Friday, February 13, 2009

What Geert Wilders Would Have Said

“There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.”

“You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit roll, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all its calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?”

Below is the text of the speech that Geert Wilders would have given yesterday in the House of Lords if he had not been banned from the United Kingdom:

London, Feb. 12, 2009

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.

This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.

The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned — all throughout the 1930’s — for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.

In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.

What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.

Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands you respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.
- - - - - - - - -
Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.

Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated.

For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.

Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.

But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.

I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of Islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.

You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all its calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?

Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.

I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trail.

The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.

Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?

We have to defend freedom of speech.

For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.

What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?

The choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.

Geert Wilders MP
Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)
The Netherlands

9 comments:

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...

A humbling speech, particularly in the context of what actually happened.

If only people like Jacqui Smith and Gordon Brown felt humbled and awe-inspired by the values they're supposed to stand for and the ancient offices they hold.

I've said it before, but we need some politicians of Geert's calibre here, as a matter of urgency.

Czechmade said...

One more insult of islam!

He calls them "extremists". This is truly unjust - those guys try sincerely to implement the litterae of their only crazy book...and as a result they are not MSMmuslims....horrible.

Joanne said...

What is a moderate Muslim? A Muslim who does not perform terrorist acts? Give me a break. Every Muslim who is a practicing Muslim reads the same book - the Koran.

I am a Christian - I am not a moderate Christian. Who calls me a moderate Christian? I believe the Word of God in the Bible....every last word. I do not pick and choose what to believe, although I am not privy to all its meaning.

Do people really believe Muslims pick and choose what to believe in the Koran? Utter nonsense. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. There can be non-practising Muslims who do not believe the teachings in the Koran and are only deemed Muslim to save their neck, but the rest are Muslims who believe every last word of the Koran.

Do I think Muslims want to live in peace - sure the peace where everyone lives under the teachings of Islam and Sharia Law; sure I believe that.

Dr.D said...

And this was considered a danger to the Queen's peace, but the rage and hate being spewed daily by the Saudi funded mosques in Londonstan are not? Unbelievable!

The law used to keep Wilders out specifies that the person is barred because of what that person is expected to do himself, not what other people are expected to do. Rather clearly, that law has been misapplied because the cowardly UK government is afraid of the muzlims and unwilling to face them. It is clear then that the muzlims are actually in control; they have just demonstrated that in spades.

Joanne said...

"A New York Muslim leader has pulled a Mohammad and beheaded his wife. Muzzammil Hassan was a community leader and a so called "moderate" Muslim. He was the founder and Chief Executive of Bridges TV a show started to help combat the negative perceptions of Islam and also to build bridges to the non-Muslim world."

Hat tip Gateway Pundit.

See, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, unless you pervert the meaning of moderate to mean 'one who beheads according to Sharis Law'.

Top Kafir said...

Why, Joanne, you little islamophobe you, linking beheading with the noble teachings of the venerated prophet. Effecting the separation of heads from the bodies of wives is an ancient, pre-islamic, custom of Arab tribesmen. You see, they were, unlike muslims, monogamous. That pesky inconvenience of first serial wife preventing the happy nuptials with wife number two was easily and efficiently resolved by... chopping off wife number one's head. That significantly diminished her voicing any silly objections at the wedding.

What awful trauma have you suffered that you have become so filled with hate, so as to connect this purely cultural phenomenon with peaceful islam? My heart goes out to you, dear.

Lex, Agent of Chaos said...

Joanne--just as many Christians do NOT believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God--every last word--so are there Muslims who feel that way about their Faith. There are plenty of Muslims who self-identify as Muslim simply because of their birth into a Muslim home in either a Muslim country or not. I most certainly believe that there is a difference between what you dislike as "moderate Christianity" and "Fundamentalism" to use the most convenient term for that belief system.

I know many "moderate Muslims", people whom someone in al Qaeda might call "not real Muslims" but are generally not frowned upon in their interpretation of how to live their Faith. Oddly enough though whenever some I know present lists of Muslims denouncing terrorism and extremism to certain high profile "counter-jihad" bloggers these bloggers simply say that said Muslims are "liars". As there's no way to win with this type of sentiment we seldom bother to actually comment at these blogs, this being a rare exception brought about by my interest in what you think of Christians who don't take the Bible literally. What do you think of us more "moderate Christians", Joanne?

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

matthew 7 16

Or, to consider things from another angle, the fact that these muslims are only "cultural" muslims is irrelevant to a greater or lesser degree. Moderate Islam still has the problem of the fact that its founding figure was pretty much a bastard, and its progression was toward more and more barbarity. Christianity and indeed the old hebrew predecessor of modern judaism went in completely the other direction. Jesus, as you should well know by now, Lex, was the instigator of a new covenant that brought a more peaceful and intergrationist attitude toward faith. And yes, you can certainly point to numerous examples of rather bad behaviour from his followers over the years but the fact remains that these people are acting against their professed faith.

These moderate muslims you mention could fall into two groups. There are those who genuinely do want to live their lives as peaceful and free cultural muslims - I know some. NIce people. But there are those who claim that and then act in a rather different way. Their actions are what defines them. They may renounce terrorism and "islamism" to your face but when there is evidence of their duplicity, it is not wrong to call them liars.

And there's still the sticky problem of these cultural muslims defending the indefensible; though they want to live in peace, they still defend the actions of their compatriots even as they seem to be condemning them. They ask us to "understand", to listen, to see that this isn't really Islam. The problem, though, is that whereas Christianity's covenant brought the followers of God into a new, opoen-armed and peaceful era - in theory - the new covenant of Islam was one of war and conquest. To be a moderate muslim requires rejecting core tenets of the Islamic belief system. To be a "moderate christian" requires nothing but adherence to the words of Christ.

Surely you can see the logical problems here? Moderate muslims are to be welcomed but they do face that problem of being effective apostates from their own religion. The cultural pressure to conform to Islamic practice - the core tenets of violence, murder, subjugation and general hatred of everything non-islamic - is overwhelming. It's that cultural pressure you're ignoring with your argument, Lex. That cultural pressure to conform exists and it comes from within Islam, not without and as long as that pressure is there, even the most moderate muslims will be potential victims of so-called "sudden jihad syndrome".

Top Kafir said...

Lex, here are a couple of ideas I would like you to consider.

If I were a fundamentalist Christian, I would of course hold that only through "the blood of Christ" could any person be saved, be right(eous) with God. I would preach incessantly to save souls. However, on no basis of scriptural authority -- New Testament, the controlling scriptural authority for Christians -- could I ever engage in violent conversion or subjugation. No words of Jesus could be used to justify the use of force, even in self-defense.

If I were a "fundamentalist" or mainstream muslim, however, I would be obligated to practice jihad, the systemmatic subjugation of non-muslims by all means, including deception and violence. That is what mohammed taught -- not peaceful non-resistance, but perpetual violent and non-violent warfare against kafir until no "enemies" of islam were left in the world.

Correlating Christian and muslim "fundamentalism" is a common example of islamic deception, "taquiyya." Like the entirely opposed muslim vs Christian conceptions of "martyrdom," such usage is false and propagandistic.