Dutch MP Geert Wilders to be prosecuted for criticising Islam.

Now I was under the assumption that the days of folk being put on trial for expressing views on religious matters was over. 

At least in Europe, I had thought that this was just left to feudal head chopping Islamist states in the Middle East.

Sadly the Dutch courts have decided that the age of Inquisition shall return to what was once civilized Europe. It would appear we have come full circle from the arrest of people over religious views to the highlights of a civilization that says "I shall defend your rights of free speech even if I disagree with it"; back to the dark days of intolerance.

I found this story over at archbishop-cranmer's site.(and I have quoted large parts of his post to save time)

A Dutch court has ordered the prosecution of Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders for ‘inciting hatred and discrimination’ against Muslims. 

These charges relate to Fitna, a film (censored of course here in the UK) in this film Wilders compared the Qur’an to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. He also drew a direct link between Islam and violence. The film juxtaposed images of the September 11th attacks with quotations from the Qur’an. 

The Dutch courts call this hate speech, despite the obvious facts they were Moslems, they were widely praised throughout the Arab World. It is also historical fact that they quite deliberately flew planes loaded with innocent people into the symbols of The Great Satan(America) the cries of ‘Allahu Akhbar’ on their lips. 

The film also includes images of other terror attacks; bloodied victims; be headings of hostages; executions of women; and footage, with subtitles, of Muslim leaders preaching inflammatory sermons against Jews and Christians. 

The same motivation -religion - also allowed them to blow people apart in Bali, Madrid, Moscow and of course our own 7/7 attack here in the UK.

Have we decided that debate over religious intolerance shall be censored by liberals for fear of offence to Moslems? The Dutch courts say yes.

I shall refer also to the death of one Theo van Gogh, a film maker murdered by a Moslim who left qur’anic quotes stabbed into his chest. Under the Dutch rules over hate speech is debate over his murder and the obvious connection of Islamic hate, now to be censored as well?

Somali-born former Dutch lawmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who worked with Theo van Gogh had to be given government protection for several years before leaving for the United States where she now lives.

He has called the decision to prosecute him for making a film about this view ‘an attack on the freedom of expression’.

In that he is right.

I find this quite disturbing that as far as I can see Mr Wilders has not criticised any individual Moslem, he also has not defamed Mohammed.

Now Moslems will argue that any criticism of Mohammed reflects back onto Allah and is therefore blasphemy. Just look at the stink that was kicked up a few years back over the cartoons of Mohammed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

What has happened to the debate between religions, is he as a non Moslem not free in what is supposed to be a secular society to criticise whatever he chooses? 

Islam is not a race, but a system of religion that defines in detail what is allowed and not allowed(haram). 

Geert Wilders called the Qur'an a ‘fascist book’. A viewpoint, one could easily find many quotes towards beheading, Islam being the only way, to not tolerate infidels, jihad etc but I shall not list them here. That has been done before and at great length by many others

Yet despite Islam encompassing many peoples, languages and separate cultures they define this as a hate crime? Against whom exactly?

The EU claims on the one hand to "enshrine the principle of freedom of expression in its Charter on Human Rights", so why can not the Koran be criticised in book or film the same that media folk have poked fun at Christians. 

The Life of Brian, a film by Monty Python shall be used as an example of that.

The court's three judges took a different view of matters saying they had weighed Mr Wilders' ‘anti-Islamic rhetoric’ against his right to free speech, and they have ruled he has gone ‘beyond the normal leeway given to politicians’. By attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion, they say ‘he also insulted Muslim believers’.

The judges have said that while the Netherlands is ‘generally liberal’, they are ‘making an exception in the case of Wilders' comments about Islam’. Their statement is illuminating: ‘The court considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders.’

The court is only acting because it has received a mere nine complaints from citizens over the prosecution service's refusal to press charges against Mr Wilders for his ‘anti-Islamic statements’. 

It states on his Wikipedia page that: 

Wilders is under constant security protection because of frequent threats to his life

One wonders why they choose to see him as the problem over religious fanatics?

He says online: 

"Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?"

Who indeed.

Maybe the judges are forgetting the not so distant past, if it is a crime to compare Islam & Nazi's then is it also a crime to remind people how moslems took up arms for Hitler.

Here we see Amin Al Husseini who set up the SS Muslim Hanzar Division. Yes muslims fighting on the side of a certain Mr Hitler. 

Some links: http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

www.groepwilders.com

See also a translation of his words: http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3094

Updates:...
Brussels Journal has the inside story here:

A quote from the press release of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 21 January 2009

The Court of Appeal has considered that the contested views of Wilders (also as shown in his movie Fitna) constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law as seen in connection with each other, both because of their contents and the method of presentation. This method of presentation is characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created. According to the Court of Appeal most statements are insulting as well since these statements substantially harm the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers. According to the Court of Appeal Wilders has indeed insulted the Islamic worshippers themselves by affecting the symbols of the Islamic belief as well.

Secondly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether a possible criminal prosecution or conviction would be admissible according to the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court based thereon, which considers the freedom of expression of paramount importance. The Court of Appeal has concluded that the initiation of a criminal prosecution and a possible conviction later on as well, provided that it is proportionate, does not necessarily conflict with the freedom of expression of Wilders, since statements which create hate and grief made by politicians, taken their special responsibility into consideration, are not permitted according to European standards either.

Thirdly, the Court of Appeal has answered the question whether criminal prosecution of Wilders because of his statements would be opportune in the Dutch situation (the question of opportunity). According to the Court of Appeal the instigation of hatred in a democratic society constitutes such a serious matter that a general interest is at stake in order to draw a clear boundary in the public debate.

As regards the insult of a group the Court of Appeal makes a distinction. In general the Court determines that the traditional Dutch culture of debating is based on tolerance of each other's views to a large extent while Islamic immigrants may be expected to have consideration for the existing sentiments in the Netherlands as regards their belief, which is partly at odds with Dutch and European values and norms. As regards insulting statements the Court of Appeal prefers the political, public and other legal counter forces rather than the criminal law, as a result of which an active participation to the public debate, by Moslems as well, is promoted.

However, the Court of Appeal makes an exception as regards insulting statements in which a connection with Nazism is made (for instance by comparing the Koran with "Mein Kampf"). The Court of Appeal considers this insulting to such a degree to a community of Islamic worshippers that a general interest is deemed to be present in order to prosecute Wilders because of this.
 

A press release from the Dutch Freedom Party, The Hague, January 21, 2009:

The Freedom Party (PVV) is shocked by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s decision to prosecute Geert Wilders for his statements and opinions. Geert Wilders considers this ruling an all-out assault on freedom of speech.

Geert Wilders: “Apparently this is The Netherlands today. If you speak out you might be prosecuted. To participate in public debate has become a dangerous activity.”
“If I have to appear in court, not only I will be prosecuted, but also hundreds of thousands of Dutch citizens who reject the Islamisation of the West. In Dutch Parliament only the Party for Freedom is willing to speak up for the preservation of our culture and our many freedoms.”

The Freedom Party leader now faces legal proceedings that will probably take years to conclude and will also involve enormous legal fees.

“We depend on small donations. The Freedom Party is the only party in Parliament that does not accept any government funding. This court decision jeopardizes the very existence of the Freedom Party. We simply cannot afford the enormous legal expenses.”

“This is a black day for freedom.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

**There is a petition online:

“If I have to stand trial, I will not be alone, stand trial alone, but also with the hundreds of thousands of Dutch people who reject the Islamization of the Netherlands, Their opinion is only represented in The Hague [parliament] by the Party for Freedom. Who else will stand for our culture when I have to remain silent? This strengthens me in these harsh days,”

The petition.

**Atlas Shrugs has a piece: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/01/i-am-geert-wilders.html

Tags: National Socialism, Osama Saeed, Hanzar Division, SS, Islam, Geert Wilders, Amin Al Husseini

.