Wilders Trial day 22: The defense

Yesterday was the 22nd day in court for Mr. Wilders. Imagine that, spending 22 days of your life in court, just because you expressed an opinion! The long court sessions are even wearing down this blogger, imagine what it must be being the defendant in this court case. It must be like living in a nut house, having to spend 22+ days in court, and that’s only when you have a prosecutor pleading not guilty…

After the last Friday and Wednesday listening to what can best described as emotional anti Wilders rants, we could hear this Monday the defense plea. Mr. Moszkowicz started at 14:00 and finished his plea at just past 19:00. I did my best to take notes and offer some views of todays events, but a long well-constructed defense argument like this can’t really be justly abbreviated by a lay person like this. But I still hope that below impression give people outside The Netherlands some idea of today’s events.

Mr. Moszkowicz started by repeating again that he thinks the court case should have been dismissed. Most important reason for dismissal is the prejudice against Mr. Wilders in the court order that forced the trial. The court order described Mr. Wilders as being actually guilty of hate speech crimes. Remember, the court order was the result of a just hearings, not a trial in which the defendant can defend him selves against allegations. Today he would often refer to the legal quality of the order and even calling it a rag.

The prejudice of the court continues even after their ruling. One of the courts judges, judge Schalken, kept trying to influence the trial. He discussed his own court ruling with others, even politicians and even wrote about it in a legal magazine. By those actions he was expanding his own initial ruling. Judge Schalken also had a suspicious dinner with defense witness Hans Jansen. A dinner that was organized just days before Mr. Jansen had to give testimony in this trial against Mr. Wilders. During the dinner Schalken had tried to convince Mr. Jansen of the rightfulness of his prosecution order. An order that described Mr. Wilders as guilty of hate crime offenses, a reason for Mr. Moszkowicz to argue it was already an order to convict and not an order for a fair trial.



Mr. Moszkowicz also refuted the current courts argument that the actions of Mr. Schalken were no longer relevant for this trial as he was no longer involved. The courts judges are, just like judge Schalken, from the Amsterdam court and Mr. Moszkowicz argued that there was no law that would block the future involvement of judge Schalken in future handling of the case against Mr. Wilders.

The involvement of judge Schalken was also one sided. He spoken publicly about his court order and defended it against what he called misrepresentation in the media. But when the prosecution included the Islam fascism comparison, a very obvious misrepresentation of the court order, the judge stayed silent. The judge appears only to act into the disadvantage of Mr. Wilders, thus, so argues the defense, he is acting in bad faith against Mr. Wilders.

The defense was glad the prosecution asked for a not guilty verdict. But besides that, the prosecution does not seem to be overly critical about the prosecution of Mr. Wilders. They even expanded the charges beyond what was ordered by the court. The current court even rejected some of those charges on request of the defense. The prosecution was also not very critical about the role of judge Schalken. Nor were the critical about the perjury of Schalken his friend Mr. Hendriks who organized the dinner with Mr. Jansen.

The defense also argued against prosecuting Mr. Wilders for Fitna as a whole, instead of specific parts. Why charge Mr. Wilders for specific quotes in other utterances but do a blanked inclusion of a whole movie? How should one defend against such broad allegations?
That does not mean Mr. Moszkowicz rejected the prosecutions plea. On the contrary, he actually has spent a considerable amount of time for elaborately praising the prosecutor’s plea. He described the prosecutors as the crème de la crème, Dutch finest experts on anti-discrimination law. He especially praised their well-argued disablement of parts of the court order that ordered the trial.

He would repeat it multiple times today: Mr. Moszkowicz worldview has been turned upside down by this court case. Prosecutors become defenders and judges become prosecutors (he is referring to the judges that ordered Mr. Wilders his prosecution) and judges that don’t respect the defendants right to remain silent (previously dismissed court). Even sitting judges, one of them a sitting supreme court judge, that publish their commentaries about this court case!

We should also not forget the special position of Mr. Wilders, Mr. Moszkowicz told the court. He is risking his life for voicing his opinion that Islamization is the biggest threat for the Western world. But unfortunately the prosecution remains silent about this fact. But we should not forget that Mr. Wilders received his 24h protection after Theo van Gogh was assassinated for making the Islam critical movie Submission. Clearly it was Mr. Wilders he needed protection and not the other way around.

Also Mr. Wilders is directly affected by the danger he warns against. Seen in that light, his statements should be considered very restrained indeed, argued Mr. Moszkowicz.



The defense also distanced itself from statements of the prosecution that declared that the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims were peaceful in The Netherlands. Not only was Theo van Gogh assassinated, there also have been many attacks by Muslims on gays and Jews. Mr. Moszkowicz said the prosecution shouldn’t close its eyes for what’s happening outside of the Netherlands. Throughout the whole world and in Europe we have seen many Islamic terrorist attacks.

The defense also plead that the opinions for which Mr. Wilders stands trial are supported by the facts, facts that have been confirmed by all expert witnesses. Nobody in this trial has refuted any of these facts. Not the prosecution, not the police, not the court that ordered the trial and neither did the complaining plaintiffs refute any of these facts. The defense was pleased to have seen that the prosecution had recurred from its previous position that the truth of Mr. Wilders his statements was irrelevant (as they had argued in the earlier trial).




The prosecution had claimed equivalence between the Koran and Bible saying something like that they both contained terrible statements. But Mr. Moszkowicz told the court that although the prosecutions makes this claim, they fail to provide any support for the claim. That reduced the claim to an (irrelevant) opinion, according to the defense.

It seems that it’s considered very important if Mr. Wilders was disrespectful of an abstraction, like an idea or a religion as opposed to being disrespectful about a group of people, Muslims. The prosecution had argued that Mr. Wilders had indeed been disrespectful of Muslims when he had asked them to tear out all terrible passages of the Koran. Mr. Moszkowicz however claimed it was on the contrary, Mr. Wilders his request was indeed a showing of respect for these people (as he hoped they would remove the terrible things, instead of expecting them to persist in what Mr. Wilders considered terrible believe statements). Just like the prosecutors plea, the important theme of the day was: Mr. Wilders was criticizing Islam, a religion, a political ideology, but not making blanked statements about a group of people: Muslims. Moszkowicz told the court that Mr. Wilders considered Muslims as one of the biggest victim of the Islamic ideology.

A more technical defense argument was that case law used by the prosecutions was created after Mr. Wilders made his statements for which he now is prosecuted. Thus Mr. Wilders had no way of anticipating these new interpretations of the law.

As expected the defense argued strongly in favor of free speech, according to the defense an important ingredient for free and democratic societies. Especially unpopular and descending views need protection according to the defense. Also “the conscious of the believer is not more valuable than that of Wilders”. We should also remember that it’s not that Mr. Wilders wants to be offensive, but the threat he warns against, Islamization, is so grave that firm words are needed.
Mr. Moszkowicz also refers to a plaintiff who said in the trial that Mr. Wilders was the "new Hitler", Moszkowicz: "Wilders thinks that this idiot may say that, I don't" (although the court allowed the statements). That was also the beginning of today’s first minor incident as the plaintiff who made the Hitler remarks begins to speak against Mr. Moszkowicz. But the defense lawyer directly counters: “I’m not in conversation with you sir” (I’m addressing the court). The courts presidents reacts very irritated about Moszkowicz his reply and with an angry face he irritated gestures to Moszkowicz that he should only address the court. Not a word against the plaintiff, giving the impression Mr. Moszkowicz pleads in front of a hostile court.

Freedom of religion is considered important. But argued the defense: should freedom of religion not also mean the freedom to be an apostate? It’s this freedom of religion that Mr. Wilders addressed when he wrote the Hitler comparison in an article written together with Ehsan Jami. Ehsan Jami is a well know apostate and Mr. Moszkowicz described how Ehsan Jami has been attacked and injured for his apostasy.

Mr. Moszkowicz also explained that he had advised Mr. Wilder not to testify in court for legal reasons. It was not Mr. Wilders, but his advice that has kept Mr. Wilders silent in court. He criticizes people in the press, who wrote that Mr. Wilders shied away from the debate because he refused to testify. To them Moszkowicz addressed these words: “Those who don’t know the rules of the game, should remain silent”. Noteworthy was the president’s reaction, for the first time the courts president Marcel van Oosten could be seen nodding in agreement with the defense lawyer.



The defense also elaborately cited the expert witnesses, which I cannot repeat here (like many other statements that were made in today’s trial). The defense argued that all experts supported the idea that Islam is on a mission to take over the Western world. Islam is an intolerant religion that only allows conversions to Islam but puts the dead penalty on apostasy. Also several experts described The Netherlands as an Islamic mission country.

Especially interesting has been the testimony of Bill Warner, who has done comparative analysis of the Jew-hatred in Koran and Mein Kampf. His researched showed that Hitler’s Mein Kamp contained 7% of such anti-Semitic passages, while the Koran contained 17% of such passages.

Interesting was also that the defense was citing the words of former Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner who has said that nothing stood in the way to implement Sharia in The Netherlands. All that was needed was a democratic majority. Donner had meant those remarks to appease Muslims into using democratic means for getting sharia implemented. But by doing so he had legitimized sharia as a legal policy option that is not beyond debate.

Today was a day with little interaction between the court and the defense. A noteworthy, but minor interaction with the court happened when Mr. Moszkowicz talked about the conviction of Le Pen. When he told the court he would not quote Le Pen in French, court president Marcel van Oostveen remarked that that was a pity. Apparently the judge is fond on his French skills. Although when Mr. Moszkowicz, said he had the text, the president countered he already knew the text that got Le Pen convicted.

Laughs could also be heard in the court room when President Marcel van Oosten corrected Mr. Moszkowicz for wrongly pronouncing a French word. Moszkowicz agreed and then quickly countered with:
“If you agree with everything that I have said that you did not oppose than my plea was quite strong.”
No laughs this time though and the courts president looked angry.

After the defense quotes several legal experts that were also earlier cited by the prosecution, we near the end of the plea. Then Mr. Moszkowicz relates to the fact that Mr. Wilders is paying the price for what he says and that we shouldn’t forget that and he closes with the words:

"Wilders should be acquitted, because the law requires it, because justice requires it and because it serves democracy."



19:03 Finish


Next court day: Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 9:00 CET.


See also:
Wilders Trial day 21: The Crime Victims
Wilders Trial day 20: Prosecution asks NOT guilty
All Wilders Trial posts

Wilders Trial day 21: The Crime Victims

Today it is already the 21st day that Mr. Wilders had to appear in court to defend him selves for his statements he made about Islam.

Last Wednesday, after the prosecution plea, the first two plaintiffs addressed the court. Today it’s Friday and the other plaintiffs have addressed the court. Like I wrote in my Wednesday post, the Plaintiffs represent the victims in this criminal trial, but are not a real legal party in the criminal trial, by law they are only allowed to explain to the court how the crime has affected them and how much damage was caused by it. The court will use their statements to award possible compensation if the verdict against the defended is guilty.

Last Wednesday, we had the censored Marxist ramblings of Nico Steijnen and Erik Olof. Today the court again proposed to censor the pleas of the plaintiff lawyers. But todays lawyers said they did not want to hand over their please so the court good go throught them and mark the allowed and not allowed sections of their pleas.

Below I have described some noteworthy, although incomplete description, of the each plaintiff’s plea, which I hope gives an impression of today’s main events.




Michiel Pestman
The first speaker was Mr. Pestman who started his plea by arguing the legal rights of the plaintiffs. He also said that the hate and fear of Mr. Wilders is threatening for Muslims. Also the concepts Mr. Wilders introduces with his opinions are being used in hateful reactions against Muslims (other plaintiffs will also argue this). For example concepts like 'Islam is political ideology' or 'Muslims use Taqiyya' are being used in a hateful manner against Muslims.

Mr. Pestman asked the court for awarding rectification on Mr. Wilders his own websites. Although the courts president warned Mr. Pestman that this way Mr. Wilders would control for how long this rectification would be available.




Mohammed Rabbae
Next speaker was Mohammed Rabbae a former party leader of GroenLinks (Greens), who after Geert Wilders made the movie Fitna set up a foundation supported by immigrant organizations in order to get Mr. Wilders prosecuted for making the movie. Mr. Rabbae argued that he and the Muslims he represents are very Dutch and well integrated, although after now living 40 years in The Netherlands he still can't speak a proper Dutch without a very heavy accent.

Another argument of Mr. Rabbae was that the right not to be discriminated was more important than the right of free speech. He also referred to an endless list of proposals of Mr. Wilders in order to show how dangerous he really was. Describing Mr. Wilders as an authoritarian leader, who wanted to close institutions, who wanted to leave the EU, ignore the VN and remake The Netherlands into an authoritarian apartheids state. He also warned the judges that Mr. Wilders even had proposals that would take away their freedom as judges, because Mr. Wilders had proposed minimum sentences and had made a case for a different appointment system.

"even God is not supported by the people [in The Netherlands], so we [muslims] know in what kind of society we live" – Mohammed Rabbae

According to Rabbae the Muslims are the real victims of 9/11. And Mr. Wilders is causing them to be discriminated. He even tried to argue that the high number of schizophrenics under Moroccans is caused by discrimination, and thus, by implication, by Mr. Wilders.

He also said that Mr. Wilders cause Dutch Muslims to be scared. To illustrate this point Mr. Rabbae told the court that some Muslims didn’t even dare to sign anti-Israel petitions because they are afraid of what Mr. Wilders would do with them, after all Mr. Wilders is a friend of Israel (In March Rabbae called Mr.Wilders an instrument of Israel (NL)).

"Mr. Wilders, Islamizes everything, he might even invent that soccer goals of Muslims players don't count in order to safe guard against Islamization" -- Mohammed Rabbae

Although the court warned Mr. Rabbae several times, they still let Mr. Rabbae hold his political activist speech that warned against the imminent danger: Mr. Wilders.




Amel Bensala
Ms. Bensala made a personal and more direct emotional plea. The plea was remarkable inconsistent. For example she argued that Mr. Wilders was the cause of all racism. But then, moments later started out to describe how her parents (long before Mr. Wilders political career) also had to fight racism when arriving in The Netherlands. She told the court the story about how her family arrived in The Netherlands and faces racism and how the newly arrived family files charges against their racist landlord and won their court battle.

She also complained that Mr. Wilders thinks Muslims are not well integrated and don’t consider The Netherlands their true home. Well that was just untrue, she argued, because when her father died he was buried in The Netherland, as a real Dutch man! And she added: we just ignored all the protest of our friends at the Mosque and our Moroccan friends…




Ties Prakke
Lawyer Prakke argued that this trial is needed because Wilders opinions are not adequately opposed in the public debate. She also described Mr. Wilders as a paranoid conspiracy thinker who is after Muslims instead of just Islam.

The courts president intervenes; she is not allowed to plea for the guilt of Mr. Wilders. Although the eyes of the judge were on fire when Mr. Moskowicz declared he agreed with that assement. But plaintive Prakke just continued in the same style, so the court stops her and demands she changes her plea. As a result Prakke asks the court for a short recess, in order to restructure her plea. After the recess, Prakke announced she will not plea and stop. The courts president then declared that they have read the next part of her plea in the recess and that they would allow it. Prakke reconsiders and continues her plea.

The elaborate plea about Mr. Wilders, like all others, is very hostile, describing Mr. Wilders as a causing all kind of problems. The hostility goes so far that when she argues that political language causes racism, that she illustrates that with the Hutu- Tutsi genocide in Rwanda.

She also referred to the court order that instructed the prosecution to prosecute. She cited a part of the order that declared Mr. Wilders was found guilty (!) of hate speech. A controversial part of the order, because this court order was the result of a hearing in which Mr. Wilders could not plea his innocence, for this reason the defense had also used referred to this part to argue for the dismissal of this trial.

Defense lawyer Moskowicz complained about her plea, as it was more like an alternative prosecutor’s plea than anything else. But the court refused to intervene, the court president said they would decide later (in private chambers) what they would deem permissible and what not (depriving the defense of knowing what had entered the court case and what not).




Henri Sarolea
After the break Mr. Sarolea hold his plea. He was representing a non-Muslim immigrant, who had said she left the country because she was afraid of Mr. Wilders. Sarolea presented his plea with a thundering and agitated voice. He accuses Mr. Wilders repeatedly of: "using war language", causing "deteriorated living conditions" and creating a "poisoned climate", making "threatening statements" and many more malicious acts.

Mr. Sarolea, like the other plaintiffs, also tried to acts as alternative prosecutor and argued that the prosecutions made mistakes in their plea (they misquoted Rosier) and offered the court his corrections.

Also like some of the other plaintiffs he argued that many (simple) people respond irrational and thus Wilders should not be judged for his exact wordings, but he should be judges for their possible emotional effect on irrational behaving people. He also blamed Wilders for using the term Taqiyya as this makes that people no longer trust Muslims.




Lucien Nix (Representing: Moroccan Mosques)
After the break the lawyer of the Moroccan Mosques in The Netherlands spoke. He said Mr. Wilders was as bad as the assassinated Pim Fortuyn. For him the Muslims were the real victims and he read out a list of mostly minor vandalism crimes. He failed to address the real and actual violence against people, for example why Wilders needed 24h protection or what caused the excessive high crime levels under Moroccan youth.

The biggest offense he brought to bear was that somebody had shredded an Arabic (!) Koran and put it in the mailbox of a Mosque. The imam wanted to get angry but Nix said, the man reconsidered and did not turn to violence (apparently that would be a natural reaction). The book shredding incident was all the fault of Geert Wilders and his Fitna movie. As in Fitna Wilders had argued that Muslims should tear out all aggressive and intolerant parts.

Mr. Nix thinks the idea, to churn out hateful pages out of the Koran, is nothing short than a call for destroying his religion. In support of that claim, he cites a book of Islam critical Arabist Hans Jansen (whose son in the past had received a threatening Fatwa from a Moroccan Mosque) and refers to a passage were Jansen writes that Muslims believe that the Koran is the (perpetual) word of Allah.

Like the other plaintiffs he claims the symbolic sum of 1 Euro for damages done. The only difference is that the Moroccan Mosques want 1 EURO for each of their members, totaling: 128.473 EURO




Jeroen de Kreek
Disbarred lawyer Jereoen de Kreek had the bravest act of today’s performers. When he started his plea, he told the court that he was arresting Mr. Wilders (citizen’s arrest?). After the court told him that this was not possible he argued that Mr. Wilders was an enormous criminal, involved in war crimes, terrorism, genocide and that the both the prosecution and the court were complicit because they did not arrest Mr. Wilders on the spot for these obvious facts. After a while the court intervened and asked Mr. de Kreek to continue with an other part of his plea.

Mr. de Kreek explained how much he was suffering because of Mr. Wilders. First of all, he did not like to appear in public (neither did he wanted to be filmed) but Mr. Wilders forced him to appear here in court. He also told the court that Mr. Wilders was consuming all his available time, he could not think about anything else than Mr. Wilders, who also was the cause he did not sleep very well and caused him not to be able to concentrate him selves. Mr. Wilders took all the fun out of his day to day life.

Besides this Mr. de Kreek was also hurt in business, because all his time was now consumed by Mr. Wilders, he just had no time left to spend on his internet business. Also, because Mr. Wilders his negative presentation of Islam a business plan had prematurely tanked: Mr. de Kreek had planned to setup Sharia courts in The Netherlands. (Mr. de Kreek is not a Muslim).

He also said he was suffering from psychosomatic stress disorder because of Mr. Wilders. And said he could also see that both the judiciary and the judges of the court were showing signs of that same disorder, of course all caused by Mr. Wilders.

The judges would later make an early end to his plea.




Monday afternoon, May 31, 2011 the defense will plea. Mr. Moskowicz wanted to reschedule and asked the court if he was expected to plea for 10 hours none-stop? The courts president answered short: yes we think you can manage that (nothing to do with this!).


See also:
Wilders Trial day 20: Prosecution asks NOT guilty
All blog post about Wilders Trial

Video footage of todays trial day (Dutch only):
Amal Bensala
Mohammed Rabbae
Jereoon de Kreek (incomplete)
Lucien Nix
Ties Prakken

Wilders Trial day 20: Prosecution asks NOT guilty

This is now the 20th trial day in the trial against Mr. Wilders. Today it was the prosecutions turn to plea. Again it was an elaborated, detailed, dry and longwinded plea that was hard to follow for the layperson. Just like the last time, the prosecution again asked for: NOT GUILTY on all counts.

The consensus is that the judges will rule like wise. But would you sleep any better if you were the defended? Even if Mr. Wilders wins this trial, he still lost more than 20 days of his live in trial and many more in the preparation of it. Also, even if the judge follows the prosecutions plea, that does not automatically mean Mr. Wilders and Free Speech in general is of the hook either. Other trials may follow, either against Mr. Wilders or others. That’s why the argumentation of this court decision is so important; this trial is about case law.

So where do we stand? Well the length and complexity of the prosecutions plea seems a good indication of how the situation with free speech now is in The Netherlands: very, very difficult. You can be prosecuted for giving your opinions about Islam and if the court would follow all arguments of the prosecution it becomes very risky to say too much about it.



Also I would like the readers to remember that one of the prosecutors, now asking for not guilty against Mr. Wilders is the infamous Mr. Velleman. That’s the prosecutors who send a nightly SWAT team to raid the home of a Dutch cartoonist for making Mohammed cartoons. The cartoonist was put him in jail but Velleman never brought his case to trial, holding a possible trial for year dangling above the head of the cartoonist. The cartoonist went fairly silent after that treatment.

As expected such a prosecutor is not very neutral to Mr. Wilders. Thus the prosecution described Mr. Wilders his arguments as one sided (one of their criteria for inadmissible speech), rude and offensive. But the prosecutors found Mr. Wilders his proposal for stopping immigration of non-Western immigrants harder to judge. They considered the proposal discriminator but as he was advocating a policy and did not actually try to convince people into acting in this racist manner, they thought it was admissible speech. Because according to the prosecution it was allowed to persuade people into a racist and discriminatory mind set, as long as you did not try to convince those people into actually acting racist.

Prosecutor: "The party program of the PVV is discriminator"

The prosecution also explained the court what Wilders meant with his movie Fitna and said among other things: Wilders shows violence that is the result of Islam, directed against people, both Muslims as non-Muslims. In the movie Muslims are shown as the instruments of Islam.

But there was also room for some laughs, the prosecution and the president of the court joked about 11 September (the Vienna one) in reference to presidents statement of yesterday. Not sure what was so funny about it, just thought it was noteworthy.



So what did we learn today? Well we now know a little more about what is admissible when we speak about Islam. Although we know not all the rules, because I can’t give an adequate summery of an 8 hour legal explanation, you at least have to know these rules:

• Politicians can be prosecuted like regular people for speech offenses.


• But regular folks have less free speech than politicians


• An offensive argument that supports your cause is more likely to be allowed than an offensive argument that does not support you point very well


• It is allowed to make people think racist and discriminatory, but it is not admissible to convince them to act racist or discriminatory.


• It’s not allowed to say that we are in an intrinsically conflict with others (forbidden: the Nazis will exterminate us).


• Politicians are not allowed to propose solutions that are deemed excessive in relation to the problems they say it solves.


• Not what you say, but what it might provoke in others is what determines the legality of your speech.


• Remember some speech is only allowed because the current state of the debate in Europe allows it (so please don’t say to many innovative things)

After the prosecution was finished around 17:00 the court decided to continue with councilor-complainants Nico Steijnen and Erik Olof. The courts behavior to these counselors gave us some interesting insights in the courts ideas about free speech.

These councilor-complainants are of course the extreme leftist and Muslim activist lawyers who had forced this court case in the first place. You can imagine that these lawyers were not very happy with the prosecutions plea for a not guilty. If these activist lawyers had their way, they would act as second prosecutors in this court case (that’s what they tried in the earlier court case).

But the law does give them a very specific role in a criminal trial. In a criminal trial the victims are only allowed to talk about damage done and request compensation (an idea that grew out of the frustration that victims had to start a costly civil suite for getting compensation for damages done). It’s of course the court’s responsibility to prevent abuse of this arrangement.

So the court decided to act pro-actively. Amazingly they decided to censor the lawyers. Thus instead of waiting what the councilor-complainant were going to bring in front of the court, they asked the lawyers to hand over their pleas. Then the court took as short recess, during which they quickly reviewed the plea and marked all sections they deemed not admissible in court. Then they asked the lawyers to hold their original plea but without the market sections. When the lawyer clumsy asked for making another ad hoc plea, the court president repeatedly pressed him for just making the censored plea.

It’s not hard to imagine how confusing a half censored Marxist rambling sound. Well, it was shorter, less structured but still much more than a plea for damages done. It can best be described as repetitive hate speech propaganda that tried to massage the brain with the message that evil Geert Wilders had to be stopped before he grabbed power and become an existential threat to all of us. If one would apply the same legal standards, as laid out by the prosecution today, to this court rant, you would have quite strong case for prosecution.

Logically the rand led to complaints of defense lawyer Moszkowicz. Although it was his first complaint in today’s session, it angered the court; the courts president snapped that he was only slowing things down with his complaints. The president said he did not stop the councilor because the court would just ignore all the inadmissible statements he would make (although the defense would never know what and what not they would considered allowed, making a defense against the allegations very hard). But the defense lawyer stood his ground and complaint he was not in a hurry, all he wanted was a fair trial even if that meant they would have to stay until midnight. The court ignored him.

The trial ended at 19:00, next session is Friday May 27, 2011.




See also:
All Wilders Trial blog posts
Wilders Trial day 19: Judge praises Turks for Viennese coffee

Others on this trial day:
Expatica - Prosecutors again call for anti-Islam lawmaker's acquittal

Dead man walking

A must-read by Wayne Madsen: Is another European empire collapsing before our eyes?

Like it or not, the United States will soon see the collapse of an abortive European super-state based in Brussels and the subsequent return of sovereignty to the nations of Europe.

And sooner, rather then later, one hopes.

(h/t Witterings from Witney)

It has begun: EUnion preparing restructuring of Greek debt

According to Het Financieele Dagblad (NL) de EUnion has secretly begun 'restructuring' Greek debt.

Euro-zone countries have secretly started preparations of an extension of maturities on Greek debt paper and setting up an independent organ to sell off Greek state assets.

This is reported by sources in Brussels. The plans, aimed to help Athens meet its financial obligations, are extremely sensitive. The European Central Bank (ECB) resists restructuring of Greek debt. Such would mean investors give up part of their claims. The ECB fears such measure may precipitate a new crisis in the European financial sector.

According to sources officials of the euro-zone countries have already begun the technical preparations for a light for of restructuring: A 're-profiling' of debt, meaning a short extension of maturity on bonds.

Apparently the EUnion financial wizards have added a new word to the lexicon of the EUnion Lie: re-profiling. According to the FD 're-profiling' is a process of voluntary extension of bond maturities, involving commercial investors, without it triggering a 'credit event'. In a credit event commercial debt holders would liquidate their credit default swaps on Greek debt en masse, leading to another shock to the market.

It may look like this is a safe way of lightening the load for Greece. But it doesn't change much about that benighted country's insolvency. And one wonders what the reaction of the market is going to be. Especially in light of Moody's giving off the same warning Fitch made last Friday.

What is most striking in this episode, probably because it has become so dreadfully familiar: It is all done, yet again, in secret, in back-chambers, where democratic control and accountability are not a factor. Over on ZH we have Paul Craig Roberts, the co-founder of Reaganomics, lamenting this state of affairs. He argues that in fact there is probably more democracy in China then there is in the West.

The west prides itself that it is the standard for the world, that it is a democracy. But nowhere do you see democratic outcomes: not in Greece, not in Ireland, not in the UK, not here, the outcomes are always to punish the innocent and reward the guilty. And that's what the Greeks are in the streets, protesting. We see this all over the west. There is no democracy, there are oligarchies, some of these smaller European countries are not even run by their own governments, they are run by Wall Street... There is probably more democracy in China than there is in the west. Revolution is the only answer... We are confronted with a curious situation. Throughout the west we think we have democracy, we hold ourselves up high, we demonize China, we talk about the mafia state of Russia, we talk about the Arabs and so on, but where is the democracy here?

Revolution is the only answer, he says. Just sit back and mull it over for a little...

Wilders Trial day 19: Judge praises Turks for Viennese coffee

Today the court ruled against the defense for dismissal of the court case (see official press release). In an earlier plea the defense had argued that the prosecutions case was so tainted it should be dismissed. The order to prosecute Mr. Wilders had not abided the golden rule of 'presumption of innocence' and one of the judges who wrote that order, Tom Schalken, had tried to influence defense witness Hans Jansen during a dinner only days before his court testimony.

But the court all rejected those claims. Although the court found the dinner inappropriate, it ruled that judge Schalken had not tried to influence the witness and that as the judge is not part of current proceedings, it's of no influence for the current trial.

Directly after this ruling the trial against Mr. Wilders continued.

The defense had requested, like before, an integral reading of all testimonies, but the court rejected that request and instead gave summaries of the relevant deemed parts. By giving summaries instead of a more neutral reading, it's gets relevant how the court makes those summaries.

Noteworthy was the behavior of court president Marcel van Oosten who made a summary of column Wilders wrote for Dutch blog geenstijl.nl. In the column Wilders wrote about how lucky we were that the battle of Vienna was won by the West on 11 September 1683. After giving his summery the judge deemed it necessary to comment that "everybody should know that Vienna thanks his excellent coffee to this". So I guess, the judge thinks we all need to thank the Turks for trying to invade Europe, otherwise we had to miss out on those excellent Vienna coffee!



But unfortunately the courts knowledge about Islam does not go further than the Turkish coffee. When Judge Judith Boeree was summarizing the testimony of Arabist Hans Jansen she struggled to pronounce the name of the most influential modern Muslim writer Said Qutb. Just like the judge in the earlier fail trail against Mr. Wilders the judge could again not pronounce the name.



Besides Hans Jansen also a testimonies of Robert Spencer and others were summarized. Also videos were shown in court. They showed Fitna and two prerecorded question and answers with defense witnesses. One with Andrew G. Bostom who wrote the book "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism" and an interview with Bill Warner who is known for his statistical text analysis of the Koran).



Noteworthy was also how the court handled the demands of the 'aggrieved parties'. One of the judges read a list of statements attributed to Mr. Wilders according to a compilation of the aggrieved parties, but he did not read out the supposed to be source of these citations, thus making it very hard for the general public to verify those claims. The court also showed a video of a website criticizing Mr. Wilders, but the court had failed to provide the defense with a copy of the video. The video consisted of short edits of public remarks of Mr. Wilders, often statements he made in parliament. This way the court has now allowed statements giving in parliament to enter the court case although the prosecution could not do that because Dutch law prohibits it (Dutch law prohibits prosecution for any statements made in parliament).




Today’s morning session ended with a scheduling conflict between the court and the defense. The defense had notified the prosecution was unavailable next week and thus had not planned for trial days. But today it showed the court had rejected the prosecution’s request without informing the defense. The defense complained, but to no avail, the schedule stays as the court had not explicitly informed the defense of any scheduling changes.

Only when Mr. Wilders complained in the afternoon in person and told the court he had no time to prepare his closing plea the court reconsidered. Mr. Wilders had to remember the court that today there were elections for the senate (first chamber) and that tomorrow and Thursday he needs to be in parliament. Wednesday and Friday he has to be in court, thus scheduling his defense plea for coming Monday leaves him to little time to prepare his closing argument.

Now the court has allowed a reschedule, Wilders lawyer now can do his plea in the afternoon instead of the morning...

Update:
Official press release by the Amsterdam court:
Decisions of the Amsterdam district court of 23 May 2011 as regards the Wilders trial


See also:
All Wilders Trial Blog posts
Wilders Trial day 18: An unfair trial
Wilders Trial day 17: Judges stay
Wilders Trial: Judges feel used
Is it a conspiracy?
Judge Schalken (blog post Hans Jansen)

Others about this trial day:
Gates of Vienna - The Farce Continues

Jihadwatch - Expert witness in Wilders trial
An essay by Wilder Trial expert witness Hans Jansen titled: "The Dutch will, from now on, have to live with unpredictable limitations of the freedom of speech"

Bill Warner's book: "Sharia law for Non-Muslims” is for download: here.

Hans Jansen on Wilders Trial

Wilders trial expert witness Hans Jansen today published an essay about today's Wilders trial proceedings on Dutch group blog Hoeiboei.blogspot.com:


The Dutch will, from now on, have to live with unpredictable limitations of the freedom of speech

The Dutch will, from now on, have to live with unpredictable limitations of the freedom of speech and, even worse, with the legality of attempts to sabotage the foundation of all Western politics: the separation of the three traditional powers of the Western state: the executive, legislative and judicial power.

The Amsterdam court charged with condemning the elected member-of-parliament Geert Wilders decided today that the trial must go on where it derailed last fall. In October and November 2010 it became known that Justice Tom Schalken (Amsterdam) had dinner with one of the few expert witnesses the court had allowed to the defense of Mr Wilders. This dinner took place a few days before the witness had to appear in court. These contacts could easily be understood as attempts to influence the witness. It is actually rather difficult to understand them in any other way.

Justice Tom Schalken, we now know, also had also played a role in the executive when as a functionary of the Ministry of Justice he formulated the laws that make it possible for Geert Wilders to be summoned to court by private citizens even when the state prosecutor does not see a winnable case. He, moreover, had been active behind closed doors, influencing Dutch opinion makers; and published ‘scholarly’ articles arguing the case against political dissidents like Mr. Wilders. Finally, as the crown on all this work, he had signed (and probably personally written) the order that imposed on the prosecutor the duty to go to trial to get Mr. Wilders condemned.

Nevertheless, the Amsterdam Court did not see a problem here, and Dutch justice will run its course. Or, actually, the Court did see the problems, but did not think they were relevant to what they were doing to Mr. Wilders. Only decades of studying and practicing law in the Netherlands will help outsiders to understand this decision, but it is seriously to be doubted whether sane young men and women will take the trouble to do so.

The trial, hence, goes on where it got derailed in the fall of 2010. From now on, someone who speaks in the Netherlands about Islamic theology, law or religious practice will have to be extremely careful. Librarians will have to clean their shelves: books from whatever period may have to be removed. Tourists who bring books or newspapers with them from the outside world must hope for the best. Publishers and bookshops will surely spontaneously understand their patriotic duties. The multicultural state shall have its way.

It goes without saying that Christianity, Judaism and Atheism cannot receive similar protection from the multicultural state – because if that were the case, the Koran and all handbooks of Mohammedan law would have to be forbidden because of the offensive and abusive language these religious texts employ when discussing non-Muslim religious viewpoints. And, as we all know, to forbid Islamic books would be a very unmulticultural thing to do indeed.

See also:
Wilders trial
Judge Schalken (blog post Hans Jansen)
Hoeiboei - Trial of Geert Wilders

Wilders Trial: court ruling May 23, 2011

Official press release from the Amsterdam courts about todays ruling in the trial agains Mr. Wilders:

Decisions of the Amsterdam district court of 23 May 2011 as regards the Wilders trial

Amsterdam, 23 May 2011 – In the criminal case against mr Wilders, the counsel for the defense lodged a defense with regard to the inadmissibility of the case. In summary, the following has been brought forward. The court of appeal that ordered the prosecution of Wilders, examined too extensively. The decision has a judgmental character.
Schalken, one of the judges at the Court of Appeal that reached this decision, has tried to influence an expert witness and the public debate. In addition, critical notes were placed as regards individuals who are engaged in the case.

A short summary of the most important decisions by the district court is set out below. For the complete text of the decisions, please consult www.rechtspraak.nl.

The decision as regards the procedure pursuant to section 12 Dutch Criminal Code
The court of appeal examined the decision in extenso as regards the decision of the Public Prosecution to refrain from prosecuting Wilders. The law allows this. In the proceedings with the court of appeal, the views of the public prosecutors, complainants and Wilders as regards the feasibility and possible prosecution of Wilders, were qualified in detail. In its extensive and thorough motivation of its judgment, the court of appeal did not operate beyond the legal limits of its duties. Furthermore, the law dictates that, in principle, the district court is not bound to the decision of the court of appeal.

Performance of Schalken vis-à-vis (expert) Jansen
The district court deems it plausible that at the time of the dinner, Schalken was aware of the fact that Jansen would be interviewed as an expert in the Wilders trial. It has not become plausible that Schalken tried to influence Jansen as regards the topic about which Jansen would be interviewed as expert: the Islam. The district court is of the opinion indeed that, in view of the reticence to be complied with in pending criminal cases, Schalken should have abstained from discussing the decision with Jansen who still had to be interviewed, even though at the time of his contact with Jansen, he did not play a formal role anymore in the criminal case and he would not play this role anymore either. Schalken, who had pronounced his judgment about the prosecution of the suspect as one of the judges at the Court of Appeal, should have prevented each possible appearance of interference in the principal case. However, section 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has not been violated. The performance of Schalken vis-à-vis Jansen neither influenced the pending proceedings, nor was the picture formed that the suspect had already been convicted. Additionally, the position of the suspect was not injured by the performance of Schalken either.

Performance of Schalken vis-à-vis the public opinion
After the decision of the Court of Appeal had been reached and published, Schalken wrote an article and discussed the decision with publicist Scheffer.
Since the decision was already subject of public debate, Schalken did not fulfill any (formal) role in the Wilders trial and since it did not turn out that he brought forward more information than the contents of the decision, it cannot be determined that Schalken crossed any borders.

Performance of individuals engaged in justice
It cannot be deduced from the fact that individuals who are engaged in justice ventured an opinion on the Wilders trial, the right to a fair trial of Wilders has been violated. It has not turned out that these individuals ventured an opinion on the guilty/ innocence of the suspect.

Conclusion: the arguments of the defense do not result in the inadmissibility of the Public Prosecution.

Continuation
The investigation at trial will be continued on 23 May 2011, shortly after the district court has announced the decisions as stated above. The court hearings, as known at present will be held on 25 and 27 May, both at 9.00 AM.

Source: District Court of Amsterdam
Date of topicality: 23 May 2011

.

Nearing critical mass

Here are a pair of items our readers may find interesting that I pilfered from ZeroHedge.

First, Norway is halting payments to Greece.

Norway will first stop all further financial aid payments to the highly indebted Greece. The reason is that Greece does not fulfill its obligations descendants, the Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store said on Thursday before the Parliament.

According to ZH, here comes the first domino. Norway, which is a member of the European Economic Area, and actually one of the few solvent European countries, is saying let the chips fall where they may. It may be just the first. Look for every other country currently on the sidelines vis-a-vis Greece (and just as insolvent) to follow suit as the European experiment falls apart.

Secondly, and adding insult to injury, Fitch Ratings has downgraded Greece's long-term debt paper to 'B+' from 'BB+'.

And while EUrocrats are talking about a 'soft' default, extending pay-back time and lowering interests on loans to Greece, Fitch is warning it will not play ball.

An extension of the maturity of existing bonds would be considered by Fitch to be a default event and Greece and its obligations would be rated accordingly. If contrary to Fitch's expectations, private sector 'burden sharing' as a condition for new money extends beyond exhortation and is coercive, the credibility of policy commitments regarding the European Stability Mechanism and EU-IMF programmes for Ireland ('BBB+'/Negative) and Portugal ('BBB-'/RWN), as well as Greece, would be severely diminished and in Fitch's opinion would adversely impact financial stability across the euro area.

In short: if the EUnion follows through on its suggestion for a extending loans and lowering interests, Fitch will consider Greece in default. And if commercial paper holders are forcibly made to take a haircut, Fitch will do the same to Ireland and Portugal.

It seems we are nearing critical mass.

[UPDATE001] Reuters confirms the Norway story, adding that Finland, a full EUnion member, is also contemplating not handing over more money. On top of that, the IMF is suspended its review of Greece until the government draws up further austerity measures. A suspension could mean a delay in the disbursement of much-needed IMF funds. Greece is fast running out of willing donors. (h/t EURef)

[UPDATE002] And to give this post a little couleur locale, De Telegraaf (NL) has seemingly kicked off a campaign against handing Greece more Dutch money, by publishing a lengthy article about how the average Greek views the current situation. It's quite shocking, the lack of humility and attrition and the unbelievable arrogance with which the EUnion money is expected to keep flowing. Featured prominently as well is the massive corruption endemic in Greek daily life. The by-line reads : 'Sleeping in, a lengthy lunch, an afternoon nap and ouzo at night'. One Greek is quoted, saying he has no plans to work until his 65th birthday.

At 53 it's enough. That was true for our parents and ancestors, and it is true for us.

In the mean time the PVV has stated it will not agree to any more Dutch bail-out money for Greece, and even coalition partner CDA (at the time the bog opponent of Greek accession to the EUnion) is divided over the issue, despite the dire warnings, issued by our PM Mark Rutte and CDA finance minister Jan-Kees de Jager, of the coming of the apocalypse if we stop paying off the Greeks.

Confirmation

Via Esther we get confirmation of something we long suspected:

Three out of four cattle killed without pain relief.

A new report by the European Commission indicates that up to 75 percent of all cattle in the EU are killed without pain relief, causing unnecessary suffering, reports Swedish Radio News.

Previous estimates put the figure at just five to ten percent, and Green Party MEP Carl Schlyter says he is shocked at the numbers. Many of the animals are first drained of their blood before dying, and a growing share of the 75 percent are made up of animals killed according to the rules for kosher and halal meat, but Schlyter says much is also due to cost-cutting measures at slaughterhouses.

The Swedish government wants to introduce labelling on meat so consumers can see whether cattle have been killed humanely, but they have so far failed to get a decision passed by the Council of Ministers.

(emphasis mine - KV)

Accusations of repeating myself be damned: We probably won't be worse off for eating it. But the food we're served is tainted nonetheless. Behold the state of our food industry these days: Rather then providing us with the best quality of our daily bread, they are spitting in it. Proper, mandatory labelling of food stuffs can't come soon enough.

A warning to America

A warning to America - Speech by Geert Wilders @ Tennessee Freedom Coalition, Cornerstone Church, Nashville, 12 May 2011.

Dear friends from Tennessee. I am very happy to be in your midst today. I am happy and proud to be in this impressive church.

My friends, I am here to speak words of truth and freedom.

Do you know why America is in a better state than Europe? Because you enjoy more freedom than Europeans.

And do you know why Americans enjoy more freedom than Europeans? Because you are still allowed to tell the truth.

In Europe and Canada people are dragged to court for telling the truth about islam.

I, too, have been dragged to court. I am an elected member of the house of representatives in the Netherlands. I am currently standing in court like a common criminal for saying that islam is a dangerous totalitarian ideology rather than a religion.

The court case is still pending, but I risk a jail sentence of 16 months.

Last week, my friend Lars Hedegaard, a journalist from Denmark, was fined because in a private conservation, which was recorded without his knowing, he had criticised the way women are treated in islamic societies.

Recently, another friend, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a human rights activist from Austria, was fined because she had criticised islam's founder Muhammad. She had said that Muhammad was a pedophile because he had married a 6-year old girl and raped her when she was 9.

Unfortunately, there are many similar cases.

I am especially happy to be in your midst because here I can say what I want to say without having to fear that I will be dragged to court upon leaving this church.

My dear American friends, you cannot imagine how we envy your First Amendment. The day when America follows the example of Europe and Canada and introduces so-called "hate speech crimes" which is only used to punish people who are critical of islam, that day America will have lost its freedom.

My friends, let us hope that this never happens.

Last week, we celebrated Liberation Day in the Netherlands. We celebrated the liberation from the Nazi occupation in 1945. Many American soldiers, including many young Tennesseans, played a decisive role in the liberation of the Netherlands from nazi tyranny. We are immensely grateful for that. Young Americans gave their lives so that the Dutch might be free. I assure you: The Dutch people will never forget this.

Unfortunately, however, the Europe which your fathers and grandfathers fought and died for is not the Europe we are living in today.

I travel the world to tell people what Europe has become. I wish I could take you all on a visit to my country and show you what Europe has become. It has changed beyond recognition as a result of mass immigration. And not just any mass immigration, but mass immigration driven by the dangerous force of islam.

My friends, I am sorry. I am here today with an unpleasant message. I am here with a warning. I am here with a battle cry: "Wake up, Christians of Tennessee. Islam is at your gate." Do not make the mistake which Europe made. Do not allow islam to gain a foothold here.

Islam is dangerous. Islam wants to establish a state on earth, ruled by islamic sharia law. Islam aims for the submission, whether by persuasion, intimidation or violence, of all non-Muslims, including Christians.

The results can be seen in Europe.

Islam is an ideology of conquest. It uses two methods to achieve this goal: the first method is the sword. Do you know what figures on the flag of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country where Christian churches are banned and Christians are not even allowed to wear a tiny crucifix? There is a huge sword on that flag, just below the Islamic creed. The message is clear. Without the sword islam would not have been able to spread its creed.

The second method is immigration. Islam's founder Muhammad himself taught his followers how to conquer through immigration when they moved from Mecca to Medina. This phenomenon of conquest through immigration is called al-Hijra. My learned friend Sam Solomon has written a perfect book about it.

I had a copy of Sam's book sent to all the members of the Dutch Parliament. But most of them are worse than Saint-Thomas in the Bible. Thomas did not believe what he had not seen. Most politicians refuse to believe the things they see before their very eyes.

In Europe we have been experiencing al-Hijra for over 30 years now. Many of our cities have changed beyond recognition. "In each one of our cities" wrote the well-known Italian author Oriana Fallaci shortly before her death in 2006, "there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran." - end of quote.

How did the Europeans get into this situation? It is partly our own fault because we have foolishly adopted the concept of cultural relativism, which manifests itself in the ideology of multiculturalism.

Cultural relativism advocates that all cultures are equal. However, cultures wither away and die if people no longer believe that its values are better than those of another culture.

Islam is spreading like wildfire wherever people lack the guts to say that their values are better than the Islamic values.

Islam is spreading like wildfire because the Koran explicitly tells Muslims that they are "the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind" and that non-Muslims are "the worst of creatures."

Islam is spreading like wildfire everywhere in the West where political, academic, cultural and media elites lack the guts to proudly proclaim, as I believe we all should proclaim:

Our Judeo-Christian Western culture is far better and far superior to the islamic culture. We must be proud to say so!

Multiculturalism is a disaster. Almost everyone acknowledges this today, but few dare say why. Let me tell you why: Multiculturalism made us tolerate the intolerant, and now intolerance is annihilating tolerance.

We should, in the name of tolerance, claim the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Let us no longer be afraid and politically correct, let us be brave and bold. Let us tell the truth about islam.

Before I continue I want to make clear that I do not have a problem with people. I always make a distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and islam.

Indeed, I have no problems with Muslims, but I do have a problem with the totalitarian Islamic ideology of hate and violence. The fact that there are many so-called moderate Muslims, does not imply that there exists a moderate islam. A moderate islam doen not exist and will never exist.

And because there is no such thing as a moderate islam, the islamization of our free Western societies is an enormous danger.

Only two weeks ago, the British press revealed how the so-called "London Taliban" is threatening to kill women who do not wear veils in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.

In some neighbourhoods Islamic regulations are already being enforced, also on non-Muslims. Women's rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa's, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor-killings where men murder their wives, daughters or sisters because they do not behave in accordance with Islamic rules.

Polls show that the influence of those Muslims who live according to islam's aggressive requirements is growing, especially among young people.

Among 15-year-old German Muslims, 40 percent consider islam more important than democracy.

Among Muslim university students in Britain, 40 percent support sharia. One in three of those students considers it legitimate to kill in the name of islam.

Christians are asked to follow the example of Jesus. Muslims are ordered to follow the example of Muhammad. That is why islam is dangerous. While Christianity preaches love, islam preached hatred and practizes violence. Hatred and violence for everyone who is not a Muslim.

Muhammad personally participated in the ethnic cleansing of Medina, where half the population once was Jewish. Muhammad helped to chop off their heads. On his deathbed, he ordered his followers to cleanse Arabia of all Jews and Christians.

To this very day, Christian symbols are prohibited in Saudi-Arabia. If you wear a cross in Saudi Arabia, they sent you to jail.

And now, Europe is beginning to look like Arabia.

Just today, a poll revealed that in Brussels, the capital of the European Union, half the islamic youths are anti-semitic. It is dangerous for Jews to walk the streets in Brussels.

If you wear a cross or a kippah in certain urban areas in Europe today, you risk being beaten up. In the capital of my own country, Amsterdam, a tram driver was forced to remove his crucifix from sight, while his Muslim colleagues are allowed to wear the veil.

In June 2008, the Christian church authorities in the Danish town of Arhus decided to pay so-called "protection money" to islamic so-called "security guards" who assure that church goers are not harassed by islamic youths.

On March 31st, 2010, Muslims entered the Roman Catholic cathedral of Cordoba, Spain, and attacked the guards with knives. They claimed the cathedral was theirs.

Last month, the bishops of Sweden sent out a letter to priests advising them to avoid converting asylum seekers from islamic countries to Christianity, because the converts would risk losing their lives.

In the Netherlands, the city authorities in Amsterdam register polygamous marriages. The authorities in Rotterdam serve only halal meals in municipal cafeterias. Theaters provide separate seats for women who are not allowed to sit next to men. Municipal swimming pools have separate swimming hours for men and women, Muslim lawyers do not have to stand when the judges enter court rooms.

Meanwhile Jews are no longer safe on our streets. In Amsterdam, the city of Anne Frank, Jews are again being harassed in the streets. Even political leaders acknowledged that life has become unsafe for Jews in Holland. Do you know what they said? They advised Jews to emigrate. Jews are already running for Israel. But I say: Jews must not leave, violent Muslims must leave!

What is needed, my friends, is a spirit of resistance.

I repeat: What we need is a spirit of resistance.

Why? Because resistance to evil is our moral duty. This resistance begins with expressing our solidarity to Christians, Jews, indeed, to all people worldwide, who are the victims of islam. There are millions of them.

We can see what islam has in store for us if we watch the fate of the Christians in the islamic world, such as the Copts in Egypt, the Maronites in Lebanon, the Assyrians in Iraq, and Christians elsewhere.

Almost every day, churches are arsoned and Christians are assassinated in islamic countries.

In a report on the persecution of Christians in the world, Archbishop Twal of Jerusalem, wrote recently- I quote: "In the Middle East to be Christian means accepting that you must make a great sacrifice. All too often and in many places, Christians suffer various threats. On some occasions, their homes and churches are burnt, and people are killed. How many atrocities must we endure before somebody somewhere comes to our aid?" - end of quote.

Indeed, how many atrocities before we come to their aid?

Rivers of tears are flowing from the Middle East, where there is only one safe haven for Christians. You know where that is. The only place in the Middle East where Christians are safe is Israel.

That is why Israel deserves our support. Israel is a safe haven for everyone, whatever their belief and opinions. Israel is a beacon of light in a region of total darkness. Israel is fighting our fight.

The jihad against Israel is a jihad against all of us. If Israel falls, we, too, will feel the consequences. If Jerusalem falls, Athens, Rome, Amsterdam and Nashville will fall. Therefore, we all are Israel. We should always support Israel!

Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. The Arab peoples long for freedom. However, the ideology and culture of islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible as long as islam remains dominant.

A recent poll in post-revolution Egypt found that 85 percent of Egyptians are convinced that islam's influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates. The press refers to the events in the Arab world today as the Arab spring. I call it the Arab winter.

Islam and freedom, islam and democracy are not compatible.

The death of Osama bin Laden last week was a victory for the free world, but we will be confronted with Islamic terrorism as long as islam exists, because islam's founder Muhammad himself was a terrorist, worse than Bin Laden.

And here is another truth: The rise of islam means the rise of sharia law in our judicial systems. In Europe we already have sharia wills, sharia schools, sharia banks. Britain even has sharia courts.

In my own country, the Netherlands, sharia is being applied by the courts in cases relating to divorce, child custody, inheritance, and property ownership. Women are always the victims of this because sharia discriminates women.

This is a disgrace. This is not the way we should treat women.

My friends, I told you that we have just remembered Liberation Day to commemorate the young Americans and all the heroes who offered their lives to free the Netherlands from nazi tyranny. It would be an insult to them if we Europeans would give up that precious freedom for another totalitarian ideology called Islam.

That is the goal for which my party and I work day after day. And we are having success.

In the Netherlands, we are successfully starting to roll back islam. The current Dutch government is a minority government which can only survive with the backing of my party, the Party for Freedom.

We have 24 seats of the 150 seats in parliament and we support the government, in return for measures to prohibit certain aspects of sharia law.

We have achieved that the Netherlands will soon ban the burka and the niqaab.

We will also restrict immigration from non-Western countries by up to 50% in the next four years. We are not going to allow islam to steal our country from us. It was the land of our fathers, it is our land now, our values are based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism and we will pass this on to our children with all the freedoms that the previous generations have fought for.

Let those who want to rob us from our freedoms, stay in their own countries. We do not need them. If you want to wear a burqa, stay in Saudi-Arabia. If you want four wives, stay in Iran. If you want to live in a country where the islamic ideology is dominant, stay in Pakistan, if you don't want to assimilate in our society, stay in Somalia. But don't come over here.

We are also going to strip criminals who have a double nationality - for instance Dutch and Moroccan, and who repeatedly commit serious crimes, of their Dutch nationality. We will send them packing, back to their homeland.

My friends, what the Party for Freedom has achieved, shows that it can be done. We can fight the islamization of our societies.

Dear friends, here is my warning. Make no mistake: Islam is also coming for America. In fact, it is already here. America is facing a stealth jihad, the islamic attempt to introduce sharia law bit by bit. Last March, a judge in Tampa, Florida, ruled that a lawsuit against a mosque and involving the control of 2.4 million dollars, should proceed under Islamic law.

My friends, be aware that this is only the beginning. This is also how it started in Europe. If things continue like this, you will soon have the same problems as we are currently facing.

Leaders who talk about immigration without mentioning islam are blind. They ignore the most important problem Europe and America are facing. I have a message for them: it's islam stupid!

My friends, fortunately, not all politicians are irresponsible. Here, in Tennessee, brave politicians want to pass legislation which gives the state the power to declare organisations as terrorist groups and allowing material supporters of terrorism to be prosecuted. I applaud them for that. They are true heroes.

Yesterday and today, I met some of those brave legislators. They told me that Tennessee in particular is a target of islam. Help them win their battle.

They need your support.

While Tennessee is in the frontline, similar legislative initiatives are also being taken in the states of Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Carolina, Texas, Florida, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana. It is encouraging to see that so many politicians are willing to resist islam.

This gives us hope and courage. I am not a pessimist. We can still turn the tide - even in Europe - if we act today.

There are five things which we must do.

First, we must defend freedom of speech.

Freedom is the source of human creativity and development. People and nations wither away without the freedom to question what is presented to them as the truth.

Without freedom of speech we risk becoming slaves. Frederick Douglass, the 19th century black American politician, the son of a slave, said - I quote - "To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."

I have already told you about my court case. This legal charade will not, however, prevent me from saying the truth. Never. I will speak out, even if they drag me before 500 courts and threaten to jail me for a thousand years.

The fact that we are being treated as criminals for telling the truth must not deter us. We are doomed if we remain silent or let ourselves be silenced. Let us not forget, this is our first and most important obligation: defend the right to speak the truth.

Second, we must end cultural relativism and political correctness. We must repeat it over and over again, especially to our children: Our Western culture based on Christianity and Judaism is superior to the islamic culture. Our laws are superior to sharia. Our judeo-christian values are better than islam's totalitarian rules.

And because they are superior and better, we must defend them. We must fight for our own identity, or else we will lose it. We need to be warriors for the good, because the good is worth fighting for. Neutrality in the face of evil is evil.

Third, we must stop the islamization of our countries. More islam means less freedom. There is enough islam in the West already. We must stop immigration from non-Western countries, which are mostly islamic countries. We must expel criminal immigrants. We must forbid the construction of new hate palaces called mosques.

We must also close down all islamic schools because educating children in a spirit of hate is one of the worst things imaginable. We must introduce anti-sharia legislation everywhere in the free world. Enough is enough.

Fourth, we must take pride in our nations again. We must cherish and preserve the culture and identity of our country. Preserving our own culture and identity is the best antidote against islamization.

And fifth, last but certainly not least, we must elect wise and courageous leaders who are brave enough to address the problems which are facing us, including the threat of islam.

Politicians who have the courage to speak the truth about islam.

Politicians who dare to denounce the devastating results of the multicultural society.

Politicians who - without political correctness - say: enough is enough.

You and I, Americans and Europeans, we belong to a common Western culture. We share the ideas and ideals of our common Judeo-Christian heritage. In order to pass this heritage on to our children and grandchildren, we must stand together, side by side, in our struggle against Islamic barbarism.

That, my friends, is why I am here. I am here to forge an alliance. Our international freedom alliance. We must stand together for the Judeo-Christian West.

We will not allow islam to overrun Israel and Europe, the cradle of the judeo-Christian civilization.

My friends, we will stand together.

We will stand firm.

We will not submit. Never. Not in Israel, not in Europe, not in America. Nowhere.

We will survive.

We will stop islam.

We will defend our freedoms.

We will remain free.

Thank you.


See video: here

How big it really is

If you haven't seen it yet, go take a look: The evolution of European Union legislation.

h/t WfW

Another attempt at a 'beneficial crisis'

The immigration crisis, symbolized by the Island of the Saints is continuing apace. Richard North is warning us about 'the insidious doctrine of the beneficial crisis', using the flood of immigrants to argue for a common migration policy. It is bad enough as it stands, he writes, but if the "colleagues" get their way, then we can kiss goodbye to the last vestiges of control over our own borders.

And they are trying. From EU Observer we get the news that member states are for the moment holding off the EUnion Commission from having ultimate control over border decisions.

EU interior ministers meeting in Brussels to discuss the contentious issue of making it easier to re-institute national border controls have given the cold shoulder to the idea of the European Commission having ultimate control over border decisions.

Speaking after what was a preliminary debate on the matter, home affairs commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom admitted that "some member states have other views" when it comes to letting Brussels have a say in area, with Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic, among those against the idea.

"Member states feel this is very much a national power," said one EU diplomat.

To Eurocrats as well as national politicians: AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT!

This obscene bit of crisis-profiteering was suggested by the commission as a quid pro quo for expanding the conditions under which countries can make border checks EU Observer reports.

In this crisis that is something we must look out for, must be watchful about. The EUnion will try its damnedest to secure the powers to decide over national borders. If they have to compromise on Schengen, they will. It gives our national politicians a way out, an opportunity to come home and show the shiny new expanded powers, while forgetting to mention that they gave away the ultimate say to the Brussels beast.

Caveat emptor! Caveat very much.

Betrayed once more

Since yesterday, the cuts in the Dutch armed forces that had your intrepid blogger hopping mad when they were first announced (see also here) have been going into effect.

And today De Telegraaf (NL) reveals what we at this blog warned was the real reason for the cuts: The formation of a EUnion army.

Minister Hans Hillen (Defence) will work out plans for cooperation with Germany. This he and his German colleague Thomas de Maizière agreed upon during a visit to Berlin on Tuesday. Like the Netherlands, Germany is making sizable cuts in its armed forces.

According to a spokesman to Hillen, both ministers see possibilities for cooperation on the operational level for the submarine services of both and the formation of a joint Patriot [surface to air defence] unit. Possibly other countries will join at a later date. According to the spokesman, Poland and Italy have already expressed interest. (...)

Hillen earlier spoke to his Belgian and British colleague about closer cooperation. In the short term he will visit Luxembourg and Norway with the same goal. The minister was assigned to cut the defence budget structurally with one billion euros. Other countries will see considerable measures as well.

That is as good an indicator of the true nature of the cuts in the defence budgets as any. As we feared a month ago, ultimate goal of this exercise is to dissolve and dismember national armed forces and co-opt the remainder in a EUnion army. Now we only have to wait for some treaty or other setting up a joint HQ and chain of command. One that will undoubtedly remove the last bit national control from the armed units left and hand it over to Brussels. We will have been disarmed on a national scale (1).

If the ratification of the Lisbon treaty was the ultimate betrayal, this surrendering of the means to defend our sovereignty is a runner-up that will be hard to beat. Even more so, De Telegraaf wryly notes, as the announcement came on the exact date, May 10th, when 71 years ago German troops invaded the Netherlands, dragging us into WW2.

This cabinet, as the ones preceding it, proves it will not look out for national interests. This cabinet, this promising coalition of CDA and VVD, with support of the PVV, cannot be trusted to serve us, the people either. This little episode proves that our entire political class, even VVD and (yes!) the PVV, serve the enemy, are the enemy. And it breaks my heart to have to conclude this.

But here's a question: All over Europe (well, the EUnion) countries are gleefully dashing head-over-heels into major deconstruction of their armed forces. Given the hardware that is stood down even just in the Netherlands, that is a major instance of destruction of capital. It all happens without much protest, not even from the opposition. And it all happens in a manner that raises suspicions of close coordination.

Who ordered those cuts? Which treaty mandates those cuts. Are there secret annexes to Lisbon we need to know about, that force out politicians to do this? Who or what has their balls collectively in a big vice?

Notes:

(1) Actually, given the principles of multiculturalism and cultural marxism at the core of the EUnion, we will find ourselves completely, utterly defenceless. The more I think about this, the more fearful I get.

You have to lie

The eurocrat of eurocrats, Luxembourg PM Jean-Claude Juncker, has openly admitted what many, many of us have been suspecting for years: Eurocrats lie.

The WSJ blog post linked to has a video up (see above) of Juncker addressing a conference on economic governance. Incidentally, that is the same conference where Juncker admitted his preference for 'secret, dark debates between a few responsible people'. What we didn't know then, but WSJ is relating now, is that Juncker apparently also said he has “had to lie”. And these were not unfortunate incidences either. Rather, it seems to be a guiding principle. Speaking about touchy economic topics, Juncker admitted “When it becomes serious, you have to lie.”

Let that sink in for while. When 'it' becomes serious, 'you have to lie'. Not, 'you could lie' or 'you may lie', which would have been bad enough. No, in actuality is is much worse. When things get serious 'you HAVE TO lie'.

But the effects of this rather short-sighted breech of integrity that seems to be endemic in eurocrats are already making itself felt. When asked by the WSJ whether such deliberate misinformation would undermine confidence in future EUnion pronouncements, Guy Schuller, the spokesman for Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker confidently answered “not at all.”, observing that the market had practically no confidence in pronouncements already.

When Mr. Juncker, or European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet, or French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde say something to the markets, Mr. Schuller said, “nobody seems to believe it.”

Gee, how on Earth could that be? It's not like we've been lied to by eurocrats thousands of times before, have we? Eurocrats all over Europe have been nothing but forthright about the character and intent of the Lisbon treaty, haven't they? They also kept every solemn vow about preserving democracy or abiding by the rules they have set for themselves, like the no-bail-out clause.

I'll stop here. There is no point in rehashing every single grievance I have against the EUnion and the EUnionistas (though I do delight in daydreaming of being present at the execution of a good many of them). I'll just note that we have here, not just A eurocrat, but arguably THE eurocrat in sublime purity, admitting that the EUnions guiding principle is what we've expected all along: The lie. By his own admission, Juncker has shown once and for all that eurocrats, both in Brussels and within our own borders, cannot be trusted.

On the face of it that is as sad a comment on our generation of politicians as any. It seems that the entire, complete political class across the EUnion has given itself over to a total break-down of integrity, honour and humility. But that realization will be the acid eating away the mortar that is keeping the EUnion building together. That realization will hasten the (now seemingly inevitable) collapse of that grand experiment. And as such Junckers comments are most welcome.

h/t ZeroHedge, EURef is also on the case.