Me and Mrs. KV are gone for a long weekend of fall hikes, dark beer and comfy seats near roaring fires. If anything really important happens Ferdy will undoubtedly hold the fort. If not, the (somewhat) regular schedule will resume on Tuesday. In the mean time consider this an open thread.
See you all after the weekend.
Not a policy goal
The last two days saw the General Considerations debate. Normally that is held immediately after was Prinsjesdag (Budget Day). But this year Prinsjesdag, always on the third Tuesday of September, fell right in the middle of the negotiations for a formation of a new cabinet. Hence it was decided to postpone the GC debate, until there was a new cabinet.
Inevitably, this years GC debate was used a an opportunity to get acquainted with the new, 'Danish', cabinet and for the opposition to (try to) shoot holes in the plans of the new government. In this they were hardly successful.
Much was made of the fact that Geert Wilders and the PVV have the ear of the new cabinet, what with their formal support, without being actually responsible for policy. Additionally, there is some discrepancy in the way the PVV explain the immigration curbing measures of the new cabinet (halting islamization) and the way the Danish cabinet explains the measures (stopping the flow of under-educated, unemployable immigrants).
In light of this discrepancy, the Motion Halsema (32 417, nr. 36) calls upon the government to carry out 'in word and action' the message that countering islamization is not a policy goal of this government. The motion carried (NL), with only the PVV and the SGP (Dutch Reformed splinter party) in opposition.
Now, there's two ways in which this motion can be understood. The vast majority of parliament is still committed to anti-discrimination, even in the face of pragmatic objections. At first sight, and probably what was intended, the motion tries to ensure the government will not single out islam when making policies with regard to curbing immigration or cracking down on inner city problems.
However, such subtlety is probably lost on members of both sides of the issue. The wording of the motion is such that both sides will understand the motion literally: Curbing the islamization of Holland is not policy, period. Parliament is prohibiting any attempt by the government to roll back the ever more persistent encroaching of shariah and other more physical manifestations of islam, even when such is overruling and/or replacing traditionally Dutch values and mores.
It is a stab in the back of Dutch non-muslims living in areas where muslims are increasingly laying down their law, their way of viewing the world. Indeed, that is how Het Vrije Volk (NL) understands the motion, concluding that what *is* government policy is giving muslims a free pass, where others are denied such.
Whatever else you can say about the issue: the broad support in parliament for the Halsema motion has sent a rather unfortunate signal. One that will come back to haunt us, I fear.
[UPDATE001] Willem de Zwijger (NL) rings up another good point: GroenLinks (Green Left) of which Femke Halsema is the leader has always advocated gay and gender issues. How come they are all of sudden defending the faith that denigrates both?
Counterfitting history
Via England Expects:
The European Parliament's Culture Committee have nodded through their latest attempt to forge the philospher's stone that is a single European memory. The latest vessel for this is what is called the European Heritage Label.Witterings from Witney notes the ultimate aim of these little blue placques:
This is what they say,
[A] European Heritage Label, whose general objectives are to strengthen European citizens' sense of belonging to the European Union, based on shared elements of history and heritage, as well as an appreciation of diversity, and to strengthen intercultural dialogue. To this end the Label seeks to enhance the value and the profile of sites which have played a key role in the history and the building of the European Union, and to increase European citizens' understanding of the building of Europe, and of their common yet diverse cultural heritage, especially related to the democratic values and human rights that underpin the process of European integration. In this way the European Heritage Label would also help to bring citizens closer to Europe.So what sort of places are they going to attach this thing to?
‘that a European heritage label should be established with a view to emphasising the European dimension of cultural goods, monuments, memorial sites, and places of remembrance, which all bear witness to Europe’s history and heritage’.Places of Rememberance!! What! They are planning to stick a glossy label onto something like the Menin Gate and claim that the hundreds and thousands of British and Commonwealth troops died for that apogee of mankind's social development, the European Union. Or will they instead attach the self same token to the walls of Auschwitz, claiming that the millions who dies in the holocaust died so that Herman van Rompuy could skittle across the world stage?
So now the EUnion is about to rewrite history in its own image... Why does that have the hairs in the back of my neck standing up?"First, the initiative will be based on the European narrative of these sites and their symbolism for Europe, rather than aesthetics. Second, the focus will not be on conservation, but on the promotion of the sites and access to them, which includes providing good explanations on the European significance of the sites and organising educational activities, with special attention to young people."Do note the words: 'with special attention to young people'!
Mohammed, Mohamed and Muhammed II
Mohammed is now the most popular given name for newborn boys in England and Wale, according to the Daily Express. The press release (pdf) by the UK Office for National Statistics tries to spin it out positively:
As I was wondering back then: Is it me, or does the fact that second and third generation immigrants of muslim descent so massively name their children after the founder of their religion/ideology hint at a certain unwillingness to integrate and an in-your-face kind of mind-set?
Mohammed was at number 16 nationally, but was the most popular boys’ name in the West Midlands.However, the Express notes:
The name [Muhammed], when 12 different spellings were included, was given to 7,549 youngsters in 2009, official statistics reveal.A similar situation as in our damp corner of the world, then.
Oliver was the second most popular and it was given to 7,364 boys in England and Wales. Jack – which had been the top name for baby boys for the previous 14 years – was third, Harry fourth and Alfie in fifth place.
Because official figures did not take into account the variations in the spelling of Mohammed, Oliver was officially named as the most popular boys’ name by the Office of National Statistics.
As I was wondering back then: Is it me, or does the fact that second and third generation immigrants of muslim descent so massively name their children after the founder of their religion/ideology hint at a certain unwillingness to integrate and an in-your-face kind of mind-set?
Deep Throat?
I don't remember where I first read about this, but the Infidel Bloggers Alliance reminded me of it: The American current events blog News Flavor have a contact who claims to be a White House insider. From reading the missives, I (for one) get the impression his claims are not unfounded. That is not to say that this individual does not have an agenda of his own. If his claims are to be believed he is as much of a operator in the Democratic as those he reports on. Bear this in mind.
Having that disclaimer out of the way: News Flavor's White House Insider is reporting on a scandal brewing. A massive scandal that involves the Obama White House and his inner circle. One, that according to the Insider has the administration running scared and Democratic candidates for the coming elections running for the hills.
I'll just give you the three latest to read, but there's much more to be had over at News Flavor. And none of it is very reassuring. Here are the latest three:
Coming Soon – Serious White House Scandal
"They were in shock at the president’s behavior."
"President Obama is Lost. Absolutely Lost."
What was most poignant in the latest dispatch, was this tidbit:
Having that disclaimer out of the way: News Flavor's White House Insider is reporting on a scandal brewing. A massive scandal that involves the Obama White House and his inner circle. One, that according to the Insider has the administration running scared and Democratic candidates for the coming elections running for the hills.
I'll just give you the three latest to read, but there's much more to be had over at News Flavor. And none of it is very reassuring. Here are the latest three:
Coming Soon – Serious White House Scandal
"They were in shock at the president’s behavior."
"President Obama is Lost. Absolutely Lost."
What was most poignant in the latest dispatch, was this tidbit:
[Q:] I get that – but I’m still having a hard time believing a scandal so big is not being reported by the media.Now, compare this with an item Jim Hoft blogged today. Or this from earlier this month. Or this from late last August. It might be worthwhile to keep an eye on this White House Insider dude. He may just be the Deep Throat of our time.
