Facebook Twitter Linkedin Google Plus Tell a Friend
Home| Columns| Features| International| In Dutch| Dictionary| What's On| Jobs| Housing| Expats| Blogs| Books
««« previousnext »»»

Prosecution of Wilders to go ahead

Wednesday 20 May 2009

Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-Islam party PVV, will definitely be prosecuted for inciting hatred against Muslims and Islam, news agency ANP writes on Wednesday.

A request by Wilders’ lawyer Bram Moscowicz to have the decision to prosecute quashed has been rejected by the Dutch supreme court.

Amsterdam appeal court said in January Wilders should stand trial for hate speech and discrimination. The public prosecution department had said earlier there were not sufficient grounds to prosecute the MP.

The anti-immigration MP said he expected ‘a political trial’. ‘I am being prosecuted for something millions of Dutch people are thinking... Freedom of speech is being sacrificed on the altar of islam. But I am ready to fight back with my head held high’, he added.

Should Wilders be prosecuted? Take part in our poll

© DutchNews.nl


Readers' Comments

He needs to be prosecuted and found guilty so that he will under the constitution be banned from poltiical office and thus out of the picture. His presence tarnishes the image of Dutch morality and basic human dignity.

This is not to do with freedom of speech but the battle against those in public office that abuse that right by creating hatred against one group for political purposes.

He will almost certainly be found guilty as he has clearly stated that the Qur'an is evil and that Islam is attemtping to conqure the world and out to kill non-Muslims. That is a confession of bigotted hatred and his rediculous line that he hasn othing against Muslims and just the Qur'an is like saying that he has nothing against Christians but just the Bible.

I also think that there is a case to charge him with information fraud under misrepresentation rules. His "Fitna" chose only partial verses of the Qur'an and carefully avoided either the full verse or those before and after it and then interepreted them as hateful. If it was a financial document, he would already have been in prison.

By Solkhar | 20 May 2009 1:22 PM

If he's so convinced he's done nothing wrong, he has nothing to fear, does he?

If somewhere deep in his mind he knows he's crossed the line, he'll be doing anything to prevent appearing in a court of law ...

... maybe like trying to get the decision to prosecute overturned?

By osita | 20 May 2009 1:39 PM

The institutional legal actions of the public law courts are commendable for setting a right precedent in prosecuting this person in question in the Civil Law Courts (who is abusing the rights of freedom of expression to legally incite hatred and xenophobia, under the privilege and protection of public immunity against prosecutions, offered to persons holding governance or diplomatic positions in public office). Moreover, the present elected government has been delegated by common consent, the responsibility for administration of tax payers funds, and the donations made on goodwill and on behalf of tax payers should be accountable regardless of the purpose for which they are used. That person and the party in question has its own private xenophobic agenda which is in direct contradiction to the interests of the general public in a civilized democratic country. The 'same funds' which are in the process to be allocated to this party 'in question' could have equally been used to serve a better purpose for the whole society. For example well deserving civil projects which promote and educate the general public about issues such as Cooperation, Harmony, Integration, Mutual respect between International communities in the same society etc.
This decision by the public management council (ROB), will set a wrong precedent and example to the general public (i.e. legalizing incitement of hatred and xenophobia through the back door). The seriously worrying question is, who monitors the monitor ? Its one flexible preferential law for the Dutch lawmakers and Dutch administrators and another type law (fixed between a rock and a hard face) for mass public Dutch citizens and non Dutch residents. Judging by its own actions, Its fair to say that (ROB) is encouraging and promoting institutional discrimination in the society and at higher levels of governance. The actions of public management council (ROB) to use public tax funds for financing and supporting a party (which privately has an extreme xenophobic agenda), and without the consent of the majority of the public in this country, is out of order.

By Small Brother | 20 May 2009 1:53 PM

He has tried to have the case cancelled through public posturing and delay tactics and now he knows it is too late.

Now he will try the victim scenario which is always the last resort of the obviously guilty. Remember that radicals rely on public posturing and image so much that in the end they will fight to the bitter end claiming that they are a martyr rather than the reality that they are simply a power-hungry extremist.

By Solkhar | 20 May 2009 2:07 PM

He has tried to have the case cancelled through public posturing and delay tactics and now he knows it is too late.

Now he will try the victim scenario which is always the last resort of the obviously guilty. Remember that radicals rely on public posturing and image so much that in the end they will fight to the bitter end claiming that they are a martyr rather than the reality that they are simply a power-hungry extremist.

By Solkhar | 20 May 2009 2:07 PM

I'm all for the prosecution of this asshole for hate speech!

If he really believed in what he says, he would have had real debates about his beliefs, and gone to the FOUR debates his party has run away from like cowards, for EU congress.

whatever my personal views are, I only have the right not to be persecuted for saying them as a private citizen.

but what he has done, as a sitting member of parliament, has endangered regular dutch citizens all over the world and just added fuel to the hate-bon fire

if he is found "innocent" then I will seriously have to reconsider if I want to stay in such a intolerant country anymore.

By PatriotinExile | 20 May 2009 2:13 PM

I cannot believe I have just read the previous two comments on the news site of a free, civilised EU country.

Solkhar, you talk about 'Dutch morality', but you do not sound like someone who is acquainted with it. I did not think the Dutch way was to jail people simply for their beliefs. Perhaps you would like to give us some sound reasons refuting Wilders' points, rather than simple insults and hyperbole? Perhaps you'd care to explain why at the very least every Muslim cleric displayed in Fitna, not to mention every Muslim terrorist, had made a similar 'misinterpretation' of the Koran?

Osita, your opening sentence is the siren call of tyrants everywhere. The government says the same to us here in the UK about introducing ID cards.

The point is this prosecution is a purely political act, and the fact it was able to be brought at all means that the entire process is biased against him.

I'm not asking either of you to like or agree with the man, but jailing someone for their political beliefs is the top of a very slippery slope.

Defeat him with reason and logic, not bankruptcy or prison.

By The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer | 20 May 2009 2:56 PM

Let the wait to see how the dutch laws will be interpreted. I am waiting ...
no comment now!! It will either bring him UP or DOWN.

By kwabena | 20 May 2009 3:02 PM

Lets be clear about this. In prosecuting this mad man, we are merely playing into his and his small band of followers hands. He will relish the publicity and giving it to him will just keep him in the public eye. We should treat him like a naughty, squealing and attention seaking child. Ignore him and he will shut up!

By Deep Throat | 20 May 2009 3:22 PM

Wilders hasn't showed hatred for anyone; but, he has shown the negative and dangerous parts of Islam. One doesn't need Wilders to see how Islam's teachings are affecting the world at large. Muslims are killing and beheading innocent humans in the name of Jihad and the thousands of incidents over the years are proof. Now, not all Muslims are murderers and Killers but are good people; but, Islam is at war with the West. Those Muslims who are not terrorists need to stand-up and defend their religion by standing-up and stop defending the murderers who kill in the name of Islam. Wilders is standing-up for the world who doesn't want to be murdered in the nmae of Islam.

By Hiram | 20 May 2009 3:54 PM

He can always go live in one of the illegal settlements in Israel, they love him there

By george | 20 May 2009 3:58 PM

I think it's a mistake to prosecute Wilders as it gives him and his cause more attention than they deserve. I can think of better ways to spend our tax euros; the only winners will be Wilders and the media from all the publicity and attention a lengthy trial will bring. I think baring him from public office is sufficient.

By Bryan | 20 May 2009 4:03 PM

Strange the Dutch govt objected to him being refused admission to the UK, and now they want to prosecute him isn't it?

By Abdul | 20 May 2009 4:26 PM

He's just the voice of a good part of non-muslim Dutch people. Face it and accept it!

By Mrs X | 20 May 2009 4:49 PM

I'm an American and both of my grandfathers fought in Europe during WWII. They tell us on TV that their generation was "fighting for freedom in Europe". I'm not really sure but I'm very sure that they weren't fighting for an Islamic invasion of Europe. Prosecuting someone for peacefully speaking or printing their opinions is highly illegal in the USA. We're better than you, you bunch of neo-Nazis! Wilder's is already at a popularity of 40%. This islamo-fascist prosecution should push him over 50%, I am confident. The fact that this website says "Postings which contain, racist or homophobic language ... will not be posted" shows that you are not free. I say end censorship and throw the censors in jail. People who take away the human rights of others deserve prison and that might include those who run this website.

By oswald cobblepot | 20 May 2009 7:35 PM

Wow. Just wow. Maybe because I'm American, I don't get this. I have been following this drama for several months, and I am amazed that this is even an issue. Either these muslims said the things portrayed in the film, or they didn't. If they didn't, then they have a right to sue him. If they said these things, then it is they who are instigating hate and violence, and they who should be prosecuted.
The trouble is that people are afraid of insulting muslims, lest they be targeted by them. Now, I ask you, if all muslims are so peace loving, why are people so afraid of them?

By Mark McNary | 20 May 2009 8:09 PM

Wilders and his cohorts incite the gullible few who in turn provoke Muslims. The same Wilders and his followers then turn round and condemn Muslims as violent. It is time the courts put a stop to this!

By obi | 20 May 2009 9:28 PM

the dutch goverment has nothing to do with the prosecute wilders or do they ?
if they do then we are living not in a westren civlised country who believes in the sepration between the goverment and the legal system but in iran.

By waked | 20 May 2009 9:31 PM

I would like all those who insist that what Geert Wilders says incites hatred to give examples of that.

On the other hand, we can all immediately think of many examples of hatred coming from the Islamists portrayed in "Fitna."

In the 18th Century, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, reported to the American government that they had asked the ambassador from Tripoli why the Barbary nations committed acts of war (and took slaves) from “nations who had done them no injury?” Jefferson and Adams were informed that “It was written in the Koran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”

Has the Koran changed?

By Niccolo | 20 May 2009 11:14 PM

and what exactly has he done wrong?
is it gone to be a crime in holland now to dare critize Islam for what it really is being backward,

is it gonna be a crime to dare speak up about Islamic terrorists and the dangers they pose ?

seeems to me some who have posted want this to be a crime for wanting him to be jailed

by the way if he is jailed,il only have much more respect for him for having the ballz to tell it like it is

By Bruce | 20 May 2009 11:31 PM

Wilders is responsible for the damages done to the Dutch interests overseas. The lives of the dutch diplomats and citizen are in danger in Afghanistan, Pakistan and most of the muslim countries.
He ignated hatred between immigrants and dutch.
He tarnished the soft image of dutch globally. He tried his best to create a choas in Nederlands and now he is trying to create a confrontation between Nederlands and EU. Watch his latest commercials.
It is quite fair to prosecute him.

By Jerry | 20 May 2009 11:45 PM

If Geert is prosecuted, then it proves he is right about the muslims taking over. This is a very dangerous thing. When freedom of speech is under attack, then it is clear there is a very big problem with Islam. It looks like the muslims really have taken over europe. I hope that Geert moves to the USA. We would love to have him move here.

By Martin | 20 May 2009 11:49 PM

PatriotinExile's comment "I'm all for the prosecution of this asshole for hate speech!" sounds a little like hate speech. It appears "hate speech" is subject in nature and the people who decide it's hatred are the people in charge, i.e., the courts or DutchNews.nl must decide. DutchNews.nl do you think calling a specific person an "asshole" a bit like "hate speech?" I personally believe it is slander and the person who made the comment was wrong for making such a comment.

By Hiram | 20 May 2009 11:59 PM

After reading all of the comments regarding Wilders it's obvious that a large part of society here wants to continue with heads in the sand and pretend people like Wilders are the problem rather than seriously looking at his stated claims and seeing if there is merit to them. Again, a poster manages to mention "Israel" for no real reason other than to insert an ignorant "illegal seettlement line. Illegal ? In whose eyes ? A Historically Jew Hating Europe, The Huge block of Jew Hating Muslim countries ? Or the flawed and biased U.N. ? If you want to try to slam Israel wait for the proper story.

By bet | 21 May 2009 12:23 AM

"I also think that there is a case to charge him with information fraud under misrepresentation rules. His "Fitna" chose only partial verses of the Qur'an and carefully avoided either the full verse or those before and after it and then interepreted them as hateful. If it was a financial document, he would already have been in prison." - Solkhar.


Do Islamic terrorists and preachers take partial verses of the Koran and carefully avoid the full verse or those before and after it, and interpret them as hateful?

