Freedom of speech death watch

January 21, 2009

A Dutch court has ordered the prosecution of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders for his film Fitna, in which he criticized Islam and compared it to totalitarian ideologies and accused it of fostering violence. The court justified this persecution thusly:

The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders’s "one-sided generalisations" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians.

"The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement.

"The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.

Several months ago, the Dutch prosecutor’s office had decided not to persecute prosecute, having determined he had not broken the law. Some dhimmi-Dutchmen pressed the matter in the courts, however, leading today’s decision to force the prosecutor’s office to open an investigation. Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) issued the following statement:

Court decision an all-out assault on freedom of speech

woensdag 21 januari 2009

The Freedom Party (PVV) is shocked by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s decision to prosecute Geert Wilders for his statements and opinions. Geert Wilders considers this ruling an all-out assault on freedom of speech.

Geert Wilders: “Apparently this is The Netherlands today. If you speak out you might be prosecuted. To participate in public debate has become a dangerous activity.”

“If I have to appear in court, not only I will be prosecuted, but also hundreds of thousands of Dutch citizens who reject the Islamisation of the West. In Dutch Parliament only the Party for Freedom is willing to speak up for the preservation of our culture and our many freedoms.”

The Freedom Party leader now faces legal proceedings that will probably take years to conclude and will also involve enormous legal fees.

“We depend on small donations. The Freedom Party is the only party in Parliament that does not accept any government funding. This court decision jeopardizes the very existence of the Freedom Party. We simply cannot afford the enormous legal expenses.”

“This is a black day for freedom.”

No kidding.

As a free human being Mr. Wilders has the inalienable, natural right to speak his mind on political matters. I don’t care what one thinks of him, the PVV, Fitna, or Islam and the cultural jihad against the West. My own writings here should make it clear that I largely agree with the opinions expressed in Fitna and that I am very concerned about the renewed jihad and the dangers posed to liberal democratic society by the spread of sharia law. On the other hand, you may think Wilders’ an ass and the whole hullabaloo over Islam nothing more than a fear-mongering fantasy.

But that is immaterial. Whether you agree with Wilders or not, he has the right to free speech, to present his views and have them challenged and judged in the marketplace of ideas. What the Dutch court has done is to sacrifice that right at the altar of communal tranquility, to grant Islam a special, superior place in which it is immune from criticism, from the normal give and take of Western society.

In other words, the Dutch Court of Appeal has submitted to Islam and become dhimmi.

Make no mistake, the Court has done Islam and Dutch Muslims no favor. To effectively ban criticism of Islam is to leave the intellectual field to the advocates of jihad and Islamic supremacy. By acting out of a kneejerk multiculturalism and a fear of Muslim violence –and that’s the root of this decision– the Court undercuts the arguments of any moderate, peaceful Muslims looking to reform their faith and find a place in the liberal, democratic societies of the West. It strengthens those who seek to recreate a seventh-century society by imposing sharia law, first on other Muslims, then the non-Muslims around them. It strengthens them because the Court’s decision shows fear and a lack of faith in the foundational principles of democratic society and can be used by jihadist imams as an argument for the natural superiority of Islam and its law.

And, after this, how could any moderate Muslim argue against them?

LINKS: Exercise your freedoms and watch Fitna for yourself. More from Fausta, Gateway Pundit, Samizdata, Islam in Action, Sweetness and Light, Jihad Watch, Ed Morrissey, Richard Fernandez, Michelle Malkin, and The Jawa Report. Mark Steyn as usual, is glorious: Dutch Courage.


Friday link fiesta!

November 21, 2008

Another busy day here at the ranch, folks, but here are a few links to keep you entertained:

Own a gun? Then forget getting a job in the Obama Administration, it seems. Ed Morrissey blogs on the now-infamous Question 59. Since when did exercising one’s constitutional rights become a red line for getting a job?

Speaking of our rights and liberties, the Organization of the Islamic Conference is lobbying the UN to push member states to make criticism of Islam (including any honest discussion of jihad or the Islamic supremacist ideology) a criminal offense. What was that nonsense about free speech? And what does our likely next Attorney General think of this?

Here are two articles by Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism, the first saying "been there, done that" to a presidency of experimentation, the other looking askance at the efforts to cast Barack Obama as a latter-day FDR or Lincoln. What is it about liberals that they’re always looking for some sort of larger than life savior? of course, the same thing could be said for conservatives who are desperately seeking Ronnie.

Gerard Baker thinks it’s insane to think any Obama Administration that includes Hillary Clinton in the Cabinet would be drama-free.

Finally, the great Victor Davis Hanson meditates ruefully on a society in which failure is not allowed.

I’ll be back later. Happy


Who is Ahmadinejad?

September 23, 2008

Hint: He’s not a madman. That’s what makes him dangerous.

There is nothing really “unhinged” about Ahamadinejad’s thinking, statements and actions. They are internally consistent. He is simply a fanatic who is wedded to an extremely dangerous exclusionary system of belief. Humanity must learn that dismissing him as a lunatic will result in great suffering, as it did with Hitler.

Tragically, Ahmadinejad is the embodiment of several million people who are hinged exactly like him and who are willing to give their lives, and take with them as many lives as required in the service of their belief. In this age of Weapons of Mass Destruction a man with huge sums of petrodollars can serve as the catalyst of total annihilation.

