Geert Wilders in Court: “I Speak for Millions of Dutch”

Geert Wilders is facing yet another “hate speech” trial, this time for asking his supporters: “Do you want more Moroccans in the Netherlands, or fewer?”

To highlight the political nature of this trial, consider the fact that Mr. Wilders’ political party, the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV), is currently the most popular party in the Netherlands.

Below is the declaration made today by Mr. Wilders before the court in The Hague.

Declaration of Geert Wilders before the Court sitting in Chambers, Tribunal The Hague, November 25, 2015 at 3:00 pm

Mr. President, members of the Chamber,

I have the right to a fair trial. That is why I am here. Not to ask you a favor. But to ask you what I am entitled to. A fair trial. And the right to defend myself in the best possible way. If you do not give me that chance, then this trial will be a farce.

During the first meeting the investigative judge told to me, “You should have a fair chance, the law will be interpreted broadly.” But the opposite has happened. All my 39 requests, all the requests from the defendant have been rejected.

Apparently, I am not allowed an adequate defense.

The investigative judge is uncritically following the Public Prosecutor. The Chamber agreed with the Public Prosecutor to reject the first twelve requests. Hopefully, that will not be the case for the 27 rejections that you must decide on now. Because if all reasonable requests are rejected, then I cannot defend myself, and I apparently have to be sentenced at all costs.

I am taken to court for what I have said. But I have said nothing wrong.

Fewer Moroccans, fewer Syrians, fewer Mexicans, fewer Russians, I do not see why stating that is punishable. However, when Turkish members of the Dutch parliament call me a tumor that must be fought and when they compare me to Hitler, then there is no consternation, no massive complaints on pre-printed forms, no prime minister who speaks shame of it and no Public Prosecutor to come into action.

What kind of country are we living in?!

I speak for millions of Dutch. And I will continue to do so. That is my duty as a representative of the people. And that is my right. It is a travesty that I have to stand here before you today.

I have done nothing wrong. At least, I want to be allowed to defend myself in court. I want to hear witnesses and experts so that I can defend myself.

The investigative judge promised me a fair chance, but he did not give me such a chance. I now turn to you: Give me the chance to defend myself.

Give me the chance for a fair trial.

59 thoughts on “Geert Wilders in Court: “I Speak for Millions of Dutch”

  1. I support GEERT WILDERS and all that he is saying about Islam. Islam is a threat to our way of life. They are intolerant and full of hate…they do not assimilate and intend to force non muslims to submit. Western politicians are treasonous and are busy selling out our countries, culture, freedom and religious beliefs to an enemy determined to destroy us. give GEERT WILDERS justice. he has done nothing wrong and deserves nothing less

    • Actually, he deserves a medal and grateful thanks from a people betrayed; instead he is ridiculed and vilified by traitorous imbeciles.
      And still Europe slumbers as I thought it would…
      Paris was not nearly enough.

    • 2030: Your Children’s Future in Islamic Britain (Amazon) by David Vincent is the best book ever written on the Islamic immigration crisis.

    • Yes he is a brave and principled man and absolutely in the right. Treasonous socialists have infiltrated governments throughout Europe and conspire to drive their insane experiment to its conclusion, a conclusion which will be catastrophic if they are not stopped. They devote their energies equally to persecution of dissenters and pandering to their ethnic friends.

  2. The land of marijuana prostitution has it all for their alienated citizens, less freedom of expression Holland is the perfection of Cultural Marxism, second only to Sweden. I support Geert Wilders, I hope he is good, for the good of the Dutch apathetic.

  3. This is a political trial.

    If social cohesion is fraying in a once harmonious society such as Holland why is it wrong for Mr. Wilders to ask the question, “Do you want more Moroccans in the Netherlands, or fewer?” You’d have to be brain dead NOT to ask the question.

    Multiculturalism has failed. It is destroying once peaceful societies.

    The cost of this dreadful and moronic policy has been enormous. The Australian government is stupidly flinging taxpayers’ money to muslims to ‘de-radicalise’ their young. Why don’t muslims finance the civilizing of their murderous offspring? They extort enough money from us through their halal racket.

    God be with Geert Wilders.

