The Geert Wilders trial

[Subotan]

You want crazy individuals ranting about the "Other religion"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgL8FDUtkWQ#t=31

Pat Robertson says hello

[Fragony]

You want crazy individuals ranting about the "Other religion"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgL8FDUtkWQ#t=31

Pat Robertson says hello

You couldn't have watched the video in such a small amount of time. The nazi-islamic connection can't be denied, neither can it be denied that antisemitism is rampant among muslims, neither can it be denied that where muslims settle sharia enclaves emerge. That isn't just a problem to us but also to normal muslims, you are letting them down, Wilders isn't, and that is why he has support from moderate muslims.


This is it by the way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH71iNb0PmE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPhh...eature=related

not sure if it is PG but I was allowed to post it before, sued over this meh, they shot most these images to be shown

3:50, child of 3 years old GAH can't watch this. Religion of peace my

3:00 No, Israel didn't exist at the time, jews did though

The green wave, these muslims are not my enemies. But that is. Having to hear that women being burned up leaves me breathless with disgust against anything they stand for.



Edit lolololol “Tegelijk geldt dat hoe meer zich een collectieve identiteit ontwikkelt, bijvoorbeeld als gevolg van polarisatie, des te eerder het gevoel ontstaat hetzij bedreigd te zijn, hetzij superieur te zijn, zowel bij de minderheid als bij de meerderheid. En in al die gevallen groeit de bereidheid geweld te gebruiken jegens anderen."

What it says, we are violent, that is funny since there has never been a racist crime in the Netherlands, not against immigrants at least.

[Fragony]

http://infidelsunite.typepad.com/cou...rime-wave.html

Is this true? Because if it is the Danish state has lost it's monopoly on violence and personal ownership of guns should be allowed. If they don't it's just state oppression.

[The Wizard]

So what exactly about the Mufti of Jerusalem associating closely with Hitler, and the nazi sympathies of groups like Hizballah and Hamas, warrants banning the Qur'an and curtailing the practice of Islam as if this was the Soviet Union of the '20s?

Also correction, there were race riots in Rotterdam in 1977 and there have been many instances of violence against Muslim establishments over the years. In addition, what you quoted is simply a general statement of the academic consensus regarding group rivalries, which is supported by evidence from around the world, not just the Netherlands. It's this limited view of the world with Holland as its navel that is one of my major gripes with the conservatives in this country. Not just them, actually, al lot of Dutchmen all over seem to suffer from this short-sightedness.

[Louis VI the Fat]

as I argued at length and without rebuttal.

Ah, yes. I remember the devastating rebuttal, which rested on four arguments:
'I bet you don't know who the entirely irrelevant Moluccans are, therefore you can't speak of Wilders'
'You are talking to a history major here, pal'
'And as a history major, let me tell you: I know several Eurasian Dutch and some of their best friends are Muslim!!''
'And as a history major, I shall prove that my argument is right by not managing to provide even a single source whatsoever, because this absence of sources to the contrary prove your scientific sources incorrect'
'
Two authority arguments, one argumentum ad absurdum, and the 'some of my best friends' argument. I shall forgive you for your 'I challenge you to find even one other source!', then blisfully moving the goalpost when I provided two further sources within five minutes.

Give us a link that shows that there are no lingering traumas, lingering resentment, or that Eurasian-Dutch voting patterns are indistinguishable from indigenous Dutch.


The 'rebuttal' that some of your Indo friends have Muslim friends - quite apart from the rather poor nature of this statement in general - is moreover not even a rebuttal at all. The argument is not that Indos are extreme right, or that the PVV owes its succes to postcolonial revanchism, or that Wilders should be reduced to this exploration of his heritage and the impact of that on his politics.

The argument, rather, is twofold:

1 - Wilders operates in a postcolonial atmosphere. This is shown by his languange, his pre-occupations, his hair. By his political mentor, as Kralizec was so kind to point out - the previous champion of the Dutch anti-Islamic sentiment, Bolkestein who not coincidentally was also an Indo.
Most Indos recognise Wilders as one of their own, and Indo scientists who study the political sentiments of Indos recognise Wilders as representative of more broadly shared sentiments within this group. Whether Dutch society at large wishes to remain its code of silence or not about this group of immigrants.
2 - This aspect of Wilders is completely unknown outside of the non-academic Dutch public debate.

