Geert Wilders 'hate' trial to go ahead in Amsterdam

[Gerald]

The trial of Dutch political leader Geert Wilders on charges of inciting hatred against Muslims is to go ahead, an Amsterdam court has ruled.

Mr Wilders, whose Freedom Party props up the government, had argued the court could not try the case as the alleged offences took place in The Hague.

He insists his remarks on Islam were part of a legitimate political debate.

An original trial was halted last October after claims of bias by Mr Wilders against the judges were upheld.

Mr Wilders has described Islam as "fascist", comparing the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12904395

Note: 30 March 2011 Last updated at 09:52 GMT

[Gerald]

http://i.imgur.com/loBbw.jpg

[Skybird]

Just some days ago he described Muhammad historically correct as a"desert bandit", for which again he took flak from the usual bunch of Islamophile dhimmis. And this although history and biography show Muhammad to have been far worse. By today's meaning of the terms, he would qualify as a war criminal, warmonger, mass murderer guilty of genocide, hate preacher and antisemitic extremely hateful especially of Jews, pedophile, sexual exploitation, gender discrimination, slaver trader, liar, blackmailer, impostor, censor, customer calling for assassination of critical voices, torturer, and butcher propagating judicial punishment of truly inhumane and barbaric quality like torture-to-death and mutilation. A founder truly qualified for founding the religion of superior civilization, tolerance, freedom and peace.

In Europe, currently several several show trial against diplomats, politicians., journalists who asked critical and legitimate questions about Islam's totalitarian nature are running, last time I checked in 8 different countries. The new EU laws equaling critical questions, analytic reflection, and legitimate fact-based criticism of religion, with the propagating of hate-speech, hate-crime, and discrimination, allow in principle to prosecute everybody who is labeled by a religion - namely Islam, of course - as an offense to said religion. The word to watch out for here is "discrimination", which has been hijacked and really claimed for an inflationary abuse of its meaning. The EU paper of high treason of Lisbon links to the declaration of human rights in the EU where it is demanded that every member state of the union should include in their national law codes the prosecution of everybody saying something not positive about Islam/religion. While not all states have already adopted that kind of laws to their national lw codes, everybody wanting to sue a critic of religion/Islam, can sue him directly at the EU courts, if the national courts refuse to do so or still lack the national law basis.

Also, often not noted but critically pointed out be legal experts from several nations, is the fact that in case of these "hate crimes", the usual principle of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is reversed. The EU has formulated the expectation that according by the demanded new national laws prosecuted suspects assumed to have committed an act of discrimination against a religion, namely Islam, shall be presumed and sentenced as guilty as long as they do not prove their "innocence".

Indeed, Islam and EU go well together very easily. Since longer time I compare the EU to the way the former GDR ran the system and called itself "democratic", and the totalitarian nature of Islam has been pointed out by criticism and have been shown by Islam's history and record so very often now. whe n Wilder compares Muhammad to Hitler, he is absolutely correct - I do that comparison on many occasions, too - I do not mean it rhetorically only, but factually.

Spit.

You better avoid me. By valid EU laws, I am a criminal of serious dangerousness to the public peace and state order. One day you maybe will be sued for having talked with me - which makes you a suspect as well.

Black humour, you think? No. I'm absolutely serious. How serious it is I easily can see that even me, a very small light in the fight against Islam, and a relative nobody whom the world will never take note of, already has received death threats by paper-mail. But read the quote in my sig, all you uncivilized, mentally retarded primitives out there. I will always despise you and not accept you as being on same eye level with people like me, no matter how loud you yell and how red your faces. To accept you as equals would be like trying a philosphical discussion with an ape in the zoo who has gone on rampage becasue his banana is not crooked enough.

[Feuer Frei!]

Freedom of expression may also be going to court here.
To so many of us, Islam appears to be off-limits when it comes to any type of condemnation whatsoever.
The ability to criticise publicly the religion is not considered, nor should it be considered hateful.
Criminalizing thought and speech is not something that happens in a free society.
A person being put on trial for comparing Islam to Nazism is a crime in itself. That’s not to say that Islam is like Nazism, but the ability to say so if you believe it is a fundamental human right.

[Gerald]

Just some days ago he described Muhammad historically correct as a"desert bandit", for which again he took flak from the usual bunch of Islamic dhimmis. And this although history and biography show Muhammad to have been far worse. By today's meaning of the terms, he would qualify as a war criminal, warmonger, mass murderer guilty of genocide, hate preacher and antisemitic extremely hateful especially of Jews, pedophile, sexual exploitation, gender discrimination, slaver trader, liar, blackmailer, impostor, censor, customer calling for assassination of critical voices, torturer, and butcher propagating judicial punishment of truly inhumane and barbaric quality like torture-to-death and mutilation. A founder truly qualified for founding the religion of superior civilization, tolerance, freedom and peace.

In Europe, currently several several show trial against diplomats, politicians., journalists who asked critical and legitimate questions about Islam's totalitarian nature are running, last time I checked in 8 different countries. The new EU laws equaling critical questions, analytic reflection, and legitimate fact-based criticism of religion, with the propagating of hate-speech, hate-crime, and discrimination, allow in principle to prosecute everybody who is labeled by a religion - namely Islam, of course - as an offense to said religion. The word to watch out for here is "discrimination", which has been hijacked and really claimed for an inflationary abuse of its meaning. The EU paper of high treason of Lisbon links to the declaration of human rights in the EU where it is demanded that every member state of the union should include in their national law codes the prosecution of everybody saying something not positive about Islam/religion. While not all states have already adopted that kind of laws to their national lw codes, everybody wanting to sue a critic of religion/Islam, can sue him directly at the EU courts, if the national courts refuse to do so or still lack the national law basis.

Also, often not noted but critically pointed out be legal experts from several nations, is the fact that in case of these "hate crimes", the usual principle of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is reversed. The EU has formulated the expectation that according by the demanded new national laws prosecuted suspects assumed to have committed an act of discrimination against a religion, namely Islam, shall be presumed and sentenced as guilty as long as they do not prove their "innocence".

Indeed, Islam and EU go well together very easily. Since longer time I compare the EU to the way the former GDR ran the system and called itself "democratic", and the totalitarian nature of Islam has been pointed out by criticism and have been shown by Islam's history and record so very often now. whe n Wilder compares Muhammad to Hitler, he is absolutely correct - I do that comparison on many occasions, too - I do not mean it rhetorically only, but factually.

Spit.

You better avoid me. By valid EU laws, I am a criminal of serious dangerousness to the public peace and state order. One day you maybe will be sued for having talked with me - which makes you a suspect as well.

Black humour, you think? No. I'm absolutely serious. How serious it is I easily can see that even me, a very small light in the fight against Islam, and a relative nobody whom the world will never take note of, already has received death threats by paper-mail. But read the quote in my sig, all you uncivilized, mentally retarded primitives out there. I will always despise you and not accept you as being on same eye level with people like me, no matter how loud you yell and how red your faces. To accept you as equals would be like trying a philosphical discussion with an ape in the zoo who has gone on rampage becasue his banana is not crooked enough. "You better avoid me" which is not true, and objectively, there is freedom of speech,here on SubSim.

[TorpX]

Also, often not noted but critically pointed out be legal experts from several nations, is the fact that in case of these "hate crimes", the usual principle of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is reversed. The EU has formulated the expectation that according by the demanded new national laws prosecuted suspects assumed to have committed an act of discrimination against a religion, namely Islam, shall be presumed and sentenced as guilty as long as they do not prove their "innocence".