    • Their system can’t answer the questions being asked of it so they make asking them illegal. That’s not going to work is it?

    • Exactly right. The censorship by the left is a powerful, eloquent argument for freedom of speech, all speech: Islamic supremacy, holocaust denial, creationism, evolution, atheism, Christianity, prayer…everything. All ideas should be free to be expressed, and all subject to the marketplace of thought.

      It is the proponents of ideas which are logically indefensible who wish to shut down the marketplace of ideas. Islam, communism, “anti-fascism (actually, fascism)”, leftism…all these philosophies are indefensible, illogical, self-contradictory, all in deadly fear of true critiques, and all initiators of fierce suppression of speech.

    • As was told to me by a liberal activist:

      “You must understand that this planet is in a state of transition. In the end we will be sitting around campfires strumming guitars and singing songs of having achieved paradise.

      “Until then there will be confusion and upset and some will be killed. But, as President Obama rightly declared, this is only a setback and not to be dwelled upon. It’s like reading a book. Read the beginning and read the ending. The middle is of no consequence.”

      I stared totally dumbfounded at this creature, this humanoid-like being that looked like me but couldn’t be of this Earth. This is what we must confront and ultimately conquer if Orwell is to be proven wrong. May God have mercy if we fail.

  4. I support Geert Wilder’s in every way since he has done nothing wrong. He speaks what he says is truth and millions agree with him. Yet, who in their strange courts want to prosecute and persecute him. Do any one these courts remember the Canadians freeing them from the nazis and eating their own tulip bulbs? I am incensed that the modern politically correct Dutch do not remember our Canadians sacrifices and now persecute their own citizen for standing up to the Muslim invasion of Europe. Holland has had 70 years of peace, bought by Canadian and Allied blood and treasure, and now turns it back on Geert Wilder’s, one who knows its past and tragically sees its future. Wake up Holland.

  5. As news, this is a very unsatisfying report. The only person named here is Geert Wilders. Who are the “Mr. President” and the members, and what is “the chamber”? What were the 39 requests that were made? Is there no link to a news report on this trial? Basic background information is missing.

    • Why Mr. Spahn, I’m surprised at your appearance here…you seldom ever…oh wait, it’s a complaint you’re making. I’ll walk that back: I’m not suprised.

      But surely this is information you could easily find your ownself with a little digging. And then you could put what you discover in this comment thread, thereby adding to the general store of information that accumulates here. Start with the MSM – I’m sure they have published every jot and tittle on this story.

      Or maybe you could pay someone – not us! – to do a brief investigation of Dutch sources in order to get your questions answered? Gosh, I just *knew* this would happen; we should have had you vet this post before we published. I warned the Baron you’d be displeased. “Baron,” I said, “Mr Spahn is not going to like these obvious lacunae in the Wilders’ story. He’ll want you to spend a few hours looking for the missing details.” Would you believe it, that man never even took off his headphones to answer me??!

      • Hello, Dymphna. Thank you for your clarifying remarks.
        By way of explanation, what gave me a start about this news item was the fact that its source is not given at all. That is unusual. This statement is in English and bears a logo of a certain political party; is its source the PVV? Am I naive to think that giving the source of a news items takes only a few seconds?

        You suggest that the MSM [mainstream media] have published every jot and tittle on this story of Wilders’s trial. Actually, the thought of looking for an English-language account of this trial crossed my mind, but then I thought (wrongly?), “Well, this is domestic Dutch politics, so there’s not going to be an account in the English-language press.” I’ll try later and see whether my “it’ll be no use” conclusion was premature.

        Speaking of the MSM, what is your favorite source to check? Yesterday, I was troubled by some lacunae in the account of the Russian warplane that had been shot down by Turkey. I wondered whether a recording of the warnings broadcast to the Russian plane could be listened to somewhere, and what language they were in (Russian? Turkish? English?). I did a crude search, but did not find an answer. (Today, the recording has been released, but from what I heard of it, it is barely understandable as English.)

        By the way, I learn a lot from your commenters too (e.g., in this case, Yokel).

        • Most interesting news from the Netherlands appears in English in at least an abbreviated form. is a good place to start.

