* * *
He is dying his hair for a reason.
* * *
Geert Wilders is NOT what he wants himself appearing to be.
Additionally, I’ve said before that the founder of the Gatestone Institute is a philanthropist and a Zionist.
It is TPTB who engineered the migrant crisis (and brought all these ‘prime-time soldiers’ into Europe) and their agenda is beyond sinister, which is one reason why I often post all those reports (also from the Gatestone Institute) about all these crimes committed by migrants.
All of this is, as always, about … divide et impera! … but much, much worse.
Prepare for financial collapse, hyperinflation, civil war followed by WW3 (limited nuclear exchange).
So this is just FYI.
From Paradise to Bolshevik Thought Police
- “It would have been better if the Dutch state had sent a clear signal [to terrorists] via a Dutch court that we foster a broad notion of the freedom of expression in the Netherlands.” — Paul Cliteur, Professor of Jurisprudence, Leiden University.
- The historic dimension of Wilders’s conviction is related not only to the terrible injustice done to this MP, but that it was the Netherlands that, for the first time in Europe, criminalized dissenting opinions about Islam.
- “I will never be silent. You will not be able to stop me… And that is what we stand for. For freedom and for our beautiful Netherlands.” — Geert Wilders, Dutch MP and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).
- “We have a lot of guests who are trying to take over the house.” — Pym Fortuyn, later shot to death to “defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.”
- Before being slaughtered, clinging to a basket, Theo van Gogh begged his assassin: “Can we talk about this?” But can we talk?
A country whose most outspoken filmmaker was slaughtered by an Islamist; whose bravest refugee, hunted by a fatwa, fled to the U.S.; whose cartoonists must live under protection, had better think twice before condemning a Member of Parliament, whose comments about Islam have forced him to live under 24-hour protection for more than a decade, for “hate speech.” Poor Erasmus! The Netherlands is no longer a safe haven for free thinkers. It is the Nightmare for Free Speech.
The most prominent politician in the Netherlands, MP Geert Wilders, has just been convicted of “inciting discrimination and insulting a minority group,” for asking at a really if there should be fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. Many newly-arrived Moroccans in the Netherlands seem to have been responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime there.
H/t reader squodgy:
It’s all coming together but the mainstream press aren’t saying anything.
Item 47 on Daily Mail headlines list.
Nothing in The Independant
Obscure reference in The Telegraph.
DUTCH far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) has topped the latest polls and would beat the prime minister’s ruling conservative liberals if elections were held today, sparking the possibility of a Dutch exit from the EU.
New data reportedly shows the PVV – led by Eurosceptic Geert Wilders – would take more than a fifth of the lower chamber with 33 seats out of the 150-seat chamber, eight more than prime minister Mark Rutte’s party would take if elections were called now.
Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), has said that the outcome of his “hate speech” trial could show signs of tyranny forming in the Dutch establishment.
The trial of Geert Wilders is close to reaching a conclusion and it appears the populist Dutch politician may be facing a €5,000 fine for remarks he made about Moroccans in the Netherlands at a speech in 2014.
In a video released on YouTube Thursday, he railed against the establishment claiming that the request by the prosecutor to fine him was showing a slide into tyranny by the Dutch establishment and their war on freedom of speech.
“Speaking about one of the biggest problems in our country, the problem with Moroccans, is now punishable according to the elite,” he said adding, “we are slowly but surely losing our freedom of speech.”
Mr. Wilders was charged with hate speech on the accusation that he had committed an act of overt racism. The dutch PVV leader responded to the charges saying, “suddenly Moroccans have become a race. So if you say something about Moroccans you are suddenly a racist in the Netherlands,” adding that “it’s utter madness. Only meant to shut you and me up.”
Wilders claimed that the trial was evidence of the eroding of the personal freedoms of the Dutch people, saying that the country was “at risk of becoming a dictatorship.” Comparing the crackdown on free speech to that of the presidency of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,who has jailed opposition media and politicians in Turkey, he said that the differences between the two countries were getting smaller and smaller.
Wilders stated the “politically correct elite” should not be allowed to censor speech they do not like. He said that it was his duty as a political leader to fight against the elites because “looking away and remaining silent is not an option.”
Without a means to talk about mass migration in the Netherlands, Wilders warns that the problems “will only grow bigger,” and the only people left in power will be a “dictatorship of cowardly politicians.”
The trial of Mr. Wilders is set to reach a verdict later in November. While the penalty by law could be a larger fine or a two-year prison sentence, the PVV leader has expressed his outrage at the trial, saying he wouldn’t attend what he considered to be a waste of his time.
He stated be chose instead to focus on his parliamentary work ahead of the Dutch elections in the spring in which he is projected to be placed either first, or a very close second, on his anti-Islamisation platform.
* * *
“No-one will silence me!”
Oh, they will silence you, if you say “certain” things …
The trial of popular anti-Islamisation politician Geert Wilders for “inciting hatred” began Monday with the MP vowing not to attend, but rather focus on his work in the parliament.
Geert Wilders, leader of the increasingly popular Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), is once again facing charges of inciting hatred in his native country of the Netherlands. Mr. Wilders is on trial for comments he has previously made about Moroccans in the country but has refused to participate in the trial, instead allowing his lawyer to represent him while he focuses on his parliamentary work, reports Kurier.
Lawyer Jan Knoops presented the court with a statement from his client on why he refused to attend the trial. Mr. Wilders had released a video via his Twitter account on the 27th of October ahead of the trial to explain why he was boycotting the trial.
I will not attend this political trial.
No-one will silence me!https://t.co/Akt5xqUTPT
— Geert Wilders (@geertwilderspvv) October 28, 2016
- It is deeply troubling that the court already before the criminal trial has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and “inconvenient” political views?
- If you are a politician and concerned about the future welfare of your country, you should be able to discuss the pertinent issues of the day, including problems with immigrants and other population groups.
- Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…”
- In its case law, the Court has stated that Article 10 “…protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected”.
- Wilders did not incite to violence or prosecution (or humiliation), nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety.
- Clearly, in the Netherlands, justice is no longer blind and the courts no longer independent and impartial state institutions.
A court in The Hague decided on October 14 that the charges of hate speech against Dutch politician Geert Wilders, for statements he made in March 2014 at a political rally, are admissible in a court of law. It thereby rejected the Wilders’ appeal to throw out the charges as inadmissible in a court of law on the grounds that these are political issues and that a trial would in fact amount to a political process. The criminal trial against Wilders will begin on Monday, October 31.
While campaigning in The Hague in March 2014, Wilders argued the need for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. At an election meeting in The Hague, he asked those present a number of questions, one of which was “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” After the crowd responded “fewer” Wilders said, “We’re going to organize that.”
Because of the “fewer Moroccans” statements, repeated again in an interview a few days later, Wilders will be prosecuted on two counts: First for “deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race.” Second, for “inciting hatred or discrimination against these people.”
Wilders’ defense attorney, Geert Jan Knoops, has argued that the trial amounts to a political trial against Wilders and his party, the PVV: “Sensitive issues must be judged by public opinion or through the ballot box,”, Knoops said “The Prosecutor is indirectly asking for a ruling over the functioning of the PVV and its political program. The court must not interfere with this.”
As a politician, Wilders can say more than an ordinary citizen, Knoops said, arguing that Wilders used his statements to point out shortcomings in the Dutch state. “It is his duty to name shortcomings. He takes that responsibility and proposes solutions.” Knoops argued that the prosecutor is limiting Wilders’ freedom of speech by prosecuting him for his statements.
The court’s response was that although politicians are entitled to freedom of expression, they should “avoid public statements that feed intolerance” and that the trial would determine where the border lies between politicians’ freedom of expression and their obligation, as the court sees it, to avoid public statements that feed intolerance.
Other politicians, notably all from the Labour Party, have uttered the following about Moroccans without being prosecuted:
- “We also have sh*t Moroccans over here.” — Rob Oudkerk, a Dutch Labour Party (PvDA) politician.
- “We must humiliate Moroccans.” — Hans Spekman, PvDA politician.
- “Moroccans have the ethnic monopoly on trouble-making.” — Diederik Samsom, PvDA politician.
The court discarded Wilders’ defense attorney’s argument that the failure to prosecute any of these politicians renders the trial against Wilders discriminatory. The court said that because of the different time, place and context of the statements of other politicians, they cannot be equated with the statements of Mr. Wilders and for that reason, the court considers that there has been no infringement of the principle of equality.
The statements of those other politicians, however, were, objectively speaking, far worse in their use of language (“sh*t Moroccans”) and what could be considered direct incitement (“We must humiliate Moroccans”). What other time, place and context could possibly make the above statements more acceptable than asking whether voters would like more or fewer Moroccans? And what circumstances render it legitimate to call someone “sh*t” because of their ethnic origin?
It is deeply troubling that the court already in its preliminary ruling, and before the criminal trial itself has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. To the outside world, this court no longer appears impartial. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and “inconvenient” political views?
The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights. This means that Dutch courts are obligated to interpret domestic legislation in a way compatible with the ECHR and the case law of the European Court on Human Rights. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that Article 10
“…protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected”.
Even more important in the context of the trial against Wilders is the fact that according to the European Court of Human Rights’ case law,
“…the extent of protection depends on the context and the aim of the criticism. In matters of public controversy or public interest, during political debate, in electoral campaigns… strong words and harsh criticism may be expected and will be tolerated to a greater degree by the Court”. [emphasis added]
Let us review what Wilders said and the context in which he said it: “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” After the crowd responded “fewer” Wilders said, “We’re going to organize that.” He repeated that statement in a subsequent interview, where he said, “The fewer Moroccans, the better.”
The context in which he said it was an election campaign in March 2014 against the backdrop of considerable problems with Moroccans in the Netherlands. According to Dutch journalist Timon Dias:
Now, if you are a politician and concerned about the future welfare of your country, you should, logically, be able to discuss the pertinent issues of the day, including existing problems with immigrants and other population groups. This discussion will only make sense in a democratic society if it takes place in public, and certainly with voters at a political rally during an election campaign. Asking whether voters want fewer Moroccans in their city or country may seem crude to some and offensive to others. However, in the light of the case law of the European Human Rights Court, which specifically protects political speech with a very wide margin, especially that of political actors and political campaigns, it is very difficult to see, if not impossible, how the question Wilders posed could legitimately be covered by article 10 (2).
According to article 10 (2), freedom of speech can be limited when
“necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
Wilders did not incite to violence or prosecution (or humiliation), nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety or any of the other concerns noted above.
It is more difficult to see how the statement, “We must humiliate Moroccans” by Labour politician Hans Spekman, who was not prosecuted, could be legitimized, as it constitutes direct incitement to some form of humiliating action towards Moroccans. Then again, Hans Spekman is not Geert Wilders.
Clearly, in the Netherlands, justice is no longer blind and the courts no are longer independent and impartial state institutions. This should deeply concern all Dutch citizens.
* * *
Leader of Netherlands’ most popular party Geert Wilders has proposed a closure of all Mosques in the country and a total ban on the Koran ahead of the 2017 general election.
Leader of the populist Party for Freedom (PVV) Geert Wilders has proposed the most radical anti-Islamisation platform for any party in European politics. Wilders, whose PVV are currently top of all major polls in the Netherlands, has declared that the new platform for the party ahead of the general elections in 2017 will include the plan to close all Mosques in the country and place a ban on the Islamic holy book, the Koran. Wilders claims that the move is to counter the Islamisation he sees ongoing in the country reports Belgian paper Demorgen.