 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 
 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
 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."
 TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's opposition leader on Friday pledged to remain defiant in the face of new threats — including calls by hard-liners for his execution — and said he was ready to sacrifice his life in defense of the people's right to hold peaceful protests against the government. Mir Hossein Mousavi's remarks come after the worst unrest since the immediate aftermath of disputed June presidential election.
At least eight people died during anti-government protests Sunday, including Mousavi's nephew. Iran's state prosecutor on Thursday warned opposition leaders could be put on trial if they don't denounce this week's anti-government protests. Iranian hard-liners have called for the execution of Mousavi and other opposition figures, while a previously unknown group claimed in an online posting that suicide squads were ready to assassinate opposition leaders should the judiciary fail to punish them within a week. In one of his strongest statements to date, Mousavi on Friday said he was "ready for martyrdom" — the sacrifice of one's life for a higher cause — and lashed out at the bloody crackdown the authorities are waging against the opposition. He said the government was making more mistakes by resorting to violence and killings, and that it must accept the people's rights to hold peaceful demonstrations. "I explicitly and clearly state that an order to execute, murder and imprison (opposition leaders) ... won't resolve the problem," Mousavi said in a statement on his Web site, Kaleme. "I'm not afraid to be one of the martyrs people have offered in the struggle for their just demands." Iran's internal turmoil has grown increasingly bitter. The confrontation between clerical rulers and their opponents returned to the streets in recent weeks, after a harsh crackdown immediately following the June 12 balloting all but crushed the opposition movement. One of those killed in clashes between security forces and opposition protesters on Sunday, when Shiite Muslims marked the sacred day of Ashoura, was Mousavi's nephew, Ali Mousavi. He was buried Wednesday in a hastily organized ceremony that was attended by the opposition leader and other family members. Authorities had taken the body from the hospital earlier in the week in what was seen as an attempt to prevent the funeral from turning into another pro-opposition protest. Sunday's unrest was followed by two days of pro-government protests Wednesday and Thursday in which crowds chanted calls for the execution of Mousavi, and another opposition figure, Mahdi Karroubi. Both Mousavi and Karroubi were losing candidates in the June election, in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner. The opposition argues the election was rigged and that Ahmadinejad won by fraud. Some government supporters at the two days of rallies wore white funeral shrouds to symbolize a willingness to die in defense of Iran's clerical rulers. Several hundred turned out for demonstration Thursday in southern Tehran outside the offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, state radio reported. In his statement Friday, Mousavi also denounced hard-liners who he said preached violence from state-funded podiums in the name of Islam. "Encouraging the killing of people ... is a tragedy carried out by specific individuals and the state TV," he said, adding that efforts to silence the opposition "through arrests, violence and threats," would not succeed. FoxNews
 CRIMINAL charges against five Blackwater security guards accused of fatally shooting 14 people in Baghdad in September 2007 have been dismissed. Judge Ricardo Urbina said prosecutors violated the defendants' rights by using incriminating statements they had made under immunity during a State Department investigation to build their case. “The government used the defendants' compelled statements to guide its charging decisions, to formulate its theory of the case, to develop investigatory leads, and ultimately to obtain the indictment in the case,” Judge Urbina ruled. “In short, the government had utterly failed to prove that it made no impermissible use of the defendants' statment or that such use was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” The guards had been charged with killing 14 Iraqi civilians and wounding 18 others using gunfire and grenades during an unprovoked attack at a busy Baghdad intersection. Judge Urbina explained in his opinion that federal prosecutors were offered an opportunity during a three-week hearing that began in mid-October 2009 to prove that they had not made use of the