      • That was a fine example of a bitch-slap. Clearly you have some history with Mr. Spahn, however he makes one valid point. It would not have taken hours to link to a published news source for this material. Isn’t that sort of ‘Blogging 101′?

        Just sayin’ is all.

        • That said, I have no trouble accepting the veracity of this post. I admire Geert Wilders and have donated to the PVV in his support even though I’m in the states. He’s a champion of freedom, perhaps the equal in intellect and courage to our founding fathers…nothing like the dreck we have to choose from today.

        • I don’t have a published source. I received the text on a document with the PVV letterhead. It is authentic.

          • Thanks for the tip about as a source of news in English about goings-on in Holland. And thanks for verifying that source was Wilder’s party.

            I just now tried a “MSM” search on “Wilders court case” and found this news of his acquittal:

            This Jerusalem Post article is pretty cursory — it’s only seven sentences long — but maybe it was just meant as a bulletin.

            The reference to “bitch-slap” above taxes my knowledge of slang and powers of metaphor interpretation (who’s the bitch? isn’t “bitch” kind of disrespectful? who is the slapper and who is the slappee? what constitutes the slap?); I’ll just ignore it as not worth the brain-power to try to understand it.

          • Mark Spahn’s link to a Geert Wilders story is dated 6/23/2011. It refers to a PREVIOUS trial of Mr. Wilders, in which he was acquitted.

          • This is his third trial. The Openbaar Ministerie will continue prosecuting him on one pretext or another until they get a conviction.

        • Rick-

          That was meant to be irony. Mostly I read the emails Mr. Spahn sends to his list and we are sometimes included.

          I thought it was clear that the letter from the PVV was our source. As for checking the MSM, that is for sure a futile mission…which I thought my sarcasm made clear.

          But since it is possible to look on Dutch sites – as the Baron pointed out – I thought Google News would have those if one searched from there.

          I’m not sure what such a slap entails either, but I assure you that even if I knew how to perform such a thing, it’s not my style. Poking fun is though.

          • bitch-slap


            To deliver a stinging blow to (someone), typically in order to humiliate them.

            It’s not literally a physical blow and there need not be a bitch involved. See also: To hand one their [posterior region].

          • Hello, Dymphna. My sarcasm detector sometimes malfunctions, as it did in this case. My MSM search for Wilders news led to a Jerusalem Post article which, as momodoom points out, refers to a *previous* acquittal of Wilders; what misled me was the date in its upper-left, “11.27.2015 15 Kislev, 5775”, which is today’s date, not the date when the article first appeared. I overlooked the dateline toward the center of the screen, which reads “By REUTERS\ 6/23/2011 10:48”. My poor reading comprehension!

  6. Of course Mr Wilders is entirely correct in politely seeking a fair trial in this manner. Regrettably, the judiciary in Western nations since the late 1970’s and early 80’s have, in large but not yet complete measure, become mere instruments of administrative/political policy as opposed to bodies exercising jurisprudence.

    Recall that one of the judges in Mr Wilders last “hate speech” trial was overheard, prior to the trial, at a dinner party telling somebody that Wilders was a “goner”, ie the decision to convict him had already been made before his trial commenced. The “overhearer” was not allowed by the Court to give evidence of what he had overheard. And the Court declined to permit Wilder’s defense team to subpoena the “somebody” to be compelled to appear in court to give evidence of what the judge had said to him.

    In the 1980’s “judicial activist” judges were applauded as bold harbingers of a new era of judicial decision-making. Oh what a brave new world it would be if only judges weren’t mostly white heterosexual men who generally had attained their appointments through a professional pedigree of being decent judges and had a record of applying judicial probity irrespective of their personal views. We in the West are now living with the results of that approbation of judicial activism.

    Take a look at the composition of the current Supreme Court of the USA and the saga of the proposed appointments to it such as that of Robert Bork. So vicious and underhanded was the Left’s successful thwarting of Bork’s appointment to the SCOTUS that a new word was coined: Borking. Then there was Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, whose appointment was ratified by Senate 52 to 48. With no disrespect to a jurist of his undoubted distinction, one suspects that if he had been white, a bare majority of the US Senate would have voted against him because of his conservative record.

