Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Wilders Amsterdam trial ~ attempt to silence masses

Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilder (R), looks at his lawyer Abraham Moszkowicz (L) during his trial in a courthouse in Amsterdam on March 16, 2011. Wilders, 47, faces five counts of giving offence to Muslims and of inciting hatred against Muslims and people of non-Western immigrant origin, particularly Moroccans, in numerous public statements since October 2006.

In the last trial the prosecution dropped the case ~ and said Wilders was within the law ~ but possibly the judges could have still ruled.

Ad it came to light that one of the judges had been discussing details of the case with an individual outside of the courtroom.

The case in itself is a trial ~ there is no law to charge Wilders. So what they are attempting to prove is that Wilders comments about Islam ~ in the public domain ~ comments made in Parliament are excluded ~ were not actually criticism of a religion ~ but racist or hateful statements toward Muslims.

One of the criticisms levelled against Wilders and that he is on trial for ~ is his comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf ~ but the Netherlands public broadcaster published a cartoon of Wilders running a Nazi concentration camp ~ it has got to be one law for all!!

How quickly people forget that they 'do' have freedom!

Moreover ~ people have criticized religion vehemently for years ~ if successful ~ could the new Dutch legal standard be used to stop criticism of all religions.


The thing those who brought Wilders to trial and possibly even the Amsterdam court ~ is attempting to stop ~ is the idea. The problem is these ideas are not only Wilders ~ France and Belgium have banned the burqa ~ several countries have set integration standards for new immigrants ~ including Switzerland ~ and it was their largely symbolic gesture of banning the minaret ~ I say symbolic, because who really cares about a minaret ~ a steeple ~ it is more what Islam in Europe has come to represent ~ which is an ideology that seeks to act directly against freedom.

It is the type of immigrant ~ who came in poor and hungry ~ who now believes they should take over ~ that their laws and not European laws should be the law of the land.


We can admire control or order, it is said that the Dutch society is the most liberal ~ but that can also mean conformity. Even though Dutch Muslims were making increasing demands on Dutch society ~ for its compliance with Islam ~ speaking out was discouraged ~ to the point where even Dutch [cultural] Muslims /or apostates became confused ~ as to whether there was going to be one law for Muslims ~ of course which they would be forced to follow and one law for everybody else. One said he feared, a Dutch person was going to say to him ~ what are you doing drinking that beer, you are a Muslim.


Perhaps instead of prosecuting those who speak out and rage against this compliance ~ we should educate Muslims on what it means to be 'free' to practise your religion. In their countries the state controls the practise of religion. And there, you can not only be imprisoned for petty crimes ~ but breaking with religious laws, taking your girlfriend to the movies, eating during Ramandan, leaving Islam ~ even for no religion at all ~ are all crimes punishable under the law. What we are sayig to Muslims ~ you are ''free'' to practise your religion ~ and they are waiting for and even craving for ~ what we would call repressive state intervention.

Then the argument goes on ~ where we can say that Islam is also a state ~ legal ~ political ~ military ~ and wherever it is Muslims try to erect it ~ like a fold up tent. And this is where some of the left in Europe ~ were seen to be toying with the idea of giving over some of rights or control, to this state. And what the people were not allowed to say ~ if Muslims are going to erect a state ~ and there are going to be some aspects of Sharia law introduced ~ shouldn't everyone have a say. Instead to silence criticism ~ they treated the whole thing as a racism issue ~ for the promotion of religion at state level ~ without the people's consent. I think they thought they were above it all ~ that the people were like toys ~ but at the ballot box people gave them something else to play with.


Likely the same kinds of discussions happened in Egypt some years ago ~ oh, the Muslims just want their own little courts. Now a Christian in Egypt can't become president ~ can barely build a church, for years to fix even a leaky tap, took planning consent, now through the kindness of the [Islamic] state they can fix a tap without permission ~ but it might take 8 - 10 years to get permission to fix a leaky roof or to replace one ~ and then when you get permission to build ~ police protection is needed ~ because there is usually a Muslim mob objecting to the construction.


A group of Muslims come together and the aim is to construct their state in order to replace the current one. Funny they were asleep for 1000 years thinking they were really ahead ~ everything outside of Islam is ignorance ~ their words not mine. [Even the pyramids are ignorant!!] It was only western change or progress that woke them up ~ and instantly ~ at least with some of their thinkers like Qutb ~ who visited the US ~ was that this new thing ~ not created by Islam ~ not abiding by Islamic norms ~ needed to be destroyed.

This trial against Wilders will change nothing.




Anti-Islam MP fails to block Amsterdam trial

A trial against Dutch MP Geert Wilders can go ahead after objections were brushed aside by the Public Prosecutor.

Mr Wilders' lawyer Bram Moszkowicz had argued that his client was being accused of far more than was included in the formal charges, which mention hatemongering, discrimination and insulting a section of the population, public broadcaster NOS reports.

Another objection, that the Amsterdam court was not qualified, was rebuffed by the observation that the alleged offences by the accused were committed in Amsterdam, among others. The fact that Mr Wilders' anti-Islam movie pamphlet, Fitna, was released through a US website was not considered relevant, seeing that the film was targeting a Dutch-speaking audience.

The Public Prosecutor was obliged, however, to apologise to Mr Wilders about the assertion that his film showed a page being torn from the Qur'an. This was beside the fact, as Mr Wilders argued. He explained that the book in question was a telephone directory.

The court will decide its next steps on 30 March.

Expatica

No comments: