http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2 ... rt_wil.phpAmsterdam ready to restart Wilders' trial
Thursday 11 November 2010
Amsterdam court has appointed three new judges for Geert Wilders' trial on inciting hatred and discrimination charges and hopes to restart the process as soon as possible.
The previous judges were dismissed after a string of irregularities which legal officials said could be deemed prejudicial to Wilders.
No date has yet been set for proceedings to begin again.
© DutchNews.nl
http://http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39797NPR, Juan Williams, and Sharia Law
by Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers
11/07/2010
NPR’s sacking of Juan Williams was more than the politically correct act du jour. It was the latest in a series of media and political capitulations to Sharia law.
A central provision of Sharia law is its prohibition against speech that can be construed as “defaming” Islam or the prophet Mohammed. Where Sharia is practiced and enforced, such “defamation” is a criminal offense that can be punished by death.
In other words, what we in America take for granted as free speech is a capital crime in some areas of the Muslim world. . . .
http://http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/10/21/swedish-pol-charged-with-hate-speech-against-islam/Swedish politician Jimmie Åkesson has been charged with “hate speech” for writing an opinion piece in which he calls Islam the biggest threat to his country since World War II.
In piece published in Swedish daily Aftonbladet, the Sweden Democrats leader writes that his country has the most rapes per capita in Europe, and most of the perpetrators are Muslim. Åkesson also claims that ten Muslim terrorist groups have established cells in Sweden.
According to Åkesson, “today’s multicultural Swedish power-elite are totally blind to the dangers of Islam.”. . .
http://http://bigpeace.com/nmay/2010/10/23/elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-persecuted-for-publicly-criticizing-islam/For the last few weeks I’ve been focusing on the trial of Geert Wilders in Amsterdam. Mr. Wilders, as you all know by now, has been charged with “hate speech” for speaking the truth about Islam.
It’s important to remember that Geert Wilders is not the only European citizen being persecuted for publicly criticizing Islam. Regular readers are aware of the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who is being charged with “hate speech” in her native Austria for her seminars on the danger of Islam.
Elisabeth was first notified of the possible case against her last December. For almost a year she has been waiting for a formal charge and a court date, and now the other shoe has finally dropped: she will go to court on November 23, 2010.
She just sent me this email:
Today I have officially been informed that I will have to stand trial on November 23.
I have received the official charges, which are a sort of pick-and-choose of whatever I said during the first two (out of three) seminars. One paragraph consists of words that I never said, but rather those of one of the participants. But I am accused of having said them (they contain the damning words “Adolf Hitler”).
Here is a sample of my evil words: “We need public awareness of the danger posed by Islam. Education needs to be state of the art, eg biology. History. Students need to be taught facts. There was a Turkish siege [in 1683], and they were badly beaten. That must remain [in the history books]. No tolerance for the glorification of violence! And that means we have to get rid of most of the Quran. We must realize that the Muslim Brotherhood is a Trojan horse. Turkey is part of that.
“Sharia is an absolute no-no. We d not want any gender apartheid, no ghettos, no social and cultural discrimination, no polygamy, no theocracy, no hate…”
This is what I’m being tried for. This is what cannot be said aloud in Austria today.
— Elisabeth
Now is the time to contribute to the defense fund for Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. Visit the website In Defense of Free Speech and look for the “Spenden” button at the top right.
Pax EuropaAny contribution you make will be deposited in a trust account, and all money donated to it goes to her legal fees. It is not under Elisabeth’s control, and if any money is left over after the end of the court proceedings, it will used for the benefit of the Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa, a non-profit human rights and anti-Islamization group in Germany.
http://[url=http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/canada]http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... /22/canada[/url]
Monday, Mar 22, 2010 19:23 ET
The creepy tyranny of Canada's hate speech laws
By Glenn Greenwald
*
(updated below - Update II)
I've written many times before about the evils of "hate speech" laws that are prevalent in Canada and Europe -- people being fined, prosecuted and hauled before official tribunals for expressing political opinions which the State has prohibited and criminalized. I won't rehash those arguments here, but I do want to note a particularly creepy illustration of how these laws manifest. The far-right hatemonger Ann Coulter was invited by a campus conservative group to speak at the University of Ottawa, and the Vice Provost of that college sent Coulter a letter warning her that she may be subject to criminal prosecution if the views she expresses fall into the realm of prohibited viewpoints:
Dear Ms. Coulter,
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. . . .
I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.
You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. . . .
Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.
I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.
Sincerely,
Francois Houle,
Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa
Personally, I think threatening someone with criminal prosecution for the political views they might express is quite "hateful." So, too, is anointing oneself the arbiter of what is and is not sufficiently "civilized discussion" to the point of using the force of criminal law to enforce it. If I were administering Canada's intrinsically subjective "hate speech" laws (and I never would), I'd consider prosecuting Provost Houle for this letter. The hubris required to believe that you can declare certain views so objectively hateful that they should be criminalized is astronomical; in so many eras, views that were most scorned by majorities ended up emerging as truth. . . .