[A:] You’re wrong there. It is being reported – bits and pieces of it. The story will already be out there and growing before the mainstream finally runs with it. Don’t forget, most of them still want to protect the White House. That is simply fact. I know this – I worked directly with them during the campaign. But it’s starting to change – and eventually it will break. The barbarians haven’t broken down the gate yet – but after these midterms, they will. Look at the Democrats who are now openly challenging the president. Every day another one rebukes the president. That is an incredibly dangerous thing to do politically – it can destroy a career. Ask yourself why they would be so willing to do that. Are they just stupid, too bold – or is it something else?
Quote of the Day
Yes, I know, markets really aren’t perfect, but just to remind you, to really fuck things up you need governments.
Just typical
Isn't this just typical of the EUnion? The minutes of the toy European parliament are trying to hide a confrontation between Turkish minister of European Affairs Egemen Bagis and MEP for the PVV Barry Madlener, so reports De Volkskrant (NL).
The confrontation between Bagis and Madlener took place last May in a meeting between Turkish and EUnion parliamentarians. During that meeting Madlener asked some pointed questions about the refusal of the Turkish government to meet with a delegation of Dutch parliament that included Geert Wilders.
Thomas Grünert, secretary of the EP, says the remarks made by the Turkish minister were not included, because it wasn't 'really a political point'. According to him it was something personal between the Bagis and Madlener.
Evidently the EUnion begs to differ...
[UPDATE001] The point of this thread was of course the EUnions decidedly creepy way of trying to chuck down the memory hole episodes that might threaten the 'narrative' it needs to reach its goals (remember: 'We didn't think it was in the interest of the governance of the European Union...').
However, reader Bernd brings up another point I had not entirely missed, but nevertheless failed to comment on: Minister Bagis' sinister promise to Barry Madlener that 'we will cure you'. What did the dear minister mean by that? Who is this 'we' he speaks of? And why did not the toy parliament protest against the veiled threats against one of its own members? Thoughts may be left in the comments...
The confrontation between Bagis and Madlener took place last May in a meeting between Turkish and EUnion parliamentarians. During that meeting Madlener asked some pointed questions about the refusal of the Turkish government to meet with a delegation of Dutch parliament that included Geert Wilders.
You are good friends with Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad, while you shun my party's leader. It is a disgrace.Bagis is reported as answering:
Racism is a dangerous disease from which Europe suffers much. It is clear there are still people suffering from it. Mr Madlener, we will cure you.According to Madlener this was the most noteworthy moment of the meeting, yet someone scouring the minutes would look in vain for it.
Thomas Grünert, secretary of the EP, says the remarks made by the Turkish minister were not included, because it wasn't 'really a political point'. According to him it was something personal between the Bagis and Madlener.
We didn't think it was in the interest of the governance of the European Union to emphasise the confrontation between the Turkish minister and Madlener.In the meantime Madlener, understandably miffed, is taking this incident quite seriously. 'I am not a racist. I am against Turkey joining the European Union, and I am critical if islam. That doesn't make me a racist'. He is asking for inclusion of the confrontation in the minutes: 'Minutes should be an honest reflection of what was said'.
Evidently the EUnion begs to differ...
[UPDATE001] The point of this thread was of course the EUnions decidedly creepy way of trying to chuck down the memory hole episodes that might threaten the 'narrative' it needs to reach its goals (remember: 'We didn't think it was in the interest of the governance of the European Union...').
However, reader Bernd brings up another point I had not entirely missed, but nevertheless failed to comment on: Minister Bagis' sinister promise to Barry Madlener that 'we will cure you'. What did the dear minister mean by that? Who is this 'we' he speaks of? And why did not the toy parliament protest against the veiled threats against one of its own members? Thoughts may be left in the comments...
Judge Schalken (blog post Hans Jansen)
Today the power of free speech and the role blogs have in it have been amply demonstrated. A single blog post (NL) yesterday by Arabist Hans Jansen has effectively lead today to the dismissal of the Amsterdam court handling the trial against Geert Wilders.More details about how this lead to the court’s dismissal today can be read here.
What follows here is a translation of that very explosive blog post by Arabist Hans Jansen:
Judge Schalken
October 20th, 2010I was invited for dinner on Monday, May 3rd 2010, by Bertus Hendriks. Bertus is the soul of the Palestina comity (NL). We're acquainted since 1963. Nobody can talk as beautiful about the suffering of the Palestinians as Bertus can. After a couple of beers Bertus once told me that he does not care so much about the Palestinan problem. It's all about, he explained to me, because I am 'a petty-bourgeois product of the past generation', about unmasking the global structures of exploitation by using the fate of the Palestinians. In short, a good friend who's dinner invitation I can't reject.
There would also come 'some other friends' of him. Not unusual for dinner parties in civilized circles. Bertus thought it would be nice to talk a bit about Islam, and yes, also about the Wilders Trial. The next Thursday, May 6th, I would be heard in this trial as an expert witness and testify, if I understood correctly, about the contents of the Koran and Sharia, as far as applicable and relevant for the trial.
The testimony as I found out later was needed because the court, to my opinion, could not imagine that the things Geert Wilders claimed to be in the Koran, were actually in the Koran. It’s hard to say 'no' to an old friend who you know for already nearly 40 years. Therefore I said 'yes'. Indoors it is still allowed to think freely and say many things.
I am always a little early, or rather right on time. It's an old boorish habit of mine born from insecurity. The second guest who arrived was no body less than a man named MR. Tom Schalken. He greets me friendly and starts a conversation about Islam. Where do I know this man from? Suddenly I knew. He was one of the members of the Amsterdam court that ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders for hate mongering, discrimination and group offence.
I asked him, if I could speak freely in his presence. The man had after all, ordered the prosecution of somebody else who spoke about Islam. This lead to indignation on the part of the legal expert. I told my host I would leave, it just doesn’t make sense to talk to somebody who has the power to lock you up if he does not like the things you say. The atmosphere changed somewhat.
After my insistence LLM Tom Schalken guaranteed me not to sue me or to have me arrested for anything I would say that evening. I was satisfied with that guarantee. The exchange about this guarantee took some twenty minutes. By then the other guests had arrived.
LLM Schalken then asked from me the same guarantee. That I did not give him, supported by the formal argument that I don't possess the power to have somebody arrested. I can only hope that, that at moment I did hide my angry emotions well. It was a few days before I had to give my testimony in court. The dinner party had lost its appeal.
Ms Hendriks had prepared a nice dinner, but it did not taste. Except for me, all other guest were notables affiliated with PvdA [Socialists Party] and GroenLinks [Greens]. Some worked as justices or prosecutors, Mr Schalken was not the only judge at that dinner table.
Still the evening had some fun moments. Now and then Tom Schalken tried his best to act friendly and jovially started a conversation. Each time, he steered the conversation towards the Wilders trial. Any unemployed actor had done that act of friendly bonhomie better. He tried to convince me of the rightfulness of his decision to put Geert Wilders on trial. Schalken, the Emeritus Professor at the University of Amsterdam, the University of Balkenende, Rouvoet and Bos, let me know this was scientifically an 'imposingly interesting case' that needed tremendous study and that gave all kinds of perspectives.
Ah, now I understood. This is not a trial, but more like an academic working group. More something like a studently plea exercise than a serious criminal trial for the grownups. With as guinea pig a heavily threatened politician. 'Unmasking mondial structures'. Indeed, a nice hobby.
Original blog post: Hoeiboei - Schalken, Raadsheer
See also:
Breaking: Judges in Wilders trial DISMISSED
Wilders Trial - Day 8
Wilders Trial - Day 7
Wilders Trial - Day 6
Wilders Trial - Day 5
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Arabist Simon Admiraal on Islam
Wildert Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Wafa Sultan on Islam
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Justice minister Hirsch Ballin directing prosecution of Geert Wilders
Trial day 1: Evidence given by Arabist Prof. Hans Jansen (Gov)
Wilder Trial - Day 1
Wilders trial: Court rejects 15 out of 18 witnesses for the defence
Breaking: Geert Wilders on trial January 20th 2010
Breaking: Court orders prosecution of Wilders
Breaking: Judges in Wilders trial DISMISSED
Today the substitution court has DISMISSED the current court in the trial against Geert Wilders. The trial has now to start all over from the beginning.
