Geert Wilders Ambushed by the BBC

Vlad Tepes has made a video using the audio from the BBC radio interview with Geert Wilders I mentioned yesterday, coupled with images of the Muslim protests against Mr Wilders' presence in London a few days later, and other Muslim riots in Europe.

Link:

Geert Wilders in Britain

On Friday, Dutch politician Geert Wilders visited the United Kingdom after successfully getting the ban on his entry overturned.

His legal team managed to argue that the restrictions placed on his freedom of movement, guaranteed under European law, were arbitrary and politically motivated.

The huge Muslim protests and violence which former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith allegedly feared, and figures such as Nazir Ahmed promised and revelled in, failed to materialise - which I suppose calls her judgment even further into question.

Despite this, between 20 and 40 hardcore extremists picketed Parliament, calling for Sharia law in The Netherlands and Britain, as well as for Mr Wilders to be tried under Islamic law for "insulting the prophet".

Mr Wilders called his visit, once again at the invitation of the UKIP peer Lord Pearson, "a victory for freedom of speech".

He wished to meet the press outside in front of the Houses of Parliament, but security officers apparently advised him that his tendency to provoke adherents of the Religion of Peace meant this was most unwise - they couldn't guarantee his safety, in other words, in the middle of London and the alleged centre of Britain's democracy.

It's very important that we recognise just who the violent extremists are in all this. Wilders was being victimised not because of his own behaviour, but because of the potential for others to commit widescale violence as a result of their disagreement with certain opinions:

However, on Tuesday the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled there was no evidence to suggest he represented a real and serious threat to the "fundamental interest" of society.

The judges said that even if there had been evidence, it would still have been wrong to turn him away because in the event of any trouble the police would have been able to deal with it.

The Home Office said Mr Wilders' statements and behaviour during his visit "will inevitably impact on any future decisions to admit him".

Officials say his case differs from that of a larger number of individuals - including Islamic extremists and white supremacists - who are on a list of people excluded from Britain for "unacceptable behaviour".

The power to impose such exclusions was introduced in 2005, following the London bombings, and applies predominantly to non-EU nationals who would seek to "foster hatred or promote terrorism".

Yes, it's a shame that the behaviour and views of those Islamic protesters isn't enough to kick them out - but, as usual, their right to commit sedition or treason trumps our right to live in a safe society.

Here is one of these poor oppressed lambs inciting murder against Mr Wilders, and celebrating the violent deaths of other notable critics of Islam such as Theo van Gogh - it's a shame the police were watching for Mr Wilders to slip up so very closely, because otherwise they might have caught this:


I will be forwarding this video to the Metropolitan Police, and I would encourage any like-minded readers to do the same.

The day before his arrival in Britain, Mr Wilders appeared on BBC Radio 5 Live, where host Victoria Derbyshire took the opportunity to make sure he was shouted down by Muslims.

All the callers had what Al Murray would call "good British names": Shaz, Mohammed, Mahmood...

Obviously no actual British people wished to take the opportunity to interact with Mr Wilders - question him, congratulate him, criticise him, and there are a lot of angry and confused Muslims out there who aren't used to not getting their own way.

Callers often shouted over and interrupted Mr Wilders, accused him of saying things which he has not, and treated us to many lengthy diatribes about how Islam is tolerant, logical, practical, scientific, and generally equal to the Judeo-Christian West - despite the fact all of them choose to live here, of course.

You can listen to the clip here (second segment, about 38 minutes in), but it expires in two days - if anyone can record and YouTube it, please let me know.

Finally, here is Mr Wilders' Friday press conference from the House of Lords:

Gerard Spong in the Limelight

Today one of the big stories in the Dutch media was that of Peter Jones, a 'Vegan streaker' famous for his antics, who is accused of plotting an attack on Queen Beatrix.

Apparently, the police have been quite heavy handed in their approach towards Jones and his girlfriend.

Step forward then, in defence of Jones, Gerard Spong.

For those of you not familiar with Spong, he is one of the most successful celebrity lawyers in The Netherlands - but he is also a very, very dangerous man.

He is one of the architects of the legal campaign against Geert Wilders and the decision to prosecute him for his political opinions:

The Dutch Muslim Council has called Wilders a “racist, fascist and authoritarian” and a threat to Dutch society. Several Dutch Muslim and leftist organizations and individuals have lodged more than 40 complaints against Wilders for incitement to racial hatred. Gerard Spong, one of the leading (and most expensive) lawyers in the country, has offered to defend their cases free of charge. Spong was a friend of the late Pim Fortuyn. Following the murder of Fortuyn in 2002 he lodged complaints against several Dutch politicians for having contributed to the hate campaign against Fortuyn which resulted in his assassination by a political adversary.

Spong, who is also the lawyer of a Dutch teenager indicted on murder charges in the case of Natalee Holloway, an American teenager who disappeared in Arubu in May 2005, told Dutch television that “Wilders cannot be compared to Fortuyn because Wilders incites hatred against Muslims, which Fortuyn who had sex with Moroccan boys in dark rooms, did not do. […] When Wilders says that half the Koran has to be ripped to pieces and burned, he is inciting hatred.” According to Spong the Dutch public prosecutor is a coward who is afraid to prosecute Wilders because the latter will claim that it is a political prosecution. [Of course, that decision has since been changed and the prosecution will go ahead].

July 22, 2008; a complaint by Mister G. Spong, lawyer in Amsterdam on behalf of 21 citizens:

• Timo Eekhoudt [see note below]
  
• Jörgen Raymann [TV comedian]
  
• Sjoukje Maartje Aafke Wiersma
  
• Evy Dewina Kasmo
  
• Ali Al-Jaberi
  
• Mohamed Yosuf Haydaty
  
• Nan Luursema
  
• Floris Alberse
  
• Khalid Bedri
  
• Milena Holdert
  
• Klaas Stutje
  
• Mirko V. van Pampus
  
• René Boer
  
• A. el Aqde
  
• Cüneyt Kocak
  
• Dirim Kutlar
  
• Casper Thomas
  
• Jennifer Tason
  
• Allard Altena
  
• Willemijn Kuper

That's bad enough in a society which considers itself tolerant and free, but it's not the worst of it.

When I hear the name Gerard Spong, I think of this:

On April 8th the Dutch TV program “The Devil’s Advocate” aired a mock trial in which lawyer Gerard Spong defended Osama Bin Laden. The title of the feature was “Is Osama Bin Laden actually guilty of 9/11?”

Our Flemish correspondent VH undertook the thankless job of listening to the recording of the entire program. He prepared this analysis and summary for Gates of Vienna:

The TV program “The Devil’s Advocate” concerns “controversial people in the news about whom there is always another story to tell.”

The “accusers” in this “case” are Charles Groenhuijsen and Glenn Schoen.

Charles Groenhuijsen used to be a freelance foreign correspondent in the United States of America for the Dutch TV News. He was also not particularly partisan (i.e. no leftist views). He was “called back” and replaced by a more leftist reporter. When he refused to live permanently in the Netherlands to become a newsreader (he lived with his family in Washington), he was sacked. In a magazine interview he accused colleagues of having a leftist attitude and of suffering from intellectual laziness, and he also once had said — as a joke — that the Dutch news team was a “schnabbel-gestapo”. However, he was elected by viewers the “best correspondent ever for the Dutch TV News” in 2006.

