Agreed with her up until 1:15. There is nothing exclusively inherent to Islam which gives it those qualities anymore than there is to Christianity.
I don't know enough of either. But this is one fascinating case, within the framework that is the law they will have to have an honest discussion of Islam.
No, it's not. Wilders is trying to give the impression it's an inquisition by talking about different things. Like he always does.
15 out of the 18 witnesses he called for have been denied Haxie, the theological discussion you thought was so very important has been denied by the Amsterdam court, how is he going to get a fair trial if he isn't allowed to make his case, and his witnesses weren't all Islam-haters as The Wizard suggests, but also Imams and Islamic scholars and jihadi's, somebody must thinks that discussion is inconvenient. This is a perversion of our justice system, they are using it as a weapon that is wrong on so many levels, this has nothing to do with honesty, it's abuse of power pure and simple, and the scariest part is that it's so obvious.
Pim Fortuyn did, two famous remarks 'ok, so then I'll get killed, but I am going to do it anyway' and 'don't mourn for me but mourn for this country'. He knew what was going to happen when they denied him security, and he knew of the cultivation of the climate against him. BLAM
15 out of the 18 witnesses he called for have been denied Haxie, the theological discussion you thought was so very important has been denied by the Amsterdam court, how is he going to get a fair trial if he isn't allowed to make his case, and his witnesses weren't all Islam-haters as The Wizard suggests, but also Imams and Islamic scholars and jihadi's, somebody must thinks that discussion is inconvenient. This is a perversion of our justice system, they are using it as a weapon that is wrong on so many levels, this has nothing to do with honesty, it's abuse of power pure and simple, and the scariest part is that it's so obvious.
So they've been denied? And? You think this doesn't happen at any normal criminal trial? That every defendant is simply allowed to parade whatever the Hell he likes for the judge to enjoy? If so, do you perhaps imply that our justice system operates like the Inquisition?
Seriously Frag, no offense, but this is the same meaningless, high-pitched, scaremongering screaming always emanating from the PVV corner.
"It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
This would imply we unjustly and bloodily persecute the people in our criminal justice system (i.e. murderers, robbers, drug dealers, human traffickers, etc). This while I doubt you think that our judges and DA's are too harsh on the fellows
"It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
This trial is not about Islam, it's about Wilders.
if there is a serious possibility that Wilders will be convicted for making what is accepted to be a truthful statement then yes; this will be about Islam.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
He just might be, they ordered an outcome and asked 'scientists' to make it look scientific. Was already done in December but they released it simultaniously with the trial, it's finally done! (and forgot to change the dates in the document, FAIL), but the hand-picked judges can use it ito convict him. It's really all on how low they will go.
Also 15 out of the 18 witnesses he called upon were rejected, this isn't a trial it's ritual slaughter.
One man against the red machine, the machine likes crushing anyone who isn't absolutely in love with Islam and who doesn't see multi-culture as an enrichment.
I wish they will lock him away as Ser Clegane will thankfully do to this thread.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
but let me help you out again by bolding the important bits:
Geert Wilders is not 'far Right'
By Ed West World Last updated: January 30th, 2010
Like my colleague Douglas Murray, who has already written an excellent post on the show trial of the century, I’ve been surprised by the lack of British media interest in Geert Wilders’s martyrdom in Amsterdam. An American minor celebrity only has to fart to receive blanket coverage in the British press, but when a major politician next door faces jail on trumped-up charges – in a case that will have implications for our freedom of speech – there seems to be little interest.
For those who haven’t visited these parts, Wilders is a Dutch politician on trial for “insulting” Islam by comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf, and for saying that Moroccans commit many street robberies in the Netherlands. Yes, put on trial – not fisked or twitter-lynched or condemned by the Equality Gestapo, but actually brought to court. Wilders calls it “surreal”, and it certainly seems strange that in a city where a gentleman can smoke Morocco’s most famous export and view half-naked women in shop windows, he can go to jail for criticising a religion.
What Americans – or anyone else who’s somehow missed Europe’s slide towards diversity authoritarianism – will find so strange is that it’s not even the truth of Wilder’s statement on trial. Comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf is daft – the Koran can be used for evil intent, and does justify violence in many passages, but it can, and has, also inspired much good; Mein Kampf is just plain evil. But this is a country with a long tradition of robust public debate, often of a comically abusive nature, and especially so about religion. It is part of the Dutch tradition of freedom that makes it such a pleasant society.
As for what he says about Moroccans, it is factually correct, but as one of the prosecutors said before the trial: “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.
How can the country that produced Spinoza have become so retarded? It all began with the Nazis, or more specifically with Holocaust denial, which was criminalised by France in 1990. It was an absurdly stupid law, since the number of Europeans who don’t believe the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews could probably fit inside David Irving’s living room, but it was the thin end of the wedge. Laws gagging neo-Nazis were soon extended to views that were unpleasant, bigoted or, increasingly, just unfashionable and offensive, as the band of acceptable opinions in Eutopia became ever smaller. Wilders is unfashionable, certainly, but his ideas are not beyond the pale.
Alongside the criminalisation of thought crime, those within the consensus have made their opponents’ views verboten by labeling dissenters as “racist” or “Islamophobic” or comparing them to Hitler, as the Dutch media did repeatedly with Pim Fortuyn up until the day he was murdered.
Another abused term is “far-Right”, a label that the British and American media routinely apply to Geert Wilders.
The European far-Right has certain characteristics – as well as being obsessed with race, it is anti-big business, pro-state intervention, pro-worker’s rights but anti-Communist, nostalgic about the countryside and often sentimental about animals, politically paranoid and prone to conspiracy theories, anti-gay, anti-American and, most of all, anti-Semitic Zionist (just as it used to be against “cosmopolitans” and “foreign intellectuals”).
The British National Party, for instance, though not “fascist” in any meaningful sense, is undoubtedly far-Right, which is most clearly demonstrated by its attitude to America and capitalism. The extreme Right is economically closer to the Left than it is to the centre-Right, but, whatever several of my colleagues believe, it is still Right-wing (not that most BNP voters give a monkey’s either way).
Wilders’ Freedom Party is not in any sense ‘far-Right”, as its own policy statement makes:
The Party for Freedom combines economic liberalism with a conservative programme towards immigration and culture. The party seeks tax cuts (€16 billion in the 2006 election programme), de-centralization, abolishment of the minimum wage, limiting of child benefits and government subsidies. Towards immigration and culture, the party believes that the Judeo-Christian and humanist traditions should be treated as the dominant culture in the Netherlands, and that immigrants should adapt accordingly. The party wants a halt to immigration from non-western countries. It is skeptical towards the EU project, is against future EU enlargement with countries like Turkey and opposes the presence of Islam in the Netherlands. The party is also opposed to dual citizenship.
The ambiguity of the penultimate sentence is disturbing, but otherwise the party comes from the European mainstream, specifically the centre-Right tradition. Wilders simply believes that becoming a minority in one’s major cities because everyone is too embarrassed to offend anyone by raising the issue is taking northern European shyness a bit far.
Now even the Dutch establishment has downgraded him from “far-Right” to “radical Right”, barely less loony-sounding, but a start. According to Dutch News:
Geert Wilders’ political movement PVV is not an extreme right wing party but contains some radical right wing elements, according to a report into radicalisation in the Netherlands by Tilburg University research group IVA.
PVV statements on ‘islamisation’ and non-western immigrants appear to be discriminatory and the party organisation is authoritarian rather than democratic, the researchers say.
The researchers, who were looking into polarisation and radicalism across the Netherlands, describe the PVV as ‘new radical right’, a party with a national democratic ideology but without extreme right wing roots. In particular, the party’s pro-Israel stance shows it is not neo Nazi, the report states.
Nevertheless, the PVV has a preference for ‘the familiar’ and turns against things which are ‘foreign’ and its political opponents, the report said. This, coupled with an authoritarian tendency show it leans towards a national democratic ideology. And on the internet, for example, the party is a magnet for extreme views, the researchers point out.
Wilders himself called the new description “scandalous”, and I hardly blame him, since Encylopaedia.com describes “radical Right” in unflattering terms:
The radical right is a term applied in the United States to sociopolitical movements and political factions and parties that develop in response to supposed threats against American values and interests. Such backlashes usually stem from rapid social or economic change that sparks a reaction among groups seeking to maintain or narrow lines of power and privilege.
They justify their actions by discounting the legitimacy of their opponents, seeing them as agents of an un-American conspiracy not deserving of political respect or constitutional protection.
Discounting the legitimacy of their opponents and viewing them as not deserving of respect or legal protection – sounds awfully familiar from this side of the Atlantic.
Do ya get it now, well do ya?
Sorry, I nearly forgot to respond to this.
I am neither obtuse, nor do I 'get it now'. Quite the contrary: your author, I'm afraid, has got it all backwards.
Far from this trial showing an increase in repressive laws, the legal tide is moving in the other direction. Things are now said openly in European debate, that were a firm taboo twenty years ago. The courts are following this social shift - what was considered firmly far-right and grounds for criminal prosecution is now mainstream right, and even left. Anti-discrimination and anti-hate speech intolerance peaked in the 1980s, and his since decreased.
Nor is Wilders prosecuted for breaching new laws. The hatespeech law with which Wilder is charged has been put in place in the 1930s, to protect a religious minority that was the subject of far right hatemongering back then.
Neither the trial itself, not the laws on which it is based, are a sign then of an increase in authoritarian laws and prosecution. The author did not do his homework.
Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one -Brenus
Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
Not everything blue and underlined is a link
Doubt it Beskar, I asked for it to be re-opened because of this latest development and CA pretty clearly set out the rules for the discussion, and he will crush it under his mighty boot should we break them. If you don't like reading opinions that conflict with your delicate sensibilities you must be in the wrong place. We are right on track here.
There is one aspect about this trial that Wilders and his proponents conveniently forget:
Anti-hatespeech laws are the exact legal instrument used to stop hatemongering Imams, to stop calls for the murder of Western swines, and other Islamofascist agitation. Criticism of, especially the call to remove, these laws will strip the anti-Islam movement of the very legal means it requires.
(Unless, of course, they want to have one set of rules for Muslims, and another one for Westerners)
Wilders himself wants to ban half the Koran for containing hatespeech. Apart from this blatant hypocricy, has he thought through the result of his squeeking about the dictatorial nature of the existence of anti-hate speech laws?
Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one -Brenus
Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
Not everything blue and underlined is a link
I wish they will lock him away as Ser Clegane will thankfully do to this thread.
why would he do that if the debate remains civil and within the identified parameters?
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
I am neither obtuse, nor do I 'get it now'. Quite the contrary: your author, I'm afraid, has got it all backwards.
Far from this trial showing an increase in repressive laws, the legal tide is moving in the other direction. Things are now said openly in European debate, that were a firm taboo twenty years ago. The courts are following this social shift - what was considered firmly far-right and grounds for criminal prosecution is now mainstream right, and even left. Anti-discrimination and anti-hate speech intolerance peaked in the 1980s, and his since decreased.
Nor is Wilders prosecuted for breaching new laws. The hatespeech law with which Wilder is charged has been put in place in the 1930s, to protect a religious minority that was the subject of far right hatemongering back then.
Neither the trial itself, not the laws on which it is based, are a sign then of an increase in authoritarian laws and prosecution. The author did not do his homework.
my point was simply that; in creating a torrent of new criminal offences (4,300 in twelve years of misrule) labour has demonstrated an extreme and excessive bent to authoritarianism.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
There is one aspect about this trial that Wilders and his proponents conveniently forget:
Anti-hatespeech laws are the exact legal instrument used to stop hatemongering Imams, to stop calls for the murder of Western swines, and other Islamofascist agitation. Criticism of, especially the call to remove, these laws will strip the anti-Islam movement of the very legal means it requires.
(Unless, of course, they want to have one set of rules for Muslims, and another one for Westerners)
Wilders himself wants to ban half the Koran for containing hatespeech. Apart from this blatant hypocricy, has he thought through the result of his squeeking about the dictatorial nature of the existence of anti-hate speech laws?
i have no objection to 'mongering' hate, i soley object to inciting violence.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Hmmm, this makes the dialogue the socialists and greens and leftielibs insist on wanting to have, but never actually want to have, rather difficult.
I am sure they have great plans but I can't read that.
getting it already what mr Wilders is trying to do? This isn't being internationally minded, this is exclusion. But sure, no such thing as islamization they say when they are 100% sure there are no critics in the room and the lemmings are bound to cheer.
His own site has English as the default language. Wich is odd, since you'd expect that he'd primarily be adressing the people who are expected to vote for him instead of craving for international attention. Say what you want about those electoral posters, they're at least intended to adress voters
His own site has English as the default language. Wich is odd, since you'd expect that he'd primarily be adressing the people who are expected to vote for him instead of craving for international attention. Say what you want about those electoral posters, they're at least intended to adress voters
He is the best known politician internationally, of course he has a site in English.
Give me one good reason why it's well and good that Wilders' site is primarily aimed at non-citizens and is written in a foreign language, and why it's bad that other parties have a few posters hanging around written in a foreign language meant to adress actual citizens.
Give me one good reason why it's well and good that Wilders' site is primarily aimed at non-citizens and is written in a foreign language, and why it's bad that other parties have a few posters hanging around written in a foreign language meant to adress actual citizens.
I agree with Fragony that it should also be written in dutch. Though, what is interesting that the "lefties" and "greens" are trying to get the Islamic vote, as Muslims in a general gense, hold a more conservative opinion, in-line with other religious (christian) factions. It is more likely they are trying to attract support by the association of the right with discrimination against Muslims.
As for Wilders' site, he is probably trying to attract the anglosphere approval (plus the fact majority of Europe also read English, as evident by this board), and thus, trying to appeal to international validity to help support his domestic validity. "Hey - America, UK, Germany, etc agree with me, know I see reason." and this might convince some at home.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Bookmarks