Thursday, January 22, 2009

“Eroding Traditional Dutch Liberties”

Below are excerpts from the Wall Street Journal editorial referenced in H. Numan’s previous translation (thanks to VH for the link):

Silencing Islam’s Critics

A Dutch court imports Saudi blasphemy norms to Europe.

The latest twist in the clash between Western values and the Muslim world took place yesterday in the Netherlands, where a court ordered the prosecution of lawmaker and provocateur Geert Wilders for inciting violence. The Dutch MP and leader of the Freedom Party, which opposes Muslim immigration into Holland, will stand trial soon for his harsh criticism of Islam.
- - - - - - - - -
[…]

There are of course limits to free speech, such as calls for violence. But one doesn’t need to agree with Mr. Wilders to acknowledge that he hasn’t crossed that line. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements. But if freedom of speech means anything, it means the freedom of controversial speech. Consensus views need no protection.

This is exactly what Dutch prosecutors said in June when they rejected the complaints against Mr. Wilders. “That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable,” the prosecutors said in a statement. “Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That means that offensive comments can be made in a political debate.”

The court yesterday overruled this decision, arguing that the lawmaker should be prosecuted for “inciting hatred and discrimination” and also “for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism.” This is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside. But the successful integration of Muslims in Europe will require that immigrants adapt to Western norms, not vice versa. Limiting the Dutch debate of Islam to standards acceptable in, say, Saudi Arabia, will only shore up support for Mr. Wilders’s argument that Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties.

4 comments:

Czechmade said...

The muslim outrage is 100% PC correct. The muslims did not mean to integrate into German Nazi Europe in 1933 as it was falsely assumed by Wilders, but rather in 1941.

We should historically and theologically apologize to all weakminded muslims. They meant something very different - 1941.

The humiliation of all muslims has reached the point of no return - unjustly as usual. We are to be blamed and retreat in a sense of total moral inferiority to these miserable brainless bastards.

Let us apologize, acknowledge our allahakbar defeat and call for countless intifadas!

Robin Shadowes said...

I signed the petition in support of Geert Wilders. I will recommend as many as possible to do the same. I refuse to give in both to the traitors in our midst and these savages from MENA. They can take their unholy quran, their pedophile prophet and last but not least, take the 7th century desert hallucination called allah and put them all somewhere where the sun does not shine!!!

Solo said...

Strange choice of words by WSJ: "Provocateur". Hardly objective. I'm under impression, that's how Geert is being portrayed by MSM to discredit what he actually tried to say...

babs said...

where a court ordered the prosecution of lawmaker and provocateur Geert Wilders for inciting violence.

Well, there is some precedence. Theo Van Gogh was murdered because his film incited violence. Oh... that's right, it incited a Muslim to violence not the other way around. (Never mind)

the lawmaker should be prosecuted for “inciting hatred and discrimination” and also “for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism.”

I am sure that many Muslims would be willing to come forward to testify that they "have been insulted" however, can the prosecution name one documented act of "discrimination" or overt "hatred" based on Mr. Wilders film or editorials?

This is the same problem we saw recently in Canada. Writing or filming anything defamatory about Islam and its followers receives the full weight of the "Human Rights" police while not a single victim can be identified. The thing about Canada was that the "Human Rights" police pulled the wrong tail. They decided to take on 3 heavy weights; Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and a major weekly magazine akin to Newsweek in the states. These 3 entities would not shut up and would not back down.
It seems right now that the PVV are fighting this alone. But, less than 48 hours after the announcement the WSJ has weighed in as well as an emerging ground swell on the internet. Once the European Community is made aware of this travesty I think the Dutch court will realize that they have taken it a step too far. And, those wishing to bankrupt the PVV and send them to obsquerity will have grossly miscalculated. You cannot continue to attack a settled society with mayhem and then expect to send their leaders to jail for speaking up. No, this was a bad calculation. Being "insulted" should not be an actionable crime... Where are the trials for shops, cars and synagogues burned? Every citizen in the Netherlands should at least be "insulted" by the actions of the Muslim mob over the past several weeks.

I am hoping that the PVV can hold out until the next election. I predict a huge back lash from this insanity. If even the WSJ weighs in this quickly you know the actions of the Dutch court have gone over the top.
What the PVV needs to do now is set up a legal defense fund so that everyone the world over can throw in a fin. Geert Wilders fights for our freedom as well as his.