Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Geert Wilders: BBC Hit Piece


http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/bbc-tribute-to-geert-wilders-europes-most-dangerous-man/

Geert Wilders: Europe’s Most Dangerous Man? Was published in four parts by the BBC.  I became aware of it through the good offices of
Bare Naked Islam.  BNI and most of her commentators seem to be convinced that the series of videos will backfire by yielding increased support for Wilders.  I am afraid that the positive outcome depends on viewers either having background information before viewing or seeking it afterward.

Here are a few of the unsubstantiated code words that fly in the videos:

  • far right
  • fear
  • extreme
  • incitement to hatred
  • new right ideology
  • fitna selects passages
  • viscious Islamophobia

For those who seek it, the background information can be found here: Geert Wilders On Trial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4SfkCwtKxUM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pQxXr7hMqDc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0m1_50Aun9E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jIpTytqwlXE

February 26, 2011 Posted by | Political Correctness | , | Leave a comment

Geert Wilders Defines the Issues: Free Speech & Civilization


Bare Naked Islam posted a video clip of Geert Wilders addressing the judicial panel of his retrial.  The video is in Dutch with English sub titles.

In this speech, Wilders asserts that the light of Western Civilization is being snuffed out by Islamization.  He also drives home the issue of freedom of expression.

“The lights are going out slowly all over Europe.  All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization.  the foundation of the West is under attack everywhere.

All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us four fourteen centuries.  An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom.

The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve, the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity.

With everything in me I believe the ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and  can only produce societies that are b ackwaqrd and impoverished.

Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology. My trial is not an isolated incident.  Only fools believe it is.  All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations.Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe – a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.

The lights are going out all over Europe.  Anyone who thinks or speaks indivdually is at risk.  Freedom-loving  citizens who criticize Islam or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between Islam and crime or honour killing must suffer, and are threatened, persecuted or criminalized.  Those who speak the truth are in danger.

The lights are going out allover Europe.  Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think.

Chairman, members of the court:  This trial is not about me.  itr is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country.  it is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people.  For  centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology. Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right.  Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.  the lights are going out all over Europe.  Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said there last year: It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of a free people – to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom.

Hence it is a right and a duty – and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament – to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called Islam.  I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphing from this trial.  I hope not only that i shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe. “


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pfEJaI2iS4&feature=player_embedded

My opinion is that Wilders is more relaxed and fluent in the retrial than he was in the first round.  He appears to sense impending victory. I suspect that he may have had some coaching.  This trial is likely to make history no matter what the outcome.

February 10, 2011 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , | Leave a comment

Spiegel: Trapping Wilders


Spiegel tried to entrap Geert Wilders in a confrontational interview.  The interview is displayed in three parts, the link is to the second part, which contains the quote excerpted below.  Navigation links to the other two parts are at the end of the article.

SPIEGEL: Are you familiar with this quote from the Prophet? “But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and slay them before me”?

Wilders: I have read many such passages.

SPIEGEL: The Prophet cited in this case was Jesus, from Luke, Chapter 19, Verse 27. Do you admit that there are also calls for violence in the Bible?

Wilders: There are brutal passages in the Old Testament; the New Testament takes a more moderate approach. But a key difference between Christianity and Islam is that Muslims believe that the Koran contains verbatim the word of God; it is written in the imperative. This precludes a comparison with Christianity.

The interviewer sprang Luke 19:27 on Wilders without identifying it.  The tactic is cherry picking,  secondary to argumentum Tu-quoque.  That is an attempt to utilize Jesus Christ as a straw man, attributing to him meaning which he did not intend. Jesus was relating the parable of the talents, not issuing a command.  Examine the context.

http://kingjbible.com/luke/19.htm

11And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. 14But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. 15And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. 17And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. 18And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. 19And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. 20And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: 21For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. 22And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: 23Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? 24And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. 25(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) 26For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

28And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

Nothing in the Bible and nothing Christians have done whether in obedience  or disobedience, subtracts anything from the absolute evil of Allah’s conquest imperatives.  8:39 & 9:29 are imperatives, clear commands to wage offensive warfare.  Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Islamic law describes the religious obligation to wage war against disbelievers in these words: “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year. [o9.1]

In that same section, we learn that jihad is obligatory: “If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. “.  The apologists for Islam will assert that jihad means jihad an-nafs: struggling with your conscience. Unfortunately for them, o9.0 defines it differently: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. “.

The imperative to wage war upon Jews & Christians, found in Surah At-Taubah, is codified in o9.8: “The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4)…”.

The imperative to wage war upon pagans, found in Surah Al-Anfal, is codified in o9.9: “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax …”.

Those grasping at straws to defend Islam will claim that those imperatives are anachronisms, out of date and not being followed by modern Muslims. They can not explain the fact that Muslims are attempting to reconquer Israel.  They can not explain the fact that most of the wars currently being fought have Muslims as the aggressors.

Those same apologists can not explain the sermons in which Imams rant about conquering and dominating Israel, America and Rome. They can not explain the signs carried in European demonstrations declaring “Islam will dominate the world”.  But I can: Islamic supremacism & triumphalism flow directly from the Qur’an & hadith. Examine these titles from Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir, click them and read the explanation of the verses.

Islam’s apologists in the media, academy & government pretend that Islam is a “great religion of peace”.  They can not disprove the clear evidence found in Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence so they resort to logical fallacies.  Islam is not a race, it is a predatory way of life. Opposition to predation is not racism.  They are fond of implying that Islam’s critics are Nazis or Fascists; they will not acknowledge the fact that we oppose Islam because it is intrinsically evil and a real, immediate & persistent threat to our security and liberty.

November 11, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Geert Wilders Trial: Prejudice Hits the Fan; Retrial Ordered


Pamela Geller brings word that the defense motion for replacement of the judicial panel on grounds of prejudice has finally been granted. The precipitating  event was a blog post by Hans Jansen in which he revealed an attempt to influence his attitude toward the trial.  The Professor and a member of the appellate court which ordered the trial were invited to a dinner party last May, three days before Jansen testified.  The judge engaged the Professor in conversation about the trial, a breech of judicial ethics.

The defense moved to recall the witness, the judges denied the motion, holding open the possibility of recalling the witness at a later time. Seemingly marginal prejudicial statements by the chairman of the panel may also have been considered.

The trial will be repeated at some future date with a new panel of judges, prolonging disruption of the defendant’s life and increasing his legal expenses.  The trial is a massive waste of time, money and resource and should never have been initiated.  The case was initially declined by the prosecutor and imposed by an appellate court.

One cartoonist portrayed Wilders plugging a hole in a dike with his finger.  In reality, he is sounding a warning about the leak, not plugging it.  That role is socially significant and he should not be prosecuted for it.

Small Voice, the blog in the second link above, has a chronological list of trial highlights including video clips of the reading of expert testimony.

October 23, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , | Leave a comment

Geert Wilders on Trial: Prosecutors Dump Case So What?


Reuters reports in a terse article that the Prosecution moved for dismissal on the remaining counts against Geert Wilders. It appears that they differentiate between Islam and Muslims. It is further suggested that Wilders, as a politician, has a right to discuss social problems.

Gates of Vienna has further information. Click here for the complete article, summarizing the Prosecutor’s report. Links are provided to the Prosecutor’s summary, in two parts.

Part one, seven pages long, relates to the first motion to dismiss a single charge from 10/12.

If the motion is granted, and if acquittal results,  and if the decision is upheld on appeal then  the precedent  may extend only to political office holders, not to citizens.

A politician will , pre-eminently, have a great extent of freedom to persuade others to follow his political views. The articles on discrimination in the Dutch Criminal Code may constitute a possible restriction of said freedom.

An element of ambiguity creeps in regarding the truth defense.  Truth is not a defense but provision of substantiation must be considered.

The truth

Wilders has indicated before that he cannot be liable to punishment since what he says is the truth. The truthfulness of Wilders’ statements is by no means being judged in this trial. This is quite irrelevant for the assessment from a criminal law perspective, since the statements concerned constitute Wilders’ opinion. His statements, reflecting his opinion, can be assessed in order to determine whether any provisions concerning discrimination have been violated. Pursuant to European case law, the question whether Wilders provides (any) factual substantiation for his statements must indeed be considered. [Emphasis added,]

Precedents are discussed, from the ECHR. Then comes this tempting tidbit.  In assessing this, bear in mind its singular application to opposition politicians and the precedents discussed here. Take careful note of the caution which follows the quote on pg. 4.

A discussion of general interest may involve a certain degree of exaggeration and provocation, i.e. a certain degree of excessiveness.

