Jordan’s Prosecutor General, Dr. Hassan Al A’bdallat, “demands” that the Netherlands turn over Geert Wilders to the Jordanian judicial system so that he might receive his just punishment for crimes committed in his production of Fitna.
According to The Jordanian news site Fact International:
Amman Prosecutor General issues 5 charges against Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, in lawsuit for releasing anti-Islam film
Amman’s Prosecutor General has issued five charges against the Dutch MP Geert Wilders in the lawsuit brought for releasing the anti-Islam film “Fitna”. A summons warrant has been released too.
The “Messenger of Allah Unites Us” Campaign has stressed the decision taken by Amman Prosecutor General, Dr. Hassan Al A’bdallat, today, Tuesday July 1, 2008, considering the Dutch right-wing radical MP Geert Wilders, the producer of the Fitna film which criticizes Islam and the holy Quran campaign, as a defendant in the lawsuit filed by the campaign.
The lawyers for the campaign, Osama Al Bitar and Tareq Hawamdeh, said the prosecutor general issued, this morning, a summons warrant against Wilders, who will be informed through diplomatic channels as he is not a resident of Jordan.
The campaign will proceed in confronting all the anti-Islam campaigns with all available legal, economic, media and diplomatic means-without the use of ‘violence.’
Last month the Campaign laid a charge through Abdallat against the Dutch lawmaker demanding to punish him according to the Jordanian Penal Code and paying compensation for the damage he caused. [emphasis added]
If this absurd effrontery has its intended effect, we in the West will have only ourselves to blame.
We have established precedent after precedent that allowed for the prosecution in other countries of foreign nationals for crimes committed neither within, nor against the citizens of the countries charging them. The effort to extradite General Pinochet was the defining moment of this trend, and Belgium has made a parlor game out of indicting virtually any American military or political figure who violates the PC European sense of moral rectitude.
The process began with the hunt for war criminals and has devolved to the inane and trivial process that we know today. Now it’s time for the post-modern children of Europe to be hoist with their own politically correct petard.
– – – – – – – – –
After all, how can the authorities fail to turn over Geert Wilders? He has violated the human rights of Muslims, as laid out in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which has been officially recognized by the United Nations. The Netherlands has the choice of repudiating the pernicious multicultural doctrine which it has so lovingly constructed over the last four decades, or giving up Geert Wilders to the tender mercies of Jordanian jurisprudence.
What do you think the Dutch authorities will decide to do? Discard multicultural orthodoxy, or rid themselves of this troublesome blond?
Anyone want to take bets on that?
The article continues:
According to the campaign the decision by the Prosecutor General to file a case against the Danish cartoon publishers and Wilders last month set a precedent in the history of the Jordanian judicial system, a move that has gained international attention that an Arab country is keeping pace with global legal trends.
He was charged with the following:
- Slandering prophets, thereby violating article 273 of Jordan’s Penalty Code.
- Publishing materials, sketches and drawings that offend the feelings of Muslims, in violation of Article 278/1 of the Penal Code.
- Insulting and demeaning Islam and insulting Prophet Mohammad (s) thereby threatening sectarian and racist discord and conflict, in violation of Article 38 B & C of the Press and Publication Law No. 8 for 1998 and its amendments.
- Violating Article 38 of the Electronic Transactions No. 85 for 2001 which penalizes anyone who perpetrates an action that amounts to a crime under the enforced laws and legislation.
- Vilification and defamation in violation of Article 189/4 on the Penal Code.
“As the defendant is not present in Jordan and have no addresses in this country I decide under Articles 111/1, 115 and 146 of the criminal court rules to issue a warrant for the defendants to be notified through the Danish Embassy that they must present themselves in Jordan. A letter to that effect will be sent to the embassy of Netherlands through His Excellency, the Minister of Justice,” said the Prosecutor General in his decision. [emphasis added]
This action by Jordan is a local skirmish in the larger war declared by the OIC against Islamophobia in the West. “Publishing materials, sketches and drawings that offend the feelings of Muslims” is already against the law in Jordan, and the OIC has publicly declared its intention to induce Western countries to change their laws in accordance with the Jordanian model.
All of this is plausible — instead of laughable — because of resolutions issued in the United Nations and the UN Human Rights Council that say exactly the same thing. Every country that fails to revise its laws accordingly is guilty of neglecting its treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter.
It’s obvious that the Netherlands is obligated under the circumstances to comply with the Jordanian prosecutor’s demand. But will it actually do so?
The determination of Jordan to force other countries to change their laws and constitutions is made abundantly clear:
Sheikh: We are going on our way to pass an international law criminalizing offenders of Islam
The head of the Messenger Of Allah Unites Us Campaign, Dr. Zakaria Al-Sheikh confirmed that the court verdict is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed (s) “We need a law that protects humanity from an extremist plan aimed at destroying the world for the interests of a particular group that has enormous influence in the world”, he said.
Sheikh added that the decision of the Prosecutor-General confirms the effectiveness of the legal, media, economic and diplomatic campaign to confront the anti-Islam agendas.
The campaign was careful not to fall into the trap that instigators of these attacks on Islam have set. They want Muslims to become enraged and act violently and thus they (Muslims) themselves will be responsible for creating an image of Islam as being mindlessly destructive. Once Islam and Muslims are demonized in this way it will be easy for our enemies to act against us with no guilty conscience, he emphasized.
For strategic reasons, Dr. Sheikh is calling on the world’s Muslims to exercise an uncharacteristic self-restraint when faced with the unbearable provocation of cartoons and movies that insult them.
We are fortunate that skinless Muslims worldwide are unable to help themselves in this regard; otherwise we would all still be snoozing through the Islamization of our culture, unaware of the long march of Jihad through our institutions. By the behavior of its adherents, Islam has woken up enough Westerners to put at least a few speed bumps in the road to its ascendancy.
Attorneys Al Beetar and Al Hawamdeh explained how the case proceeded including the testimony of the complainants and the expert witnesses and then how the four stages advanced until a decision was finally reached.
They said that in case the defendant did not come to Jordan of their own free will, then warrants will be issued via local and international security agencies.
Geert Wilders is obviously not going to hop the first plane to Jordan. So what comes next? An Interpol warrant? The ICC?
How is this novel legal drama going to play itself out?
Hat tip: TB.
Just curious. Does the author or anyone else know what potential penalties Infidel Wilders would face if convicted in Jordan for daring to exercise his Freedom of Speech in Holland?
I’ve got to say that one of the most important developments in this case would be for the head of the Messenger Of Allah Unites Us Campaign, Dr. Zakaria Al-Sheikh, Amman Prosecutor General, Dr. Hassan Al A’bdallat, and lawyers for the campaign, Osama Al Bitar and Tareq Hawamdeh to all experience an unfortunate but immediately fatal “accident”.
No better message could be sent to Islam than that of how annoying the West with their incessant Muslim whining tends to produce exceptionally negative outcomes. Especially for the whiners in-chief.
So, they plan to implement global jurisdition for this crap?
This is the stuff wars are made of.
This also shows that ‘feelings’ (and ‘hurt feelings’ in particular) are crap arguments for legislation etc.
Probably what hurts most is realizing that the religious figure these people were brought up to believe was a saint was, in fact, deeply criminal.
It’s not nice to figure out that your parents have lied to you. I can understand the discomfort.
“We need a law that protects humanity from an extremist plan aimed at destroying the world for the interests of a particular group that has enormous influence in the world”
You got that right.
Funny if you read it from the non-muslim view, it makes sense.
Zenster’s idea about an accident is nice, but I have another one.
Let’s placate Jordanian authorities. They are claiming the extradition from Britain of an individual who happens to be Ossama Ben Laden’s deputy for Europe.
Britain had the guy locked up in prison. But it decided to set him free, because of, ahem, human rights, I suppose. Also, it won’t extradite him to Jordan, because, you see, he would face torture there.
What I suggest is this: we very reluctantly relinquish our noble ideas about not letting terrorists being tortured, and send the guy packing to Jordan.
However, in exchange, we must insist that the Jordanian prosecutor-general drops his silly warrant upon Geert Wilders.
Oh, and he also has to come barefoot to The Hague with a rope around his neck, kiss Queen Beatrix’s feet, and do some community work repairing public buildings destroyed by Muslim “youths”.
Just my two cents.
Yet more repetition of that empty phrase “right-wing extremist”. Yet again a reference to slandering “prophets”, in order to imply Muslims care about slandering “prophets” they have expropriated from other religions.
Under “normal” circumstances this would be laughible: the court of one sovreign nation imposing it’s laws pertaining to free speech over another. There is simply no precedent for it. HOWEVER, the sad part to this is there are indeed traitors and sympathisers within the EU, and certainly the Dutch government, who would willingly collaborate with such an effort simply to prove their PC point.
On a practical note, I sincerely don’t believe any action would (or could) be taken by any non-Muslim nation (and even the most “roguest” of them at that). Most governments are pragmatic and realize the economic ramifications that would come from the Netherlands (a very wealthy nation) were one of its citizens detained and handed over to another nation against his will for such a crime. The reality is that War criminals from Africa, the former Iugoslavia and South America have roamed the world with warrants on their heads for years.
Does anyone actually take these people seriously? It’s actually kind of funny in a perverse sort of way. Do people not see the ridiculousness of this situation? What’s sad is, as Qualis Rex said, there are people who would take this seriously.
On another note, the LGF badges are ready, if you want one.
The fact that the Jordanian Government actually believes it can bring charges against a Dutch citizen is a matter of concern for me.
However-the way the “internationalists ” are going-it will be common place and our own U.S. officials will “buy” into it someday —-if we are not watchful.
Happy Independence Day!!
“We are fortunate that skinless Muslims worldwide are unable to help themselves in this regard;”
Regular Muslims are repellant enough; a world-wide affliction of skinless Muslims is another level of loathsomeness altogether.
“This is the stuff wars are made of.”
My thoughts exactly. If Mr. Wilders was unfortunate enough to be turned over to the Jordanians and suffer the proscribed Shariah punishment (one can only imagine) that could very well be the elusive tipping point. Like this dog nonsense (guaranteeing future BNP votes), every time Muslims push their agenda it is just another hair closer to the pin being pulled on the hand grenade that is western man.
“Islamophobia in the West”
A phobia is an irrational fear. I do not have an irrational fear of Islam, I have a rational one.
And if you think that the Dutch will not bow to their new masters just remember the fate of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She now resides in the US under OUR protection.
Ah, yes. Ayan Hirsi. Major babe. Shame she’s an atheist.
Ah, yes. Ayan Hirsi. Major babe. Shame she’s an atheist.
Come on. You don’t have any atheist friends? Does not believing in a Supreme Being preclude people or mean they lack gravitas?
If you’d been raised as she was, you might turn to atheism too — as a weight lifting from your shoulders.
Have you read her autobiography? I recommend it as a way to understand thsi “major babe”, both her strengths and weaknesses. One of her weaknesses is an evident lack of education in Western history. If that were addressed, I would find her thinking — aside from her lack of belief — more congenial. As it is, because she has been “trained” in the social sciences rather than history, her philosophy of life has severe limits.
Nonetheless the woman is a marvel in the way she transcended life’s limits. Being a “babe” was definitely an advantage in this case. It made her appealing to those who could help her.
Dymphna, I was being silly and sarcastic. My reference was to those 80’s commercials: “nice girl, too bad about her dandruff”. Sometimes that doesn’t come across well on the internet (expecially because we don’t know each other). Mea culpa.
Yes, I have read her, and heard her speak on numerous occasions (even before she was known in the US). She is actually very complimentary on Christianity. I’ve never heard her be “in your face” about atheism. And she certainly hasn’t latched on the the Hitchens-Maher vitriol wagon.
To answer your question, yes. I do have atheist friends. But I’ve always found them to be wildcards, in that they invent their morality as they go along. So, I can never really trust them as much as my other friends. So, I can still hope for Ayan, as I believe she would make an excellent Christian.
I do have atheist friends. But I’ve always found them to be wildcards, in that they invent their morality as they go along. So, I can never really trust them as much as my other friends.
That is just laughable. Do you really think Christians are uniform (or even stable) in their moral behavior or even in their stated principles?
The vast majority of people have stable moral characters, whatever they may be. This has nothing to do with religiosity. Only sociopaths “invent their morality as they go along”.
You can take your holier-than-thou attitude where the sun don’t shine.