Analysis: The Geert Wilders Acquittal
Vol: 117 Issue: 23 Thursday, June 23, 2011
Compared with the media circus that surrounded his trial, hardly anybody is reporting its outcome in the mainstream media, so we’ll be sort of ‘breaking’ this story in the West. So here goes. . .
This just in –Geert Wilders Acquitted by Netherlands Court.
Geert Wilders is the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (Partij voor de Vrijheid or, PVV) which in 2006 claimed one seat in Parliament and one member, Geert Wilders.
Today, the PPV holds 24 seats in the Dutch Parliament and is the nation’s third largest political party.
The reason, at least in part, is because Geert Wilders said out loud what everybody else dared to only whisper.
Wilders was charged with such ‘crimes’ as “having stated that Morrocan youths were violent,” for calling for Dutch borders to be closed to all “non-Western immigrants” and for advocating an end to what he terms “the Islamic Invasion.”
He was also charged with five counts of religious insult and anti-Muslim incitement for describing Islam as a fascist religion and calling for the banning of the Koran.
In 2008 Wilders produced the film Fitna which is universally described as “a short political film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders about his view of Islam.”
That is the politically correct description of the film. In reality, the film simply presents Islamic sermons, slogans, speeches, quotes and actions — without offering any opinion whatsoever.
The only speakers are Muslim – the only images are Islamic, and none of it is reproduced, staged, set up or otherwise contrived. In short, it is a documentary that does not take a position itself but instead exposes the position of its participants.
The film was labeled “offensively anti-Islamic” by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon after its initial screening. Prosecutors had initially declined to charge Wilders, citing freedom of speech when it dismissed the case despite dozens of complaints over the film and a variety of public speeches.
The uproar prompted a Dutch appeals court to order that Wilders be tried anyway, on the grounds that politicians should not be permitted to make “statements which create hate and grief.”
“Fitna” is an Arabic word with connotations of secession, upheaval and chaos. It is often used to refer to internal divisions within Islam. It has a secondary meaning in Islamic eschatology not too dissimilar from the Tribulation Period.
The term originally referred to the refining of metal to remove impurities and came to be used to describe a person’s purification process within Islam. For that reason, fitna is sometimes translated as sedition, as in the Koran’s Sura 8:39:
“And fight with them (unbelievers) until there is no more sedition (fitna) and religion should be only for Allah.”
It took me quite some time to find a link to the actual film – this Youtube link was the only one not censored by Google or Dailymotion most probably because it was posted by a Wilders-hater, as evidenced by the vulgar commentary below the post.
Even Videosurf.com was reluctant to serve up the full 17 minute English version of the film. The first offering returned by their search engine is an Islamic parody in which Old Testament Bible verses are used to create a similarly evil depiction of Christianity.
It is fairly effective, except the parody is limited to using ancient Old Testament verses — not current events inspired by Old Testament verses.
It is easier to find a porn movie online than it is to find a complete copy of the Fitna documentary. And it is easier to find a flattering portrait of Osama bin Laden online than it is to find one of Geert Wilders.
Immediately upon hearing the news of Wilder’s acquittal, Dutch Islamic groups vowed they would now take the case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the grounds that the Netherlands had failed to protect “ethnic minorities from discrimination”.
“The acquittal means that the right of minorities to remain free of hate speech has been breached. We are going to claim our rights at the U.N.,” said Mohamed Rabbae of the National Council for Moroccans.
Meanwhile, Wilders remains under 24 hour guard and under constant threat of death. Hate speech is worthy of UN condemnation. Death threats are not.
Am I missing something?
Type Geert Wilders name into “Google” and you get about 6.2 million hits, most of which are like this front page hit entitled “Five Stupid Things Geert Wilders Said During His Stay in Toronto”.
I think it is always illustrative to examine what liberals think are stupid.
- Wilders shocked Toronto liberals by suggesting Canada should ban the burka in the name of equal rights for women.
- Wilders denied the existence of moderate Islam, saying, “There is no moderate Islam, there is no good part of the Koran.”
- Wilders claimed “An increasingly vociferous Islamic lobby has led to the harassment of Christians, female genital mutilation and polygamy” a scenario Toronto liberals find “ridiculous”.
- Wilders floored them with his suggestion that Islamists either assimilate into Western society or remain in the Islamic world, and finally, (and most egregiously of all)
- Wilders made the wildly ridiculous assertion (that Toronto Life’s staff said “makes us laugh”) that Muslims are a threat to gay rights.
So, liberals defend women in burkhas and claim that they believe in a moderate and tolerant Islam that is open to cultural assimilation and gay rights.
(Think they’re scared?)
Type in “Geert Wilders Acquitted” and Google returns a comparatively invisible 6370 hits – only 233 of which are actual news stories. Most of the news stories that I read lamented Wilder’s acquittal, like this allegedly unbiased BBC News analysis:
“With the acquittal, it appears the radical views of Mr Wilders are now more mainstream in a country that for decades was viewed as one of the most liberal and tolerant in the world.”
The Australian chose to use MP Wilder’s full name, “Dutch Anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders” in its headline. I found the Australian’s use of quotes in this passage particularly intriguing.
“The acquittal comes after Mr Wilders last month argued before judges that he was “defending freedom in The Netherlands” against Islam. One of Europe’s most heavily guarded politicians, he told the court he was “obliged to speak” because The Netherlands was “under threat” from Islam.”
The quotes are offered as the literary equivalent to raised eyebrows at the very idea that Wilders could be defending Dutch freedom before noting, (without quotes) that he is among Europe’s most-heavily guarded politicians and then immediately offering another literary raised-eyebrow at the notion he was really under threat from Islam.
Reuters called Wilders a “Dutch populist” in reporting his acquittal, saying in its subtitle that his acquittal might “exacerbate tensions over immigration policy.”
Wilders is one of three prominent Dutchmen to call Islam a violent and dangerous ideology that is incompatible with Western values.
The first was Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn.
Fortuyn made headlines by calling Islam “a backward culture” which offended Dutch liberal vegan and animal rights advocate Volker van der Graff who found Fortuyn’s views on Islam “intolerant” – so in 2002, he killed him.
The second was Theo Van Gogh, descendant of the famous artist, Vincent Van Gogh.
Theo Van Gogh was a Dutch film producer who was working on a film called “Submission” about violence against women in Islamic societies. The title, Submission, is a translation of the word “Islam” into English; it refers to Muslims’ submission before Allah.
In August 2004, the film was broadcast on Dutch TV. That November, Mohammed Bouyeri shot Van Gogh eight times before trying to decapitate him with a knife. A second knife was used to pin a five-page note to Van Gogh’s chest.
The note threatened Western society in general, Jews in particular — and was addressed to Geert Wilders.
For the most part, the mainstream media has treated Wilders as if he were some kind of out-of-control menace, instead of his being an MP and the head of Holland’s third largest political party.
Terrorism has a purpose as is reflected by its name; its purpose is to so terrorize a target as to force him to accept the unacceptable as an alternative to being killed. That’s what it is for and that is what it does.
Consequently, Europe (and most American liberals) are only too happy to capitulate to whatever demands Islam might make; from allowing Sharia law as an alternative to established law to pillorying guys like Geert Wilders for daring to break the Number One Rule and not pretending Islam is just another monotheistic religion.
Noted an editorial by Marshall Frank entitled, “Understanding the Purpose for Terrorism:”
Most every country in the western world, including the U.S. and Canada, are caving in to demand upon demand being made by Muslims, in government, in legal systems, in colleges and universities, in law enforcement and, unfortunately, the military. The massacre at Fort Hood would never have happened in 1981, given the obvious anti-American, radical Islamic posture of Air Force Major Nidal Hasan who randomly shot forty-one and killed thirteen, just after screaming “Allah Akbar.” His co-workers and fellow soldiers knew, for months, that he was a radical nut job, but dared not say anything for “fear” of reprisals, or being dubbed “racist” “bigot” “intolerant.”
One is hard pressed to find any fault with the conclusion expressed in Marshall’s next line; “Intimidation works.”
Geert Wilders is the exception that proves the rule.