politicians who showed up had obviously never heard about the Euro-Mediterranean project.” The goal of the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation is to create a new Greater European Union encompassing both Europe and North Africa, with the Mediterranean Sea becoming a domestic Eurabian sea. The goal is to establish a “comprehensive political partnership,” including a “free trade area and economic integration”; “considerably more money for the partners” (that is, more European money flowing into North Africa); and “cultural partnership” — that is, importation of Islamic culture into post-Christian Europe. According to the SIOE, in the Euro-Med plan, “Europe is to be Islamized. Democracy, Christianity, European culture and Europeans are to be driven out of Europe. 50 million North Africans from Muslim countries are to be imported into the EU.” FP: Who exactly is behind this agenda? Why is it being done so secretly and how come it is allowed to happen this way? Geller: Jamie, this agenda is being pushed at the highest levels of the European Union. The official EuroMed Partnership website says it’s an initiative of “the EU and its southern neighbors.” And it’s huge in scope. Recently in Brussels there was a summit meeting of trade ministers from 43 countries in Europe and the Mediterranean. And it’s being done secretly because the European governing elites know the people of Europe wouldn’t go along if they knew what was happening. FP: How does this effect America and Americans? Geller: Americans have to care about this for a number of reasons. Short term the most obvious reason presented itself on Christmas day, when a jihadi from Amsterdam attempted to blow up a passenger jet carrying 278 people as it was landing in Detroit. A flood of Muslims into Europe, many of them “devout,” would increase the security risks to America. And the destruction of national identity also bodes ill for us. This internationalism is already destroying what has made Europe free and great. And now Barack Obama seems to want to do the same thing to America. Longer term, a Euro-Arab partnership would put control of the oil in the hands of the new Eurabians, leaving America at a distinct disadvantage. Oil is power, and we would be at their mercy. More troubling is that we seem to be following the same European model of Muslim immigration. We have opened up Islamic immigration via diversity visas and religious visas to countries that are hotbeds of jihadist activity. The European model is in play. FP: So is all of this taking effect now? Geller: Indeed it is. EuroMed agreements have already begun to take effect. The British newspaper the Daily Express reported back in October 2008 about “a controversial taxpayer-funded ‘job centre’ “that opened in Mali at that time as “just the first step towards promoting ‘free movement of people in Africa and the EU.’ Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will ‘need’ 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the ‘demographic decline’ due to falling birthrates and rising death rates across Europe.” To offset this decline, a “blue card” system is to be created that will allow card holders to travel freely within the European Union and have full rights to work – as well as the full right to collect welfare benefits. FP: What can be done to block this project? Geller: Europeans and Americans must become aware of what is going on and fight it. The EuroMed Partnership will destroy what is left of European civilization, and ultimately shake the foundations of this country. Free people must not allow that to happen. We must stand up and demand that our leaders protect our civilization and take our countries back. FP: Pamela Geller, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview. FPM
 By Pamela Geller "The Europe as you know it from visiting, from your parents or friends is on the verge of collapsing," Geert Wilders said in a speech in the United States last year. The leader of the Netherlands' populist Party for Freedom added: "We are now witnessing profound changes that will forever alter Europe's destiny and might send the Continent in what Ronald Reagan called 'a thousand years of darkness.' " And not just Europe, but America as well. Been to Europe lately? Thought it was bad? You ain't seen nothing yet. The passage of the Lisbon Treaty, hailed by President Obama, nailed the coffin shut on national sovereignty in Europe. The people of Europe fought it, but were overwhelmed by their political elites and the lack of American leadership in this age of our rather Marxist, collectivist U.S. president. Come Jan. 1, 2010, a disastrous and suicidal pact called the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Europe/Mediterranean) goes into effect with little fanfare or examination. It boggles the mind that such a consequential and seismic cultural shift could be mandated and put into play without so much as a murmur from the mainstream media. Why should Americans care about this? Americans have to care because this global gobbledygook is coming to our shores, thanks to our globalist president. The European human rights group called Stop the Islamization of Europe (SIOE) has been working tirelessly to expose the mass Muslim immigration plan of the Euro-Med Partnership. A statement on the SIOE Web site criticizes the secrecy of the process: "It was shocking to hear about the plans and at the same time knowing that Danish politicians and a [cowardly] Danish press - who is otherwise proud to be critical - has told nothing to the Danish people about this project which begins in January. This also showed clearly at the conference. Only very few politicians showed up and no media. Those politicians who showed up had obviously never heard about the Euro-Mediterranean project. The goal of the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation is to create a new Greater European Union encompassing both Europe and North Africa, with the Mediterranean Sea becoming a domestic Eurabian sea. The goal is to establish a "comprehensive political partnership," including a "free trade area and economic integration"; "considerably more money for the partners" (that is, more European money flowing into North Africa); and "cultural partnership" - that is, importation of Islamic culture into post-Christian Europe. According to the SIOE, in the Euro-Med plan "Europe is to be islamized. Democracy, Christianity, European culture and Europeans are to be driven out of Europe. Fifty million North Africans from Muslim countries are to be imported into the EU." Skeptical? It's already happening. The British newspaper the Daily Express reported in October 2008 on "a controversial taxpayer-funded 'job centre' " that opened in Mali at that time as "just the first step towards promoting 'free movement of people in Africa and the EU.' Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will 'need' 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the 'demographic decline' due to falling birthrates and rising death rates across Europe." To offset this decline, a "blue card" system is to be created that will allow card holders to travel freely within the European Union and have full rights to work - as well as the full right to collect welfare benefits. A Muslim population from Africa moving freely into Europe threatens America. On Christmas Day, a Nigerian Muslim flew from Amsterdam to Detroit and tried to explode a bomb on the plane - after he was allowed to board the plane without a passport.
The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership will make jihad attacks like this one all the easier. And once in Europe, Muslims have already begun demanding special privileges and accommodations. IslamOnline reported on Dec. 21 that "Muslims activists from 26 European countries have come together to launch the first rights council to enlighten European Muslims about their rights, monitor rising Islamophobia and defend Muslim rights in European courts of law." Ali Abu Shwaima, a Muslim leader in Italy, explained: "We think European human rights groups are not doing enough to defend the rights of Muslims. Therefore we thought that we need this new council, especially that all laws and constitutions in Europe respect freedom of religion and oppose all forms of discrimination and racism." "Islamophobia," "discrimination" and "racism" are all terms Muslims in Europe and America use to confuse people into thinking that the perpetrators of Islamic terrorism are the real victims. And it is working: Mr. Wilders is going on trial in the Netherlands, instead of all the Islamic hate sponsors he is fighting against. It has to be this way, to increase harmony among the Muslim and non-Muslim member states of the Euro-Med Partnership. This internationalism is already destroying what has made Europe free and great. And now Mr. Obama seems to want to do the same to America. Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs Web site. She is the author (with Robert Spencer) of the forthcoming book "The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America" (Simon and Schuster, July 2010). Washington Times H/T: Atlas
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
