Hollands Leftist Establishment Tries to Put Geert Wilders Out of Business

November 5, 2012
by sheikyermami on November 5, 2012
It is alarming that faceless little men in suits have put Geert Wilders lawyer  Bram Moszkowicz, who defended Geert  against the frivolous accusations of ‘hate-speech’ in a Dutch kangaroo court, out of business. Now a leftist ‘think-tank’ , headed by a Rob de Wijk (Can you smell the sulphur? Is that George Soros aftershave?), has been commissioned to launch another attack on Wilders, with the intention to finish him off.
Geert Wilders “a symbol of the inward attitude of the Netherlands”

Wilders is now no longer part of the government: “He was a symbol of the inward attitude of the Netherlands. That problem will blow over if Wilders is gone.”

The enlightened progressives see a problem  with  ”rejecting the Schengen treaty for some Eastern European countries and the tightening of rules for migrant workers from Central and Eastern Europe.”
Much concern also comes from  an unnamed diplomat in Abu Dhabi.
“Alliance with Wilders did hurt the Netherlands’ reputation”
The leftist Dutch News leads the fray.
Sunday 04 November 2012
The previous coalition government, which involved Geert Wilders’ anti-Islam PVV in a supporting role, did have an image problem abroad, civil service documents supplied to website nu.nl show.
Ministers repeatedly said foreign governments understood the relationship between the minority coalition and Wilders and that he was not officially part of government.

However, official papers show ‘time after time’ that diplomats wanted proper instructions on ‘how to avoid reputation damage as much as possible’ – for example, when Wilders published a new book. This often did not work, the documents state.
Rob de Wijk, director of research institute HCCS and an expert on international relations, told the website this should not be a surprise. ‘Wilders’ position was impossible to explain abroad,’ he said.
The problems have not all be solved now Wilders is no longer part of the alliance. ‘He was a symbol of the way the Netherlands had turned in on itself.’ 
Former foreign minister Ben Bot told a television show last month The Netherlands can regain its previous influence in the world if the new government ditches its current ‘surly’ image.
Over the past few years, the Netherlands has become known as the country which opposes everything, he said. ‘Diplomacy with a smile and a soft voice’ will put the Netherlands back on the map, Bot said.
The leftist Amsterdam Herald is delighted and tells us that  some of Moszkowicz’s  clients  have been “pressed into paying cash up front”- imagine that! What’s the world coming to!


U.S., E.U. Spearhead Islamic Bid To Criminalize Free Speech

January 7, 2012
(stonegateinstitute.org /image: save free speech org) The European Union has offered to host the next meeting of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.
The announcement comes less than one month after the United States hosted its own Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC.
The Istanbul Process – its explicit aim is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and/or Islamic Sharia law – is being spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Muslim countries.
Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC has long pressed the European Union and the United States to impose limits on free speech and expression about Islam.
But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” (Analysis of the OIC’s war on free speech can be found here and here.)
Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.
However, the HRC resolution – as well as the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 – remains ineffectual as long as it lacks strong support in the West.
The OIC therefore scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. In doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.
Following the Obama Administration’s lead, the European Union now wants to get in on the action by hosting the next Istanbul Process summit, tentatively scheduled for July 2012.
Up until now, the European Union has kept the OIC initiative at arms-length. But Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the OIC, says the EU’s offer to host the meeting represents a “qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia,” according to the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), the OIC’s official news/propaganda organ.
According to the IINA, “The phenomenon of Islamophobia is found in the West in general, but is growing in European countries in particular and in a manner different than that in the US, which had contributed to drafting Resolution 16/18. The new European position represents the beginning of the shift from their previous reserve over the years over the attempts by the OIC to counter ‘defamation of religions’ in the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations.
The IINA report continues: “Officials in the Cultural Affairs Department of the OIC said that the European Union’s offer to host the third meeting (the first was in Istanbul in July and the second in Washington, DC in December) is considered a promising new possibility of solving this problem. The ‘Istanbul Process’ will have an added momentum by holding the meeting in Europe, which is more affected by the phenomenon of Islamophobia and hostility towards Islam.”
The OIC is especially angry over its inability to silence a growing number of democratically elected politicians in Europe who have voiced concerns over the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate into their host countries and the consequent establishment of parallel Islamic societies in many parts of Europe.
According to the IINA, “Ihsanoglu said that the growing role of the extreme right in politics in several European countries has become stronger than the capacity of the Organization [OIC], explaining that the extreme right, who [sic] hates Muslims, became leverage in the hands of politicians. He added that the rise of the extreme right through elections has become an issue that cannot be countered, considering the democratic way in which these extremists reach their positions. He pointed out to the referendum held in Switzerland, as an example, which resulted in suspending the construction of minarets there following a vote by the Swiss people.”
In other words, the OIC is now seeking the support of non-elected bureaucrats at the headquarters of the European Union in Brussels to enact pan-European hate speech legislation to limit by fiat what 500 million European citizens – including democratically elected politicians – can and cannot say about Islam.
To be sure, many individual European countries that lack First Amendment protections like those in the United States have already enacted hate speech laws that effectively serve as proxies for the all-encompassing blasphemy legislation the OIC is seeking to impose on the European Union as a whole.
In Austria, for example, an appellate court in December 2011 upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.
Also in Austria, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted in January 2009 for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Islamic prophet Mohammed would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of “incitement” for saying that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.” Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.
In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard, the president of the International Free Press Society, was found guilty by a Danish court in May 2011 of “hate speech” for saying in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture.
Hedegaard’s comments, which called attention to the horrific living conditions of millions of Muslim women, violated Denmark’s infamous Article 266b of the penal code, a catch-all provision that Danish elites use to enforce politically correct speech codes. Hedegaard has appealed his conviction to the Danish Supreme Court, where the case is now pending.
Also in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a Danish politician and Member of Parliament, was found guilty of hate speech in December 2010 for saying that honor killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.
Langballe was denied the opportunity to prove his assertions because under Danish law it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended. Langballe was summarily sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner ($850) or spend ten days in jail.
In Finland, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician and well-known political commentator, was taken to court in March 2009 on charges of “incitement against an ethnic group” and “breach of the sanctity of religion” for saying that Islam is a religion of pedophilia. A Helsinki court later dropped the charges of blasphemy but ordered Halla-aho to pay a fine of €330 ($450) for disturbing religious worship. The Finnish public prosecutor, incensed at the court’s dismissal of the blasphemy charges, appealed the case to the Finnish Supreme Court, where it is now being reviewed.
In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court by Islamic authorities in the French cities of Paris and Lyon for calling Islam “the stupidest religion” and for saying the Koran is “badly written.” In court, Houellebecq (pronounced Wellbeck) told the judges that although he had never despised Muslims, he did feel contempt for Islam. He was acquitted in October 2002.

Also in France, Brigitte Bardot, the legendary actress turned animal rights crusader, was convicted in June 2008 for “inciting racial hatred” after demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.

In The Netherlands, Geert Wilders – the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party who had denounced the threat to Western values posed by unassimilated Muslim immigrants – was recently acquitted of five charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims for comments he made that were critical of Islam. The landmark verdict brought to a close a highly-public, two-year legal odyssey.
Also in The Netherlands, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a Dutch cartoonist who is a vocal critic of Islamic female circumcision and often mocks Dutch multiculturalism, was arrested at his home in Amsterdam in May 2008 for drawing cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. Nekschot (which literally means “shot in the neck,” a method used, according to the cartoonist, by “fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents”) was released after 30 hours of interrogation by Dutch law enforcement officials.
Nekschot was charged for eight cartoons that “attribute negative qualities to certain groups of people,” and, as such, are insulting and constitute the crimes of discrimination and hate according to articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code.
In an interview with the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant, Nekschot said it was the first time in 800 years in the history of satire in the Netherlands that an artist was put in jail. (That interview has since been removed from the newspaper’s website.) Although the case against Nekschot was dismissed in September 2010, he ended his career as a cartoonist on December 31, 2011.
In Italy, the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author, was taken to court for writing that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.” In November 2002, a judge in Switzerland, acting on a lawsuit brought by Islamic Center of Geneva, issued an arrest warrant for Fallaci for violations of Article 261 of the Swiss criminal code; the judge asked the Italian government either to prosecute or extradite her. The Italian Justice Ministry rejected this request on the grounds that the Italian Constitution protects freedom of speech.
But in May 2005, the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII), linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, filed a lawsuit against Fallaci, charging that “some of the things she said in her book ‘The Force of Reason‘ are offensive to Islam.” An Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial in Bergamo on charges of “defaming Islam.” Fallaci died of cancer in September 2006, just months after the start of her trial.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

Peaceful Ahmadiyya Muslim Holy Man Threatens Geert Wilders With ‘Destruction & Humiliation’ — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami

October 19, 2011
Ahmadiyya Islam we were told was peaceful. Those that follow Mohammad are reading the same texts. It doesn’t matter how you spin it or if they are oppressed by their own Mohammadeans.