More about todays session here and I also have a translation of the blog post by Arabist Hans Jansen that lead to the downfall of the court handling the court case against Geert Wilders.
See also:
Judge Schalken (blog post Hans Jansen)
Wilders Trial - Day 8
Wilders Trial - Day 7
Wilders Trial - Day 6
Wilders Trial - Day 5
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Arabist Simon Admiraal on Islam
Wildert Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Wafa Sultan on Islam
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Justice minister Hirsch Ballin directing prosecution of Geert Wilders
Trial day 1: Evidence given by Arabist Prof. Hans Jansen (Gov)
Wilder Trial - Day 1
Wilders trial: Court rejects 15 out of 18 witnesses for the defence
Breaking: Geert Wilders on trial January 20th 2010
Breaking: Court orders prosecution of Wilders
More about todays session here and I also have a translation of the blog post by Arabist Hans Jansen that lead to the downfall of the court handling the court case against Geert Wilders.
See also:
Judge Schalken (blog post Hans Jansen)
Wilders Trial - Day 8
Wilders Trial - Day 7
Wilders Trial - Day 6
Wilders Trial - Day 5
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Arabist Simon Admiraal on Islam
Wildert Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Wafa Sultan on Islam
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Justice minister Hirsch Ballin directing prosecution of Geert Wilders
Trial day 1: Evidence given by Arabist Prof. Hans Jansen (Gov)
Wilder Trial - Day 1
Wilders trial: Court rejects 15 out of 18 witnesses for the defence
Breaking: Geert Wilders on trial January 20th 2010
Breaking: Court orders prosecution of Wilders
Breaking - Wilders: Mafia practices by judge of the Amsterdam court
Today Wilders accused Judge Tom Schalken of the Amterdam court that ordered the trial against him of mafia practices.
"Newspaper De Pers: Judge Schalken of the Amsterdam court tried to influence expert witness Hans Jansen during a dinner. Mafiapractice."
--Geert Wilders @Twitter
Newspaper De Pers today ran a story (NL) about expert witness Hans Jansen. It's about a blog posting by Hans Jansen, who is a regular contributor of the Dutch group blog named Hoeiboei (NL). In yesterdays blog post Jansen wrote about a dinner (NL) for which he was invited only three days before his expert witness testimony in the trial against Geert Wilders (translation of this blog post by Hans Jansen here: Judge Schalken).
Hans Jansen was invited to the dinner by a 50 year old friend, Bertus Hendriks (NL), the friend however is also a leftwing activist for the Palestinan cause. Unknown to Hans Jansen were the other invited guests. It turned out several were judges and prosecutors, one of them was Tom Schalken. Of course Tom Schalken is not just a judge, he is one of the three judges who ordered the trial against Geert Wilders. During the dinner the judge repeatedly steered the conversation with Jansen to the Wilders trial. The judge clearly wanted to talk about it with Hans Jansen and influence his opinions about the trial. But Hans Jansen writes, he was not very impressed by his obviously fake friendly way of convincing him.
In a way that can only add to conspiratorial mindset about this trial Judge Tom Schalken today confirmed the dinner in the press, and said there was nothing illegal about it. What was against the rules however was that Hans Jansen spoke about the dinner publicly.
"I don’t know about the values at the Amsterdam judiciary. But it shows a bit, if I may use layman terms, that the court that ordered the prosecution of Wilders are a bit legal punks, not people with descent manners"
-- Hans Jansen @ Pow News (Dutch National Television)
The story has received wide public attention in The Netherlands. Thus when todays trial begun, defense lawyer Moszkowicz refered to the press stories and asked the court to hear Mr. Hans Jansen again in court. The prosecution objected and argues that the incident was after the court ruled to prosecute Wilders and thus the incident was of no influence of prejudiced of judge Schalken. But Moszkowicz countered that he also wanted to know if the judge has tried to influence the expert witness in this trial and that his behavior could also clarify his earlier behavior in the court ruling that ordered the prosecution of Wilders.
Although, Hans Jansen was present in the court, the court rejected the request without motivation but in a rather cryptic way. They court said something like: we will not hear Mr. Jansen today, but that the issue will stay part of their deliberations and that they might hear him later if the court deems it necessary.
After a short deliberation defense lawyer Moszkowicz requested for the second time a substitution court (Dutch: 'wraking') for asking for the disqualification of this court on grounds that he may not hear a key witness in this trial that can proof the innocence of Mr. Wilders and thus the defense can no longer assume the court is without prejudiced against Mr. Wilders.
The court of substitution is of course also an Amsterdam court. Thus the court of substitution is filled with the colleagues of the current court and with colleagues of the court that ordered the prosecution against Mr. Wilders. Some might ask themselves the hypothetical question: how many dinner guest of Hans Jansen will be on this court?
Before the court of substitution defense lawyer Moszkowicz plead for dismissal of the court on three grounds:
- Remarks of judge Jan Moorse on Wilders usage of his right to remain silent
- Remarks by judge Jan Moorse that gave a value statement on Fitna
- The court’s rejection of hearing a key witness Mr. Hans Jansen again on how judge Schalken tried to influence him before the trial
Moszkowicz argues that "this is about the nature of the constitutional state" as this is a trial against a chosen parliamentary member. Later in his argument he would even characterize the judge his behavior as to be only expected in a banana republic. When Geert Wilders addressed the court, he declared considering pressing criminal charges against Judge Schalken.
During the deliberation time of the substitution court Wilders has indeed filed charges at a local police station against Judge Tom Schalken for trying to influence a court expert witness.
The substitution court started 16:00 CET and came with a ruling. All judges in the court case against Geert Wilders are DISMISSED! The trial has to be done all over by a new court...
I've made a translation of the blog post by Arabist Hans Jansen that lead to the dismissal of today’s court: Judge Schalken (Arabist Hans Jansen his blog post)
(original Dutch: Hoeiboei.blogspot.com - Schalken, raadsheer).
See also:
Judge Schalken (blog post Hans Jansen)
Breaking: Judges in Wilders trial DISMISSED
Wilders Trial - Day 7
Wilders Trial - Day 6
Wilders Trial - Day 5
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Arabist Simon Admiraal on Islam
Wildert Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Wafa Sultan on Islam
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Justice minister Hirsch Ballin directing prosecution of Geert Wilders
Trial day 1: Evidence given by Arabist Prof. Hans Jansen (Gov)
Wilder Trial - Day 1
Wilders trial: Court rejects 15 out of 18 witnesses for the defence
Breaking: Geert Wilders on trial January 20th 2010
Breaking: Court orders prosecution of Wilders
I am Spartac... I mean: Geert
[The campaign] exists to promote and support the work of those campaigning for free speech, and against the travesty that is the Wilders trial.As is stated on the Facebook Info page, there's a dedicated YouTube-channel where all and sundry are stating their being the PVV leader. Like this deliciously sinister fellow (p).
We do this by making videos of ourselves saying, "I'm Geert Wilders!" and sending these either by email to imgeertwilders@gmail.com or uploading them to YouTube and sending them to the campaign's main YouTube page youtube.com/imgeertwilders.
If we receive enough videos we will edit them into a viral video on the eve of the Wilders trial verdict, November 4th 2010. At that point the campaign will finish, and the Fan Page will cease being updated.
Just passing this along...
Wilders Trial - Day 8
+-+lawyer.png "Defense lawyer Moszkowicz")
Today was the second part of the defense of Geert Wilders by his lawyer Moszkowicz.
Again the defense made clear that Geert Wilders just warns against hate and intolerance. It’s just plain wrong to equate warning against hate and intolerance is hate speech. It’s especially wrong because Wilders his statements are supported by facts. And that is not as the prosecutor in its postmodern statement claimed ‘just some ones opinion’.
Defense lawyer Moszkowicz argued that truth and the support of, in this case, unopposed evidence is relevant for this trial against Geert Wilders. He reminds the court of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in which it ruled that statements supported by facts are much better protected against limits on free speech. Moszkowicz build an argument that inferred from that: the truer a claim is, the less it can be restricted by the courts.
+-+court+listen+to+rejection+of+Le+Pen+comparison.png "Wilders trial - Jan Moorse")
The defense also argued that nobody has opposed the facts used by Mr. Wilders, not the prosecution, not the plaintives, nor the court itself. All the expert witnesses support these facts. Used statistics come from undisputed government sources. The facts are even in agreement with rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. In one of its rulings this ECHR ruled that Islamic law, sharia, is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
About the state of free speech in The Netherlands defense lawyer Moszkowicz tried to put things in perspective for the court. He reminded the court that the expert witnesses in this court could not make their statements fearlessly. Also a possible conviction by the court will not solve anything, it only will make 'people' more sensitive about feeling offended, it will only result in more court cases and more unrest in society. It will also have, what he called, a chilling effect. Free speech will be suppressed by fear for penalization by the courts.
Today session went on for hours, so of course there has been said much more than I can write done here. That’s partly because there are so much details and partly because it was also partly a technical defense. Thinks like, the correct procedures, did the prosecution acted within its legal mandate, did the plaintive use the correct procedures and why are the plaintives not full known. For the uninitiated it’s very hard to make distinction in the minor and mayor legal matters.
But you don’t need to have a legal degree to note that the defense of today was not only a defense against claims put forward by the prosecution. The whole day was also a defense about claims made in what can be described as the ‘indictments’ presented by the plaintives lawyers. Even the layperson can wonder: is having multiple independent ‘prosecuting’ parties in a criminal trial, a fair trial?
+-+wilders+and+lawyer.png "Geert Wilders and his defense lawyer (21-10-2010) id=")
It’s to be expected, that even a not guilty verdict in this trial, will have the interest of many, both national as international. Thus the day ended with Geert Wilders his defense lawyer Moszkowicz asking the court to make it’s ruling fully available to the public (yes, that’s right, court rulings in criminal cases are standardly not made publicly available in The Netherlands, it has something to do with the privacy of criminals).
Other reports on the trial today:
American Thinker - Another Victim of Europe's Jihad Against Islamo-Realism
Dutchnews.nl: Wilders not trying to create conflict and divisions
Expatica: Politicians' words protected: Dutch anti-Islam MP's lawyer
See also:
Judge Schalken (blog post Hans Jansen)
Breaking: Judges in Wilders trial DISMISSED
Wilders Trial - Day 8
Wilders Trial - Day 7
Wilders Trial - Day 6
Wilders Trial - Day 5
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Arabist Simon Admiraal on Islam
Wildert Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Wafa Sultan on Islam
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Justice minister Hirsch Ballin directing prosecution of Geert Wilders
Trial day 1: Evidence given by Arabist Prof. Hans Jansen (Gov)
Wilder Trial - Day 1
Wilders trial: Court rejects 15 out of 18 witnesses for the defence
Breaking: Geert Wilders on trial January 20th 2010
Breaking: Court orders prosecution of Wilders
Denier Day!
Via Gawain, this absolutely brilliant idea by Grumpy Old Twat:
This is where the rebellion starts! So, when is it?
BTW, Gawain has some other news inducing a healthy amount of Schadenfreude: Electric cars sales fall off a cliff.
I recently watched some PowerSmart climate change tv commercials and they kind of got me thinking .... why should it just be the tree hugging, tofu eating, warmists that have their own climate change events. You know the sort of thing..... save this, stop using that, poor ickle polar bear days .... and shit. And who can forget those 10:10 eco terrorists, with their day of global doing, including that video which threatened to blow up up anyone (including children) that didn't believe in all that man made global warming bollocks.There's even a video:
So... "fuck it!", I thought ..... how about a climate change Deniers Day?
A chance for the rest of us to display our total disregard for that 'science is settled' nonsense and turn things on their head. A day where, instead of saving 10%, we can go about our normal everyday business using an extra 100% or more .....
This is where the rebellion starts! So, when is it?
BTW, Gawain has some other news inducing a healthy amount of Schadenfreude: Electric cars sales fall off a cliff.
Just 55 of the green cars – whose fans include Boris Johnson, Jonathan Ross and Jade Jagger – were registered in 2009, in contrast to 397 in 2007, says the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.The wheels are coming off the bandwagon, it seems.
Yes that is 55 out of 2,000,000!
Strange coincidences
Leefbaar Rotterdam is furious about the mandatory eating of halal meat in Rotterdam city hall. Council members that have to make long days are given the choice of fish, vegetarian or meat prepared in islamic fashion. (...)Rotterdam, of course, has a reputation to protect, with regard to overzealous accommodation of muslims. Rotterdam has been described internationally as the symbol or even the capital of Eurabia.
'I don't want to be forced to eat religiously prepared food', says Leefbaar council member Ronald Schneider in Metro (NL). He adds he is sick and tired of 'the islamisation of city hall'. (...) Schneider said that he'll order out for 'a ham pizza'.
What I don't quite understand is the following: If the decision is made to accommodate religion in general, is there not a bit of a contradiction in serving Christian, Jew, Hindu and Buddhist alike, food that has been blessed in the name of a deity from another religion, one that in some cases is the antithesis of those religions? Isn't that offending to these religions? How does that track with stated aims of 'being inclusive', that is trotted out whenever critical questions are asked?
Leaving the objections of a religious nature (which are eminently valid!) aside for a moment: The contradiction in serving halal-only meat in Dutch institutions like Rotterdam city hall is staggering. For decades now, we've had campaigns to make the life and death of our livestock more pleasant, more humane. Halal butchering is anything but pleasant or humane. The animal is quite aware (not being allowed stunning), causing huge amounts of stress. The throat of the animal is cut in a way that severs the arteries and windpipe, but specifically NOT the spinal cord, leaving the animal conscious through the whole process. From an animal welfare point of view wide-spread introduction of halal meat seems to be several big steps back.
What is curious about this, is that the decision to serve halal meat only was meant to be kept quiet. Where did we hear that before? Oh, right: Just last month there was a minor scandal in Great Britain, when the Daily Mail revealed that halal meat was being served routinely at some of Britain’s most popular sporting venues, pubs, schools and hospitals without the public’s knowledge (for more see here). Given the international nature of the food industry, it is doubtful at best to think that this issue is limited to the UK. The only difference seems to be journalistic drive to find out.
Two weeks ago, Tiberge flagged up the story that a big airline catering company, Gate Gourmet, has announced it will be serving only halal food. Gate Gourmet supplies in-flight meals to a great number of big airlines, such as Delta in the US, British Airways in the UK and a host of other airlines (though not, I pleased to say KLM, which have their own catering service). Is there a mechanism at work that is responsible for this strange coincidence?
In a larger sense, the decision made by Rotterdam city council is yet one more step in giving up our own identity for one, and only one, religious conviction. That has nothing to do with being 'inclusive'. It has everything to do with rank dhimmitude and fear of conflict. With muslims or with their crypto-totalitarian guardians on the left. That is sickening in and of itself.