    There is a Sonia Sotomayor, appointed to the SCOTUS solely because she was “a woman of colour”; as if such could possibly qualify any person to be a good judge. There is a NYC lesbian who was appointed to the SCOTUS simply because she was a high profile lesbian lawyer – she had previously held no judicial position whatsoever. She hadn’t even ever actually practised law – she only ever been a legal academic or bureaucrat.

    And, lest anybody think I’m being “sexist” or “homophobic”, read the leading decision of the nonsensical gobbledlygook opinion of the male, heterosexual, SCOTUS judge (his name escapes me momentarily) on the gay marriage case. It is a masterpiece of illogicality and political agenda implementation.

  7. Mr. Wilders and his Party for Freedom should be prosecuting the judge and the Public Prosecutor for treason against the Netherlands.

    No matter how democratic and liberal, societies cannot allow ideas that threaten their very existence–suicide pact ideas–to have free reign. What is the point in doing anything if you allow toxic ideas to destroy that same effort? You could reply: Freedom to say and think anything is the supreme human rights ethic. This would be an oxymoron, however, because some ideas would forbid you from doing this–more than once.

    So preventing suicide–surviving–has to always be superior to any other ethic.

    Ergo, we can’t tolerate Islam in a modern liberal democracy.

  8. Geert Wilders is a beacon of light exposing the irrationality which has once again overtaken the West from its roots in Marxism, which spurned the Enlightenment and placed the worship of a Secular Utopia above common sense. Islam is, was and always will be completely irrational. So on both sides we are engulfed in madness.

    Where is the land that gave protection to Descartes and Spinoza?

    • DiMu – As I was, you’re another victim of The Big Dutch Lie. Having lost my innocence about the Dutch some years ago via Arthur Legger’s essay I now keep it bookmarked for the times when we need an authority on Dutch history to give us the real deal on “Why Spinoza Was Not Murdered”…

      If you like to think of Holland as the cradle of free speech and the Enlightenment, don’t read this.

      ‘Nobody needs permission beforehand to publish by print
      thoughts or feelings – while taking into consideration
      every person’s responsibility according to the law.’

      (Article 7, Dutch Constitution)

      Again the ruthless reflex sets in. Because that lies at the core of our Dutch character: the social annihilation of the deviating individual –including a neat political murder, every now and then (we never go after a group, that is not done after our very active partaking in the Holocaust).

      The latest news on the chronicle of the death foretold of right wing parliamentarian Geert Wilders, infamous for his bleached haircut from outer space, is that the CEOs of Dutch multinationals fear loss of profit because of Fitna. The Movie. Wilders gained notoriety because of his wish to ban the Koran and his severe criticism of islam in comparison with “our shared Dutch heritage of Humanism and Enlightenment, as it was successfully proclaimed by our highly esteemed Spinoza”. The captains of industry state that Wilders’ movie will prove too critical and, hence, will harm their age-old connections and business in the Arabic world and Indonesia (a former Dutch colony).

      The highly successful and erudite lawyer Gerard Spong, a very nice fellow from Surinam (independent in 1975), is hired to sue Wilders: “For irresponsibly damaging Dutch interests”. It almost goes without saying that many of these directors, managers and members of the board have been key members of the public service, previous Cabinets included, or will be in future times. The Union of IT Businessmen In The East (FME) strongly seconds their concern: “The real problem is that Wilders’ movie fits a pattern of confrontation: the Danish cartoons; the war in Iraq. The movie might prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back” (Intermediair 11, 13 March 2008). “Wilders, don’t do it!” prays Bernard Wientjes, the chairman of the VNO-NCW (Union of Dutch Business). “Surely you know that when it really counts the reverend is always traded for the businessman” (The Volkskrant, 15 March 2008). [my emphasis -D]

      The rest of that essay is written in the same style of High Irony. Mr. Legger is Dutch after all. Such a style makes the horrors of Dutch internal politics immediately comprehensible. I guarantee you: read his essay all the way through and you will never see The Netherlands in the same light again. Further, you will realize even more fully the utter heroicism of Wilders in his willingness to swim in those shark-infested waters.

