Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

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/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_%28convert%29

These products are certified by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest non-profit, religious, educational, and non-political Islamic organization in North America.

ISNA... A Jihadi Organization.

http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20 ... d_ISNA.pdf

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

A person complained.

That will bring a University to their knees.

A University will only fight when they are called out on discrimination against Europeans.

They then will defend their discrimination.

Ted Koppel: Nine years after 9/11, let's stop playing into bin Laden's hands
   


By Ted Koppel
Sunday, September 12, 2010

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, succeeded far beyond anything Osama bin Laden could possibly have envisioned. This is not just because they resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths, nor only because they struck at the heart of American financial and military power. Those outcomes were only the bait; it would remain for the United States to spring the trap.

The goal of any organized terrorist attack is to goad a vastly more powerful enemy into an excessive response. And over the past nine years, the United States has blundered into the 9/11 snare with one overreaction after another. Bin Laden deserves to be the object of our hostility, national anguish and contempt, and he deserves to be taken seriously as a canny tactician. But much of what he has achieved we have done, and continue to do, to ourselves. Bin Laden does not deserve that we, even inadvertently, fulfill so many of his unimagined dreams.

It did not have to be this way. The Bush administration's initial response was just about right. The calibrated combination of CIA operatives, special forces and air power broke the Taliban in Afghanistan and sent bin Laden and the remnants of al-Qaeda scurrying across the border into Pakistan. The American reaction was quick, powerful and effective -- a clear warning to any organization contemplating another terrorist attack against the United States. This is the point at which President George W. Bush should have declared "mission accomplished," with the caveat that unspecified U.S. agencies and branches of the military would continue the hunt for al-Qaeda's leader. The world would have understood, and most Americans would probably have been satisfied.

But the insidious thing about terrorism is that there is no such thing as absolute security. Each incident provokes the contemplation of something worse to come. The Bush administration convinced itself that the minds that conspired to turn passenger jets into ballistic missiles might discover the means to arm such "missiles" with chemical, biological or nuclear payloads. This became the existential nightmare that led, in short order, to a progression of unsubstantiated assumptions: that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons; that there was a connection between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda.

Bin Laden had nothing to do with fostering these misconceptions. None of this had any real connection to 9/11. There was no group known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" at that time. But the political climate of the moment overcame whatever flaccid opposition there was to invading Iraq, and the United States marched into a second theater of war, one that would prove far more intractable and painful and draining than its supporters had envisioned.

While President Obama has recently declared America's combat role in Iraq over, he glossed over the likelihood that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will have to remain there, possibly for several years to come, because Iraq lacks the military capability to protect itself against external (read: Iranian) aggression. The ultimate irony is that Hussein, to keep his neighbors in check, allowed them and the rest of the world to believe that he might have weapons of mass destruction. He thereby brought about his own destruction, as well as the need now for U.S. forces to fill the void that he and his menacing presence once provided.

As for the 100,000 U.S. troops in or headed for Afghanistan, many of them will be there for years to come, too -- not because of America's commitment to a functioning democracy there; even less because of what would happen to Afghan girls and women if the Taliban were to regain control. The reason is nuclear weapons. Pakistan has an arsenal of 60 to 100 nuclear warheads. Were any of those to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda's fundamentalist allies in Pakistan, there is no telling what the consequences might be.

Again, this dilemma is partly of our own making. America's war on terrorism is widely perceived throughout Pakistan as a war on Islam. A muscular Islamic fundamentalism is gaining ground there and threatening the stability of the government, upon which we depend to guarantee the security of those nuclear weapons. Since a robust U.S. military presence in Pakistan is untenable for the government in Islamabad, however, tens of thousands of U.S. troops are likely to remain parked next door in Afghanistan for some time.

Perhaps bin Laden foresaw some of these outcomes when he launched his 9/11 operation from Taliban-secured bases in Afghanistan. Since nations targeted by terrorist groups routinely abandon some of their cherished principles, he may also have foreseen something along the lines of Abu Ghraib, "black sites," extraordinary rendition and even the prison at Guantanamo Bay. But in these and many other developments, bin Laden needed our unwitting collaboration, and we have provided it -- more than $1 trillion spent on two wars, more than 5,000 of our troops killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans dead. Our military is so overstretched that defense contracting -- for everything from interrogation to security to the gathering of intelligence -- is one of our few growth industries.

We have raced to Afghanistan and Iraq, and more recently to Yemen and Somalia; we have created a swollen national security apparatus; and we are so absorbed in our own fury and so oblivious to our enemy's intentions that we inflate the building of an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan into a national debate and watch, helpless, while a minister in Florida outrages even our friends in the Islamic world by threatening to burn copies of the Koran.

If bin Laden did not foresee all this, then he quickly came to understand it. In a 2004 video message, he boasted about leading America on the path to self-destruction. "All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written 'al-Qaeda' in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses."

Through the initial spending of a few hundred thousand dollars, training and then sacrificing 19 of his foot soldiers, bin Laden has watched his relatively tiny and all but anonymous organization of a few hundred zealots turn into the most recognized international franchise since McDonald's. Could any enemy of the United States have achieved more with less?

Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos? It is past time to reflect on what our enemy sought, and still seeks, to accomplish -- and how we have accommodated him.

I wonder what Teddy would have us do?

He's kind of hinting that after Pearl Harbor we were doing what the enemy wanted us to do. It was very self-destructive of us. Come to think of it, it did not work out that well for the Japanese either.

It is "past time" we understand the enemy...

Quote from: "psy"

Quote from: "Stonewall"

While it may seem extreme, I would decriminalize all drugs that are currently illegal even via prescription.

The 'War on Drugs' is a war on the American People. It would actually be better for everyone if this 'war' did not exist.

The 'war' does not work. People can get drugs within a few minutes. We don't really have to concern ourselves about what would happen if these drugs were legal. As things are now, it is as if they are legal, as far as the ability to acquire drugs.

So, what would change would be the State itself. The money spent on this 'war', would be spent elsewhere. We would be a more free society. A safer society. A more wealthy society.

God damn. Spot on!

I have been thinking about this for awhile, and I have not voted yet. I think the concept of decriminalization should be considered, at least in some cases, as a better alternative to legalization.


On this subject I find it hard to separate my personal opinion from affecting my opinion on an appropriate social stance regarding drugs, so I will just say it. I believe any adult should be free to use marijuana, BUT legalization will impose laws upon small- non comercial growers and regulations for what is marketable, similar to tobacco, which can account for why no one grows that themselves for sale. In the case of marijuana I think decriminalization is a better solution than legalization.

I have similar, but different  feelings regarding psychedelics. I don’t think lsd or mushrooms are totally safe, but In these cases, imo, people should have the right to have these experiences if they want. It is my feeling that these experiences are very spiritual for people, and they shouldn’t be dominated by a corporate definition of ‘what it is supposed to be’ or ‘what is the perfect dose’. I’d go on, but again my opinion is that decriminalization is a better answer to legalization in this case.

I don’t think any good can come from allowing meth use. I don’t think heroin can generally be used responsibly. Coke ? Ecstasy? I just can’t condone legalizing these drugs. I think they can be harmful, but I also cannot deny that more problems come from prohibition and the war on drugs. Issues of impurity, criminal control of the product, jailing of harmless users, etc….

Again, I have not voted yet, but I think decriminalization is a viable alternative answer to this questionnaire.

I don't think any good has come from the government.

They can't even stop planes from flying into buildings.

When they figure that whole thing out, then we'll discuss other responsibilities they might deserve.

The National Government has failed us.

Now, I may be against a whole lot of things. That does not mean that the power of government should slam down on somebodies head.

Someone who is caught using drugs, that is none of the governments business. It has nothing to do with them.

Please explain one good thing the government has done in the 'War on Drugs', just one single thing.

That should be easy.

While it may seem extreme, I would decriminalize all drugs that are currently illegal even via prescription.

The 'War on Drugs' is a war on the American People. It would actually be better for everyone if this 'war' did not exist.

The 'war' does not work. People can get drugs within a few minutes. We don't really have to concern ourselves about what would happen if these drugs were legal. As things are now, it is as if they are legal, as far as the ability to acquire drugs.

So, what would change would be the State itself. The money spent on this 'war', would be spent elsewhere. We would be a more free society. A safer society. A more wealthy society.