One example of a somewhat similar post-WWII sentiment can be found on this very forum: Evil Maniac From Mars. A German expellee. He shares many of the sentiments that are prevalent amongst these people ('Vertriebenen'): anti-communism, nationalism, high emigration rates. Should the German hardright be led by a member of this group, it will no doubt take over some of the sentiments, the narratives, that are present within this group. And it will be recognised as such by German public debate. The same would hold true for a French Pied-noir, or a Portuguese Retornado, etc.
It is not voodoo. A person's background and cultural surrounding has an impact on a person's political thought. At the very simplest level, compare the thoughtworld of somebody from Saudi-Arabia with that of a Swede or a New Guinean tribesperson. They will have very different thoughts. This difference does not stop at this obvious level, it can be refined, to discover surprising differences between only slightly different groups operating in the same society.

[The Wizard]

You must not have read anything other than my post on page 6, going by your wholly incorrect summary of my argument.

Here and here you can find the two main posts containing my arguments, which consist of a whole lot more than "lol I know these people and believe me".

In fact, that is mostly what your argument consists of, since the only "sources" you managed to dredge up were random people from the Internet. Wow buddy, two can play at that. Again: and you accuse me of committing a fallacy by citing my friends?

Let me sum it up for you, so you don't have to go through the trouble of actually reading my posts, considering you seem to not have done that yet:

1. You base your entire argument on a single source: Van Leeuwen, who, moreover, is the only one around. That is very shaky, and I'm being generous here.

2. You generalize pied-noir sentiment, postulating that if it exists in France then it is generally applicable to the rest of Europe, as if we're discussing some kind of physics equasion here. Please. That is why I cited my being a history major, friend, and that alone, because when studying history you are taught that it is very unlikely for historical processes to clone themselves in different societies. Very, very unlikely. Please do not willingly misinterpret this again.

3. The above two arguments failing upon closer scrutiny, you fall back on "well since there's a dearth of sources on the subject (i.e. it is not an issue in the Netherlands), they must be keeping it quiet and willingly ignoring it". You merely grasped that out of thin air because it's keeping your entire position on life support. Nothing argues for it at all.

4. As said above, you accuse me of being in the wrong by pulling the "well I know this and that and they say..." card while you link to random posts of anonymous people on the Internet. One cannot get much more hypocritical.

5. You provide two more links in which friction over the acts of the Dutch state towards the Indonesian independence struggle is mentioned. Nothing wrong with that really, except that it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Our government vs. Indonesian nationalists has nothing to do with the supposed trauma/pied-noir complex of our Indo community.

1 - Wilders operates in a postcolonial atmosphere. This is shown by his languange, his pre-occupations, his hair. By his political mentor, as Kralizec was so kind to point out - the previous champion of the Dutch anti-Islamic sentiment, Bolkestein who not coincidentally was also an Indo.
Most Indos recognise Wilders as one of their own, and Indo scientists who study the political sentiments of Indos recognise Wilders as representative of more broadly shared sentiments within this group. Whether Dutch society at large wishes to remain its code of silence or not about this group of immigrants.

Patently untrue, as the link in my first linked post shows (this was all in the second post if you'd bothered to read):

Latent racism
But within the East Indies community itself, not everyone agrees. Herman Bussemaker, chairman of the Dutch Indies Platform, says he doesn't know anyone who believes Mr Wilders is a hero. On the contrary, many immigrants from the former colony are alarmed by the politician's meteoric rise.

"They are afraid because the latent racism that is present in Dutch culture is only being reinforced by the actions of Mr Wilders. And most of them aren't white. So they are afraid that his actions will lead to more discrimination towards them as well."

That there is a trauma still waiting to be addressed after all this time - a trauma forgotten or ignored by most Dutch people - Dr Bussemaker doesn't deny. But that hasn't resulted in any strong right-wing leanings, he says. Rather, the political expressions of those frustrations "are spread from left to right".

2 - This aspect of Wilders is completely unknown outside of the non-academic Dutch public debate.

... because it doesn't exist. There is also, as I argued (point 1, 3 and 4), without any rebuttal by you (hence my later post to which you replied), no academic debate on the matter. Again, because it doesn't exist. I seem to be repeating myself a lot here, no?