The other side of the coin is that statements which generate feelings of rejection and hostility and incite hatred, may indeed be punishable. Political statements which incite hatred constitute a threat to peace in society and political stability in democratic states. Politicians must be very careful, since their goal is to accede to power. It is essential that politicians avoid using words that could propagate intolerance.

Another prime tidbit emerges from the legalese.

The Supreme Court does not consider the statement ‘stop the tumor called Islam” to be punishable since the statement does not unequivocally refer to a group of people because of their religion.

Take careful note of the detail elucidated in the succeeding paragraph.

It is quite conceivable that people who feel very connected to their religion, feel that they (too) are being discriminated against when their religion is being criticized. However, from a legal perspective there is a strict distinction between a statement that refers to a religion and a statement that relates to people who adhere to that religion. Criticizing the opinions or the behavior of those who belong to the group, particularly including behavior directly related to or directly emanating from the religion, is not punishable. Criticizing a religion is not punishable, even if it is in very coarse language. Any hurt feelings may not be considered in the legal assessment of the element “insulting about a group of people”

How will you unscramble this egg?

Only impairing the self-respect or discrediting the group because it belongs to a specific race, has a specific religion or philosophy of life, is punishable. Feelings of the group are , as stated above, not considered in this respect. [Emphasis added.]

Read between the lines, inter alia, as they say in the UN resolutions.

When a statement is a contribution to the public debate, is made in the context of a religious conviction or in the context of an artistic expression, it can dispel the insulting nature of the statement. This does not necessarily mean that the statement is in practice experienced as less serious; this concerns the juristic construction as applied by the Supreme Court. We only focus on the public debate because it is important in this trial.

Part two discusses the other charges and delves into the legislative  climate.

When the sections were introduced, avoiding unnecessary restrictions on freedom of expression was considered to be very important. Accordingly, no obstacles under criminal law were imposed on criticizing views, even if such criticism were offensive. Criticism of the deepest convictions among religious people and of religion itself and the institutes and organisations based on religion is permitted, and the same holds true for Section 137d Sr. Criticism is punishable, however, if it unmistakably targets the actual people, and not merely their views, convictions and conduct.

I don’t think the OIC will let that set precedent.

Dangerous ambiguity is encountered on the third page of Part 2.

Intent

The word ‘intent’ does not appear in the description of the offence in Section 137d Sr. Still, ‘instigating hatred or discrimination’ is regarded as an intentional offence. The intent requirement is contained in the word ‘instigate’.
Section 137d Sr is a formal offence. This means that the possible consequence that may or may not ensue from the offence, or the likelihood of that consequence, does not determine whether the description of the offence has been fulfilled. The intent of the suspect need not concern a specific consequence or a specific likelihood of that consequence. The intent is present, if the suspect mustnecessarily have been aware of the hate-instigating nature of the expressions used. [Emphasis added.]

This gets boiled down to essence near the end of page 4. The reference is plural, to Fitna, a letter to the editor and several interviews.

Statements about Islam and the Koran are not instigations of hatred against people.

There is too much legal detail in part one of the Prosecutor’s summation, and I am not a lawyer.  I have no doubt that this case will be appealed.  By this time, lawyers for the OIC must have gone over Part 1 with a microscope, in preparation for appeals. More importantly, their analysis will certainly be reflected in future resolutions and protocols.  I hope that ECLJ, Art19, IHEU and others are intensely pouring over the whole set of documents in preparation for round two.

In essence, the Prosecutors have pissed on the OIC’s  defamation platform without extinguishing the fire. The resulting steam explosion  may have devastating consequences.   Expect riots. Expect boycotts. Anticipate renewed vigor in the drive  toward institution of Islamic blasphemy law through a binding protocol to ICERD.

October 15, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , | 2 Comments

Geert Wilders Trial: Truth is No Defense


Google published an article from Canada Free Press about recent developments in the trial of Geert Wilders.  One prosecutorial qoute  stands out like sore thumb and must be addressed.  Thanks and a tip of the hat to Jihad Watch.

“You can expect a politician to be aware of the impact of his words and in any case, the legal limit may not be crossed, no matter how important it may be to address supposed problems and to contribute to matters of general interest,”   Prosecutor Birgit van Roessel [Emphasis added.]

The relevant statutory provisions are revealed in the summons.  Expressions which “insult a group of people”  and/or ” incites hatred or discrimination” against them are arbitrarily prohibited.  No defenses are allowed.

If Muslims, motivated by the normative doctrines of Islam enshrined in the Qur’an and exemplified by Muhammad’s Sunnah, murder film makers, assault homosexuals, threaten members of parliament and pose an existential threat to the cultural identity and continuance of a free & democratic Netherlands, public disclosure of the facts is prohibited and can not be excused on grounds of necessity.

Besides mandating national suicide, the prosecutor has a severe cognitive dissonance problem. She moved for dismissal of charges of insulting Muslims because the insult was to Islamic ideology, not to Muslims.  If the insult was to Islam, then the incitement &  discrimination must also be against Islam,  not Muslims.  All of the charges should be dropped, they should never have been filed.

October 13, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Geert Wilders on Trial: Testimony of Wafa Sultan


Thanks and a tip of the hat to Vlad Tepes for  embedding these informative videos.  In these two videos, with a total run time of 19:14, we hear the  chairman of the judicial panel reading from the testimony of expert witness Wafa Sultan.

I doubt that the judge was comfortable reading that content, but he made an obvious effort to avoid displaying his disgust. His relief is obvious when he finishes reading the testimony.  The defendant and his lawyer were obviously struggling to maintain decorum.  A few  audience members in the gallery were not so successful in maintaining  a straight face.  A good view of the prosecution side might have been priceless.

Unfortunately, the dry reading of her testimony lacks the passion with which Sultan drove her points home in an interview the day before her testimony.
[Wafa Sultan Interview ]

Though lacking the chapter & verse specificity of  previous testimony, Sultan confirms it  plus Fitna and Wilders’ statements.  She illustrated her testimony with examples from her own  experience in her early life in Syria.

If truth were a defense against the charges  on which Wilders is being tried, Sultan’s testimony would be devastating to the prosecution’s case. Had her testimony been  public and properly covered by the news media, it would be devastating to Islam.

Testimony of Wafa Sultan Part 1 12:01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKveFlDaK8c&feature=player_embedded

Part 2  7:13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCbyES20A3I&feature=player_embedded#!

October 13, 2010 Posted by | Islam Hijacked?, Political Correctness | , , , | Leave a comment

Tide May Turn in Wilders Trial


Thanks and a tip of the hat to Gates of Vienna for  leading me to this nifty resource.  Those of  us who only know English won’t get much out of the  dialog from the  reading of the expert testimony.

From the  transcript, it is clear that Prof. Jansen  carefully laid out  evidence from Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence.  He delved into the  science of abrogation, which probably had the audience bored stiff.

The video clip, with a run time of 14:29 may bore you to tears but  when the camera  leaves the bench and scans the defense and prosecution tables, we can observe facial expressions and body language.

At 4:35, it is clear that Jansen  is having difficulty hearing the reading of his testimony.

At 6:21 we get our first good look at the prosecution table and the spectators behind them.

At 9:06, we get another good look at the prosecution table. Note the body language and expressions. Those are not happy campers.  They are trying not to show it, but they have a weak hand and they know it.  The cards of evidence are turning against their game.

At 11:14, it becomes clear that the defense attorney is starting to lose his composure, poker face fatigue must be setting in.  At 11:39 he turns away from the camera.

Everybody  seems tired  bored, or frustrated. Observe the body language as they  go on break about 13:21.  The prosecution team is last to leave, and not stepping lively.

Another  post from Gates of Vienna has the first clue.  The complainants are concerned that the prosecution undercharged Wilders.  They want the charge elevated to inciting violence, citing an alleged quote from  2007: “a struggle going on and we must defend ourselves.”  Yeah, right, that is incitement to violence.  The absurdity of the accusation  accentuates the arrogance of Islam.  Jihad is waged with the tongue, pen, heart and purse as well as the sword.  Likewise defense.  The prosecutor turned them down.

October 10, 2010 Posted by | free speech, Political Correctness | , | Leave a comment

Geert Wilders & Free Speech on Trial


Vlad Tepes published a video clip from the trial of Geert  Wilders.  Run time is only 4:41,  but the dialogue is fact paced, and the sub titles flash by rapidly.  On first viewing, I am not certain of the attitude of the  chairman of the bench.  It seems to be antagonistic, but there may be a subtext of  delving deeper into the issues.  It could also be some kind of perverse attack, like taunting a bull in the ring.  I need to replay the video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6zzdNRysgs&feature=player_embedded

I discover on review that I misinterpreted the Chairman’s opening comments. I thought he was closing the court to the audience for the duration of Geert’s remarks, instead, he was directing them to let the Court depart first for security reasons.