I really don't see how the people of Europe stand for this. It is the sort of thing that should result in riots and protests all over the continent.


You better avoid me. By valid EU laws, I am a criminal of serious dangerousness to the public peace and state order. One day you maybe will be sued for having talked with me - which makes you a suspect as well.

This thought had occured to me as well.

[Tribesman]

I really don't see how the people of Europe stand for this.
Perhaps the little detail of it not being true is getting in the way of standing up to it.


You better avoid me. By valid EU laws, I am a criminal of serious dangerousness to the public peace and state order.
The only danger is to your own mental order which is increasingly fragile.

[Bakkels]

Yeah Skybird, you're giving us Europeans a bad name like this. You just made that whole "presumed guilty until proven innocent" thing up. It's just not true.

And I have said this is another thread too; a lot of people seem to think the government is inditing Wilders here, or that the government wants to stop him from speaking his mind. But this is a civilian court case. A group of people accuse him of being racist and sued him, this is not a criminal case or anything like that.

Furthermore, at the moment we have a minority government (don't know if that's a real term in English btw), and it's HIS party that makes our present government possible; they made a deal were he supports two other parties that are in office so they have a majority.

I don't agree with a lot he says, but he's got all the freedom to say what he wants. The only thing he is being sued for, is the question of wether or not he is possibly causing violence with his remarks.

[Tribesman]

It's just not true.


Does that make you sub human then?
Have you joined the untermensch?
After all you must be a mentally retarded primitive if you can spot that Skybird is simply lying.

The only thing he is being sued for, is the question of wether or not he is possibly causing violence with his remarks.
Not quite, you also have to factor in his intentions, since he spelt it out plainly what his intention were its a joke that he can still drag out his case for so long.
The only mitigating factor is that he is so damn stupid that he completely failed in his intentions as his "work" was so widely ridiculed as absolurte rubbish.

[Skybird]

Yeah Skybird, you're giving us Europeans a bad name like this. You just made that whole "presumed innocent until proven guilty" thing up. It's just not true.

No, you are not on possession of the full truth here. Because although the reversing of the pressumed -innocent-until-proven-guilty is not printed as such a reversal black on white, it is an implicit implication of the greater context of words or formulations. Due to changes in the German laws implemented on the basis of these new EU regulations, I know of at least one man, a friend of my parents, who just has lost in Hamburg a court case and was sentenced to a money fine. He is renting two appartements in the old town of Hamburg, and I predicted what I report here already three years ago: When having an open day for one free flat and several interested people showed up, amongst them was a man from Argentinia, he was one of several to be interested after inspecting the place. But that friend of my parents gave it to somebody else - and was sued by the Argentinian man for "discrimination", because he had not gotten it. The man renting the houses so far was handling such things on a basis of trust and not totally tight according the new EU-imposed law rules, becasue then if you rent a flat you are best advised to keep written and taped records of your inspectiuon tours, tell those people cming not a single word, do not answer questions , and do not tell anyone anything about whom you guess to accept later on. You also are best advised now to always have a witness with you, on your side. Mind you - Im talking not about the interested person, but the flat owner doing like this!

This friend of ours had not done all this, and the court followed the claim of the Argentinian that he was rejected the flat becasue he was Argentinian and of Latinamerican looks. Our friend could not prove in any way that that was not the case, even more so he had told a couple before that he considers to accept their request to accept them.

The claim for discrimination being his motive to reject the man form Argentinia, already was enough to sue him. the suspect was not proven guilty, but he could not prove he was innocent, and thus was sentenced.

Just some years ago, this would not have been possible. My parents friend considers to go to court again, this time with support by the local property owning organsiation called H+G. If he does, I'm sure it will become a case that makes it into nation al news headline. I will keep you up to date if this is the case and he really seeks the path of a legal battle over principle reasons.Unfortunately, he is no warrior-type of person, but is shy of conflict and is craving for harmonic relations with everybody. H+G wants to make it a case over the violation of the German constitutional and basic laws, making it an exemplary case, becasue surprisngly, the past court case has not raised any attention over here at all, like our own court case against fraudster trying betray over property questions to inmcrease a mosque here in my own home town als was refused by the press to be reported. Some minor lines in a local paper, that was all.

The wide public in Germany do not know about these things. But I'Äm sure flat owners renting such flats will become incrasingly aware of this problem in no time. Normal communication between them and intzerested people is almost impossible now, wihtoutr a running camera and mike present, becaseu almost everything they say can be used against the flat owner to sue them over discrmination. And the allegation already is sufficient evidence as long as the accused cannot prove his innocence.

Look beyond the end of the prnted line in your EU booklet. You do not get the meaning fi you take it literally and each sentence one by one, islated from the others. The dangerous stuff lies not in the EU constitution text nor in the declaration of rights themselves, but in the appendeices which are or biblic proportions (I think 16 pages treaty text, but almost 700 pages appendices - guess where the real important stuff is laid down!?).

Mind you, I have predicted these implications and warned of them already several years ago, before Lisbon became valid. And I have complained about the flat-renting implication back then, too, because my family rent 3 flats ourselves, too, and can be effected by these laws. You cannot image how cautious and tightlipped we have become.

The opportunity for abuse is immense here. And that si why the social engineering experimentators wanted it to be like this: flat owner should be intimadated to not reject foreigner the EU has brought into the country/Union, thast way migration policies that are opposed my silent majorities of populations nevertheless should be enforced by making it criminal to refuse foreigners. And the more to the left and green side of the specvtrum you loook, the more you see the demand that certain subgroups of migants even should get special, preferred treatement.

It is the same with the criminalisation of critizism of Islam and religion. Enforce acceptance of it by criminalising critical opinion and questions about it. That simple. Facts not wanted? Forbid them.

I don'T give Europeans a bad name - Europeans do that all by themselves - by allowing the EU to exist on, and constantly worsten things in the name of politically wanted social experiments and politically correct ideologies, and the madness of the transfer union. It is a dictatorship, plain and simple. It reminds me of the idiotic utopia they painted in this wonderful ironic action movie by silvester stallone, "demolition man". The place looked like pure harmony and peace - but was a pure dictatorship.

Grab some stones and foul eggs and chase all those politicians out of office, out of town, and off the continent. 9 out of 10 of them are not worth anything, and do not deserve the smallest of trust or respect. Chase them away, do not legitimate their corrupt system anymore that is only tailored to serve their power interests. Bring down lobbyism, without exception from this rule. It is no highly civilized ingredient of democracy, but it's death sentence.

[Penguin]

And I have said this is another thread too; a lot of people seem to think the government is inditing Wilders here, or that the government wants to stop him from speaking his mind. But this is a civilian court case. A group of people accuse him of being racist and sued him, this is not a criminal case or anything like that.

Thanks for pointing this out again. I think is's not even clear in Europe that this is not a criminal law case, but a civilian one.


I don't agree with a lot he says, but he's got all the freedom to say what he wants. The only thing he is being sued for, is the question of wether or not he is possibly causing violence with his remarks.

That is the hypocrital behaviour on both sides. They whine about how their freedom of speech becomes restricted, but demand restrictions of the freedom of their opponents.
"my opinion is free speech, yours is hate speech...."

[Tribesman]

Because although the reversing of the pressumed -innocent-until-proven-guilty is not printed as such a reversal black on white, it is an implicit implication of the greater context of words or formulations.
So another imaginary law :yeah:

Due to changes in the German laws implemented on the basis of these new EU regulations
Which new regulations?:rotfl2:

I know of at least one man
Who lost a civil case under the local equality act which has nothing to do with incitement to hatred or these new fictitious EU laws.

Look beyond the end of the prnted line in your EU booklet. You do not get the meaning fi you take it literally and each sentence one by one, islated from the others. The dangerous stuff lies not in the EU constitution text nor in the declaration of rights themselves, but in the appendeices which are or biblic proportions (I think 16 pages treaty text, but almost 700 pages appendices - guess where the real important stuff is laid down!?).


Wow exactly the same line as before, when again Sky was unable to show it in any of the text then unable to show it in any of the appendices, in fact unable to show these imaginary laws anywhere outside his own mind:nope:

Mind you, I have predicted these implications and warned of them already several years ago
Indeed......"Just as the night rises against the day, the light and dark are in eternal conflict. So too, is the subhuman the greatest enemy of the dominant species on earth, mankind. The subhuman is a biological creature, crafted by nature, which has hands, legs, eyes and mouth, even the semblance of a brain. Nevertheless, this terrible creature is only a partial human being.
Although it has features similar to a human, the subhuman is lower on the spiritual and psychological scale than any animal. Inside of this creature lies wild and unrestrained passions: an incessant need to destroy, filled with the most primitive desires, chaos and coldhearted villainy.
A subhuman and nothing more!".....that wasn't you was it?
It is so hard to tell the difference between those old rants and Skybirds new ones as they match so often.

[the_tyrant]

Yeah Skybird, you're giving us Europeans a bad name like this. You just made that whole "presumed innocent until proven guilty" thing up. It's just not true.


The person should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Wanted/Default.asp

[Bakkels]

Hey Tyrant, I think you didn't get what I was saying; Skybird for some reason believes that under some EU law, in cases of discrimination you're considered guilty unless you can prove you're innocent. I said that this is not true. You're link actually supports what I said; it's how it is supposed to be: you're innocent until proven guilty. (At least by Interpol regulations in this case).
I guess I wasn't really clear about that, so I edited my original post.

[Bilge_Rat]

And I have said this is another thread too; a lot of people seem to think the government is inditing Wilders here, or that the government wants to stop him from speaking his mind. But this is a civilian court case. A group of people accuse him of being racist and sued him, this is not a criminal case or anything like that.



I am certainly no expert on Dutch law, but I read he is charged with 5 counts of infraction to the Dutch Criminal Code and that he could be sentenced to a jail term of up to 16 months which certainly does not sound like a civil trial as we know them over here.

[Skybird]

Skybird for some reason believes that under some EU law, in cases of discrimination you're considered guilty unless you can prove you're innocent.

No, it is not a law written black on white, it is a consequences that comes as an implicit indirect implication, which is the reason why it is valid, but still escapes people's attention. If it would be formulated as a EU law, people would be on the street - at least I hoped. The implication is based in appendices to the Lisbon dictate paper and cross-references to the EU declaration of human rights.

There also is no politician admitting that the currency union in fact has been turned into a one-sided transfer union of timely unlimited duration. And while the ECB's independence was destroyed when Trichet accepted to bow to poltiical pressure to buy debts and bonds of troubled states, it got sold to us that this is a move to strengthen the independence. We also have won in democracy on EU levels, while in fact the democracy deficits have been increased. And while the people of Europe were locked out over the European constitution,t hey said they spoke in the name of the Eurpopean people.

Do you really not understand how the game is played?

De facto, the example I explained above already show that I am right and you are wrong. If such an event springs into my face and you still expect me to say that we do not have the reversing of the burden of evidence, then I cannot help you - without it, both the claim and the sentencing would not have been possible, would it!? Obviosuly, the simple claim of discrimination has been enough to assume somebody as guilty - not because his guilt was proven, but his innocence was not proven. This would not have been possible by German laws before Lisbon.

All this in a EU-wide climate where any critcal questiuon about islam is being linked to racism, islamophilia, hate-crime.

Currently in I think 7 or 8 countries in the eU court processes are being held against politicians, journalists and diplomats who have quoted from Islamic scripture those passages the public should be prevented to pay attention to, or asked critical questions about it'S ideology. Wilders is just one of many. The freedom of speech and free opinion is under fire - in order to enforce acceptance of Islamic ideology in Europe although it is in total opposition and hostility to Western freedoms and values, and in the end necessarily must want - and does want - these to be destroyed.

[Skybird]

The "hate speech" trial of Lars Hedegaard, the president of the Danish Free Press Society and the International Free Press Society (http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/), began in a courthouse near Copenhagen on January 24. Hedegaard, who has been charged with "racism" for critical comments he made about Islam, faces up to two years in prison.
Hedegaard's trial, which is similar to recent or current ones in Austria, Finland, France, Italy and the Netherlands, represents a landmark case that will establish the limits of free speech in a country where the politically correct elite routinely seek to silence public discussion about the growing problem of Muslim immigration. The trial also exemplifies the increasing use of lawfare: the malicious use of European courts to silence criticism of Islam.
Hedegaard's legal problems began in December 2009, when he remarked in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture. Although Hedegaard has insisted that he did not intend to accuse all Muslims or even the majority of Muslims of such crimes, Denmark's thought police have refused to drop the case.
Instead, the Danish public prosecutor's office says Hedegaard is guilty of violating Article 266b of the Danish penal code, which states: "Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years."
The Hedegaard trial is the second one in Denmark involving Islam-related "hate speech" in as many months. On December 3, 2010, a Danish court found Jesper Langballe (http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/12/the-scandal-of-danish-justice/), a Danish politician and Member of Parliament, guilty of hate speech for saying that honor killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.
Langballe was denied the opportunity to prove his allegations because, under Danish law, it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended. Langballe was summarily sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Krone (approximately $1,000) or spend ten days in jail.
The two trials in Denmark are similar to the one against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/free-speech-on-trial-in-austria-and-europe/) in Austria, which resumed on January 18 following a two-month suspension in the hearings. Sabaditsch-Wolff, who has been charged with "incitement of hatred" and "denigrating religious teachings" after giving a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam, faces a possible three year prison sentence.
Sabaditsch-Wolff's legal problems began in November 2009, when she presented a three-part seminar about Islam to the Freedom Education Institute (http://www.fpoe-bildungsinstitut.at/), a political academy linked to the Austrian Freedom Party (http://www.fpoe.at/). A glossy left-wing magazine, NEWS (http://www.news.at/) -- all in capital letters -- planted a journalist in the audience to secretly record the first two lectures. Lawyers for the socialist publication then handed the transcripts over to the Viennese public prosecutor's office as evidence of hate speech against Islam. Formal charges against Sabaditsch-Wolff were filed in September 2010; and her bench trial, presided on by one judge and no jury, began November 23.
On the first day of the trial, however, it quickly became clear that the case against Sabaditsch-Wolff was not as air-tight as prosecutors had made it out to be. The judge pointed out, for example, that only 30 minutes of the first seminar had actually been recorded. He also noted that some of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were offhand comments made during breaks and not a formal part of the seminar. Moreover, only a few people heard these comments, not 30 or more -- the criterion under Austrian law for a statement being "public." In any event, Sabaditsch-Wolff says her comments were not made in a public forum because the seminars were held for a select group of people who had registered beforehand.
More importantly, many of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were actually quotes she made directly from the Koran and other Islamic religious texts. Fearing that the trial would end in a mistrial, the judge abruptly suspended hearings until January 18, ostensibly to give him time to review the tape recordings, but also to give the prosecution more time to shore up its case.
Sabaditsch-Wolff is not the only Austrian to run afoul of the country's anti-free speech laws. In January 2009, Susanne Winter (http://diepresse.com/home/politik/innenpolitik/446266/Winter-verurteilt_Muss-Religion-beleidigen-duerfen), an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted for the "crime" of saying that "in today's system" the Islamic Prophet Muhammad would be considered a "child molester," referring to his marriage at the age of 56 to a six-year-old girl. Winter was also convicted of "incitement" for saying that Austria faces an "Islamic immigration tsunami." Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.
Similar free speech cases involving Islam are blazing across Europe.
In Finland, for example, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussi_Halla-aho), a politician and well-known political commentator, was taken to court in March 2009 on charges of "incitement against an ethnic group" and "breach of the sanctity of religion" for saying that Islam is a religion of paedophilia. A Helsinki court later dropped the charges of blasphemy but ordered Halla-aho to pay a fine of €330 ($450) for disturbing religious worship. The Finnish public prosecutor, incensed at the lower court's dismissal of the blasphemy charges, appealed the case to the Finnish Supreme Court, where it is now being reviewed.
In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Houellebecq) was taken to court by Islamic authorities in the French cities of Paris and Lyon for calling Islam "the stupidest religion," and for saying the Koran is "badly written." In court, Houellebecq (pronounced Wellbeck) told the judges that although he had never despised Muslims, he did feel contempt for Islam. He was acquitted in October 2002.
Also in France, Brigitte Bardot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Bardot), the legendary actress turned animal rights crusader, was convicted in June 2008 for "inciting racial hatred" after demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them. Bardot's lawyers said her passionate denunciation of the ritual slaughter of Eid al-Adha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_al-Adha) had been misinterpreted as an attack on Islam in France. Her conviction has not deterred Bardot, who says thousands of tons of Islamically slaughtered halal meat (http://www.hudson-ny.org/1799/europe-goes-halal) is entering France's general food chain, where it is being unwittingly consumed by the country's non-Muslim population.
In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders (http://www.hudson-ny.org/1626/geert-wilders-wins-retrial), a Dutch politician and Member of Parliament, faces five charges of inciting racial and religious hatred for criticizing Islam. His first trial was abruptly terminated in October 2010 after it emerged that one of the judges presiding over the trial tried to influence an expert witness to testify against Wilders. In that case, a hastily convened judicial panel agreed with Wilders that the judges were biased against him, and ordered a retrial -- sending the closely watched case back to square one before an entirely new panel of judges. Wilders, who called the trial a farce, a disgrace, and an assault on free speech, welcomed the decision, saying: "This gives me a new chance with a new fair trial."
Also in the Netherlands, Gregorius Nekschot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorius_Nekschot), the pseudonym of a Dutch cartoonist who is a vocal critic of Islamic female circumcision and often mocks Dutch multiculturalism, was arrested at his home in Amsterdam in May 2008 for drawing cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. Nekschot (which literally means "shot in the neck," a method used, according to the cartoonist, by "fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents") was released after 30 hours of interrogation by Dutch law enforcement officials.
Nekschot is expected to be prosecuted for eight cartoons that "attribute negative qualities to certain groups of people," and, as such, are insulting and constitute the crimes of discrimination and hate according to articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code. In an interview with the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant (http://www.volkskrant.nl/), Nekschot said it was the first time in 800 years of the history of satire in the Netherlands that an artist was put in jail. (That interview has since been removed from the newspaper's website.)
In Italy, the late Oriana Fallaci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriana_Fallaci), a journalist and author, was taken to court for writing that Islam "brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom." In November 2002, a judge in Switzerland, acting on a lawsuit brought by Islamic Center of Geneva (http://www.cige.org/cige/), issued an arrest warrant for Fallaci for violations of Article 261 of the Swiss criminal code; the judge asked the Italian government either to prosecute or extradite her. The Italian Justice Ministry rejected this request on the grounds that the Italian Constitution protects freedom of speech.
But in May 2005, the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCOII) (UCOII), linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, filed a lawsuit against Fallaci, charging that "some of the things she said in her book 'The Force of Reason (http://www.amazon.com/Force-Reason-Oriana-Fallaci/dp/0847827534)' are offensive to Islam." An Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial in Bergamo on charges of "defaming Islam." Fallaci died of cancer in September 2006, just months after the start of her trial.
Back in Denmark, Hedegaard says (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/017481.html) the International Free Press Society is a single issue organization: "We have no other objective than free speech. That is what has kept us together and allowed us to rally people with all manner of political persuasions, programs, religions, and outlooks on life."
He also says: "We have made no bones about the fact that we consider Islam -- as it is presently being preached by all influential clerics and ideologues -- a deadly threat to all our freedoms, among which are freedom of expression. For this consistent stance we have been vilified and called every name in the book, but we will not budge."[/quote]

I also remember of the Swedish law that sees a women as being raped already when she claims after intercourse to feel uncomfortable and bad about having had sex. This also in conjunction with the Assange case of course, and I remind of the suspectable proceedings about getting him delivered to Sweden. Even under the old laws you could have delivered people a condemning-in-advance without proving their guilt.

[Skybird]

Oh, and to mind the worried soul mentioning the question that about Wilders it is only the question whether or not he is causing violence. In Afghanistan and other countries some mobs of primitives are currently on rampage because in America a print of the Quran was burned. Aid workers got assassinated, other were forced to flee and seek safety in protection rooms.

Should we invstiagte the difference bertween burning a book and, so to speak, burning living people? Must we really examine the difference in civilized attitude and mental sanity here? Must we accept an ideology motivating and even demanding such behavior as an equal to ourselves?

A sane man's moral obligation is to not accept such crap as equal at all - never. Because by doing so, you are lowering yourself to what is the evil here. It is not getting dealt with by appeasing it by tolerance, but by not tolerating it all all and stand up against it with all grim determination and not give it any space to move or breathe. This needs readiness to accept and live conflict. And this is a virtue that many Westerners have lost by apparently too many years of peace and luxurious comfort.

I think it is a grim truth that we take things for granted that are anything but natural, and that therefore we would be better off if occasionally we get reminded of that grim truth by needing to suffer costly losses in its defence. It seems only then people will not forget how to appreciate it's precious value - instead of headlessly, carelessly giving it away, and handing themselves over into new slavery. As either the Romans or some Frenchman saíd (I forgot the origin of this quote): "Unsere Freiheit muß etwas kosten." A quote with a double bottom.

[DarkFish]

No, it is not a law written black on white, it is a consequences that comes as an implicit indirect implication, which is the reason why it is valid, but still escapes people's attention.So it's some kind of invisible unwritten law:doh:
Probably made by the reptilian illuminati from space under command of head reptile Obama.

...now where did I leave my tinfoil hat...?:hmmm:

[Tribesman]

Probably made by the reptilian illuminati from space under command of head reptile Obama.


Now now Darkfish take it easy. You must remember there is only one "fact" when it comes to Sky, it is a consistant "fact" which makes it easy to remember. It is.......
De facto, the example I explained above already show that I am right and you are wrong.
...the fact that reality shows his "fact" to be completely wrong is irrelevant.:yeah:

I wonder if his "friend" ranted about south america foriegners as part of a global EU muslim conspiracy in his own defence against breaking legislation covering racial discrimination in business

Oh, and to mind the worried soul mentioning the question that about Wilders it is only the question whether or not he is causing violence.
Errr....no, the question is his intent, that is the only question.

[Bilge_Rat]

In post#17, Skybird raises many cases where "hate crime" charges have been brought up. A quick check shows that many of these cases are true and the facts are as reported by him. I have to admit I am a bit surprised at how quickly Europeans resort to the courts to punish politically incorrect speech.

However, what about the other side? Have there been cases where European Muslim radicals have been charged under "hate crime" legislation for statements they have made about "christians"?

Skybird's charges would have some validity if it turns out the only persons being prosecuted are those who make anti-muslim statements.

[Tribesman]

Skybird's charges would have some validity if it turns out the only persons being prosecuted are those who make anti-muslim statements.
You can find a whole pile of them covering all sorts of people and groups doing the slagging and getting slagged from every direction imaginable.
Which does of course further dent a validity which is already well smashed.


A quick check shows that many of these cases are true and the facts are as reported by him.
If you look at the article posted by him then you see the head of the source won his case by claiming that he didn't realise his words would be published as his rant wasn't measnt for the public to see even though he was saying it in an interview with a journalist, his other defence was that when he said Muslims he didn't mean Muslims at all as such crazy generalisations would of course be simple minded bigotry.

[Penguin]

In post#17, Skybird raises many cases where "hate crime" charges have been brought up. A quick check shows that many of these cases are true and the facts are as reported by him. I have to admit I am a bit surprised at how quickly Europeans resort to the courts to punish politically incorrect speech.

Surprising indeed, if you are a fan of liberty. Yes, the examples seem to be legit. It is a shame that religious fairy tales have more protection under the law than the freedom of speech - Germany for example has still a blasphemy law....:nope: The same is true the other way round: if you claim that your speech is religious, you have more protection than you would have for "normal speech".

Personally I give a **** about most of the people in the examples, they want to use the same laws, which are used against them, against their opponents. So not really the best examples of defenders of free speech.


However, what about the other side? Have there been cases where European Muslim radicals have been charged under "hate crime" legislation for statements they have made about "christians"?

Skybird's charges would have some validity if it turns out the only persons being prosecuted are those who make anti-muslim statements.

Some recent examples - 2 minute quick web search - most are in german, sorry, but google translate can give you an overview:

Germany: trial because of incitement of the people against an islamist from duisburg: https://prozionnrw.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/islamist-in-essen-wird-volksverhetzung-vorgeworfen-volksverhetzung-auf-der-homepage/ (german)

also one of the biggest moslem boards (muslim-markt.de) in Germany is often facing hate speech charges, the site owner yet only got minor convictions so far. One example: An indirect appeal to kill a critic: http://www.zeitverlag.de/pressemitteilungen/zeit-online/mordaufruf-gegen-islamkritiker-raddatz-muslim-markt-betreiber-raumt-fehler-ein/ (german)

Austria: 4 years because of a threatening video: http://www.schwaebische.de/archiv-artikel_artikel,-Islamist-wegen-Droh-Video-verurteilt-_arid,2656887.html (german)

Britain: woman convicted because of (hate) poems: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492460/British-Muslim-woman-convicted-penning-poems-beheadings.html

Netherlands: Football player suspended for 5 games because of anti-semitic chants: http://www.101greatgoals.com/lex-immers-the-eye-witness-video-the-anti-semitic-chant/88410/
Granted, the lasrt example is not a conviction by a court, maybe our subsim kaaskopp members (attention: hate speech :D) can tell if he will face criminal charges.

[DarkFish]

subsim kaaskopp membersHow dare you!:stare: I'm gonna bring you to the Subsim court! Let's get Hitman and quickly get you convicted to a lifetime with the medic avatar!:stare:

[Tchocky]

The "hate speech" trial of Lars Hedegaard, the president of the Danish Free Press Society and the International Free Press Society (http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/), began in a courthouse near Copenhagen on January 24.

It's a bit rich to call themselves the "International Free Press Society" when the only free press they seem to give a toss about is that related to the Islamist attack on Judeo-Christian-whatever.

[Bakkels]

A "Kaaskop's" explanation on the footballplayer Penguin mentioned :DL:
No that footballer will not be criminally charged. Again, he may face having to go to civil court, but so far no one has sued him or anything.
Here's what happened there.
His team won from Ajax. The fans of Ajax call themselves 'Jews', because Amsterdam used to have a huge Jewish community, and the influences of Jewish culture can still be seen throughout the city. For example in the dialect, which features a lot of Jewish words and sayings.

The fans of the other club that just won from Ajax were celebrating and this footballplayer started singing something along the lines of 'We're going Jew hunting'. Afterwards he said he was referring to the name Ajax supporters give themselves, but obviously one can read something entirely different in a sentence like that. That's why he's suspended by the football association. Some organisations called for criminal prosecution, but so far nobody is prosecuting.

That's it for the sports news, now back to the studio :)

[Skybird]

would someone like to take the time to make a mlist of the many incidents and events when Muslim communities demanded censorship of free speech and free thought on behalf of Islamic in etrests since the Danish cartoon row in - when was it? 2005? The amny incidents when more censorship of Wetsern free speech was demande d- not only in case of obvious hgte speechm, but just critical questions? Opposing opinions not agreeing with Muslim claims? The many incidents when people of Non-Muslim faith got killed all over the world over hysteric rage about free speech in the West saying somthing about Islam that Islam claimed to be offensive?

Criticism oif Islam in Islamic tradition and Sharia - is under death penalty. Already Muhammad himself ordered the assassination of people opposing his pseudorelgious claims and being critical about him. Does this tell you nothing, guys?

Have you forgotten how willingly several nation'S poltiicans demanded in 2005 and 2006 that free speech in the West indeed should stop at the doorway of criticisng Islam or asking uncomfortable questions about it or telling uncomopfrtable historic truths proven by historic events or Islamic scripture?

The so-called "Gleichschaltungsgesetz" in the opening stage of the fascist tyranny in Germany - already forgotten by so many people?

Green poilticians like Trittin in Germany telling the people right into the face that they want to delete the "Germaness" in Germany by importing migrants from the oriental area in order to found the basis for their future votiner potential that should help to bring them to power - is there a reason not to believe that such arrogant people do not mean what they tell you?

Muslim poltiicians and Mulsims clerics telling you right into the face how they want to throw over Europoe by poushing more and more Mulsims into its socieities, tellking you this since almost 5 decades now - have you just got used to it while the balance in polulations was slowly but constantly shifting in its favour, and stil does so? This in the light of collapsing social security nets and finances collapsing - another inention that has been formulated by Muslim leaders time and again since the late 60s...?

The way the EU betrays it'S electorate, does not play by its rules, changes them if voting by the former rules does not produce the wanted outcome; the way the stabilityx pact was hollowed out, the independence of the ECB weas eroded and the currency union was transformed into a tranbsfer union against all economic reason and sanity; the planned and intende dlokcing out of the European peope from vital decison making of long lasting consequences like the coup d'etat of Lisbon - does all this tell you no other story than that yoiu are offically presented to blindly believe?

When you walk the street and end up at a wall, and a big and red writing acrtoss the wall - do you stillö refuse to decypher the letters and words correctly?

Many of you do. And maybe you have sometimes wondered why in history tyrannies emerged and caused havoc for people and nations, although people should have known and should and could have seen, or had opportunities to correct the course while there still was time.

Look at yourself and your reasons and thoughts today. Then you know how it was possible in the past - and how it could currently happen again.

[Tribesman]

The so-called "Gleichschaltungsgesetz" in the opening stage of the fascist tyranny in Germany - already forgotten by so many people?


So that was the banning of political parties...you called for that the other day.
Abolishing democracy....check
Racial hygene and eugenics....another Skybird favourite
A european and global conspiracy....it just adds to the score
Strange people imposing "secret" laws on the good volk....yep
Abolishing freedoms for the "preservation" of freedom....on a roll there
Inferiority of the lower races who are like apes and not equal to real humans....blimey going for the full house
All we need now is a fire in the Reichstag and gleichschaltungesetz bingo is complete:nope:

Look at yourself and your reasons and thoughts today.
Indeed, you really should:rotfl2:

[Bakkels]

Already Muhammad himself ordered the assassination of people opposing his pseudorelgious claims and being critical about him. Does this tell you nothing, guys?

Nope. First of all, I don't believe Mohammed existed. And people calling for other people being assassinated isn't exclusive to Islam culture.
You've got people calling for war (imo even worse) or people calling for someone getting the death penalty all over the world.

Have you forgotten how willingly several nation'S poltiicans demanded in 2005 and 2006 that free speech in the West indeed should stop at the doorway of criticisng Islam or asking uncomfortable questions about it or telling uncomopfrtable historic truths proven by historic events or Islamic scripture?

Nope. I haven't forgotten that because it never happened. At least in my country nobody demanded that asking uncomfortable questions (whatever you mean by that) should be banned. Sure, some ten or twenty years ago, political correctness was all too present, but those times have long since changed.

The so-called "Gleichschaltungsgesetz" in the opening stage of the fascist tyranny in Germany - already forgotten by so many people?

Oh come on, not this. Ever heard of Godwin's law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law



Muslim poltiicians and Mulsims clerics telling you right into the face how they want to throw over Europoe by poushing more and more Mulsims into its socieities, tellking you this since almost 5 decades now - have you just got used to it while the balance in polulations was slowly but constantly shifting in its favour, and stil does so? This in the light of collapsing social security nets and finances collapsing - another inention that has been formulated by Muslim leaders time and again since the late 60s...?

The way the EU betrays it'S electorate, does not play by its rules, changes them if voting by the former rules does not produce the wanted outcome; the way the stabilityx pact was hollowed out, the independence of the ECB weas eroded and the currency union was transformed into a tranbsfer union against all economic reason and sanity; the planned and intende dlokcing out of the European peope from vital decison making of long lasting consequences like the coup d'etat of Lisbon - does all this tell you no other story than that yoiu are offically presented to blindly believe?

So what are you saying? Muslims are infiltrating Europe by means of one large conspiracy that involves the EU?
And each Muslim is part of this? Or only a few?
I really don't get what the EU has to do with this. I'm starting to get the feeling that you try to weave everything that you don't like into one big conspiracy theory.


Many of you do. And maybe you have sometimes wondered why in history tyrannies emerged and caused havoc for people and nations, although people should have known and should and could have seen, or had opportunities to correct the course while there still was time.

Look at yourself and your reasons and thoughts today. Then you know how it was possible in the past - and how it could currently happen again.

And now you're saying it's all our fault. We're all blind, and you know the truth. You know what some people might call someone like that? A prohet. Like Mohammed. Or Jezus. And I'm not particularly inclined to believe prophets.
One more thing Skybird, what would be your solution to the problems you see?

[Skybird]

Nope. First of all, I don't believe Mohammed existed. And people calling for other people being assassinated isn't exclusive to Islam culture.
You've got people calling for war (imo even worse) or people calling for someone getting the death penalty all over the world.
Fine. By that yoiu can even relativise the crimes ciommitted in WWII, the Gulags in Russia, the cultural revolution in China.

Fact remaisn thgat it is claimed Muhammad'S ideology is a religion of perace were in fact it and him demand and legitmise the use of violence and force. That is not a violation of the ideology - it is IN the ideology. Show that in the teching of Jesus or Buddha, the Hindu Vedic scripture, the tradition of humanism, or modern law and order - were do these expolcitly legitmise and demand tghe use of violence to enforce convertation of infidels...? The sermon on the mountain...? The Kalamas Sutra? The Humboldtian ideal of diversive education and general interest in all? The ideals of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité? The Greek tradition of culture and science? The American and French constitutions? And so many other examples - can you read out of them the demand that even violence shall be used to make all making tjhis ideology'S perosnal property, else kill them? Women rights movement - and the status of women as Satan-driven sub-human sex- and djhadi-breeding slaves in Muhammeddan order?


Nope. I haven't forgotten that because it never happened. At least in my country nobody demanded that asking uncomfortable questions (whatever you mean by that) should be banned. Sure, some ten or twenty years ago, political correctness was all too present, but those times have long since changed.
It did not happen? So the comments made by I think the foreign ministers of England and Sweden and several other nations at the time of the cartoon riots that we shall voluntarily pass on igniting Islamic vilence by asking IOslam some uncomfortabel questions they claim to be offensive ha snever happened, yes? Miust I go back to the news and find the headlines and articles from back then? Please, save me.

Oh come on, not this. Ever heard of Godwin's law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

The control of public opinion was a goal back then,m and is a goal today. Crtiical thiunking outside the wanted mainstream line is not wanted, and in case of the discussed criminalsiation of crticism of relgion and Islam is censored, supressed and sanctioned. The anonymous pressure of the thoguht police, called pltical correctness, also discourages people to speak out against it, wshoever does so inmmediatelkoy gets branbdmarked as a racist, Nazi, Islamopohobe, hate prescher and igniter of violence - in other words an irrational, criminally acting, not-knowing-anything irresponsible non-solidaric idiot. What is wanted is obedience to the opinion dogma.

I compare this criminalisation of critical thinking about religions and Islam to the Gleiuchschaltungsgesetz - and very rightfully I do. It both serve the same purposes.


So what are you saying? Muslims are infiltrating Europe by means of one large conspiracy that involves the EU?
And each Muslim is part of this? Or only a few?
I really don't get what the EU has to do with this. I'm starting to get the feeling that you try to weave everything that you don't like into one big conspiracy theory.

I am saying what I am saying, in this thread and in other threads. Either you get the meaning of the words and what they say and what not, or you don't. I am attacking the content of an ideology, and the silliness and madness of Wetseren wannabe-wise-men thiunking htey know better themselves than Islam knows what Islam actually is, or who ignore everything that points out its inhumane, aggressive and absolutely totalitarian, racist nature. Wilder's points of criticism are no offences but facts that I know good enough myself, since I learned a bit about Islam, to know them to be facual truths. The problem is he is destroys the collective illusion of that we can appease and arrange ourselves with this monster, and that there can be coexistence between humanism, freedom and Western values basing on these principles and histopric traditions that formed ouzr culture, the great illusion of forming a united Eurabia-sphere of power and influence that compensates our loss of imprtance. But say, when you meet many Nazis who think Nazi very naturally and by conviction becasue they hasd been raised in this way of thinking since always, and they tell you they are in favour of liberal ideas, huimansim, equality of races and democracy - what would you base your assessement on regarding what Nazism is - their polite manners and their speaking (may it be born by lacking education, or the intention to lie for propaganda reasons), or would you consider it to be wiser to judge Nazism by the little book "Mein Kampf", by the academic and historic analysis of the ideology, and the studying of the historic examples it set? I judge Islam on the basis of the Quran, Sharia, Sunna and Sira, and the history of Islam, about all of these things I have read quite some bit, and have had experiences in several countries during longer stays and voyages, sometimes professionally.

