Saturday, January 24, 2009

Khalid Yasin: “Wilders Should Be Flogged”

Khalid Yasin, the sheikh who shook down Australia a few years ago, is visiting the Netherlands. In his latest speech, he says that Geert Wilders should be flogged for his crimes.

Isn’t that hate speech? Shouldn’t he be prosecuted for his racism and kafirophobia?

From Elsevier, as translated by our alert Flemish correspondent VH:

Hate preacher Khalid Yasin: Punish Geert Wilders with flogging

By Robin van der Klor

The PVV’s Geert Wilders wants clarification from the government over a speech that the Islamic hate preacher Khalid Yasin gave on Friday at the Islamic University of Rotterdam.

The controversial sheikh had said there that Geert Wilders should be punished with a flogging for his “systematic abuse” of Muslims and Islam.

Deny access

The PVV MP Sietse Fritsma wants a debate during the next week with the Ministers Ernst Hirsch Ballin (Justice, CDA [Christian Democrats]) and Eberhard van der Laan (Integration, PvdA [Labour]).

The PVV (together with MPs of the PvdA and CDA) had asked Minister of Justice Hirsh Ballin earlier on if it was possible to deny Yasin access to the Netherlands.
- - - - - - - - -
Incitement to hatred

This week, the minister answered that such is not possible, but that the Public Prosecutor (OM) can prosecute Yasin if he incites hatred during his visit to The Netherlands.

According to the PVV Yasin is a terrorist and an “evil man.” But according to Hirsch Ballin, research did not reveal that Yasin in the past had explicitly called for violence.

12 comments:

Top Kafir said...

Tragically, in Holland, even the "conservatives" seek to impose restrictions on speech, in this case on the admittedly islamosupremacist rantings of the mad Kalid Yasin, but censorship nonetheless.

Does no one understand the concept "freedom?"

Fjordman said...

Top Kafir: It's not just in Holland, Muslims feel powerful enough to threaten every single Western nation. See how Saudi leaders can openly threaten their American "allies." I usually refrain from criticizing the USA because very often European politicians are even worse, but frankly, if the United States should be legitimately criticized for anything, it should be for its pro-Islamic policies, not for its non-existent anti-Islamic policies. The American political elites of both parties support the continued Islamization of the entire world, including North America. The Saudis have American leaders in their pockets.

I'm writing a review for Spencer's latest book right now. What most Americans don't understand is that they are not attacked because they are perceived as aggressive; they are attacked because Muslims perceive them as weak, and with good reason. As Machiavelli indicated in The Prince, you can live with having enemies, as long as your enemies respect you. Muslims always have been and, unless you are willing to convert to Islam, always will be enemies. Even after conversion they would probably attack those who are "weak" Muslims or Muslims in the wrong way.

Muslims are currently not equally aggressive against China, despite the fact that Chinese men are pig-eating infidels and their women are unveiled whores. This is because Muslims respect the Chinese more than they respect the West.

Czechmade said...

Flogging? Publish promptly all kinds of tortures holy to muslims - how many know about crucifiction, cutting opposite limbs etc?

Muslim media complain about Guntánamo? Why? For not using islamic classical methods?

kitman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kitman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

kitman --

Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the last of these rules. We keep a PG-13 blog, and exclude foul language, explicit descriptions, and epithets. This is why I deleted your comment.

Use of asterisks is an appropriate alternative.

----------------------

kitman said...

This man will never be dragged to caught. It is called freedom of religion!

Today in denmark however a cop is being prosecuted for saying "slap af perle" to a palestinian "youth" he arrested along with 75 others on a jew-hating rampage.
"slap af perle" is short for "relax pearltooth." It is the name of an old toothpaste brand and slang for somebody being a young boy who doesn´t know much. However it does sound somewhat similar to "perker" which is a derogative word for persians. AND SIMPLY BECAUSE the word he said has a could initiate a "relation of ideas through proximity" - to a "non-approved term" the thought-police deemed it "offensive."
He is now being taught a lesson, corrected by his superiours, and all over the MSM.
It is absolutely sickening.

The arrest took place after the very same illegal demonstration where the same "youths" were shouting "give me a yahud, and i´ll f**k him... Kill all yahud" etc. none of them are being prosecuted...
the snake charmed us... now we are hiking into the wild

kitman said...

Sorry about the lack of decorum Baron... i´ll try and remember.
Here is a corrected and more elaborate comment.

This man will never be dragged in court. It is called freedom of religion!

Today in Denmark however a cop is being prosecuted for saying "fatter du det perle" to a palestinian "youth" he arrested along with 75 others on a jew-hating rampage.
"fatter du det perle" is short for " got it pearltooth." Pearltooth is the name of an old toothpaste and slang for somebody acting like a fool. However it does sound somewhat similar to "perker" which is a derogative persians and arabs. But simply because the word he said could initiate a "relation of ideas through proximity" to this derogative term it hardly matters that he did not say it. The thought-police deemed it "offensive."
He is now being taught a lesson, corrected by his superiours, and all over the MSM.

It is absolutely sickening.
The arrest took place after the very same illegal demonstration where the same "youths" were shouting "give me a yahud, and i´ll f**k him... Kill all yahud" etc. none of them are being prosecuted...
Cases like this, wilders and winters always reminds me of the introductory passage of Enoch Powells "rivers of blood speech" (btw. carefully ommitted from the BBC documentary about the speech)... it reads:
"The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: At each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: 'if only', they love to think, 'if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen'. Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it, deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after..."

It is excactly this natural order of events which the well-off elite, and hedonist/pacifist hippies has inverted, and now even teaches the young minds of western european universities. Forcing them to read the sick mythic yadda-yadda of foucault, derrida and the like. In a way the order of events stated by powell in his speech is beeing negated and attacked everyday by most of the officailly funded universities in denmark, even as a matter of official institutional politics. Thereby creating massive "leftist loon-sleeper-cells", that would send Horovitz in a mental institution with acute depression.
The snake charmed us... now we are hiking into the wild.

Homophobic Horse said...

"Thereby creating massive "leftist loon-sleeper-cells", that would send Horovitz in a mental institution with acute depression."

I know David Horowitz apparently went through a "long dark night of the soul" to partially escape leftism, but not that bad?

Assuming you're even talking about David Horowitz.

Czechmade said...

Use condoms when at school - not to acquire Acquired MENTAL Immunity Deficiency Syndrom.

Czechmade said...

Imagine the cartoon - students with condoms on their heads listening to some 68 aging Prof. HippieTaliban trying to fertilize their poor brains with his spoiled eggs.

laine said...

"slang for somebody acting like a fool. However it does sound somewhat similar to "perker" which is a derogative persians and arabs"

Yes, now you don't even have to use the actual offensive words. Now you can be pilloried for words that sound similar!

It's reminiscent of the furor caused when some poor lower level American politician used too advanced a vocabulary. The word "niggardly" lit the ire of his less erudite black co-worker.

You couldn't make this stuff up, though Orwell and Lewis Carroll had a good crack at it.

ZZMike said...

Most everybody's missing the point. "Hate speech" is defined as "any criticism of Islam". There seem to be no other definitions.

Kitman's example is further proof of this.

Laine: There was a YouTube video a year or so back, of a city council meeting where they were talking about unpaid parking tickets. One councilman said something like "the money's disappearing down a black hole ...", and one of his fellow councilmen, a back man, rose in righteous indignation to protest the use of this obviously racially-charged word.

I really find it hard to believe that "perle" sounds anything like "perker".

Some people, it seems, are born looking for ways they can be offended. It must be a genetic thing.

Fjordman: "... but frankly, if the United States should be legitimately criticized for anything, it should be for its pro-Islamic policies, not for its non-existent anti-Islamic policies."

Ouch. That hurts - but I fear you're on the right track.

It's possible we support the Saudi royalty because we (a) need their oil, and (b) see them as something of a stabilizing influence (i.e., somewhat conciliatory to us) in that area.

What would it be like if we wre openly critical of Saudi Arabia, and stopped our support?