What is the big deal about debate?  Does the court desire to  engage Wilders in debate on the details of Islamic doctrine & practices to which he objects and which he exposed?

Why does Wilders declare that he has said all he has to say on the subject?   He stands by  his statements, but seems unwilling to give a detailed defense of them.  Have the judges, prosecution or defense considered the documentation I published?  Does the court expect the defense to prove every point?  Would they allow him to speak freely if he tried to offer proof?

It appears as though Wilders is wary of being entrapped; provoked to say something outrageous that the prosecution could seize upon to convict him.

October 8, 2010 Posted by | Freedom Of Speech, Political Correctness | , , | Leave a comment

Geert Wilders Trial: Refresher Course


The purpose of this blog post is to remind readers of the background information essential to comprehending the resumption of the trial of Geert Wilders.

This quote is from an English translation of the summons which lists the accusations against  Geert Wilders.  The summons is 24 pages long, detailing many statements.

The aforementioned summoned person is charged with the fact that
1.
he, on one or more dates in or about the period from 8 August 2007 up to and including 27 March 2008, in The Hague and/or Amsterdam and/or (elsewhere in) the Netherlands, on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion, by (each time) intentionally in
– De Volkskrant and/or
– on the internet on the website http://www.liveleak.com (in the film Fitna)
placing (having placed) and/or showing (having showed) and/or having heard one or more texts and/or images and/or footage and/or audio fragments with the following content:
(De Volkskrant of 8 August 2007, ‘Enough is enough: prohibit the Quran’)
„A moderate Islam does not exist. It does not exist because there is no distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam. There is Islam and that is it. And Islam means the Quran and nothing but the Quran. And the Quran is the Mein Kampf of a religion that intends to eliminate others and that refers to those others – non-Muslims – as unfaithful dogs, inferior beings. Read the Quran, this Mein Kampf, again. In whatever version, you will see that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit to us and themselves originates from this book (Oriana Fallaci, The Force of Reason, post-script, page 305, February 2006).‟…

2.
he, on one or more dates in or about the period from 7 October 2006 up to and including 27 March 2008, in The Hague and/or Amsterdam and/or (elsewhere in) the Netherlands, on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, incited to hatred of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion, by (each time) in
– De Volkskrant and/or
– De Pers and/or
– Dagblad De Limburger-Limburgs Dagblad and/or
on the internet
– on the website http://www.geenstijl.nl and/or http://www.pvv.nl and/or
– on the website of Radio Nederland Wereldomroep and/or the Wereldomroep and/or
– on the website http://www.liveleak.com (in the film Fitna)

[Emphasis added.]

Notice the prominent mention of Fitna, the publication of which is the basic issue, condemned by many government leaders, the OIC, and the Secretary General of the United Nations.  The summons goes on to describe the images in the video and list statements made therein.

The first charge is intentionally offending Muslims.  The statute, cited on the last page of the summons,  makes the issue cut and dried.

Article 137c Dutch Penal Code

  • o 1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
  • o 2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.

 Article 137d Dutch Penal Code

  • o 1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or in an image, incites hatred against or discrimination of people or violent behaviour against person or property of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their gender or hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
  • o 2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.

Truth is not a defense in the statute.  How shall the defendant establish proof of his intent?  The law, as written, criminalizes truthful speech on the grounds of perceived insult & inciting hatred, discrimination or violence.

Geert Wilders is an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, in that position, he is entitled to discuss public policy.  Islamization is a legitimate subject for public discourse; it is taking place in Europe.

Fitna can be viewed in its entirety by clicking this link. It is divided into two parts on Youtube.  I will embed the two parts here so that you can view them.
You will see a few verses from the Qur’an  and an English translation .  You will hear an Arabic recitation and see graphic depictions of the practical application of the verses.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37w-aXGk8M0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwwsnAr3rY8

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

Who expressed hatred in that video?  Who incited violence in that video?    The Qur’an, not Geert Wilders  is the source of hate and incitement.  Wilders exposed hate & incitement, he did not perform it.

My earlier blog posts relevant to the trial are linked in the list below.

October 5, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: