Hero on Trial in the Netherlands...

[Stonewall]

Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders goes on trial

The Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders has gone on trial in Amsterdam accused of inciting hatred against Muslims.

From the BBC

 4 October 2010 Last updated at 11:55 ET


Mr Wilders, whose statements have included comparing the Koran with Hitler's Mein Kampf, told the court freedom of expression was on trial.

If found guilty, he faces a maximum sentence of a year in jail.

Mr Wilders' Freedom Party is the third biggest in the Netherlands after June's elections, and is expected to play a key role in the next parliament.

Prosecutors have brought five charges of inciting hatred and discrimination, and the trial will scrutinise statements he made between 2006 and 2008.

Geert Wilders is defending his right to freedom of speech, which lies at the heart of the Dutch constitution. He believes he's said nothing offensive. He says his trial is a political process.

And he says it will not deter him from his mission, which is to stop the "Islamisation" of the Netherlands.

This trial is setting a precedent - judges said that in a democratic system, it is in the general interest to draw a clear line on the limits of hate speech.

And it comes at a time when Geert Wilders occupies a more crucial role, and enjoys a higher-profile, than ever. He is set to become a shadow partner in the next coalition government - giving tacit support to a minority cabinet.

But the three parties, including Mr Wilders', would only control 76 of the 150 seats in parliament, so any MPs who break ranks threaten the coalition. And two Christian Democrats say they are opposed to the deal.

In one such statement, in an opinion piece for the De Volkskrant newspaper, he wrote: "I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate.

"I've had enough of the Koran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book."

In 2008, he released a short film called Fitna which infuriated Muslims by juxtaposing images of suicide bombings with verses from the Koran.

Mr Wilders, in a bright blue tie and with his trademark shock of blond hair, waved to supporters as he entered the court complex in Amsterdam.

A small group of protesters had gathered outside court and riot police were on duty nearby.

In an opening statement, he told the court that he was being persecuted for "stating my opinion in the context of public debate", adding: "I can assure you, I will continue proclaiming it."

His lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz, then told the presiding judge that Mr Wilders would thereafter exercise his right to silence and not answer questions during the trial.

When presiding judge Jan Moors said it appeared Mr Wilders was "avoiding discussion" Mr Moszkowicz accused him of bias and moved to have him substituted.

The trial was adjourned and a separate hearing arranged to decide whether Judge Moors could continue on the trial. The panel is expected to decide on the issue on Tuesday.

Earlier, Mr Wilders gave his views via his Twitter account, calling it a "terrible day".

"The freedom of expression of at least 1.5 million people is standing trial together with me," he wrote, in what seemed to be a reference to the number of voters who backed the Freedom Party in June.

The coalition deal that emerged last week joins two centre-right parties in a minority government, which will seek the backing of parliament this week.

But, holding only 52 of the 150 seats in parliament, they will depend on the support of 24 Freedom Party MPs to pass legislation.

In return for that support, he has already extracted policy concessions. The new government has said it will try to ban the Islamic face veil, and curb immigration.

It is not clear whether a conviction for Mr Wilders would affect the government's willingness to deal with him.

Mr Wilders has infuriated opponents not just with his opinions, but with language they see as inflammatory, such as stating that Muslim headscarves, which he referred to as "head rags", ought to be taxed for "polluting" the Dutch landscape.

Mr Wilders was briefly refused entry to Britain last year, after being invited to show his film in the House of Lords.

Having received numerous death threats, he is usually surrounded by bodyguards.

A verdict in the trial is expected on 4 November.

BBC © MMX

[Stonewall]

Truth On Trial


Posted By Robert Spencer

October 5, 2010



How imperiled is the freedom of speech? Take this passage from Slate magazine: “In 2004, filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered after making anti-Muslim remarks, as was the anti-immigrant politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002. Why is there so much anti-Muslim rhetoric in the Netherlands?”

If Slate flipped those sentences, they’d have their answer. If there is any actual “anti-Muslim rhetoric” in the Netherlands, it is because those who dare to point out the outrages against human rights that Islamic law sanctions get murdered; and those who are still alive are vilified, marginalized, smeared, and put on trial – like Dutch politician and freedom fighter Geert Wilders, whose trial resumed Monday.

“I am on trial, but on trial with me is the freedom of expression of many Dutch citizens.” So said Wilders as his trial reopened in Amsterdam. Wilders faces a year in prison or a fine of up to 7,600 euros for supposedly inciting hatred against Muslims – which he has supposedly done by telling the truth about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam themselves to incite hatred and violence against non-Muslims. If anyone should be on trial for “hate,” it should be the jihadist imams depicted in Wilders’ film Fitna – but in the hyper-politically correct Netherlands of today, the only offender is the non-Muslim who dared to call attention to the hatred they preach: Geert Wilders.

On Monday, after asserting that the freedom of expression of many Dutch citizens was on trial, Wilders continued: “I can assure you, I will continue proclaiming it.” He added: “I am sitting here as a suspect because I have spoken nothing but the truth. I have said what I have said and I will not take one word back, but that doesn’t mean I’ve said everything attributed to me.” Then he asserted the right to remain silent for the remainder of the proceedings — whereupon the presiding judge, Jan Moors, claimed that Wilders had gotten a reputation for making bold proclamations but then refusing to discuss them, saying that he was “good in taking a stand and then avoiding a discussion.” Moors added: “By remaining silent, it seems you’re doing that today as well.”

At that, Wilders’s attorney, Bram Moszkowicz, moved to have Moors removed for his bias, and the just-resumed trial ground to a halt. Wilders commented: “I thought I had a right to a fair trial, including the right to remain silent. It is scandalous that the judge passes comment on that. A fair trial is not possible with judges like that.”

A ruling will be made Tuesday on Moszkowicz’s motion, which, if granted, could delay the trial for months. But if the Dutch authorities had any sense of what is really at stake, they would drop all charges against Wilders and adjourn the trial for good. The Wilders trial is a turning point for the West: will Western authorities defend the hard-won principle of the freedom of speech as a bulwark against tyranny and the establishment of protected classes that enjoy rights that other citizens do not have, or will they – in the interests of suicidal political correctness — allow Islamic supremacists to obliterate that freedom in the interests of establishing in the West the Sharia principle that Islam is not to be questioned or criticized, especially by non-Muslims?

If they succeed in doing this, Europeans and Americans will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West. It is no coincidence that one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis, non-Muslims subjugated under Islamic rule, is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. Thus this prosecution in Amsterdam not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance.

This is part of an ongoing initiative by the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). In 2008 the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, issued a warning: “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and jihad terrorism. Even at that time, he reported success: “The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”

Since then, Ihsanoglu must be more than pleased by how successful his offensive against the freedom of speech in the West is proving to be. Wilders is on trial for charges including having “intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion.” If intentionally offending someone is a criminal offense, numerous Islamic supremacists could end up in court, but of course that is not the purpose for which the law was drafted. The Dutch political establishment hopes to use the Wilders trial to stop his rise in Dutch politics, since he challenges so many of the core assumptions upon which current Dutch and European Union policy are based. Since one of those policies is unrestricted immigration from Muslim countries, Dutch officials hope to discredit Wilders’s work in exposing how Islamic jihadists use violent passages of the Qur’an to justify violence and supremacism.

Unfortunately for them, however, Wilders really is telling the truth: Islamic jihadists really do use the Qur’an to justify violence and supremacism, and as I show in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, there is plenty in the Muslim holy book that they can use in this way. As my colleague Pamela Geller has noted, “Truth is the new hate speech” – and nowhere is that aphorism truer than in the trial of Geert Wilders. The Dutch authorities can jail and fine Wilders, and do their best to discredit him domestically and internationally, but there is one thing neither they nor anyone else can do: engage him in honest debate and prove him wrong. And so instead, we have this Stalinist show trial.

Wilders has stated the problem plainly: “I am being prosecuted for my political convictions. The freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing. If a politician is not allowed to criticise an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom.”

Wilders’s words are true not just for the Netherlands, but for all of Europe – and ultimately for the United States of America as well.

Copyright© 2010 FrontPageMagazine.com


http://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/05/truth-on-trial/