HOW DARE YOU CALL ME VIOLENT? I'LL KILL YOU!

The Dutch problem with the Religion of Peace is Europe’s problem. Will the U.S. be next?

THE DUTCH ESCAPE DEATH BY STRANGULATION
By Rachel Raskin-Zrihen

politicalmavens.com
June 29, 2011

A Dutch court acquitted populist politician Geert Wilders of hate speech and discrimination last week, Associated Press reported.

Very good news, indeed.

This entire episode, in which the Netherlands’ growing Muslim population tried to tighten its stranglehold on yet another country by wrapping its own laws around its neck, can be a lesson to the world.

The court ruled that Wilders’ “anti-Islam statements, while offensive to many Muslims, fell within the bounds of legitimate political debate.”

The judge said “Wilders’ claims that Islam is violent by nature, and his calls to halt Muslim immigration and ban the Muslim holy book, the Quran, must be seen in a wider context of debate over immigration policy.”

Watch for news of this judge’s murder. I’m just saying.

The court said Wilders’ public statements could not be directly linked to increased discrimination against Dutch Muslims, which was what the Muslims were claiming.

Wilders was accused of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims through public statements, and with insulting them by comparing Islam with Nazism, which is hilarious, considering the constant, disgusting comparisons the Muslim world makes between Israel and the Nazis.

Outside the courtroom, Wilders called the decision a “victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands. Fortunately you’re allowed to discuss Islam in public debate and you’re not muzzled… An enormous burden has fallen from my shoulders.”

One of the lawyers for the groups that filed the complaints against Wilders reportedly said the “Dutch courts are failing to protect a religious minority from discrimination,” and plans to file an appeal to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. She will likely win there, considering the heavily pro-Muslim stacked deck in that body.

But who cares?

Right won out in the Netherlands.

The Dutch judge was able to recognize that Wilders’ statements about a “tsunami” of immigrants overrunning the country and threatening its culture were “legitimate given the wider context and his further statements that he has no objections to Muslims who integrate and accept Dutch values,” according to reports.

The story notes that Wilders “lives under constant protection due to death threats,” which should, on its face, prove his statements about Islam’s violent tendencies, unless the threats are coming from Anglican nuns or something and are not tied to his focus on Muslims in the Netherlands. But since everyone seems to accept without question that the threats are coming from the Muslims, I think we can assume that also. The story also notes that Wilders has never called for or endorsed violence.

What he says is that Islam is an inherently violent religion, and compares the Quran with Hitler’s anti-Semitic “Mein Kampf,” the story notes.

”The court paid special attention to Wilders’ 2008 film, ‘Fitna,’ Arabic for ‘ordeal’ – a 15-minute series of verses from the Quran juxtaposed against news video of violence and terrorism,” AP reports. It’s a very powerful film that I highly recommend for anyone who hasn’t already seen it.

The film, naturally, prompted angry demonstrations and official protests around the Muslim world. It’s the typical Islamic reaction to almost anything – “How dare you call me violent?! I’LL KILL YOU!”

The judgment noted that “Given the film in its whole and the context of societal debate, the court finds that there is no question of inciting hate with the film Fitna.”

In court, Wilders argued his statements reflect the views of millions of Dutch voters and are protected by laws safeguarding freedom of speech. And even the prosecutors called for his acquittal, A.P reports.

Last April the same court acquitted the chairman of the Arab European League of hate speech charges for publishing a Holocaust-denying cartoon on its website.

The group reportedly published the cartoon knowing it was anti-Semitic and assuming they’d lose in court. The group then reportedly planned to accuse the European media of having a double standard – of being willing to publish cartoons mocking Islam’s prophet Muhammad, but not cartoons about the Holocaust.

I, frankly, see no similarity between denying a historical fact, which insults the survivors and diminishes the memories of those who perished, and lampooning a religion’s long-dead founder. I’m not sure why no one appears to have noted this, but it doesn’t matter.

I guess the radical Islamic propaganda machine will have to go to plan “B” now, whatever that might be.