Leading Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, to face prosecution over comments

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014...e-prosecution/

Leading Anti-Islamification Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, to face prosecution over comments

Months after a fiery victory speech, Dutch police have announced they will be prosecuting democratically-elected house of representatives member Geert Wilders for asking his voters whether they wanted to see fewer Moroccans or not in the Northern European country.

Defending the prosecution, a police spokesman said “Politicians can go far in what they say, that is part of freedom of speech, but the freedom is limited by the ban on discrimination”.

As well as Islam, Wilders is also a vocal critic of the way Western governments deal with radical Islam, especially policy that take passports from suspected terrorists but allows them to walk free. In the wake of the recent Canada Parliament Hill shooting, Wilders told Breitbart: “Let them leave.

“Let them leave, or detain them. I find it incomprehensible that Western governments stop people who want to leave to fight for jihad in Syria or Iraq… nothing is being done to make our own countries safe”.

The desperate struggle to shut down individuals who speak out against the pace of Islamisation of the West by governments is not limited to the Dutch, and Wilders. Breitbart London has reported on a series of protest ‘strolls’ presently taking place across Germany, and most notably in Dresden where 15,000 marched against Islamisation of Europe this Monday.

Click link for more...

And here's the story in his own words...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/geert-wi...ime-1419195337

Talking About ‘the Moroccan Issue’ Is Not a Crime

A democracy must allow for the frank discussion of the problems it faces.

Four years ago I was taken to court in the Netherlands on hate-crime charges. After a trial that lasted almost two years, I was finally acquitted. But the case cost me a lot of time and energy that, as an elected politician, I would rather have devoted to my parliamentary work.

Now, just as my Party for Freedom (PVV) is taking the lead in the polls and the Dutch government is facing serious political difficulties, the public prosecutor is again bringing me to court, this time for asking my party supporters, during a PVV electoral meeting in March, whether they want more or fewer Moroccans in the country.

This question needs to be understood in proper context.

In the Netherlands, as in many other Western European countries right now, problems arise when Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate and integrate into the wider community. In our case I referred specifically to the Moroccans not because I have anything against them generally but because they are one of the largest immigrant groups here and are overrepresented in our crime and welfare statistics.

Moroccans are suspects in violent robberies 22 times as often as indigenous Dutch. Between 1996 and 2010, more than 60% of the Moroccan male youths born in 1984 had at least once been suspected of a crime, a rate three times as high as their indigenous counterparts. Meanwhile, 14% of the Moroccan population between ages 15 and 64 is dependent on welfare, compared with 9% for the Turks and 3% for the indigenous Dutch. According to **** Schoof, the Dutch national coordinator for counterterrorism and security, Moroccans also account for three-quarters of all Dutch Muslims who leave for Syria to wage jihad.

The Dutch often refer to this problem as the “Moroccan issue.” If instead the Americans were the largest group of immigrants refusing to assimilate in the Netherlands, we would no doubt be referring to it as “the American issue.”

For almost a decade, my party has proposed three measures to address this issue. First, we want an end to immigration from Mulslim countries. Second, we want to expel all criminals of foreign nationality and, for those offenders who have dual nationality, deprive them of their Dutch citizenship, sending them back to the country of their other nationality. Third, we want to encourage the voluntary repatriation of non-Western immigrants.

These three measures don’t target any particular ethnic group, but given the demographics in our country it would immediately entail the presence of fewer Moroccans. Hence my question: “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” I never advocated that all Moroccans should leave. Nor do I object to every Moroccan. The decision to prosecute me for insulting an ethnic group and inciting hatred and discrimination is preposterous.

The prosecutor’s decision can’t be seen as being anything but politically motivated, especially when he has refused to prosecute two leading politicians of the governing Labor Party, Diederik Samsom and Hans Spekman, for similar statements on Moroccans. Mr. Samsom said that Moroccans have an “ethnic monopoly” on street crime, while Mr. Spekman said that Moroccans who don’t abide by the law have to be “humiliated in front of their own people.”

Polls have indicated that more than 43% of Netherlanders agree with me. I was thus expressing the feelings of millions in my country. In a democracy, a public debate about important political issues, such as “the Moroccan issue,” shouldn’t be restricted by criminalizing the expression of certain problems and policy proposals.

Unfortunately, political debate is now being increasingly restricted, not just in the Netherlands but across many European countries. Laws limiting freedom of expression, including the freedom of political debate, are introduced to protect subjective rights such as the right of certain groups to not feel offended, preventing the open discussion of pressing problems like those that arise from large-scale immigration across Western Europe. The unwillingness to address such problems is leading to the growth of parties, similar to my own PVV, in many other Western countries.

And existing laws are being applied ever more vigorously. Earlier this month, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the existing Dutch penal laws not only criminalize incitement to hatred and discrimination but also “incitement to intolerance.”

I don’t believe in political self-censorship. During the past 10 years, I have drawn attention to the problems that Dutch citizens experience related to integration, immigration and the Islamization of our society. And I have paid, and continue to pay, a very high price for it. For more than a decade now I have lived under constant police protection because I am on the death list of several Islamist terror groups. However, I will never let anyone silence me, no matter the consequences. My voters have elected me to express their concerns, and that is what I will do.

Prosecuting me as an elected politician for expressing the opinions of my constituents is absurd. Excluding certain problems from the political debate by making it a crime to discuss them won’t lead to the disappearance of these concerns, let alone contribute to a solution. This prosecution, moreover, is also dangerous. People will begin to lose their trust in the democratic process. Festering political problems do not go away simply because they are kept in a dark corner. I wish the Dutch public prosecutor had been wise enough to see that.

Mr. Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and the leader of the Party for Freedom. He is the author of “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me” (Regnery).

As absurd and as weak the Dutch government and their establishment is (prosecuting the popular politician who is leading in Dutch polls at the moment rather than Jihadists) it'll only help Wilders in the longer term as he's beaten them before in the courts over comments relating to Islamism. The issue of free speech aside, the Dutch authorities taking him to court couldn't help him (politically) more. Good luck to him anyway, and in 2017 (Dutch GE) too.

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

Pretends to oppose censorship, campaigns to have the Qu'ran banned
Pretends to oppose censorship, campaigns to have foreign-language preaching banned
States that Islam urging people to act in a certain way rather than individually is a problem, openly states that all Christians should support him and want the same things as him
Claims that the Qu'ran should be banned on the basis that it incites violence, calls fundamentalist Christians his allies and supports Israel
Claims to want reductions of taxes and regulations, calls for a £1000 hijab tax


Holland's government is totally ridiculous but this is yet another case where I'd have to oppose both sides as a whole.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Pretends to oppose censorship, campaigns to have the Qu'ran banned
Pretends to oppose censorship, campaigns to have foreign-language preaching banned
States that Islam urging people to act in a certain way rather than individually is a problem, openly states that all Christians should support him and want the same things as him
Claims that the Qu'ran should be banned on the basis that it incites violence, calls fundamentalist Christians his allies and supports Israel
Claims to want reductions of taxes and regulations, calls for a £1000 hijab tax

Holland's government is totally ridiculous but this is yet another case where I'd have to oppose both sides as a whole.

Fudging the issues there Tom aren't you even if I don't agree with everything Wilders proposes, although I knew you'd love to stick an awe into Israel and the Jews (one of the only free countries where people are treated as human beings in that part of the world) among a sea of haters surrounding them.

That said, when it comes to integration/freedoms argument: if you have a huge population of people living in your country who refuse to integrate and indeed don't have to integrate because there's so many of them, how else can you have them integrate if not using the law? That's the issue.

Even in this country senior Labour figures have warned of race/cultural riots in our inner cities. Only a matter of time before Powell's prophecy is fulfilled.

[The Don]

Fudging the issues there Tom aren't you even if I don't agree with everything Wilders proposes, although I knew you'd love to stick an awe into Israel and the Jews (one of the only free countries where people are treated as human beings in that part of the world) among a sea of haters surrounding them.

That said, when it comes to integration/freedoms argument: if you have a huge population of people living in your country who refuse to integrate and indeed don't have to integrate because there's so many of them, how else can you have them integrate if not using the law? That's the issue.

Even in this country senior Labour figures have warned of race/cultural riots in our inner cities. Only a matter of time before Powell's prophecy is fulfilled.

On the whole, immigrants in European countries aren't the ones discriminating against mass groups of people, people like Geert Wilders are. So if anyone doesn't want immigrants to integrate then surely it's the people calling for the removal of their benefits, refer to them working and contributing to the economy as 'stealing' jobs, and putting up billboards targeting said individuals.

[FlyingJesus]

Not fudging any issues or even taking a personal stance on them at this moment in time, just pointing out his many hypocrisies

[The Don]

Fudging the issues there Tom aren't you even if I don't agree with everything Wilders proposes, although I knew you'd love to stick an awe into Israel and the Jews (one of the only free countries where people are treated as human beings in that part of the world) among a sea of haters surrounding them.

That said, when it comes to integration/freedoms argument: if you have a huge population of people living in your country who refuse to integrate and indeed don't have to integrate because there's so many of them, how else can you have them integrate if not using the law? That's the issue.

Even in this country senior Labour figures have warned of race/cultural riots in our inner cities. Only a matter of time before Powell's prophecy is fulfilled.

Stop 'fudging' Powell's quote, last time I checked his racist rivers of blood speech was in regards to black immigration, not Romanians or Bulgarians or Asians.

[-:Undertaker:-]

On the whole, immigrants in European countries aren't the ones discriminating against mass groups of people, people like Geert Wilders are. So if anyone doesn't want immigrants to integrate then surely it's the people calling for the removal of their benefits, refer to them working and contributing to the economy as 'stealing' jobs, and putting up billboards targeting said individuals.

You've literally just ignored all the facts and figures, and gone straight off on a rant. As usual.

Read the article carefully, then come back to me and you'll find most of what you just wrote is utter rot. Infact, don't even bother as you're literally that far off the scales you are unreachable with any reason, thought or argument. Completely insular and blind to the entire debate, like our politicians.

Stop 'fudging' Powell's quote, last time I checked his racist rivers of blood speech was in regards to black immigration, not Romanians or Bulgarians or Asians.

Firstly he never even said rivers of blood (which is one of the great myths of the speech that the media created) and secondly it wasn't racist, it is only racist if you misunderstand the speech in the first place like a teapot. I think you qualify. Even Michael Foot, the most left-wing Labour leader in history, stated that Powell's speech had been misunderstood and misrepresented by the media in what his prophecy was warning about concerning immigration/integration & culture.

I'll refer to his prophecy over and over again because it is materialising before our eyes in Europe. History has proved him right on so much, unlike your lot.

[The Don]

You've literally just ignored all the facts and figures, and gone straight off on a rant. As usual.

Read the article carefully, then come back to me and you'll find most of what you just wrote is utter rot. Infact, don't even bother as you're literally that far off the scales you are unreachable with any reason, thought or argument. Completely insular and blind to the entire debate, like our politicians.

I'm that far off the scales? You're the extreme one here, not me. I'm not the one boycotting stores because they choose to sell a product and then claim i'm all for the free market. I'm not the extremist who denies climate change because of a few out of context emails from a few years back despite the overwhelming scientific evidence. I'm not the one that's 'that far off the rails', you are. You're such a hypocritical mess it's unreal.

Firstly he never even said rivers of blood (which is one of the great myths of the speech that the media created) and secondly it wasn't racist, it is only racist if you misunderstand the speech in the first place like a teapot. I think you qualify. Even Michael Foot, the most left-wing Labour leader in history, stated that Powell's speech had been misunderstood and misrepresented by the media in what his prophecy was warning about concerning immigration/integration & culture.

I'll refer to his prophecy over and over again because it is materialising before our eyes in Europe. History has proved him right on so much, unlike your lot.

Read what was written. His speech is universally referred to as 'The Rivers of Blood Speech' and that's what I referred to it as. Thankfully the British public aren't as dense as you're being and saw the speech for what it really was.