Over the past two years a court room battle over the freedom to criticize one of the worlds largest ideological blocs was won. In this battle the sometimes controversial, and always flamboyant Geert Wilders was the central figure.
Mr Wilders is the leader of the 'Freedom Party' and has been the subject of a criminal investigation for several years. The reasons for his legals woes would make most North Americans take note: He SPOKE the wrong words. He was accused under the ultra modernist 'hate-crime' laws of the Netherlands that make it illegal to incite violence or target a particular group for derision.
The Hate law's main purpose, it seems, is to silence opponents to modern Dutch / EU social engineering programs. Eugenics and immigration seem to be the main reasons and protected ideas under this act; Abortion, euthanasia, and mass migration of low wage workers.
This time it imploded. This time, the speaker would not be silenced.
Mr Wilders has been acquitted on ALL counts!
The Hate law's main purpose, it seems, is to silence opponents to modern Dutch / EU social engineering programs. Eugenics and immigration seem to be the main reasons and protected ideas under this act; Abortion, euthanasia, and mass migration of low wage workers.
This time it imploded. This time, the speaker would not be silenced.
Mr Wilders has been acquitted on ALL counts!
What does this mean? ... and what did he say that was so bad it resulted in charges?
Well let's start with what he said!
Well let's start with what he said!
Did he call for a Crusade against Muslims? Did he demand their deportation or killing?
No.
Wilders said that purist, unreformed Islam is not compatible with Western Democratic ideals. He said that Islamic teaching have inspired hatred and countless acts of terrorism across the western world. He said that this is because in the Muslim Holy Book, the Koran, there is justification for violence, misogyny, slavery, and worse. He compared the Koran to Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' which is banned in the Netherlands under the hate propaganda laws. He called for the ban to be extended to the Muslim Book as well, essentially making the point that if European works promoting the genocide of Jews were to be banned, as Hitler's book is in the Netherlands – then so should Arabic ones calling for a Genocide of ALL non-Muslims (starting with Jews).
Wilders did not make these claims 'out of the blue', standing on box in front of a mob of skinheads. The left-biased media gives that impression, but it is FAR from true. Such coverage is of the 'fellow traveller'.
Actually it is quite the opposite: He made them in Parliament as the head of the leading opposition party. He was backed by statistics, Historians, police, Koranic verses, scholars on Islam, and ex-Muslims, and even moderate Muslim migrants (notably MANY women). His ideas were amplified by the killing of Theo Van Gogh, a filmmaker critical of Islam who was butchered in broad daylight on an Amsterdam street, the terror attacks of the early 21st century, the Paris Intifada, and the Mohammed Cartoon fiasco.
Also to back Mr Wilders argument there was a large catalogue of critical media on religions OTHER than Islam, that are completely accepted as a right of expression, even if not based on facts – as Mr Wilders work was. Calvinist works were cited, for example.
Wilders did not make these claims 'out of the blue', standing on box in front of a mob of skinheads. The left-biased media gives that impression, but it is FAR from true. Such coverage is of the 'fellow traveller'.
Actually it is quite the opposite: He made them in Parliament as the head of the leading opposition party. He was backed by statistics, Historians, police, Koranic verses, scholars on Islam, and ex-Muslims, and even moderate Muslim migrants (notably MANY women). His ideas were amplified by the killing of Theo Van Gogh, a filmmaker critical of Islam who was butchered in broad daylight on an Amsterdam street, the terror attacks of the early 21st century, the Paris Intifada, and the Mohammed Cartoon fiasco.
Also to back Mr Wilders argument there was a large catalogue of critical media on religions OTHER than Islam, that are completely accepted as a right of expression, even if not based on facts – as Mr Wilders work was. Calvinist works were cited, for example.
How can the Netherlands accept the elitist and violent edicts of the Koran, and not criticism of it was the main thrust. The logic of this argument was inescapable, even to the Uber-Liberal Dutch Bench.
Wilders popularity has GROWN, not decreased. The PEOPLE of the Netherlands LIKE Mr Wilders, and can relate to his position.
In short, the man was not worrying about being offensive to those he found an offence to his way of life. His position has been that he is defending that way of life from foreign ideas harmful to it.
For that perceived possible offence, he was taken to task and charged.
Wilders work, it was asserted by the prosecutors, was designed/intended to incite hatred and rage against Muslims in particular and immigrants in general. The truth/validity in his statements was only of secondary interest. Let me be clear here: The court was NOT really interested in whether Mr Wilders assertions were true, but rather in whether they were made to incite/direct public hatred at a specific group; to make a scape-goat. Very special attention was payed to a film, Fitna, the Mr Wilders had produced in which the Koranic verses calling for Jihad and the effects of the verses on real Muslims are explored. Lines or 'Surahs' of the Koran are posted beside images of real Muslims acting the edicts out, calling for war and genocide. It is truly a disturbing video, and just over 7 minutes long.
But who is showing hatred here? Was Mr Wilders spewing hatred or was he EXPOSING hatred.
The court decided, after YEARS of deliberation, appeal, and overturn – the case was dropped and re-prosecuted THREE times – that Mr Wilders was EXPOSING hatred. They finally found Mr Wilder's totally innocent. They have acquitted him. That is not a 'not guilty' verdict, that is an 'innocent' verdict. We are left to assume that after YEARS of prosecution and three trials, there was not ONE SINGLE aspect of Mr Wilder's film or speeches that the courts could disprove as libel, and thus a hate-crime. The facts DID matter, it seems. Perhaps not on paper, but in practice.
This is a good thing for those who cherish freedom of expression, and good on many levels!
That leads us to 'What does this mean'?
Wilders popularity has GROWN, not decreased. The PEOPLE of the Netherlands LIKE Mr Wilders, and can relate to his position.
In short, the man was not worrying about being offensive to those he found an offence to his way of life. His position has been that he is defending that way of life from foreign ideas harmful to it.
For that perceived possible offence, he was taken to task and charged.
Wilders work, it was asserted by the prosecutors, was designed/intended to incite hatred and rage against Muslims in particular and immigrants in general. The truth/validity in his statements was only of secondary interest. Let me be clear here: The court was NOT really interested in whether Mr Wilders assertions were true, but rather in whether they were made to incite/direct public hatred at a specific group; to make a scape-goat. Very special attention was payed to a film, Fitna, the Mr Wilders had produced in which the Koranic verses calling for Jihad and the effects of the verses on real Muslims are explored. Lines or 'Surahs' of the Koran are posted beside images of real Muslims acting the edicts out, calling for war and genocide. It is truly a disturbing video, and just over 7 minutes long.
But who is showing hatred here? Was Mr Wilders spewing hatred or was he EXPOSING hatred.
The court decided, after YEARS of deliberation, appeal, and overturn – the case was dropped and re-prosecuted THREE times – that Mr Wilders was EXPOSING hatred. They finally found Mr Wilder's totally innocent. They have acquitted him. That is not a 'not guilty' verdict, that is an 'innocent' verdict. We are left to assume that after YEARS of prosecution and three trials, there was not ONE SINGLE aspect of Mr Wilder's film or speeches that the courts could disprove as libel, and thus a hate-crime. The facts DID matter, it seems. Perhaps not on paper, but in practice.
This is a good thing for those who cherish freedom of expression, and good on many levels!
That leads us to 'What does this mean'?
Quite simply put this means that people in the Netherlands are now LEGALLY able to interpret the Koran and criticize Islam. Islam is now just like any other religion in that nation, and will no longer be afforded a special protected status. Modern 'moderate' Muslims will have more freedom, and the rest of the Dutch people can be critical of extremism.
These are concepts we take for granted in Canada and the USA, and much of the Western World. Take for granted, mind you! While the Dutch move away from these restrictions, our left moves toward them. Terms like 'Islamophobia' become more and more popular in the English speaking world. In the world of phobes and philes there can be no neutrality. One is attracted or repelled. Anyone who speaks against the HUGE Islamic influence on our culture, diets, laws, and even our cherished 'secularism' can be quickly branded as an 'Islamophobic bigot'. Perhaps not actually charged with a crime, but derided and sneered at by the likes of Bill Maher, MSNBC, the Huffington Post and all the other PC darlings of the leftist dogma.
But nobody ever calls those who appease Islam 'Islamophiles' in the media, do they?
Maybe it's time we do?
These are concepts we take for granted in Canada and the USA, and much of the Western World. Take for granted, mind you! While the Dutch move away from these restrictions, our left moves toward them. Terms like 'Islamophobia' become more and more popular in the English speaking world. In the world of phobes and philes there can be no neutrality. One is attracted or repelled. Anyone who speaks against the HUGE Islamic influence on our culture, diets, laws, and even our cherished 'secularism' can be quickly branded as an 'Islamophobic bigot'. Perhaps not actually charged with a crime, but derided and sneered at by the likes of Bill Maher, MSNBC, the Huffington Post and all the other PC darlings of the leftist dogma.
But nobody ever calls those who appease Islam 'Islamophiles' in the media, do they?
Maybe it's time we do?
Congratulations, Mr Wilders!
A victory for comm sense, and common law!
A victory for comm sense, and common law!
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to comment.
Remember the only censorship done here will be against flamers, bigots, and those who preach hatred. Please avoid political correctness for decency's sake (will not be deleted)!