And now you're saying it's all our fault. We're all blind, and you know the truth. You know what some people might call someone like that? A prohet. Like Mohammed. Or Jezus. And I'm not particularly inclined to believe prophets.

I see my views basing on a better founded fundament, both theory-wise and regharding experience at location, than thosed trying to tell me that Isalam is what all the sweet-talkers try to make it appear as, under explciit ignorration for every grim fact that prioves them wrong. Islam is no label you can use randomly, it means the one and only ideology that is basing on Quran and Sharia, Sunna and Hadith. I will not chnage my views if the demand to do so is not basing on convincing ingfotrmation that forces me to see that I have been wrong. Critical self-reflection of the ideology is somethign that is totally discouraged in Islam, that wold have endangered the claim for power ogfMuhammad, and would have eroded the fundament of strength-by-uniformity. We think today: strength and worth by multiculturalism. Islam thinks: power by monoculturalism. Jesus and Buddha encouraged their followers to deciude themselves, and to ask whether or not the teching he gave is true, and to approach the everyday-living in thre world the same way. Islams does not question that it is right. It only ask: why is it that Islam/Allah is right. This basic preassumption that there can be no doubt (it is an offensive heresy, and is under threat of death) that Islam is Allah'S will and thus is infgallible and always right, is one of the most decisve differences. Buddha never demanded that, rad the Kalams Sutra which is one of the most important scripts in Buddhist canon, I have quoted the essential passage so very often now over the years. Read the gospels - Jesus spoke about faith in the meaning of trust based on experience - he did not speak about blindly believing some unproven claims. The Greek tradition that has formed and influenced out Wetsern modern cilktgure and scientific methodology so tremendously, also did not accept to ujst take some basic things for granted. But Islam demands hat tis is being done, and it calls every violation against this demand an offence, a discrimination, a heresy, and its mobs go bollocks and hstweric and get rwead faces and yell and kill and behave like monkeys who have not had their daily banana to eat. Detestable, hilarious, ridiculous, unacceptable, uncivilised, barbaric, uneducated and primitive, not to be tolerated.

One more thing Skybird, what would be your solution to the problems you see?
Push Islam back in the West, make no compromise, do not tolerating it.
I spend years of patience, waiting, but have come to the conclusion that the ideology of the Quran and Western cultural tradition and values not only are incompatible and antagonistic, but that trying to multiculturally foster cells of Islamic ideology in our culture inevitably goes at the cost of us, becaseu what we think demonstrate our good will, for Islam is just an opportunity to gain a foothold and grow strong, while copying the ways of our instrumental superiority

Sometimes, compromises are just not possible and not desirable, and in the long run cost more than the willingness for conflict in order to get something settled, or to defend ourselves and what our culture stands for . If I am against Nazism, then I cannot be not against Islam - its both the same evil spirit'S brainchild, named "totalitarianism". Trying to hate Nazism and love Islam, would be shizophrene. I would need to violate my own values and principles to do that. And in the end what it comes down to, is simply this: I see my values and the historic tradition that formed me and educated me, as so very many times more valauable, than Islam's. And thus I do not accept Islam as an equal arguing and thinking on same eye level with us, or me.

Long boring night over here, it seems... :hmmm:

[Skybird]

Nope. First of all, I don't believe Mohammed existed. And people calling for other people being assassinated isn't exclusive to Islam culture.
You've got people calling for war (imo even worse) or people calling for someone getting the death penalty all over the world.
Fine. By that yoiu can even relativise the crimes ciommitted in WWII, the Gulags in Russia, the cultural revolution in China.

Fact remaisn thgat it is claimed Muhammad'S ideology is a religion of perace were in fact it and him demand and legitmise the use of violence and force. That is not a violation of the ideology - it is IN the ideology. Show that in the teching of Jesus or Buddha, the Hindu Vedic scripture, the tradition of humanism, or modern law and order - were do these expolcitly legitmise and demand tghe use of violence to enforce convertation of infidels...? The sermon on the mountain...? The Kalamas Sutra? The Humboldtian ideal of diversive education and general interest in all? The ideals of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité? The Greek tradition of culture and science? The American and French constitutions? And so many other examples - can you read out of them the demand that even violence shall be used to make all making tjhis ideology'S perosnal property, else kill them? Women rights movement - and the status of women as Satan-driven sub-human sex- and djhadi-breeding slaves in Muhammeddan order?


Nope. I haven't forgotten that because it never happened. At least in my country nobody demanded that asking uncomfortable questions (whatever you mean by that) should be banned. Sure, some ten or twenty years ago, political correctness was all too present, but those times have long since changed.
It did not happen? So the comments made by I think the foreign ministers of England and Sweden and several other nations at the time of the cartoon riots that we shall voluntarily pass on igniting Islamic vilence by asking IOslam some uncomfortabel questions they claim to be offensive ha snever happened, yes? Miust I go back to the news and find the headlines and articles from back then? Please, save me.

Oh come on, not this. Ever heard of Godwin's law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

The control of public opinion was a goal back then,m and is a goal today. Crtiical thiunking outside the wanted mainstream line is not wanted, and in case of the discussed criminalsiation of crticism of relgion and Islam is censored, supressed and sanctioned. The anonymous pressure of the thoguht police, called pltical correctness, also discourages people to speak out against it, wshoever does so inmmediatelkoy gets branbdmarked as a racist, Nazi, Islamopohobe, hate prescher and igniter of violence - in other words an irrational, criminally acting, not-knowing-anything irresponsible non-solidaric idiot. What is wanted is obedience to the opinion dogma.

I compare this criminalisation of critical thinking about religions and Islam to the Gleiuchschaltungsgesetz - and very rightfully I do. It both serve the same purposes.


So what are you saying? Muslims are infiltrating Europe by means of one large conspiracy that involves the EU?
And each Muslim is part of this? Or only a few?
I really don't get what the EU has to do with this. I'm starting to get the feeling that you try to weave everything that you don't like into one big conspiracy theory.

I am saying what I am saying, in this thread and in other threads. Either you get the meaning of the words and what they say and what not, or you don't. I am attacking the content of an ideology, and the silliness and madness of Wetseren wannabe-wise-men thiunking htey know better themselves than Islam knows what Islam actually is, or who ignore everything that points out its inhumane, aggressive and absolutely totalitarian, racist nature. Wilder's points of criticism are no offences but facts that I know good enough myself, since I learned a bit about Islam, to know them to be facual truths. The problem is he is destroys the collective illusion of that we can appease and arrange ourselves with this monster, and that there can be coexistence between humanism, freedom and Western values basing on these principles and histopric traditions that formed ouzr culture, the great illusion of forming a united Eurabia-sphere of power and influence that compensates our loss of imprtance. But say, when you meet many Nazis who think Nazi very naturally and by conviction becasue they hasd been raised in this way of thinking since always, and they tell you they are in favour of liberal ideas, huimansim, equality of races and democracy - what would you base your assessement on regarding what Nazism is - their polite manners and their speaking (may it be born by lacking education, or the intention to lie for propaganda reasons), or would you consider it to be wiser to judge Nazism by the little book "Mein Kampf", by the academic and historic analysis of the ideology, and the studying of the historic examples it set? I judge Islam on the basis of the Quran, Sharia, Sunna and Sira, and the history of Islam, about all of these things I have read quite some bit, and have had experiences in several countries during longer stays and voyages, sometimes professionally.

And now you're saying it's all our fault. We're all blind, and you know the truth. You know what some people might call someone like that? A prohet. Like Mohammed. Or Jezus. And I'm not particularly inclined to believe prophets.

I see my views basing on a better founded fundament, both theory-wise and regharding experience at location, than thosed trying to tell me that Isalam is what all the sweet-talkers try to make it appear as, under explciit ignorration for every grim fact that prioves them wrong. Islam is no label you can use randomly, it means the one and only ideology that is basing on Quran and Sharia, Sunna and Hadith. I will not chnage my views if the demand to do so is not basing on convincing ingfotrmation that forces me to see that I have been wrong. Critical self-reflection of the ideology is somethign that is totally discouraged in Islam, that wold have endangered the claim for power ogfMuhammad, and would have eroded the fundament of strength-by-uniformity. We think today: strength and worth by multiculturalism. Islam thinks: power by monoculturalism. Jesus and Buddha encouraged their followers to deciude themselves, and to ask whether or not the teching he gave is true, and to approach the everyday-living in thre world the same way. Islams does not question that it is right. It only ask: why is it that Islam/Allah is right. This basic preassumption that there can be no doubt (it is an offensive heresy, and is under threat of death) that Islam is Allah'S will and thus is infgallible and always right, is one of the most decisve differences. Buddha never demanded that, rad the Kalams Sutra which is one of the most important scripts in Buddhist canon, I have quoted the essential passage so very often now over the years. Read the gospels - Jesus spoke about faith in the meaning of trust based on experience - he did not speak about blindly believing some unproven claims. The Greek tradition that has formed and influenced out Wetsern modern cilktgure and scientific methodology so tremendously, also did not accept to ujst take some basic things for granted. But Islam demands hat tis is being done, and it calls every violation against this demand an offence, a discrimination, a heresy, and its mobs go bollocks and hstweric and get rwead faces and yell and kill and behave like monkeys who have not had their daily banana to eat. Detestable, hilarious, ridiculous, unacceptable, uncivilised, barbaric, uneducated and primitive, not to be tolerated.

One more thing Skybird, what would be your solution to the problems you see?
Push Islam back in the West, make no compromise, do not tolerating it.
I spend years of patience, waiting, but have come to the conclusion that the ideology of the Quran and Western cultural tradition and values not only are incompatible and antagonistic, but that trying to multiculturally foster cells of Islamic ideology in our culture inevitably goes at the cost of us, because what we think demonstrate our good will, for Islam is just an opportunity to gain a foothold and grow strong, while copying the ways of our instrumental superiority. In the past, things with Isoam in Europpe have constantly worstenede, the troubles have become more, not less, the comflicts are rising, integrating Muslim colonies has failed in almost all countriesd where they formed up, not migrats in general but always Muslim migrants give us trouble, trouble, and more trouble. More and ore our siocieties bend to thbeir demands for beign given special rules, special treatement, special powers, special legislative status, special law changes etc etc etc. But it is politician'S way of solving the mess they created all by themselves since the 60s: to appease, to keep the box shut until their time in office is over, and what happens when the sh1t hits the fan one day, is not their problem then. I have no illusions about the realistic perspectives for integrating Islam into the European value canon and cultural order, not ionly mjiust it nessecarily fail due to the nature of Islam being against this, I also think that it is not desriable at all to get this acchieved. I do not want cooperation with Fascism, and I do not desire mutual relations and communication with any totalitarian ideology or dictorship, I want my people and my home country and culture fighting for keeping all this away.

Sometimes, compromises are just not possible and not desirable, and in the long run cost more than the willingness for conflict in order to get something settled, or to defend ourselves and what our culture stands for . If I am against Nazism, then I cannot be not against Islam - its both the same evil spirit'S brainchild, named "totalitarianism". Rejecting the one but tolerating the other totalitarian ideology, would be a contradiction in itself. Trying to hate Nazism and love Islam, would be shizophrene. I would need to violate my own values and principles to do that. And in the end what it comes down to, is simply this: I see my values and the historic tradition that formed me and educated me, as so very many times more valuable, than Islam's. And thus I do not accept Islam as an equal arguing and thinking on same eye level with us, or me.

Long boring night over here, it seems... :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

One more thing Skybird, what would be your solution to the problems you see?
Was that a particularly leading question Bakkels?
Did you know he would come back with his version of Generalplan Ost:up:

I will not chnage my views if the demand to do so is not basing on convincing ingfotrmation that forces me to see that I have been wrong.
If being repeatedly shown to be simply lying and spouting rehashed 1930s propoganda isn't convincing enough then it suggests you are simply blinded by your hate filled ideology and cannot see anything at all

[Bakkels]

Was that a particularly leading question Bakkels?
Did you know he would come back with his version of Generalplan Ost:up:


No I was genuinely curious what Skybird thought would solve this problem.
But Skybird, imo you're generalizing the group of people you talk about.
And by that you're making allegations that aren't true. Islam as a whole doesn't call for violence against every non believer. Certain imams or fundamentalist groups do that. And that's based on culture imo. Yes there are parts of the quran that talk about violence against anyone that opposes it, but the same i written in the bible. You can't read the quran and say 'everybody that believes that book is violent, because it's written there'
The places where fundamentalism thrives, are always countries or regions that are generally poor, where people have a low standard of living no education etc.
More developed countries result in more developed culture, and thereby less extreme or violent views.

Yes, we're having problems because mixing two different cultures is something very difficult. But around me I don't see my country losing it's identity or anything like that. When I look at third generation immigrants, I can only say that they are heavily influenced by western culture. Whereas they never made me wear a djeballa or read the quran so far.

What I see happening is actually a great example of democracy. The people on the more extreme side of the cultures are exploring the limits of what they can say or do, and both get sued when they get close to this limit. Your fear makes you see only one side of the story. Today for example, a girl here in Holland lost a law suit she started against her catholic school which forbids her to wear a headscarf.

Of course there's extremists and fundamentalists, but they almost all live under poor circumstances in their own country. It's local politics and religious leaders trying to gain power by creating a common enemy (the West). It's more a case of politics and lust for power than true religious beliefs. Actually the same goes for Wilders. I don't even think he believes all the things he says. He knows that if you keep calling something a problem over and over again, people start to believe that. Combine that with attacking the 'old politics' (something that always works), and you get yourself a lot of votes. And that's what he's after. Now that he got those votes, he's happy to play a long with the old politicians.

You're acting like everybody that's from Arabic or North-African culture only wants one thing; to destroy western culture.
If you want to believe that, that's fine. I just have a little bit more of a nuanced view of things. And a little bit more faith in the way my country works. Fundamentalists just will never be able to 'take over' this, or any other European culture. I already know your response to that. I'm being naive and blind to this so called 'monster'. So be it.