Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Geert Wilders Acquitted!

(Two posts today. Please scroll down)



Z has the information. Stogie has concise background information if you need it.

Wilders's video Fitna below the fold:



Wilders was acquitted of all "hate" charges:

1. Intentionally offending Muslims
2. Inciting hatred against Muslims
3. Inciting discrimination against Muslims
4. Inciting hatred of non-western immigrants

22 comments:

  1. Good news! He should never been charged to start with.
    I'm going to add you to my blogroll, btw :).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Truly great news for him and the rest of us. I am actually surprised, pleasantly, at the outcome.

    Debbie
    Right Truth
    http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. thanks, AOW...it is surprising, isn't it. And Ducky's pitching at my place about his being a bigot and racketeer :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Free speech scores a win.

    About time, too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I hope his security is good, because if they can't silence him legally...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd love to see him come to America.

    What has his platform been:

    1. Ban the burqa

    Okay, it is virtually unknown in America but this plays for Rollo.

    2. Ban halal slaughtering.

    Great, then you have to ban kosher slaughtering since they are identical. Good luck.

    3. Campaign for gay rights

    That should get z and AOW plenty worked up.


    So, not much of a program and one that the right would be largely against in America. Hard to see why you are gaga about this guy.

    Me, I was introducing a couple of my former students to a job site literally just down the street from me. They have some entry level work and take the idea of "film maker" seriously. Having this schmuck call himself a film maker bugs me.
    Oh, it was an Adam Sandler film, we apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  7. the burqa is here in the US-
    wonder if Ducks has been to any of the college campuses lately...
    C-CS

    ReplyDelete
  8. Duck,
    A few corrections for you.

    1. Just what do you think you know about my position on "gay rights"? I've never stated a position thereon.

    2. I'm not "gaga" about anybody.

    What I am "gaga" about is freedom of speech and the right to criticize Islam as well as any other ideology or religion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Duck,
    And one more thing....I have eaten halal food. Surprise! At the mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. Yes, I've been there -- on the inside, too.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Christian Soldier,
    I have a burqa wearer living within a few blocks from me. I see her every day as I drive by her haunts.

    And, of course, I see burqa wearers outside the halal supermarkets too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Debbie and Z,
    Europe has had enough of Salafist "Euromuslims."

    I didn't expect Wilders to be acquitted, but I did expect that he wouldn't be found guilty of all charges. That he was acquitted on ALL charges is a victory for free speech -- and for anti-dhimmitude.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here's a thought...If Moslems hadn't made such a squawk with their cartoonifada, Wilders might well have been found guilty, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Edge of the Sandbox,
    He should never been charged to start with.

    Agreed!

    Thank you for blogrolling me. I have returned the favor.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whew. I was worried about the outcome. Thank goodness sanity ruled the day.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have mixed views.

    The first is that as a barrister (lawyer and former prosecutor) is that the process is followed. If people do not like the law then have it changed via parliament, but do not side-swipe it. From what I know both the prosecution in the original first case did not and in this second one, the Wilders team did not really do so. They attacked the right to be in court rather than defend themselves according to the law. Thankfully, the law did its job.

    Secondly, people are forgetting what the judge said. Though acquitted, Wilders words were found by the Court to be:
    A) borderline discriminitory &
    B) repugnant.
    Should supporters of Wilders and the people in The Netherlands be proud to accept borderline and repugnant actions by its leaders? Almost every other western nation would be upset, angered and demend his departure.

    So thirdly, based on those two points, it is a message from the court that in fact the law is inadequate and should be changed. It should not be forgotten that if Wilders was Spanish, Belgian, French or German he would have been found guilty, fined and banned from politics for up to 10 years.

    I think it is a sad day for The Netherlands and Freedom of Speech, why? That is the last reason..

    Lastly, it is not about Freedom of Speech, but that term was used as an excuse. It is about being given the freedom for "collective hate". I ask the readers the question what constitutes the border between someone saying what they think and when an organisation targets a community to be discriminated against. Nazism targetted a community and they argued it was their right to say so before taking power. I precedence has been made, radical Muslims in The Netherlands will now have the legal right to condemn certain groups and views openly asking people to denegrade and be free under what they will also call "freedom of speech".

    Freedom of Speech is an individual's right, not a collective coordinated right, that is in almost every country except The Netherlands, political action which has different rules.

    By calling it Freedom of Speech when it is not confuses the matter and thus it is Freedom of Speech that loses out.

    I dispise Wilders because his hate agenda is for personal glorification as he wants to be seen as the great leader, a failed mainstream politician he found the only door open to people like him, to go the extreme nationalist route and attempt to not be "the great leader" but try to be "the great saviour". In the end, he only made himself the equal to the same meglamaniacs that he should have been targetting.

    Though my feelings are clear enough, everyone has their right to think what they like, as I have my right, what annoys me is when inadequacies in laws are abused and the real issues are sidetracked for the sake of "glory".

    ReplyDelete
  16. I take it that the person who wants halal food to be banned is also anti-semite and wants kosher food banned as well because to distinguish between the two is not only discriminatory but illogical.

    If they watched the case of banning "ritual slaughter" in The Netherlands which is the case, the attempt to do so was against both and both the Muslims and Jews joined together in attempting to overturn such a rule.

    Both religions slaughter an animal based on the Abrahamic tradition.

    It would be really nice that some acctually base their comments on logic....

    ReplyDelete
  17. Damien,
    I dispise Wilders because his hate agenda is for personal glorification as he wants to be seen as the great leader, a failed mainstream politician he found the only door open to people like him...

    I don't doubt that Wilders's position on Islam and immigration are, in part, motivated by securing political power. Well, such is the nature of politics all along the political spectrum.

    But The Netherlands does have a "Euromuslim" problem, as do several neighboring nations. Recall the murder of Theo Van Gogh.

    I do fail to see that Fitna could ever be classified as hate speech. Sure, the film has a slant. What film does not?

    As for your comment about Duck's comment, Duck is a far Leftist. And, yes, he is an anti-Semite. Furthermore, he hates the Right. He actually said something about putting Andrew Breitbart in a body bag.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes the Netherlands has a "euroMuslim" problem but Theo Van Gogh I think is not a symptom of that but a general clash from society. Rather like Pym Fontyn, the events in society brings out the "nutjob".

    In reflection the actual term is "little 'e'" euroMuslim to not give them the positive capital.

    Fitna is most certainly hate based. It is a purposefully provocative, with cut & pasting certain versus, out of context and with images also cut & pasted for the entire purpose of criticising a faith.

    Imagine if quotes of the Old Testiment were shown with pictures of Israeli abuse, US drones and drawings of massacres by Crusaders and videos of Westbro members backing up the argument. If criticised the excuse will be that they are real quotes and real images and real film footage. Imagine the anger, especially from strict Catholic, evangelical or orthodox Jewish communities...... because that is what Muslim communities are like. Regardless it is insulting, unrealistic and purposefully ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Damien,
    Was there an outcry from Muslim over the brutal slaughter of Theo Van Gogh? The assassination of Pim Fortuyn was a more complicated matter, IMO.

    I can understand Muslim anger over Fitna and even over the Danish cartoons. But the expression of that anger was over the line.

    Certainly, the so-called work of art known as Piss Christ was insulting to Christians and to Christianity itself. As you put it, I, a Christian, found that so-called work of art insulting, unrealistic and purposefully ugly. But the expression of anger on the part of Christians didn't involve the same tactics. Christians had to put up with the display of Piss Christ because of freedom of expression.

    Freedom of expression isn't reined in by good taste and hasn't been for a long, long time.

    In my view, the West should not live in fear of offending Muslims. One can argue that deliberate provocation is wrong, but the reaction of Muslims was certainly wrong. However, I do find pandering to the sensitivities of Muslims a slippery slope that ultimately erodes freedom. Therefore, even though I despise Westboro Baptist Church, I do feel that the United States Supreme Court ruled correctly in that WBC weasels are within their First Amendment rights.

    BTW, the "cartoonifada" and the continuing threats against the editor went a long way to turn feelings against Muslims. Here in America, religions and ideologies, as well as our leaders, are satirized constantly. The best reaction if one is offended is NOT to go over the edge. Certainly, Islamic countries can control what appears in their own press, but they shouldn't be dictating what can appear in the Western press.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Actually when Theo van Gogh was killed every organised community group in The Netherlands condemned it but the media talked to the "euroMuslims" on the street (ie chose the guys in long beards). Fortuyn was killed by a Christian lunatic who found the bais in the media and amongst nationalists as insulting to "his" logic.

    Piss Christ, of which I also found very offensive, resulted in the fire bombing of one gallery that it was supposed to go to and death threats to others that were forced to close down. Similar results with the Crusified Frog in which mass demonstrations of hundreds of thousands in the Phillipines occured.

    The point is that mass violent demonstrations and responses do happen and it has more to do with either the radical politics or the social-economic conditions of the people affected. Sure, the "euroMuslims" made sure to raise the heat as much as possible and that is the issue BUT as we see, to blame Islam itself shows in fact a similarly barbaric and ugly response and we should ask what is our excuse here in the West to in fact respond in the same fashion? There is none and that is why I hit hard on us westerners doing so because to a degree, responses by them is excpected and we could argue even understandable.

    I agree that we should not live in fear of offending Muslims but at the same time, logic and common descency dictates that we should not "out of our way" to offend them and there is a double standard because we westerners do go out of our way to demand and provoke in their countries - deliberatly getting drunk in public and then demanding special treatment instead of being punished as their laws do, making-out on beaches, insulting their faith, coordinated prosthelizing knowing they will get arrested and having the media-kit ready, and so on.

    There is a word missing here, it is called "tact". Additionally, some is done for agendas, like Wilders, but what I hate the most, especially from the evangelical community, is doing absolutely everything that Christ told us not to do and I am certain in my heart that he would not have accepted the cartoons as being freedom of speech but tactless provocations.

    The objective, which I push, is to condemn radicalism in every aspect as that is the enemy - be it radical Islamists, euroMuslims pushing their limit in our region, radical nationlists spewing hate to promote their political goals or radical Christians and Jews with thier own believe that they do so with some "God given right" that in fact is EXACTLY what they are condemning from the Muslims.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Damien,
    I have to get my day started, but I will address one portion of your comment:

    we westerners do go out of our way to demand and provoke in their countries - deliberatly getting drunk in public and then demanding special treatment instead of being punished as their laws do, making-out on beaches, insulting their faith, coordinated prosthelizing knowing they will get arrested and having the media-kit ready, and so on.

    I do not approve of the above behavior, nor would I engage in it. After all, "when in Rome" and all that. I am a culturist. As a culturist, I submit that one should abide by the dominant culture of society while, at the same time, I accept the concept of a pluralistic, free society.

    BTW, missionary work is an entity of its own and has been so since the Great Commission. Missionaries believe that they called by Christ just as Muslims believe that they are called by Allah to bow toward Mecca. Missionaries do know the risks of preaching in numerous cultures -- not only Islamic ones.

    As for tact, well, I do believe in it. But there is a fine line between tact and pandering.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective