Free Expression vs. the Self-Islamizers

Free Geert banner

As I reported last night, Geert Wilders has received an official summons to appear in court on January 20th to answer charges that he incited discrimination against Islam.

Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated several articles related to this and other matters concerning Geert Wilders. First, from the PVV website:

Summons against Geert Wilders: a sledgehammer blow to freedom of expression

January 20, 2010 will be a crucial day for the defense of our freedom. Then the political process against Geert Wilders will begin. Commissioned by the Amsterdam Court, the Public Ministry yesterday summoned Geert Wilders. The indictment reads: Insulting Muslims as a group, incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims because of their religion, and inciting hatred and discrimination against non-western immigrants and/or Moroccans because of their race.

Geert Wilders: “On January 20 a political process will begin. I am being persecuted because of my political beliefs. Freedom of expression balances on the edge of a cliff. If a politician can no longer criticize an ideology, then there is no end to this, and this will mean the end of our freedom. But I will still be combative: I am convinced that I will be acquitted.”

Earlier the Public Prosecutor had not seen any reason to proceed with prosecution.

On behalf of Geert Wilders, lawyer Bram Moszkowicz objected to the point of group insult in the subpoena. For earlier this year the Supreme Court ruled that though it is indeed illegal to offend a group of people, it is not illegal to be offensive about a religion in itself. Thereby the provision of the Amsterdam Court has on this point found to be incorrect.

The Dutch version of the subpoena can be downloaded here [pdf]

The following is a translation of Geert Wilders’ column in Een Vandaag:

“There is a difference between what the people want and what the government wants”

By Geert Wilders

Ideally I would have yodeled this column. But that would have made it somewhat unreadable, therefore, here it is in plain Dutch. 2009 of course has been the year of Switzerland. It is perhaps the best news of the year. You all know it: the Swiss massively voted against those hideous minarets, symbols of a despicable conquest ideology.

That result arrived as a sledgehammer blow to the heads of our multicultural elite. Across Europe our betters are working together to facilitate Islam. They are self-Islamizers who are not sitting there in the interests of the people, but for the ideals of a little group from the sixties that has lost any contact with reality.

– – – – – – – –

The referendum result in Switzerland has once again made it clear how large the differences are between the bobos and the rest. The bobos still believe that we can do business with Islam and that mass immigration is good for us. The public understands that the import of hundreds of thousands of illiterates is quite an expensive joke that disrupts our society and puts our freedoms at risk. But in the urban villa areas where the multiculturalists live, they do not even have the faintest idea of this.

Truly superb: women made the difference in Switzerland. While in the Netherlands many women still cherish pink multicultural dreams, in Switzerland the penny dropped. Islam is the most heinous anti-female ideology the world has ever seen. Mass immigration can only mean a deterioration of the position of women. In Switzerland they understand that.

What does this all mean for the Netherlands? The political elite from the CDA [Christian Democrats] to the VVD [Liberal Democrats] do not want a referendum on minarets in the Netherlands. This elite are now more than ever aware of it: the public is opposed to multiculturalism. When the people get the opportunity for a form of direct democracy, they will speak out against mass immigration. Parties that now still feign to be in favor of referenda will swiftly withdraw their little dropping. Just wait and see. We will never hear anything about it again. PvdA [Socialists] Minister Ter Horst [of the “revolt of the elite”] at the outset made this clear in her very first response to the outcome of he Swiss referendum. She stated: “I hope this never happens in the Netherlands. I am glad that we do not have a decisive referendum”.

The award for the best political comment of 2009 goes to the same minister. She spoke the historic words: “There is a difference between what the people want and what the government wants”.

I could not have said it any better. Multiculturalism is on the losing end. The elites know it. They’re in an injury time-out.

I now go for the cheese-fondue.

Finally, from NRC Handelsblad, a report on Geert Wilders’ court appearance to testify against the rapper who threatened to kill him:

Wilders testifies against death-threatening rapper

The Hague, December 4 — He was really afraid that rapper Mosheb would inflict something on him. Of the sound of gunshots and lyrics like “When I come across you it’s bam bam” … “you will not be cheerful”. And the threats of the hip-hopper are especially serious because Wilders has to file declarations with the police of death threats about “a hundred times a year”.

Geert Wilders this morning was obliged to be present in the Rotterdam court to testify against the 20-year-old Dutchman Mohammed B. The PVV leader in 2007 filed a notification against Mohammed B. because he felt threatened by the text in the song “Who iz next”. Mosheb raps in it “If you want to stay alive, then you have to take it all back” and “Listen Geert, this is no joke, last night I dreamed that I cut off your head”.

According to the rapper, he has not threatened Wilders. It was a “lyrical attack” on the politician. His lawyer Haroon Raza said that the entire song should be considered as if it were a dream of his client.

After the court session, Wilders said that “people may say what they want,” but that rap texts are “real threats”. The argument that an artist should have more freedom of expression, Wilders rejected. “It does not matter if a rapper, ballerina or chief cook utters a death threat against me, for it is always unacceptable.” The prosecutor agreed with Wilders. He demanded 120 hours of community service or 60 days imprisonment. The verdict is expected in about two weeks.

VH notes:

The lawyer for this death-threat rapper, Haroon Raza, is one of the complainants in the upcoming court case against Geert Wilders: Raza based his complaint on a number of statements by Wilders, including the most recent one about banning the Koran. See here, and “August 13, 2008; a complaint by mister H. Raza” in the list of complainants here.

One thought on “Free Expression vs. the Self-Islamizers

  1. Isn’t it hilarious that the lawyer of the crapper, I mean rapper, wants Wilders in jail for expressing his thoughts, while he wants his client to be free for making death threats, under the idea of freedom of expression?

    Why can’t you insult people as a group in the Netherlands? I’m starting to love Romania. We can say whatever we want here, as long as it’s not incitement to murder or things like this.

Comments are closed.