(Al Islam h/tVlad Tepes and Sheik Yer Mami) Muslims are peaceful, Wilders is “extremist”
The Ahmadiyya sect is persecuted by righteous sunni Muslims, which is a great excuse for seeking asylum in the west. In Europe and elsewhere, they are known for fiercely proselytizing with lame slogans like ‘love for all, hatred for no one’ and eating pork makes you homosexual’.“His Holiness” Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad praised Queen Beatrix for being a good dhimmi and threatened Geert Wilders and his party with destruction. During a recent visit to Holland, the world Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, issued a stark warning to Geert Wilders, the far-right Dutch politician. (Geert Wilders is a Social Democrat and a patriot/ed)He warned Wilders that if he continued to defame Islam and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) then he and other like-minded individuals would be humiliated by God Almighty.
Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad said that Wilders had exceeded all limits of falsehood and hatred in his opposition towards Islam. He said Wilders was motivated solely by a desire to further his own political ambitions and so the time had come to warn him about the consequences of his actions. He said that irrespective of whether Wilders gained further political capital in the short term, ultimately his antics would lead only towards abject failure and humiliation.
Addressing Wilders directly, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad said: “Listen carefully – You, your party and every other person like you will ultimately be destroyed. But the religion of Islam and the message of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) will remain forever. No worldly power, no matter how powerful and no matter how much hatred they bear towards Islam, will ever succeed in erasing our religion.”His Holiness explained that the destruction of such individuals would be achieved through prayer alone and not by any worldly means. He said: “Always remember, that we can achieve nothing without prayer. We have no worldly power, nor will we ever use any worldly force. But the prayers of people whose hearts have been grieved are enough to shake the Heavens.”Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad also spoke of the many decent people who continued to live in Holland and who rejected wholeheartedly the extremist views perpetuated by Wilders. His Holiness said that all such people who care for the feelings of one another and who believe in religious freedom should come together and launch a campaign for peace in the world. (Peace under Islam? No thank you.) This is something that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat has long advocated and has been involved with throughout the world. (MORE PAIN →)

statements comparing the Torah & Talmud to Mein Kampf…cannot be legally challenged because of Wilders

June 27, 2011

The problem is that the court’s findings were still a matter of equivalence. Wilders was legally called out as being “hurtful”. The court did not actually look at the substance of Islam. I am disturbed… and have always been disturbed by this possibility boomeranging.

The Freedom Party…. plays a very negative role in the current debate on a private bill introduced by the Party for the Animals to prohibit religious slaughter without stunning an animal first. Initially, Wilders’ party’s support for the bill was seen as part of its anti-Islam policies. In the interim, it has been found that the percentage of Dutch Muslims who are not willing to eat Halal meat from stunned animals is very small.

The Freedom Party has supported this prohibition enthusiastically, knowing full well that orthodox Jews will be its main victims. In the parliamentary debate, its spokesman Dion Graus has called religious slaughter “ritual torture.” He also stated that his party is not against Muslims, as the proposed prohibition also hurts Jews. Thus once again, Jews have become an instrument in Dutch politics. When analyzing what consequences the Amsterdam court decision may have for Jews and Israel, one needs to be informed about Dutch anti-Israeli propaganda, which has succeeded in convincing more than 38% of the Dutch population that Israel intends to commit genocide against the Palestinians. This information was found in a major poll undertaken by the University of Bielefeld in Germany. Anti-Israeli inciters regularly publish in most leading Dutch media. The religious slaughter debate has unleashed a sewer of anti-Semitic talkbacks in several mainstream Dutch papers. After the verdict in the Wilders case, many of these as well as statements comparing the Torah and Talmud to Mein Kampf, and claims that Judaism is a sick religion, cannot be legally challenged.

We need to get on Wilder’s case. this needs to be clarified by the Freedom Party. Not just by Geert, but by his blogosphere. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller need to address this.

Geert Wilders Wins

June 23, 2011

“The demographic composition of the population is the largest problem in the Netherlands. I am talking about what comes to the Netherlands and what multiplies here. When you look at the figures and its development…. Muslims will move from the big cities to the countryside. We have to stop the tsunami of islamicism. That stabs us in the heart, in our identity, in our culture. If we do not defend ourselves, then all other items from my program will prove to be worthless”.

Geert Wilders
Dutch politician Geert Wilders was acquitted of inciting hatred
against Muslims and non-western immigrants.
Photograph: Robin Utrecht/EPA

As regards this utterance, the district court determines that this utterance, based on the words as used, is blunt and humiliating indeed, but is not subversive and does not incite to hatred or discrimination. Therefore, this shall result in acquittal. via volokh.com

the U.K. Guardian is not happy!

….Wilders adopts nationalism as a mode to gather momentum, support and power. It feeds on fear and abuses this fear. Whether the fear is real or imaginary is irrelevant. Fear is a powerful and explosive instrument of power. Many “indigenous” Dutch are threatened and frustrated by developments in the globalised world that they do not want but cannot control, such as immigration, and Wilders talks about “a tsunami of an alien culture that increasingly dominates local culture”. The feeding of this fear is an attempt to increase the existing polarisation and segregation of Dutch society, potentially leading to banlieue-type unrest. Unless we all start realising the futility of the attempt – and the court should have given just such a signal.

did you expect the Guardian to take this on the chin.  This is the Guardian‘s Islamist call to arms.  Geert has them on the run,

Looks Like Wilders is off the Hook

May 27, 2011

Update from Klein Verzet:
Wilders Trial day 20: Prosecution asks NOT guilty

A freakshow, to put it mildly…..

I won’t be holding my breath; this charade should have never got off the ground in the first place. The grand inquisition is desperate to pin something on him, just to prove  to themselves that one single patriot can’t stop ‘the power’…….
Prosecution in Wilders Sharia trial recommends that he be found not guilty of inciting hatred

“Prosecutors say Wilders’ remarks are critical of Islam which is not the same as inciting hatred against muslims themselves.” At last, some common sense. But there is no certainty that it will prevail; if it had entered into these proceedings at any point before this, Wilders wouldn’t be on trial now.

The idiocy of this witch-hunt  will hound the Netherlands and the rest of the world for a long time to come. Geert Wilders,  a patriot  and an incorruptible hero,  is threatened by millions of mad Muslims around the world, Muslim terrorists who openly call for murdering him, and his own people make him  the scapegoat. Never have I seen so much falsehood and cowardice.

“Find Wilders not guilty of inciting hatred, says prosecution,” from Dutch News, May 25 (thanks to JW)
Geert Wilders Warning To America

Do you know why America is in a better state than Europe? Because you enjoy more freedom than Europeans. And do you know why Americans enjoy more freedom than Europeans? Because you are still allowed to tell the truth. In Europe and Canada people are dragged to court for telling the truth about islam. (continue reading)

A Bleak Outlook For Europe
A quote from Giulio Meotti on YnetNews, 2 May 2011:

Europe risks losing all its precious gifts: human dignity, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, rule of law, separation of state and mosque. Across Europe there are dozens of journalists, cartoonists and writers who are living under terrorist threats. (continue reading)

Freysinger-Wilders Meeting  in doubt:

The Central Commitee of Muslims in Switzerland “cannot guarantee Wilders safety”;  the meeting in Savièse will have to be moved to Weinkellerei Giroud in Sitten (PI)

Klein Verzet Excerpt:
After the prosecution was finished around 17:00 the court decided to continue with councilor-complainants Nico Steijnen and Erik Olof. The courts behavior to these counselors gave us some interesting insights in the courts ideas about free speech.
These councilor-complainants are of course the extreme leftist and Muslim activist lawyers who had forced this court case in the first place. You can imagine that these lawyers were not very happy with the prosecutions plea for a not guilty. If these activist lawyers had their way, they would act as second prosecutors in this court case (that’s what they tried in the earlier court case).
But the law does give them a very specific role in a criminal trial. In a criminal trial the victims are only allowed to talk about damage done and request compensation (an idea that grew out of the frustration that victims had to start a costly civil suite for getting compensation for damages done). It’s of course the court’s responsibility to prevent abuse of this arrangement.
So the court decided to act pro-actively. Amazingly they decided to censor the lawyers. Thus instead of waiting what the councilor-complainant were going to bring in front of the court, they asked the lawyers to hand over their pleas. Then the court took as short recess, during which they quickly reviewed the plea and marked all sections they deemed not admissible in court. Then they asked the lawyers to hold their original plea but without the market sections. When the lawyer clumsy asked for making another ad hoc plea, the court president repeatedly pressed him for just making the censored plea.
It’s not hard to imagine how confusing a half censored Marxist rambling sound. Well, it was shorter, less structured but still much more than a plea for damages done. It can best be described as repetitive hate speech propaganda that tried to massage the brain with the message that evil Geert Wilders had to be stopped before he grabbed power and become an existential threat to all of us. If one would apply the same legal standards, as laid out by the prosecution today, to this court rant, you would have quite strong case for prosecution.
Logically the rand led to complaints of defense lawyer Moszkowicz. Although it was his first complaint in today’s session, it angered the court; the courts president snapped that he was only slowing things down with his complaints. The president said he did not stop the councilor because the court would just ignore all the inadmissible statements he would make (although the defense would never know what and what not they would considered allowed, making a defense against the allegations very hard). But the defense lawyer stood his ground and complaint he was not in a hurry, all he wanted was a fair trial even if that meant they would have to stay until midnight. The court ignored him.
The trial ended at 19:00, next session is Friday May 27, 2011.
Wilders Trial day 20: Prosecution asks NOT guilty

Wilders to be tried by hard left activist judges

November 13, 2010

The court in Amsterdam today announced the judges that will sit at the re-trial of Geert Wilders. Additionally, it announced plans to soon resume the court trial against Geert Wilders. From the courts website