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]

[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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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.