Glenn Schoen is a terror specialist, security analyst, and Head of Security & Integrity Services of Ernst & Young. He has appeared on CNN a few times to comment on terror acts.

The lawyer Gerard Spong, who is maybe best known for filing the recent “hate-speech” case against Geert Wilders, will defend Osama bin Laden (OBL) and his organization al Qaeda AQ).

The jury is made up of ordinary citizens.

Note: Spong during this “trial” is using classic tactics to deny that anything is real without proof it is real and to deny the proof to be real because anybody might be willing and able to fabricate so-called “proof”. An effective form of circular reasoning that affects the credibility of his opponents.

Basically Spong denies everything, of course, not by citing any proof, but by undermining the proof of his opponents and continuously repeating that OBL is innocent and the whole idea is a phantom.

The “trial” is in three segments.

Below is a summary (mostly of Spong’s arguments)*:

1. OBL gave the order for the attacks of 9-11

Spong argues that there is no proof of a direct command-line between OBL and the 9-11 attackers. He points to the FBI website, which does not officially mention OBL as suspect in this. Schoen explains that the charges against OBL already date from 1998 and thus don’t have to be updated. Therefore in the charges there is also room to charge him on other facts.

Groenhuijsen argues that there are even videos that prove a direct connection between OBL and one or a few of the hijackers.

Spong then comes up with Sheikh Khalid Mohammed who confessed to have organized the attacks, thus it cannot be OBL. Groenhuijsen states that the sheikh is in the hierarchy of AQ but at the top of that hierarchy is OBL, who since the early nineties has been involved in many bloody terror attacks.

Still Spong doesn’t accept any of that. “There is no hard proof that OBL commanded the hijackers that attacked on 9-11; thus he is innocent.”

On some videos he appears right-handed while he is left-handed and some translations are not correct. And therefore he concludes that there are no facts that prove that OBL had command over the hijackers.

[Verdict of the jury later: not guilty]

2. OBL financed the attacks and has blood on his hands

Here Spong argues that AQ does not exist and is a phantom. AQ is “invented” to be able to accuse OBL and used as an excuse for Iraq and Afghanistan, to increase the defense budget, and because of oil interests. For example, the link between Saddam and AQ was a mistake, he argues, and did not exist.

During the bombing of Tora Bora nobody was there, he argues, and there is no proof whatsoever that AQ exists.

Groenhuijsen and Schoen then argue that of course an organization like that will not have a receptionist, nor a coffee service, and certainly not papers filed with he company registration service of a government.

According to Spong all “events” are isolated. There is no connection, and there is a search for connections that are not there.

[Verdict of the jury later: not guilty]

3. OBL is a just a terrorist who misuses Islam to commit attacks and to incite to violence

Spong here avoids Islam and it is not mentioned. He argues that this is a situation of war, not of terrorism. This cannot be a war in which one party is allowed everything and the other party nothing, OBL is therefore a freedom fighter in a war against the Western world. Also he says the US government calls it a war: “a war on terror” (in which he avoids the word “terror” and keeps stressing on the word “war”).

Spong continues to put forward the idea that OBL is just like a rebel who struggles against the ruling power, who wants to achieve another order. A rebel will use violence if necessary to achieve this end, and often that is a better order, according to Spong. He cites Nelson Mandela, who also was seen as a terrorist, but is maybe one of the best-known folk heroes, he states. [a video shows the opposite with a terror attack by the ANC] Thus OBL is a folk hero just like Nelson Mandela.

Groenhuijsen jumps in: A folk hero for whom? For the three thousand who got murdered on September 11, in Indonesia, in the attacks on the Cole and so on?

No, Spong replies, but for a major part of the Arab people. Then one party is the police officer and the other a terrorist organization. OBL is standing up for his own Arab people, who have the right to live the way they want to according to their own cultural norms and values.

[Verdict of the jury: guilty]

Final verdict: The jury in majority finds OBL not responsible for the attacks. But the jury does find him a terrorist because OBL, as opposed to Mandela, causes terror all over the world.

Spong seems to crave publicity, but currently it does seem if there is a controversial bandwagon, then he will jump upon it, no matter what the consequences.

He can dismiss such dangerous nonsense as 'helping people to look at things from a different angle' - but ultimately he is playing with fire and undermining us all.

Geert Wilders in Denmark

From Gates of Vienna:

Geert Wilders is in Denmark for a conference entitled “Free Speech and Islam”, which is being held today at Christiansborg Castle in Copenhagen and is sponsored by Trykkefrihedsselskabet (the Free Press Society). For a printable program of the event in pdf format, click here.

Mr. Wilders appeared on Danish television yesterday. After being pressed by the interviewer, he acknowledged that millions of Muslims — those who support jihad and shariah, and oppose the democratic societies that they live in — will have to be deported from Europe.

He says, “There’s only one solution.”

The video below is in English with Danish subtitles:

In other news, Dutch Integration Minister Eberhard van der Laan stuck the knife into Mr Wilders yesterday - then urged him for a debate.

He called Wilders' PVV 'dangerous', claiming that Wilders generalises about certain problems and offers pseudo-solutions 'far away from the rule of law'.

Vice Premier Andre Rouvoet (ChristenUnie) said that whilst the word 'dangerous' might be a little strong, 'it is risky to exploit existing discontent. You can not make discrimination the aim of a government programme.'

Better, of course, to completely ignore the voters and the cause of the 'discontent' whilst attempting to destroy anyone who does not.

Mr Wilders claims the men are running scared because their Left-wing parties are in decline - it seems the voters know what they want and who offers the best solutions.

The Smear Campaign Against Geert Wilders Continues

The Dutch establishment is apparently still reeling from Geert Wilders' victory in the European elections, in which his party took 17% of the vote and became the second largest in the Netherlands.

René Danen, the head of the Dutch anti-racist group Nederland Bekent Kleur, says it is time to stop describing Wilders and Partij voor de Vrijheid as merely 'populist' and face the 'truth' - it has all the hallmarks of a racist, extreme Right-wing party.

'The PVV wants to close the borders to people who belong to one particular religion, and ban the houses of worship and schools for one population group,' Danen wrote in an article.

'Wilders once told De Limburger newspaper that he wants to 'tear down the mosques'. He told HP/De Tijd newsweekly that 'it is okay for the Netherlands to have Jewish and Christian school but not Islamic schools'. In other words: pure discrimination,' Danen said.

Wilders is also anti-democratic, Danen argues, pointing out that he is the only member of the PVV. 'PVV MPs are not elected by the party but appointed by Wilders himself. The PVV meets behind closed doors in meetings where no one has the right to vote. So the main defining characteristics of an extreme-right party - nationalist, anti-democratic and racist - are all found in the PVV,' Danen says.

Now, if any of this were true, one could perhaps argue that Wilders wished to make the Netherlands as Islamic as possible in its single-minded hatred and intolerance of any other view point.

Despite the outright lies, Danen predictably misses several key points; firstly, most political parties have selection processes which are only open to certain people.

Even if party members are allowed to vote, it could be argued that is not democratic - not as we understand the term (one person, one vote) in any case.

Secondly, the PVV advocates tighter border control, but I was under the impression they favoured a halt to all mass immigration as they struggle to absorb those already in the Netherlands. It just so happens that the vast majority of Third World immigrants to Holland are Muslim.

The problem is that if these slurs stick (as they are designed to), the PVV will face a 'cordon sanitaire', one of the main problems in PR systems.

This means they will be able to find a willing coalition partner to form the government even if they are overwhelmingly the largest party.

The word 'racist' has become so meaningless now that it is only fit to be used as a smear and slur, an accusation akin to witchcraft in days gone by - one is very much guilty unless he can prove otherwise.

Another man was smearing Wilders this week - hate preacher Mohamed Rabbae, based in the Netherlands.

Here we get to see a little bit of Islamic democracy in action; according to Rabbae, Wilders is not to be congratulated on his victory (as he was by other Dutch parliamentarians from across the political spectrum). He is to be 'destroyed'.

The cleric, who often directs his ire against gays and Jews addressed Dutch voters from Washington,comparing people who voted for Wilders to Muslim fundamentalists:

1. Wilders should be exposed as disastrous racist. In other words: a complete cordon sanitaire, both at national and provincial and municipal level. Exclude racists. 2. The Wilders-voters should stop whining about 'the young Moroccans who and robbed a bus driver and repent. To them Rabbae would say: "There are people within the Muslim community who have said and done the wrong things to you, which will decline as Muslims become less of a minority. We target this behaviour here and there during confrontational internal discussions that you do not experience. " In other words: everything is good, but if it isn't you must not notice - or you are a racist.

Is it not curious that the Leftist and the radical Muslim are in effect calling for the same thing? The death of democracy in the Netherlands and ignoring anyone who is against or wary of the multicultural agenda which pushes mass immigration.

These slurs against Wilders must be fought - we must play these people at their own game.

Exit Polls Look Promising for PVV *Updated*

Exit polls in the Netherlands indicate that Geert Wilders' PVV has done very well indeed in the European elections.

At this moment in time it seems they have won 16.9% of the vote, making them the second biggest party with five seats of the twenty five allocated to the Netherlands.

Turnout in the election was around 40%.

The biggest loser is the PvdA, which will go from seven seats to four, whilst the CDA led by Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende will go from seven to five.

'This is a fantastic result,' said Wilders. '...But we are just beginning.'

***UPDATE*** 5th June 12:14

The Partij voor de Vrijheid now has 17% of the vote, which translates as 754534 votes, compared to the 19.9% and 883951 votes of the CDA.

Also, a mock election held in over 140 schools with 15,000 pupils taking part saw Geert Wilders' PVV become the largest party, with over 19% of the vote.

***UPDATE*** 5th June 17:59

Tory Totty has this breakdown of Wilders' support:

Wilders’ party has become the largest party in Rotterdam, a traditional Socialist stronghold, where it received 22.5% of the votes, while Labour declines from 31 to 15%. Rotterdam has a large population of Muslim immigrants. It seems the native voters have flocked en masse to Wilders, whose party has even become the biggest in Capelle aan de IJssel, the home town of Prime Minister Balkenende.

The Dutch electoral map shows that the PVV (pale blue on the map) has become:

• the largest party in parts of the southern province of Limburg, Wilders’ home province, which is traditionally Christian-Democrat
• the eastern corner of the northern province of Groningen, which is a communist bulwark,
• the major cities and suburbs of the West, which traditionally tend to vote Labour (inner cities) or Liberal (suburbs).

This indicates that the PVV appeals to the whole spectrum of the Dutch indigenous population, from the right to the left, with its program against the Islamization of Europe, its outspoken support for Israel, and against the transformation of the European Union into a European superstate.

A Brief Word on the European Elections

Today voters in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands will be able to make their choice in the European elections - the other countries in the EU vote later in the week.

This will determine, via a system of proportional representation, just who represents us in the European Parliament.

It is not my job to tell people who to vote for; but I will say this to my British readers.

If you are of a conservative mindset, do not vote for the Conservative Party, or 'David Cameron's Conservatives' as it has been re-branded in some parts.

Whilst this man leads the party, it is lost to genuinely conservative people who care about their country.

All this man cares about is appeasing the neo-liberal elite and proving that conservatism has evolved to the point where it is not actually conservative any more. He doesn't care about this country or his party's instinctive voters.

When his leaflet came through my door, it insisted that Britain needed the right people in Europe, looking out for the interests of this country on matters such as immigration, the economic crisis and shaping European policy to suit Britain's needs.

I agree with him - it does need the right people. Those people are not in the Conservative Party.

Remember that well in excess of 50% of our laws are now dictated from Brussels. Remember that these elections are in many ways a referendum on issues such as Turkey joining the EU or getting a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. This is the only chance we have to make our feelings on such issues known.

Vote accordingly. The Tories have been marginalising the 'eurosceptics' and the genuine Right-wingers in their party for years - whilst still using their grassroots support to win elections.

Please be aware of this.

In other news, the Dutch media have launched a final assault against Geert Wilders before polls open tomorrow:

In an article in the Dutch newspaper Trouw today, the leftist journalist Rinke van den Brink, a self-declared expert of the “far-right” and the author of a number of biased books, such as the “Internationale de la haine“ (The International of Hatred), writes about “Wilders’ European family.” Mr. van den Brink talked to Filip Dewinter (VB), Mogens Camre and Morten Messerschmidt (DF), Mario Borghezio (LN), Andreas Mölzer (FPÖ), and Gerard Batten (UKIP). Mr. Batten says he personally favours cooperation with Mr. Wilders but is not sure whether his party leadership is keen to address the issues (read: the fight against Islamisation) which have made the PVV so successful.

Mr. van den Brink’s article is part of a concerted project. Tonight, Dutch television broadcasts a documentary with the same title, in the hope of persuading the Dutch voters to abstain from voting for Mr. Wilders tomorrow. Part of the documentary is an interview with the Dutch academic André Krouwel who warns that Mr. Wilders is an extremist. Mr. Krouwel says Mr. Wilders is dangerous because he, and the other parties who would like to team up with him, emphasize the importance of national sovereignty over European cooperation. “Giving a central role to the national states will lead to many serious problems: to economic decline and to tensions between the states. It endangers prosperity and peace in Europe,” he says.

All the usual slurs are there- 'far-right', 'crackpot', 'extremist'.

Don't be fooled. What really endangers peace and prosperity in Europe is Islamisation and unchecked Third World immigration.

I find countless examples of such madness every single day. Too many examples.

We're further down the road to Hell than many realise.

There are only a few brave men willing to stand up and be counted, to tell us the truth; Wilders risks his life every single day for his principles, to help the country, the civilisation and the values he holds so dear.

I wish Mr Wilders and every candidate who genuinely loves Great Britain and the Kingdom of the Netherlands the very best of luck; we all need it.

Geert Wilders Talks Sense on the Joanie de Rijke Case

Joanie de Rijke (above) is a Dutch journalist who was kidnapped by the Taliban in the Sorobi district of Afghanistan last year. She was there to report on the deaths of ten French commandos, hacked to pieces by Taliban fighters.

She arranged to meet a Taliban commander, in order to 'hear their side of the story'. When the fighters came to the meeting, they simply kidnapped her. Despite this, she still refuses to admit she was taking unnecessary risks.

She was held for six days before the magazine she worked for paid a ransom to free her. She was raped by the commander during her ordeal, and she has now written a book called 'Held by the Taliban'.

Some feel that she is being overly lenient to her abductors, however. Here are some passages from her on the experience:

"I can't be angry with them, because they let me live."

"I couldn't be sure whether the ransom would be paid, which meant I didn't know what was going to happen to me. To break the constant tension, you have to talk to each other. The situation was very tense. The whole atmosphere was very tense. The commander, one moment he was friendly to me and the next moment he went mad because - I don't know - of some news he got, and then he threatened to kill me. So, there was always tension. And to break that tension, you had to talk and laugh a bit. It was a matter of surviving."

On the rape ordeal:

"It's not black and white. It was the commander who raped me. I wanted to give vent to my hatred, to chop his head off and kick it off the cliff. He was schizophrenic: the following day, he said he was sorry. In that sort of situation - no matter how awful - you develop a bond with those people. You have to, if you want to survive. You could say the hatred and that bond go side by side.

"Just let me make one thing clear: I hate him for what he did to me. I hate him because he raped me. I was very, very mad and I wanted to kill him right away. But the day after it happened, he more or less asked me to forgive him. That was very confusing for me. It was a very schizophrenic situation because he had mood swings. I just had to cope with that. Normally you can show that you are angry but I couldn't of course. I had to get on with them. I just couldn't say to this commander what I was really thinking because then he would have killed me right away."

Ms de Rijke says that she was nevertheless shown respect.

"These things can exist side by side. That doesn't mean that I'm suffering from Stockholm syndrome."

I can understand that she feels grateful she got away at all. I just feel she is directing that gratitude at the wrong people.

Geert Wilders is now being condemned for a statement he made about her case during a parliamentary debate:

'She showed understanding for this horrible deed and then was given tea and biscuits,' Wilders said in parliament. That is symbolic for the 'moral decline of our elite', he was quoted as saying. Politicians, civil servants, mangers and 'subsidy swallowers' have all lost their way and are suffering from Stockholm syndrome, he said.

But doesn't he have a point? The modern way is to conceal whilst pretending to reveal. No one seems interested in why what happened did happen, the worldview and belief system which drives such behaviour - a worldview which can be seen increasingly in many Western cities. We half-heartedly condemn whilst trying to understand, to reconcile our view of one happy world with just why they hate us so much, hold us in so much contempt.

As far as I'm aware (and I don't speak Dutch, so I may well have missed something) Miss de Rijke has condemned the man who raped her, as an individual.

What she has failed to do is think about why he behaved like that, why it is apparently so dangerous for a blonde Dutch woman to travel to certain parts of the world in the first place. An act such as this deserves no understanding, only condemnation.

But the elite were too busy shouting Wilders down to take a moment for introspection, despite the fact that he clearly condemned the despicable crimes against de Rijke:

GroenLinks leader Femke Halsema accused Wilders of having no ethical boundaries. 'You should be ashamed,' she said. 'Not one millimeter,' Wilders replied.

Prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende said the statement was 'painful and tasteless'. De Rijke is 'once again the victim because she cannot defend herself,' the PM said.

De Rijke promptly defended herself and denounced the statement, insisting that if Wilders read her book he would see he is wrong.

Well, I've read some of her quotes translated into English, as displayed above, and I'm not sure he is.

The Prosecution of Geert Wilders Will Definitely Go Ahead

Today it was reported that a request to the Dutch Supreme Court to have the decision to prosecute MP Geert Wilders quashed has been rejected:

Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-Islam party PVV, will definitely be prosecuted for inciting hatred against Muslims and Islam, news agency ANP writes on Wednesday.

A request by Wilders’ lawyer Bram Moscowicz to have the decision to prosecute quashed has been rejected by the Dutch supreme court.

Amsterdam appeal court said in January Wilders should stand trial for hate speech and discrimination. The public prosecution department had said earlier there were not sufficient grounds to prosecute the MP.

The anti-immigration MP said he expected ‘a political trial’. ‘I am being prosecuted for something millions of Dutch people are thinking... Freedom of speech is being sacrificed on the altar of Islam. But I am ready to fight back with my head held high’, he added.

Over at Dutch News (a site in English), there is a poll over whether or not this decision is correct. The results are overwhelming:

You might also wish to head over there to take the poll, or refute the first two commenters, including the stunningly Stalinist 'Osita':

If he's so convinced he's done nothing wrong, he has nothing to fear, does he?
If somewhere deep in his mind he knows he's crossed the line, he'll be doing anything to prevent appearing in a court of law ...
... maybe like trying to get the decision to prosecute overturned?
By osita May 20, 2009 1:39 PM

Er, yeah. I mean, after all, it's not as if the very decision to prosecute is a political one, is it?

Alternatively, it might be of more use to sign the petition against Wilders' prosecution here, or donate to his fighting fund here.

If he is convicted, he will be constitutionally barred from holding political office. If he wins, it is likely he will be left bankrupt.

This trial is purely political, and in many respects the future of all of us hangs on the result, no matter how indirect or distant it seems.

More Muslim Hypocrisy from Mohammed Shafiq

The following video contains an interview with Mohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, which took place with Nick Ferrari on LBC Radio.

In it, Shafiq attempts to argue the case for allowing self-proclaimed Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi into the United Kingdom (he was, after much wrangling, banned). This individual was active in sowing disinformation about the 2006 Lebanon War, and once described Jews as 'a lesion on the forehead of history'.

As you will hear in the interview, Shafiq's only response to that remark is 'well, what language was he speaking in, and was he talking about Zionism?'

Shafiq is hailed as a moderate, and his Ramadhan Foundation is intended to create a discourse between Muslims and the rest of society. In this interview, he disputes clear facts and denies that Mousawi is a member of Hezbollah.

When cornered, he asks why it matters. The presenter replies it is a terrorist group - and this shining example of a Muslim moderate replies 'well, I could say that about Mr Lieberman'.

He doesn't see a parallel between the banning of Mousawi from the UK and the deportation of Dutch MP Geert Wilders back in February.

He insists that he supports Wilders' right to hold whatever opinions he wishes, and says he would like to engage him in a civilised debate. However he can't seem to grasp that non-Muslims might have been as upset and offended by Mousawi's visit as Muslims allegedly would have been by Wilders.

I imagine the difference would have come in the way that upset was expressed.


In many ways it is a victory that this character was banned from Britain, but the Home Secretary continues to make some very inconsistent decisions.

During the G20 protests, two notorious Islamists were allowed into Britain. From the News of the World:

Both spoke at the House of Commons last week at a pro-Palestinian meeting organised by a far-left Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn.

One is Hussein Al Hajj Hassan, a member of the political wing of Lebanese terror group Hezbollah.

The other is Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Belgian Muslim firebrand who has published disgusting anti-Semitic cartoons.

One of these cartoon showed Adolf Hitler and 15 year old Holocaust victim Anne Frank in bed together, with the caption 'write that in your diary, Anne'.

Jahjah has also urged Flemish people to adapt to Muslims, rather than the other way around, and described the 'sweet feeling of revenge' he felt upon hearing of the 9/11 attacks.

All of this is hypocrisy of the purest kind - but then what have we come to expect? As Geert Wilders himself says, there may be moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.

When Islam is involved there will always be disingenuous double standards, it seems. Mohammed Shafiq does his constituents no favours by proving this to be true.

Hope for Europe?

One of the major problems which Europe and the wider Western world faces is the fact that the vast majority of mainstream politicians just don't want to listen to the people.

Not only that, they seem to inhabit a bizarre parallel universe where everything means the exact opposite.

A few years ago, it seemed as if parts of Europe were hopelessly lost; for me, this feeling of despair was summed up by reading Fjordman's blog. In an article about Sweden's growing gang-rape epidemic, he quoted an interview with an Arab immigrant called Hamid:

"It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,”. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably f***ked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will have problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.”

It was no coincidence therefore that it was a Swedish girl that was gang raped in Rissne. “It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore…… girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That’s what I am going to do. I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get f***ked to pieces.”

Fjordman presented much evidence that these rapes had risen in line with the number of non-Western immigrants in Sweden. The Swedish government and establishment, for various reasons, insisted that the increase was due to statistical anomalies caused by laws which made reporting a rape easier.

After reading the piece I quoted above, a leading Swedish newspaper editor of the time said:

"If the debate is that there are problems caused by refugees and immigrants, we don’t want it.”

Quite how or why someone can be so wilfully blind, so obtuse, escaped me then and escapes me now. Sweden doesn't seem to have improved dramatically either, it's sad to say.

It does seem to be getting slightly easier to have the debate that the Swedish newspaper editor wished to suppress, however.

The out of touch politicians still exist. Only now, sometimes, someone will step forward to answer them.

Two weeks ago, the Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen launched an attack on Geert Wilders, the controversial Dutch MP behind the film Fitna.

Verhagen said:

Mr Verhagen said that Mr Wilders used generalisations to sow discord and pit different groups of people against one another. He said that what Mr Wilders was actually doing was forcing people to centre their identities on what was, in fact, just one factor in their lives: their religion. He added that Mr Wilders' remarks were turning the Netherlands into a country of "us against them" and that he did not wish to live in such a land.

Yes, Geert Wilders and his compulsive truth telling. Clearly it is only the words and actions of Wilders which sows discord and discontent - how dare he highlight things which Verhagen and his cronies wish to keep firmly in the dark.

It seems the idea that pointing out that something is happening is worse than having let it happen in the first place and then ignoring the outcome could be dying out in the Netherlands, however. A recent poll suggests that many of Wilders' ideas enjoy the support of more than 40% of the population.

According to Dutch News:

Some 40% of the Dutch population agree with many of anti-Islam MP Geert Wilder's statements, according to research by TNS Nipo for magazine Vrij Nederland.

According to opinion polls, Wilders would take about 18% of the vote if there was an election tomorrow. But this research shows support for his ideas is much wider, Vrij Nederland says.

Some 42% of those polled agreed with the statement that Wilders says 'what ordinary people believe and want'. Some 35% do not think Wilders goes too far in his comments about Islam and Muslims and 38% agree with Wilders' statement that Muslims have come to the Netherlands 'to take things over'.

A large majority - 61% - agree with Wilders' call for 'street terrorists' to be deported. Wilders used the phrase to describe gangs of youths, mainly of Moroccan origin.

So, the time of simply banning debate on certain issues may well be over. Arguably it's already too late - but still, this is generally a positive development.

It seems that debate about immigration and particularly Islamism will also feature heavily in the Norwegian elections, coming up in about six months.

Again, there are people like former Labour prime minister (how sweet those words sound) Thorbjoern Jagland who don't seem to live on the same planet as everyone else:

And last month, senior members of the Labour Party called for a fight against radical Islam in Norway.

However, the former prime minister and Labour Party leader, Thorbjoern Jagland, called it an unnecessary fight that would only lead to confrontation.

While he argued that it was empty rhetoric, saying there was no radical Islam in Norway, the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) insists radical Islam does represent a threat.

"In Norway, extreme Islamist activity is carried out by small groups. However, the international connections the persons in these groups represent, in addition to activities they carry out, are such in nature that they can also influence that national threat picture," it said in a recent report.

Pundits estimate that the Progress Party led by Siv Jensen might get up to 30% of the national vote. The party warns extensively about the Islamisation of Norway, and is very much against burying its head in the sand over immigration issues for fear of being called racist:

"The reality is that a kind of sneak-Islamisation of this society is being allowed," she recently told a Progress Party conference. "We are going to have to stop this."

Opinion polls suggest the party could win as much as 30% of the vote in the election for the national parliament, the Storting, in September.

"If the Progress Party gets to govern Norway, we will enforce Norwegian law and Norwegian rules. We are not going to allow special demands from any single group in society," Ms Jensen added.

That's the way to do it. It's encouraging that a few are willing to speak out on the issues which actually concern ordinary people; let's just hope that it's not already too late.

Geert Wilders to Release a Sequel to Fitna

It has been reported that Dutch MP Geert Wilders intends to release a sequel to his controversial film 'Fitna'.

Whilst Fitna examined the links between Islamic violence and terrorism and the Koran, the new film, made in league with as yet unnamed American directors, will look at how mass immigration is enabling what Wilders calls 'the march of Islamisation in Western countries'.

If you happen to live anywhere near a Dutch embassy, you might wish to note that this film will be released some time in 2010.

In related news, a response to Fitna has been released by the Dutch boyfriend of an Indonesian Muslim living in the Netherlands.

Social Studies student Stefan Franz claims his girlfriend, raised in a strict Muslim community in Bandung, does not recognise the violent interpretation of Islam portrayed by Wilders in Fitna.

Seeing as Wilders was simply compiling the words and actions of others, this is initially hard to believe, but if you follow the link to Radio Netherlands, you can watch a trailer for this film, entitled 'I, Muslima'.

It is an interesting film - Islamic violence and the reputation of Islam in the free world has caused her to question her faith, and whether or not Wilders is correct in his warnings about Islamisation, and we follow a series of conversations she has with fellow Muslims in Indonesia.

Perhaps not worth the full 70 minutes, but it is interesting as a different perspective on these issues.

Hat tip: The Frozen North

George Galloway Vs. Geert Wilders Again

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant the people who wish to engage me in argument can be.

If people disagree with my views and the premise of this site, then that is their right, and I welcome the variation of opinion if they wish to debate me using logic, facts and rationality.

They rarely do, however; they seem to prefer name calling, nonsensical insults and a good, healthy does of mind-bending double standards.

On a recent YouTube video of George Galloway addressing a Canadian audience via video link after being banned from the country, I left the following critical but good natured comment:

thelambethwalkSE11
Freedom of speech is a funny thing - I don't recall Mr Galloway being overly concerned when Dutch MP Geert Wilders was banned from Britain under threat of Muslim violence.
He supported the ban, in fact.
What's that old saying about every action having a reaction...?

I then received several highly critical replies, the worst from a Hamas and Hezbollah supporter called Assy84.

He could not seem to grasp the fact that whilst he is free to disagree with Wilders, calling the man names does not automatically render his points invalid or countered.

He also could not grasp the fact that whilst Wilders was banned from Britain for his views and the potential actions of others, Galloway was banned from Canada for his actions, namely giving quite a lot of money and hugs to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

Maybe this person is too fringe to worry about, but the cyclical nature of the argument and the blatant, unashamed double standards on display frustrated me to the point where I felt a rebuttal was in order.

