Geert Wilders has been acquitted of all charges at his show trial in Amsterdam:
The court ruled that some of Wilders’ statements were insulting, shocking and on the edge of legal acceptibility, but that they were made in the broad context of a political and social debate on the multi-cultural society.
“On the edge of legal acceptability,” eh? As for the latter part — “the broad context of a political and social debate” — the genius “jurists” are effectively conceding what I said when this racket got going — that the Dutch state was attempting to criminalize the political platform of a popular opposition party. That’s the sort of thing free societies should leave to Mubarak & Co, and even then, you can only get away with it for a while before people draw the obvious conclusion.
Nevertheless, as in all these cases, the process is the punishment. The intent is to make it more and more difficult for apostates of the multiculti state to broaden the terms of political discourse. Very few Europeans would have had the stomach to go through what Wilders did — and the British Government’s refusal to permit a Dutch Member of Parliament to land at Heathrow testifies to how easily the craven squishes of the broader political culture fall into line.
And at the end the awkward fact remains: Geert Wilders lives under 24-hour armed guard because of explicit death threats made against him by the killer of Theo van Gogh and by other Muslims. Yet he’s the one who gets puts on trial.
That’s the Netherlands, 2011. Shameful. As for the Islamic imperialists, they’re taking their case to the logical venue. As Reuters reports:
Minorities groups said they would now take the case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, arguing the ruling meant the Netherlands had failed to protect ethnic minorities from discrimination.
“The acquittal means that the right of minorities to remain free of hate speech has been breached. We are going to claim our rights at the U.N.,” said Mohamed Rabbae of the National Council for Moroccans.
The genteel evasions of the eunuch prose (“minorities groups”) are a big part of the problem here.
Acquitted but still guilty in their eyes. They want everyone to know they'll come after you for you're difference of opinion, even if in the end you get off.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGeert is lucky,
He could have experienced a Australian Rules Football (eh...Judiciary) which could not convict a veiled women of a crime because the veiling masked her identity so no one could prove it was truly her beneath the veil (or something like that).
Dutch treat version for Geert would be 'your anti-multicultural views on our multicultural society alienate the one culture in our society that is not multicultural for which we try to be more multicultural. Thus you have forced a uni-cultural society to not want to be multicultural for fear of attacks from anti-multiculturals like you Geert, you are guilty.’
Then the non-multicultural culture can express themselves in culturally appropriate celebration by vandalizing, attacking, and rioting in the streets all to the heartfelt joy of the Dutch multiculturalists who have won the right for the uniculturals to stomp on the multiculturals in the name of multiculturalism.
Don’t make me say that again, Mark Steyn I aint...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have to think (at least hope) that this kind of thing will just implode on itself. I mean people have to wake up eventually and see the absurdity in all of it right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy take: If the Islamists hate Geert Wilders now...I'm sure they'll despise Wilders even more once he becomes Dutch Prime Minister. ;)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDespite all the court's "caveats" this is great news. I can only hope that one day Geert Wilders will become the Netherland's Prime Minister. We might see some real changes then.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGeert:
The thought police will not relent in their zeal to whitewash our discourse about the threats our free societies face.
We won't. Neither should you. Time to increase our volume now. At least, according to Saul Alinsky.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat point Madisonian,
Conservatives might as well use the same tactics.
I do not agree with Alinsky’s philosophy but if you think about it, the only useful thing he bequeathed is his tool box.
Conservatives might as well use the tools too if they help construct (or should I say deconstruct) a leaner, less regulatory, smaller government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Not with a bang, but a whimper".
How can we allow this to happen to us? The problem is that liberals rely on the death of a thousand cuts approach. It is like the rising tide. A little at a time until our freedoms are gone.
We should be alarmed at the speech codes that colleges impose. They are supposed to be educating our next generation of leaders. Leaders who think that appropriate speech is more valuable than free speech won't give a fig for our other freedoms.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy not charge the islamists in Netherlands with "hate" speech and force them thru the process? Use their tactics against them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's good to see that he's been acquitted, though he shouldn't be seen as a defender of free speech (he has called for the Koran to be banned). I still can't fathom the British government's decision to declare him persona non grata. Yes, his presence would have been provocative; so what?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Koran is on par with Mein Kampf. What is your thinking about that? (Although I do agree that bannying books, no matter how hateful, is not the best idea in the world.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>>banning books, no matter how hateful, is not the best idea in the world<<
No. In fact, it's absolutely the worst idea in the world. Sunlight being the best disinfectant, it's important that future generations see the greatness in books that champion freedom not least because they radiate when posited against against those books that espouse slavery in all its manifestations.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe Wilders' point was that Mein Kampf is actually banned in the Netherlands, so consistency demands that the Koran also be banned.
Hitler took a lot of inspiration from Islam. As he said, "Who now remembers the Armenians?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf we had schools that still knew how to teach, if we had a culture that still valued critical thinking, it would be unnecessary to ban any books. Dont worry, just plug in your headphones, Nanny will do all that hard thinking for you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't worry. The protectors of ideological uniformity in the Netherlands are also considering banning Kosher slaughtering. No info as to their opinion of Halal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis one is interesting.
What will San Francisco do, they are trying to ban circumcision yet they should be all in favor of Kosher. This method of slaughtering is considered more humane.
By San Francisco standards the only meat authorized in the city should be kosher meat.
Naaaahhh, what am I talking about, San Francisco will just ban all meat as it is obviously inhumane to eat any meat product.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually they discussed a ban on both (kosher and halal). The main point in this discussion was that in both cases animals should be stunned now with a metal pin first. Halal allows that, kosher doesn't (I don't know why, I'm not an expert). So in the end, it will be a ban on kosher slaughtering (I myself am not in favor of that, there is only one kosher shop in The Netherlands, it's not a big deal).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's "shameful" is the defense of this racist at NRO.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRacist? Hardly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIslam is a race? Wow. Who knew?
At any rate, let's have some fun with this. I call upon the Dutch government to prosecute "Truck" for his vile racist hate speech.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse