Geert Wilders has been invited to show his short film Fitna in the House of Lords on 5 March 2010.
The purpose of this rally is not to attack Islam or Muslims, but rather to show support for Geert Wilders and to celebrate the achievements of Western Civilization. Namely Democracy, Free Speech and Human Rights.
Just under a year ago the Labour Government barred him entry to the country after Nazir Ahmed threatened to bring 10 000 Muslims to besiege the Houses of Parliament. To censor opposing views in a democracy is a moral outrage and suggests an inclination towards tyranny and appeasement on the part of the Government. Of course the Government was subsequently forced to remove this ridiculous ban and now Geert Wilders can finally get to show his film in the House of Lords.
In Holland the latest attempt of the Dutch ruling class to keep Wilders from office has begun, Mr. Wilders is on trial in the Netherlands for telling the truth. This trial will have unparalleled significance for the future of Europe. It is not just about whether our culture will survive, but whether we are even allowed to state the fact that it is being threatened.
Mr Wilders visit will be only a couple of months prior to the expected British general election, and the issue of Islamization is something that many in Great Britain are acutely concerned about. Hopefully, his visit will help break the taboo about discussion of Sharia in Great Britain and encourage an open and honest debate on the subject in the run-up to the General Election.
Show your support for Geert Wilders, Democracy and Free Speech by attending this rally on the 5th March 2010.
We’ve posted a couple of recentarticles on the pre-cooked report by the IVA Research and Consultancy on the “radical right” nature of the PVV and Geert Wilders. The Dutch government commissioned the “scientific” study, obtained exactly the result it desired, and released the report just in time for the second phase of the Wilders trial.Het Vrije Volk about the now-notorious report. A caveat to our readers: this is very thick stuff. Editing it into something that approaches normal English was an immense challenge, and was impossible to achieve completely.
Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated an article from
Most of the text below consists of excerpts from the official report. I have no idea whether the original Dutch version was written in the same sort of dense bureau-speak that VH’s translation and my editing produced, but there is no doubt that the raw material justifying a conviction of Geert Wilders may be readily found in the turgid prose of this document.
IsraelNN.com) In a recent speech in New York City, Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders, who became famous for a film on radical Islam, credited Israel with protecting the West. “The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.”
The Freedom Party of Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders has reacted furiously to the trailer of an online movie spoofing a murder attempt on Mr Wilders.
The trailer is available on the website of publicly-funded radio station FunX, which targets a young urban audience. Freedom Party MP Martin Bosma has said his party will ask Media Minister Ronald Plasterk whether “an over-subsidised multi-culti radio station” should be receiving government money if it is putting out “suggestive” movies. A government spokesperson explained to reporters that there is no preventive censorship in the Netherlands. Only after a broadcaster commits an offence can legal action be taken, according to the spokesperson.
Oddly, there doesn’t seem to be any news on any proceedings in the Geert Wilders trial for today, February 4, neither at Gates of Vienna, nor at the Wilders on Trial website. Stunning development: the Wilders trial has been adjourned for four months–correction: for up to nine months.
Snouck: I mailed Mr. Auster as follows:
The court has requested Mr. Geert Wilders to provide verhinderdata (can’t-make-it-dates) from the three witnesses whom he’s been permitted to call. The trial will resume in June if I am not mistaken. My notes say three to four months from now.
See how considerate and reasonable those who-have-been-appointed-over-us are, you cowboys?
LA replies:
Thanks for this information, which is entirely unexpected. I had no idea that the trial, which began less than two days ago, was about to adjourn for four months. I thought that the January 20 session had been a preliminary, procedural session, and that the trial proper had begun on February 3, as various sites including VFR reported on February 3. Everyone was geared up for the big event, which now we learn won’t take place until the summer, if then. I can’t imagine why this basic information was not reported or mentioned at any of the interested websites. And, by the way, what basis do we have for criticizing the American media’s non-coverage of the trial, when the trial won’t begin until June?
If there had to be a delay of four months in order to schedule the testimony of three witnesses, then it would not be unreasonable to suppose that if all of Wilders’s eighteen proposed witnesses had been accepted, there would have been a delay of twenty-four months. A distant observer may be forgiven for thinking that the Wilders trial is shaping up to be the Dutch equivalent of the interminable case of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce, in Charles Dickens’s Bleak House.
LA continues:
I’ve asked Snouck where he got the information that the trial had been adjourned until June, since I see no hint of that at any of the sites that are linked here.
Snouck writes:
This information was provided in the hearing. The full hearing in Dutch was put on the internet by the NOS (Dutch State Broadcasting) here at the end. I have not seen a full transcript in Dutch or English.
However, I made a mistake. Apologies. I listened to the last part of the hearing again and the trial will take place between 1st of June and 31 October. Not in June. The exact date will depend on the availability of the witnesses.
LA replies:
Unbelievable. So it will take place in June at the earliest.
Did the court give a reason for this enormous delay? Since when does it take up to nine months (from February 3 to October 31) to schedule the appearance of a a couple of witnesses at a trial? And if it takes this long to find a time when three witnesses can appear together, then a trial with 20 or 30 witnesses would take years.
And were the parties to the trial surprised by this announcement of the judges? Didn’t they think that the trial had begun and was not about to be adjourned for between four and nine months?
And why do you think that neither the news services nor the Wilders website reported this information?
Also, when did the judges make this announcement? On Wednesday the third, or on Thursday the fourth?
Snouck replies:
The announcement was made in the hearing on Wednesday the third. It was published on TV by the NOS and on the NOS website.
Snouck continues:
I am embarrassing myself. It is NOT in June the earliest. It is between 1st of July and 31 October.
The reason given is that one of the scientists (Wafa Sultan) has to come from a foreign country.
Mr. Wilders was angry about something. I do not think it is the delay though. He mentioned to the press his anger over the turning down of his requests for witnesses and experts. He said the Court does not want to hear the truth.
Other facts. The court says the trial will take five days when it will be held. Mr. Wilders may request more time. The Court might grant the request. Some part of it will be heard by a Rechter-Commissaris, a Court functionary. I do not fully grasp why or what that implies. Also the Court has yet to take decision on the status of the experts Mrs. Sultan, Mr. Jansen and Mr. Admiraal. Right now they call the experts “scientists.”
I do not know why the website of Mr. Wilders did not post the information. They seem to be posting mostly video. The PVV (Freedom Party) organisation is quite small and underfunded. I can speculate they are hard pressed to provide transcripts and translations.
LA replies:
Today is the fifth. The trial began on the third. I am dumbfounded that none of the reports about the first day of the trial–which were posted on the third–mentioned the adjournment.
In any case, now we now why, as I pointed out in an earlier entry, there was no news about the second day of the trial. There WAS no second day of the trial. But, notwithstanding all the attention that was focused on the trial, no one had told us that.
Paul Belien writes:
As I said in my previous email: court cases being adjourned for several months (sometimes years) is not unusual in Europe.
Europeans have waiting lists when they want to see the doctor, and they have to wait when they want to see a judge.
My guess is that in order to avoid Wilders electorally benefiting from a conviction, the Dutch establishment will try to delay the verdict until after the next general elections. The elections are due in June 2011 at the latest, but the general expectation is that they will take place this Fall.
LA replies:
Ok, but this still doesn’t explain why this information was not reported anywhere. Not at Wilders’s site. Not at GoV. Not in any news media source. It’s surreal.
And then the news only comes from a Dutch blogger who saw the Dutch TV broadcast of the trial and wrote to me about it, a day and a half after the various reports on the first day of the trial had been posted.
We were all treating with great importance, and got into a pitch of intensity about, this historic and fateful trial that was starting. And now it turns out that it’s not starting at all, and may not start for another nine months.
Paul Belien replies:
It was not reported because Europeans consider this to be normal. That is how courts work over here: as soon as it suits the court, they will send Wilders a message telling him when to come to court again. It may be next June, It may be next October, who knows.
(And GoV did not report it because they translate info which they get from Europe.)
You get annoyed and frustrated, but that is what the authorities hope to achieve: they want to get you so annoyed and frustrated that you just give up.
LA replies:
Yes, your explanation of the authorities’ modus operandi makes sense.
But that still doesn’t explain why Wilders’s site did not report this. Wilders’s supporters in America and England and elsewhere were closely following the trial. Didn’t Wilders’s staff think that this was slightly important information to tell us?
Paul Belien writes:
You say this is surreal. Of course it is surreal. The whole Wilders trial is surreal.
Want to live the surreal? Come and live in Europe.
“German homeschoolers get political asylum in the U.S.”
Wilders, too, will have to apply for asylum in the U.S. one day.
Paul Belien writes:
One more thing: the court also said that the witnesses will be heard behind closed doors.
LA replies:
Did they give a reason for this?
Paul Belien replies:
No.
Snouck adds:
Something I noticed watching and listening to the judge is that he appears scared or intimidated. He pays attention to the non-verbal reactions of Geert Wilders. I think he is part intimidated by Mr. Wilders and perhaps partly does not agree with some decisions he reads out.
And I agree with Mr. Paul Belien. Europeans see nothing unusual in the long wait, because we are used to them. That is one of the reasons why the wait was not reported.
The news out of the Geert Wilders show trial today is that the Dutch court is refusing to hear but three of the eighteen witnesses Wilders had wished to call.Diana West notes that it is not just the Dutch judges who don’t want to hear too much about Islam, it is also the global media. One might have thought that when the government of a Western state puts on trial the Parliamentary leader of the party currently highest in the polls, this would be big news to those who supposedly pride themselves in chronicling and commenting on the ways of liberal democracy. Apparently not:
What is one to make of this but that it shows an obvious desire on the part of the judges to keep things as quiet and short as possible. Once again we see that the “liberal” elites ruling the West simply cannot both defend their dogmatic positions on multiculturalism and “hate speech” without trying to shut up people who point out some of the deep problems with their ideology. And no problem is greater than the question of whether Islam, as it exists today in Europe, is compatible with European liberal democracy.
By the time I get up tomorrow morning, the second phase of the Geert Wilders trial in Amsterdam will have begun, and the news will be pouring in. In the meantime, here are some additional videos of the first session of the trial, which were evidently taken by a camera sneaked past the tight security in the visitors gallery on January 20th.
Our satellite connection is so dicey that I haven’t been able to view all these videos in their entirety, so I hope they work all right for our readers.
Our Flemish correspondent VH, who sent all this material, had this to say:
In a brief notice, Het Vrije Volk posted a link to someone called “Hollandse_Nieuwe”, who is uploading video reports (probably filmed with a candid camera) of Wilders’ trial.
Underneath I added all the related videos (with accompanying texts) that I could find on livingscoop.
In the second session of the trial against Geert Wilders, the Amsterdam court disallowed 15 of the 18 witnesses that the defence of Wilders wanted to put on the stand, among them Mohammed Bouyeri, murderer of Theo van Gogh. Other muslim-extremists were also disallowed as witnesses for the defence. Even the experts on law, requested by Wilders team were rejected.
The only witnesses allowed by the court are three (out of eight originally requested) experts on islam. However, one of these three is Wafa Sultan, according to Dutch News.That’ll make for some spectacular (and for the PC multi-cult crowd quite uncomfortable) viewing.
Challenged by the defence that the court had no jurisdiction over Wilders, the court ruled in favour of itself. While Wilders’ attorney argued that Wilders in an MP and hence subject to the High Council only, the court judged otherwise arguing Wilders is prosecuted for statements outside of parliament.
“Evidently this court is not interested in the truth”, reacted Wilders, “I can only conclude that the court will not allow me a fair trial”.
Read the rest here, and a h/t for many of the links in this post.
Short session. The court ruled that it is competent to deal with the case. It restricted the list of 18 witnesses which Wilders had asked to be heard to only three people: the Dutch Arabists Jansen and Admiraal, plus Wafa Sultan.
Hans Jansen’s work on Islam is superb and groundbreaking, and he will be an excellent witness, as will Admiraal and the exemplary freedom fighter Wafa Sultan. Nonetheless, this decision indicates the court’s bias against Wilders, and so does not bode well for him. He had wanted to call Mohammed Bouyeri, the Qur’an-inspired murderer of Theo Van Gogh, who would have proven his point immediately, and others who would have buttressed the truth of what he has said. That the court has hindered his ability to do this shows that the railroad tracks are being laid into place.
In a brief courtroom session today, Amsterdam’s District Court found it had jurisdiction to hear the case against Geert Wilders for “inciting hatred,” and further announced it would allow only 3 of the 18 witnesses Wilders had requested.
Wilders had sought three categories of witnesses: 5 free speech experts, 8 Islam experts, and 5 “experiential experts.” This latter category consisted of various Islamists, including Theo van Gogh’s murderer, a Dutch imam who had unsuccessfully tried to sue Wilders, and the Egyptian fundamentalist Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
The court decided to permit only the three Islam experts to testify: Johannes Jansen, Simon Admiraal and Wafa Sultan. In fairness, barring the Islamist witnesses is perhaps excusable. Presumably none would be willing to testify voluntarily, and only one resides freely in the Netherlands. What is much more troubling is the court’s refusal to hear from any of Wilders’ five free speech experts – all of whom would likely have appeared voluntarily.
The criminal case against Wilders revolves around freedom of speech and whether it may be abridged to serve other values such as social cohesion. Wilders’ experts would have offered testimony directly on point: Professor Tom Zwart is a human rights expert, Professor Afshin Ellian teaches Social Cohesion, Citizenship and Multiculturalism, and Professor Andras Sajo sits on the European Court of Human Rights. The two remaining witnesses, Professors Henny Sackers and Theo De Roos are experts in criminal law and procedure.
Indeed, the Public Prosecutor, which is reluctantly pursuing this case at the order of an Amsterdam appellate court, expressed interest in hearing professors Zwart, Ellian and Sajo testify. That the court nevertheless refused to hear from any of these experts feeds the impression that that this is a results-driven exercise rather than a serious impartial attempt to wrestle with the profound issues presented.
Wilders has stated his case not only rests on freedom of speech legislation but on the fact that he is speaking the truth.
‘This court is apparently not interested in the truth. I can conclude nothing else other than that the court does not wish me a fair trial,’ he was reported as saying by news agency ANP after the judges’ statement.
Wilders faces five counts of religious insult and anti-Muslim incitement. In January, the public prosecution department extended the prosecution case to include inciting hatred of Muslims, Moroccans and non-Western immigrants. Open court
The court also turned down the prosecution’s call for Wilders himself to be interviewed by an examining judge behind closed doors because of public order fears. Wilders had said he wanted to be questioned in open court.
The prosecution is not planning to bring any witnesses.
The case will take place at some point between June 1 and October 31, news agency ANP reported.
Below is the text of the Amsterdam court’s decision (from the court website), as translated by VH:
Decisions directional session Wilders
Amsterdam, February 3, 2010 — In the criminal case against Wilders at the request of the defense three experts on the Islam and the Quran will be heard by the examining magistrate. The application of the Public Ministry that Wilders be heard by the examining magistrate is rejected. The handling of the content of the case will take place later this year.
At the directional meeting on January 20 the counsel of Geert Wilders presented a preliminary defense and put in place research demands.
The court has first determined that the Amsterdam Court has jurisdiction to handle the Wilders trial and that Wilders may be prosecuted.
The court has commissioned the examining magistrate to hear three experts in the field of Islam and the Koran. These experts are Mr. J.J.G. Jansen, Mr. S.R. Admiraal and Mrs. W. Sultan. The request to hear so-called experience experts in the field of Islam is rejected. According to the court the defense has made not made sufficiently clear what they might add to the trial. The court will also not hear the suggested legal experts, because the defense has enough additional options to present its legal views to the court.
The Public Prosecutor has requested that Wilders be heard by an examining magistrate. That request was rejected partly because Wilders will be questioned later in public in court.
The case is referred to the investigating magistrate to hear the three experts on Islam. At this time, it cannot yet be determined when the experts can be heard. The case is therefore postponed for an indefinite time. At a later time the court will determine the dates for the content handling.
Yet another article from De Telegraaf, as translated by VH:
Moszkowicz: Court is overestimating itself
The lawyer for Geert Wilders, Bram Moszkowicz, finds that the court overestimates itself, now that it has found it unnecessary to hear some legal experts. “That is quite something, that a court finds that no legal experts are needed,” Bram Moszkowicz said. “With this the court overestimates itself, and when a judge overestimates himself, I start to be afraid.”
Moszkowicz believes the case of the PVV leader must be “legally grained.” Like his client, the lawyer considers the matter principled enough to want to hear the opinions of legal experts in the courtroom. Among other things he announced that he would then bring the statements of Theo de Roos and Henny Sackers into the case in writing. “The court will thus get a lot of paperwork because of this.”
Bram Moszkowicz was clearly “not amused” by the decisions of the court, but said that rejecting the court is not an option. “That is only possible when you think you can prove that a judge is biased. Self-overestimating is no reason to reject a court.”
Dutch politician Geert Wilders was visibly annoyed when he failed to get what he asked for from the three judges hearing his case at the Amsterdam District Court.
Mr Wilders, through his lawyer Bram Moszkowicz, had requested that 17 witnesses testify as part of his defence against charges that include inciting hatred of Muslims and non-western immigrants.
Murderer
Among others, Mr Wilders had asked that Mohammed Bouyeri, the convicted murderer of Theo van Gogh, be called as a expert witness.
The judges, however, will not allow Bouyeri to testify. They have also ruled that other ‘Muslim extremists’ on Mr Wilders’ ‘wishlist’ will not be allowed to testify. The list includes Fawaz Jneid, imam at the Soennah Mosque in The Hague, and Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, chairman of the Guardian Council in Iran.
Ex-Muslims
Mr Wilders will be permitted to call three experts on Islam, out of the total of eight he had actually asked for. However, two ex-Muslims called by his defence team – in part to give their personal view about the impact of Islam – were also rejected.
In their ruling, the judges say Mr Wilders will have ample opportunity to tell the court whether he agrees with their decision to disallow some of his chosen witnesses
Staying in Amsterdam
The Amsterdam judges also ruled that they have jurisdiction in the case. Mr Moszkowicz had asked that the trial be moved to The Hague, since most of Mr Wilders’ statements were made there.
Geert Wilders was visibly displeased with the rulings of the court, shaking his head repeatedly during the brief announcement.
Reacting to the rulings later, Mr Wilders told journalists outside the courtroom, “This court doesn’t seem to be interested in the truth. I can only conclude that the court is not going to let me have a fair trial. I have no respect for this.”
Mr Wilders bases his defence on his right to freedom of expression. He feels an important element in that respect is that in exercising that right he has in fact been telling the truth about Islam. So, in order to prove that what he says about Islam is true, Mr Wilders says he needs all of his witnesses.
However, some feared that had the judges allowed all seventeen defence witnesses, the trial would become a judgment on Islam, rather than a judgment on whether or not Geert Wilders has incited hatred.
Mr Wilders lawyer Bram Moszkowicz says the judges have overestimated themselves, and “when a judge overestimates himself, I get worried.”
The proceedings have now been adjourned until further notice.
Geert Wilders has launched a new website, called Wilders On Trial, to cover his trial in Holland. Jihad Watch has the story:
An announcement from the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV):
Dutch politician Geert Wilders launches websites on political trialWednesday February 3rd 2010 Dutch politician Geert Wilders launches two websites on the political trial against him and the freedom of speech. From now on both the Dutch (www.wildersproces.nl) and the international public (www.wildersontrial.com) are able to keep up with the trials’ proceedings.
Both websites not only include the latest news on the trial but also provide background information on the trials’ participants, the summons, the cause and the importance of this trial for freedom of speech in the Netherlands and -possibly- for the whole of Europe.
Geert Wilders: “This trial is not just about me. It is about the future of freedom of speech in the Netherlands. The outcome of this trial affects the freedom of all Dutch citizens. With these websites, I want to make it possible for people to follow the latest developments concerning the trial.”
Sorry for the late start on voting. Since the nominations were spread out over a bunch of different threads, it took me longer than I thought finding time to sort through them.
The polls will stay up until next Friday, Feb 5th. One vote per day, per person please.
Read the rest here ( scroll down to vote in the Fallaci awards – perhaps for Geert Wilders? )
The opposition party led by Dutch MP Geert Wilders is often characterised as “the anti-Islam Freedom Party”. Four researchers at Tilburg University have attempted to find a more specific definition. Is the Freedom Party right-wing, populist, extremist?
The four researchers studied the party’s publications and public statements, on the basis of which they defined its ideology as “national-democratic”. To some that will sound like an echo of the word “national-socialist” which was used to classify Adolf Hitler’s fascist party. The Tilburg University report says that although the Freedom Party does not have any roots in the traditional extreme-right movement, its views show a certain affinity with the far right.
Researcher Hans Moors told public radio, in typically academic style, “What we mean by a national-democratic ideology is that the Freedom Party’s view contains elements which make it appear as a party expressing that foreign elements are undesirable in Dutch society. That is part of an extreme right-wing ideology.”
Anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders will travel to London on March 5 to show his short video compilation Fitna at the invitation of two members of the British upper house of parliament, the House of Lords.
Geert Wilders’ political movement PVV is not an extreme right wing party but contains some radical right wing elements, according to a report into radicalisation in the Netherlands by Tilburg University research group IVA.
PVV statements on ‘islamisation’ and non-western immigrants appear to be discriminatory and the party organisation is authoritarian rather than democratic, the researchers say.
Gates of Vienna has produced a very interesting article entitled ‘Wilders, No! Intifada, Yes!’. It highlights the double standards that have produced the malicious and unjustified show trial of Geert Wilders that has been promoted by his political opponents.
The same government entity that is persecuting Geert Wilders did not seem to adopt the same approach when Dutch leftist politicians give comfort to the terrorist group Hamas. Geert Wilders tells the truth and finds himself victimised by Dutch ‘justice’ yet those on the left get away with marching with members of a terrorist organisation. Surely support for Hamas is an incitement to hatred and surely those who support such a group should find themselves in front of a judge instead of Wilders.
TORONTO – On the same day that the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders appeared before a court in the Netherlands on charges of incitement to hatred and discrimination against the religious beliefs of Muslims, about 150 people filled a room in Toronto’s Zionist Centre to show their support for Wilders and view his controversial film, Fitna.
Although the public prosecutor’s office in The Netherlands had already declined to charge Wilders, the appeals court reviewed the complaints made against him and decided that he should stand trial. According to the web site of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, Wilders will be tried for statements that he has made in public and in his film, Fitna (which means strife in Arabic). He is also accused of insulting the Islamic community by comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf.
The Toronto rally was hosted by the Jewish Defence League of Canada whose national director, Meir Weinstein, introduced the guest speakers and gave the final speech of the evening.
Bjorn Larsen, a member of The International Free Press Society and a friend of Wilders, talked about the issues that prompted Wilders to make Fitna and introduced the film. Larsen told the Jewish Tribune that Wilders was aware of the rally.
Other speakers included the author and blogger Kathy Shaidle (Five Feet of Fury), Ron Banerjee of Canadian Hindu Advocacy and Arnold J. Bennett of CUFI (Christians United for Israel) on Campus. The speakers presented the Wilders case as an issue of freedom of speech in the fight against political correctness and radical Islamists.
Rabbi Jonathan H. Hausman of Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, MA, gave the keynote address.
As the trial of Dutch MP Geert Wilders for offending Muslims unfolds in Amsterdam, I am reminded of Oriana Fallaci’s post-9/11 writings on how she saw Europe wasted from within by the alien cultural force of Islam.
Fallaci was a fearless journalist and author. And though critics faulted her for intemperate language, especially when it came to writing about Islam, Wilders’ trial might well confirm her fears about Europe and the West were not misplaced.
In 2006, Fallaci published The Force of Reason in the U.S. This was a translation from Italian of her hugely successful book La Forza della Ragione, published in 2004, which followed her previous bestseller, The Rage and the Pride, written in the aftermath of 9/11.
In The Force of Reason, Fallaci wrote: “And there is a Europe which does not know where it goes. Which has lost its identity and sold itself to the sultans, the caliphs, the viziers, the mercenaries of the new Ottoman Empire.”
Italian authorities would indict Fallaci with similar charges as brought against Wilders. She was eager to testify at her trial, to turn her indictment against the authorities. But the case never got to court before her death in 2006 at age 77.
As most readers already know, the Dutch politician Geert Wilders has gone on trial in Amsterdam for “inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims” with his film Fitna and other criticism of the Islamization of his country. The move against him is plainly political, and is an attempt by the existing power structure in the Netherlands to stem the rapid depletion of its own popularity and legitimacy.
Along with the person of Mr. Wilders, the sitting Dutch government has attempted to demonize his party, the Partij Voor de Vrijheid (PVV) by commissioning a blatantly fixed “scientific” study of the PVV, whose release was timed to coincide with the Wilders trial.
Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated two articles about the report, and follows them with his own notes.
Toilet Eend (“Toilet duck”), or WC-eend, is a toilet bowl cleaner like this one.
The NSB was the Dutch National Socialist Party during World War Two.
This op-ed concerns the IVA report mentioned in last night’s post at Gates of Vienna.
And his translation:
Toilet duck advising Guusje ter Horst
by Geert Wilders and Martin Bosma
Minister of the Interior Ter Horst is using research to influence my trial and harm the PVV.
Does the Church of the Left still know any shame, still have any desire left somewhere for truth and honesty? It is difficult to see any after the release of the report “Polarization and Radicalization in the Netherlands”. It is almost painful to see how the lefties are forced to squirm to justify their hatred and supply their project with its last remaining oxygen.
Philosophy of Destruction
This is the essence: for decades the left wing has lined itself up as the water carrier for Islam. It supports, facilitates, and funds a totalitarian ideology of conquest — with its most important service being the opening of the immigration floodgates. After fourteen centuries of jihad, the philosophy of destruction has booked a huge success because of this. The Netherlands must and shall aim for the multicultural utopian state. All resistance is useless and will be countered vigorously. Everything that deviates from the party line will be taken on rock-hard by the leftist elite and stamped “Nazi”. A short half-hour state broadcast provides a dreary queue of NSB! NSB! announcers. Come on in, great thinkers like Herman van Veen [a singer who compared the PVV to the NSB because both lacked membership; though n fact the NSB had one hundred thousand members] and Peter R. de Vries [TV crime-show host who blasted Bram Moszkowicz for defending Geert Wilders].
Els Lucas of the PvdA [Socialists] was one of the plaintiffs last week in the trial against freedom of expression. To ease her work for the party, minister Ter Horst (PvdA) had already opened a new front. She hired Jaap van Donselaar to fix her PvdA. Van Donselaar is from the Anne Frank Foundation, which in 1984 was described by former State Secretary Ploeg as a crypto-communist organization. Director Hans Westra is a member of the PvdA. And what does the Toilet Duck advise? Well, the Toilet Duck advises Toilet Duck. Ter Horst gets exactly what she wanted: the PVV has been branded again. And the timing is perfect. Just before the beginning of part two of the trial. If they cannot win it with the electorate, then try another way.
By not distancing herself from this malicious report and by sending it to Parliament at this time, Ter Horst makes herself especially guilty of directly influencing the political trial. And what does that bet with tax money deliver? A quote: “Ideologically, there are definitely certain elements of radical right ideas to be found in the PVV, such as a positive orientation to ‘one’s own’, a dislike of ‘the foreign’ and of political opponents, and a penchant for the authoritarian”.
Since when is a positive orientation to ‘one’s own’ part of the radical right? Wouter Bos [PvdA, vice PM] preaches a “civilized form of nationalism” and declares himself “proud of the Netherlands”. This once again demonstrates that the multicultural project and democracy go together poorly.
Is that kindly Wouter now also a Nazi? When will he come out of the closet as an NSB member? Was Willem Drees Sr. [former PvdA MP, who gave up his membership in 1972 because he strongly disagreed with New Left tendencies] oriented to ‘his own’ or to those of another country? And Saint Obama, who is put up on the wall in many a left-winger’s bedroom, certainly orients himself one hundred percent towards his own, considering the American flags and patriotic language. Even so, is he radical right? And all those immigrants with their homesick satellite dishes: they, too, orient themselves towards ‘their own’. Are they all also the new radical right?
Dislike
The Freedom Party is also accused of having an aversion to ‘the foreign’. Once again it is never good. One moment we are accused of being in America or Israel too often, and the next we suddenly have an aversion to ‘the foreign’. The reality: few parties are more the subject of international discussion than ours.
We even have a website in English. While other party leaders are hardly active just across the border crossing at Wuustwezel, the PVV stands her ground in Rome, Copenhagen, New York, or Los Angeles. Check the columns of the Wall Street Journal or the broadcasts of CNN or Fox News about it. That dos not really show an aversion to ‘the foreign’.
Dislike of political opponents. Well, though, that is in fact correct, when they are of the stature of Jaap van Donselaar — of the little leftist clique that is called the Anne Frank Foundation.
That foundation abuses a little murdered Jewish girl for their own agenda. People of that kind will indeed find an enemy in us. But otherwise we are friendly to everyone. The grimness that the leftist fellow sometimes displays is strange to us. The castigating and demonization (watch just once the Pauw & Witteman TV show for fifteen minutes) we will leave with pleasure to third parties. We will remain friendly.
The fourth charge of the thought police: that we lean to ‘the authoritarian’. Those pseudo-scientists cannot even substantiate the charge. Did the subsidy money run out? Could they not find the motion in which the PVV proposed to abolish democracy? Or did they just not want to play up the ‘authoritarian’ the too much, because it might draw attention to the sponsoring party: Minister Ter Horst. She is doing something that properly belongs in authoritarian countries: the state assessing and stigmatizing political parties. In democracies it is the other way around: there the political parties assess the government.
This once again shows that the multicultural project and democracy do not go well together. Now here is something that should be researched: where does the minister get the nerve to judge political parties?
Geert Wilders and Martin Bosma are president and secretary respectively of the Parliamentary Group of the PVV.
Geert Wilders has been invited to show his short film Fitna in the House of Lords on 5 March 2010.
It must be remembered that just less than a year ago the Labour Government barred him entry to the country after Nazi Ahmed threatened to bring 10 000 Muslims to besiege the Houses of Parliament. For a sitting government to censor opposing views in a democracy is a moral outrage and suggests an inclination towards tyranny and appeasement on the part of the Government. Of course the Government was subsequently forced to remove this ridiculous ban and now Geert Wilders can finally get to show his film in the House of Lords.
In Holland the latest attempt of the Dutch ruling class to keep Wilders from office has begun, Mr. Wilders is on trial in the Netherlands for telling the truth. This trial will have unparalleled significance for the future of Europe. It is not just about whether our culture will survive, but whether we are even allowed to state the fact that it is being threatened.
Mr Wilders visit will be only a couple of months prior to the expected British general election, and the issue of Islamisation is something that many in Great Britain are acutely concerned about. Hopefully, his visit will help break the taboo about discussion of sharia in Great Britain and encourage open and honest debate on the subject in the run-up to the election, no matter how unwilling the three main parties are to do so.
Show your support for Geert Wilders, Democracy and Free Speech by attending this rally on the 5th March 2010 outside the Houses of Parliament, London, England.
As the trial of Dutch MP Geert Wilders for offending Muslims unfolds in Amsterdam, I am reminded of Oriana Fallaci’s post-9/11 writings on how she saw Europe wasted from within by the alien cultural force of Islam.
Fallaci was a fearless journalist and author. And though critics faulted her for intemperate language, especially when it came to writing about Islam, Wilders’ trial might well confirm her fears about Europe and the West were not misplaced.
In 2006, Fallaci published The Force of Reason in the U.S. This was a translation from Italian of her hugely successful book La Forza della Ragione, published in 2004, which followed her previous bestseller, The Rage and the Pride, written in the aftermath of 9/11.
In The Force of Reason, Fallaci wrote: “And there is a Europe which does not know where it goes. Which has lost its identity and sold itself to the sultans, the caliphs, the viziers, the mercenaries of the new Ottoman Empire.”
Italian authorities would indict Fallaci with similar charges as brought against Wilders. She was eager to testify at her trial, to turn her indictment against the authorities. But the case never got to court before her death in 2006 at age 77.
This is a blog and a gathering place for all who are opposed to Geert Wilders' prosecution under Dutch law, for the apparent crime of criticising Islam.
The last time I checked, religion was not able to dictate the terms of an entire country's speech - there is something incredibly dangerous in the precedent that this sets.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with Geert's criticisms of Islam, the issue is much larger than that. Blasphemy laws, and religious chills upon freedom of speech need to be put to an end.
____________________________
This site is all about serving as a central source for information and opinion on the Geert Wilders case, both supportive and critical of Geert Wilders' actions. The idea is to provide a larger picture, the backdrop to Wilders' prosecution. Have you seen something from around the blogosphere, or in your travels through various newspapers and websites, that you think fits into the theme of this site? Please, by all means, let us know. It'd be much appreciated. Other feedback and commentary is welcome too.
The lawyer for Geert Wilders, Bram Moszkowicz, finds that the court overestimates itself, now that it has found it unnecessary to hear some legal experts. “That is quite something, that a court finds that no legal experts are needed,” Bram Moszkowicz said. “With this the court overestimates itself, and when a judge overestimates himself, I start to be afraid.”
Els 
walker morrow
xanthippa