Free speech on trial. Interview with Geert Wilders.

Published yesterday at Human Rights Services (rights.no)

The trial started today. He is charged with socalled hate speech, where in reality all he have done is quoted from the quran, and juxtapositioned the hate speech found in that book, with the hate speech found in mein kampf.

Geert Wilders is the leader of the largest party in the Netherlands according to recent polls, he is a member of the Dutch parlament amongst others, and might even end up as the countrys next Prime Minister, so this is very much a political trial.

 

Geert Wilders is many things, but far right he is not. That is just a label the establishment have put on him because he threatens to dismantle the entire rotten structure they profit from.

In the political spectrum he is hard to peg down. On some issues he is a conservative, others a liberalist. The far right label is in conflict with his stated goals and policies.

For example, and I find it hard to disagree with them:

- Secure free speech by writing it into the constitution, modeled on the US 1st amendment.
- Introduce a system of binding referendums based on the Swiss model.
- Introduce direct elections of mayors, police chiefs and prime ministers, much based on the US model.
- Reduce taxes and government regulations and beurocracies.
- Slash Dutch contributions to the EU and UN, and minimize these organizations influence on dutch politics.
- Have educational standards based on merit, science and knowledge, not "progressive" ideological drivel.
- Heighten the position in society of teachers, health-care workers, police, firemen and soldiers by means of wage increases.
- Make health-care more accessible and not burdened by costly and uneccesary beurocracy.

Sound far right to you?

He want to reintroduce a true democracy to Holland. To replace the current establishment, where all the other parties and the press are more or less in bed with eachother, for their own gain, whilst disregarding the will of the people on vital questions.

Naturally, the issue he is best known for, is to roll back the damage done by islamic immigration to Holland. By exposing islam as the nazism it is, and pointing out the barbary that follows in islams wake.

Holland was once a very open and tolerant society. Everyone was safe and free to speak their mind. Not any more. Islamic immigration have put an end to that. All Wilders have done, is speak the truth about islam, and formulated policies to restore Holland to its once peacefull, safe and tolerant of most things society.

For that he is prosecuted. In a political trial, by a witless and scared silly establishment. Imagine a trial, where the telling of truth regarding a dangerous ideology threatening ones society is not a defense, but the actual crime? Or as one of the prosecutors on the Wilders case said: "It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct. What’s relevant is that his observations are illegal."

Wilders is not political correct (a term coined by Mao btw), he is anti-establishment, and he got a strong and growing support in the Dutch people. This trial is the establishment trying to derail Wilders, the PVV and the Dutch peoples attempt to remove them from power.

In reality, the Dutch establishment can not win. Regardless of the outcome of the trial. The jig is up, people are not stupid, they see what is going on.

Oh, and Wilders views on coffeeshops, is a minor detail. If you allow the islamist supremacist and their political correct establishment enablers to first go after the jews, then the gays and women, the non-believers and the freedoms we take for granted, I am sure somewhere in there, they will also come for your coffeshops, not to mention breweries. And by that line of appeasement, you will loose a hell of a lot more than just legally blazing in public.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBlg2e5EAZk"]YouTube- Hate speech or Free speech? Geert Wilders on trial[/ame]

Wilders openening speech:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZyXkiQ-vn0&feature=player_embedded#"]YouTube- Geert Wilders brilliant speech[/ame]

 

Indeed. Without freedom of speech, democracy is a joke. Only restrictions on free speech that should exist, is libel, sedition and incitement to violence. Everything else, offensive or not, true or not, popular or not, must be legal.

No, actually it do not. It sounds more like the warnings of Churchill and Trotsky against the nazi menace. Their truthfull representation of the nazi danger, was not that popular at the time either. It was thought better not to rock the boat, and the problem would go away in a puff of magic if only we caved to Hitlers demands. Quite...

You need to get over your belief that you can compare the nazi propaganda against the jews in the 30's with the criticism of islam and islamists of today.

For one thing, the jews, even the most ardent and fundamentalist ones, did not kill or attempt to kill anyone. They did not have ghettoes where others was not allowed to enter and no law existed. They did not cause a flood of violent rapes and other violent crimes. They did not cause violence towards civil authorities or cause riots. They did not preach sedition. Infact, they did nothing to deserve the blind hatred of the nazis, except by merely existing as a convenient scapegoat.

