The Weekly Wilders Round-Up

1 02 2010

Alright, here we go.

Blazing Cat Fur – Random Furballs for a Monday morning…

Citizen Warrior – Geert Wilder’s Hearing

Blogmocracy – Blogmocracy Awards – 2009!

Here we go again!

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? )

Radio Netherlands Worldwide – Controversy over Dutch kilometre charge poll

Loganswarning – Dutch Protest for Geert Wilders~ Video

Fousesquawk – Geert Wilders’ Opening Statement

Salim Mansur, in the Kingston Whig Standard – Freedom of speech put on trial in the Netherlands – Geert Wilders Goes on Trial

Family Security Matters – Hey, Let’s Talk About Islam!

Sunlit Uplands – Geert Wilders: “If Something is True, How Can It Be Illegal?”

Radio Netherlands Worldwide – Who gets to be Dutch?

Mark Steyn, in NRO’s The Corner – ‘Jihad Chill’

Metamagician and the Hellfire Club – Geert Wilders goes on trial, and so does the Netherlands

The Rubin Report – Free Speech is a Right, Not a Privilege Granted by the State

Radio Netherlands Worldwide – Putting Geert Wilders on the political map:

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.”

Read the rest here.

International Civil Liberties Alliance [ video ] – We Have A Hero: Geert Wilders

Creeping Sharia – Geert Wilders’ speech to the court; trial to resume in February

Conservative Beach Girl – Geert Wilders and Ayatollah Khalaji: prosecuted for speaking the truth?

Comment Is Free – Don’t let Auschwitz be forgotten – Wilders to show Fitna in London in March:

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.

Read the rest here.

EuropeNews – Censorship: EuropeNews banned in the United Arab Emirates

Huibslog – How the Wilders Hysteria is Linked to Holland. Who is exploiting it. And Why it will be Overcome. (3, The Funders) [EN]

LivingScoop [ video ] – We Have A Hero: Geert Wilders

The Wall Street Journal – Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders


EuropeNews – We Have A Hero: Geert Wilders – and ‘Jihad Chill’

Zionist Conspiracy – The Assault against Freedom of Speech in the EU (and the Israeli campus war against Israel)

Counter-Jihad Alliance – Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders – Atlas Shrugs

Hurriyet Daily News – Dutch minister: ‘Don’t confuse integration with assimilation’

Douglas Murray, for the Telegraph – Geert Wilders: on trial for telling the truth

Egregores – The Case of Geert Wilders: Islam, Free Speech, Tolerance, and Politics

CI Centre CI & CT News – The Trial of Geert Wilders – Why I Stand with Geert Wilders – Wilders’ party is ‘new radical right’:

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.

Read the rest here.

Vlad Tepes – More crowd interviews from the Geert Wilders Trial

Virtue Online – The Islamization of the World – Press Review Thursday 28 January 2010

Counter-Jihad Alliance – Geert Wilders: on trial for telling the truth – Douglas Murray

Family Security Matters – Exclusive: The US, UK and EU See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil Regarding Radical Islam

Jewish Defence League Canada Blog – *JDL* in the News – Jewish Tribune – Opening Remarks on Freedom of Speech at Geert Wilders Trial – Why Bulgaria Has Image Issues in the Netherlands

International Civil Liberties Alliance – Why The Dutch Political Establishment Should Not Be Trusted:

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.

Read the rest here.

World Threats – Geert Wilders Goes on Trial For Criticizing Islam

Blazing Cat Fur – Wilders gets Canadian support on eve of trial

Christian Action Network – Geert Wilders Goes on Trial in Netherlands For Criticizing Islam

Gates of Vienna – Wilders, No! Intifada, Yes! 

The Jewish Tribune – Wilders gets Canadian support on eve of trial:

By Joanne Hill

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.

Read the rest here.

Vlad Tepes – Geert Wilders may be Churchill in some ways, but perhaps more Galileo – and News clip on trial of Geert Wilders

The Jerusalem Post – Column One: Keeping Zionism’s promise

Jihad Watch – Geert Wilders: On trial for telling the truth

Libertarian Republican – Geert Wilder’s trial begins – The Fallaci is back! – Qur’an is on trial in the Wilders case

Salim Mansur, in the Edmonton Sun – Dutch MP’s trial reminiscent of reporter’s post-9/11 writings:

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.

Read the rest here.

Egregores – “What exactly is Geert Wilders being charged with?”

CI Centre CI & CT News – Geert Wilders: on trial for telling the truth

The Final Redoubt – Geert Wilders… the modern day Galileo?

Gates of Vienna – The Road to Castrated Serfdom – and The Soviet Netherlands:

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.

Read the rest here.

The Toronto Sun – Dutch MP’s trial reminiscent of reporter’s post-9/11 writings

Counter-Jihad Alliance – Support Geert Wilders in London on 5th March 2010

Gates of Vienna – Advised by the Toilet Duck – From Such Tiny Acorns – and More Speech, More Freedom

Ed West – Geert Wilders is not ‘far Right’

The International Civil Liberties Alliance – Geert Wilders to Show Fitna In Great Britain on 5 March 2010

Islamization Watch – Interviews of people demonstrating for Geert Wilders on day one of his trial [Video]

Winds of Jihad – The Wilders Inquisition

Uncle Cephas – On the Trial of Geert Wilders

Blazing Cat Fur – Random Furballs

Weblog GeertWilders – Wilders to show Fitna in London in March

The International Free Press Society – Two videos of interviews of people demonstrating for Geert on day one of his trial.

Cranmer – Geert Wilders addresses the court in his political show trial

The National Post’s Full Comment – Daniel Pipes: Why I stand with Geert Wilders

Caroline Glick, for the Jerusalem Post – Column One: Keeping Zionism’s promise – The Problem With Islamic Broadcasting Networks And Islamic Schools In The Netherlands

Takuan Seiyo, for The Brussels Journal – From Meccania to Atlantis – Part 14 (²): Freiheit 451

Counter Jihad – Geert Wilders is not ‘far Right’

Terrorism Awareness Project – FIRE – Temple University Charges Unconstitutional ‘Security’ Fee for Geert Wilders Event; Dutch Trial Begins Today over Controversial Expression – Mosque University

Antony Loewenstein – Poor old Israel just can’t get a break, worries Jerusalem Post

[Related] Blazing Cat Fur – Vote: The Fallaci Awards

Small Dead Animals – Free Geert Wilders

Covenant Zone – In defence of Muslims




11 responses

2 02 2010
Paul Wilders

I do applaud you for your efforts in order to reach your goal; that’s merely a matter of freedom of speech.

As for the the ongoing trial against Geert Wilders, you’ve seem to misunderstand the real issue at stake here. It’s not about criticizing Islam as you do mention on the top right corner over here. It’s not about freedom of speech either.
All this is about a Dutch citizen who’s actions are checked according to the Dutch law. Either he’s found guilty as charged or he’s not – it’s in a nutshell as simple as that. And even more: that’s exactly the way Law should be applied. Not just for Mr. Wilders but for everyone residing in the Netherlands. No exceptions to the rule here.

Best regards,

Paul Wilders

2 02 2010
walker morrow

That’s an interesting point, Paul. But I’m not sure that it changes my position.

Even if this case is not about freedom of expression or criticizing Islam, which you may well be right about, the Dutch law itself which is checking Geert Wilders’ actions is something which I feel must be opposed – even if it is applied evenly across the board. And the reason which I would have for opposing such a law is that I simply don’t feel that it fits in with a proper Western society, for it to be prosecuting its citizens for the reason that Geert Wilders is being prosecuted.

4 02 2010
Paul Wilders

Everyone of course is entitled to his own opinion, Walker. Allow me to go into detail a tiny bit more.

As every law, the Dutch Law is a framework of rules. Those are called articles in the Netherlands. One of the main articles states the right of freedom of speech. An article that’s very important by nature and belongs to modern democratic societies.

But, to make sure this article mentioned above will not be abused, it’s fine tuned in a different article, namely no. 137. According to art. 137 a person can and will be prosecuted if s/he offends the Dutch Queen for example.

So art. 137 is in fact setting borders for freedom of speech. And since art. 137 forbids statements made in public by Geert Wilders (and that is what the Dutch court is verifying as we speak), individuals and/or groups can and will ask the Dutch prosecuter to file a complaint leading to a trial.

Thus, in effect Dutch law permits everyone to speak his mind about and in a way that’s virtually unlimited – until a certain point where person(s) our groups are be damaged beyond repair. And that’s a good thing for society.

An analogy: provided someone has a driving license, s/he is by law permitted to drive a car. (freedom of speech). This permission is fine tuned: speeding for example is not allowed (statements made by Geert Wilders). As it is, the judge is now verifying wether or not people who claim they have been injured severely by Wilders’ car while he was speeding is in effect a correct claim. If so, he will be convicted.

In conclusion: the law provides all sorts of freedom – but limits them as well for the benefit and protection for society as a whole. That’s the way democratic law should be: providing freedom and protection at the same time.

And there’s no exception to the rule, not even for Mr. Geert Wilders.

5 02 2010
walker morrow

Hi Paul,

I think I agree on some things, and disagree on others.

The law must be applied evenly to all members of society. Absolutely. One of the tenets of a free society is the equal application of the law.

However, and I think I kind of said this above, I disagree with the laws limiting free expression in and of themselves. There is no freedom of speech within limits – although it sounds nice to say. No such thing can exist – it’s a contradiction in terms. Freedom means the good and the bad, the responsible with the irresponsible. Yes, this means that sometimes nasty things are said. But I don’t trust anybody to tell me what is and is not acceptable to say – do you?

Absolutely, if somebody uses their freedom irresponsibly, by all means let them have it in the court of public opinion. Tell ’em they’re wrong, call ’em names, go to town. But that’s not for the courts to decide.

7 02 2010
Paul Wilders

Hello Walker,

In regard to your statement ” there is no freedom of speech within limits, it’s a contradiction in terms” – let’s go back tot my analogy about driving a car as I mentioned above.

The analogy is based on law. Therefore, speeding is a violation from law and should and will be prosecuted and penalized.

If I do understand you correctly, this limitation of car driving is in effect a contradiction in terms. According to your view, having a driving license and a car provides unlimited freedom – a car driver is free to drive say 100 miles an hour within city centers for example. ” Driving means the good and the bad, the responsible with the irresponsible”? I’m afraid we differ from opinion here.

Yes, I do trust the law to define what is responsible driving and what is not. And for sure I prefer to be judged in court in this context other then have it in the court of public opinion.

Same goes for the Geert Wilders case. One may well prefer to abolish law overall, since it does limit freedom. I do prefer holding the law, and providing society the needed protection at the same time. It’s a perfect balance in essence.

7 02 2010
walker morrow

The thing is – if I drive my car at whichever speeds I like, whereever I like, people will get hurt; much less, I myself will get hurt. Therefore, the limitation upon freedom is a necessary one, based upon a) the responsibility of the driver to drive safely, which may be delegated to, say, a police officer, and b) society’s desire, collectively, to not be in a minimal amount of danger from bad drivers.

I do hasten to point out, though, that most, if not all laws are retroactive – they mete out punishment based upon a crime committed, with the hope that this will exact some form of, well, vengeance really, upon the wrong-doer, and that it will deter future wrong-doers due to the fear of the punishment.

However, I think that this is a far cry from any limitations upon freedom of speech.

First and foremost, nobody, ever, has been killed or physically injured by words. Not once in history – except perhaps from a damaged ear-drum, if those particular words are screamed directly into some poor person’s ears.

In the most extreme cases, actions based upon words have harmed people. Groups of people stirred up by words have hurt people. But the words themselves are perfectly harmless – indeed, would be viewed as so in any other context.

And so, would it not make more sense to punish people for harming others physically than it would to punish somebody for uttering a particular phrase here or there?

And to take the case of Geert Wilders, even this extreme case is not the case. He has not incited anybody to death ( although some of his opponents have ). He has not actively called for groups of people to go and injure other groups of people ( if some people have interpreted his words as an excuse to go and do so, that is their problem and not his ).

And so, to go back to the driving metaphor, it is rather as if Geert Wilders is being punished for a driving infraction while he was reading aloud from his drivers’ manual. What he is being punished for is just as loosely connected with anything actual or real – feelings of ‘hatred’ or ‘insult’ or ‘alienation’ being so loosely defined, so confined to each individual’s varied interpretation as to be utterly worthless as any sort of legal measurement.

8 02 2010
Paul Wilders

Hello Walker,

It seems to me you are in fact making an in reality non-existent distinction as for causing severe damage: “based on words” and all excessive results that my be caused that way vs “based on physical actions”. In reality, at least according to Dutch Law, there is no such distinction (see art. 137 for example).

Going back to the driving metaphor: in case Geert Wilders “reading aloud from his drivers manual” includes (and it does) kicking out 13 million Muslims out of Europe (merely just one example), that is in fact proof of the pudding art 137 exists for good reasons.

You may not like (Dutch) Law; so be it. Fact remains (Dutch) Law does exist. In case Dutch inhabitants do have a problem with (part of) the law, there are democratic ways to have it altered. As long as that is not the case, Law as it is will be applied as it is right now. I’m sure you don’t object to democratic law?

That said: it will be up to the Dutch court to decide if Geert Wilders guilty as charged or not. We all have to wait and see.

8 02 2010
Paul Wilders

…Seems like using an email address related to my site provides me with a different avatar. Posting this using the original email address to verify the post right above indeed is mine.

9 02 2010
walker morrow

I thought it was you 🙂

I see what you’re saying, but a couple of points:

Re: kicking out 13 million Muslims, you may well be right. I don’t pretend to be an expert on either Dutch politics, PVV policies, or the entirey of Geert Wilder’s hopes for Europe. But I tend to look at this in two ways:

1) If Geert Wilders is a private citizen and says such things, then the best thing to do, if such a position is deemed entirely unreasonable, is to ignore it. To take such an opinion to court merely projects it into the world, to be analysed and taken seriously.

2) But since Geert Wilders is a politician, one can’t ignore such ideas, obviously. However, since he is a politician, and Holland is still a democratic country, then such unreasonable proposals can be rejected by the voters.

Either way, I’m not convinced that such a thing is a matter for the courts ( however, if the voters did have their say in such a matter, and there was still a constitutional issue, obviously the courts would have to get involved at that point ).

Re: democratic law – you’re right. The law as it exists should be applied equally to all citizens, regardless of who they are. And if these laws are – as in this case, I believe they are – unreasonable and even illiberal, they can be changed by the courts themselves. But that is precisely what I am advocating: I do wish to see these laws changed.

However, that will obviously not be the case for the time being – such things do move slowly after all 🙂 And so until then, I’ll settle for trying to delegitimize these laws, and to try to help ensure that they are not taken seriously.

11 02 2010
Paul Wilders

Hello Walker,

Indeed is was me. Anyway, as I see it in the end it all boils down to this statement you’ve made:

“…that is precisely what I am advocating: I do wish to see these laws changed.”

Well, in case Dutch citizens eventually would agree with you, they can arrange that. Merely by voting and picking a party having that particular issue on the agenda, wishing and hoping there will be a majority in Dutch parlaiment to make it happen. Or – in case such a majority already exists, demanding Dutch governement changes this part of Dutch law.

As it is, the both of us seem to have no option other then to agree to disagree. I for one count my blessings we do have the freedom to do so.

11 02 2010
walker morrow

Hi Paul,

You said: “I for one count my blessings we do have the freedom to do so.”

As do I. Even if we agree to disagree, feel free to drop by any time to keep us on our toes 🙂

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: