Geert Wilders 'hate' trial to go ahead in Amsterdam

[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.

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.

[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...."

[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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

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, 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, 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 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, a political academy linked to the Austrian Freedom Party. A glossy left-wing magazine, NEWS -- 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, 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, 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 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, 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 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 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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 (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' 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 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.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The "hate speech" trial of Lars Hedegaard, the president of the Danish Free Press Society and the International Free Press Society, 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 :
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

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

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

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.

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.