Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

  • ACT for America

    Photobucket
  • Support Ummat-al-Kuffar!

  • Participant at Counter Jihad Conferences

  • Counterjihad Brussels 2007

  • Counterjihad Vienna 2008

  • Counterjihad Copenhagen 2009

  • Photobucket
  • RSS International Civil Liberties Alliance

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Big Peace

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Geert Wilders

    Photobucket
  • International Free Press Society

    Photobucket
  • Religion of Peace

Archive for the ‘Geert Wilders’ Category

NPR, Juan Williams, and Sharia Law

Posted by paulipoldie on November 9, 2010

Posted 11/07/2010 ET

Human Events

NPR’s sacking of Juan Williams was more than the politically correct act du jour.  It was the latest in a series of media and political capitulations to Sharia law.

A central provision of Sharia law is its prohibition against speech that can be construed as “defaming” Islam or the prophet Mohammed.  Where Sharia is practiced and enforced, such “defamation” is a criminal offense that can be punished by death.

In other words, what we in America take for granted as free speech is a capital crime in some areas of the Muslim world.

Islamists around the world are seeking to impose Sharia’s muzzling of free speech on free societies.  The Organization of the Islamic Conference, composed of 56 Islamic states, has won passage of a United Nations resolution calling on countries to criminalize speech that “defames” religion—clearly referring to Islam.  After all, does anyone really expect countries like Saudi Arabia to criminalize speech that “defames” Judaism?

Criminalizing speech that is deemed “defamation” of Islam is tantamount to a backdoor enactment of Sharia law.  The law may have a different name or description, such as prohibiting “hate speech,” but the effect on speech is the same as if Sharia law were in place.

The Netherlands and Austria are two countries where such de facto “Sharia-compliant” laws are in effect.  Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is currently on trial for publicly criticizing Islam.  Austrian Parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted of a similar “crime” in early 2009.  And just last week we were informed that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian who is an ACT! for America member and chapter leader in our expanding international program, will go on trial there for allegedly transgressing the same law.

When newspapers around the world, including most in America, refused to publish the satirical Mohammed cartoons, capitulation to de facto Sharia law occurred.  The ostensible reason was to avoid “offending” or “inflaming” the Muslim world.  The practical effect was a widespread media self-censorship that was every bit as much a compliance with Sharia law as if Sharia law were the actual law of the land.

Some Muslims and Islamic organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argue that such self-censorship is necessary because without it “Islamophobia” will continue to rise.  But there is more here than meets the eye.

Immediately after Juan Williams’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, CAIR swung into action and demanded that NPR “address” what Juan Williams said.

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman, appeared on Megyn Kelly’s program on Fox News to defend CAIR’s actions.  Tellingly, he failed to reiterate his comment made in a 1993 article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, in which he said, “I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad expressed a similar sentiment in 1998 when he was quoted in two California newspapers maintaining that “the Koran should be the highest authority in America.”

In other words, he wants Sharia law, not the Constitution, to be the supreme law of the land.

Contrast Hooper’s statement with one recently made by moderate and reformist Muslim Dr. Tawfik Hamid:

“Organizations like ACT! for America have come into existence because of the very real threat posed to free people everywhere by what some call “radical Islam” or “Islamism.”  Sadly, the response I see from too many in the Muslim world is to reflexively label such efforts as “Islamophobic” rather than [to] conduct a serious evaluation of Islam that asks why so many non-Muslims harbor legitimate fears and concerns.  I believe [that] the Muslim world needs to provide a peaceful understanding of the religion that unambiguously rejects the current mainstream teachings in Islam that promote hatred, discrimination, and violence.  It is the responsibility of Islamic scholars to provide such alternative teaching to Muslims before asking the world to stop engaging in so-called “Islamophobia.”

Hamid’s reference to the harboring of “legitimate fears” by non-Muslims speaks directly to what Juan Williams was expressing.  Don’t shut down free speech.  Instead, we should encourage more speech that candidly addresses the threat of radical Islam and what that threat means to Americans, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims.

It’s clear that NPR decided to make an example of Juan Williams for crossing a line into the Forbidden Zone of political correctness when he spoke out on the “sensitive” issue of Islam.  But NPR’s action transcends the boundaries of political correctness.  As newspapers did when they self-censored cartoon renderings of the prophet Mohammed, NPR sent an unmistakable message to Islamists worldwide that Sharia law, even when not formally the law of the land, trumps our First Amendment.

Brigitte Gabriel is a terrorism analyst, a New York Best-selling author of “Because They Hate” and “They Must Be Stopped” and president and CEO of ACT for America.org. Guy Rodgers is Executive Director of ACT for America.org.

Posted in Counterjihad, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Geert Wilders, Islamization, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

Händel statt Mendelssohn

Posted by paulipoldie on October 15, 2010

English version here

Dass die deutschen Massenmedien-Journalisten in ihrer Berichterstattung die Wirklichkeit nach ihren Zwecken zurechtbiegen und ihren Lesern nur das präsentieren, was zu ihrer Ideologie passt, ist eine Binsenweisheit. Wolf Schneider hat das vor vielen Jahren schon in seinem Klassiker “Unsere tägliche Desinformation – Wie die Massenmedien uns in die Irre führen” überzeugend dargelegt.

(Wie deutsche Zeitungen und Magazine in ihrer Berichterstattung über Geert Wilders’ Rede in Berlin ihre Leser belügen – von Wolfgang Halder)

Doch so, wie es ein großer Unterschied ist, ob man abstrakt weiß, dass Leichen stinken, oder ob von der Nachbarwohnung tatsächlich übelriechender Leichengeruch herüberdringt, dass einem schlecht davon wird, so war es für mich bestürzend, in welchem Maße die Berichterstattung über Geert Wilders’ Rede am 2. Oktober in Berlin von der Wirklichkeit abweicht. Ich habe die Rede im “Hotel Berlin” gehört – was ich dort erlebt und gehört habe, hat mit dem, was viele Zeitungen darüber berichteten, kaum etwas zu tun.

Den Grund für das korrumpierte “Berufsethos” europäischer Journalisten hat der amerikanische Publizist Bruce Bawer, der viele Jahre in Europa gelebt hat, in seinem Buch “While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within” auf den Punkt gebracht: “Europäische Politik-Journalisten betrachten sich als Zugehörige derselben gebildeten Elite wie die Mainstream-Politiker und sehen es als ihre gemeinsame Aufgabe an, die sozialdemokratischen Werte lebendig zu halten.” Sie wollten nicht aufklären und informieren, sondern erziehen und betrieben deshalb einen missionarischen Journalismus. Sie begriffen sich, so Bawer, nicht als Diener des Volkes, sondern als dessen Lehrer und Erzieher.

Diese Haltung der europäischen Journalisten trifft auf eine gleichermaßen fatale Lesermentalität: “Die meisten Amerikaner neigen dazu, Journalisten – ebenso wie Professoren und Politiker – mit Skepsis, ja sogar Verachtung zu sehen. Amerikaner haben eine niedrige Toleranzschwelle für Anmaßung und überhebliches Getue. Wir haben wenig Geduld mit jenen, die wollen, daß man zu ihnen als Autorität aufsieht, nur weil sie mit einem Jargon um sich werfen. … Europäer dagegen sind es seit Jahrhunderten gewöhnt, auf Autoritäten zu hören und fühlen sich schneller als wir wohl in der Konformität. Die europäischen Medien sind zu einem außergewöhnlichen Grad Instrumente der Regierungen, dienen deren Zwecken und spiegeln deren Ideologie wider.”

Bei der Irreführung ihrer Leser bedienen sich die deutschen Journalisten eines breiten Repertoires: Es reicht von der schlichten Lüge über Verdrehungen, Unterstellungen bis zur manipulierenden Bildauswahl. Der Generalbass aller Artikel ist die Weigerung, auf Wilders’ Argumente einzugehen. Es findet keine Auseinandersetzung in der Sache statt. Die journalistische Sorgfaltspflicht und die Forderungen des deutschen Pressecodex werden häufig verletzt – etwa diese beiden Punkte:

– “Die Achtung vor der Wahrheit, die Wahrung der Menschenwürde und die wahrhaftige Unterrichtung der Öffentlichkeit sind oberste Gebote der Presse.”

– “Nachrichten und Informationen sind auf ihren Wahrheitsgehalt zu prüfen. Ihr Sinn darf durch Bearbeitung, Überschrift oder Bildbeschriftung weder entstellt noch verfälscht werden.”

Alle von mir im folgenden angeführten Zitate und Erwähnungen beziehen sich auf die Online-Ausgaben der genannten Zeitungen und Magazine, da ich grundsätzlich kein Geld für deren Printversionen ausgebe. Der Einfachheit halber nenne ich immer nur den Zeitungs- bzw. Magazinnamen – “Bild” bedeutet also “Bild online”, “Spiegel” ist “Spiegel online” usw.

Falsche Sachverhalte

Die Verfälschungen beginnen schon auf der untersten Ebene der einfachen Fakten. Rainer Haubrich schreibt in der “Welt”:

35 Euro hat jeder der mehr als 500 Zuhörer bezahlt, um einen Vortrag des niederländischen Islamkritikers Geert Wilders zu hören.

Falsch, Herr Haubrich, es waren 15 Euro. Auch eine Dame vom Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, die im Saal in der Reihe hinter mir einen älteren Herrn aus Berlin interviewte, sprach von “35 Euro Eintritt” für die Rede. Auf Nachfrage ihres Interviewpartners, wie sie auf die 35 Euro komme, konnte sie keine Quelle nennen, sie habe das irgendwo gehört. – So etwas, verehrte Journalisten, findet man durch Recherche heraus, z.B. durch Anruf beim Veranstalter oder durch Aufruf des Anmeldeformulars, und Recherche gehört zum kleinen Einmaleins des journalistischen Handwerks.

Dass man sich als “kritischer” Journalist nicht mit schnöden Fakten aufhält, zeigt erneut Rainer Haubrich von der “Welt” durch seine Schreibweise im ersten Absatz “René Stadtkiewicz” für René Stadtkewitz sowie der Behauptung, bei der Veranstaltung habe es sich um eine “Tagung der neuen Partei” DIE FREIHEIT gehandelt. Gibt es bei der Welt keinen Textchef, Schlussredakteur oder Korrekturleser?

Mit den Fakten tun sich auch Jörn Hasselmann und Ulrich Zawatka-Gerlach vom “Tagesspiegel” schwer, heißt es doch in ihrem Artikel:

Offenbar brachte Wilders auch Anhänger aus dem eigenen Land mit. Direkt vor dem Hoteleingang stand ein großer Reisebus aus den Niederlanden.

Die Weltläufigkeit, die aus dieser Anmerkung spricht, ist köstlich, denn der Bus war aus Ungarn – das bekanntlich das Länderkennzeichen “H” hat, welches für Hungary steht und eben nicht für Holland (NL).

Was macht Jan Bielicki in der “Süddeutschen Zeitung” aus Geert Wilders Satz:

“Ein Deutschland voller Moscheen und verschleierter Frauen ist nicht mehr das Deutschland Goethes, Schillers und Heines, Bachs und Mendelssohns”

Er läßt perfiderweise die beiden von Wilders genannten jüdischen Künstler Heine und Mendelssohn weg, dichtet statt dessen Händel dazu und macht aus dem schönen Genitiv des Fremdsprachlers Wilders (“Schillers”) den barbarischen Journalisten-Genitiv “von Schiller” – Zitat Bielicki:

“Ein Deutschland mit Moscheen und verschleierten Frauen ist nicht das Deutschland von Schiller und Goethe, von Händel und Bach.”

In seinem zweiten Artikel zu Wilders Rede bringt Bielicki dieses Zitat wieder, meistert nun den Genitiv, erwähnt auch Heine und Mendelssohn und lässt den von ihm erfundenen Händel weg – aber auch Goethe fehlt:

“Ein Deutschland voller Moscheen und voller verschleierter Frauen ist nicht mehr das Deutschland Schillers und Heines, Bachs und Mendelssohns.”

Der “Spiegel”-Autor Severin Weiland unterschlägt in der Erwähnung dieser Passage Heine und Mendelssohn nicht, macht aber aus Mendelssohn “Mendelsohn”. Ich vermute, dass Weiland, laut Impressum stellvertretender Leiter des Berliner Büros von “Spiegel online” und bei der “Tageszeitung” journalistisch sozialisiert, den Namen Mendelssohn zum ersten Mal in seinem Leben geschrieben hat. Ich bezweifle, dass er Mendelssohns “Sommernachtstraum” und “Elias”, die “Lieder ohne Worte” und das f-Moll-Quartett kennt. Er weiß wahrscheinlich gar nicht, welche Kultur Geert Wilders und wir hier gegen den Islam verteidigen, weil er sie nicht kennt.

Aber das ist – wie gesagt – nur meine Vermutung. Tatsache ist, dass weder Weiland noch seine Redaktion wissen, wie man Mendelssohn schreibt. Und wenn “Spiegel”-Leser an dieser Stelle aufheulen und sagen, naja, einen Namen falsch schreiben, das ist doch nicht schlimm, das sind spießige Sekundärtugenden, dann erinnere ich an Karl Kraus, dem die ganze Barbarei des National-Sozialismus schon daran offenbar wurde, dass dessen Anhänger in ihrer Grußformel “Heil Hitler” das Komma zwischen “Heil” und “Hitler” nicht setzten.

Der Haider-Vergleich

“Hollands Haider” lautet die Dachzeile des “Bild”-Anreißers zur Wilders-Rede. Man traut seinen Augen nicht. Hier mischt sich des deutschen Journalisten Hang zum Stabreim mit Unkenntnis in der Sache. Jörg Haider, der Freund Gaddafis, der von sich sagt, daß er “mit Saddam Hussein sehr gut war”, der sich im Karikaturenstreit gegen die Meinungsfreiheit gestellt hat (“Meinungsfreiheit und Narrenfreiheit sind verschiedene Dinge”), der über Israel sagte, “es nennt sich eine Demokratie”, der meinte, “wir müssen die arabische Welt respektieren”, der George Bush mit Saddam Hussein gleichsetzte…

Die blonde Bestie

Geert Wilders ist blond. Ob das Natur oder Chemie ist, sollte einen zivilisierten Menschen ebensowenig interessieren wie die Körbchengröße von Angela Merkel, denn die Haarfarbe ist für das Wirken eines Politikers ebenso unwichtig wie seine Schuhgröße. Sie anzuführen ist Stimmungsmache mit dem primitivsten aller Ad-hominem-Argumente – der Erwähnung eines körperlichen Merkmals der Person, deren Meinung einem nicht gefällt.

Und eben wegen dieser Primitivität lässt kaum ein deutscher Journalist, der über Wilders’ Rede in Berlin geschrieben hat, die Erwähnung der Haarfarbe aus: “Der Mann mit der blonden Mähne” (Spiegel); “der hochgewachsene Mann mit den nach hinten gekämmten weiß-blonden Haaren” (Focus); “als drinnen auf der Bühne Wilders’ blondierte Haartolle auftaucht” (Frankfurter Rundschau); der “groß gewachsene und auffallend blonde Niederländer” (WAZ); “der Mann mit dem blondierten Haarschopf” (Süddeutsche Zeitung). Noch weiter geht die Journalistin Eva Male von der Presse aus Österreich, die ihre Blondierungskompetenz ausspielt:

Was macht die Attraktivität des groß gewachsenen, bubengesichtigen Mannes mit den weichen Zügen und dem blondierten Haarschopf aus, der dringend nachgefärbt gehört?

Da läuft untergründig die Anspielung mit auf die “nach Beute und Sieg lüstern schweifende blonde Bestie” aus Nietzsches “Genealogie der Moral”, denn die Autoren, die Wilders’ Haarfarbe erwähnen, wollen damit folgende unbewußte Assoziationskette im Leser hervorrufen: Wilders – blond – blonde Bestie – Nietzsche – Nazis – Wilders=Nazi. Dieses Verfahren ist an bösartiger Absurdität nicht zu übertreffen: In der Manier der National-Sozialisten wird ein körperliches Merkmal arglistig zur Abwertung eines Menschen eingesetzt, damit dieser als National-Sozialist erscheint…

Wie gut die Stigmatisierungen bei den Vertretern der Mainstream-Medien selbst verfangen, sieht man am Beispiel eines Journalisten, der vor dem “Hotel Berlin” gefragt wird, warum er da sei (siehe nachfolgendes Video). Wegen der “Rede eines rassistischen Politikers”, lautet seine Antwort. Auf die Nachfrage, wie er das Urteil “rassistisch” begründe, relativiert er zunächst seine Aussage und wird dann misstrauisch. Für ihn ist es augenscheinlich gewöhnungsbedürftig, dass jemand von der Presse für so eine Behauptung eine argumentative Bergründung möchte. Deshalb fragt er nach dem Presseausweis. Als ihm der nicht gezeigt wird, verschwindet er erzürnt und verunsichert.


(Quelle: Tundra Tabloids…)

Der Rudi-Carrell-Faktor

Harmloser, aber auch vollkommen sinnfrei ist die Erwähnung in SZ und FAZ, dass Wilders wie Rudi Carrell klinge: In “fließendem Rudi-Carrell-Deutsch” habe Wilders geredet, blubbert Andreas Ross in der FAZ, und Jan Bielicki stellt in der SZ fest:

Er liest seine Rede auf Deutsch, in jenem Rudi-Carrell-Tonfall, die auch harte Sprüche weich klingen läßt.

Ross und Bielicki scheinen außer Rudi Carrell noch nie einen anderen Holländer Deutsch sprechen gehört zu haben. So klingt es eben, wenn Holländer Deutsch reden. Und? Was ist daran bemerkenswert? Welche wertvolle Information erhalten dadurch die Leser dieser beiden Flaggschiffe des deutschen “Qualitätsjournalismus”?

Immer wieder der Islam

Vorwurfsvoll heißt es im “Spiegel”: “Der Islam und immer wieder der Islam – das durchzieht seine Rede.” Hätte Geert Wilders über die Geschichte des Deichbaus in Holland sprechen sollen? Es liegt in der Natur der Sache, dass in einer Rede, die den Islam zum Thema hat, immer wieder der Islam vorkommt. Das “Hotel Berlin” war an dem Wochenende, an dem Wilders dort gesprochen hat, auch Übernachtungsstätte der Teilnehmer des Kongresses “Diabetes in Wissenschaft und Praxis”. Man stelle sich vor, ein Kongress-Berichterstatter hätte den Rednern vorgehalten, diese sprächen “über Diabetes und immer wieder Diabetes” – kein Mensch würde diesen Journalisten mehr ernst nehmen. In der Politik-Berichterstattung ist solche Stümperei erlaubt, ja die Regel.

Die Leibwächter

“Wo Geert Wilders ist, sind seine Leibwächter”, schreibt “Bild”, und in der “Süddeutschen” heißt es, er sei “umgeben von bulligen Personenschützern der niederländischen Polizei”. Hier kann man wieder die subtile Heimtücke der SZ bewundern. Die “bulligen Personenschützer” – das klingt bedrohlich und negativ, wirft ein schlechtes Licht auf Wilders, diese “zwielichtige Figur aus den Niederlanden” (Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger). Doch was sollen Personenschützer anders sein als bullig, ist es doch ihre Aufgabe, unter Einsatz ihres Körpers andere Menschen zu schützen. Mit der Statur eines Gregor Gysi könnten sie das nicht.

Doch das Wichtigste im Zusammenhang mit dem Personenschutz wird von der SZ verschwiegen: Geert Wilders leidet unter diesem Personenschutz, aber er braucht ihn seit Jahren – ebenso wie Ayaan Hirsi Ali -, weil gläubige Muslime drohen, beide zu ermorden. Dass das keine leeren Drohungen sind, weiß jeder seit der Abschlachtung Theo van Goghs in Amsterdam 2004. Doch selbst diese Tatsache, die in jedem normalen Menschen ein mitfühlendes Bedauern auslöst, wird von der SZ gegen Wilders gewendet. Das ist menschenverachtende Propaganda der übelsten Sorte.

Bilder und Bildunterschriften

Jeder Leser nimmt zuerst die Bilder wahr. Auch wenn er einen Artikel nicht liest, liest er zumindest die Überschrift und die Bildunterschrift. Deshalb kann man ihn da besonders gut manipulieren. Das tut die “Welt” in ihrer Bilderstrecke denn auch: “Pfiffe und Beifall für Geert Wilders” steht da bei allen acht Bildern. Erstens gab es während der Rede keine Pfiffe, zweitens soll schon die Reihenfolge – erst die Pfiffe, dann der Beifall – Stimmung gegen Wilders machen. Die angeblich hundert Demonstranten vor dem Hotel (ich habe nur knapp fünfzig gezählt) werden von der “Welt” mit drei Bildern bedacht, die 540 Teilnehmer im Hotel bekommen dagegen nur ein einziges Bild.

Der “Spiegel” greift bei der Bildauswahl ganz tief in die Propagandatrickkiste. Man sieht Wilders, als er sich von seinem Sessel aus der hinter ihm befindlichen Leinwand zuwendet, um sich die Videobotschaft Oskar Freysingers zu betrachten, mit nach oben verdrehten Augen, in denen er wie ein Zombie wirkt, weil nur das Weiße zu erkennen ist. Das Ganze ist zudem von unten aufgenommen. Seit den Tagen des expressionistischen Stummfilms ist das ein beliebtes und billiges Mittel, um jemanden zu dämonisieren und negativ darzustellen.

Alle Kulturen sind gleich

Viel Aufregung gab es über Wilders’ Aussage, “dass unsere Kultur bestimmten anderen Kulturen überlegen ist”. Wilders’ Argumente gegen die Gleichheit aller Kulturen, diesen Glaubenssatz des Multikulturalismus, werden z.B. von Severin Weiland im “Spiegel” nicht widerlegt, sondern mit einer raunenden Anspielung unterstellt er hinterhältig, Wilders’ Position führe nach Auschwitz:

An dieser Stelle ist der Applaus eher verhalten. Vielleicht erinnern sich manche im Saal noch an jene Zeiten, in denen Deutsche sich zum Herrenvolk aufschwangen.

Dabei hat Wilders mit seinem Verweis auf Schiller, Goethe und Heine, auf den ersten Zusatz der amerikanischen Verfassung und auf die Tatsache, dass “freie Individuen freie moralische Akteure” sind, deutlich gemacht, welche Kultur er meint, wenn er von einer dem Islam überlegenen spricht. Er meint die “westliche Zivilisation”, die die “freieste und die florierendste auf Erden” ist (Zitate Wilders) – mit anderen Worten den kapitalistischen Westen, dem die Freiheit des Individuums und dessen “pursuit of happiness” die höchsten Werte sind. Wilders meint damit genau die Kultur, welche die Sozialismen aller Farben – braune wie rote, nationale wie internationale – und eben auch der Islam zerstören wollen.

Ich hätte von Severin Weiland und all den anderen, die diese Aussage Wilders’ kritisieren, gern ein Argument gehört, weshalb eine Kultur, in der das Leben einer Frau weniger Wert ist als der linke Hoden eines Mannes, in der ein Mann sich unrein fühlt, wenn er einer Frau die Hand gibt, und in der eine vergewaltigte Frau die Ehre ihrer Familie beschmutzt, ein vergewaltigender Sohn aber nicht, gleichwertig ist mit der westlichen Zivilisation und ihren Werten wie Freiheit des Individuums, Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz und Meinungsfreiheit.

Doch Argumente sucht man bei den Wilders-Gegnern vergeblich. Denn gegen Leute wie Wilders braucht man keine Argumente. Er ist blond, er ist islamkritisch, er ist ein Populist. Das reicht. Damit gilt er als widerlegt und moralisch minderwertig – und das im Land Schillers, Goethes und Heines…

Politically Incorrect

Posted in Geert Wilders | Leave a Comment »

Robert Spencer: Truth On Trial

Posted by paulipoldie on October 9, 2010

by Robert Spencer for FrontpageMag

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.

Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Geert Wilders, Islam, Islamization | 2 Comments »

Geert Wilders in Berlin including Video

Posted by paulipoldie on October 6, 2010

Die Presse

Während die niederländischen Christdemokraten Geert Wilders am Samstag als Mehrheitsbeschaffer der nächsten Regierung akzeptierten, ging der Kämpfer gegen den Islam auf Überzeugungstour nach Deutschland.

Kurz vor 15 Uhr ist endlich so weit. Geert Wilders tritt zum Mikrofon, um zu den über 500 Gästen im Hotel Berlin zu sprechen, die nicht nur aus verschiedenen deutschen Bundesländern, sondern etwa auch aus Österreich und der Schweiz angereist sind, um den niederländischen Rechtspopulisten live zu erleben. „Geert, wir lieben dich“, ruft eine Frau, bevor Wilders überhaupt zu sprechen begonnen hat.

Standing Ovations, zustimmendes Raunen und Applaus begleiten den Auftritt des anti-islamischen Wanderpredigers, der durch die Lande zieht, um für seine „International Freedom Alliance“ zu werben. Was macht die Attraktivität des groß gewachsenen, bubengesichtigen Mannes mit den weichen Zügen und dem blondierten Haarschopf aus, der dringend nachgefärbt gehört? Eher unbeweglich steht er da, spricht, deutsch übrigens, ohne große Gesten, ohne die Stimme zu erheben oder Pausen zu machen.

Wilders sucht Bestätigung. Und die bekam er an diesem Samstag gleich doppelt. In Berlin und bei dem zeitgleich abgehaltenen Parteitag der niederländischen Christdemokraten (CDA), die ihn als Mehrheitsbeschaffer für ihre Minderheitsregierung mit der rechtsliberalen VVD akzeptierten. Für ihn ein Durchbruch, hat er doch damit erstmals reale politische Macht in Händen.

Mozart mit schrägen Tönen. Charisma hat er wenig, aber Durchhaltevermögen, der 47-Jährige mit dem Spitznamen „Mozart“. Es ist wohl eher das, was er sagt, als wie er es sagt, was wie Musik in den Ohren seiner Anhänger klingt. Wilders ist hier, um vor den „Gefahren des Islam als totalitärer Ideologie“ zu warnen und zur „Verteidigung der jüdisch-christlichen Tradition und Kultur“ aufzurufen. Es sei ihm ein Anliegen gewesen, nach Berlin zu kommen, „weil Deutschland eine politische Bewegung braucht, welche die deutsche Identität verteidigt und sich der Islamisierung Deutschlands entgegenstellt“.

„Genau so eine Bewegung braut sich gerade zusammen“, freut sich ein Zuhörer. Eingeladen hat Wilders der CDU-Dissident René Stadtkewitz (45), den bis vor Kurzem kaum jemand kannte. Der „hohe“ Besuch aus Holland ist eine willkommene Werbung für seine im Entstehen begriffene Partei „Die Freiheit“, ganz ähnlich benannt wie Wilders’ „Partei für die Freiheit“ (PVV). Stadtkewitz, der im Vorstand der islamkritischen „Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa“ sitzt, war 2009 aus der CDU ausgetreten, vorerst aber im Parlamentsklub der Stadt Berlin geblieben. Als er sich weigerte, Wilders wieder auszuladen, schloss ihn der Klub Anfang September aus. „Wie überall auf der Welt hast du auch in Deutschland viele, viele Freunde, lieber Geert“, so hat Stadtkewitz eingangs schon Stimmung gemacht. „Wenn wir den Islam kritisieren, richtet sich das nicht gegen Muslime“, sagt er, und Wilders wiederholt es wenig später. Vielmehr gehe es um die Ideologie: „Sie ist nicht moderat, sie hat globale Ambitionen und beabsichtigt, der Welt die Scharia aufzuzwingen.“ Der Saal tobt.

Wegen des gleichzeitigen Parteitags der niederländischen Christdemokraten über den Duldungsvertrag mit Wilders’ PVV war eigentlich erwartet worden, dass sich der streitbare Politiker in Berlin eher zurückhalten würde. Doch Wilders zeigte wenig Rücksichtnahme. Er fügte vielmehr auch dieses Ereignis in seine Rede ein. Da die Christdemokraten zustimmten, dürfte die PVV bald als Mehrheitsbeschafferin „im Zentrum der Einflussnahme“ auf die Regierungspolitik stehen, wie es Wilders formuliert. „Das wäre ein historisches Ereignis für die Niederlande, und ich bin stolz darauf, ein bisschen dazu beigetragen zu haben.“ Vor vier Jahren hatte die PVV neun der 150 Sitze im Parlament gewonnen, bei den Wahlen im vergangenen Juni wurde sie mit 24 Abgeordneten drittstärkste Kraft. Klare Worte werden vom Hotel Berlin aus an die deutsche Bundeskanzlerin Merkel (CDU) gerichtet. „Wir sind nicht wie Frau Merkel, wir akzeptieren die Islamisierung nicht“, so Wilders programmatisch. Die Bundeskanzlerin hatte die zu erwartende Regierungsbildung unter Duldung Wilders’ Partei bedauert und dessen fremdenfeindliche Politik kritisiert: „Es ist nicht unsere Art, Religionen in Bausch und Bogen zu verdammen.“ Mit ihrem Bedauern spreche Merkel nicht für die Mehrheit der Deutschen, ja nicht einmal für die Mehrheit ihrer Partei, donnerte Stadtkewitz, der dieser Partei bis vor Kurzem noch selbst angehörte.

Ihm wünscht Wilders „viel, viel, viel Erfolg mit deiner neuen Partei“, Deutschland sei wichtig als starker Partner für die „International Freedom Alliance“. Diese soll zu einer mächtigen internationalen Plattform und zunächst in fünf Staaten aktiv werden, die Wilders als „reif“ dafür ansieht: die USA, Kanada, Frankreich, Großbritannien – und eben Deutschland. In all diesen Ländern gebe es große muslimische Bevölkerungsgruppen, sie seien in hohem Maß der „Gefahr des islamischen Terrorismus“ ausgesetzt.

Gegendemonstration. Während im Hotel Berlin noch lange nach Wilders’ Auftritt mit viel Eifer und ohne Maulkorb diskutiert wird, und zwar ganz in seinem Sinne, ist es draußen unerwartet ruhig geblieben. Zu den angekündigten Gegendemonstrationen, zu denen unter anderem das Bündnis „Rechtspopulismus stoppen“ aufgerufen hatte, waren höchstens 100 Menschen erschienen. Aus Sicherheitsgründen war der Veranstaltungsort bis zuletzt geheim gehalten worden. Wilders wurde von seinen ständigen Leibwächtern begleitet, auch die Berliner Polizei hatte schärfste Sicherheitsvorkehrungen getroffen.

(“Die Presse”, Print-Ausgabe, 03.10.2010)

Die gesamte Rede von Geert Wilders auf Deutsch und auf Englisch:

Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Geert Wilders, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamkritik | Leave a Comment »

Islam Continues to Strengthen Geert Wilders’ Case

Posted by paulipoldie on September 17, 2010

by William Sullivan
Geert Wilders, Dutch politician and outspoken critic of fundamentalist Islam, has just witnessed another example of Islamic tolerance.  A well-known Islamic cleric in Australia has just called for his beheading. (See also Geert Wilders 9/11 Ground Zero Speech.)
Of course, Geert has been getting such threats from practitioners of the peaceful faith of Islam for years, especially since he created his film Fitna.  So I would doubt if he is surprised by another Muslim saying he wants to behead him for criticizing the faith, as it seems to be a common theme among some Muslims.
Thee can be no question that there are peaceful and tolerant Muslims, and a broad negative typecast of Muslims is not my aim.  There are Muslims that have assimilated into Western societies, peacefully practice their faith, and forego the more aggressive calls to jihad found in Islamic texts. But the perception that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion becomes more and more distant from reality with stories like this.
It is impossible to hide the common correlation between Islam and violence.  To disbelieve that this correlation exists could only be the result of wanting so desperately to believe Islam is a peaceful faith that you plug you ears and close your eyes to all the evidence saying otherwise.  Fundamentalist Islam is the source of a tremendous amount of global violence, and more violence is committed in the name of Islam than of any other faith.
Where in other faiths, in contemporary times, can we find compare to the hate and intolerance found in those who claim to follow Muhammad’s path? The fatwa on the head of Rushdie? The unjust murder of Theo Van Gogh? The death threats of Jyllands Posten and South Park? Do we find large numbers of Hindus and Christians strapping bombs to themselves with the sole purpose of taking the lives of those who believe differently? And if there were some bad apples committing such atrocities, wouldn’t the Hindu and Christian community at large renounce any such practice, rather than exhibit a deafening silence?
We must be honest, and cast aside political correctness for a brief moment.  It takes only a loose inspection of Islamic texts and a basic historical perspective to conclude that “peace” in devout Islamic dogma means one thing: a society of Islamic hegemony, where none shall be worshipped but Allah, Sharia law is imposed universally, and the infidels live as dhimmi (second-class citizens) and pay the jizya (tax upon infidels) to their Islamic betters.
Don’t believe that? Here’s some evidence.
Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
I’ve read various translations of this verse, and cannot construe a different meaning from any of them. There is but one way to read this: Muslims are instructed to fight the infidels, and to either convert, kill, or subjugate them.
Muslims take this very literally to be the infallible word of Allah, as told to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel.  And they have every right to believe that.  But there is a simple fact that escapes others when they approach Islam from the outside, looking in.  And that is that Muhammad was a seventh century warlord, and the above passage sounds like it was written by none other than a seventh century warlord.  While many passages in Islamic texts are retellings of Judeo-Christian dogma, many others lend themselves to a purpose of conquest rather than peace, as one would expect in the ideology of a warlord and caravan plunderer.  Though some might see this analogy as blasphemous, and others as politically incorrect, it is as sound and historically accurate as saying that the Gospels were written about a Jewish carpenter.
Huge swathes of Muslim practitioners follow Muhammad’s call, fighting to convert, kill, or subjugate the infidel, and their jihad is two-fold.  First, Islamic fundamentalists plan and execute violent attacks to inspire terror and to force submission to Allah.  Second, through massive immigration, there is the gradual implementation of Sharia as equal or superior law to that of Western European nations.
Geert Wilders stands on the ramparts to warn Europe and the world of these threats.  He recognizes the dissonance between Islam that values submission and the Western democracies that value freedom.  At a global scale, Geert Wilders passionately struggles to break through the mind-numbing wall of political correctness to educate people of the danger Islamic groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda create.  Domestically, he has not called for violence against practitioners of Islam, but simply suggests a requirement that Muslims in European nations recognize Western laws and practice their faith within those confines.  Those who do not wish to conform to those laws are free to live elsewhere.
For his honesty and astute observation of the very real threat fundamentalist Islam poses, Geert Wilders has been painted as a hateful ideologue.  The parties responsible for his negative portrayal simply want to discourage any agreement to Wilders’ perspective, as anyone who agrees would be labeled a hatemonger, too.
But the evidence that Wilders’ is right about Islam is piling up, and Americans and Europeans cannot ignore it much longer.  And the newest evidence is in the incredibly dark irony that Geert Wilders has just had his life threatened, again, by the self-proclaimed “peaceful” Islamic elements he warns us about.

Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Geert Wilders, Islam, Islamization, Sharia | 3 Comments »

Muslims Debate asked Mr. Geert Wilders: Why he became anti-Islam and what is his message to the Muslims

Posted by paulipoldie on July 22, 2010

I first visited an Islamic country in 1982.

I was 18 years old and had traveled with a Dutch friend from Eilat in Israel to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh.

We were two almost penniless backpacking students.

We slept on the beaches and found hospitality with Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us to tea.

I clearly recall my very first impression of Egypt: I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of its people.

I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: It struck me how frightened these friendly and kind people were.

While we were in Sharm el-Sheikh, President Mubarak happened to visit the place.

I remember the fear which suddenly engulfed the town when it was announced that Mubarak was coming on an unexpected visit; I can still see the cavalcade of black cars on the day of his visit and feel the almost physical awareness of fear, like a cold chill on that very hot day in Summer.

It was a weird experience; Mubarak is not considered the worst of the Islamic tyrants and yet, the fear of the ordinary Egyptians for their leader could be felt even by me. I wonder how Saudis feel when their King is in town, how Libyans feel when Gaddafi announces his coming, how Iraqis must have felt when Saddam Hussein was near. A few years later, I read in the Koran how the 7th century Arabs felt in the presence of Muhammad, who, as several verses describe, “cast terror into their hearts” (suras 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).

From Sharm el-Sheikh, my friend and I went to Cairo. It was poor and incredibly dirty. My friend and I were amazed that such a poor and filthy place could be a neighbor of Israel, which was so clean. The explanation of the Arabs, with whom we discussed their poverty, was that they were not in any way to blame for this affliction: They said they were the victims of a global conspiracy of “imperialists” and “Zionists”, aimed at keeping Muslims poor and subservient. I found that explanation unconvincing. My instinct told me it had something to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.

I made a mistake in Cairo. We had almost no money and I was thirsty. One could buy a glass of water at public water collectors. It did not look clean, but I drank it. I got a terrible diarrhea. I went to a hostel where one could rent a spot on the floor for two dollars a day. There I lay for several days, a heap of misery in a crowded, stinking room, with ten other guys. Once Egypt had been the most advanced civilization on earth. Why had it not progressed along with the rest of the world?

In the late 1890s, Winston Churchill was a soldier and a war correspondent in British India (contemporary Pakistan) and the Sudan. Churchill was a perceptive young man, whose months in Pakistan and the Sudan allowed him to grasp with amazing clarity what the problem is with Islam and “the curses it lays on its votaries.”

“Besides the fanatical frenzy, …, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy,” he wrote. “The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist where the followers of the Prophet rule or live. … The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to a sole man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. … Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.” And Churchill concluded: “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died as they attempted to flee from their school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in the possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gates because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments.

The “indecently” dressed girls frantically tried to save their young lives. The Saudi police beat them back into the burning building. Officers of the Mutaween, the “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice,” as the Police are known in Saudi Arabia, also beat passers-by and firemen who tried to help the girls. “It is sinful to approach them,” the policemen warned bystanders. It is not only sinful, it is also a criminal offence.

Girls are not valued highly in Islam; the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father’s “face darken and he is filled with gloom” (sura 43:17). Nevertheless, the incident at the Mecca school drew angry reactions. Islam is inhumane; but Muslims are humans, hence capable of Love – that powerful force which Muhammad despised. Humanity prevailed in the Meccan fathers who were incensed over the deaths of their daughters; it also prevailed in the firemen who confronted the Mutaween when the latter were beating the girls back inside, and in the journalists of the Saudi paper which, for the first time in Saudi history, criticized the much feared and powerful “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.”

However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them.

I am an agnosticus myself. But Christians and Jews hold that God created man in His image. They believe that by observing themselves, as free and rational beings capable of love, they can come to know Him. They can even reason with Him, as the Jews have done throughout their history. The Koran, on the contrary, states that “Nothing can be compared with Allah” (sura 16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is preposterous to suppose that Allah created man in his image. The biblical concept that God is our father is not found in Islam. There is no personal relationship between man and Allah, either. The purpose of Islam is the total submission of oneself and others to the unknowable Allah, whom we must serve through total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic state (suras 3:31, 4:80, 24:62, 48:10, 57:28). And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model.

Without individual freedom, it is not surprising that the notion of man as a responsible agent is not much developed in Islam. Muslims tend to be very fatalistic. Perhaps – let us certainly hope so – only a few radicals take the Koranic admonition to wage jihad on the unbelievers seriously. Nevertheless, most Muslims never raise their voice against the radicals. This is the “fearful fatalistic apathy” Churchill referred to.

The author Aldous Huxley, who lived in North Africa in the 1920s, made the following observation: “About the immediate causes of things – precisely how they happen – they seem to feel not the slightest interest. Indeed, it is not even admitted that there are such things as immediate causes: God is directly responsible for everything. ‘Do you think it will rain?’ you ask pointing to menacing clouds overhead. ‘If God wills,’ is the answer. You pass the native hospital. ‘Are the doctors good?’ ‘In our country,’ the Arab gravely replies, in the tone of Solomon, ‘we say that doctors are of no avail. If Allah wills that a man die, he will die. If not, he will recover.’ All of which is profoundly true, so true, indeed, that is not worth saying. To the Arab, however, it seems the last word in human wisdom. … They have relapsed – all except those who are educated according to Western methods – into pre-scientific fatalism, with its attendant incuriosity and apathy.”

Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.

As a Dutch, a European and a Western politician, my responsibility is primarily to the Dutch people, to the Europeans and the West. However, since the liberation of the Muslims from Islam, will benefit all of us, I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is clear: “Fatalism is no option; ‘Inch’ Allah’ is a curse; Submission is a disgrace.”

Free yourselves. It is up to you.

Geert Wilders

http://www.muslimsdebate.com/search_result.php?news_id=4399

Posted in Geert Wilders | Leave a Comment »

Wahlprogramm von Geert Wilders

Posted by paulipoldie on April 24, 2010

In den Niederlanden hat Geert Wilders sein Wahlprogramm für die bevorstehenden Parlamentswahlen der Öffentlichkeit vorgestellt. Ein Video mit den wichtigsten Ausschnitten ist jetzt bei Youtube mit deutschen Untertiteln zu sehen.

Neben der erwartungsgemäßen Eindämmung islamischer Zuwanderung, liegt ein weiterer Schwerpunkt auf einer radikalen Verschärfung des Strafrechts. Mit der überraschend deutlichen Abkehr von traditionell liberalen Vorstellungen des Strafsystems, wie der Forderung nach lebenslanger Haft bereits nach dreifach wiederholten Gewalttaten, dürfte es in den Niederlanden schwierig werden, Koalitionspartner zu finden.

http://www.pi-news.net/2010/04/wilders-stellt-wahlprogramm-vor/

Posted in Geert Wilders, Mission Europa | 1 Comment »

More Speech, More Freedom

Posted by paulipoldie on January 31, 2010

by Baron Bodissey

Our Austrian correspondent AMT, moved by such recent events as the legal actions against Geert Wilders and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, has written an essay about the parlous state of free speech in Europe.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire

by AMT

As many of us are aware — some more than others — freedom of speech has been changing. Those of us who believe in and fight to protect the concept of democracy can clearly recognize the gradual erosion of this noble and important freedom. There is growing concern that freedom of speech and its provisions in the law are being used more and more to do stifle opinions, and — even more worrying — truths.

Wikipedia informs us that

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on “hate speech.”

Yes, the dreaded hate speech. The “killer phrase” of political correctness, which is threatening the physical freedom of freedom lovers and defenders like Geert Wilders, Ezra Levant, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. All three use their right to free speech to speak about Islam. All three have been summoned — and Geert Wilders even prosecuted — by the state.

The main problem with the charge of hate speech is that it includes nearly everything under the sun:

Hate speech is speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group, such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

Now take this concept in conjunction with what the elites of the European Union impose on their population:

Council Framework Decision 2008/913/Jha
of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law
Has Adopted This Framework Decision:
Article 1
Offences concerning racism and xenophobia
1. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable:
(a) publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin;

The careful reader and defender of democracy immediately asks: What is the definition of racism? What is the definition of xenophobia? None is given. However, one concept is clearly defined: Islam is considered not only a religion, but also a race, which transforms any criticism of Islam into racism, the worst charge of all.

What is more, racism and xenophobia can also be applied to “a group of people” who define themselves as members of a religion. One must thus come to the conclusion that statements criticizing the teachings of a religion can be considered racist and xenophobic.

Already back in 2005, the Council of Europe pleaded insanity by equating Islamophobia with anti-Semitism. Ali Sina sums it up:
– – – – – – – –

The Council has reached the following decisions regarding the issue: Condemnation of any kind of intolerance and discrimination based on gender, race and religious beliefs in particular, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, the fight against these within the framework of the Council of Europe and the use of effective mechanisms and rules to combat these problems.

Thus, anti-Islamism as well as anti-Semitism will be dealt with within the framework of legal proceedings. The Council reports will include anti-Islamist movements. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) will closely monitor these movements. The Commission will record in which country anti-Islamism increases or how it is reflected.”

This is the beginning of the fall of Europe. Anti-Islamism is not the same as anti-Semitism. Islam is a belief system, Semites are a race. We can’t equate a race to a doctrine. Racism is sheer evil. Apart from the fact that no race is better or worse than other races, unless one is Michael Jackson, one can’t change his race. Instigating hate against a race is instigating hate against mankind. Doctrines that instigate racial hate must be condemned and those who engage in racial slurs must be brought to justice.

Prohibiting criticism of Islam is like prohibiting criticism of Judaism or Christianity. No one in his right mind would suggest criticism of these religions should be banned. The very fact that these religions have reformed and have adapted to modern times is because they were criticized. Only during the inquisition, criticism of Christianity was against the law. Are we trying to introduce Islamic inquisition to appease Muslims? Are we trying to institute the blasphemy law that is practiced in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran to make Muslims happy? This is insane!

One wonders who exactly is fomenting extremism. Consider Turkish prime minister Erdogan who is on the record reacting to the Swiss minaret ban:

“[This is a] sign of an increasing racist and fascist stance in Europe,” Turkish television Channel 7 reported on Tuesday. Islamophobia was a “crime against humanity,” just like anti-Semitism.

Turkish president Abdullah Gül said the vote was a “disgrace” for the people of Switzerland and showed how far Islamophobia had advanced in the Western world.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
If a “citizen” of the EU may timidly make a suggestion to those in charge — whoever that might be — it would be the following:

1. Prosecute racism by Muslims against non-Muslims;
2. Define freedom of religion as an individual right and not a collective one.

Islam considers freedom of religion as a collective right of the Muslim community to live according to Islamic rules, even if these rules contradict secular laws. Non-Muslims consider it an individual right to live according to their beliefs within the private sphere, but in accordance with secular laws.

In light of the EU Framework Decision, the Austrian government is in the process of introducing a new law, which according to Andreas Unterberger, “will mimic China’s approach to freedom of speech.”

“Whoever publicly incites to hate against a group [detailed in a long list], shall be punished with a maximum of two years of imprisonment.” The same is valid for those who “insult or disparage” a group. This is what it says in a new law which is about to be passed without any public outcry.

All this in the name of “combating terror”. Unterberger adds,

Do not misunderstand me: I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who hate or insult. But terms that are not precisely defined may be used extensively by the judiciary to restrict freedom of speech. These terms [hate and insulting] belong to good upbringing, to religious education, but not in the claws of a government which, if need be, may use brutal force. […] In the future, one just has to say or write, with a slightly critical undertone, that nationals of X are involved in a significantly higher degree in the drug trade or that national of Y dominate the burglary “business”, or that members of sexual orientation Z are prone to certain transmittable diseases. […] And right away one is confronted with criminal proceedings.

[…]

It is unbelievable that no one in this country rises to the defense of freedom of expression protesting against this attack on the most important principle of the Enlightenment, namely freedom of opinion.

Similarly, but not surprisingly, the lack of interest in these measures appears generally manifested in American and European public opinion. Writes Paul Belien:

“… [This] is apparent with regard to the semi-legal initiatives taken at the level of the United Nations. On October 2nd, the UN Human Rights Council approved a free speech resolution, co-sponsored by the US and Egypt, which criticizes “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” […] Though the resolution has no immediate effect in law, it provides Muslim extremists with moral ammunition the next time they feel that central tenets of Islam are being treated disrespectfully through the creation of what they perceive to be an ‘offensive environment.’“

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Lesson Plans for Teaching the First Amendment tells us the following:

In the “marketplace of ideas,” we may choose which views to support and which ones to reject. When all ideas are allowed to flourish, we — as individuals — may decide what ideas and concepts to question, embrace or reject.

The antidote to distasteful or hateful speech is not censorship, but more speech.

Geert Wilders will not stop criticizing Islam, neither will Sabaditsch-Wolff or others. One may assume there will be more speech, rather than less.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-speech-more-freedom.html#readfurther

Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Geert Wilders, Islamkritik, Islamophobia | Leave a Comment »

Geert Wilders: on trial for telling the truth

Posted by paulipoldie on January 30, 2010

Douglas Murray is a bestselling author and award-winning journalist based in London. He has written for numerous publications including the Telegraph, Spectator, Wall Street Journal and Sunday Times. He is a columnist for Standpoint magazine and the Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a Westminster think-tank which studies radicalisation and extremism in Britain.

There is nothing hyperbolic in stating that a trial which has just started in Holland will have unparalleled significance for the future of Europe. It is not just about whether our culture will survive, but whether we are even allowed to state the fact that it is being threatened.

The trial of Geert Wilders has garnered hardly any attention in the mainstream press here. Fortunately the blogosphere can correct some of this.

Wilders is a Dutch MP and leader of Holland’s fastest-growing party, the Party for Freedom. Just a few years ago he was the sole MP for his party. The latest polls show that his party could win the biggest number of seats of any party in Holland when the voters next go to the polls.

His stances have clearly chimed with the Dutch people. They include an end to the era of mass immigration, an end to cultural relativism, and an end to the perceived suborning of European values to Islamic ones. For saying this, and more, he has for many years had to live under round-the-clock security protection. Which you would have thought proves the point to some extent.

Now the latest attempt of the Dutch ruling class to keep Wilders from office has begun. Last week, apparently because of the number of complaints they have received (trial by vote anyone?) the trial of Wilders began.

The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.

I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.

Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.

If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.

Now some people liked Fitna and some people didn’t. That’s a matter of choice. But by any previous interpretation it is not the job of courts in democratic countries to become film-critics. In fact it would create a very bad precedent. I thought the latest Alec Baldwin film stank. But I don’t think (though the temptation lingers) Baldwin should go to prison for it.

I’ve seen Fitna a number of times. Recently in the House of Lords, at a meeting Wilders couldn’t attend because our then Home Secretary temporarily decided he shouldn’t even come into this country. And I’ve just watched it again.  And you can do so, too. It keeps getting pirated on YouTube but I think this is a good link here.

Parts of Fitna – which is a compilation of documentary footage – are very disturbing.  And very offensive indeed.  The clips of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels. Very offensive. The clips of Muslims holding banners saying ‘God bless Hitler’. Very offensive. The clip of a three-year-old Muslim girl indoctrinated and brain-washed to describe Jews as ‘Apes and Pigs’. Very offensive. The passage of the Koran, Surah 47, verse 4: ‘Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.’ Very offensive.

Just to confirm – I find all these things very offensive. But Wilders didn’t say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some – in some cases many – Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders.

There are quotes from Wilders in the summons, though. It states for instance that he has said, and he has (I love the detective-work the court implies when citing op-eds from national newspapers): ‘Those Moroccan boys are really violent. They beat up people because of their sexual orientation. I have never used violence.’ This is true. As a number of gay Dutch men and women can attest, Muslim youths are behind a rise in homophobic attacks in what used to be the most gay-friendly country in the world. Bruce Bawer and others have written about this at length. It is very disturbing. It is also a fact. There is no sanity at all in a court trying a man for saying something true.

Wilders is also being tried for saying things which some Muslims deem to be rude about the Koran.  Another dangerous precedent. Will the Dutch courts now come after Ricky Gervais for the rude things he says about the Bible in his show Animals (on sale in Holland)? Why the special laws for hurt Muslim feelings? Just wait till the others get on the band-wagon!  There won’t be room in the courts to prosecute the murderers and muggers. They’ll be too full up with the religious. Dutch Calvinist pastors madly petitioning for the extradition of Billy Connolly.

The whole thing is so farcical that it would be funny. If it weren’t for the fact that it is real. The most popular elected politician in Holland is on trial for saying things which the Dutch people are clearly, in large part, in agreement with.  Things which, even if you don’t agree with them, must be able to be said.

Whichever way the verdict goes, it can’t do anything but good for Wilders’s poll ratings. But it is a terrible day for democracy. A political class so intent on criminalising the opinions of its own people cannot last very much longer.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100024056/geert-wilders-on-trial-for-telling-the-truth/

Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Geert Wilders, Islamization | Leave a Comment »

Al-Jazira belegt, dass Wilders Recht hat

Posted by paulipoldie on January 25, 2010

Heplev Worldpress 23 Januar 2010

Al-Jazira wählte dieses Bild, um einen Artikel zum Prozess von Geert Wilders zu illustrieren:

Könnte es sein, dass Wilders vielleicht nicht ganz unberechtigt die Alarmglocke wegen der Islamisierung Europas läutet, wenn Muslime gegen ihn demonstrieren, indem sie Plakate hoch halten, auf denen Dinge stehen wie:

– Der Islam wird überlegen sein

– Der Islam wird die Welt beherrschen

– Freiheit, fahr zur Hölle

(h/t: Jihad Watch)

http://europenews.dk/de/node/29284

Posted in Counterjihad, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Geert Wilders | Leave a Comment »