Islamists in Europe today however, are seeking to impose their faith, and more important, their religious laws, sharia, on all of society. And they do this by assassination and deaththreats on critics, leading to a self-imposed censorship in large parts of the press and cultural sphere. They excert pressure using thinly veiled threats of riots should they not get their will from various authorities to push through various special islamic demands, like seperate education for boys and girls, reserved "muslim" slots in public baths, displaying religious symbols as part of neutral authority uniforms, such as hijab for police, soldiers, nurses and judges. They openly engage in sedition. And so on and so forth.

Do your poofy friend also insist that his dad should not only accept his poofy style, but that his dad must also dress poofy? If not, your argument is irrelevant. A non sequitor in fact.

Do stop comparing a democrat like Wilders with totalitarians like Hitler. Doing that only proves one thing, that you are speaking out of your ass.

If anything, Wilders want more democracy and more freedoms. It is the threat to these freedoms and democratic rule that Wilders is against. A threat coming from a totalitarian ideology.

This is just wrong in its entirety. The crusades was a reaction to islamic expansion that gobbled up byzants (todays Turkey) and coptic North-Africa (Egypt through Morocco), threatened central and southern Europe, and denied christians access to holy sites in Israel. Islam started the fight, not the crusaders.

And the justification is not found in the gospels. That the old testament condone these things was very convenient for the catholic church at the time, but the old testament is not what the gospels teach. So you cannot compare the teaching of christianity with the teachings of islam. Islam was founded by a genocidal warlord remember. Islam is an ideology of conquest as written and formulated by a self serving despot. The mythological Jesus did not teach war or genocide. Muhammed did.

Umm, Saudi Arabia not a wealthy country? Over the last 30 years, muslim oil producing countries have received over 13 trillion US dollars. That is 13,000,000,000,000 bucks. Yearly Saudi Arabia alone, rakes in over 300 billion dollars from oil exports.

Yet the majority of the population live in abject poverty? Not only that, it is one of the countries that practice islam very strict and violently. More so than Iran even.

So what is the matter with Saudi Arabia, are they not wealthy enough to be free, hmm? Yet originally dirt poor countries like Botswana, who is not muslim, have not only been practicing a free society, but due to that have also seen a tremendous increase in their economy during the same time period, the last 30 years. Botswana now have the same standard of living as Mexico. Leaps and bounds over what you find in any islamist ruled country, no matter the oil wealth.

Why is it so? For one thing, islam is not compatible with a free society. That simple. And without a free society, you cannot make a prosperous society.

All you do here is display hatred for Wilders, using false accusations that he is a totalitarian none the less.

Why the hate? Your arguments against him are factually not based in reality, so there must be some ideological or religious dogma you adhere to that makes you hate a man who stands up for freedom and democracy. Care to divulge?

 

Yes and yes.

And this is a problem why? Deportation is the only sanction that non-citizen islamists fear. Prison do not faze them.

And why should our societies use a small fortune to keep foreign nationals in our prison-system? Especially in light of such prison terms are more likely to further radicalize rather than reform these ideological supremacist totalitarian theocratic criminals?

Only thing that makes sense is deportation. Hell, it is already practiced for violent non-citizens in Norway and Denmark already.

Obviously I do not agree with this. But it is not a deal-breaker.

Have any other good ideas on how to stamp out anti-democratic totalitarian seditious ideology and behaviour amongst islamist citizens?

As it is, re-education is done already towards neo-nazis in most european countries. Special counselling and programmes are in place in most european penal and social systems to rehabilitate neo-nazis. Participation is voluntary in name only. Granted, it's not camps as such, but that is mostly due to neo-nazis being a marginal problem where individual treatment can be afforded. Islamism is not a marginal problem. Islamists constitute a significant minority of the European muslim population.

This would for me depend on the severity of the crime committed. I can't say I agree entirely on this, as I think genuine remorse, taking responsibility for wrongdoings, and qualified rehabilitation should be rewarded. As such, early release is a good incentive.

But some criminal acts, are so heinous, that no such considerations can in good conscience be given. And in europe, we do not have death-penalty in civil law.

The sentencing guidelines in most european countries, holland included, are in many cases laughably low. It do not get better by lenient judges, who seem more concerned with the wellbeing of the criminal than the damage done to the victims. So yes, stricter guidelines for sentencing is very much needed in many areas of civil law.

That's where violent repeat criminals belong. Behind bars for life. Better than in our streets, free to maim, rape and/or murder again. If they can't abstain from violence after two strikes, they have shown no will to change their ways and is a danger to society. So it makes sense to keep them out of society.

edit: to use Norway as an example again, this is to a degree already practiced. Normal max-sentencing is limited to 21 years (proposed increased to 30 years, pending parlament decision), with release after 2/3 of time served including pre-trial confinement. However, for violent repeat offenders, and even first time violent offenders, indefinite confinement can be sentenced. This is a sentence metered out where the convict is found to be at high risk of repeat criminal (and violent) activity. More specifically, murder, attempted murder, rape and incest. The length of this indefinite confinement is subject to a continous repeat risk assessment after mandatory sentence is served. A three-striker under indefinite confinement is not likely to be released until age or disabilitating disease renders him or her harmless to society.

In these days of islamic terror, imagine the threat to Holland if Wilders is PM... Busting islamist networks will then be a matter of national security. Hell, it is already. But at the moment, police and intelligence agencies are working with one hand tied behind their back.

If mere suspicion of criminal islamist networks and cells was enough to seize incriminating hard evidense, tragedies as 9/11, London and Madrid bombings could be prevented.

Yes, and? Such legislation have long been a part of many european countries, including Norway and Denmark. It is merely a constitutional recognition of our heritage and the values upon which we have built our societies and culture.

The preamble to the Irish constitution goes much further, it limits rather falsely the Irish heritage to christianity only...

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred..."

Again, yes, and? Either you're a citizen or not. Such provisions are not all that uncommon. This is merely saying that if one want to be a Dutch citizen, then one need to jump in with both feet. Not linger in non-commitment.

Norway have similar provisions. Dual citizenship is not applicable for naturalized citizens, unless in cases where dissolving previous national citizenship require an unacceptable risk, by for example having to return to a country of origin to dissolve citizenship, and that country want you in jail or worse for reasons not in violation of Norwegian law.

Actually it is not a stop to all immigration. It is a 5 year moratium on immigration from non-western countries. Asylum seekers with documented risk of life or liberty in country of origin due to political, sexual or religious persuation may still be given residency pending investigation. ID-less asylum seekers need not apply (which in Norway is 95% of them, comparable numbers in Holland).

The intent is to stop welfare and economic immigration, and give a breather in order to integrate the already substancial amount of non-integrated immigrants already in the country.

I see no problem in this, and support it wholeheartedly.

Well, Turkey have pretty much blocked themselves from EU membership. But in either case, Turkish membership in the EU would be an unmitigated disaster for Europe. I'd never vote for a party that recommended them membership.

Not quite true. He do however want to make real damn sure islam in Holland is reduced to a personal faith, as most muslims practice it, and not a political project for sharia, as a substancial and voicefull, if not outright violent, minority do.

Nothing to think about. It is simply a false claim and a libelous comparison. Wilders do not hate muslims. Never claimed to, never uttered anything to the effect. Not in speech, not in writing. Never.

Quite the contrary, Wilders recognize most muslims as peacefull tolerant people who present no threat to Dutch values or society. He recognize that most muslims are the target of oppression from self-righteous islamists, and need even more protection from these than your average non-muslim Dutchman.

If anything, Wilders want to protect these majority muslims to practice their more liberal and secular islam in peace from the totalitarian seditious demagogues that currently run most European mosques and islamic cultural centers and schools.

The point is to hinder and outlaw an extremist and totalitarian ideology that is indistinguishable from nazism. It is not to hinder the peacefull practice of any given personal faith.

Wilders is no fan of islam as it is presented by its mainstream interpreters. An islam that teaches that sharia is above all other laws. And anyone who knows anything about sharia, and how muslim majority countries are governed, would be insane not to agree to never ever letting such barbarism gain any foothold in our societies.

 

Hancock, I don't believe you when you say nothing have changed. If you believe nothing have changed, you either live in some middle to high income suburb, or in a rural area. If you live in the urban areas of just about any major city, you'd know excactly what problems predominatly muslim immigration carries with it.

The situation in the Netherlands is no different from say Norway, Denmark, Germany, France or the UK. Or any number of other european countries and their major cities.

There is a very real clash of cultures. The islamic and the liberal western. There is no hiding that. Muslims in europe tend to gather in ghettoes that are outside of ordinary majority control and not least rule of law. No-go-zones is pandemic to major European cities, in France as in Brittain and not least, Holland.

We have areas in our cities where our common law do not exist. Socalled honour killings are rampant. Not to mention rapes and other violent crimes. Then we have organized crime, ranging from gambling to drugs, and more soft crime like tax-evasion and welfare-exploitation.

Just here in Norway, it was exposed that 2/3 of Pakistanis living in Oslo, was involved in the greatest tax-scam and welfare scam ever. Taxi-drivers doing business off the record, and a lot of part time drivers collecting benefits whilst driving taxis off the record. Many of these have lived here for 30 years or more. They may have both their feet here in Norway, but their heart and mind is still in Pakistan.

So what do we do? As the PVV suggest, stop further immigration. We need time to integrate the immigrants we got. Obviously, we've done a piss-poor job of that so far.

I do not buy the multicultural relativist dogma that all cultures are equal. I know western liberal democratic culture is better than anything else. It allows more freedoms and rights than any other. And please prove me wrong.

As such, newcommers to our societies need to learn how our societies and culture works. Not saying they should abandon all of their culture, but they do need to abandon that which are not compatible with ours. Either that or get the hell out of our cultural sphere.

We need to make it perfectly clear to those seeking asylum or refuge in Europe, that they need to adapt to our way of doing things. Not the other way around. Therein lies the problem with many muslims and their naive enablers. They believe their supremacist religion is the truth and nothing but, and from that stance demand a lot of things that are mildly speaking abhorrent. All we need to say is that such demands will not be met. Never. And if they insist on those demands, they may find another place to live before we will inevitably make it imperative to them.

Do note, before some leftist asshat do accuse me of racism, I am only speaking of unwilling to adapt muslims here. Islam is not a race. And most muslims are not a problem. Though their collective culture is. It's the difference between welcoming Indians and Pakistani/Bangladeshans really. Same ethnic group strictly speaking. Yet Indians do very well in our societies, I want more of them, and not least more of their delicious Indian restaurants. Pakistanis and Bangladeshans on the other hand, being culturally muslims, are more often than not seen in our crime statistics, not as well integrated immigrants.

There is no hiding it. People from all over the world immigrate to Europe and the US. Most try to do good for themselves and their family. But the most problems, are from muslim immigrants, and nearly those alone.

Immigration, yes. From islamic countries, unless they are apostates or otherwise opposed to or persecuted by islam, well, no.

Islam is nazism. It is the pursuit of a judenfrei totalitarian sharia society, as they have managed to get in the Saudi-Arabian peninsula. And the islamists everywhere want for the rest of the world. It is no coincidence that anti-semittism force swedish jews to flee, as the muslim population in swedish cities as Malmø have reached nearly majority status. And a lot of other examples I could drag along exist from all over Europe.

So again Hancock. When you say nothing have changed, you either live a very protected life, don't want to see or just don't care.

But things have changed, and sooner or later, you will notice it.

edit: Almost forgot...

All Wilders have done, is say basically what I have. That european liberal democratic values and islamic ones are quite simply not compatible. By using various examples, and pointing out the huge elephant in the room. And for that he is put on trial.

I work quite a bit with immigrants, in the cultural sphere. My experience, is that there is a lot of joy and expression done by just about any immigrant group, by means of concerts and arts and culinary gatherings that I have participated in and worked on as a technician. What they all have in common is, they are not muslim immigrants. My experience tell me, that there is no real outreach between the muslim community and the society at large. Unlike all other minority communities I've been in contact with. Especially the more, let us say, vibrant african and asian ones.

 

Not wanting to create a new thread, so you have to excuse me having two posts in a row in the same thread...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96ZUZ9CPZII"]YouTube- The crooked judges of Amsterdam[/ame]

'Nuff said really, and no-one do it better than Pat Condell