Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Court Decision Boosts Party of Dutch Lawmaker Who Criticized Islam

Controversial Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders has seen his party’s popularity rise following a court ruling that he should stand trial for his statements about Islam. Last week’s decision by an appeals court in Amsterdam instructing prosecutors to indict Wilders for “inciting hatred and discrimination” has directly contributed to increased support for his Party for Freedom (PVV), according to Dutch pollster Maurice de Hond. The court ruling “has had a clear positive effect on the size of the electoral support for the PVV,” which now stands at a 16-month high, he said. The Maurice de Hond poll found that if an election were held now, the PVV would win 20 seats in the Tweede Kamer, or lower house of parliament – three more than a similar poll showed last week. Since Nov. 2006 elections the PVV has controlled nine seats in the 150-member legislature. That election result made Wilders’ party the fifth biggest in the house, but this week’s poll showing would make it the third largest, behind the Christian Democrats (29 seats) and Labor (27). Wilders, who lives under tight security because of death threats, last year released a short documentary film linking the Koran to terrorism. Entitled “Fitna” (an Arabic word sometimes translated as “strife”), the movie shows images of major terror attacks carried out by Muslims over recent years and footage of radical Islamists – in the Netherlands and elsewhere – inciting violence, interspersed with translations of verses from the Koran. He appealed in the film for Muslims to repudiate violence-inciting verses in the Koran, but the film’s release instead sparked angry protests and boycotts, and provided further ammunition for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)-led campaign to outlaw the “defamation” of Islam. Millions of people have viewed the film online. Also controversial was an open letter by Wilders, published in a Dutch newspaper in 2007, calling the Koran a “fascist” text that should be outlawed in the Netherlands, in the same way as Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf is banned. Muslims believe the Koran to have been divinely revealed to Mohammed in the seventh century, and they view the text in the original Arabic to be the infallible “final revelation” of Allah. Last June Dutch prosecutors dismissed complaints against Wilders, saying his statements were made “in the context of public debate.” But a three-judge Amsterdam Appeals Court panel last week overturned that ruling, ordering that he be indicted “for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs.” “The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders,” the judges stated. “In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to ... draw a clear line.” In the Maurice de Hond poll, 50 percent of respondents said the court had made the wrong decision; 43 percent agreed with the ruling and seven percent expressed no opinion. Shortly after Wilders learned that he would go on trial, Britain’s House of Lords reportedly bowed to pressure and protest threats and called off a private screening of Fitna, which had been scheduled for later this week. Pakistan-born Lord Nazir Ahmed, the first Muslim to be appointed a life peer in the British upper house, led efforts to get the event cancelled. He told Pakistani media the outcome was “a victory for the Muslim community.” Wilders, who was to have attended the screening and taken part in a discussion, called the decision “very sad.” “It is yet more evidence that Europe is losing its freedom and bowing to Islamic pressure and protest,” he told the Dutch news agency ANP. According to Wilders, the screening in London was arranged after senior officials at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France blocked an attempt last month by a British member for the film to be shown there. The British Euro-lawmaker, Gerard Batten of the libertarian U.K. Independence Party, in a statement called that ban “a direct attack on free speech.” “A parliament that constantly talks of freedom, democracy and tolerance has shown once again that these are empty words when it does not agree with what is being said,” he said. Meanwhile a new online petition in support of Wilders has attracted more than 23,000 signatures. Addressed to the Dutch government, the petition says that if it attempts to punish Wilders “for exercising his freedom of expression, the undersigned will initiate a boycott of any and all Dutch goods.”


Anonymous said...

Who made a dirty stinking muslim a lord in our white country,lord ahmed stops film being shown in English parliament he threatened a JIHAD of over 10,000 musdhites to block Wilders entry to parliament,come on now just whose bloody country is this?how much bloody longer are we going to let this filth dictate to us?IN OUR OWN LAND.


Anonymous said...

ONLY JEWS MAKE UP OBAMA’S NEW MIDDLE EAST TEAM,” reported an outspoken journalist for the New York Times, on January 11, 2009.

“The team,” reported Roger Cohen, “includes Dennis Ross (former Clinton Mid-East envoy); James Steinberg (as deputy Secretary of State); Dan Kurtzer (former US ambassador to Israel); and Dan Shapiro (a longtime Obama aide).

Cohen points out that there are no Arabs on Obama’s Middle East negotiating team. And in response to the adulatory articles on Ross’ appointment as “one who can effect major renewal of US policy,” Cohen asks the question: “I wonder about the capacity for “major renewal” of someone who has failed for so long.”

Recognizing the imbalance of only Jews being on the negotiating team, Obama announced the appointment of former Senator, George Mitchell, as his “Middle East envoy.” Obama will be sending Mitchell to meet with Israeli leaders & Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Obama mentions nothing about the Gaza invasion (and the slaughter of civilians by Israel), nor any negotiations with Hamas & Hezboullah, (the real players in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict). But rather, it’s the same old players involved in the “negotiating process” by which Israel always gets its way.

Anonymous said...


ON MAY 31 2008 A JEWISH LOBBY called “Liberté pour l’Histoire” held a conference at the Sorbonne in Paris. This Jewish Lobby Group is the main proponent of the pro Zionist law called “Loi Gayssot” which criminalizes those who question the Jewish Holocaust.

“Loi Gayssot” was both sponsored by and named for a Jewish Communist deputy in the National Assembly, Jean-Claude Gayssot. The law criminalizes free speech that might offend self-designated victim minorities - while making sure that denials of Jewish Bolshevik mass murders would be exempted from prosecution.

A recent victim of this law is the French chemical engineer & father of seven children, Vincent Reynouard. The European Jewish Press boasts of Reynouard being sentenced to one year in prison on November 2007 for writing a 16-page pamphlet entitled “Holocaust? The Hidden Facts.”

According to the May 31 2008 speech of the President of “Liberté pour l’Histoire,” a Zionist Jew by the name of Pierre Nora, Reynouard’s imprisonment was justified by Nora when saying, “in France Loi Gayssot has never been used to punish historians but only so-called historians.”

But is the Sorbonne educated & University of Lyons Professor Dr Robert Faurisson a “so-called historian?” Yet Dr Faurisson is currently being prosecuted by the government of France for having spoken at the Tehran Holocaust Revisionist Conference.

Bringing the criminalizing of free speech into the Le Théâtre de l’Absurde is the prosecution of the French lawyer Sylvia Stolz. Attorney Stolz was sentenced on January 14 2008 to 3 and-a-half years in prison and disbarred for 5 years for offering too vigorous a defense (!) of Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel during his trial in Germany Here & Here.

I Recommend That Zionist Jews Be Censured
For Denying French Citizens Their Right To Free Speech!

Anonymous said...


27 January 2009 12:26

First of all you need to stop the Jews who brought them here.

Anonymous said...

President Barack Obama's aunt Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's late Kenyan father, remains in the United States despite a judge's refusal to grant her asylum in 2004, and attended an inaugural ball in Washington, DC the night Obama was officially sworn in, the Associated Press reported today. An unusual directive from the US immigration agency may have been put in place to prevent her arrest just before the presidential election on November 4, 2008.

Just days before the election, word leaked out to the news media that Onyango was living in public housing in Boston despite an order for her deportation in 2004. Onyango has since left Boston and is fighting her deportation, according to the AP. News organizations observed her attending an inaugural ball at Washington's Renaissance Mayflower Hotel with her immigration lawyer, Margaret Wong.

The directive from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which was obtained last week by the AP in a Freedom of Information Act request, was e-mailed to ICE agents on Oct. 31 and expressed concerns about "negative media or congressional interest" and ordered ICE agents to seek approval before making arrests. Now a spokeswoman for the ICE, Kelly Nantel, has told the AP that the directive was reversed weeks after the election. From the AP:

Anonymous said...

UK ordered to publicize Iraq war files
Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:51:52 GMT

Brown's predecessor, Blair is accused of glossing lawyers' initial doubts over the Iraq war.
The British government has been ordered to publish records of crucial cabinet meetings from 2003, held over the legality of invading Iraq.

"This is an exceptional case," reads the Tuesday verdict of the UK's Information Tribunal -- which decides on requests for documents under freedom of information laws.

According to the decision, it is in the public interest to release minutes of the cabinet meetings from March 13 and 17, 2003, when ministers held talks about whether the decision to go to war was allowed under international law.

"The decision to commit the nation's armed forces to the invasion of another country is momentous in its own right, and... its seriousness is increased by the criticisms that have been made of the general decision-making processes in the Cabinet at the time," the tribunal said.

The Cabinet Office has been fighting for nearly two years to keep the notes secret. It has 28 days to appeal against the decision.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Downing Street office announced that it is currently considering its response to the ruling.

The publication of the documents could embarrass Brown, whose predecessor Tony Blair was widely criticized for backing former US president George W. Bush in invading Iraq, despite failing to secure a second United Nations resolution on the war.

The documents are also expected to reveal whether ministers were aware of an apparent change of mind, made by the government's then attorney-general, Peter Goldsmith, on the legality of war.

Previously released documents have shown that Goldsmith had cast doubt on the legal grounds of war on March 7, twelve days before Blair ordered British troops to move into Iraq.

Ten days later, when Britain had failed to secure a second UN resolution authorizing an invasion, Goldsmith gave the cabinet and parliament short written advice that the war was a legal one, according to international law -- even without a UN Security Council ruling.

While Blair denies that Goldsmith had bowed under political pressure, opposition parties accuse the then prime minister of deceit.

Anonymous said...

The heroic Dutchman is a fervent supporter of Israel. Not quite right for your stereotypes...

Anonymous said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4347827/Former-nightclub-bouncer-Lieberman-set-to-hold-balance-of-power-after-Israeli-elections.html (GANGSTERS AT WORK)

Anonymous said...

The day the Israeli army came to the Gaza Zoo
China National News
Monday 26th January, 2009
(Gulf News)

A month ago, it was attracting families - he says the zoo drew up to 1,000 visitors each day. He points at the foot-long hole in the camel in one of the enclosures.

'This camel was pregnant, a missile went into her back,' he tells us. 'Look, look at her face. She was in pain when she died.'

Around every corner, inside almost every cage are dead animals, who have been lying in their cages since the Israeli incursion.

Qasim doesn't understand why they chose to destroy his zoo. And it's difficult to disagree with him. Most of them have been shot at point blank range.

'The first thing the Israelis did was shoot at the lions - the animals ran out of their cage and into the office building. Actually they hid there.'

The two lions are back in their enclosure. The female is pregnant, and lies heavily on the ground, occasionally swishing her tail. Qasim stands unusually close to them, but they don't seem bothered by his presence.

As he takes us around, he is obviously appalled at the state of the animals. The few animals that have survived appear weak and disturbed.
'The foxes ate each other because we couldn't get to them in time. We had many here.' There are carcasses everywhere and the last surviving fox is quivering in the corner.

The zoo opened in late 2005, with money from local and international NGOs. There were 40 types of animals, a children's library, a playground and cultural centre housed at the facility.

Inside the main building, soldiers defaced the walls, ripped out one of the toilets and removed all of the hard drives from the office computers. We asked him why they targeted the zoo. He laughs. 'I don't know. You have to go and ask the Israelis. This is a place where people come to relax and enjoy themselves. It's not a place of politics.'

Israel has accused Hamas of firing rockets from civilian areas. Qasim reacts angrily when we raise the subject.

'Let me answer that with a question. We are under attack. There was not a single person in this zoo. Just the animals. We all fled before they came. What purpose does it serve to walk around shooting animals and destroying the place?'

Inside one cage lie three dead monkeys and another two in the cage beside them. Two more escaped and have yet to return. He points to a clay pot. 'They tried to hide', he says of a mother and baby half-tucked inside.

Qasim says that his main two priorities at the moment are rebuilding the zoo and taking the Israeli army to court. For the first, he says he will need close to $200,000 to return the zoo to its former state - and he wants the Israelis to cover the costs. 'They have to pay me for all this damage.'

We ask him why it's so important for Gaza to have a zoo. 'During the past four years it was the most popular place for kids. They came from all over the Gaza Strip. There was nowhere else for people to go

Army Veteran Jailed For Stirring Up Racial Hatred ...