      Another snip from Mr Legger:

      …Many historians have wondered about the lack of Dutch policemen during the 17th, 18th and early 19th Century. Only one or two “sheriffs” covered major cities such as Amsterdam or Rotterdam. However, there was hardly any need for this profession: the social net of the Dutch State Church, the regents and their vertical linkage, the municipality, the extended family and the neighbours was inescapable. Nearly always the accused were caught. The every day threat of social annihilation was very real. And there, where people like Locke flourished, social and religious critics such as the Koerbagh brothers, unfortunately writing in Dutch, were starved to death in dungeons.

      So where there are still pockets of genuine liberty elsewhere, not so in lands ruled by the despotic House of Orange. They have instead “controlled tolerance”.

  9. The first to feel the loss of freedom of expression were Christians (if they have any in the Netherlands), they had their opinions and lifestyles criminalized because of the laws surrounding the protection of gay rights, which by the feminist lobby and secular claimed that faith should be something private, symbols should be banned, and any religious belief or philosophical conviction based on religion should be banned; secularism in the open for a society that should not transmit any value, but if let free to convey your own values ​​based on anything; that was not Christian course. I’ve said it here before and I say again. I have nothing against the Dutch, but they were fools, like many secularists in Europe, that when Sartre style, they wanted to get out of public life influences of moral conduct based on Judeo-Christian precepts. Of course! I do not say this seeing that the same process may have occurred in this way in the Netherlands, but something similar at least should have been.

    For example, hate speech based on sexual orientation; now gentlemen! We all know that Christians teach a type of conduct, and a kind of moral precepts which follow and that such conduct consigns a company with principles, with conservative principles. If you make an unquestionable conduct, and immune to criticism, even the mildest of criticism, then automatically people of a different conduct, but interacting with these people; if Christians, when they are interacting to say that sexual conduct is reprehensible and consigns a mistake, automatically the law will penalize these people, and your opinion is immediately transformed into crime. Throughout Europe the anti-discrimination laws, which we call anti-belief laws, made Christianity and the spread of the Christian faith hate crime. Courts prohibit display of religious images, or any things related to religion. See that are not opinions, are images that may be offensive to the susceptibility of homosexuals, idiots militant atheists or radical feminists.

    Wilders may not know this because he is a liberal fruit of European secularism, but this criminalization of opinion is not new, it started way back when politicians decided to introduce anti-discrimination laws to spare reproach of minorities. To start with that crap of militant secularism, where everything is related to Christianity must be boycotted: either images or books in order to spread the Christian faith, everything related to Christianity was offensive to homosexuals, blacks, feminists and stupid atheists . See that everything is permissible in the Netherlands, less criticize these minorities: this is the fruit of Cultural Marxism, that even though the Dutch are not so politically correct, their judges and the media are politically correct. If Christianity is religion is to be private nature, being banned from all public places without mercy, the opinion of a person should also be of private nature. I find very contradictory that the Dutch and the rest of Europe feel bad for these kinds of laws, because they themselves blatantly defended the ban on opinion of Christians, relegating religion to the private use, away from public roads.

    In my opinion the Dutch live in a liberal secular society, but a society away from the Cultural Marxism, which creates this kind of situation where every opinion by susceptible minorities account is taken as prejudice and discrimination. Before a Christian to issue an unfavorable opinion on homosexuality, and were punished for it, society would not find it wrong, would find out, because it is politically incorrect to be against homosexuality, even with a lenient view of the matter, as is the Gospel message . You see that this situation would be limited, if it were only this case, but as this politically correct now headed Muslims, now the problem becomes more severe and more worrying, “Oh my God! Our views are being criminalized, “it is the opinion of you is being criminalized, but you were secularists who started criminalizing and supporting the criminalization of Christianity.

    • Religion should be a private matter, insofar as believers should of course be allowed to express their views (excluding incitement to actual hatred or violence), but not to impose them on others. If all Muslims understood this, they’d be easier to live with!

      • You might find it interesting to read through the reports of the UN Special Rapporteurs. What you are saying is, legally speaking, quite correct.

        If you take a gander at the recent article here at GoV about Cameron’s ‘battle of ideas’ you will find one such document cited, for example.

        We could all be doing with reading up on these reports, so that we can quote chapter and verse on the subject of freedom of speech and freedom of religion whenever we have to.

    • Ronnie, if I’m not mistaken you write your comments in Portuguese and then let Google translate them into English so you can post them here. As a result the reader can tell what you are writing about, but not always what you sincerely mean to say. With Google’s help, you called Geert Wilders [“a liberal fruit…”]. Yes, I know this taken out of context. But as a reader of your comments, I think you have a lot to say that isn’t coming through. Keep working on your English my brother, Google Translate isn’t doing you a lot of favors.

  10. What sort of country has the Netherlands become? This is the sort of script from their justice department and judges that I’d expect to see coming from Burma or North Korea.

    • Its not just Holland, Tommy Robinson was imprisoned in UK for obviously trumped up charges, Lord Mandelsohn however had committed the same crime and got away with it.

    • This does illustrate one reason why we should fight for the continued existence of Common Law. Mr Wilders is fighting against a Napoleonic legal system. The court vets all the evidence and decides what the defendant is allowed to say, what evidence they are allowed to produce, and which expert witnesses they are allowed to bring into court.

      In the name of administrative efficiency, the Common Law freedom to prepare and conduct one’s own defence is now under attack in England. Expert witnesses must now be court approved and agreed between the parties. For an example of how this squeezes out the “non compliant” have a look for the case of paediatric pathologist Waney Squier. . Basically the police are trying to prevent this doctor from giving evidence that may lead to them losing cases.

      The role of the judge was originally to decide between competing evidence put before them. Now they are deciding what evidence may be put before them. The “rule of law” and the blindness of justice are both on their last legs.

      • “The role of the judge was originally to decide between competing evidence put before them. Now they are deciding what evidence may be put before them.”

        That insight does an excellent job of boiling this discourse to the root of the problem in the Dutch system of justice.

        In similar fashion, in the US ‘originally the civil rights movement was about equal opportunity, now it’s about equal outcome.’

      • You are correct about the Common Law system, but in every jurisdiction around the world modeled off it, the whole notion of the Defence or a party being able to adduce the evidence they wish is being eroded under the name of efficiency. In one Australian court this was done about 7 years ago by the introduction of the Orwellian-named “Less Adversarial Trial” (“LAT”) system, which was designed with one purpose in mind: to give judges more power to clear their dockets more quickly by speeding up trials and making them shorter.

    That’s just begging, when he should have been demanding!
    WHAT 39?? What do they say? Where are they??
    This is the age of the internet and the rapid and COMPLETE transmission of all information. EACH and EVERY one of the 39 “requests” should have been relisted and publicized as DEMANDS! Each and every one of them should be fought for PUBLICALLY and each and every single denial should AGAIN be fought as the tyranny that it is.
    “NO” is simply not an acceptable response.
    They should be fought for until the country could recite each and every one of them by heart verbatim. Ad nauseum if need be.
    NEVER concede a point.
    NEVER quit.
    Time to bring down the temple–since it seems about ready (on its own accord) to fall either to PC or Islam–or BOTH at once. He has more moral standing than the whole of “the chamber”, and I think his country knows it.
    We all like Wilders, but HE is the one on the side of History, and it is about damn time that he behaves like he know it.

    In the battle to defeat our Islamic enemy, it appears we must FIRST defeat THEIR defenders on our own side.

    Well then, let’s GET TO IT!

    • It’s not ‘begging’ at all, it’s a strategic opening statement, which requires his persecutors to demonstrate that their authority is legitimate.

      I was watching The Sopranos last night, Season 4, episode 2, No Show, and as Tony tells Christopher after they’d jacked a load of fibre optic cable from a big job site, ‘Think big picture!’ … if you see what I mean.

  12. “What kind of country are we living in?!”

    As you know, mr Wilders, you’re living in the beginnings of a Muslim hellhole. That’s what sort of country you are, unfortunately, living in. The main problem is that those in power either don’t know, or don’t care as long as they benefit somehow.

    • They only think they are going to benefit, because they think the poor oppressed minorities will love them and be oh so grateful to them for sticking up for them during the reign of oppressive whitey. But they are delusional. We all know that, but they are definitely going to find out the hard way.

      The people they think they’re standing up for and believe will show them gratitude, thereby stoking THEIR racism and feeding their messiah complex, see them exactly as we see them. They are traitorous scum who can never be trusted, and will never be trusted.