If they do, then why do you not want those terrorists exposed, and those preachers jailed?

If they don't, then why not remember the principles of free speech outlined in John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and do as the Earl suggests?

By Niccolo | 21 May 2009 12:34 AM

It's funny how Geert's views are so off base about how violent the idealogy of Islam is, yet Islamic governments and Islamic people all over the world seem to interpret its passages that very way nearly every day. What a shock.

Of course though, we know that islam is not evil, it just leads to the suppresion of creativity in society, leads to the persecution of religious minorities, and leads to cultural erosion, etc.

By Iba | 21 May 2009 1:43 AM

To the First Earl ..... and Hiram, as I said and I think explained well enough, it is not about fredom of speech but the abuse of a political status (which unless the world has changed is a responsibility) to insight hatred, xenophobia, bigottry and misinformation (which is often referred to as slander or fraud). So unlike the 1st Earl has implied, I am not saying he should be jailed for beliefs, but for abuse and slander.

As for the slander and the Fitna, I also explained that and again the 1st Earl has fallen into the trap that Wilders has set - you have ignored the issue and have been caught up by the sales pitch. Anyone is able to play hate-filled expressions and place then text and videos and give the sales pitch. It would have been just as easy to say "evil America", play images of bomb victims and show videos of Falwell and all those extrimist right-wing evangelists, the KKK etc to prove my point and show this in the middle-east and everyone will say I am right to my freedom of speech. The difference though is the carefully misleading effort in misquoting the Qur'an. Only sections of versus were quoted but ignoring either the beginning, end and those around it which in turn give a different message.

That is fraud and I think that explains it well, thus the comments by the 1st Earl is rather incorrect and I can only assume that he has fallen for the propoganda trick by the very evil Wilders.

By Solkhar | 21 May 2009 2:34 AM

Wow! I have never seen such twisted minds with these comments.
All Wilders did was to show the truth. But since showing the truth about Islam and making it look bad are one and the same, I guess the easy way out is to try and kill the truth teller. No worries, the truth will always be there.
How many of you can deny with an honest face that those preachers shown in FITNA are not inciting violence? If you do, then you need help.
For any real Dutch person, please wake up because you are loosing your country to someone who cares not for the truth.
What's next? Shariah? Forced conversions? Burning of Churches as it is happening around the world? When will you draw the line?
And to think that I thought the Dutch were a bit proud of their culture. Honestly, I look at the world map and I can't find you guys there anymore. You banished and decades from now, your grand kids will be in a madrassa learning of a once civilization that existed there.

By Mira | 21 May 2009 2:48 AM

Let's see...a religion can say I deserve eternal torment and to roast in Hell, but if I criticize the religion I'm the one who's intolerant?

Nonsense. Religious beliefs should be subject to criticism no differently than any other beliefs. Islam is a belief system, not a race. Criticizing beliefs--even cherished religious beliefs--is not hate speech.

By T. J. Babson | 21 May 2009 2:50 AM

To answer Nicola and the points of Mira and others.

First of all, yes I would condemn those extremist militants that were shown on the video, they are like Wilders politically motivated, abusing and twisting for their own political agendas. When there is in many of these countries. What is wrong here is your and Wilders' assumption that this represents all of Islam when it represents less than 10 per cent and of course the media, the internet and agenda based web-sites and hate-blogs (that rate in the thousands) capitalize on that.

So Mira automatically called the item a truth, why? Because it was in the "movie"? I am "amazed" or to use Mira's words "wow" that people so quickly believe that something in print/film is automatically correct.

I state it again, it would be just as easy to quote those elements from the Bible that suit my needs (no worries if I only do part versus and avoid the full text, put those looney ultra-far-right evangalists, whom also say that unbelievers roast in hell, show images of Americans and Brits shooting in Iraq or Afghanistan, then throughout show dead children and homes burning and again with more bible versus that have been torn to shreds to make "my" point and then top it off with Donald Rumsfeld's famous Crusade speech. To be honest and fair, it would be believed in most of the third world as true but in the Gulf States, Morocco, Tunisia, Indonesia and Malaysia it certainly would be banned and the producer charged with - "insighting hatred and fraudulant representation".

The fact is in regards to Fitna, if there was intellectual property rights for the Qur'an Wilders would have been sued and lost.

Babson, this has everything to do with hate speech and I rather think you should open your eyes. A similar excercise with the Bible would have put the entire Europe on edge. The Piss-Christ and Crusafied Frog, small acts created outrage, demonstrations, fire bombing of venues and banning from various countries. I think many of you should simply step back and look at this from a non-agenda-based or biased point of view. Mind you, click on some of the links you have given.

Wilders crossed the line and should be punished according to Dutch law.

By Solkhar | 21 May 2009 12:23 PM

Thanks for your response.

I have not fallen for any 'sales pitch', sir. I support Mr Wilders because he's a very brave man who risks his life to say what many others know but are too afraid to acknowledge.

I think you have things a little back to front; Wilders isn't manipulating people, he's representing Dutch who did not always have a voice. He did not exactly create the problems which Holland has with Islam - that was done by a liberal immigration policy, multiculturalism and failed integration.

Likewise, Fitna is a response, not the beginning. If Fitna made Dutch people abroad more vulnerable, why do you not put the blame squarely where it lies - volent people who will not be criticised?

Fitna is not a propaganda video as such, it is a record. As far as I am aware, no actors were used - the only images are of genuine Muslims clerics, and genuine terrorist atrocities which are backed up by certain sections of the Koran.

By The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer | 21 May 2009 12:27 PM

Measure for measure and pound of flesh, lets turn the tables around and judge by the evidence of previous criminal court cases and trials by vice-versa scenarios. It would be fair to say that if the party in question were anti-Christian and the person in question was a non Caucasian Dutch citizen and a member of parliament (with privileges of public immunity against civil prosecutions), and if he were to make an anti-Christian movie and start distributing it among like-minded friends in Europe and across the oceans. The fundamental intention obviously would be to gain publicity by distorting historic facts and spiritual mythology, gain support for public votes in order to facilitate the election of more like-minded persons into National and European parliament, by making scapegoats of Christians (similar to what the Romans and Jews did against Christians earlier in our sad chapters of biblical scriptures), and or of Jews/Gypsies/non-Arians (similar to what the Germans did against non-German races earlier in our sad chapters of not too distant history books), then I think you realize the magnitude of the seriousness of the social and political problems these type of persons inflict onto mainstream civilized, democratic and multi-cultural international societies under the unrealistic political and social mandate of imaginary fast-tract prosperity, isolated individual economic progress (and more for their own kind in a naïve fortress economy) in a free-market global world economy. Who said history should not repeat itself in the Nuremberg trials ? Well, this person in question is capitalizing on the present economical downturn in a globalized business world, to assist and steer the whole nation and like-minded friends into that direction kamikaze-style ? The question is do we want to revisit our past especially that sad chapter in particular, once again in the future so that our grand children if we have any, shall read our déjà vu history ?
There is an appropriate sad story to summarize this type end-game scenario, and it goes, They came for the Christians, and I did not do any thing because I was not a Christian, then they came for the Jews, and I did not do any thing because I was not a Jew, and then they came for the Muslims, and I did not do any thing because I was not a Muslim, and then they came for me, and there was nobody left to protect me, and my family story ended with me. I rest my case.

By Small Brother | 21 May 2009 4:41 PM

I would only say one thing about that to Wilders' supporters. So you believe in freedom of speech, can you just take the words of Wilders, replace "Quran with Old Testament", "Muslims with Jews" and "Islam with Jewish" and try to make an open speech?

Sure you can't, because it is very obvious that it includes crime and trigger the hate and you will look like a Nazi. You will probably be forced to spend years in prison. So what the hell is this discussion about. Crime is crime..

By Ozgur | 22 May 2009 1:47 PM

Well, I hate to break this to you, but many Islamic governments and Muslims do say those things on a daily basis. Look up 'the Pioneers of Tomorrow' on YouTube.

Crime is indeed crime, but this is slighly different - it is thoughtcrime. The irony is of course that Wilders is being treated more harshly than 'youths' who stone police cars or attack officers when their friends are arrested.

By The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer | 22 May 2009 2:51 PM


Someone here DID take one of Wilder's speeches and replace "Muslim" and "Islam" with "Jew" and "Judaism". They were arrested for hate speech.

I think that speaks volumes about his words and his ideas.

By Tareshen | 22 May 2009 3:56 PM

Wilders is responsible for the damages done to the Dutch interests overseas. The lives of the dutch diplomats and citizen are in danger in Afghanistan, Pakistan and most of the muslim countries.
He ignated hatred between immigrants and dutch.
He tarnished the soft image of dutch globally. He tried his best to create a choas in Nederlands and now he is trying to create a confrontation between Nederlands and EU. Watch his latest commercials.
It is quite fair to prosecute him.

By Jerry | May 20, 2009 11:45 PM


Do you have a habit of cowering with your tail between legs? Wilders is more of a man than you could ever hope to be in your dreams. Wilders did not ignite anything except an awareness that the Dutch are sacrificing their land and their grandchildren to the ungrateful lot who call themselves MUSLIM. I'm an American by birth, but a Dutchman by ancestry. I'm ashamed of Holland for falling prey to a people who do not respect them, in fact, hate them, on their own soil. Talk about racist! The day I lay down and die without a fight is going to be the same day hell freezes over!

By Mulder | 23 May 2009 12:49 AM


obviously you do not know life in the Netherlands. As usual, the media and creative websites highlight a small amount of activity and make it out as the whole. Most Muslims in the Netherlands live a peaceful coexistance if not particpation and supporting role with the native white population. In addition, it has been going on for longer than can imagine. Indonesians, mostly Muslims have been there for centuries, more from the 1950s to 1970s with no problems. Turks and North Africans arrived also with no problem, the issues that are blown out of population is something of this last 10 years and it has more to do with a backlash to the war on terror than the ghetto living which is the secondary cause.

Holland is not falling prey to immigratns, it is falling prey to the right-wing scandal-mongers who try and catch on to an event to progress their political agenda. Wilders is such a scum and he has crossed the line and will pay for it in court.

There is no fight here Mulder, except in the scandal rags, tabloids and the imagination of those who want it to be.

By Solkhar | 25 May 2009 1:20 AM

It is not the words of Wilders which damage the reputation of the Netherlands, but the draconian and authoritarian measures to silence him that make me think the Netherlands belongs more in the Middle East than in the freedom-loving West. Shame on you all who would persecute someone for speech, no matter how much you disagree with it.

By Dan | 25 May 2009 3:46 AM

Where are we coming from or going to ? Foreigner or Immigrant or Refugee ? What is in a name you may ask ? Just refer to the history books and if they are worth their salt as by name, then you will find that, Its very ironic when new European and Scandinavians settlers who invaded and settled into foreign lands (i.e. Australia, Americas, Africa, Asia, Arabia etc), prefer and insist on being from those respective continents, but the reality is far from the truth. For example, I live in Australia or America or Africa or Asia or Arabia but my fore-parents are from East or West Europe or Scandinavia etc, so naturally by origin, I am European or Scandinavian but happen to live in Australia, America, Africa, Asia or Arabia as a local national but in real I am classified as a foreigner or an immigrant, because the true natural origins of say Australia are (Aborigines), Americas are (Ameri-indians), Africa are (ethnic Africans) and Asia are (ethnic Asians), and Arabia are (ethnic Arabs). Suffice to say, that all the descendents of Europeans and Scandinavians, who have settled outside their fore-parents natural countries of origin, would in this case be regarded as national foreigners or immigrants or refugees.
The searching question which deliberately or never gets asked in Europe or Scandinavia is, what happens to these national Europeans and Scandinavians who are legally and technically classified as Caucasian foreigners, immigrants and refugees and who have settled outside their fore-parents natural countries of origin over historical decades (i.e. through imperial economic colonies or ex-colonies in North & South Americas, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, Africa, Arabia, Indian ocean and Pacific regions etc, well practically the whole world) ? It’s a historical fact that, there are relatively more descendent Caucasian foreigners, immigrants and refugees living outside than within the national boundaries of Europe and Scandinavia, well the ‘quip pro quo’ question is, are these national Caucasian European and Scandinavians willing to repatriate their own kind, back to their fore-parents natural countries of origin ?