defendants' statements. “The explanations offered by the prosecutors and investigators in an attempt to justify their actions... were all too often contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility,” Judge Urbina wrote. He added: “The court must dismiss the indictments against all of the defendants.” The five defendants were security guards employed by Blackwater Worldwide, which since has been renamed a Xe Corporation. Blackwater has insisted its personnel were acting in self-defence, but critics repeatedly have accused the company of a “shoot first, ask questions later” approach when carrying out security duties in Iraq. A State Department review panel in 2007 concluded that there had been insufficient US government oversight of private security firms hired in Iraq to protect diplomats and to guard facilities. The panel found that as a result there was an “undermined confidence” in those contractors, both among Iraqis and US military commanders. The Australian
 The number of murders, rapes and assaults on people who dare to break strict religious or cultural rules is doubling every year, police figures show, with up to two violent “honour crimes” being committed every day. But charities which help victims of honour crimes say the true extent of the problem is far worse than the statistics show, as every year hundreds of vicitms - normally women - are too frightened to report attacks or to give evidence in court. The escalating problem was highlighted yesterday as an Old Bailey jury convicted Mehmet Goren, 49, of the cold-blooded and premeditated murder of his 15-year-old daughter Tulay after she fell in love with someone from the “wrong” branch of Islam. Miss Goren disappeared 10 years ago after telling a friend she might be pregnant but justice caught up with her father after his wife “courageously” testified against him and lifted what was described as the “cloak of secrecy” which surrounds honour crimes. A prosecutor said the case was a “wake-up call” to the authorities over the extent of the problem in this country, which campaigners say is growing because of the rise of religious fundamentalism. Miss Goren and her family had nine contacts with police in the days before her death, during which they complained of violence by Goren, but officers had little understanding at the time of the concept of honour crimes and she was left at the mercy of her father. The court heard that Miss Goren, whose Turkish Kurd family are Alevi Muslims, was drugged, tortured and then killed by her father after she fell in love with a Sunni Muslim twice her age. Her body has never been found. Goren, who adhered to what one police officer described as “outdated feudal beliefs”, was sentenced to serve a minimum of 22 years in jail as the trial judge condemned the “hideous practice” of so-called honour killings. Miss Goren’s sister Nuray Guler told the court, the teenager had been “caught in the middle of two clashing worlds” and pleaded with police to stop other women falling victim to “this primitive custom”. She expressed fears for the safety of her mother Hanim, whose evidence against Goren had put her own life in danger. “No one should fail to realise what this means within our culture,” she said. “These people do not forget.” Figures released by the Metropolitan Police show that in London alone there have been 129 honour-based crimes between April and October this year, compared with 132 in the whole of 2008/09, which in turn was double the number of the previous year. The Home Office has estimated that there are an average of 12 honour killings each year in England and Wales. More at the Telegraph
 NO final verdict has been reached for the three American hikers in Iranian custody, Iran's deputy Judiciary Chief is reported as saying. "The three American hikers have been charged and their case is being studied at the Tehran Prosecutor General's Office," Seyyed Ebrahim Raeisi is quoted as saying by Iran's state-run Press TV. US citizens Shane Bauer, a freelance journalist, Sarah Shourd, a teacher and Josh Fattal, an environmentalist, were arrested July 31 this year while on a hike in Iraqi Kurdistan. The three were traveling on Syrian and Iraqi visas and, according to Iranian officials, crossed the border illegally. The Australian
 Free speech goes on trial in the Netherlands on January 20, when Dutch politician Geert Wilders appears before the Amsterdam District Court on charges of having “intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion,” as well as having incited to hatred and discrimination. What did Wilders do to warrant such charges? He told the truth about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, and their roots in Islamic texts and teachings, in his film Fitna and elsewhere.
But nowadays truth-telling is at such a premium that those who still dare to engage in it are threatened, harassed and prosecuted. But Wilders is defiant: “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.” The very idea of trying someone for offending someone else is absurd – especially when the offended group is known to traffic in the PC multiculturalist coin of wounded feelings, so as to gain the political power that comes from victim status. That the Amsterdam District Court would aid and abet this absurdity and obvious manipulation unmasks the Wilders trial – even before it starts – as what it really is: an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. The one who has the power to decide what is an actionable offensive statement or prosecutable incitement has the power to control the discourse – and that’s what the prosecution of Wilders is all about. If offending someone is a crime, can those who find hate speech laws offensive bring suit against their framers? The action against Wilders is taking place, moreover, against the backdrop of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference’s ongoing efforts at the United Nations to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam — including “defamation of Islam” that goes under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.” If they succeed in doing this, Europeans and Americans will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West — in fact, one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis, non-Muslims subjugated under Islamic rule, is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. Thus this prosecution in Amsterdam not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance. The stakes are so high in the Wilders case also because the OIC has a new, powerful ally as it moves against the freedom of speech. In October the Obama Administration actually co-sponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations. Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council, the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Echoing Obama’s stated determination to combat “negative stereotyping of Islam” in the United States, the resolution also condemns “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups.” This is, of course, an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism — for such reporting, and not actual negative stereotyping or hateful language at all, is always the focus of OIC complaints. Last year the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, issued a warning: “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism. And he reported success: “The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.” For the first time, an American President has bowed to the OIC’s demands and taken cognizance of that “responsibility.” More at FPM
 TEHRAN, Iran — Iran said Monday it would try three Americans jailed since crossing the border from Iraq in July, a step certain to aggravate the U.S. at a time when Tehran is locked in a standoff with the West over its nuclear program. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki did not say when proceedings would begin or specify the charge other than to say the Americans had "suspicious aims." In November, however, authorities accused the Americans of spying. There are concerns in the U.S. that Iran could use them as bargaining chips in talks over its nuclear program or in seeking the return of Iranians they say are missing. Relatives and the U.S government say the three were innocent tourists on a hiking trip in northern Iraq and accidentally crossed into Iran, where they were arrested on July 31. "They will be tried by Iran's judiciary system and verdicts will be issued," Mottaki said at a news conference, without elaborating in detail. He said the three were still being interrogated. Even if the Americans are tried, however, there is still a chance they could be released fairly soon.
Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi was convicted of espionage and sentenced to eight years in prison, before she was released on an appeal in May. Canadian-Iranian journalist Maziar Bahari of Newsweek was released in October on bail and allowed to leave the country after being swept up in the post-election crackdown on street protests. The Americans — Shane Bauer, 27, Sarah Shourd, 31, and Josh Fattal, 27 — were detained by Iranian authorities after crossing an unmarked border from northern Iraq. More at FoxNews
 PVV leader Geert Wilders wants Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh as a witness in his upcoming trial.
In this way Wilders wants to show that his criticism of Islam is correct. According to Wilders, Bouyeri is 'living proof' that Islam is a source of inspiration for violence.
The trial against Wilders will begin January 20. He's suspected of incitement to hate, discrimination and insulting a group.
Mohammed Bouyeri was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Theo van Gogh in 2004.
Source: AD (Dutch)
With thanks to Islam in Europe
 Christian hoteliers accused of insulting a Muslim guest for wearing the hijab and berating her for her beliefs were dramatically cleared this afternoon. Benjamin and Sharon Vogelenzang denied using threatening, abusive or insulting words which were religiously aggravated against white British Muslim convert Ericka Tazi, 60.
District Judge Richard Clancy, who heard the case in the absence of a jury, told the couple that religion and politics was the 'tinderbox which set the whole thing alight and it would appear because of strongly entrenched positions that is what has happened here'. Explaining his reasons for dismissing the case, he said Mrs Tazi's claim that she was verbally attacked by the couple for up to an hour had not been borne out by other prosecution witnesses, who suggested that any discussions lasted around seven minutes.
Judge Clancy also highlighted Mrs Tazi's use of language. When describing how she was provoked by the couple about her hijab she used words to the effect of: 'Would you prefer it if I got my tits out?'
He said: 'I mention this because when I read that together with what she said about 'them taking the piss' it doesn't quite form the same religious view that was put to me on the stand'.
Judge Clancy said: 'I'm not satisfied on the facts that this case has been made out.'
His decision was greeted by prolonged applause from the couple's supporters in the public gallery.
Outside, Sharon Vogelenzang told reporters: 'We've been found innocent of any crime. It has been a very difficult nine months and we are looking forward to rebuilding our business and getting on with our lives.
'We would like to thank all those who have supported us, our family, our friends, our church and Christians all around the world, and non-Christians.
'And as Christmas approaches we wish everybody peace and goodwill.'
Mrs Tazi told the court yesterday that she was left traumatised after being insulted by the couple while a guest at The Bounty House Hotel in Aintree, Liverpool, on March 20.
She said they laughed at her when she came down wearing a hijab on her final day at the hotel and shouted at her, saying her Islamic dress was a form of bondage and that she had provoked an argument by wearing it.
Mrs Tazi, who converted to Islam when she married a Muslim 18 months ago, was staying at the hotel while she attended a pain management clinic at Aintree Hospital for her fibromyalgia.
She claimed Mr Vogelenzang called the prophet Mohammed a murderer and a warlord and likened him to Saddam Hussein and Hitler.
But the couple denied her version of events and claimed Mrs Tazi told them Jesus was a minor prophet and that the Bible was untrue. More at Mail Online H/T: WomenAgainstSharia
 A statement on the Wilders trial: The 20th of January 2010 will be a crucial day for defending our freedom. This is the day when the political trial against Geert Wilders will start.
Yesterday, Geert Wilders was summoned by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) on behalf of the Court of Justice of Amsterdam.
The indictment reads: group insult of Muslims, incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims due to their religion and incitement to hatred and discrimination against non-western immigrants and / or Moroccans due to their race. Geert Wilders: "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." In earlier stages, the PPS did not see any reason to prosecute Mr. Wilders.
Bram Moszkowicz, the lawyer on the case at hand, has submitted a notice of objection to the summons on the point of group insult on behalf of Geert Wilders. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that even though it is indeed punishable to insult a group of people, it is not punishable to insult a religion as such. Due to this the order of the Court of Amsterdam on this point is deemed incorrect. And here is the summons, from the District Court, Office of the Public Prosecutor, in Amsterdam: SUMMONS OF THE ACCUSED To: name: Wilders
first names: Geert
born on: 06 September 1963 in Venlo
residing in: 2513 AA The Hague
address: Binnenhof 1 A I hereby summon you to on Wednesday 20 January 2010 at 09:00 o'clock appear as the accused at the hearing of the three-judge criminal division in the district of Amsterdam, Parnassusweg 220, in order to be tried on that which is specified below. More at JihadWatch
 A DISGRACED Muslim taxi driver tried to use the holy time of Ramadan as his defence against allegations he repeatedly grabbed the breast of a disabled female passenger. Abdul Majid Qazizada, 51, had argued that Ramadan was a time when Muslim men "don't even touch their wives". He was yesterday found guilty of the aggravated indecent assault of a 23-year-old woman who suffers cerebral palsy and epilepsy. Magistrate Jennifer Betts said Qazizada claimed he was a devout Muslim who was fasting when the attack occurred in September last year. " 'Men don't even touch their wives (during Ramadan)', were his words," Ms Betts said in Ryde Local Court. The court heard how the woman got into Qazizada's taxi to go home after going out with friends at Ryde-Eastwood Leagues Club. During the short ride home, she felt at first "a little scared", then later "very worried", when Qazizada repeatedly told her: "You're a lovely lady." After parking in the driveway of her home, Qazizada told the woman he would help her get out of the taxi. Throughout the assault, he asked the woman: "Are you all right?". Each time she replied: "No." Qazizada eventually left, saying: "Have a good night." The woman immediately went to her neighbour's home to report the attack. The court heard that the woman uses a walking frame to walk short distances, a wheelchair to travel long distances and suffers weakness to the left side of her body. Outside court his victim, who cannot be identified, told The Daily Telegraph she was happy to see her attacker brought to justice. "It's been a tough time for me and my family. I feel good about what's happened today," she said. Qazizada was granted bail pending sentencing on December 9. Daily Telegraph
 An Iraqi immigrant accused of killing his daughter because she had become too Westernised has pleaded not guilty in a US court. Faleh Hassan Almaleki pleaded not guilty to two counts of aggravated assault. Prosecutors are expected to issue harsher charges now that his daughter has died. Police say Almaleki ran down his daughter and her boyfriend's mother with his Jeep on October 20.
Noor Faleh Almaleki, 20, died about two weeks later. The other woman survived. Almaleki fled the country after the attack, but was stopped at a London airport and sent back to the US. The hearing had been delayed twice because Almaleki was on suicide watch in jail. SMH
 by Dan Miller
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators detained at Gitmo are to face trial in a federal district court in New York City, where the death penalty may be sought. They had been facing trial by a military commission at Gitmo, but President Obama decided that he would prefer that the trial be in a civilian court. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder expressed confidence that the cases were strong, and said the trials would not be impaired by the harsh interrogations of Mohammed and others: I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years. I am quite confident that the outcomes in these cases will be successful ones. President Obama (now known with affection in China as “Oba Mao”) said: I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice. I doubt it. David Horowitz and others argue that the decision is a horrendous one. He observes: The decision to try the jihadists in a civilian court is also a decision which will divulge America’s security secrets to the enemy since civilian courts afford defendants the right of discovery. It is also a propaganda gift to Islamic murderers who will turn the courtroom into a media circus to promote their hatred against the Great Satan. I agree — but trial by military commission might not be much more satisfactory. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, with the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens, a quite divided Supreme Court held that “the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions.” Hamdan did not involve the current military commission procedures, which became law on October 17, 2006 — in response to Hamdan. Among the problems was that the defendant was not entitled to see all of the evidence presented against him: That the Government has a compelling interest in denying Hamdan access to certain sensitive information is not doubted. Cf. post, at 47-48 (Thomas, J., dissenting). But, at least absent express statutory provision to the contrary, information used to convict a person of a crime must be disclosed to him. There were multiple other deficiencies as well, including the lack of adequate review procedures. The majority opinion concluded: We have assumed, as we must, that the allegations made in the Government’s charge against Hamdan are true.
We have assumed, moreover, the truth of the message implicit in that charge — viz., that Hamdan is a dangerous individual whose beliefs, if acted upon, would cause great harm and even death to innocent civilians, and who would act upon those beliefs if given the opportunity. It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government’s power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm. But in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction. More at Pajamas Media
 TEHRAN - Iran has sentenced five people to death over the unrest that followed the country's disputed June presidential election, state television reported Tuesday. At least three others caught up in the turmoil have received death sentences previously. Iran began a mass trial in August of prominent opposition figures and activists, accusing them of a range of charges from rioting to spying and plotting what authorities have called a "soft revolution" to topple the country's Islamic rulers. The opposition led massive street protests and clashed with security forces in the weeks following the disputed June 12 presidential election. The opposition claimed fraud after election authorities declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of a second term and their anger unleashed the most serious internal unrest in Iran in the 30 years since the Islamic Revolution. A Justice Department statement said the five sentenced to death were members of "terrorist and armed opposition groups," state television reported. The statement said the courts have sentenced a total of 89 defendants since the process began and 81 of them got prison terms ranging from six months up to 15 years. "So far, 89 of defendants were tried and based on their cases, death sentences were issued for five of them," the statement said. It said the 81 people sentenced to prison terms were charged with a range of offenses from security violations, agitating against the Islamic Republic, violating law and order, damaging public and private property, and assaulting civilians and security forces. Breitbart
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
