Posts Tagged ‘Free Speech’
Geert Wilders Dutch Trial
January 20, 2010Why I Stand with Geert Wilders | January 19, 2010
He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization.
By Daniel Pipes
Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I do so because he is best placed to deal with the Islamic challenge facing the continent. He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure.
That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population’s withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: Will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari’a)?
Wilders, 46, founder and head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), is the unrivaled leader of those Europeans who wish to retain their historic identity. That’s because he and the PVV differ from most of Europe’s other nationalist, anti-immigrant parties.
The PVV is libertarian and mainstream conservative, without roots in neo-Fascism, nativism, conspiricism, antisemitism, or other forms of extremism. (Wilders publicly emulates Ronald Reagan.) Indicative of this moderation is Wilders’s long-standing affection for Israel that includes two years’ residence in the Jewish state, dozens of visits, and his advocating the transfer of the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem.
In addition, Wilders is a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader who has rapidly become the most dynamic political force in the Netherlands. While he opines on the full range of topics, Islam and Muslims constitute his signature issue. Overcoming the tendency of Dutch politicians to play it safe, he calls Muhammad a devil and demands that Muslims “tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands.” More broadly, he sees Islam itself as the problem, not just a virulent version of it called Islamism.
Finally, the PVV benefits from the fact that, uniquely in Europe, the Dutch are receptive to a non-nativist rejection of Shari’a. This first became apparent a decade ago, when Pim Fortuyn, a left-leaning former-Communist homosexual professor began arguing that his values and lifestyle were irrevocably threatened by the Shari’a. Fortuyn anticipated Wilders in founding his own political party and calling for a halt to Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. Following Fortuyn’s 2002 assassination by a leftist, Wilders effectively inherited his mantle and his constituency.
The PVV has done well electorally, winning 6 percent of the seats in the November 2006 national parliamentary elections and 16 percent of Dutch seats in the June 2009 European Union elections. Polls now generally show the PVV winning a plurality of votes and becoming the country’s largest party. Were Wilders to become prime minister, he could take on a leadership role for all Europe.
But he faces daunting challenges.
The Netherlands’ fractured political scene means the PVV must either find willing partners to form a governing coalition (a difficult task, given how leftists and Muslims have demonized Wilders as a “right-wing extremist”) or win a majority of the seats in parliament (a distant prospect).
Wilders must also overcome his opponents’ dirty tactics. Most notably, they have finally, after two and a half years of preliminary skirmishes, succeeded in dragging him to court on charges of hate speech and incitement to hatred. The public prosecutor’s case against Wilders opens in Amsterdam on January 20; if convicted, Wilders faces a fine of up to $14,000 or as many as 16 months in jail.
Remember, he is his country’s leading politician. Plus, due to threats against his life, he always travels with bodyguards and incessantly changes safe houses. Who exactly, one wonders, is the victim of incitement?
Although I disagree with Wilders about Islam (I respect the religion but fight Islamists with all I have), we stand shoulder-to-shoulder against the lawsuit. I reject the criminalization of political differences, particularly attempts to thwart a grassroots political movement via the courts. Accordingly, the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project has worked on Wilders’s behalf, raising substantial funds for his defense and helping in other ways. We do so convinced of the paramount importance of talking freely in public during time of war about the nature of the enemy.
Ironically, were Wilders fined or jailed, it would probably improve his chances to become prime minister. But principle outweighs political tactics here. He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization. The outcome of his trial and his freedom to speak have implications for us all.
— Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2010 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved. (nationalreview.com)
=========================================
This is my contribution to the International Free Press Society symposium on Geert Wilders. Read the full symposium here: http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/01/the-trial-of-geert-wilders-a-symposium/
Give me liberty or …
Paris January 18 2010
Nidra Poller
“…the statements of Wilders are un-Dutch, they don’t belong to our Christian-Judaic culture…. He discriminates Moroccans because of their race and causes hate against them…. His desire to ban the Koran brings fear and terror into peoples homes… The laws against hate crimes were made in 1934, to protect the Jews in a reaction to what was happening in Germany. That is telling. Prudently, parallels can be made –these laws had a clear cut political context.” Fokko Oldenhuis, Groningen University professor of Religion and Law (Elsevier December 17, 2009)
Dutch prosecutors are going after Geert Wilders with an axe, madly determined to hack him up–mind, heart and body politic—and bury the parts under the ashes of six million exterminated European Jews. Look how far we have come since a confused UK hid Salman Rushdie under its skirts, acting on remnants of principles and hardly aware of what was at stake. Today, the courts of a European nation proudly assume the role of hatchet man for conquering Islam.
There is no justification for the persecution of Geert Wilders. He is a legitimate political figure who speaks for a growing sector of the Dutch population and represents a hope for citizens of other European countries struggling to defend civilized values on the battlefields of a frankly declared war–the jihad– which their leaders and opinion-makers are determined to hide from view. European citizens are asking their governments to set limits on Islamic encroachment–the minaret construction freeze voted in a Swiss referendum—and the will of the people sometimes reaches the ears of their elected representatives– forthcoming law against full facial veiling in France, cancellation of permit for a mega-mosque at London’s 2012 Olympic site.
Geert Wilders has played an essential role in this transmission. Precisely because the “far right extremist populist” label written up for him by jihad sources and repeated by mindless journalists does not apply. When men and women of integrity stand up to confront the Islamic assault on our civilized values, they attract broad public support. The danger in Europe today does not come from the last dredges of retrograde extreme right forces, it comes from the jihad friendly Left. Communists, socialists, and ecologists in France shamelessly court the Muslim vote and accuse the Sarkozy government of pétainisme for daring to deport illegal immigrants.
Is this the lesson Europe has drawn from the Shoah? What could be more obscene than enrolling 6 million exterminated Jews in a battle to deprive one honest upstanding legitimate popular Dutch MP of the freedom to oppose the spread of an ideology that blatantly plans the extermination of the remaining Jewish population of the world? And actively promotes the plan here and now in Europe?
If every last Muslim immigrant were deported from every European country… if Muslims to the second and third generation were stripped of their citizenship and deported… many decent people would be unfairly deprived of their acquired rights, but… the wave of violent Jew hatred that is plaguing Europe would come to a sudden halt.
Many analysts who recognize these truths regret “extreme” positions taken by Geert Wilders. They believe he would better serve the cause, and avoid prosecution, if he would tone down his rhetoric. I disagree. Pulling punches, rounding out the angles, applauding the “majority of Muslims who are moderates” though they never appear in public, making false distinctions between Islam and Islamism is getting us nowhere. The fact that the prosecution has stooped to barring the press from a landmark trial that will determine the limits of free expression is an indication of their fear of the eloquence and clarity of Geert Wilders.
We do not want to be faced in this day and age with the choice of liberty or death. But moderation is not the answer. Give me liberty or send me to bed without supper is not a rallying cry for the defenders of freedom.
Nidra Poller
nidrapol@gmail.com .AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}
============================
———
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/20/netherlands.geert.wilders/
———-
Geert Wilders’ at Columbia University TEXT
November 9, 2009It was a triumph for free speech tonight at Columbia University. Despite resistance from Columbia University administration and Columbia security efforts to limit access to the event, Wilders packed the house and was allowed to speak freely.
I watched Wilders this evening and reflected upon the whole journey that got this man to this moment. I was so grateful to this man for taking on this global encroaching monster against all odds. I have uploaded his remarks. Watch the videos. There was a little hissing and a random heckle, but they let him speak — and in the age of jihad that is huge.
And it was good.
ORIGINALLY POSTED @ ATLASSHRUGS
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/10/geert-wilders-rocks-columbia-university.html
Waiting to get in ……….who’s the guy with the sign?
The Islamist Rabbi (who threatened litigation jihad, remember?). He was at the Islamist day parade last Sunday. What a tool.
Fleur Agema, an MP as well and vice-floor leader (she is the number two in the party)
The wonderful Jerry Gordon, who was instrumental in putting this together. His coverage here.
David Horowitz of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Simon Deng, ex-Sudanese slave and director of the Sudanese Freedom Walk.
Pamela and Simon Deng
The crowd
Muslim propaganda ……check out the source, loon watch, the new smear site. Someone big is financing Loon Watch ……….. it is very Soros. There is a a lot of time, money and resources behind it.
Geert Wilders about to take the stage
Wilders answering questions — all contrarians, all looking to score points (one clown called Wilders a clown), all rationally and logically debunked by the man.
VIDEO:
Q+A Session
****************************
Text of the Speech Geert Wilders MP / Columbia University
Speech Geert Wilders MP / Columbia University New York, October 21, 2009
Ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege and a great honour for me to speak at this fine academic institution, which gave the world so many Nobel Prize winners. As a Dutchman, I am proud that your first Nobel laureate, in 1906, was of Dutch descent: The youngest President of the United States: Theodore Roosevelt.
I thank Columbia University for inviting me, and I also thank the US border police for allowing me to enter this great country of democracy, liberty and free speech. Ladies and gentlemen, today, the dearest of our many liberties is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to fight for.
I would not qualify myself as a free man. 5 years ago I lost my personal freedom. Since then I am under 24-hour police protection. In addition some people tried to rob my freedom of speech: A Dutch Islamic organization tried to stop the appearance of my documentary ‘Fitna’. Because of ‘Fitna’ the most radical Dutch imam claimed 55.000 Euros in compensation for his hurt feelings. The State of Jordan is possibly going to issue a request for my extradition, to stand trial in Amman. I have been charged in France.
In my own country, the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the Dutch public prosecutor not to prosecute me. So, now I have to stand trial in my own country, next January.
But, it is not about me. I am not the only European who fights for freedom of speech, there are so many more: The Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard made a Muhammad-cartoon and all of a sudden we were in the middle of the so called ‘Danish cartoon crisis’. The Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her book ‘The Rage and the Pride’. An Austrian politician, Susanne Winter, was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence because she spoke bluntly about the prophet Muhammad. The Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot was arrested by 10 police men because of his drawings. And the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam by a radical Muslim.
Last February, I was invited by 2 brave members of the British House of Lords – Lord Malcom Pearson and Baroness Caroline Cox – to show ‘Fitna’ in the British Parliament. But upon my arrival at Heathrow airport I was denied entry into the UK, on grounds that I would threaten community harmony and therefore public security.
Of course that was a ridiculous and politically motivated claim by the UK government. I was allowed to show ‘Fitna’ and deliver a speech in the US Senate, in New York, in Florida, in California, in Copenhagen, in Rome, in Jerusalem and next month in the Senate of the Czech Republic. But the British government refused my entrance into the UK, a fellow EU-country. Well, I think it was a splendid American idea, back in the 18th century, to kickthe British out.
Last week, my appeal against the refusal by the British government, took place in London; and I won. Freedom finally prevailed! A UK Court ruled that the decision of the British Home Secretary to ban me was unjust, illegal and a violation of freedom of speech. Fortunately the British judges are a lot wiser than the British government. So, last Friday I went to London and met with my friends Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox and we agreed to show ‘Fitna’ in the House of Lords, next March.
But let me tell you what also happened during our press conference. A Muslim mob demonstrated outside, shouting: “Shariah for the Netherlands”, “Enemy of Islam Geert Wilders deserves capital punishment”, “Freedom go to hell” and “Islam will dominate the world”. Welcome to Europe today!
You can see all this for yourself on YouTube. This is exactly what we are fighting against. And it gets even worse. A few days ago British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported that an Islamic group indeed launched a campaign to impose shariah law in Britain, they will meet later this month in London for a procession to demand the full implementation of shariah law.
Before I want to speak about Islam, I first would like to say this: I have nothing against Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims in our Western countries are law abiding people, who want to live a peaceful life. I know that. Therefore, I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam.
What is happening in Europe should not come as a surprise. The reality is that where Islam roots, free speech dies. There is not a single Islamic country in het world where people are really totally free to say what they think. Ever since the so called prophet Muhammad ordered his men to kill the poet Asma bint Marwan, the brave woman who warned her people against this murderous cult, radical Muslims think they have a license to kill anyone, who dares to criticize Muhammad’s word or actions.Free speech is Islam’s enemy. Islam is a threat to the Europe of Socrates, Voltaire and Galileo.
As I said, there are many moderate Muslims. But there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Islam’s heart lies in the Koran. The Koran is an evil book that calls for violence and murder – Sura 4, Verse 89 and Sura 47, Verse 4 -, terrorism – Sura 8, Verse 60 – and war – Sura 8, Verse 39. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs – Sura 2, Verse 65 / Sura 5, Verse 60 and Sura 7, Verse 166. It calls non-Muslims liars, miscreants, enemies, ignorant, unclean, wicked, evil, the worst of creatures and the vilest of animals.
The problem is that the provisions in the Koran are not restricted to time or place. Rather, they apply to all Muslims, from all times. Apart from the Koran, there is also the life of Muhammad, who fought in dozens of wars, who spread Islam with the sword, sold imprisoned women and children as slaves, who was in the habit of decapitating Jews and who married and consummated the young girl Aisha before she was ten years of age. The problem is that, to many `Muslims, Muhammad is ‘the perfect man’, whose life is the model to follow. But the facts show that the so called Prophet was not a perfect man but a murderer and a pedophile. And inspired by him jihadists with the promise of a carnal paradise slaughtered innocent people in Washington, New York, Madrid, London, Amsterdam, Bali and Mumbai.
Ladies and gentlemen, some time ago an interview was held in France with the French Muslim student Mohamed Sabaoui, who said the following, and I quote: “Your laws do not coincide with the Koran, Muslims can only be ruled by shariah law”, and “we will declare the town of Roubaix an independent Muslim enclave and impose shariah law upon all its citizens, and “we will be your Trojan Horse, we will rule, Allah Akbar”. End of quote.
Make no mistake: Islam has always attempted to conquer Europe. Spain fell in the 8th century. Constantinople fell in the 15th century. Vienna and Poland were threatened, and now, in the 21st century, Islam is trying again. This time not with military armies, but through migration and demography.
For the first time in world history there are dozens of millions of Muslims living outside the Dar al-Islam, the Islamic world. Europe now has more than 50 million Muslims. It is expected that one fifth of the population of the European Union will be Muslim within 40 years.
In 1974 no one took the Algerian President Boumédienne all too serious when he said to the UN general assembly: “One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with theirchildren. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women”. End of quote.
And Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent and the number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted to Islam. Europe will one day be a Muslim continent”. End of quote.
Indeed Gaddafi is telling the truth here, through the Islamic concept of migration – called Al Hijra – Europe is in the process of becoming Eurabia. In Europe churches are emptying out, whereas mosques are shooting up like mushrooms. Muhammad is the most popular name among boys in many European cities. Medieval phenomena as burkas, honor killings and female genital mutilation are becoming more and more prevalent. In the UK, by now 85 shariah law courts are active, the same country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust, and a minister is pleading to change the Red Cross logo, because it might offend Muslims. In Austria, history teachers avoid teaching on the Austrian wars against the Islamic invaders. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire. In Norway, children are made to sing Islamic songs as “Allah Akbar” and “Little Muslim, do you pray?” In Belgium, a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. The rise of Islam also means the rise of shariah law in our judicial systems. In Europe we have it all: Shariah testaments, shariah mortgages, shariah schools, shariah banks, as I said in the UK there are even 85 shariah courts. Islam regards shariah law to be above all man-made laws, including our constitutions. As you know, shariah law covers all areas of life, from religion, hygiene and dietary laws, to dress codes, family and social life and from finance and politics to the unity of Islam with the state. Shariah law does not recognize free speech and freedom of religion.
According to shariah law, killing apostates is a ‘virtue’, but the consumption of alcohol is a crime. The introduction of shariah law elements in our societies creates a system of legal apartheid. Shariah law systematically discriminates groups of people. I never understood why the leftish and liberal politicians are ignoring all this. Historically they were the ones fighting for the rights of women, gays, non-believers and others. All groups that would be the first to pay a high price if and when Islamic values would become dominant. Their silence is frightening. Now, I am fighting their fight. I fight to protect those groups. I fight against the Islamization of our societies and therefore for the protection of the rights of women, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers and kafirs: the non-Muslims. I want to protect these victims for shariah law. And we all should. If we ignore the problem it will not go away, if we don’t act now, shariah will be implemented more en more, slowly but gradually and that would mean the end of freedom of speech and democracy in Europe. This is what is at stake, nothing less than our freedom and democracy.
And please make no mistake: Islam is also coming for America. Last July, during a conference in Chicago, organised by Hizb-Ut-Tahrir, the international movement aiming to create an Islamic state under shariah law across the world, the American imam Jaleel Abdul Adil promised to fight “until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt”. When asked: “Would you get rid of the United States Constitution for shariah?” he answered: “Yes, The Constitution would be gone”.
America is facing a ‘stealth Jihad’, the Islamic’ attempt to introduce Shariah law bit by bit. Allow me to give you a few examples of Islamization in the United States: Muslim taxi drivers at Minneapolis airport refused over 5,000 passengers because they were carrying alcohol; Muslim students are demanding separate campus housing; Muslim women are demanding separate hours in gyms and swimming pools; schools are banning Halloween and Christmas celebrations – indeed, schools are taking pork off their cafeteria menus to avoid offending Muslim students. Ladies and gentlemen, be aware that this is only the beginning. If things continue like this, you will have the same problems as we are currently faced with in Europe.
It is my opinion that Islam is more an ideology than a religion. To be precise, Islam is a political, totalitarian ideology, with worldwide aspirations, just like communism and fascism, because like those ideologies Islam does not intend to assimilate in our societies but wants to dominate and submit us all. In Islam there is no room for anything but Islam. I think the great Winston Churchill was fully right when he, in his book The Second World War, called Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf the new Koran of faith and war.
But, ladies and gentlemen, Islam is not the only problem. There is a second problem, a problem that is called cultural relativism. Our entire Western elite, whether they are politicians, journalists or judges, has lost its way. Their sense of reality has vanished. Those cultural relativists believe that all cultures are equal. They think that the Islamic culture is equal to our culture which is based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism. Our culture adheres to freedom, human rights and the equality between men and women and not to violence and hatred.
To the cultural relativists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture. And we should be proud of that and defend it. Unlike most countries where the Islamic culture is dominant, we have a rule of law, a democracy, a functioning parliament, freedom of speech and a constitution that protects us against the government.
It is clear that not everyone sees the danger. I quote a prominent American, who recently won a Nobel Prize: “Throughout history, Islam had demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance”, and “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, it is an important part of promoting peace”, and “We celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress”. End of quote. I strongly have to disagree with this assessment. Islam has nothing in common with tolerance or peace or justice!
President Obama also celebrated the fact that when the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress, he took the oath using the same Koran that one of the Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library. It is interesting to know that Thomas Jefferson in 1801 was about to wage war against the Islamic ‘Barbary’ states of Northern Africa to stop the pillaging of ships and enslavement of more than a million Christians.
The ambassador of these Muslim nations told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that Muslims find the justification for their slaughter and enslavement of kafir in the Koran. Now I ask you, dear friends, could it be that Thomas Jefferson did not keep a copy of the Koran because he admired Islam but because he wanted to understand the ruthless nature of his enemies?
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in democracy, I believe in the American people and the choices it makes, and normally, as a politician from Holland, I would never judge your President. But these remarks of President Obama, do not only affect America, but Europe too. I am afraid that President Obama’s remarks could be a turning point in history. I fear that serious geo political changes are looming, changes that will alter our foreign policies, our view on free speech, changes that will alter the West, our way of life, and for the worse and not for the better.
In a matter of fact, it is already happening right now. Recently the United States joined Egypt in sponsoring an anti-free speech resolution in the UN Human Rights Council. You know that council that itself is an insult to human rights since the worst human rights offenders of the world like Cuba, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan are members. The Obama-administration and Europe supported a resolution to recognize exceptions to free speech to any negative religious stereotyping. This appeasement of the non-free Arab world is the beginning of the end. An erosion of free speech and your own First Amendment. This UN resolution is an absolute disgrace.
As Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University yesterday so rightfully stated in the newspaper USA Today, and I quote: “Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech – the literal sacred institution of society” – end of quote. That the weak leaders of my own continent Europe supported such a terrible resolution does not come as a surprise to me. But it’s a sad thing that for the first time in history, the American administration has taken a leading role against our right to free speech.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is one Western country that has been forced to fight the forces of jihad for its values since the very first day of its existence: Israel, the canary in the coal mine. Let me say a few words about that wonderful country. I had the privilege of living in Israel. However, in Europe being pro-Israel makes you an endangered species. Israel is a beacon of light in an area – the Middle East – that is pitch black everywhere else. Israel is a Western democracy, while Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt are medieval dictatorships.
The so-called ‘Middle East conflict’ is not about land at all. It is a conflict about ideologies; a battle between Islam and freedom. It is not about some land in Gaza or in Judea and Samaria. It is about Jihad. To Islam the whole of Israel is occupied territory. They see Tel Aviv and Haifa as settlements too.
I am very much in favor of a two-state solution. I mean Churchill’s 1921 two-state solution, when Palestine was partitioned in a Jewish and an Arab part. Arab Palestine is now called Jordan, and therefore, there is already a Palestinian state. With eighty percent of the population having roots on the other side of the Jordan, there is no doubt Jordan is truly the state of Palestine.
Islam forces Israel to fight, and Israel is not just fighting for itself. Israel is fighting for all of us, for the entire West. Just like those brave American soldiers who landed in Sicily in 1943 and stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944, young Israeli men and women are fighting for our freedom, our civilization.
Ladies and gentlemen, Europe ought to fully back Israel to the hilt in its relentless fight against those that threaten it, whether it is Hezbollah, Hamas or a nuclear Iran. Also, because of its history, Europe certainly has the moral obligation to prevent at all cost another Holocaust against the Jewish people. But most important of all: Israel is fighting the jihad that is meant for all of us. So we all should defend Israel. We all are Israel.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is good news also! Europe might slowly be awakening. More and more people are fed up with cultural relativism and politicians ignoring the negative effects of mass-immigration and the creeping Islamization of Europe. During the European elections last June the worst cultural relativists, the socialists, lost nearly everywhere: In the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Germany, in Austria, in France, in Spain, in Italy and, perhaps best of all, in the UK.
But, my party, the Dutch Freedom Party was the winner in the recent elections for the European Parliament. Right now, in the polls, we even are number 1. If there would be elections in the Netherlands tomorrow, whether you like it or not, I could very well become the next Prime Minister of The Netherlands.
Ladies and gentlemen, time is running out, we need to act. As I already said, we need less Islam, and more freedom. We have to protect our most important right, our right to free speech. We have to protect our liberties. That is why I propose the following measures, measures to preserve our freedom:
First. We have to end all forms of cultural relativism. For this purpose we need an amendment to our Western constitutions stating that our cultural foundation is the Judeo Christian Humanistic culture, and not Islam.
Second. We have to stop the mass immigration from Muslim countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.
Third. I have a clear message to all Muslims in our societies: If you subscribe to our laws, our values and our constitutions you are very welcome to stay and we will help you to assimilate.
But, if you cross the red line and commit violent crimes or the implementation of shariah law and start practicing jihad, you are not welcome anymore, then we will expel you if possible the same day.
Fourth. We have to strengthen our laws regarding freedom of speech. In Europe we urgently need some kind of American First Amendment. And we have to resist UN-resolutions that intend to weaken our right of free speech in another attempt to appease the Islamic world.
Fifth, last but not least. We have to elect brave leaders. Real leaders. We enjoy the privilege of living in a democracy. Let us use that privilege by replacing weak leaders with heroes. Let us have fewer Neville Chamberlains and more Winston Churchills! In short, ladies and gentlemen, my main message of today is that we have to start fighting back. No defence, but offence. We have to fight back and demonstrate that millions of people are sick and tired of losing, of giving in, of appeasing. We must make clear that millions of freedom loving people are saying: enough is enough.
Ladies and gentlemen, I leave you with this: I will never give in nor give up. And we should never surrender nor compromise about freedom, the most important right we still have in our free western societies. We have to win, and I am confident: we will win! Thank you very much.
Geert Wilders: Free Speech Wins Against British Ban
October 14, 2009Dutch right-winger Geert Wilders wins challenge against British ban
Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-right politician, has won his appeal against the Government’s refusal to let him enter Britain.
Published: 1:24PM BST 13 Oct 2009 | Daily Telegraph
Wilders challenged the decision by then home secretary Jacqui Smith which led to him being turned back at Heathrow Airport.
The ruling by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal means the head of the Freedom Party, who is accused of Islamophobia, could now be allowed into the country.
He was due to show his short film Fitna, which criticises the Koran as a ”fascist book”, at the House of Lords in February.
But Ms Smith said his presence had the potential to ”threaten community harmony and therefore public safety”.
A Home Office spokesman said the Government was ”disappointed” by the ruling.
He said: ”We are disappointed by the court’s decision today. The Government opposes extremism is all its forms.
”The decision to refuse Wilders admission was taken on the basis that his presence could have inflamed tensions between our communities and have led to inter-faith violence. We still maintain this view.”
IMPORTANT: Free Speech Conference
September 18, 2009 |
||
|
You are invited to attend a once in lifetime legal conference on freedom of speech and religion Sponsoring organizations This conference will teach the legal foundations of freedom of speech and religion around the world and address current topics and cases that threaten these rights including · The Rifqa Bary case · Venezuelas Media Crime Law · The Banning of Michael Savage & · Censorship of Citizens · Bloggers Rights Speakers are from many institutions including the · U.S. Congress · U.K. House of Lords · European Union Parliament · Center for Security Policy · Thomas More Law Center · Freedom House For More Information Call 1-800-989-0021 or email conferences@libertylegalproject.com or |
Legal Conference: Freedom of Speech
September 15, 2009International Legal Conference
on Freedom of Speech & Religion
October 27 & 28, 2009
Congressional Auditorium
Washington, D.C.
Presented By
The International Free Press Society,
The Liberty Legal Project
International
&
The Center for Security Policy
Co-Sponsored by
The Horowitz Freedom Center &
The Florida Security Council
Liberty_Legal_Conference_Brochure
Register ONLINE: http://www.regonline.com/Checkin.asp?EventId=767320
FROM THE LEFT: Obama Is Right Not To Shoot From the Hip
June 23, 2009Obama Is Right Not To Shoot From The Hip
By RICHARD COHEN | IBD 23 June 2009 | my notes is blue
The foreign policy sins of the United States fall into two categories: commission and omission.
The commission ones include the wars in Vietnam (but there we were trapped – as party to SEATO: SOUTH EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANIZATION) and Iraq… and we learn over again that treaties supercede our Constitution.
When will we learn?
Our first President told us quite clearly to avoid entangling alliances.
The sins of omission are less well-known. They include the failure to redeem the hollow promises to various subjugated peoples — the Hungarians of 1956, the Shiites of 1991 — that America would come to their aid.
In Iran, the Obama administration is intent on not adding to this list.
The current policy, much criticized by prominent Republicans, vindicated VINDICATED!? Barack Obama’s boast in his Cairo speech that he is a “student of history.” We all know that he is NOT a student of history. The student in him knows that the worst thing the United States could do at the moment is provide the supreme leader and the less supreme leaders with the words to paint the opposition as American. Still, if McCain, Graham and others have a valid complaint, it is not with Obama’s words but with his music. The President of Cool seems emotionally disconnected from events in Tehran — not unconcerned but not particularly upset, either.
[vindicated: vin·di·cate 1. to clear somebody or something of blame, guilt, suspicion, or doubt 2. to show that somebody or something is justified or correct.
“…vindicated”? it did nothing of the kind! It proved, once again, that Obama knows nothing of history. Few lawyers do – and it’s quite debatable whether we could call Obama a lawyer.
Cohen: This is a quality that will cost Obama plenty in coming years. He can acknowledge your pain, but he cannot feel it.
[This “quality” will cost Obama – but the real cost will be charged against America.]
Cohen: Iran, the first foreign policy “crisis,” alerts us to what to expect in the future: a tightly controlled message from the White House (anyone heard from Hillary Clinton lately?), a deliberate consideration of the options and no shoot-from-the-hip remarks.
[Many Americans are finally awakening to the question – who is Obama? Is he a Muslim or an American?]
Cohen: This is how Obama ran his campaign. This is how he’ll run his foreign policy. As McCain should know, it works.
FSC Sues Delray Beach Marriott
June 19, 2009
Florida Security Council Press Release
June 16, 2009
FLORIDA COUNTER-TERRORISM GROUP
TO SUE THE DELRAY BEACH MARRIOTT
On Wednesday, June 17, 2009 in West Palm Beach, the Florida Security Council will file a lawsuit against the Delray Beach Marriott, owned and operated by Ocean Properties, Ltd.
The basis for the lawsuit is a breach of contract by defendant Marriott against the plaintiff, the Florida Security Council (FSC). The Florida Security Council will hold a press Conference at the “Old” Palm Beach County Courthouse at 11am on June 17.
Lead Counsel for the FSC, Peter Feaman of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler believes, “This is a very clear-cut case of corporate breach. There was a binding contract between parties and the Marriott unilaterally cancelled the contract and damaged my client. It’s hard to find a breach as overtly outrageous as that!”
The Florida Security Council was the sponsor of a Free Speech Summit on April 27, 2009, honoring the controversial Dutch Parliamentarian Mr. Geert Wilders. In addition to a major banquet, the FSC was renting a significant number of rooms. The breach of contract and cancellation of the event came as a complete surprise to the FSC Director, Tom Trento who stated, “The fact that the Marriott sent me an email, at 7pm on a Friday night, cancelling our well-planned event, made it very plain to me that something was up. I suspected there was more here than a breach of contract.”
An immediate investigation by the FSC began to reveal a possible situation whereby outside agents may have persuaded the Marriott to cancel the Free Speech Summit because some believe the message of the event was critical of Islam.
According to south Florida Radio talk show personality, Joyce Kaufman, a prime organizer of the Summit, “Any efforts by any outside groups, Muslim or not, to suppress our right to free speech, will not go unanswered. We simply will not allow anyone to repress our first amendment rights, regardless of who they may be. Let’s see if we can get to the truth of why the Marriott cancelled our contract through the prosecution of this law suit.”
The Florida Security Council intends on using its extensive investigative capabilities to determine if this breach originated with Marriott officials or if they were influenced by others individuals or organizations.
The Press Conference will address the following:
FACT
The Marriott breached the FSC contract.
Why did the Marriott commit this illegal act?
THEORY
The Marriott gave in to pressure from groups/individuals opposed to Mr. Geert Wilders and the FSC Free Speech Summit.
QUESTION
Who are those groups and are they doing this in other parts of the USA?
Muslim groups tried to stop Rep. Adam Hasner from participating with Mr.
Geert Wilders in the Free Speech Summit by demanding Mr. Hasner’s resignation. Mr. Hasner is the Majority Leader of the State of Florida Legislature and one of the most powerful politicians in Florida. Mr. Hasner is Jewish.
FACT
In late May 2009, the Loews Vanderbilt Plaza Hotel, in Nashville, TN., also unilaterally cancelled a contract with an organization that was holding a conference addressing the subject of Islam, which featured two of the Free Speech Summit participants, and Mr. Geert Wilders.
QUESTION
Is there an external unifying cause to these events or are they coincidental?
PRESS CONFERENCE:
WHEN
WHERE
SPEAKERS:
Tom Trento, Director, Florida Security Council
Contact: Tom@FloridaSecurityCouncil.org / 561-582-1424
Peter Feaman, Lead Counsel for the FSC, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler
Contact: PFeaman@RRA-LAW.com / 561-582-1424
Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free
February 20, 2009Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free
As a former law professor, surely you understand the Bill of Rights.
By: RUSH LIMBAUGH
Wall Street Journal – 20 Feb. 09
Dear President Obama:
I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as “local content,” “diversity of ownership,” and “public interest” rules — all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?
You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.
As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech — which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.
When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.
After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that “This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.”
Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not “funding” or “big money,” as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.
Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You’ve said you’re against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you’ve not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.
I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.
The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a “scarce” resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.
We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as “fairness” and “balance”? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?
Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.
BIJENKORF:beehive 
