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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

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]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

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.

Originally Posted by Bakkels

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...."

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

Due to changes in the German laws implemented on the basis of these new EU regulations

Which new regulations?

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

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]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

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]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

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.