But this isn't just an isolated incident of too much zeal towards the multi-cult. As the examples given try to show: there seems to be method to the madness, covering significant sections of the European, and indeed Western, food industry. The stealthy, underhanded way in which Western diets are transformed to being completely halal, suggests something more sinister is underway. Caveat emptor!
[UPDATE001] And just to drive the point home: A new study (pdf) commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery concludes that halal butchering causes the animal pain for, on average, 80 seconds, before it loses consciousness.
It is reported in literature and observed in our study that unconsciousness in cattle occurred on average 1.5 minute after the neck cut and may remain up to 4 minutes during which pain sensation may be present. It is recommended to stun mechanically or electrically before or just after neck cutting.
A tin ear
Just how out of touch the people ensconced within the large, bloated and useless tranzi machinery really are was illustrated today by two news items in the Netherlands.
First, there was UN secretary-general, Ban Ki Moon, who in a speech to the toy parliament compared anti-immigration politicians to Nazi's (NL).
Second, there is the inappropriately jolly reporting of the NOS about the EUnion wanting to introduce direct EUnion taxes (NL).
Is anybody able to point out the 'either from the trouser pocket or the jacket pocket' nature of this proposal? Yet the plan is presented as if we EUnion serfs have something to gain with this plan. And in the middle of what is more and more shaping up to be the dark side of a business cycle, the EUnion is actively out to impoverish us even further. Without even having the decency to hand over some representation in return.
'No taxation without representation', remember? That is what sparked the American Revolution. And increasingly it looks like 250 years on that particular tiff will see a do-over in Europe. I for one, at least, felt like throttling someone. And there must be more out there like me.
Inevitably, these two examples pint out the tin ear with which your average tranzi robotnick hears the world around him. And the question is now: Who will rid us of these troublesome civil servants? Who will have the audacity to withdraw us from these costly but useless affairs? Who will stand up and chose the people over a well-paid but dead-end job? And most importantly: Who will realize all this BEFORE the inevitable bloodshed (based on historical precedent) commences?
[UPDATE001] The text of the Ban Ki Moon speech is here. The original quote is:
First, there was UN secretary-general, Ban Ki Moon, who in a speech to the toy parliament compared anti-immigration politicians to Nazi's (NL).
The top man of the UN even drew comparisons to the second world war when he pointed out that 'the darkest pages of Europe's history (...) are written in such language', referring to political programs of anti-immigration parties.I don't think there is a need to point out, how this intellectually lazy policor cliché glosses over the myriad problems that European NATIONS are saddled with. One would like to invite Ban to spend a fortnight living in Slotervaart or Ondiep and let him experience first hand who are, and who are not, the violent scum that make life miserable for all around.
Second, there is the inappropriately jolly reporting of the NOS about the EUnion wanting to introduce direct EUnion taxes (NL).
The European Union has made proposals for an own tax that will be collected directly from citizens. This refers to VAT, an energy tax and a corporate tax. (...)The BBC is reporting here.
With a European tax the national contributions could be lowered, said Alain
Lamassoure, president of the budget commission of the European parliament, last week.
Is anybody able to point out the 'either from the trouser pocket or the jacket pocket' nature of this proposal? Yet the plan is presented as if we EUnion serfs have something to gain with this plan. And in the middle of what is more and more shaping up to be the dark side of a business cycle, the EUnion is actively out to impoverish us even further. Without even having the decency to hand over some representation in return.
'No taxation without representation', remember? That is what sparked the American Revolution. And increasingly it looks like 250 years on that particular tiff will see a do-over in Europe. I for one, at least, felt like throttling someone. And there must be more out there like me.
Inevitably, these two examples pint out the tin ear with which your average tranzi robotnick hears the world around him. And the question is now: Who will rid us of these troublesome civil servants? Who will have the audacity to withdraw us from these costly but useless affairs? Who will stand up and chose the people over a well-paid but dead-end job? And most importantly: Who will realize all this BEFORE the inevitable bloodshed (based on historical precedent) commences?
[UPDATE001] The text of the Ban Ki Moon speech is here. The original quote is:
“Some play on people’s fears. They seek to invoke liberal values for illiberal causes. They accuse immigrants of violating European values. Yet too often, it is the accusers who subvert these values – and thus the very idea of what it means to be a citizen of the European Union,” he said.
“Europe’s darkest chapters have been written in language such as this. Today, the primary targets are immigrants of the Muslim faith. Europe cannot afford stereotyping that closes minds and breeds hatred. And the world cannot afford a Europe that does this.”
Wilders Trial - Day 7
+-+defense+lawyer+Moszkowicz+2.png "Layer Moszkowicz defending Geert Wilders")
Today defense lawyer Moszkowicz spoke in defense of Geert Wilders. His speech is very precise, detailed and technical, so I try to report noteworthy elements the best I can.
Moszkowicz opened with the words that he "defended a dissident, who would have thought that would happen in Netherlands in 2010...". He also recalls other historical dissidents like Galileo, like Wilders he was also prosecuted for his opinions. He asks the question, was it true what Galileo said? Or was it like the prosecution claims, just an opinion were the truth remains an irrelevant fact? For the defense it’s relevant if something is true. The truer a statements is, the less it should be restricted in speech.
"So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world"
-- William Gladstone four times Prime Minister of Great Britain
The defense also counters the idea that Wilders is an extremist. For that respectable historical figures are cited. It becomes clear that William Gladstone, Winston Churchil and even Adam Smith have made very derogatory remarks about Islam, Muslims and the Koran.
+-+prosecution+listening+to+defense+lawyer+Moszkowicz.png "prosecution listening to defense lawyer Moszkowicz (19-10-2010)")
But this trial is not initiated by the prosecution, it was ordered by a higher court on request of yesterday’s plaintives. This court however did not limit it selves to motivate the order for prosecution, it also deemed necessary to also explicitly claim that Wilders violated the law by writing: "Wilders his statements are punishable by the law". This is of course a violation of the presumption of innocence as this court ruling was not the result of a criminal trial with a full defense; it was just the result of a hearing if there should be a trial. Thus at that moment Wilders was not even a suspect! The court rulings argumentation is full of examples like this, for example the fact that the higher court describes Wilders in its ruling as an Islamophobe (a statement for which no support is given). Moszkowicz argued that this last statement had no juridical basis or role in the rulling and can only be explained by the fact that the higher court could not control its own emotions about Geert Wilders.
If the court recognizes this presumption of the higher court who ordered the trial, there is no longer a legal basis for the whole trial. This would mean this is not a fair trial as in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
+-+Judge+Jan+Moorse.png "Judge Jan Moorse (19-10-2010)")
In the afternoon the defense argued about Fitna. Fitna is published on LiveLeak, a foreign company. As can’t be determined were Mr. Wilders was on 27 March 2008, there is no proof given that the filed charges can be assumed to fall under Dutch law. According to the defense, LiveLeak must be seen as an American company form Arizona. This fact can’t be assumed to be by accident, as the United States as no other country in the world is a defender of free speech.
Also can’t Fitna be expected to be illegal in the United States of America, for this he recites the 1st amendment. He calls it a good example for The Netherlands.
The argumentation later in the afternoon becomes more complex and is even harder summarize. But the argumentation showed that not all text can be attributed to him that are used against Mr. Wilders. For example the titles from the articles were not Wilders his statements but made up by the newspapers. Also other statements were wrongly attributed to him as they were citations of other people.
What I found especially noteworthy was how the defense placed it all in context. "It can’t be that Wilders has to be inactive when he sees that others act and preach violence with the Koran in their hand". It’s Wilders who warns against intolerance, intolerance against gay people and intolerance against woman. It’s him who is warning against hate mongering and discrimination. He shouldn’t be the one who one is prosecuted.
Remember also that in name of Islam, courts, not this court, not Dutch courts either, but Islamic courts have already sentenced him to the dead penalty. It’s Wilders who is attacked and limited in his freedom (and not the other way around). Let this be the context in which the court judges his statements.
Thursday October 21, 9:00 the trial continues.
Others about this trial day:
Dutchnews.nl: Wilders has already been found guilty
Expatica: "do not blame messanger"
See also:
Judge Schalken (blog post Hans Jansen)
Breaking: Judges in Wilders trial DISMISSED
Wilders Trial - Day 8
Wilders Trial - Day 7
Wilders Trial - Day 6
Wilders Trial - Day 5
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Arabist Simon Admiraal on Islam
Wildert Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Wafa Sultan on Islam
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Justice minister Hirsch Ballin directing prosecution of Geert Wilders
Trial day 1: Evidence given by Arabist Prof. Hans Jansen (Gov)
Wilder Trial - Day 1
Wilders trial: Court rejects 15 out of 18 witnesses for the defence
Breaking: Geert Wilders on trial January 20th 2010
Breaking: Court orders prosecution of Wilders
Wilder Trial - Day 6
+-+Prakke.png "Wilder Trial - Plaintive lawyer Prakke")
In a Dutch criminal trial, plaintives are allowed to speak about damage done and claim compensation for it. But as this is a political trial, this seems not the plaintives objective. The plaintives are political opponents of Geert Wilders who want to see his voiced opinions to be declared illegal. In first instance the court did not allowed such argumentations in court and ordered their argument to be limited to the damages done. Thus when the first plaintive lawyer criticized the prosecutor for not asking guilty, the court interfered and did not allow the argument.
But when in the afternoon plaintive Prakke argued on different grounds to do the very same thing, the court did not interfere. This lead to protests of defense lawyer Moszkowicz supported by the prosecution. But the court decided to allow the argument as it was deemed to support the damage claims. Thus plaintive lawyer Prakke continued her argument for a guilty verdict for Wilders. But after time went on, defense lawyer Moszkowicz protested again. Also this time the prosecution supported the defense lawyers protest. The prosecution said they had the impression that plaintive lawyer Prakke was overdoing their indictment.
This second time the court decided differently. They did not correct her on what she had said, but what she was about to say in court. Before her plea, the plaintive lawyer had handed over a written copy of her argument to the court. During the short deliberation after the protest the court had read it and decided they did want to allow what she was about to say. The court requested her to continue her speech at a point they did want to allow. Plaintive lawyer Prakke, then requested the court some time to adjust her speech...
Plaintive lawyer Stijnen was also stopped several times and nearly banned from the court for repeatingly criticizing the prosecution. Although the court ordered him to limit his argument in court to arguments to support damage claims for his client(s), they did allow him to make a political speech that argued for Wilders conviction.
+-+Plaintive+Mohammed+Faizel+Ali+Enait.png "Geert Wilders Trial: Plaintive lawyer - Mohammed Faizel Ali Enait")
Enait: 'You interupted me in the middle of a sentence!'
Court to Enait: 'Yes, that is the nature of an interruption.'
(Exchange between Mohammed Faizel Ali Enait and the judge presiding today, after the latter admonished the former for disallowed use of language)
Last plaintive layer was Mohammed Faizel Ali Enait. He did not direct his speech to the court but directly to Wilders and it started by a thread that included "an eye for an eye". The court directly corrected him for not addressing the court. But after he then started to compare Wilders to Hitler, the court stopped him again. The angry argument that followed was as usual for his style, supported by of all kind of rare, obscure and even fantasy words. Some of his claims: there is "blood on the windows" of Muslims and that the "Muslims suffered under the threat of anti-Muslim terror" in Holland. Most interesting claim was a recent conviction of a person who was convicted for threatening to put his beard on fire.
This was Day 6 in the anti-Free Speech Trial against Geert Wilders...
To be continued...
Mohammed Faizel Ali Enait
(more @ Gates Of vienna)
Schedule for this week:
Tuesday (19-Oct-2010): Defense (13:00 CET)
Thursday (21-Oct-2010): Defense continues (8:00 CET)
See also:
Judge Schalken (blog post Hans Jansen)
Breaking: Judges in Wilders trial DISMISSED
Wilders Trial - Day 8
Wilders Trial - Day 7
Wilders Trial - Day 6
Wilders Trial - Day 5
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Arabist Simon Admiraal on Islam
Wildert Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Wafa Sultan on Islam
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Justice minister Hirsch Ballin directing prosecution of Geert Wilders
Trial day 1: Evidence given by Arabist Prof. Hans Jansen (Gov)
Wilder Trial - Day 1
Wilders trial: Court rejects 15 out of 18 witnesses for the defence
Breaking: Geert Wilders on trial January 20th 2010
Breaking: Court orders prosecution of Wilders
'Multikulti' is dead
So said Horst Seehofer, the leader of the German CDU's Bavarian sister party, CSU earlier this week.
And Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel seems to agree with him: German multicultural society has failed.
Richard North observes:
And Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel seems to agree with him: German multicultural society has failed.
Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have "utterly failed", Chancellor Angela Merkel says.
In a speech in Potsdam, she said the so-called "multikulti" concept - where people would "live side-by-side" happily - did not work.
Richard North observes:
In a recent opinion poll, the majority of Germans who responded (55 percent) believed that "Arabs" (aka Muslims) are "unpleasant people", compared with the 44 percent who held the opinion seven years ago. Another recent poll showed one-third of Germans believed the country was "overrun by foreigners" – aka Muslims.Emphasis is mine. In Europe the worm seems to be turning.
Some of these people may have the sense to realise that they have outstayed their welcome, and get out of a country which has a lingering reputation for seeking final solutions to major problems. Once the tides of history start turning, they tend to develop an unstoppable momentum - and the difference this time is that we need to be alongside. You can abuse hospitality for only so long ...
A shiny new crisis
The cause of the crisis can be traced back to two phenomena that have taken hold of the US real estate sector over the last two decades: 1) repackaging and reselling of mortgages and 2) forging (euphemistically called 'recreating') the so-called "chain of title". The chain of title is the proper (signed) documentation that records who is the lender of the mortgage and who is it that owes the lender.
In the nineties of last century it became fashionable to sell mortgages to other parties. Mortgages were sold, repackaged, and sold again. In the process a bewildering array of mortgage-backed securities was created to underwrite this new market. The United States mortgage business not only went national but international as investors worldwide rushed to get a piece of the lucrative American real estate sector.
To help streamline the process, a national mortgage electronic registry called MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) was created, whose purpose was to streamline the transfer of mortgages by helping to avoid the costs and inconveniences of recording mortgages at local courthouses. The biggest problem with this system is that the note, the part of a US mortgage which empowers creditors to enforce the terms of the mortgage, typically lacks the requisite signatures, breaking the chain of title. And when the chain is broken, neither lender nor home-owner can be properly identified: All of a sudden nobody owns the home for which the mortgage was written.
That this was the case for many mortgages came out only when the number of foreclosures started to rise. Before, owners weren't aware because banks simply didn't inform them mortgages were in the possession of other banks. And as long as payments were made, nobody but the banks was any the wiser. But all of a sudden delinquent home-owners (and even some that weren't) started to get eviction notices from companies they'd never heard of and certainly did not sign the mortgage with. Many home-owners contested the eviction in court. That is when the massive breaking of the chain of title was discovered.