A person's background and cultural surrounding has an impact on a person's political thought. At the very simplest level, compare the thoughtworld of somebody from Saudi-Arabia with that of a Swede or a New Guinean tribesperson. They will have very different thoughts. This difference does not stop at this obvious level, it can be refined, to discover surprising differences between only slightly different groups operating in the same society.

I never denied any of this, as you have wrongly assumed (willfully or no). My problem with your position arises, rather, from the fact that you completely misplace Wilders's background and cultural surrounding (which is not surprising, considering you base yourself on only one isolated source and some creaky extrapolation of French society).

Wilders is, first and foremost, an ethnic Dutchman and is seen as such by those from that majority. This is what informs him and this is where he draws his viewpoints from. It is also what he aims his populism at. He is not an angry Indo hating Islam for what it did to his homeland, because he is not an Indo, because there are no such angry Indo's (and the fact that secular nationalists did it, not expressly Muslims, but I digress...) and because he is a committed Dutch nationalist, complete with all the outside-fearing short-sightedness that marks such a one.

I hope that this will silence any further claims that my argument consists of nothing more than a few authority arguments and a "well my friends said..."

More important, I hope you will no longer ignore my arguments by misstating them as part of your own. I have stated mine about as clearly as possible so that that can no longer be the case.

EDIT: And just to top it off I'll give you a scientific source, from the NIOD (the Dutch Institute for War Documentation) on Indo identity and politics. Pay special attention to the penultimate paragraph. The part where this historian also explicitly sets apart pieds-noirs from Indo's is also very, very relevant.

http://www.iias.nl/nl/31/IIAS_NL31_52.pdf

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Louis: but it is precisely this two-fold argument that has no basis really. (2) Is relevant if and only if (1) is; so we basically reduce the argument to (1). The Wizard has done quite enough to show just how much remains (not) of that argument in turn. Question becomes: is this insistence on (1) just for the thrill of disagreement/dispute, or for lack of reading/understanding others' posts?

You are not seriously suggesting that he, and with him his purported supporters project some kind of collective resentment over/about Indonesia (truth be told the majority of his voters and suppoters probably neither know nor care about Dutch-Indonesian shared history) towards a relatively new phenomenon? Arguably a phenomenon (a more aggressive and in-your-face expression of Islam and associated beliefs) that is at least in part caused by their own anti-immigrant and anti-muslim actions?

EDIT: As far as I can see it is more resentment over and a reluctance to accept a changed streetview, in which not everything is as ‘Hollands’ as stampot.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Patently untrue, as the link in my first linked post shows (this was all in the second post if you'd bothered to read)

I provided this source, so rest assured I read it.

The source argues that 'Geert Wilders is one of us, say Indies immigrants'. That is, in fact, the very title. This recognition remains undisputed.
What is disputed, by Bussemakers, is Wilders popularity within the Indo community, many of whom fear for the climate of xenophobia Wilders creates, which might ultimately affect them too.
Wilders popularity, or lack thereof, within the Indo community is, though interesting, however entirely besides the point. Nobody makes any claim to that either way.

And just to top it off I'll give you a scientific source, from the NIOD (the Dutch Institute for War Documentation) on Indo identity and politics. Pay special attention to the penultimate paragraph. The part where this historian also explicitly sets apart pieds-noirs from Indo's is also very, very relevant.

http://www.iias.nl/nl/31/IIAS_NL31_52.pdf

Thank you for providing us with a link. Alas, this article is about the Indo community in the colonial Dutch Indies, and has such has only limited, indirect relevance to our subject, which deals with colonial communities after repatriation. As the article says: 'In fact, a conscious Indisch identity emerged first in the Netherlands and only from the late 1950s, following the mass expulsion of Dutch citizens from Indonesia in 1957'.
This conscious Indisch identity, as developed within the Netherlands, and the implications of it for Wilders, is at stake.

I think we are tiring both ourselves and any poor souls who take the effort to read all this, so perhaps we should just let it rest. Wilders motives, inner thoughtworld and path to radicalisation are not a mathematical science, and I do not think this little debate is illuminating for any further exploration of this interesting subject.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Question becomes: is this insistence on (1) just for the thrill of disagreement/dispute, or for lack of reading/understanding others' posts?

Thank you for this internet classic.

If the question is: 'are you a troll or an idiot', I see no reason to debate with you until you've learned to mind your manners.

[Fragony]

You could of course come to terms with Bussenmaker being full of it

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Louis: I do find it hard though to see you being entirely genuinely sincere with your posts in this thread; I think you know why. For me it is not quite “are you a troll or an idiot” but I see why you took it as such, for which in turn I'd like to apologize: I should certainly mind my manners if not my phrasing more.

Incidentally the latter part of the question is meant to apply both ways. I do not think you genuinely mean what I (or The Wizard apparently) understand you to mean either; as I see you argument it goes somewhat like this:
Wilders has an Indo background. There is some kind of post-colonial resentment among Indos over (the loss of) Indonesia. <Missing link>. Therefore Wilders doesn't like Islam. Therefore Wilders sets out to make sure he has to put up with as little of it as possible.

But as I see it myself, Wilders has lived in Israel, identifies with the ethnic Dutch majority and the combination of which leads him to be unsympathetic towards Islam in general, and Islamic immigrants in particular. Remember that one of his ‘iconic’ phrases is a “tsunami of muslims” referring to both the tsunami that struck (in particular) Sumatra and what he views as destructive towards the Dutch culture in Islam. (Though I have an idea that Islam should really be substituted with “Islamic immigrants and their direct descendants” which chimes better with his prospective voters ...)

[Kralizec]

the previous champion of the Dutch anti-Islamic sentiment, Bolkestein

Uh, no.

The argument, rather, is twofold:

1 - Wilders operates in a postcolonial atmosphere. This is shown by his languange, his pre-occupations, his hair. By his political mentor, as Kralizec was so kind to point out - the previous champion of the Dutch anti-Islamic sentiment, Bolkestein who not coincidentally was also an Indo.
Most Indos recognise Wilders as one of their own, and Indo scientists who study the political sentiments of Indos recognise Wilders as representative of more broadly shared sentiments within this group. Whether Dutch society at large wishes to remain its code of silence or not about this group of immigrants.
2 - This aspect of Wilders is completely unknown outside of the non-academic Dutch public debate.

I don't really see why Wilders' family history has to be the reason for his anti-islamic convictions. It could be one of the reasons, but that's just guesswork.
In his younger days, Wilders traveled a lot in the middle east (including Israel) and he claims that this is how he developed his views on Islam. I find that a tad more plausible than suggestive conjectures made by an anthropologists outside her specialty (anthropology deals with behaviour of the species, not individuals)


Secondly, even if it were true, why does it matter?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thank you for this internet classic.

If the question is: 'are you a troll or an idiot', I see no reason to debate with you until you've learned to mind your manners.

Face it Loius, you haven't come across overly well in this thread; you've argued your point absurdum.

[Louis VI the Fat]

as I see you argument it goes somewhat like this:
Wilders has an Indo background. There is some kind of post-colonial resentment among Indos over (the loss of) Indonesia. <Missing link>. Therefore Wilders doesn't like Islam. Therefore Wilders sets out to make sure he has to put up with as little of it as possible.

But as I see it myself, Wilders has lived in Israel, identifies with the ethnic Dutch majority and the combination of which leads him to be unsympathetic towards Islam in general, and Islamic immigrants in particular. Remember that one of his ‘iconic’ phrases is a “tsunami of muslims” referring to both the tsunami that struck (in particular) Sumatra and what he views as destructive towards the Dutch culture in Islam. (Though I have an idea that Islam should really be substituted with “Islamic immigrants and their direct descendants” which chimes better with his prospective voters ...)

Thank you for this interesting post. One that seeks to identify Wilder's path to radicalization. I can not begin to describe my happiness to see a rebuttal that is relevant.

I am getting a bit tired of trying to explore Wilders'path to radicalisation. But yes, I am completely serious. I posted a serious analysis by Van Leeuwen. A researcher with the Meertens Institute which studies Dutch (sub)culture(s) within the Netherlands' society, whose very job is to study the Indo community through oral history.
She studies the Indo community for a living, and I am afraid I shall accept her opinion over that of what I read here. All the more since I do wonder whether people understand the nature of her claims.

Her point, and I think this is at the base of all the miscommunication, is not to reduce Wilders to 'colonial revanchism', nor to ascribe the succes of his party to this. Wilders is a complicated man, and merely pointing out that he fits in a larger cultural framework does not purport to be the end all of it. To say all that is to be said. Nor does any investigation into this aspect of the man's personality assume to be able to explain his succes, even meteoric rise.