By Small Brother | 25 May 2009 11:10 AM

The difference between Muslim persons and the teachings and imperatives of Islam need to be recognized and emphasized. Clearly, individual Muslims can be persons of good will. Islam, by contrast includes lessons, examples of behavior, and imperatives that are inhumane and cannot be accepted by others. The non-acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is evidence of the strongest sort that the teachings of the Prophet cannot be the last word; that it is necessary to progress past this primitive level of behavior.

By D C Eggert | 27 May 2009 4:47 AM

You raise a good point that those who consider themselves (their) "god's chosen people" (I don't believe in this deity and condemn it) are still immune to criticism. If someone made a film pointing out equally hateful versus from the jewish Talmud, they would be assassinated before they could be tried for "hate" or some other BS. The fact is that Holland like most every other western nation is under the Zionist boot. That is why I'm so happy that Dieudonne has organized the Anti Zionist Party (Partie antisioniste) in France.

By john king | 27 May 2009 7:04 AM

I just wish they'd get a move on and set a date for trial. I can;t wait for it. Wilders is going to change so many minds, and open so many eyes.

By Matt | 28 May 2009 3:35 PM

"What is wrong here is your and Wilders' assumption that this represents all of Islam when it represents less than 10 per cent"

well I'm sure that far less then 10 percent of the German population were Nazi yet that didn't stop the last world war, and the holocaust. 10 percent of 1.5 billion Muslims is how many?

By s.h.i.e.l.d | 4 June 2009 1:48 AM

I'm actually quite surprised at the hard line taken by some of the commentors on Geert Wilders. As a muslim from Afghanistan, I approve strongly of Wilders' criticism of Islam and its threat to European civilization. His concerns are not only real and legitimate, but completely factual. I had the good fortune of living in Europe and America, and each time I visit my home country or any other Islamic country, three things strike me in the face about these societies: the systematic gender apartheid against women (they are basically considered non-persons in Islam), the utter rejection of all individual freedoms (thought and expression) and violent emphasis on conformity and obdience to "Islam's true teachings," and last of all, the constant repitition of the mantra that "Islam must and will conquer the world by all means." (This last point makes me laugh sometimes, what will these mullah's do with the world after they conquer it? You don't want to know!) The point is, Wilder's is not misrepresenting Islam in any way. I wish we had someone like him in our societies with the guts to tell the truth about Islam, but then again, they'd get beheaded as Islam allows no discussion, let alone criticism. Lastly, I want to ask these commentors who blast Wilders', do you also reject the hate mongering against the western way of life, incitement to violence and rejection of humanist principles that takes place daily in muslim mosques in the Netherlands, and every other European and Western country? What is the Dutch government doing to bring these hate-mongerers to prosecution. I know this happens, because I visit the mosques, and I tell the authorities and police, but they never do anything about it. I appreciate your motives of tolerance and acceptance very much, but please, do not be tolerant of the intolerant, do not accept those who believe enslaving a human being and even mankind is justifiable in the name of God. Wilders, it seems to me, is fighting against these elements that imperil your tolerant and free society. Join with him, do not let the extremists (who I'm ashamed to say consists of most, if not all, of my muslim co-religionists) roam free and make the Netherlands a safe-haven for a religion that to this day endorses slavery, gender-apartheid, and a neo-fascist form of government called Sharia. That is the only way, reform-minded muslims like me will get a chance to do something about the misfortunes of our people who are in the grips of their own ignorance and the spell of the mullah's. If each time someone who speaks out about Islam is taken to court, then we don't stand a chance--and neither does 1.5 billion muslims to free themselves.

By Ahmad Ali | 9 June 2009 6:18 AM

Well said, Ahmad Ali. Solkhar (for example) talks a good game, pretending to condemn the extremists within his religion, but can't bring himself to encourage anyone who is actually standing up and doing what he should be doing. It's refreshing to see a few paragraphs worth of common sense in this discussion.

By Nick | 15 June 2009 10:38 PM

from a muslim country i see,like Ahmad that all he said is right and his oponents are either deaf,blind or dreadfully coward

By migorubchem | 30 October 2009 12:30 AM

Newsletter| RSS| Advertising| Business services| Mobile| Friends| Privacy| Contact| About us| Tell a Friend
Apartments for rent Rondvaart - Amsterdam