Now, I've made my views on Geert Wilders and George Galloway quite clear, both above and elsewhere. My support for Wilders being allowed entry to Britain and Galloway being banned from Canada has very little to do with my agreement or disagreement with their worldview, and everything to do with the fact they are two totally different situations, despite an initial, deceptive similarity.

The bottom line is, having the freedom to strut around the world funding murderous terrorists and not be blacklisted from entering civilised countries is simply not the same thing as basic freedom of speech or being prosecuted for declaring self-evident truths.

What does someone like Assy84 think the difference is? Well, I'll show you.

Assy84 (3 days ago)
Mr galloway isn't a racist son of a bitch whilst Geert Wilders is the greatest fascist after hitler. Putting them both in the same statement should ashame you.In fact. Surprise surprise, Galloway in this speech to toronto says that he doesn't defend freedom of speech to be given to absolutely everyone. So at least watch the conference before speaking.

thelambethwalkSE11 (3 days ago)
Talking such unadulterated nonsense should embarrass you, but it clearly doesn't.
"Geert Wilders is the greatest fascist after hitler."
Oh, I thought that was Ismail Haniyeh, Galloway's friend and personal passport officer - my mistake.
"Galloway in this speech to toronto says that he doesn't defend freedom of speech to be given to absolutely everyone."
Which proves my point, doesn't it? He wants it but won't see it given to all.

Assy84 (2 days ago)
Galloway, i repeat myself, is not a racist moron, he has never shown any kind of racist atitude. Thats why he can have freedom of speech, whilst Wilders can't because his views are sick. Don't you get it? About Haniye my answer is.... Ok man, if you say so.... That really is unadulterated nonsense.

thelambethwalkSE11 (2 days ago)
You're the one who doesn't get it - Wilders is a racist moron in YOUR OPINION. Who appointed you a moral authority, someone who just stuck up for Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh? Galloway was banned from Canada for his actions, not his views - it's really not complicated! Galloway can say whatever the hell he likes as far as I'm concerned, but he is a sponsor of a terrorist group and therefore Canada was right to keep him out. Would you care to provide evidence that Wilders is a racist?

Assy84 (2 days ago)
What!?!?! wilders not a racist in your opinion? well wonder why that would be? Every word that comes out from his mouth is racist. Every comment about inmigration, every filthy sentence towards muslims. Now tell me your evidence that Galloway sponsors a terrorist organisation? Galloway, not in my opinion, aided with food, medicines, wheelchairs, etc. That makes him to be in the radical oposite of Wilders in morality and empathy towards the poor. Get it now?

thelambethwalkSE11 (2 days ago)
Ah, let me guess - only racists think Wilders isn't a racist? How convenient, that means you don't have to answer any of my points! I don't think Geert Wilders is a racist, no. I think he's concerned about mass immigration, which is perfectly legitimate, & I think he's worried about the political and extreme aspects of Islam. His film Fitna only quoted the words of Muslims and the Koran, remember. Galloway hugged Haniyeh and gave him £25,000 of his own cash. He funded a terror group.

Assy84 (1 day ago)
Wilders is a racist, if you consider him not to be, then you are a racist yourself, weather you think it's convenient for me to say it or not. Haven't seen his film, but I'm 99'9% sure he took biased translations of Islam. Like all Islamophobic preachers do. You see, there are many of those corrupted translations everywhere. Canada considers Hamas to be a terrorist org, I consider hamas to be a legitimate resistance group. If Galloway hugged Haniye, good for him.

thelambethwalkSE11 (20 hours ago)
Right, so I either agree with you or I'm a racist? So after all this bluster, it turns out you have never seen Fitna and you're not familiar with his views - how then can you comment to the point of accusing his defenders? If there are many of those 'corrupted translations' everywhere, that must be where the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah et al get their ideas from, yeah?
Or is it possible that, maybe, Wilders and the violent Islamists are actually interpreting them quite accurately?

Assy84 (19 hours ago)
Hamas and Hezbollah aren't terrorist organistations, they are a legitimate defence for the people of middle east that fight a much superior invading force with nails and teeth. They are accused as terrorists just by a few countries. Canada, usa, netherlands, partially england and Australia. So the "interpretation" argument of yours fails in its base. No, I wont watch a film made by fascists.

thelambethwalkSE11 (19 hours ago)
The point is the vast majority of these groups justify their horrendous violence using the Koran and Islam. Wilders is simply pointing that out, and it's a very legitimate point. Hezbollah and Hamas are vile organisations, and they defend no one. They are cowards who complain of others killing children whilst hiding behind prams, then kill as many civilians as possible when they have the chance. Really, your defence of them speaks volumes about you. If you won't watch Fitna, why comment on it?

I'm sure he'll be back for more soon, but you get the idea. He hasn't watched Fitna, but he knows Wilders is a racist using biased or corrupted translations of the Koran. It's obvious, isn't it?

Wilders isn't on his knees before the multiculturalist agenda and Islam, therefore he absolutely must be a racist. Anyone who attempts to defend him, no matter how rationally, is also by definition a racist, so their points do not have to be answered.

I expect it would be a waste of time to point out to my new correspondent that Adolf Hitler actually had a lot of time for the creed of Islam. He saw it for what it was - a foreign version of what he wished Nazism to become, a political/mystic ideology of merciless, conquering warriors who feared shaming obscure concepts such as 'blood' more than they feared death.

However, it is the defence of Hamas and Hezbollah which concerns me the most. If there is any important modern day successor to the Nazis, then both of these groups must surely qualify.

Is Ismail Haniyeh a fascist? Have I got Hamas all wrong? Well, let's do a Geert Wilders - in other words, let Hamas tell the story in their own words and actions:

We see there children being taught that honour is found in death, the implication of the model rocket being thrown at the paper star is through attacking Israel or 'the Zionists'.

The sinister video below shows a play at the Islamic University of Gaza, broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV on 3rd April 2009. In it, some hideously offensive Jewish stereotypes discuss killing Muslims and drinking their blood. Nazi propaganda was packed with stories and insinuations about Jews celebrating Passover by sacrificing gentile children and drinking their blood.

If you are not convinced, there are hundreds of examples of the same thing - try MEMRI or Palestinian Media Watch.

Now, some photos of tolerant, freedom fighting, antifa Hamas members:



Hezbollah (except for the ones graduating, who I believe are also Hamas):



Last but not least, the Hamas charter:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam willobliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

Article 7:
The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews andkill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and therocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behindme, come and kill him.

Article 13:
[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions andinternational conferences are in contradiction to the principles ofthe Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more thana means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands ofIslam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except byJihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but awaste of time, an exercise in futility.'

Article 32:
Hamas is calling upon the Arab and Islamic peoples to act seriously and tirelessly in order to frustrate that dreadful scheme and to make the masses aware of the danger of coping out of the circle of struggle with Zionism. Today it is Palestine and tomorrow it may be another country or other countries. For Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion, etc. Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there.

Now, tell me again, who is the fascist here? Is Ismail Haniyeh a nice, peaceful resistance fighter? Does George Galloway really not know what sort of a man he was putting his arms around? Does Assy84 really not know either?

If Haniyeh can arrest rocket squads when it suits him and crush all political opposition, then I can only assume that everything that goes on in Gaza and Hamas, everything shown above, operates not only with his knowledge but his blessing and active participation.

This is why George Galloway is a traitor; this is why the Canadian government made the right decision.

The reason Wilders is despised and Galloway loved in fashionable circles is because the former works for the West, the latter against it. But the next time someone who is denouncing Wilders brings up Hitler, Nazism or fascism, remember those images above, and remember - they are the ones who wish to silence all dissent through name calling, straw man arguments and false analogies, all as a smoke screen to cover the reality of the situation.

Wilders is engaged in a life or death struggle for our values - Galloway and the forces he backs want them destroyed or subverted at all costs. I think the evidence on offer adequately demonstrates which vision would be the ideological cousin of the Third Reich, and which would be very far removed from it.

Geert Wilders in Beverly Hills, California

Here is Geert Wilders speaking in Beverly Hills on Saturday night:



An excellent speech, one of his best yet. Here is the Q&A session afterwards:



If elections were held now, Geert Wilders' PVV would get 32 seats in the Dutch parliament and he would become Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

However, please don't forget that he still faces prosecution in the Netherlands, simply for saying what his voters think and defending freedom of speech.

You can sign the petition against this move here, or donate to his fighting fund here.

Hat tip: Jihad Watch.

Geert Wilders' PVV Continues to Rise in Polls

According to the latest news from Radio Netherlands Geert Wilders' Partij voor de Vrijheid has continued to rise in the Dutch polls.

If an election were held now, the PVV would stand to gain 32 of 150 seats. This puts it in first place and means it would have 4 seats more than the Christian Democrats, the current largest party in the Dutch parliament and the governing 3 party coalition.

Although an election is not due for some time, it would seem the efforts of Wilders' enemies and detractors are actually working in favour of his popularity. His party started to soar in the polls after he was denied entry to Britain, and his profile has grown since then - he has received he Orianna Fallaci free speech award in Italy, completed a successful speaking and interview tour in America, and now faces a law suit for inciting racial hatred in France.

Could Europe finally be stirring in its slumber? I daren't hope...

Geert Wilders to be Sued in France

Hat tip: Keep Tony Blair for PM

It never rains but it pours for poor old Geert Wilders. It has emerged within the past couple of days that a French 'human rights group' wishes to sue Mr Wilders for a speech he made in New York in which he 'incited racial hatred' in France.

As far as I can tell, this is another attempt to silence Mr Wilders and his compulsive truth-telling.

How did he incite racial hatred in France all the way from New York? You may well ask.

He told the audience some rather unpalatable things about the current situation in France - but as far as I can gather, they are all true.

This does not seem to matter to the Association for the Defence of Human Rights - it's lawyer, Yassine Bouzrou told AFP that "the remarks made by Mr. Wilders target a specific community, Muslims, and that comes within the context of inciting racial hatred. A politician may express his idea. But Wilders makes dangerous statements about something of which he has no understanding. These are not political ideas, but insults and prejudices."

Just what were these incendiary, controversial remarks of which he has so little understanding?

Mr Wilders said that Paris was 'encircled by Muslim districts'. This is true, and I would recommend Theodore Dalrymple's excellent essay on the Banlieues, 'Barbarians at the Gates of Paris'.

Strangely, despite the provocative title, despite him acknowledging the existence of a parallel universe and the same social problems as Wilders, I'm not sure he was ever contacted by Mse Bouzrou - his letter must have got lost in the post, surely.

Wilders also said that "numerous areas (in France) were no-go zones for women not wearing headscarves," and that "in France, teachers are asked to avoid authors considered offensive towards Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot". He also called the 2005 riots by largely Muslim youths an 'intifada'.

I've heard similar stories from various sources. To settle this, I typed 'Banlieue' into Google - the first thing that came up was the English Wikipedia page. Apparently Banlieue means 'outskirts' and describes a zone at the edge of a city that is under the city's jurisdiction.

The page acknowledges that in French and English the word is now a euphemism for a low-income housing project mainly inhabited by immigrants and their descendants, and it also acknowledges that petty crime has soared and is continuing to soar in these neighbourhoods and their surrounding areas.

Will Mse Bouzrou be suing every native speaker of the French language, in that case?

As for the no-go zone for women quote, you can read a book by a lady called Samira Bellil, the French-born daughter of Algerian immigrants. In it, she goes into much detail about the living nightmare of life in the Banlieues. This includes regular incidents of gang-rape or what they call tournante, pass around.

She claims that women who don't wear headscarves, women who 'act like native French' and native French girls themselves are at most risk. You can read more of these horror stories here and here, including one girl being gang-raped by up to 80 men in Lille.

The second link begins "The phenomenon of gang rape in France has become banal. ... Many of the Muslim girls have donned head scarves - more for protection than out of religious conviction."

But of course, Mse Bouzrou knows best, right?

Next, the Voltaire issue. Google leads me first to an article in the Independent, Britain's most Left-wing mainstream newspaper, which confirms many similar stories as more than mere anecdote. I think the specific incident to which Wilders is referring actually happened in Belgium, however.

As for the intifada remark - a large section of the population trying to change society to suit them and refusing to submit to the ordinary rule of law - isn't that the very definition of an uprising?

When will this witch-hunt end? How far can one man be pushed simply for telling the truth, for standing up and saying 'enough is enough'?

Please remember that Mr Wilders still faces prosecution in the Netherlands. You can sign the petition against this move here and donate to his fighting fund here.

Europe can ill afford to lose the insights and courage of Geert Wilders.

Geert Wilders to Sue the British Government?

Hat tip: Keep Tony Blair for PM

It seems that Geert Wilders has filed a complaint with a British court over the Government's decision to deny him entry to Britain and then deport him in February 2009.

The article is not very specific about just what this means, however:

'The Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, the author of a controversial film on Islam, stated on Friday that he has filed a complaint at a London court after the British authorities denied him entry into the country in February.

“I addressed the court and sought asylum and entrance into Great Britain” said Geert Wilders, the head of the PVV (Party for Freedom), which have 9 of the 150 seats in parliament. Wilders is the director of the film “Fitna”, which advocates the stance that Islam equals violence.

Wilders was returned to the Netherlands after he was arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport.
Wilders explained that he has one British and one Dutch lawyer, and that in 28 days time he will know that date of the first discussion that he will attend if the British allow him. The British Ministry of Justice could not comment the case.

The Dutch premier Jan Peter Balkenende voiced disappointment and discontent to his British colleague Gordon Brown after Wilders was arrested.'

George Galloway Banned from Canada (II)

After my post yesterday about George Galloway being banned from Canada, I get the impression that some people find it hypocritical to be against the British Government's treatment of Geert Wilders, but supportive of the Canadian Government's policy on Galloway.

This is simply not true - the two positions are actually very different. George Galloway is a terrorist supporter. He has given his own cash to an organisation which is banned in Canada as a terrorist group, and incited hundreds if not thousands of other people to do the same. An organisation responsible for hundreds of deaths directly, and many thousands more indirectly.

Galloway incites, or at the very least is sympathetic to, violence against NATO troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world. He is a mouthpiece and a shill for some of the worst forces in the 'pro-Palestine' movement, and supports groups which have unashamed connections with religious bigotry, pan-Islamism and Arab nationalism.

Galloway embraces Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh إسماعيل هنية on his recent trip to Gaza.

Yes, Galloway is an elected British MP, but being an elected official in an EU country is the only thing which Galloway and Wilders have in common.

If this is not the case, why does Wilders receive hundreds of death threats every year and Galloway none?

Galloway has been banned from Canada because he is potentially quite dangerous, or at least his rhetoric is. Wilders was banned because of the potential actions of other groups against what he was saying and his right to say it, not in favour.

For all the student union types calling this a Zionist conspiracy - does that mean you're saying Wilders' ban from the UK was an Islamic conspiracy? No? Thought not.

There is a far greater case for asserting the latter point of view, however, culminating in a British peer, whose only loyalty should be to the British Crown and its subjects, threatening to lead a group of 10,000 Muslims on Parliament - all because he was himself a Muslim and disagreed with Wilders.

No thought was given for the ancient liberties of the country which took him in and raised him to its upper echelons.

Galloway has far more in common with Nazir Ahmed than Geert Wilders - both men use the grievances of Muslims as a stick to beat Western Civilisation, our culture, our values, Israel, America and Britain.

Wilders stands as one of the last defences of the West and its ancient liberties and values - Galloway is very much on the opposite side of the line. Wilders also only presumes to speak for himself and those who vote for his party - Galloway pretends the entire civilised world is behind him, and was most recently seen debasing my flag to chants of 'Allahuakbar' from thugs and terrorists.

Therefore, I applaud Canada's decision, and I don't feel this is at all in conflict with my wish to see Geert Wilders speak here. Jason Kenny, Canada's Immigration Minister, said:

“I’m sure Galloway has a large Rolodex of friends in regimes elsewhere in the world willing to roll out the red carpet for him. Canada, however, won’t be one of them.

We’re going to uphold the law, not give special treatment to a street-corner Cromwell who brags about giving ‘financial support’ to Hamas, a terrorist organization banned in Canada.”

That's the way to do it! Are you taking notes, Jacqui Smith?

I am also grateful to the Canadian immigration authorities for introducing me to the word 'infandous', meaning 'too odious to be expressed or mentioned'.

It surely is the perfect word to sum up George Galloway.

The Persecution of Geert Wilders Continues

Gates of Vienna reported yesterday that the defence team acting on behalf of Geert Wilders have discovered that he may be being prosecuted for things he never actually said.

They claim that some of the quotes listed on the charge sheet against him were said by the late, great Oriana Fallaci, whom he was quoting.

This is a very interesting development. But sadly, a man in Mr Wilders' position must get used to being misquoted and having his views distorted, often to a fantastical degree.

Recently, I stumbled upon this thread from the 'Dutch News' website. Here is the story:

'Three boys have been given community service of 50 hours for posting threats against MP Geert Wilders on his website.

The boys, aged 12 and 13 at the time, visited Wilders' website during a school anti-racism project and used the digital contact form to leave their messages, reports news agency ANP.

One text, inspired by rap rhythms, read: 'Geert Wilders, we will take you to the cellar. Then I will hit you and you won't see clearly any more'.

The public prosecution department had called for suspended juvenile detention sentences of up to two weeks.'

So a teacher, a public servant with wages paid by the taxpayer, gets her pupils to log onto Wilders' site to see an example of a racist.

This is wrong for so many reasons, and to be honest it was the first part of the story that jumped out at me, closely followed by the rap lyrics and the insinuation that these boys of 12 and 13 would like nothing more than to beat some sense into him.

What if a teacher who planned to vote for Wilders used his site as an example of the dangers of Islam, or a man who loved his country and culture?

I somehow doubt that would be accepted.

It seems I was alone in noting these aspects of the story, however. The first commenter, 'Osita', writes:

"But surely they were only exercising their Right to Freedom of Speech?
Wilders is really so scared of 12 year old boys? He is a joke.
I demand a tax rebate for all the money wasted funding this monkey's publicity machine (apologies to any monkeys who feel insulted by such association)."

By osita February 17, 2009 11:37 AM

Quite how someone could so spectacularly miss the point is beyond me. How is leaving death threats for someone 'freedom of speech'?

Why does 'being scared' come into it? They broke the law, they were punished (sort of). If Wilders is such a joke, such a big scaredy cat, why didn't he run away to the US after what happened to Theo van Gogh? Why does he continue with his work, knowing how real the threat is?

Incidentally, I'd be interested to see how 'Osita' feels about the idea of a tax rebate to cover the costs of violent immigrant criminals who make up a large percentage of the prison population, or welfare benefits for their families.

On the same subject, I stumbled across the following post on the blog 'P.I. Bill Warner', regarding Wilders' current poll lead.

In it, he tells several outright lies; Wilders is a pompous bigot, Wilders is like Hitler, 'Fitna' is like 'The Eternal Jew', Wilders wants to deport all Muslims, the Dutch are naturally racist people and we know that because they invented apartheid, etc etc.

Frankly, at points his hatred for Wilders and distaste at the Dutch for supporting him seem to border on the pathological. He has defaced the photo I display at the top of this post and on my sidebar with a crude 'Hitler moustache' and the words 'neo-Nazis support Geert Wilders'.

He calls Wilders 'a snake in the grass with an agenda', whilst insisting, against all the facts and logic that criticising Islam is just like anti-semitism. He also advocates that Wilders be jailed for his political opinions.

I left the following comment:

"A few facts you might be interested in:

Wilders has never, ever said he would ‘deport all Muslims’. What he has said is he’s concerned about radicalised Muslims and terrorists and the estimated 5-15% of the Muslim population which supports them, implicitly or otherwise.

He has talked about stripping violent criminals with dual-nationality of their Dutch citizenship and deporting them on a ‘3 strikes and you’re out’ basis. I personally don’t see what is wrong with this - citizenship as an immigrant is a privilege, not a right. All countries have the right to say who can come in and who can settle - it’s called sovereignty.

You also claim the PVV is a ‘one issue party dedicated to sowing racism’ and (so very imaginatively) compare Mr Wilders to Hitler.

Firstly, the PVV is a classical Dutch liberal party (conservative in the British tradition). It is not Mr Wilders who sows racism, but the violent individuals from immigrant communities who will not integrate and treat their host society like some conquered province. Have a look at the Dutch prison statistics, post them, then argue Wilders is wrong - I dare you.

How is it that Mr Wilders is the Nazi? He does not preach violence or hatred, he simply exposes people who do. Someone like yourself who advocates that people be thrown into prison for their political beliefs should be very careful about bandying around the n-word in any case.

As far as I can tell, this nonsense is projection - you’re afraid of Wilders and therefore you want to silence him. You can’t do so with logical, rational debate, so you opt for prison and making him fear for his life instead.

It’s about time the political elites of the West started listening to the people, not locking up anyone who does.
Comparing anti-semitism to Wilders sentiments on Islam is a logical fallacy. You know it is.

The Nazis hated all Jews, even ones who didn’t practice or even converted to other religions. They didn’t hate their ideas, but their genes, because the Nazis were, generally speaking, irrational psychopaths.

Wilders is simply challenging Islam, which is a faith - a set of ideas and beliefs someone willingly holds. Why should they not be questioned like any other belief?

Tell me, if challenging Islam makes you a racist, which race is it you hate? The Arab Muslims, black Africans, Slavic Bosnians, Indonesians, Chinese Hui?
I look forward to your response."

Comment by The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer March 5, 2009

How did Mr Warner react? He called me a neo-Nazi and deleted my comment.

Nice to know that freedom and tolerance are alive and well amongst those who hate the Nazis.