Geert Wilders on Trial Again: “I Cannot Take Back the Truth”

Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, is currently enduring his third trial for “hate speech”. The first time a mistrial was declared after it was revealed that one of the judges may have attempted to suborn one of the defense witnesses. The second time Mr. Wilders was acquitted.

This time he is being prosecuted for asking his supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in their country. Due to security concerns, the trial is taking place in a high-security courtroom at Schiphol Airport.

The proceedings opened on Friday, September 23. Below is a video of Mr. Wilders’ opening statement to the court. Many thanks to Dr. Van Helsing for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


00:01   Mister President, members of this court, public prosecutors.
00:08   Yesterday and the day before yesterday the Dutch parliament debated the 2017 budget.
00:15   Usually, that debate is the highlight of the political year.
00:20   Unlike the leaders of other political parties,
00:23   who are probably only getting out of bed right now,
00:26   I had a second task: to prepare myself for a hearing in criminal court.
00:34   I had to read the papers that my lawyer had prepared for today,
00:37   in order to discuss those with him and prepare my own statement.
00:40   Like the many hours I have spent during months preparing for this dreadful trial.
00:48   I do not hesitate to repeat what I have said before: I have no idea
00:54   what I am doing here. I have no reason to be here in this court.
01:01   What did I do? I asked my voters if they wanted more or fewer Moroccans
01:05   [‘Moroccans’ refers to Dutch people of Moroccan descent, usually male youngsters].
01:09   I didn’t go as far as our Prime Minister.
01:13   I didn’t tell the Moroccans to get lost, as Prime Minister Rutte did,
01:18   several times even. That has been allowed.
01:23   Nor did I say, as Mr. Samson [leader of the Labour Party] did, that Moroccan youth have an
01:27   ethnic monopoly on being nuisances, or that they have to be humiliated, as Mr. Spekman
01:31   [chairman of the Labour Party] did.
01:34   I have not called them names, like Mr. Oudkerk [a former MP for the Labour Party] did,
01:38   who called them ‘s*** Moroccans’.
01:42   I only asked: ‘Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?’ I did not say ‘get lost’,
01:46   ‘s*** Moroccans’ or ‘they need to be humiliated’.
01:49   Nevertheless, I am the one who has to stand trial, and not Prime Minister Rutte, Mr. Samson,
01:54   Mr. Spekman or Mr. Oudkerk. They are not on trial here.
02:00   Undoubtedly, the prosecution will have some sophisticated legal reasoning
02:03   for that distinction, but the people don’t understand this at all.
02:06   Why is it okay to call them ‘s*** Moroccans’, to say ‘get lost’ and ‘humiliate them’,
02:12   but asking the public, your own voters, if they want
02:18   more or fewer Moroccans will land you in criminal court?
02:25   That is strange. I haven’t yet mentioned a former member of the cabinet, Mr. Eurlings,
02:29   a Christian Democrat, a member of the Dutch Olympic Committee,
02:33   who is being charged, according to the newspapers, with physical abuse,
02:37   which is a crime. He doesn’t have to appear in court.
02:43   It is not out of envy that I bring this up, but, according to the newspapers,
02:47   he is spared a criminal trial and he is offered mediation or a fine
02:52   or alternative penalty, without the intervention of a criminal judge.
02:57   Talk about class justice!
03:01   When you are member of the Freedom Party and a member of the opposition,
03:04   and you ask the public a question, you are toast.
03:07   But for a member of the Dutch Olympic Committee, a former cabinet member,
03:11   a Christian Democrat, a Labour Party member or a Prime Minister of the Netherlands,
03:14   there seems to be a much wider margin of tolerance. There are probably legal grounds
03:19   for that distinction, but not a single soul in the Netherlands understands those grounds.
03:22   Could it be that the prosecution is employing a double standard?
03:27   One who challenges the system, a politician
03:31   who is a member of the opposition, does have to stand trial.
03:34   Let me be clear: I believe that what I have said is not a crime.
03:40   Nor would I like to see Mr. Rutte, Mr. Samson, Mr. Spekman and Mr. Oudkerk stand trial.
03:46   I believe that they, too, should be able to speak their minds,
03:49   and that it is right that they have not been tried.
03:52   I cannot understand, however, that I do have to stand trial,
03:56   while they don’t have to. I don’t get it.
04:01   I stand here, as I said last time Mr. President, to represent all those Dutch citizens
04:06   who see their country perish. Do not silence their voices by silencing me, and do not silence me.
04:16   More than 43% of the Dutch population want fewer Moroccans, Mr. President.
04:22   That figure represents millions of people. Four, five or even six million people.
04:29   I wouldn’t say that a large number of people is in itself proof of the soundness of ideas,
04:33   or that ideas couldn’t be criminal, but these people are not racists.
04:36   Those 43% of the populations are not racists. These people aren’t creeps,
04:42   but ordinary people of all walks of life. People from different backgrounds.
04:48   People who pay their taxes, which pay for your salary — and mine too, by the way.
04:54   People who fix your car. People who paint the public prosecutor’s house.
05:00   People who deliver your mail every day, who collect your garbage.
05:06   Just ordinary, regular folks, who are fed up with those who
05:10   create nuisance, the way Moroccan youngsters do.
05:14   What would be the message of this court to all these regular, everyday people,
05:19   these millions of people, if this court doesn’t stop this trial,
05:24   while none of the other people I mentioned before are being prosecuted?
05:29   The people will not understand it. They will see it as a lack of justice,
05:33   and will consider the prosecution dishonest, because it prosecutes some but not others.
05:38   How is it possible to prosecute someone two days after a Supreme Court verdict is given,
05:45   and apply that verdict to statements that were made before the date of that verdict?
05:54   How is this possible? It is a joke, if I may say so.
06:01   For twelve years I have had to live under police protection, day and night.
06:09   I receive death threats from Islamic fanatics, domestic and foreign, among them many Moroccans,
06:14   sadly enough (you can read the many reports I filed with the police).
06:19   Why is that? Because I fight Islam, because I believe Islam
06:23   is incompatible with our laws and our liberty.
06:28   Because I speak freely about Moroccans when there are reasons to do so.
06:32   I feel the urge to speak out and defend our laws. To be an advocate
06:36   for ordinary people. I believe that you should do that too.
06:40   You, too, have the task of defending those people. If you don’t do it for me, do it for them.
06:44   You have the power to do this and to end the charade of this political trial today.
06:54   I never said that all Moroccans should ‘get lost’, unlike our Prime Minister,
06:58   who used those words in relationship to Moroccans — or Turks, I believe.
07:03   I made explicit again and again, after and before the statement that landed me here,
07:08   how we are going to do this and for whom, fewer Moroccans.
07:14   The prosecution takes my statement out of its context.
07:19   The context has been, since I left my former party and started the Freedom Party,
07:24   that I plan to do this by closing the borders for immigrants from Islamic countries.
07:29   This includes Moroccans. That is the way it is.
07:34   I said that I want them to return to their country of origin, voluntarily.
07:38   Convicted criminals with dual citizenship should be stripped of their Dutch citizenship
07:42   after they have served their sentences, and be deported. I told the Prime Minister this
07:48   again this week. It applies of course to criminals from all foreign countries.
07:51   Sweden too, for example, although we don’t have that many criminal Swedes in our country.
07:55   I cannot understand why that is not happening already, regardless of the nationality. I am stunned.
08:00   That is the context of the statement that triggered this trial.
08:03   This context is much bigger than that. It is Dutch society as a whole.
08:07   The reality of today is the context. The fact that non-Western people
08:12   are overrepresented in crime is the context.
08:16   The terror of gangs in our streets, which people suffer day after day, is the context.
08:21   Ordinary people like you and me. Even people more ordinary than you and me, that is the context.
08:26   The wish ‘fewer, fewer, fewer’ is an expression of
08:29   what those millions, 43% of the population, want.
08:32   It is a desire about demographics. Why would such a desire be a crime?
08:39   If that were to be illegal, in what sort of country would we be living in?
08:46   Especially when we are talking about culture, about violence and crime.
08:52   There was a time — and I am sure you know this — that this country had a Prime Minister
08:58   — Mr. Drees [Willem Drees, 1950s] — who aimed to reduce the population of the Dutch.
09:04   The Netherlands was too crowded during his term in office. His government —
09:08   in which the Labour Party took part — actively encouraged
09:12   the emigration of Dutch people. Not immigration but emigration.
09:15   Dutch people were encouraged to leave our country. Many did emigrate,
09:21   helped by the government. Government-organized emigration.
09:27   Many left for Australia, Canada and other countries. I don’t get it that ‘fewer, fewer Dutchmen’
09:32   can be government policy, and is not considered hate speech or discriminatory,
09:38   while ‘fewer, fewer, fewer Moroccans’ is not acceptable.
09:44   It is a demographic desire. Sometimes the desire comes from the government,
09:48   sometimes it comes from politicians. What is wrong about that?
09:52   If you do not end this trial — and you can stop it, Mr. President, members of this court —
09:57   what is the message you send to all those regular,
10:03   hard-working Dutch people who are fed up with crime and nuisance?
10:09   Hardworking people who pay for the welfare benefits for Moroccans.
10:14   The fact is that 25% of this group is on welfare.
10:19   What is your message for teenage girls, who are afraid to be out in public alone?
10:26   Daughters of common, ordinary people. Who are afraid because they are being harassed by
10:30   Moroccan street thugs. It happens every day. I am not making this up. It happens.
10:33   Which message do you send to those people who saw their kids’ bedroom struck by bullets,
10:39   after another shootout by a Moroccan street gang?
10:45   What is your message for the jeweller who went out of business
10:48   after being robbed by Moroccan criminals once too often?
10:51   What is your message for the victims of all those ‘Dutch’ persons who travelled to Syria to fight?
10:57   You might know that 80% of these travellers are of Moroccan descent.
11:04   Your message — if you let this trial proceed — is crystal clear. It says: we will let you down.
11:10   Don’t count on us, the enforcers of the law. Nor count on the bench.
11:17   You cannot say what you think, you cannot say what you feel, but foremost,
11:21   you cannot say what you want to say. We are done with liberty in this country.
11:25   Your message will be: your freedom of speech will be curtailed. It will be sacrificed
11:30   because the truth happens to be unpleasant.
11:36   Because it could be politically incorrect and therefore unbearable.
11:42   And in that case it should not be allowed to be spoken.
11:45   Imagine that you speak the truth and it isn’t convenient!
11:48   Mr. President, the criminal prosecution of people who hold opinions like this
11:53   is beneath the dignity of the Netherlands.
11:58   This has nothing to do with racism, or hate-mongering.
12:03   I don’t judge people by their colour. The word ‘hate’ is unknown to me.
12:11   Millions of Dutch people share my hope that you will end this charade. End this political trial.
12:19   I’ve been elected to do my job as a representative, not to spend half of my time to work with
12:23   lawyers and stand here, even with such competent lawyers.
12:28   I not only hope, but I expect it. Because I refuse to believe, perhaps even against all the odds,
12:34   that in the Netherlands freedom of speech has been abolished when it comes to truth.
12:41   That a member of parliament, especially one of the opposition, unlike a Prime Minister,
12:48   a former cabinet member, or a member of a governing party, is silenced
12:54   by the use of criminal prosecutors — look at them sitting over there!
13:01   Criminal prosecution as a tool of political power.
13:05   That can never be the purpose of the legal system in the Netherlands?!
13:09   I say to you: whatever choice you make, I have no regrets for what I have said.
13:14   Because I spoke the truth. I cannot take back the truth.
13:19   I will take responsibility for my words. Of course, because that is the way it ought to be.
13:25   But I will not be held responsible by you, but by the Dutch people. And with your permission,
13:29   I will do that on March 15, next year. [Date of the next general election.]
13:34   Thank you.

31 thoughts on “Geert Wilders on Trial Again: “I Cannot Take Back the Truth”

  1. It is blood boiling the smug faces of those judges. I would love to know what is going on their heads while listening to Geert. Or maybe they not listening at all and they just thinking about the blood money they will receive or maybe a pet on the head from their masters?

    • Strangely enough I think I saw a different mindset. That of secretly agreeing and wondering “how will historians judge us for this sham trial, do we want to be seen as the post-modern heirs of Roland Freisler”?

      I suspect.

      All it would take for the entire façade to unwravel is for a single one of them to say what is on their mind.

      But like most of them (myself included) they lack the courage. We are fortunate that some, like Wilders, don’t.

      However, we all do our bit as we can.

      • Very good comment. I have to agree with you on your interpretation of their expressions. Geert really is a hero of the people, and not just Dutch people. He is one of the truly outspoken that can say when the inevitable happens “that with great regret, I told you so”. Tragically, by that time it will be way too late for all of Europe.

        • It’s already too late for Europe, he’s on trial (others too like Tommy R.) because Eurostan is pro Islamic and leaders want everyone to comply with sharia law. Citizens have no freedom to speak out or right to self defense. European patriots need to pack up and leave their country unless it’s already too late and they can’t. The enemy is now in charge and running the show.

          • Sadly, Laura Ann, I don’t think our Western leaders are “pro-Islamic” so much as they are “anti-middle class” – and that trope goes back to the very beginnings of the phenomenon of the middle class as it emerged right after the turn of the 20th century.

            As I have often recommended, I urge you to read Fred Siegel’s explanation:

            The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class


            America can save Europe by giving it back its hope. That’s why Geert Wilders showed up at Trump’s political convention. He knows how important the US is for the future of the West.

            Look at the reviews and you’ll see what I mean by my assertions Here’s a long comment but it explains the importance of this book. Here’s one reviewer, but bear in mind he made his case well before the advent of Donald Trump, the quintessential billionaire middle-class American. (Eltitist, Trump ia not):

            The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism has Undermined the Middle Class is one of the most important books written about American politics in the past fifty years.

            The author, Fred Siegel, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a think tank that focuses on urban policy and politics. He also serves as a professor of history and the humanities at Cooper Union and is a contributor to numerous publications…

            The Revolt Against the Masses tells the story of how what some think of as liberalism is, in fact, a form of arrogant elitism modeled on an American form of aristocracy long associated with European statism.

            “Today’s brand of liberalism, led by Barack Obama, has displaced the old Main Street private-sector middle class with a new middle class composed of public-sector workers allied with crony capitalists and the country’s arbiters of elite style and taste,” the book reveals.

            Siegel describes how the American left turned away from its progressive roots between WWI and WWII, espousing a cynical and anti-American attitude that embraced experts and despised democracy and the average man. Siegel writes that the liberalism that emerged from 1919, taking its cue from H.L. Mencken, who sided with Germany in WWI and labeled Americans who supported “Wilson’s War” as “boobs” and “peasants” was “contemptuous of American culture and politics.” He added:

            For the liberals, the war years had revealed that American society and democracy were themselves agents of repression. These sentiments deepened during the 1920s and have been an ongoing undercurrent in liberalism ever since. … For liberals, the great revelation of 1919 that they carried into the 1920s was that middle-class society at large, and not just the Bible Belters with their restrictive mores, was to blame for their subjugation. Their disdain for Main Street was matched by their contempt for the detritus of urban popular culture.

            The Revolt Against the Masses tells the story of the leaders of modern American liberalism–Herbert Croly, Randolph Bourne, H.G. Wells, Sinclair Lewis, and Mencken–who sought to discard America’s most sacred principles of democracy and the rule of law for a bastardized version of European elitism, with decisions made by experts and social scientists.

            The Revolt Against the Masses also identifies modern exponents of the new liberal elitism, influential figures such as John Kenneth Galbraith, who, “more than any other liberal, was able to meld the two central strands of 1920s liberalism: a Menkenesque contempt for the burghers and an undue regard for technocrats who cloaked their prejudices in the language of social science.”


            The notion of free-market capitalism driving the growth of the US economy and the American dream after WWII was a convenient fiction. Behind this facade, generations of liberal political operatives worked to realize the dreams of a society led by an enlightened elite with heroic overtones that bear close resemblance to the fascist era of 1920s Europe. Men like Herbert Crowley, editor and co-founder of “The New Republic”, advanced the ideal of a secular priesthood that would Europeanize America. He envisioned an elite vanguard of intellectuals, writers and scientists who would not be swayed by outmoded ideas of popular democracy and individual freedom. And the mechanism for advancing the new liberal agenda was government.

            Both liberals and conservatives alike need to read The Revolt Against the Masses. For conservatives, this book provides ample ammunition to use it, characterizing and countering the attacks of the liberal elite against people of faith, small business, and civil libertarians–the three pillars of a future conservative majority. Every conservative in Congress and across America needs to read The Revolt Against the Masses.

            For liberals and those who call themselves “progressives,” however, The Revolt Against the Masses is an equally important resource. Siegel describes how the ideals of 19th Century Progressivism were hijacked a century ago by an arrogant elite who despise working people and enrich themselves at public expense. Barack Obama is the ultimate example of this elitist tendency in American politics.

            The majority of Americans who call themselves conservatives–and liberals–will be shocked and outraged by many of the revelations in this concise and well-written book.

            It is concise. Requires no particular expertise to grasp his theses. You will come away with a changed view of how things have operated for several generations now…

  2. Mr. Wilders is on trial for more or less Moroccans, as these Moroccans are nothing more than economic refugees migrating to the Netherlands for benefits.
    Keep in mind that Morocco is not under threat of war or any other oppression. It is a muslim country that abhors Christians or any non muslim religion. But that doesn’t mean that hundreds of thousands should invade the post christian west.
    In many respects, I find this personally understandable.

  3. How many Christians disappeared during the islamisation of their countries? I guess millions. I think about former Bizantine empire, about North Africa, about Armenia. How many Hindus died because of Allah’s sword, and how many Jews were ethnically cleansed all over the world occupied by Muslims? How many Animists, how many adherents to free thought, how many atheists? The interaction between Islam and non-Islam never resulted in a ” Multicultural society “. At best the non-Muslims survived the slaughter as 2nd class citizens. Knowing history, Mr Wilders wants to de- islamise Dutch society, opposing both Leftist and Islamic utopias. Millions of Dutch citizens share Mr Wilders vision. The current trial of the leader of PVV ( Party for Freedom ), Dutch main opposition party, is an attempt of the establishment to silence freedom of speech, not only of the defendant, but of a whole country. This trial is a hoax. And ” Dhimmies ” are all those indigenous Dutch citizens cheering Mr Wilders conviction.

    • Eric,

      “Disappeared” is an interesting term. In Latin America that term has been a euphemism for murdered by security forces.

      Millions? Try 80 million in India alone.

  4. Frau Merkel and her Stasi sidekick pre-sentence all dissent, there will be no end to these sham trials until Geert is either jailed, killed or stripped of his office. We can only pray that this century’s third fire, this cauldron that will soon build into a conflagration, will finally cleanse the western world of Islam.

  5. 05:38 How is it possible to prosecute someone two days after a Supreme Court verdict is given, and apply that verdict to statements that were made before the date of that verdict? How is this possible? It is a joke, if I may say so.

    Huh? A verdict is *always* applied to an event (an alleged crime) that takes place before the date of the verdict. Can anybody make sense of Wilders’s objection here?

    • I would guess that he meant, that they changed the law afterwards, to bring him before a judge, for something that he has done earlier.

      And that is not a valid code of conduct under Rule of law.
      It`s Rule by law (a political incrimination).

  6. A great man, a man of the people! Should he be prosecuted I would like to believe that public protests throughout Holland would dwarf those of those stupid (mainly young women paradoxically) demonstrators with their inane ” refugees welcome” flags.

    Mr Wilders must be able to leave this trial a free man, honour in tact or Holland has just committed cultural suicide.

  7. The Netherlands is one of the true free countries on the world that really look out for it’s people and helping others.

    You don’t have to like him or agree with him. I don’t like him nor do I agree with him.

    But he shouldn’t be criminalized for speaking his mind.
    That’s also part of freedom.

    However, he has to be held accountable for his actions and their results.

    freedom of speech implies a common sense limit.
    As well as the proper place for them and context.
    The courts will decide if he has crossed it.

    • I feel very sorry for you.
      Freedom of speech does not need a “proper place and context.”
      Freedom of speech is just that!
      You might not agree with what I have to say but…
      I have a right to say it!
      No court should be able to decide my freedom of speech.

      This will only get worse due to the commentator’s thinking.

      • Agreed. I let that comment in but thought it was our readers who ought to answer it.

        Thank you.

        Unfortunately, that is the kind of pre-approved “free-ish” progressives want to impose on us all.

      • “freedom of speech implies a common sense limit”

        While you obviously don’t pay attention, i don’t care how you feel.
        But good that you say it. Someone else will agree.

        But your [insulting characterization] doesn’t understand that the world is too big to allow , literally everything, to be said.

        Propaganda and religious fanatics (amongst others) must understand there’s an invisible line in the sand (common sense)

        Try screaming (or at least loud enough to be hear d clearly) on the street to everybody you see, saying I WILL KILL YOU, and find out how quickly the police will stop you.

        Fail that, face the consequences of your free voice.

        As a Gay man I have nearly exploded hearing people with reach using said freedom to initiate chaos, aggression, hate, and violence and even murder against (but not limited to) non heterosexuals / religious interests / ethnicity and many other singularities.

        If your ‘free speech’ includes hate or other offensive behavior towards others, you must face the consequences.

        Next time, think before running to feel sorry for something you can’t understand. Nobody cares

        • Threatening to kill others or to harm them was never intended to be “free” speech. There are laws on the books against that. But calling names, etc., is within the purview of the first amendment and was intended to be so. OTOH, expressing “hatred” without including threats is permissible, though why anyone past grade school would need to yell imprecations against another is beyond me. However, it’s the sad truth – as we see and delete every day.

          Being gay gives you no particular virtue. As we’ve sadly seen, groups of gays can and do use physical violence. They can and do gang up and bully others. If merely “hearing people with reach” (not sure what that means) makes you “nearly explode” the obvious solution for your problem is a good anger management class.

          • So basically you’re saying the same thing.

            There are obvious limits to ‘free speech’

            And extremes are even criminalized.

            But you’re right. My mistake is assuming that common sense should be common, while in truth is a commodity.

            Your words make for a good reminder and fine example.

    • freedom of speech is exactly that, and it either exists or it does not. It should be for the prosecution to prove that Wilder’s words caused actual bodily harm as the only acceptable corollary to free speech. Shouting ‘fire’ in a theater is NOT the same as asking an audience at a political meeting an emotive question.

      Do I trust the Dutch courts? Personally I have had bad experiences with Romano-Dutch law, too much power resides in the political whim of the 3 judges, and if they have been specially chosen for their leftist views then then Wilders will effectively become a political prisoner.

      • [Epithet]! Liberal lefty is the the dutch man here, stating this [material I deprecate].

        In wwII my grandfather fought in arnheim in the british parachute regiment, to free you damn dutch people!!!!

        And today i meet lots dutch, and they all seem to be leftie liberals,
        Like you [epithet], I’m sick of [epithets] like you,it was us!!! The british who gave you your freedom back after the german army took it away from you, why don’t you read some of your own history.

        Why did my family risk their lives for holland????

        You are the enemy of all decent people, wake up mr dutch, or you going be also [redacted] with your muslim […] chums.

    • Did you listen to what he said? Others said far more incendiary things and were rightly not prosecuted. He is facing a political trial of the Soviet kind. It is an utter disgrace and a stain on Dutch democracy

    • Actually, I disagree with this statement that the Netherlands is one of the true free countries on (sic) the world! I think it is one of the most ghastly
      countries in Europe, second only to the utterly ghastly France. I don’t even rate Germany since that country slid into the mire of cowardly compliance.
      “Common sense limit” indeed! Limit of three buffoons from the Left attempting to appear impartial! I snap my fingers at your common sense.
      Rather – uncommon insanity. . . . mate!

    • Dutch 76 – you think that asking a simple question about whether the people of your country would like more or fewer immigrants is justification for putting a man in court ???

      You are a totalitarian. You know perfectly well that Geert Wilders is an ordinary man expressing his concerns about what is happening to his country and to the Western world, and that he represents no threat to you whatsoever. That is why the Left feel so free to attack anybody who disagrees with them – they can accuse them of any crime and there is no risk of reprisals.

      When there is a real threat of violence, you say nothing. You attack your friends and side with your enemies, because you think that is the safe option. Soon, there will be no safety anywhere, and it will be your fault for having done nothing.

      I will fight for my family and friends, but why should the ordinary decent people of Europe lay down their lives to save you ?

  8. “I don’t get it that ‘fewer, fewer Dutchmen’ can be government policy, and is not considered hate speech or discriminatory, while ‘fewer, fewer, fewer Moroccans’ is not acceptable.”

    That might be self-loathing–part of the Leftists’ bag of neuroses.

  9. Mr. Geert Wilders,
    You have lots of support here in Canada. Many refuse to see the writing that is clearly on the wall with it comes to Islam. The censorship being forced into almost every story being (half told) by mainstream media, out lying politicians, half truths regarding the cost to bring in and harbor the refugees just so our lefty Liberal government is sure to have enough votes for the next election. We are with you Geert!

  10. I wonder how many Muslims were trialed for insulting nonmuslims or their belives?
    Surely not many, if any…

  11. What a wonderful man this man is. How courageous and wise. The Dutch including the judges lucky to have him. So many death threats for so long. He has become the major force in politics and the little cowards want to take him down. They do not wear the body armour.

  12. Geert Wilders, will be remembered in history,as we remember Martin Luther, John Calvin, Kemal Atturk . Martin Luther King, Ghandi.
    He is a true emancipist, and my good wishes go with him.

    • Good wishes for Gert Wilders.

      Also to make it known, even if in a small way, talk to family, friends, neighbours etc.
      A net work, on a blog, forum, to bring what and how you relate to Gert, alive to others.

      It is after all, ultimately a numbers game, and to get that knowledge out their for others to learn, to understand and to make decisions.

      That is what will keep him going, and others, as now and again he will get glimpses of further support in the world.

Comments are closed.