But there is that second aspect of the story: the fraud. Of course, the banks were aware that the legal basis of the mortgages, the chain of title, was corrupted. Hence, many banks used the services of obscure and frankly sleazy companies that offered 'recreated' (which means: forged) documents to re-establish the chain of title.
With the number of foreclosures rocketing up and the many problems with the mortgage notes and the chain of title now emerging the demand for these services exploded. The companies offering forged documentation struggled to keep up, cutting corners where they thought they could. New employees were dragged almost literally from the streets. People were asked to 'notarize' forged notes, who barely knew what a mortgage was.
To what absurd results this has led can be read in the DC Caller: One Nation Under Fraud. Home-owners that were current on their payments, even home-owners that had fully paid their mortgage or didn't have any, received eviction notices from banks on the basis of 'recreated' notes that didn't even have the decency to mention the correct names and/or addresses. The pinnacle of absurdity must be the case where Wells Fargo was sued for wrongful foreclosure by... Wells Fargo. And lost...
The scale of the fraud is truly staggering, with estimates that 95% of foreclosure cases involve some form of fraud on the part of the bank. Assuming that these foreclosure cases are a more or less random sample of all mortgages in the system, this throws into severe doubt the value of the mortgages that banks (think they) own. Moreover, the position in mortgage backed securities held by trusts will turn out to be positions in securities backed by nothing. When this notion sets in the market the values of both will drop down to their natural level: $0.00.
How much of that massive number is held by European or Dutch banks I don't know. But I think it is a safe bet that if and when the US real estate market finally sneezes, we'll be in for a massive head-cold. Already last Friday, financial institutions took a hammering on Wall Street. Bank of America shares lost nearly 5%. Shares of Wells Fargo also fell nearly 5%, while J.P. Morgan Chase fell 4% and Citigroup lost nearly 3%. And the cost of protecting against the default of bank bonds continued to surge. In all likelihood, come Monday, European financials will likewise take a beating. I think the appropriate caution is: HANG ON TO YOUR SEATS!
In the mean time a massive number of properties exist in the US for which no legal ownership can be established: No-one owns these houses. The question is: What will happen to these properties? Vox Day asks the question and a reader provides a tentative answer. Not a lot of people are going to like it, though.
Recommended reading:
DC Caller: One Nation Under Fraud
The New American: The Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis
Wall Street Journal: Mortgage Damage Spreads
4closureFraud
Chink in the Armor
[INSTANT UPDATE] The post above is a simplified version of the nature of the Foreclosure Fraud crisis. The whole thing is a much more convoluted affair as a cursory reading of (any of) the links given above will make clear instantly. My aim with this post is to explain things for a non-US audience. Here in the Netherlands at least the reporting on the nature of the crisis is truncated to the point of imbecility. I think I have the basics correct, but if there are corrections to be made, I'd very much like to hear about it.
[UPDATE001] Have the circumstances leading up to the crisis been engineered? Tom Blumer explores the question on Pajamas. He sees the filthy fingerprints all over housing and mortgage lending of the 'Cloward-Piven Strategy'.
Wilders Trial - Day 5
Today, in the 5th court session in the Wilders Trial, the prosecution has made its closing argument that began last Tuesday when the prosecutor asked for dismissal of all group offence charges. Today the prosecution developed its position on the hate crime and discrimination charges.
+-+prosecutor+Birgit+van+Roessel.png "Wilders Trial day 5 - prosecutor Birgit van Roessel")
Like last Tuesday the prosecutions argument is again, complex and longwinded, but has some remarkable positions. For example, the prosecutor argues that truth is irrelevant. What's relevant is the emotion the speaker generates. Does the speaker generate a hate emotion? Does the speaker divide society in two groups and does he warn against a dangerous conflict between those groups? The [thought] crime depends also on how tense the situation in society is.
Noteworthy is also an example of a discriminatory statement repeated several times by the prosecution: "We should ban all males from entering public buildings". An illegal statement, according to the prosecution, if it were not so very unlikely to ever be implemented. Immediately one thinks about Wilders his remarks about wanting to ban all headscarves from all public buildings in The Netherlands.
+-+prosecutor+Paul+Velleman.png "Paul Velleman who sent a SWAT team after cartoonist Nekschot")
In the Dutch system, the prosecution is much closer to the judge than in the American courts (he also sits next to the judge instead of opposite and besides the defendant). In the Dutch system he is expected to be a neutral defender of the law. But still the prosecution made some value statements about Wilders his opinions that were not legally relevant. The prosecution described some of Wilders his statements as unnuanced and dividing society, something they deemed not illegal though. But then again, what is to be expected from a prosecutor like Paul Velleman, it's the same prosecutor who ordered the arrest of Islam critical cartoonist Nekschot.
Also amazing was that the prosecution recognizes that "it is functional to ban the Koran" because Wilders arguments are based on Koranic verses that promote violence. "Banning the Koran is a functional argument" even though the prosecution calls it rude.
Even more amazing might be called the position on violence promotion in the Koran. The prosecution said it does not agree with the translation in Fitna of a particular Koran verse. It did not agree with the expert witnesses either. The prosecution thought that the translation with the order "to terrorize the unbeliever" should be correctly translated as "to cause the unbeliever fear and distress"...
Today the prosecution ended with asking not guilty on all accounts: hate crime charges, discrimination charges and group offence charges (court orders prosecution). This does not mean it’s all over; the judge can still rule independently and decide otherwise. The defense argument is still very relevant, especially because this land mark trial will create important case law that could severely limit free speech in The Netherlands.
+-+Wilders.png "Geert Wilders during Wilders Trial 15-Oct-2010")
Wilder Free Speech Trial will continue next week:
Monday: plaintiffs
Tuesday: Defense (13:00 CET)
Thursday: Defense continues (8:00 CET)
See also:
Judge Schalken (blog post Hans Jansen)
Breaking: Judges in Wilders trial DISMISSED
Wilders Trial - Day 8
Wilders Trial - Day 7
Wilders Trial - Day 6
Wilders Trial - Day 5
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Arabist Simon Admiraal on Islam
Wildert Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Wafa Sultan on Islam
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Justice minister Hirsch Ballin directing prosecution of Geert Wilders
Trial day 1: Evidence given by Arabist Prof. Hans Jansen (Gov)
Wilder Trial - Day 1
Wilders trial: Court rejects 15 out of 18 witnesses for the defence
Breaking: Geert Wilders on trial January 20th 2010
Breaking: Court orders prosecution of Wilders
Like last Tuesday the prosecutions argument is again, complex and longwinded, but has some remarkable positions. For example, the prosecutor argues that truth is irrelevant. What's relevant is the emotion the speaker generates. Does the speaker generate a hate emotion? Does the speaker divide society in two groups and does he warn against a dangerous conflict between those groups? The [thought] crime depends also on how tense the situation in society is.
Noteworthy is also an example of a discriminatory statement repeated several times by the prosecution: "We should ban all males from entering public buildings". An illegal statement, according to the prosecution, if it were not so very unlikely to ever be implemented. Immediately one thinks about Wilders his remarks about wanting to ban all headscarves from all public buildings in The Netherlands.
In the Dutch system, the prosecution is much closer to the judge than in the American courts (he also sits next to the judge instead of opposite and besides the defendant). In the Dutch system he is expected to be a neutral defender of the law. But still the prosecution made some value statements about Wilders his opinions that were not legally relevant. The prosecution described some of Wilders his statements as unnuanced and dividing society, something they deemed not illegal though. But then again, what is to be expected from a prosecutor like Paul Velleman, it's the same prosecutor who ordered the arrest of Islam critical cartoonist Nekschot.
Also amazing was that the prosecution recognizes that "it is functional to ban the Koran" because Wilders arguments are based on Koranic verses that promote violence. "Banning the Koran is a functional argument" even though the prosecution calls it rude.
Even more amazing might be called the position on violence promotion in the Koran. The prosecution said it does not agree with the translation in Fitna of a particular Koran verse. It did not agree with the expert witnesses either. The prosecution thought that the translation with the order "to terrorize the unbeliever" should be correctly translated as "to cause the unbeliever fear and distress"...
"The understandable hurt feelings of Muslims has not role in judging the criminality, but we have an eye for it."
-- prosecutor Birgit van Roessel
Today the prosecution ended with asking not guilty on all accounts: hate crime charges, discrimination charges and group offence charges (court orders prosecution). This does not mean it’s all over; the judge can still rule independently and decide otherwise. The defense argument is still very relevant, especially because this land mark trial will create important case law that could severely limit free speech in The Netherlands.
Wilder Free Speech Trial will continue next week:
Monday: plaintiffs
Tuesday: Defense (13:00 CET)
Thursday: Defense continues (8:00 CET)
See also:
Judge Schalken (blog post Hans Jansen)
Breaking: Judges in Wilders trial DISMISSED
Wilders Trial - Day 8
Wilders Trial - Day 7
Wilders Trial - Day 6
Wilders Trial - Day 5
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Arabist Simon Admiraal on Islam
Wildert Trial - Day 3: Testimony of Wafa Sultan on Islam
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Justice minister Hirsch Ballin directing prosecution of Geert Wilders
Trial day 1: Evidence given by Arabist Prof. Hans Jansen (Gov)
Wilder Trial - Day 1
Wilders trial: Court rejects 15 out of 18 witnesses for the defence
Breaking: Geert Wilders on trial January 20th 2010
Breaking: Court orders prosecution of Wilders
Pachauri stays
The U.N. panel of climate scientists agreed on Thursday to push ahead with reforms after errors in a 2007 report and chairman Rajendra Pachauri rejected suggestions he should step down. That is what Reuters is reporting. Some more background can be found in the BBC's reporting (via WUWT).
Rajendra K. Pachauri is of course thenoted climatologist railway engineer under whose watch the IPCC became embroiled in 'gate' after 'gate'. After taking the credit for the IPCC's work by accepting the Nobel peace price, this lame excuse of a man ducked responsibility for the many 'mistakes' in the IPCC AR4 report by saying “It’s the work of independent authors... they’re responsible”. And I am not even going into the corruption of biblical proportions that has taken hold of this man.
And this is the man that will lead the IPCC into the publication of the next IPCC report. Dr. North thinks it a win-win situation. The discredited charlatan can lead his failed institution to its ultimate nemesis with the production of its next climate change report. With him in charge, its credibility is already fatally damaged. There is nothing worthwhile to be added to this succinct assessment.
Rajendra K. Pachauri is of course the
And this is the man that will lead the IPCC into the publication of the next IPCC report. Dr. North thinks it a win-win situation. The discredited charlatan can lead his failed institution to its ultimate nemesis with the production of its next climate change report. With him in charge, its credibility is already fatally damaged. There is nothing worthwhile to be added to this succinct assessment.
Wilders Trial: Testimony of Arabist Simon Admiraal on Islam
This is the testimony of Dutch Arabist Simon Admiraal during day 3 in the Wilders trial. The reason that you don't see Mr. Admiraal in court, but a judge reading his testimony is because the court did not allowed a public hearing of the expert witnesses. So the defense requested the court to read them in court, which they did.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
This video is provided by Vlad Tepes who created the videos with subtitles. Credits for the translation go to Gates of Vienna and their Flemish correspondent VH. Good job!
See also:
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony Wafa Sultan
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Wilders Trial - Day 1
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
This video is provided by Vlad Tepes who created the videos with subtitles. Credits for the translation go to Gates of Vienna and their Flemish correspondent VH. Good job!
See also:
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony Wafa Sultan
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Wilders Trial - Day 1
Wilders Trial: Testimony of Wafa Sultan on Islam
This is the testimony of Dr. Wafa Sultan during day 3 in the Wilders trial. The reason that you don't see Wafa Sultan in court, but a judge reading her testimony is because the court did not allowed a public hearing of the expert witnesses. So the defense requested the court to read them in court, which they did.
Part 1:
Part 2:
More on Wafa Sultan:
Amazon.com: Wafa Sultan - A god who hates
Gates of Vienna has a full Transcript of Wafa Sultan's Islam testimony at the Wilders Trial.
This video is provided by Vlad Tepes who created the videos with subtitles. Credits for the translation go to Gates of Vienna and their Flemish correspondent VH. Good job!
See also:
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony Arabist Simon Admiraal
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Wilders Trial - Day 1
Part 1:
Part 2:
More on Wafa Sultan:
Amazon.com: Wafa Sultan - A god who hates
Gates of Vienna has a full Transcript of Wafa Sultan's Islam testimony at the Wilders Trial.
This video is provided by Vlad Tepes who created the videos with subtitles. Credits for the translation go to Gates of Vienna and their Flemish correspondent VH. Good job!
See also:
Wilders Trial - Day 4
Wilders Trial - Day 3
Wilders Trial - Day 3: Testimony Arabist Simon Admiraal
Wilders Trial - Day 2
Wilders Trial - Day 1
A second Trial against Wilders
Next Wednesday a second trial against Wilders will start in civilian court. The well known Syrian but Lebanese-born imam Jneid Fawaz has filed a court case against the politician and demands 55.000 euro for damages done by Fitna. He can be seen in Fitna (10:48-11:03) saying on Dutch national television:
"In the Netherlands, for example, one is
allowed to commit adultery or to be gay.
But I don’t feel called upon
to be a party to that, because islam
considers something like that a crime"
--Fawaz Jneid
Sheik Fawaz Jneid now appears to be claiming the money for personality rights and for damage incured by defaming him. He is the well known imam whose as-Sunnah mosque mosque is described by the Dutch intelligence service as a place of dawa, a place for democracy undermining activities. In a book titled: Salaam (NL) from reporter Patrick Pouw, the mosque is depicted as a radical salafi center attracting Muslim youngsters from all over The Netherlands. Law professor Afshin Ellian, in 2006, even named the mosques imam the most influential radial imam (NL) of The Netherlands. The imam denies this and presents him self as the solution against radicalism, because he channels the anger of the Dutch muslim community, by giving it a voice.
BTW Fawaz Jneid does speak Dutch, but refuses to do so in public .
Fawaz Jneid was also called as an expert witness by Geert Wilders but has been rejected by the court that handles the current trial against Wilders. He is also the imam who cursed Theo van Gogh in a sermon a few weeks before he was slaughtered by Mohammed Bouyeri. That same Mohammed Bouyeri was also attending this particular sermon and has heard the imam ask Allah:
"Cause Van Gogh a disease which all the inhabitants of the earth are unable to cure. Cause him suffering making him long for death. Blind the sight of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, give her brains a cancer. Give her tongue a cancer."
Andrew G. Bostom at the American Thinker recalls what the response of Geert Wilders was when in 2008 shortly after the release of Fitna the imam claimed 'damages':
"This hateful imam has cursed [former MP and Islam critic] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, [filmmaker and assassinated Islam critic] Theo van Gogh and [Iranian-born law professor] Afshin Ellian. And he has said the most terrible things. He shouts louder than a pig. I'm not going to pay him a single dime."
The new motto in The Netherlands? I guess it is: Freedom Of Speech for some! Insha'Allah!
Abonneren op:
Berichten (Atom)
LinkWithin