Most, if not all, of the rebuttals I've read here are unfortunately not relevant. Yes, Wilders owes his succes to native Dutch. Yes, many Indos do not share his views. Yes, the anti-immigration sentiment in the Netherlands is not owing to colonial revanchism.

Is there a difference on this very forum, qute strikingly noticable, between what Americans and Europeans think about religion? Does my ancestry perhaps have any relevance to my fanatical atheism? Of course it does. Does Megas ancestry and cultivated identity as a native American have any relevance to his fanatical racism? Why, I would say it does. This is what this is about - basic anthropology/sociology. None of the statements above would be disproven by statements such as 'atheism is not limited to post-Catholic revanchism', or, 'I know many non-native American racists'. Those miss the point.

I blame everybody going mataglap over it all on unfamiliarity with anthropological concepts, such as 'displacedness', or diaspora studies, and the extent of the claims made by them.


Anyway, to fill in the <Missing link>.
Indos are an unwanted sexual byproduct of colonisation. White colonial fathers, indigenous women. In the colony, an 'in-between' group. Lower than the whites, higher than the indigenous. But, culturally assimilated into the colonial ruling class - Christian, Dutch-speaking.
After independence, they were as a group repatriated to the motherland, where most of them had never been before. Their lives, their status as group, their very identity dissapeared overnight. Very traumatic. Yet, in the motherland, they were met with nothing but a cold shoulder, disinterest, even hostility. This was the 1950s. 1960s. Despite this, as a group, they decided to forget, to work hard. They became a succes, fully integrated and even assimilated into the society of the motherland. Despite being left to their own devices.

Then, two decades later, mass immigration started in their new homeland. Suddenly, they had to witness the sight of Moroccans, Africans, Turks, being invited over, given a house, given welfare, being welcomed in. But wereas the Indos worked hard and assimilated, despite complete disinterest and even hostility from society, these new immigrants filled the prisons, the welfare offices. Are openly hostile to their new country.

This double whammy is one of the root causes of the resentment of the first wave of immigrants into Europe, that of the repatriated colonials, to later groups. Hostility yet succes and assimilation, vs welcoming attitude but nonetheless hostility and complete failure. That is the <missing link>.

Wilders has a triple whammy of also being mixed race. (Which he negates) A quadruple whammy of added semi-Jewish identity. (Which he cultivates)
'Identity', I feel is no wonder, is the central element in the politics of this complex, complex man.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh, the stuff one finds on the internet! Wilders has an older brother, 'Paul'. This brother has started a movement to stop his younger brother. Unfortunately, most of the site is not in English. It should be interesting:

http://www.dutchpolitics.org/

[Kralizec]

I saw Paul Wilders when he appeared in the talkshow Pauw & Witteman, from wich that picture is taken. As far as I know that's the only instance when he appeared on TV. And this is just a blog, really. Thanks for sharing, though.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I saw Paul Wilders when he appeared in the talkshow Pauw & Witteman, from wich that picture is taken. As far as I know that's the only instance when he appeared on TV. I had no idea he had started a "movement" against his brother, and as far as I can tell, neither does google.

Any other brilliant insights you wish to share with us about the Netherlands?

Sure, what would you like to learn about the Netherlands next?

(And my google leads me to the website of Paul Wilders' movement, which one can stubbornly deny exists by not clicking on the link of this movement: http://www.dutchpolitics.org/
This link does not discuss 'Dutch Politics', it is rather the website of the non-existing anti-Geert movement run by his brother Paul)

[Kralizec]

Yeah, I didn't click on your link before I posted.
And he himself says it's "just another political blog"

What is your opinion about the Davids' report? The De Wit Commission? Gouda cheese?

[Louis VI the Fat]

What is your opinion about the Davids' report? The De Wit Commission? Gouda cheese?

Davids? Great left foot, best January transfer by Barcelona ever.

The De Wit Commission - Post-colonial revanchists and pseudo-Jews with identity issues, the lot of them.

Gouda Cheese - Like Wilders, it's brown on the outside, white in substance, and leaves a nasty taste in your mouth.

[drone]

Is Paul a full brother, i.e an Indo?

[Fragony]

Gouda Cheese - Like Wilders, it's brown on the outside, white in substance

Actually orange and yellow, see?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Anyway, to fill in the <Missing link>.
Indos are an unwanted sexual byproduct of colonisation. White colonial fathers, indigenous women. In the colony, an 'in-between' group. Lower than the whites, higher than the indigenous. But, culturally assimilated into the colonial ruling class - Christian, Dutch-speaking.
After independence, they were as a group repatriated to the motherland, where most of them had never been before. Their lives, their status as group, their very identity dissapeared overnight. Very traumatic. Yet, in the motherland, they were met with nothing but a cold shoulder, disinterest, even hostility. This was the 1950s. 1960s. Despite this, as a group, they decided to forget, to work hard. They became a succes, fully integrated and even assimilated into the society of the motherland. Despite being left to their own devices.

Then, two decades later, mass immigration started in their new homeland. Suddenly, they had to witness the sight of Moroccans, Africans, Turks, being invited over, given a house, given welfare, being welcomed in. But wereas the Indos worked hard and assimilated, despite complete disinterest and even hostility from society, these new immigrants filled the prisons, the welfare offices. Are openly hostile to their new country.

This double whammy is one of the root causes of the resentment of the first wave of immigrants into Europe, that of the repatriated colonials, to later groups. Hostility yet succes and assimilation, vs welcoming attitude but nonetheless hostility and complete failure. That is the <missing link>.

Wilders has a triple whammy of also being mixed race. (Which he negates) A quadruple whammy of added semi-Jewish identity. (Which he cultivates)
'Identity', I feel is no wonder, is the central element in the politics of this complex, complex man.

I fail to understand why it has taken you so long to post this rebuttel.

OK then, but you seem to be arguing Wilder's side; i.e. the Netherlands has made a mistake by accomodating immigrants and ulticulturalism and supporting immigration was a bad idea.

[CountArach]

Thread locked, under discussion with management.

[CountArach]

Due to there being new advances in the trial, I will allow this thread to re-open, but I want everyone to understand the following conditions:

1) Moderators will take a zero tolerance policy to anything even close to racism and personal attacks on members.

2) The discussion must be limited to progress of the trial and the implications of it.

3) The discussion shall not touch on Wilders' personal background, unless it is relevant to the above discussion. This has already been discussed to death in this thread and is the reason for many of the borderline posts.

4) Any future locking of this thread will not be reversed, unless there is a very good reason for it.

So play nice everyone and have a good, clean discussion.

[The Wizard]

Alright, I'll take a shot across the bow, so to say. I think it's right and proper they won't allow Wilders to parade a whole procession of nutty Islam-haters in court. He's trying to make this into a show trial himself, how ridiculous is that?

[Fragony]

Thx CA,

Here is the thing, there has been a rather unexpected turn of events that leaves a dirty taste. Of the 18 witnesses called upon for Wilders defense, including Islamic scholars, jihadi's (van Gogh's murderer) Imam's and whatever, 15 have been rejected by the court, which is pretty much unheard of. I never believed this was really a trial but it's scary how much it's in the open that it isn't really a trial. I am less optimistic about a good outcome then I was before, whatever will come out of it Wilders will get bigger, but I am starting to feel cornered this is just grim.

He's trying to make this into a show trial himself, how ridiculous is that?

He never asked for it, something with butt and blisters.

[Hax]

Wilders, I think, believes that freedom of speech is something that exists only exclusively for people who agree with him. That's not how it works, obviously.

[Fragony]

Wilders, I think, believes that freedom of speech is something that exists only exclusively for people who agree with him. That's not how it works, obviously.

This is what you wanted Haxie, but a theological discussion apparently isn't allowed, a little consistency would be nice. Everybody should have seen it coming that it would be the Islam itself that would be on trial, but they didn't, that amazes me.

[Subotan]

Wilders, I think, believes that freedom of speech is something that exists only exclusively for people who agree with him. That's not how it works, obviously.

Exactly.

[Fragony]

I find that very ironic, it's the exact other way around, who's on trial.

edit, this is only of any use for dutch speakers http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Po...lamkenners.htm

But this is getting very interesting. Might not realize it yet but this is pretty big, no less then a religion of millions is on trial.

We are in trouble, jihadi's arent going to take this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xohI...layer_embedded

This is much more interesting then I thought it would be.