      Once they one of their own in power, instead of these pale white mealy mouthed racists who treat them like children and expect adulation and respect in return, the night of the long knives won’t be far away.

      And it will be a happy day for many people when the minorities they love so much and expect to be oh so grateful to them start cutting their heads off with bread knives – talk about poetic justice eh. Small comfort for the rest of us by that stage, of course, but still …

  13. Geert Wilders as a Galileo or Bruno of the XXI. century? – I hope not. Vindicating him centuries after his death would be terribly late. Certainly the will not burn him at stake these times. Or will they?

  14. One thought that keeps coming to my mind is why virtually all Western, civilised countries, almost simultaneously, have introduced the fake crime of hate speech? Not one of these countries was sane enough to reject this legislation and call it what it is; namely, part of a marxist assault on us and our way of life. The same thought also applies to same sex laws and mass swamping by barbaric invaders. For me, this all tends to point to an international conspiracy; it’s not fanciful thinking, it’s here and it’s actively destroying us. Long may Mr Wilders survive and prosper.

    • “One thought that keeps coming to my mind is why virtually all Western, civilised countries, almost simultaneously, have introduced the fake crime of hate speech? …For me, this all tends to point to an international conspiracy”

      Actually, there’s nothing mysterious or even secret about it. In 2005, the OIC (Organization for Islamic Cooperation, a neo-Caliphate of 57 Muslim countries) developed a 10-year plan to implement sharia by making criticism of Islam illegal. You can read all about it in “Catastrophic Failure” by Stephen Coughlin

      The US Secretary of State at the time,Hilary Clinton, had a secret 3-day meeting with the OIC leadership, and committed the US to support UN resolutions criminalizing criticism of Islam. The entire process is fully documented and not in the least secret.

  15. My best wishes to Geert Wilders, and also to Gates of Vienna for being such a reliable source of news about what’s going on re the barbarians at the Gates, news that isn’t deemed worthy enough by the coopted MSM. To parody the New York Times motto, the MSM’s motto is: “All the news that’s fit to print, and if it’s news we don’t like or approve of, then it never happened.”

  16. Geert Wilders is simply telling the truth, giving a warning, he is a brave man and deserves our support.

  17. Multiculturalism has failed again, and it’s dragging one more Democracy with it down the drain just to collapse into yet another dysfunctional cruel Islamic drek Loche.

  18. Terrifying. What a travesty! Never long on history, I’ve learnt more about the Netherlands here on GoV than I ever did in school.

    The Dutch have always been known for being stubborn, but Mr Wilders is taking it to new heights battling against that den of arrogant, corrupt, loathsome traitors.

  19. I see Coughlin cited in a comment above. His work should be required reading for those few of us Americans who can see that Caliphate as the threat it truly is.

    It is our families, neighbors, and coworkers who support the assinine policies that allow PC and dhimmi behavior to spread bot here and in the EU.

    As Bill Whittle stated, we are the Rebel Alliance.

    We must act as such.

    • The word from the Rebel Alliance: “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”

  20. The face of the NMO … the maggoty, whingey, sanctimonious, butthurt bureaucrat looking for any way possible to make life poisonous and unlivable.

  21. How can it be that Geert Wilder’s is facing prosecution for speaking out for the majority of Dutch citizens (and most of Europe too) whilst Frau Merkel in pursuit of her “vision” remains free, a woman who has single handedly ruined the continent financially, culturally and jeopardised its safety for decades yet to come? Should he be convicted I would hope that the Netherlands would grind to a halt with demonstrations on his behalf. Whilst this goes on the EU announced it has reopened negotiations with Turkey regarding its membership application! Sheer LUNACY!

  22. I feel sick to my stomach reading this.
    The real sadness is at some time people will have had enough and they’ll list the abusers here and what they are doing, who they are, where they live, where their families are.
    Then they’ll cull them and get demonised and the media and the organs of state will chant and fume.
    When it is actually their fault. every senior Judge, Policeman, security official, member of parliament, all of them.
    The first rule of leadership is “protect the people” the 2nd is “create and environment that they can thrive”.
    That’s why leftists can never succeed as they want to control, not set free, because they know better.

Comments are closed.