Posted on 01/21/2009 6:57:25 AM PST by Cindy
Note: Video included.
January 21, 2009
For hate speech -- after declining to do so last year, which means that Islamic supremacist groups in the Netherlands have kept up the pressure on lawmakers until they got the outcome they wanted. Hate speech, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, and hate speech laws are tools in the hands of the powerful that they can use to silence the powerless and crush dissent.
And make no mistake: even though the Muslims in the Netherlands and elsewhere in the West present themselves as embattled victims of racism and "Islamophobia," that is exactly what is going on here: this is just one part of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference's efforts 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, we 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 is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur'an, so this initiative not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance.
The enemies of free speech are closing in, and we have to stand together now and defend it.
(Excerpt) Read more at jihadwatch.org ...
Hmmmmm...
"Geert Wilders, in his own words:"
What insightful words they are.
Thank you for your post, and your ping.
57 states...indeed.
God bless and be with Geert!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=757EF675-E73E-43D3-9698-20F42BCAD623
“The War on Wilders”
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, January 22, 2009
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CCD1E0FA-235B-4CB1-A4D9-D4611738D01B
“In Defense of Wilders”
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, January 22, 2009
SNIPPET: “Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of eight books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs.”
Note: The following text is a quote:
Amsterdam Court of Appeal orders the criminal prosecution of the Member of Parliament of the Dutch Second Chamber Geert Wilders
On 21 January 2009 the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ordered the criminal prosecution of the member of parliament Geert Wilders for the incitement to hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. In addition, the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the islam with the nazism.
The Court of Appeal rendered judgment as a consequence of a number of complaints about the non-prosecution of Wilders for his statements in various media about moslims and their belief. The complainants did not agree with the decision of the public prosecution which decided not to give effect to their report against Wilders.
The public prosecution is of the view, amongst others, that part of the statements of Wilders do not relate to a group of worshippers, but consists of criticism as regards the Islamic belief, as a result of which neither the self-esteem of this group of worshippers is affected nor is this group brought into discredit. Some statements of Wilders can be regarded as offending, but since these were made (outside the Dutch Second Chamber) as a contribution to a social debate there is no longer a ground for punishableness of those statements according to the public prosecution.
The Court of Appeal does not agree with this view of the public prosecution and the considerations which form the basis of this view.
The Court of Appeal has considered that the contested views of Wilders (also as shown in his movie Fitna) constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law as seen in connection with each other, both because of their contents and the method of presentation. This method of presentation is characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created. According to the Court of Appeal most statements are insulting as well since these statements substantially harm the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers. According to the Court of Appeal Wilders has indeed insulted the Islamic worshippers themselves by affecting the symbols of the Islamic belief as well.
Secondly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether a possible criminal prosecution or conviction would be admissible according to the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court based thereon, which considers the freedom of expression of paramount importance. The Court of Appeal has concluded that the initiation of a criminal prosecution and a possible conviction later on as well, provided that it is proportionate, does not necessarily conflict with the freedom of expression of Wilders, since statements which create hate and grief made by politicians, taken their special responsibility into consideration, are not permitted according to European standards either.
Thirdly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether criminal prosecution of Wilders because of his statements would be opportune in the Dutch situation (the question of opportunity). According to the Court of Appeal the instigation of hatred in a democratic society constitutes such a serious matter that a general interest is at stake in order to draw a clear boundary in the public debate.
As regards the insult of a group the Court of Appeal makes a distinction. In general the Court determines that the traditional Dutch culture of debating is based on tolerance of each others views to a large extent while Islamic immigrants may be expected to have consideration for the existing sentiments in the Netherlands as regards their belief, which is partly at odds with Dutch and European values and norms. As regards insulting statements the Court of Appeal prefers the political, public and other legal counter forces rather than the criminal law, as a result of which an active participation to the public debate, by moslims as well, is promoted.
However, the Court of Appeal makes an exception as regards insulting statements in which a connection with Nazism is made (for instance by comparing the Koran with “Mein Kampf”). The Court of Appeal considers this insulting to such a degree for a community of Islamic worshippers that a general interest is deemed to be present in order to prosecute Wilders because of this.
The Court of Appeal concludes that the way in which the public debate about controversial issues is held, such as the immigration and integration debate, does not fall within the ambit of the law in principle indeed, but the situation changes when fundamental boundaries are exceeded. Then criminal law does appear as well.
Otherwise, the Court of Appeal emphasizes that this is a provisional judgment in the sense that Wilders has not been convicted in this suit of complaint. The Court of Appeal has only judged whether there are sufficient indications – at the level of a reasonable suspicion – to start a criminal prosecution against Wilders. The penal judge who will ultimately render judgment in a public criminal trial will answer the question if there is ground for conviction, and if so, to which extent.
LJ Nummer
BH0496
Bron: Gerechtshof Amsterdam
Datum actualiteit: 21 januari 2009
Liberals are just terrified of angering rage boy. Does anyone still have his picture somewhere?
Thank you for the link spyone.
#
Note: Video included.
BLOG:
http://ezralevant.com/2009/01/hollands-national-suicide-note.html
“Holland’s national suicide note”
By Ezra Levant on January 21, 2009 11:52 PM
FOX NEWS.com: "U.N. ANTI-BLASPHEMY RESOLUTION CURTAILS FREE SPEECH, CRITICS SAY" by Jennifer Lawinski (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Religious groups and free-speech advocates are banding together to fight a United Nations resolution they say is being used to spread Sharia law to the Western world and to intimidate anyone who criticizes Islam.") (October 3, 2008)
~
Note: Photo included.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024561.php
(ELSEVIER.nl)
January 24, 2009
“New York sheikh Khalid Yasin in Holland: Wilders must be flogged as punishment”
###
Previously...
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/090123-khalid-yasin
~
Note: Photo included.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024548.php
(RADIO NETHERLANDS, January 23, 2009)
January 23, 2009
“Jihadist hate preacher welcomed in Netherlands as it prosecutes Wilders for “hate speech””
Geert Wilders says, in referring to FITNA, and who “made FITNA” — “They made FITNA.” (the “they” being Muslims, themselves, because those are the *only actors* in FITNA — just the “Muslims” and no one else).
AND YET..., in spite of Muslims, themselves “making FITNA” and being FITNA’s only actors — the Muslims complain about FITNA being a hateful film....
Well..., the solution to that is that the Muslims could start *being* less hateful, then... LOL...
—
See FITNA here..., too...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/03/watch-fitna.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=ED69A3C9-B222-469A-B927-0A14CC42C3AA
“Geert Wilders: Man Out of Time”
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, January 26, 2009
SNIPPET: “Last Friday Geert Wilders said: “I view Islam not as a religion, but as a dangerous, totalitarian ideology — equal to communism and fascism. Aren’t I allowed to say so?”
No, he isn’t allowed to say so. For statements like these, on Wednesday the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ordered that Wilders be prosecuted for “incitement to hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about moslims [sic] and their belief. In addition, the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the islam [sic] with the nazism.”
So Wilders is facing criminal prosecution for “incitement to hatred and discrimination” as well as “the insult of Islamic worshippers.” If insulting someone is a crime, there is going to be an explosion of lawsuits in the Netherlands against ex-spouses and surly waiters – not to mention the fact that Wilders himself has a good case against his detractors, for all the hateful speech they have directed at him.
The very idea of trying someone for insulting someone else is absurd, and unmasks the Dutch initiative as an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. The one who judges what is an actionable insult and what isn’t is the one who has the power to control the discourse – and that’s what the prosecution of Wilders is all about.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=87668C51-09B4-4B5F-92DE-60D20897831F
“Prosecuted for Stating Truths”
By Nonie Darwish
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, January 26, 2009
SNIPPET: “It does not matter if Muslim scriptures have thousands of references to hate, condemn to doom, curse, boycott, humiliate, subjugate and kill non-Muslims. Such scriptures are not just in an old book on a dusty shelf that is never read, but in one that is recited daily by Muslim preached in mosques throughout the world and that molds the outlook and lives of millions of Muslims. And despite protests to the contrary, this does not mean some introspective self-improvement struggle; the definition of jihad in mainstream Shari’a books is “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion.”[2] Moreover, jihad is the most compelling duty of a Muslim head of State: “A Muslim calipha is entrusted to take his people into war and command offensive and aggressive jihad. He must organize jihad against any non-Muslim government, which prevents Muslim da’wah (meaning preaching and spreading Islam) from entering its land.”[3]
This legacy lives itself out in our world today in the form of the many Westerners are under Muslim fatwas; in Muslim laws that exempt Muslims from the death penalty if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim; in imams and Muslim politicians throughout the world who refer to infidels as filth, apes, and pigs. Perhaps the greatest insight into Islam is the fact that Muslim law forbids non-Muslims from insulting a Muslim or exposing any weak points in Islamic scripture or philosophy; that is considered an enormity of incredible proportions.
What is bewildering is the Western desire to collaborate with their would-be persecutors. Apparently Western citizens have reached such levels of sophistication that they feel they must respect those poor third worlders’ mentality at their own risk and demise. Thus, the vulnerable non-Muslim citizens in their own countries must show the world they are above it all — even above a healthy fear that would lead to their self-protection. Thus, European governments today are forbidding their citizens from expressing fear of those Muslim scriptures which demand Sharia law, Islamic Jihad or the killing of non-Muslims, calling their concern “hate speech.” The protection of Islamic ideology has become more important than the safety and security of their own citizens.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.