We reject any hatred of Muslims. We wish to live in peace with our neighbour. But, we believe that it is helpful, in a democratic society to put peoples beliefs under the microscope. Islam should not be immune to scrutiny. We oppose Sharia Law. We believe that there should be one law of the land and that it should apply to all Her Majesties subjects.
If Islam teaches Jihad against the “Infidel”, then this should not be immune to scrutiny either. We reject any accusation that would label people who want to engage in that debate as “Islamophobic”, or “Racist”. To debate these topics is not to show hatred but to show concern for our democracy and our traditional freedoms- especially those of women.
These snipets about Geert Wilders below are included, not as an endorsement of Mr Wilders, or his Freedom Party, but as an insight into how Cultural Marxism has taken over many of the institutions in countries across the European Union. Aided and abetted by the mass media, free speech is being attacked and suppressed. The same is happening in the UK. Heed the warning.
Even if he wins his case, the messaage is, you run the risk of ending up in court if you question the prevailing Left wing consensus that has swept the European Union.
It is of course extraordinary that any civilised democratic country should put a man on trial for a film, or a book, or a blog article for that matter.
But it has become commonplace in European countries, especially those under the aegis of the EUSSR, to hound patriots, Christians and conservatives for exercising their traditionally sacrosanct rights of free expression.
However, in the past, at least the judges have mostly maintained a veneer of fairness.
Not so in Holland, where a robed pinko named Jan Moors has made a mockery of the law with two major inputs of sheer left-lib bias.
Geert Wilders, On Trial for Saying What Many Dutch Folk Think!
And the trial rolls on.
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – The hate trial of Dutch anti-Islamist politician Geert Wilders, who will have a powerful shadow role in the Dutch government, resumed on Wednesday with a showing of his controversial film that criticises the Koran.
The screening in court of Wilders’s 2008 film “Fitna,” which accuses the Koran of inciting violence, threatened to interrupt the trial for a second time in a week when defence lawyer Bram Moszkowicz objected to comments from presiding judge Jan Moors.
When one complainant said she did not wish to see the film, which accuses the Koran of inciting violence, Moors said: “I can understand that” — prompting a sharp response from Moszkowicz who said such a remark is simply not allowed.’
This ‘innocent’ comment was eventually allowed to pass after Moors claimed it was not meant to be a comment on the film! So what was it?
Bloodthirsty FPI Ignoramus in Jakarta
Only a few days earlier, the same ‘judge’ (aka inquisitor) caused the proceedings to be delayed after…well, read this from the left-lib UK Guardian 4/10
Dutch far-right leader’s advocate challenges presiding judge’s comment on opening day of Wilders’ trial for inciting racial hatred
Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom party and one of Europe’s leading Islam-baiters, went on trial today charged with hate speech and inciting racism, but the case was swiftly engulfed by uncertainty after a challenge over alleged judges’ bias.
The opening of the trial, expected to last a month in Amsterdam, followed a successful weekend for the maverick Dutch politician, with his influence over a new rightwing government confirmed and a campaign speech in Germany aimed at establishing a trans-national European movement against Muslim immigration.
Wilders entered the dock amid heavy security and promptly affirmed his commitment to free speech, dismissing the charges against him while not entering a plea.
He faces a hefty fine or a year in jail if found guilty on five charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims and insulting their religion for likening, as he routinely does, the Qur’an to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and describing Islam as fascist.
Likened to Mein Kampf? God Forbid!
“I am on trial, but on trial with me is the freedom of expression of many Dutch citizens,” he told the Amsterdam district court. “I can assure you, I will continue proclaiming it.”
Wilders then asserted his right to remain silent for the rest of the trial, prompting a comment from the presiding judge, Jan Moors, which was challenged by Wilders’s lawyer.
Moors said Wilders was known for making bold statements but avoiding discussions, adding: “It appears you’re doing so again.”
What the hell kinda ‘judge’ is this?
Bram Moszkowicz, representing Wilders, said the comment gave the appearance that Moors was biased and moved to have him substituted.
The hearing was suspended while other judges consider the complaint….”I thought I had a right to a fair trial, including the right to remain silent,” said Wilders. “It is scandalous that the judge passes comment on that.
A fair trial is not possible with judges like that.”
Turns out the judge was not removed from the trial, so there’s precious little chance of justice, but it’s been a bit of a roller-coaster case from the start, as the scheme to put the Dutch patriot on trial was at first dismissed. The left-lib establishment, however, powerful still in Holland, ruled he should face charges after he wrote an opinion piece in a Dutch newspaper stating: “I’ve had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate … I’ve had enough of the Qur’an in the Netherlands. Forbid that fascist book.”
The killer of Theo van Gogh and 14 of the other witnesses anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders wanted to call in his defence against charges of discrimination and inciting hatred have been ruled inadmissible by Amsterdam district court.
And only this week, from Vlad Tepes blog, we have this report from Dutch sources.
Translated from Dutch media by VH with much thanks!
Hirsch Ballin was consulted over a trial by Johan van den Dongen
Outgoing Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin (Justice) has, from a very early stage, been personally involved in the decision making on whether or not to prosecute Geert Wilders. This is evidenced by internal e-mail correspondence from 2008, between the public prosecutor’s office in The Hague (the top of the OM) and the public prosecutor in Amsterdam.
The information has quite some piquancy, because in our country the justice minister habitually keeps the necessary distance to prevent exposing the OM to changing political influences. In addition, with this information a different light is shed on the role of Hirsch Ballin as one of the fiercest CDA opponents of tolerating the support Wilders’ PVV [to a new coalition govenrment].’ read more on Vlad Tepes http://vladtepesblog.com
Right, on with the show(-trial) and let’s see. Why shouldn’t Dutch folk have the right to say who they think should be allowed to settle in THEIR country?