Geert Wilders: How one man faces prison term for 'hurting the feelings of Muslims

[LayZie G.]

Last month, a trial for a dutch MP started in the netherlands.

 

Some argue that this trial is more than just a trial about suppressing the voice of Wilders and others like him who bash "Islam" as there is no constitutional amendment that protects their free speech, 'hate' or otherwise.

 

But as we have come to find out, this trial is just a public soap opera and it has less to do with 'hate speech' and more to do with the sitting government's fear of the rising popularity of Wilders party, the freedom party PVV, who have been gaining momentum for the last few years and are reported to be taking up more parliamentary seats than any dutch party in the next election.

 

The question is, should Muslims be mixed with this debacle of a trial in the name of 'ISLAM" or should muslims be advocating for this man's release and calling out for mistrial since most of his witnesses were denied to testify in-front of the judge, only 3 witnesses were granted on his behalf.

 

 

As Muslims, we are not without blood here, we preach hate speech everyday of the week, its nothing new and we have not seen citizens being jailed for preaching hate speech, instead, some "fanatics" among us hide behind the same 'infidel' constitution that they abhor, some bash jews as much as they drink a glass of water a day, its normal but again, I just dont see Muslims going to jail for preaching hate against other religions, especially their adopted host, so shouldnt the somali community in the netherlands be speaking for this man in order to protect their right to free speech? Or is the sitting dutch government too power to speak against?

 

stay tuned......

 

 

filed by LayZieG

[LayZie G.]

Last month, Geert Wilders is reported to asked for 'Muslim fanatics" to speak on his behalf, so where are they?

 

Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-Right MP, has demanded that his race hate trial should hear evidence from the fanatic who used the Koran to justify killing the director of an anti-Islamic film.

 

It marked an incendiary opening to the landmark case that has divided the Netherlands over the limits of freedom. Mr Wilders, 46, who is accused of incitement and discrimination, asked for 18 witnesses to be called in his defence, including Mohammed Bouyeri, the man who stabbed and shot Theo Van Gogh in an Amsterdam street in 2004.

 

The Van Gogh murder left a deep scar on the national conscience. It helped to change the mood of tolerance of Islam, and boosted Mr Wilders’s popularity.

 

Mr Wilders, whose Party for Freedom came second in the European elections last summer, faces a 70-page charge sheet covering five counts of breaking Dutch law in more than 100 public statements — for example, by likening the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf and calling for an end to the “Islamic invasion”. He could be fined or jailed if convicted.

 

 

At the opening day of the trial the prosecution objected to the request to hear from Bouyeri, and the panel of four judges adjourned until February 3 to consider which witnesses to call. “This case is about more than Mr Wilders,” Bram Moszkowicz, his lawyer, told the court. “It touches us all. It is such an important and principled question that could have far-reaching consequences.”

 

Mr Moszkowicz argued that the witnesses Mr Wilders wanted to call would prove that what he said was not simply inoffensive but true. He suggested that Bouyeri, a dual Moroccan-Dutch national, would be key to the case because he was a fervent Muslim who carried a Koran during his trial and defended his crime by claiming that Islam permitted violence against unbelievers.

 

The prosecution countered that, unlike the other witnesses — mostly academics and theologians — Bouyeri was not an authority and should not be called.

 

About 200 supporters of Mr Wilders travelled to Amsterdam District Court from as far as Germany to hold up placards declaring that free speech was under attack by Islam and political correctness. Eighty packed into the public gallery, applauding Mr Wilders and his lawyer.

 

Ulrich Rosendahl, 46, an engineer who took the day off work to travel from Cologne to support Mr Wilders, held up a banner outside the court which read: “Wilders does as Chaplin did. He attacks fascism — Islamo.”

 

Mr Rosendahl said: “I support what he says and I know he has lived under police protection for many years and I think that he pays a high price to fight for freedom of speech.”

 

Mr Moszkowicz said that Mr Wilders had a mandate as an MP to speak out against what he saw as the Islamisation of the Netherlands. Birgit van Roessel, for the prosecution, said that “expressing his opinion in the media or through other channels is not part of an MP’s duties.” She said that MPs had immunity for only what they said inside parliament.

Source: Geert Wilders: "I want Muslim fanatic to speak in my defence"

[General Duke]

Mr Wilders, is a bigot , a hatefull monster who threatened the Muslim of Europe, he should not have our sympathy in any way. Let him rott in jail.

[LayZie G.]

^ we have bigots everywhere and Wilders is not the first nor will he be the last and at the same time, we have 'dangerous monsters' among us but thats beside the point. So what makes him more special than say some mullah in inghilterra who preaches hate at his local masjid but he cant be touched for fear of backlash from the Muslim community?

 

Is it because Wilders made a film about a group of isolated criminals, who neither represent the Muslim umma nor can be independently verified that they are indeed 'muslims', thereby highlighting the lessons of destructions they give to their pupils, is that what makes wilders special?

 

How can we use the so called 'gaalo constitution' to protect the hate speech of some groups and not others?

 

For me, there is nothing Mr Wilders can say that would get on my skin, much less anyone else. Atleast he is not calling for all 'Muslims' to be eradicated unlike some other groups who supposedly embrace Islam but at the same time call for the death of other religions and death on millions of people that are not Muslims, so why should he deserve imprisonment while some dangerous fanatics, more dangerous than some weird looking dutch politician who spews hate to lift the spirits of his constituents in order to gain parliamentary seats roam around freely, doing and saying whatever comes to their twisted mind about what Islam should be?

 

Who gave these people right to spew hate on other religions on behalf of all Muslims and are allowed to be free men, while the whites, the moment a politician opens his mouth about Islam is either forced to resign or faces years in penitentiary ?

 

I think the system is flawed for if you imprison one for hate speech, no matter where it happened in the globe, you should imprison all for the same practice, regardless of their religious background.

[General Duke]

^^^LG: I am not calling for his imprisonment, the man must have broken some law to be in the situation he is in. My point is that this loud mouth, Nazi, deserves all he gets, and more.

 

As for other bigots, thats another topic all together, we are talking about this Fascist in this thread.

[Eng.Cadde]

You want us to symphasize with a NEO-NAZI who called the koran "A fascist Book".mmmm interesting.

[Ibtisam]

As Muslims, (in the UK anyway) large majority of us are under surveillance and some face imprisonment for 90days without charge and those who have been charged and wait years for trial only for the prosecutors to drop the case. In the last few years laws have been modified and change to make it more targeted and focused on the community. People get arrested not for saying things like my loyalties are with Islam first and foremost or if I had the choice I'd live under sh’irah. So you are wrong and clearly have not been following world events if you think Muslims get away with stuff- G-Bay is and was not full of white politicians, but Muslims, none of them have committed an actual crime or terrorised anyone- aside from the three that were trialed and convicted already. The rest of the detainees are just guilty of something they said, wrote, preached and being in one country or another.

 

So yes this guy is guilty of hate crime and promoting hatred against the Muslims. He should be held accountable, whether we as Muslims decide to rehabilitate him because he is high profile (using him as tool) by showing mercy is a different case altogether.

[LayZie G.]

^my dear, what do you make of the documentaries of channel one and such programs going undercover on local masjids and outting visiting 'imams' who preach hate and incite violence?

 

They are allowed to roam around the streets freely.

 

Until recently, these Imams were doing what they wanted and when they wanted and at the same time, saying anything and everything.

 

Until recently, these imams were afforded the liberty to cross from one corner of the globe to the other, preaching to different congregation about how the 'white man' is the devil and he should not be tolerated and as soon as they were called on their double standard, they embraced the same 'infidel constitution' and called for its protection under the privacy violations that the west committed against them.

 

Ibti, you have to realize, when a country is at war, all best are off and frankly, reading about the post-world war I&II policy in north america, it does not even compare to how muslims are dealt because they are rolling high and are given executive pass in the name of (political correctness because I guess as a society, we have come to acknowledge the other races, so we afford them courtesy not to offend, even at war times).

 

When it came down to handling the anti-war, anti imperialists groups, the government took every step, introduced polices that looked to directly violate the rights of individuals for the benefit of the majority.(they violated their own constitution in order to suppress their own citizens) They imprisoned or threatened their critics and anyone who stood in the way of their interest and the order of the day.

 

I think these fundamentalists were riding easy and continue to ride easy in some places and if it weren't for the policies of blair and Bush, they would have went on business as usual, as thought they didnt commit mass murder.

 

All in all, I do not fear someone who preaches hate speech and tells his constituents that he will abort the mass immigration policy of colored people as much as I fear someone who is planting hate in the hearts of young Muslims to take up jihad and take out innocent lives, muslims and non-muslims alike in the name of their leader.

 

For the former, I know his policies can be reversed and even defeated, if and when he is in office but for the latter, how are we ever to rationalize the loss of life?

 

PS: Mr Jerk, the reason why he said what he said and why like minded people say what they say about Islam is because you failed to educate them. You failed to correct the wrongs of few who claim to embrace 'Islam' and kill fellow muslims and non-muslims alike in the name of the religion, where as you and the rest sit by idle, waiting for things to die down, waiting for people to just sit by and do nothing.

 

When you read reports of casualty from Pakistan or afghanistan, you hear the loss of muslim life by a fellow muslim or so he claims as he straps the belt on himself and takes out not 20, 30 but 200 innocent muslims. HAve you ever asked yourself why that is? Why more muslims die in the hands of so called muslims than gaalo and you want to imprison a gal who doesnt know himself from his a*s? You should come to his defense so he can feel as thought he is protecting himself instead of allowing him to rotten in jail, not because he broke laws but because his arrest, his trial is a political statement, nothing more, nothing less. (bogus charges to score political points because no dutch government cares what another dutch says about other religion groups as long as it does not stand in their way and he stood in their way because of his rising popularity)

[Ibtisam]

I should come to his aid why? You said:

You should come to his defense so he can feel as thought he is protecting himself instead of allowing him to rotten in jail, not because he broke laws but because his arrest, his trial is a political statement, nothing more, nothing less.

Come again?? :confused: I should defend him so he can feel like he is protecting himself?

 

I don't think you know what you want to say here, just ranting.

 

As for Pakistan or Afghanistan, I don't think you know their history if you think more people died at the hands of Muslims compared to Gaalo. It is too early to re-write the 1990s history Lazy.

 

I think these fundamentalists were riding easy and continue to ride easy in some places and if it weren't for the policies of blair and Bush, they would have went on business as usual, as thought they didnt commit mass murder

Again you are confused, the key words are there though, Blair, Bush and mass murder. Read the news the enquire is going on now.

 

All in all, I do not fear someone who preaches hate speech and tells his constituents that he will abort the mass immigration policy of colored people as much as I fear someone who is planting hate in the hearts of young Muslims to take up jihad and take out innocent lives, muslims and non-muslims alike in the name of their leader

Nabiga ku salahi, you just contradicted yourself. Both preach hate and plant hate in certain groups of people- this speech may result in action on both sides, yet you support one and not the other.

 

Ibti, you have to realize, when a country is at war, all best are off and frankly, reading about the post-world war I&II policy in north america, it does not even compare to how muslims are dealt because they are rolling high and are given executive pass in the name of (political correctness because I guess as a society, we have come to acknowledge the other races, so we afford them courtesy not to offend, even at war times).

WHO is at war here? Muslims and the West?

 

my dear, what do you make of the documentaries of channel one and such programs going undercover on local masjids and outting visiting 'imams' who preach hate and incite violence?

 

They are allowed to roam around the streets freely.

You are wrong there, with the exception of 3 (who nothing was proven against) they all got charged, warned and some recieved 2yr sentences. Watch the follow up of that documentary on BBC2 on Mondays.

 

 

Until recently, these imams were afforded the liberty to cross from one corner of the globe to the other, preaching to different congregation about how the 'white man' is the devil and he should not be tolerated and as soon as they were called on their double standard, they embraced the same 'infidel constitution' and called for its protection under the privacy violations that the west committed against them.

Yad yad yad ya, I'm bored, WHO said the white man is the devil? You sure it was not the American 5%? because Islam is not about colour and most know that. I understand some Preachers are not acceptable to the west or even Muslims, but I also think you fail to understand that aspects of Islam will always offend people who are not Muslim. This is the same for all religions. I don't feel the need to shy away from telling the truth about an Islamic issue, nor do I feel the need to apologies for it, if it offends you, take it up with God, but that is what I believe.

 

Now save us the drama dear, make up your mind about what you want to tell us.

[LayZie G.]

^Ibti, first thing is first. The ranting bit, I already called you out on it on the other thread and for that reason, I will not repeat it here.

 

About Muslims dying on the hands of other Muslims, that is a fact and no need to go back as early as the 90s to justify the killing and bloodshed of innocent umma, the last few year is good enough of a record to draw from, so don't even try that classic angle of looking at a longer record just so you can sleep better at night by by denying that thousands of muslims lives were lost in the hands of not 'infidels' but fellow muslims. Lets draw our examples from this century , which is that you dont believe more Muslims have died in the hands of suicide bombers, claiming to be Muslims 'which means they went through the shahada' and we can call them Muslims in all intents and purposes, so dont even try sista, unless you firmly believe they were not muslims(the suicide bombers) (i'm shocked more about you denying the deaths of many Muslims tonight, the same Muslims who lost their lives violently in the hands of fellow Muslims, more than I am of the killers taking innocent muslim lives to justify their misguided causes)

 

Right now, I can not tell if I'm replying to Geelka or Ibti......(again, listen to my plea with you on the other thread about bringing back the old 'Ibti', you need her to safe you from yourself)

 

 

Ibti, the Bush/Blair fiasco is not news to me or anyone for that matter. There is nothing that will be revealed on that inquiry that will be news to you or me, so don't put too much on the Blair inquiry as nothing new will come out of it.

 

The truth is that for a long time, Muslims, in the protection of the west were allowed to criticize their host countries, call the destruction of oother religions and poison the minds of our youth. For a long time, the west agents were acting passive in their dealings with the fundamentalists. (governments feared political fall back, political correctness played a part and Muslim sensitivity)

 

All this time, all worse things were happening than hate speech by some mps, these fundamentalists were pushing the envelope, more and more, forcing the officials hands to take up extreme steps and even the recent efforts in the last few years in my view is not enough. Every time these fundamentalists convince a youth to go the long way of boarding a plane to blow up his crotch or feet or face and fail in their attempt, we the passengers pay for it.

 

Did you fly recently? Do you know how tense a person can get at airports but it seems we have to give more and more of our freedom while the governments walk on eggshells around certain figures who are known to preach hate speech because they dont want to offend the communities. Look at the incident at the MN masjids, the community sides with the masjid officials who allowed the recruits to roam around their facilities and corrupt young minds. The community turned against the families of the boys, whose where abouts were unknown for a longtime. These officials at the mn masjid turned a community against these families who just wanted answers as to why something like that will happen on their backyard.

 

I said it before, I will say it again, if you silence the voice of an individual, you are ultimately silencing the voices of many.

 

President Obama is compared with Hitler and associated with Nazism, what does he do? Jail his critics? no, he laughs at the absurdity and here we have someone jailed for making a movie and going on long, nasty tirades. You arrest him, what then? You hope things die down or go away altogether? Not going to happen. How many more G. Wilders will you imprison? How many more from the other groups?

 

You probably heard the saying: What doesn't break you , makes you stronger. Well, G. Wilders did not break Islam, he will never tear the Qur'an apart. If anything, his hate speech strengthens the iman of the umma and reaffirms their positions and makes them just that much committed to defeating the nay-sayers but not in suppression or violence but through reconciliation and re-education.

[Ibtisam]

About Muslims dying on the hands of other Muslims,

that is a fact and no need to go back as early as the 90s to justify the killing and bloodshed of innocent umma,

the last few year is good enough of a record to draw from, so don't even try that classic angle of looking at a longer record just so you can sleep better at night by by denying that thousands of muslims lives were lost in the hands of not 'infidels' but fellow muslims. Lets draw our examples from this century , which is that you dont believe more Muslims have died in the hands of suicide bombers, claiming to be Muslims 'which means they went through the shahada' and we can call them Muslims in all intents and purposes, so dont even try sista, unless you firmly believe they were not muslims(the suicide bombers) (i'm shocked more about you denying the deaths of many Muslims tonight, the same Muslims who lost their lives violently in the hands of fellow Muslims, more than I am of the killers taking innocent muslim lives to justify their misguided causes)

Oh the drama. This is not going anywhere and I am bored with going in circles with you dear sister. Forget anything else, you are even talking about two different Ibtis. It is at this point that I say okay, I think I am done.

 

Since you refuse to read or research: Here is my parting gift: The Human Cost of the War in Iraq 2002-2006 conducted by an American and Iraqi team of public health researchers. http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/human.cost.of.war.pdf

 

Violent, coalition death: 95 (31%)

Violent, Other 71 (24%)

Violent, unknown 136 (45%)

Gunshot 169 (56%)

Car bomb 38 (13%)

Other explosion/ordinance 43 (14%)

Air strike 40 (13%)

 

It concludes:

654,965

persons have died as a consequence of the conflict,

601,027

have died from violence; This is

2.5% of the Iraqi population above what would have occurred without conflict,

….

 

The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, though the actual numbers have increased each year.

All sources agree it is the largest major international conflict of the 21st century.

 

Just in case you don’t find this study crediable like Bush. The Iraqi Body count is a pro American, Pro invasion and although their numbers are lower (based on actually recorded death) it is still high enough to prove my point.

 

This is what The Iraqi body count published in 2007:

The civilian death toll by US fire was 96 in October, with 23 children among them, while in September US forces and contractors killed 108 Iraqi civilians, including 7 children. In August US troops killed 103 civilians, 16 of them children, and in July they killed 196. In fact, during the last five months US forces in Iraq have killed over 600 Iraqi civilians. Regrettably, as always.

Here is a link http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ which currently documented civilian deaths from violence stands at 95,412 – 104,103

 

READ it, it has month by month graphs even if you don’t have time to read the reports.

 

Now we know what the west and their troops killed, moving on to Suicide bombs:

The first 8 months of 2007 saw the most massive vehicle bomb-based attacks in Iraq’s history, and occurring with greater frequency than ever. There were 20 bomb attacks killing over 50 (in one case, over 500) civilians in 2007, compared to 12 in 2006 and 17 in all of 2003 to 2005. However, there have been no further vehicle bomb attacks of this scale since August 2007.

So

 

17 in all of 2003-2005

12 in 2006

20 Bombs in 2007

 

Now you do the bloody math’s, and if you can’t read around.

Deaths of non-combatants such as civilian bystanders killed in firefights and other attacks involving US-led Coalition military forces rose from 544–623 in 2006 to 868–1,326 in 2007.

• Air strikes featured in the vast majority of these incidents, which left at least 88 children dead.

• Civilian deaths directly attributable to US forces alone (ie, not involving any other combatants) increased steeply from 394–434 reported in 2006 to 669–756 in 2007.

Even Wikipedia will give you a break down, so quit being difficult and educate yourself, not so you can argue with people, but so you are more aware of the world.

 

Now I am not going to baby sit you and go through Afghanistan death toll as well.

 

Oh and by the way, death by suicide and bombings by Muslims I also blame on the Gaalos, Or rather the West (I hear they have Muslims in the army) because it is of direct results of their action it happened. Do you know how many bombs went off in Mosques and Markets in Iraq and Afghanistan before we showed up to liberate them? ZERO

 

Now my dear LAZY, these above ARE FACTS, not the rant you wrote above (it is a rant because it has no leg to stand on)

 

Search high and low and find one credible or even a non-credible one which claims that the West killed less people.

 

Goodbye and Salamah.