Geert Wilders Acquited! Good News for Freedom of Speech in Europe

Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician on trial for criticizing Islam as a totalitarian ideology bent on world dominion, has miraculously been acquited by an Amsterdam court!

I have previously blogged about this trial and Wilders' fight for free speech in the Netherlands and the West generally. The first link gives the transcript of his closing remarks at the trial:

European Freedom on Trial

Defending Free Speech Against the Hard Left and Islam

Geert Wilders' Speech in Rome: Facing the Potential Fall of the West without Giving Up Hope

The Voice of Freedom in Europe: Will It Be Silenced Forever?

German Reporter Claims Jesus Taught Violent Jihad in Wilders Interview

Geert Wilders' Speech at Ground Zero on 9/11

Robert Sibley on Geert Wilders and Freedom

Rick Moran at American Thinker describes the victory and the Muslim response. Unsurprisingly, they will continue the lawfare by going to the United Nations. They do not believe that European nations should have the sovereign right to make their own laws because they ultimately do no recognize any law but Shariah.

Predictably, some Muslims groups were outraged:

Minorities groups said they would now take the case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, arguing the ruling meant the Netherlands had failed to protect ethnic minorities from discrimination.

"The acquittal means that the right of minorities to remain free of hate speech has been breached. We are going to claim our rights at the U.N.," said Mohamed Rabbae of the National Council for Moroccans.

No doubt they will get a sympathetic hearing at the UN with the anti-Semites, anti-Western, anti-Christian representatives becoming enraged at the result of the court case.

But what can they do to the Netherlands? Not much, which means their efforts will be for PR purposes and nothing more.

Note that they, like Marxists, have become adept at utilizing the rhetoric of rights and multiculturalism,(in which they do not believe), against their Western enemies. Posing as persecuted minorities they try to stamp out all criticism of Islam and restrict free speech for their own totalitarian purposes. They have not embraced Western ideals of free speech and tolerance; they scorn such ideals even as they use them against us in order to undermine those ideals and eventually stamp them out.

No country in the world dominated by Shariah law has religious freedom, freedom of speech or individual liberty (especially in the case of women). Any Muslim who wishes to live under Western law and according to the Western political philosophy of limited government, separation of church and state, etc. is welcome in the West. But a significant minority of Muslims - largely supported by Saudi oil money - are anti-Western and seek to overthrow the West and impose Shariah. They are enemies and must be resisted.

Geert Wilders has been persecuted by the Left in his country because he insists on standing up to the latter group, while having no problem with the former group. He claims that Islam is a totalitarian ideology and history is on his side. The only debatable point is whether a given Muslim group is willing to give up Islamic ideology and adapt to the ideals of the West or not. When you see honor killings, anti-Semitism, and support for radical organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot Hamas, and creeping Shariah, you know which kind of Muslim group you are dealing with.

The entire Western world owes Geert Wilders a debt of gratitude for having the courage to stand up to thugs and totalitarians who want to sell out liberty for peace.

European Freedom on Trial

Here are Geert Wilders' closing remarks at his free speech trial in Amsterdam. I include them here as a matter of historical record and out of respect for one of the few political figures in Europe who is willing to speak the truth in an age of lazy lies.

Geert Wilders lives under constant police protection. One of his close associates was murdered by Islamic radicals; another is in exile in America. You would think that every Dutch official who was committed to freedom and justice would be on his side. Yet, the liberal elites of the Netherlands persecute him and seek to take away what little still freedom has. His political party won the third highest number of votes in the last election, but these elites despise ordinary voters and care nothing for democracy.

Geert Wilders is not perfect. He is a political liberal who greatly respects Christianity even though he is not a believer himself. There is an honorable tradition of such political leaders in the West; Thomas Jefferson comes to mind. But unlike those who dominate European politics today, Wilders is not anti-Christian and he does not see Christianity as something that must be eradicated in order for hedonistic individualism in the form of the sexual revolution to reign unchallenged. He does not worship the spirit of the age, which is also called the spirit of the generation of '68. He is no cultural Marxist and he believes that tradition, family, limited government, free speech, individual freedom and the rule of law are precious goods and the fruit of the Christian West. Leaders like Geert Wilders are the kind of political leaders who should be running Europe, not on trial.

Mister President, members of the Court,

I am here because of what I have said. I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo Van Gogh, and not I.

I am obliged to speak. For the Netherlands is under threat of Islam. As I have argued many times, Islam is chiefly an ideology. An ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest. It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers.

All over the world we can see how freedom is fleeing from Islam. Day by day we see our freedoms dwindle.

Islam is opposed to freedom. Renowned scholars of Islam from all parts of the world agree on this. My witness experts subscribe to my view. There are more Islam scholars whom the court did not allow me to call upon to testify. All agree with my statements, they show that I speak the truth. That truth is on trial today.

We must live in the truth, said the dissidents under Communist rule, because the truth will set us free. Truth and freedom are inextricably connected. We must speak the truth because otherwise we shall lose our freedom.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

The statements for which I am being tried are statements which I made in my function as a politician participating in the public debate in our society. My statements were not aimed at individuals, but at Islam and the process of islamization. That is why the Public Prosecutor has concluded that I should be acquitted.

Mister President, members of the Court,

I am acting within a long tradition which I wish to honour. I am risking my life in defence of freedom in the Netherlands. Of all our achievements freedom is the most precious and the most vulnerable. Many have given their lives for freedom. We have been reminded of that in the commemorations of the month of May. But the struggle for freedom is much older.

Every day the armoured cars drive me past the statue of Johan de Witt at the Hofvijver in The Hague. De Witt wrote the “Manifesto of True Freedom” and he paid for freedom with his life. Every day I go to my office through the Binnenhof where Johan van Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded after a political trial. Leaning on his stick the elderly Oldenbarneveldt addressed his last words to his people. He said: “I have acted honourably and piously as a good patriot.” Those words are also mine.

I do not wish to betray the trust of the 1.5 million voters of my party. I do not wish to betray my country. Inspired by Johan van Oldenbarneveldt and Johan de Witt I wish to be a politician who serves the truth end hence defends the freedom of the Dutch provinces and of the Dutch people. I wish to be honest, I wish to act with honesty and that is why I wish to protect my native land against Islam. Silence is treason.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Freedom and truth. I pay the price every day. Day and night I have to be protected against people who want to kill me. I am not complaining about it; it has been my own decision to speak. However, those who threaten me and other critics of Islam are not being tried here today. I am being tried. And about that I do complain.

I consider this trial to be a political trial. The values of D66 [a Dutch leftist liberal party] and NRC Handelsblad [a Dutch leftist liberal party] will never be brought before a judge in this country. One of the complainants clearly indicated that his intentions are political. Even questions I have asked in parliament and cooperation with the SGP are being brought as allegations against me by Mr Rabbae of GroenLinks [the leftist Dutch Green Party]. Those on the Left like to tamper with the separation of powers. When they cannot win politically because the Dutch people have discerned their sinister agenda, they try to win through the courts.

Whatever your verdict may be, that is the bitter conclusion of this trial.

This trial is also surrealistic. I am being compared with the Hutu murderers in Rwanda and with Mladic. Only a few minutes ago some here have doubted my mental health. I have been called a new Hitler. I wonder whether those who call me such names will also be sued, and if not, whether the Court will also order prosecution. Probably not. And that is just as well. Because freedom of speech applies also to my opponents.

My right to a fair trial has been violated. The order of the Amsterdam Court to prosecute me was not just a decision but a condemning verdict by judges who condemned me even before the actual trial had begun.

Mister President, members of the Court, you must now decide whether freedom still has a home in the Netherlands

Franz Kafka said: “one sees the sun slowly set, yet one is surprised when it suddenly becomes dark.” Mister President, members of the Court, do not let the lights go out in the Netherlands.

Acquit me: Put an end to this Kafkaesque situation.

Acquit me. Political freedom requires that citizens and their elected representatives are allowed to voice opinions that are held in society.

Acquit me, for if I am convicted, you convict the freedom of opinion and expression of millions of Dutchmen.

Acquit me. I do not incite to hatred. I do not incite to discrimination. But I defend the character, the identity, the culture and the freedom of the Netherlands. That is the truth. That is why I am here. That is why I speak. That is why, like Luther before the Imperial Diet at Worms, I say: “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Mister President, members of the Court, though I stand here alone, my voice is the voice of many. This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of expression is the life source of our Western civilisation.

Do not let that source go dry just to cosy up to a totalitarian ideology. “Freedom,” said the American President Dwight Eisenhower, “has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed – else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die.”

Mister President, members of the Court, you have a great responsibility. Do not cut freedom in the Netherlands from its roots, our freedom of expression. Acquit me. Choose freedom.

I have spoken, I speak, and it is my duty – I cannot do otherwise – to continue to speak.

Thank you.

The lights are indeed going out all over Europe. The alliance of leftist anarchists and Islamic radicals is squeezing true political liberalism in a crushing vice. Pray that this trial will end in victory for freedom and justice, not just for the sake of Geert Wilders but for the sake of Europe.

Defending Free Speech Against the Hard Left and Islam

Geert Wilders is fighting for freedom in Europe and there are two fronts: one is political Islam and the other is the hard Left. He is not a far right or fascist; he is one of the few true liberals left in politics in Europe.

He has an opinion piece in the Washington Post entitled: "European Free Speech Under Attack" and this is how it begins:

""The lights are going out all over Europe," British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey famously remarked on the eve of World War I. I am reminded of those words whenever I read about Europeans being dragged into court for so-called hate-speech crimes.

Recently, Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, president of the International Free Press Society, had to stand trial in Copenhagen because he had criticized Islam. Mr. Hedegaard was acquitted, but only on the technicality that he had not known that his words, expressed in a private conversation, were being taped. Last week in Vienna, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian human-rights activist, was fined €480 for calling the Islamic prophet Muhammad a pedophile because he had consummated his marriage to a nine-year old girl. Meanwhile, my own trial in Amsterdam is dragging on, consuming valuable time that I would rather spend in parliament representing my million-and-a-half voters.

How can all this be possible in supposedly liberal Europe? The Dutch penal code states that anyone who either "publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group or people" or "in any way that insults a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their hetero- or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished."

Early in 2008, a number of leftist and Islamic organizations took me to court, claiming that by expressing my views on Islam I had deliberately "insulted" and "incited hatred" against Muslims. I argued then, as I will again in my forthcoming book, that Islam is primarily a totalitarian ideology aiming for world domination."

This opinion of his - that Islam is a totalitarian political system disguised as a religion - is certainly an extreme opinion. But it is a reasonable point of view with a lot of actual evidence in its favor. It is not based on fantasy but on horrible violent acts and the historical record. What ought to upset every freedom-loving person is that both Islam and the hard Left both want to shut him down, silence him and prevent an open debate.

Every time the supposed "religion of peace" reacts to some provocation like the burning of a Koran or the publication of a cartoon by murdering, burning and raping, it simply adds support to Wilders' point. And every time he is hauled into court by left wing elitists or receives death threats from outraged Muslims he is proven to be right.

The world thought that the Fall of the Berlin Wall was the end of totalitarianism in Europe. How naive those who thought that look now. Wilders writes:

"My trial is a political trial. It is tragic that after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, political trials in Europe were not cast onto the ash heap of history. Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has previously referred to the European Union as the "EUSSR." One of his arguments is that in the EU, as in the former USSR, there is no freedom of speech."

Just as the Greeks were conquered militarily by Rome and yet conquered Rome in language, culture and ideas, so the ideas of Marxism are slowly but surely taking over Western Europe and pushing the ideals of liberty to the curb. The secularist, ruling elites hate Christianity so much that even Communism and Islam - the two greatest threats to European culture in history - do not scare them. Their blind, irrational hatred of reason, science, freedom and the Christianity that created these cultural goods drive them to destroy Europe's freedom in the name of Secularism, Scientism and Socialism.

In the 1930s, two left-wing groups, the Marxists and the Nazis, fought each other but united against the liberal Weimar Republic. Both the International Socialist (the Communists) and the National Socialists (the Nazis) wanted power. But the both hated liberalism and Christianity so much that they united against liberal democracy. History has a way of repeating itself until we learn from it.

Geert Wilders is not right about everything. I disagree with him on some issues. But he is a hero and he is courageous. Those who would kill or silence him reveal themselves to be enemies of mankind in so doing.

Read it all here.

Geert Wilders Speech in Rome: Facing the Potential Fall of the West Without Giving Up Hope

Andrew G. Bostom at American Thinker Blog reports on a speech given yesterday by Geert Wilders entitled: "The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide." Bostom writes:

Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders made a seminal address yesterday evening (March 25, 2011) at the Annual Lecture of the Magna Carta Foundation in Rome, Italy.

As is his wont, Wilders presentation moved far beyond the timorous platitudes about the most obvious (and dangerous) failures of cultural relativism belatedly echoed by Western European leaders Angela Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy, and David Cameron. Wilders demands that the West acknowledge the jihad-both cultural and military-being waged against it openly and incessantly by institutional Islam, Muslim nations, and the global umma. The Ducth Parlaimentarian concludes his eloquent and informative speech by insisting that four concrete measures must be taken immediately, quoting Ronald Reagan, so we can "...act today to preserve tomorrow."

When was the last time you actually heard somebody defending Western civilization as the highest and most advanced civilizaton in history? Yet, as a matter of objective fact, it is. We are throwing away a glorious heritage for a mess of multicultural pottage. Here is the beginning of the speech:

Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friendsof the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you forinviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for manycenturies was the capital and the centre of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture.

Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization – the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.

As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.

It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.

I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.

It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.”

My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots.

He compares the situation in Europe today to the fifth century when Rome fell to the Germanic barbarian invaders:

In the 5^th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival.

Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border.

At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31^st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, crossed the river, flooded the Empire and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked.

The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book ‘The River War,’ Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote – I quote – “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” End of quote.

Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it.

This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds.

But he argues that the threat today is much worse than in the fifth century. Whereas the barbarians envied and assimilated to the culture of Rome, Islam seeks to destroy and supplant it.

Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were as Oriana Fallaci wrote – I quote – a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again.

Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization.

Europe is islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “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.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new shariah bank, for every new islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

He quotes Merkel, Cameron and Sarkozy, who all have recognized the failure of multiculturalism and rightly points out that they have no answers, no program, no alternative. They are caught in the trap of relativism out of which multiculturalism springs. So he offers his own program of action:

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. We must make haste. Time is running out. Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. If we are free to speak, we will be able to tell people the truth and they will realize what is at stake.

Second, we will have to end cultural relativism. To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity.

Third, we will have to stop Islamization. Because more Islam means less freedom. We must stop immigration from Islamic countries, we must expel criminal immigrants, we must forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Fourth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Because we are citizens of these states, we can take pride in them. We love our nation because they are our home, because they are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are not multiculturalists, we are patriots. And because we are patriots, we are willing to fight for freedom.

Let me end with a final – and a positive – remark: Though the situation is bad and multiculturalism is still predominant, we are in better shape than the Roman Empire was before its fall.

The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The Romans did not have freedom of speech. We are the free men of the West. We do not fight for an Empire, we fight for ourselves. We fight for our national republics. You fight for Italy, I fight for the Netherlands, others fight for France, Germany, Britain, Denmark or Spain. Together we stand. Together we represent the nations of Europe.

I am confident that if we can safeguard freedom of speech and democracy, our civilization will be able to survive. Europe will not fall. We, Europe’s patriots, will not allow it.

I do not know of anyone else who sees the danger to the West in such a clear way, yet does not despair but declares that there is hope for the West. Wildeers is the Churchill of the 21st century. The question is: "Will Britain follow him?" because if even Britain will turn around and take a stand, Europe could be saved.

Read it all here, at Wildeers' website.

The Voice of Freedom in Europe: Will it Be Silenced Forever?

Geert Wilders is on trial for utilizing his right to free speech by criticizing Islam for its violence, its threats to those who oppose it and its Islamic supremacist ideology. After a first trial fell apart, it has now resumed. The left-leaning elites who have ruled the Netherlands for decades are determined to silence him, but the people vote for his party in increasing numbers and his party now props up the ruling coalition. Here is the voice of freedom.

German Reporter Claims Jesus Taught Violent Jihad in Wilders Interview

In the wake of Angela Merkel's recent comments about the failure of multiculturalism, an actual debate has broken out in Germany about the issue of Islam. So Der Spiegel decided to interview Geert Wilders, who is currently on trial for saying what everyone knows to be true, but is afraid to say out loud, in the Netherlands.

All this is background. What I want to point out is the following passage. Note clearly the reporter's quotation from the Gospel of Luke:

SPIEGEL: You compare the Koran with Hitler's "Mein Kampf." Have you read "Mein Kampf"?

Wilders: Yes, but not in its entirety. The Koran has, in any case, more anti-Jewish passages. In principle, these are concoctions with a totalitarian approach, which allows no room for other opinions. Fascism, communism and Islam adhere to the same principle.

SPIEGEL: Your own principle is apparently this: The more drastic the comparison, the more headlines it generates.

Wilders: I don't need headlines. For me, it's the truth that matters.

SPIEGEL: The truth is that you are dividing Dutch society: Here in The Hague, nearly half of the residents come from immigrant families, and many of them are Muslims. And you are calling for the Koran to be banned?

Wilders: "Mein Kampf" is banned in our country. But the Koran is worse in terms of inciting hatred and violence. If my left-wing friends were consistent, the Koran would have to be banned.

SPIEGEL: Are you familiar with this quote from the Prophet? "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and slay them before me"?

Wilders: I have read many such passages.

SPIEGEL: The Prophet cited in this case was Jesus, from Luke, Chapter 19, Verse 27. Do you admit that there are also calls for violence in the Bible?

Wilders: There are brutal passages in the Old Testament; the New Testament takes a more moderate approach. But a key difference between Christianity and Islam is that Muslims believe that the Koran contains verbatim the word of God; it is written in the imperative. This precludes a comparison with Christianity.

It is too bad that Wilders was suckered in because of his lack of biblical knowledge. He should have pointed out that this was spoken by a character in a parable told by Jesus, a parable that had a point that entirely unrelated to a call to violent jihad. This was a mangling of Scripture by quoting an isolated statement out of context.

He should have pointed out the dishonesty of the reporter's claim that this was a call to violence by Jesus. Is German higher criticism now presenting Jesus as a ruthless, violent nationalist or something? I thought the German Christian attempt to do this in the 1930s had been declared a failure.

A first year Bible college student who used the NT in the way this supposedly educated reporter did would be in big trouble. But this kind of systematic deception is not something the editors of Der Spiegel are ashamed of, apparently, because they have left this interview up on their website.

The palpable hostility and ritualized contempt dripping from the words of this smug and self-righteous politically correct reporter is unbelievable. He even begrudges Wilders state protection against Islamic assassins thus implying that he would like to see Wilders killed instead of having his free speech protected. What a coward this reporter reveals himself to be. I suppose he hopes to be killed last.

Geert Wilders' Speech at Ground Zero on 9/11

Geert Wilders is a leading Dutch politician and head of the Freedom Party. He lives his life under death threats from Muslims because he is leading a movement to oppose the take-over of Europe by Islam. He stands for Western ideals like free speech, religious freedom and liberal democracy. He opposes theocracy, sharia law and totalitarian rule by Muslim religious leaders. For this he is villified and hated by the secular, establishment Left in the Netherlands.

Nevertheless, the people increasingly vote for him in increasing numbers in every election.

Here is Wilders' speech at a rally held on 9/11 at Ground Zero.



He exposes the real agenda of the Ground Zero Mosque project as Islamic triumphalism. He asks the unanswerable question of why an inter-faith center promoting tolerance is not being built where it is really needed: in Mecca.

Robert Sibley on Geert Wilders and Freedom

Most of the (liberal) media has ignored the trial of Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician currently being prosecuted (I almost typed persecuted . . . that too) in the Netherlands for making Muslims feel bad by criticizing violent tendencies in Islam. Yes, you read that right.

But Robert Sibley of the Ottawa Citizen has been making a valiant effort to bring the attention of Canadians to this travesty of justice. Here are three of his recent columns. Below are a couple of excerpts and my comments.

Jan. 21, 2010 "The cases of Geert Wilders and Zakaria Amara share one thing: naive western attitudes"

Jan. 22, 2010 "Wilders’ court speech shows courage in defending western culture against Islamization"

Feb. 3, 2010 "Geert Wilders calls on a Muslim woman to defend him against charges of being anti-Muslim"

Here is a part of the Jan. 21 article:

"Wrap your head about this.

Geert Wilders, the highly popular Dutch politician, is on trial in Amsterdam on charges of inciting hatred against Muslims. If convicted he faces 15 months in prison. Many regard the case, which has received world-wide attention, as a litmus test of free speech in Europe.

Meanwhile, back here in the peaceable kingdom, a Toronto judge sentenced a 24-year-old Brampton man, Zakaria Amara, the leader of the so-called Toronto 18, to life in prison for planning acts of terror that could have killed thousands of Canadians.

Yet, thanks to Canada’s “progressive” legal system, Amara could be back on the streets in just 6½ years and, perhaps, laughing all the way to some Al Qaeda training camp. (Another youthful terrorist, Saad Gaya, received a 12-year sentence, but he is eligible for parole in a year-and-a-half.) Clearly “life in prison” doesn’t mean what the words say it means.

Admittedly, there is no direct connection between the Wilders’ case and that of Amara’s. Yet, it strikes me as odd that in one western country you can be imprisoned for two years for exercising your right to free speech, while in another western country you need serve only thrice that number of years for planning mass murder.

The Globe and Mail editors (much to my surprise) pretty much summed up my views: “‘Life’ and “12 years” may sound tough, but the real message is soft: Set out to kill hundreds of your fellow Canadians when you are 18 to 20, and be let free, or at least become eligible for parole, by age 25 or 30.”

But then it seems that in the liberal progressive West, it is worse to express politically incorrect views of people than it is to actually plot their deaths. (Did anybody think to prosecute Amara and his colleagues for hate crimes?)

This is a dangerously naïve attitude."

Here is an excerpt from the Jan. 22 article:

"Of late, though, it too often seems, whether in Europe or, indeed, in Canada, that there is, in Caldwell’s words, “a special regime for speech concerning Islam.”

I can only conclude the Western power elites are for some reason afraid to defend their own culture. Thus, the real issue in Wilders’ trial is whether the citizens of the Netherlands (and European and the West, in general) still care about the responsible use of freedom and have the courage to defend it.

Say what you will about Wilders, agree with him or not, but he’s one of the few Western politicians with the courage — Daniel Pipes refers to him as “the most important European alive” and the singular European politician with “the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure” — to defend his cultural heritage. That comes through clearly in his opening address to the court."

Sibley joins a chorus of other voices who believe that the liberal and socialist elites of the modern West are simply too lacking in courage to defend Western culture against Islamic aggression. They are pacifist because they are afraid and they have gone so far in attacking, undermining and seeding hatred for their own heritage that they lack the passion to defend it and fear anyone who has passion to aggressively attack it. So they retreat one law and one case at a time.

What is difficult to understand is that Western liberal and socialist elites are signing their own death warrants by capitulating one step at a time to an enemy that, unlike Christianity, is intolerant of their sexual decadence and their relativistic ethics. The day is going to come when homosexuals and atheists in Europe are going to look back on the era of Christian cultural dominance as "the good old days." If they thought Constantine was bad, wait until they live under Sharia Law for a while.