Prudence would err on the side of being an alarmist than a complacent dismissive.
Ahmadinejad and his ilk are not interested in any negotiation
, any compromise or any live-and-let-live final solution. They are determined to be the soldiers of Mahdi come-what-may. They have no problem with the total destruction of the world. They are headed for a life of eternal bliss in Allah’s paradise. They hardly care, even rejoice, if the rest of humanity is subjected to a tragic death in the nuclear, biological and chemical wasteland of planet earth.

Be sure to read the whole thing. It’s enlightening, to say the least.

Well, we can’t have THAT, can we?

April 10, 2008

Leading Saudi religious scholar Muhammad Al-Munajid tells us why we can’t have freedom of speech: It might lead to something even more awful and sinful, like ….I shudder even to think of it… freedom of belief!

The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate. That’s it. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief. So where’s the conspiracy? They say: Let’s have freedom of thought in Islam. Well, what do they want? They say: I think, therefore I want to express my thoughts. I want to express myself, I want to talk and say, for example, that there are loopholes in Islam, or that Christianity is the truth. Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants… If you want to become an apostate – go ahead. Fancy Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That’s what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous.

(Emphasis added)

Be sure to read the whole thing. Among other gems of enlightened Islamic wisdom, you’ll discover that, if you don’t want to stone adulterers to death, you’re the barbarian.

I’m glad we’re clear on that, now.

Fascists like al-Munajid are a Neocon’s best advertising. I’ve yet to see a more blatant, upfront statement admitting the anti-liberal, totalitarian nature of Islam and its Sharia code.

Note: You can watch the video, too.

(hat tip: Hot Air, where Allahpundit reminds us that this is the crap moderate Muslims face every day.)


Even I’m not this hardcore

April 3, 2008

A member of the General Synod of the Church of England, that sect’s ruling body, wants to ban the construction of new mosques.

I can’t think of a better way to feed the “victims of a conspiracy” mentality so prevalent in the Islamic world.

Anyone want to make bets as to how long it takes before the first death-fatwa gets issued?


(hat tip: LGF)

Gimme that old-time Religion of Tolerance!

January 23, 2008

Though a functioning parliamentary democracy since its liberation by the US in 2001, Afghanistan still has a lot to learn about the little things, such as freedom of religion and speech, and due process: Afghan Journalist Sentenced to Death

An Afghan court on Tuesday sentenced a 23-year-old journalism student to death for distributing a paper he printed off the Internet that three judges said violated the tenets of Islam, an official said.

The three-judge panel sentenced Sayad Parwez Kambaksh to death for distributing a paper that humiliated Islam, said Fazel Wahab, the chief judge in the northern province of Balkh, where the trial took place. Wahab did not preside over the trial.

Kambaksh’s family and the head of a journalists group denounced the verdict and said Kambaksh was not represented by a lawyer at trial. Members of a clerics council had been pushing for Kambaksh to be punished.

The case now goes to the first of two appeals courts, Wahab said. Kambaksh, who has been jailed since October, will remain in custody during appeal.

Wahab said he did not immediately have the details of the paper that Kambaksh circulated, other than that it was against Islam. Kambaksh discussed the paper with his teacher and classmates at Balkh University and several students complained to the government, Wahab said.

Emphasis added.

One hopes Mr. Kambaksh will exonerated by the appeals courts, or at least pardoned by President Karzai — though he should never have had to face charges in the first place. Blasphemy charges have no place in a modern democracy.

(hat tip: Jihad Watch)

Hope for Iraq, yet.

December 27, 2007

And he even has the courtesy to say “thank you” to the United States.

Ban Christmas

December 24, 2007

At least, according to Islamic fascist cleric Omar Bakri, who’s been banned himself from Britain and who said the following:

…Christmas should be “completely forbidden”.

In another chilling post the radical cleric said Christmas Day would be the perfect day to launch a terror attack on the UK.

He said: “To have Christmas tree, visit so-called Christmas Father – that is completely forbidden.

“Make sure you do not watch TV. Do not let them hear jingle bells. Do not send your children on Christmas trip.”

This, folks, is the totalitarian mindset we’re fighting.

Y’know, Omar, old buddy, I’m not a religious person. But, just to tick you off, I might go to Christmas Mass tomorrow.

Oh, and I have a Christmas tree. You putz! Nyah!

Religion of Tolerance(tm) Watch

December 10, 2007

A British woman hides in fear for her life these days. Why? Because she committed the sin of apostasy, leaving Islam and converting to Christianity. In Islam, the penalty for apostasy is death.

Even if it’s your own daughter.

The daughter of a British imam is living under police protection after receiving death threats from her father for converting to Christianity.

The 31-year-old, whose father is the leader of a mosque in Lancashire, has moved house an astonishing 45 times after relatives pledged to hunt her down and kill her.

And that isn’t an opinion held by just a few "extremists," either:

A study this year found that 36 per cent of British Muslims between 16 and 24 believe those who convert to another religion should be punished by death.

Meanwhile, a program on Kuwait Television discussed the question of what should be done with Muslims who leave the faith. The audience,  mostly composed of teenagers and encouraged by a "scholar" from the Dark Ages, was solidly in favor of death:

Al-Sweidan: Before the break, I asked our audience for their views on this important issue. Does a Muslim have the liberty or the right to change his religion? The results are as follows: 24% said: "Yes, he has the right to change his religion." 76% of the people said: "No." Let’s hear some opinions and then I will return to out guests.


Audience member: Sir, if you become an apostate, your punishment is death. There is a great problem that most of us, 70% of us, are Muslims because they were born to Muslim fathers and mothers. Before a person converts to Islam, he has the liberty to choose, but remember that if you want to convert from Islam, you will be punished by death. So you have the liberty to choose, but on the condition…

Al-Sweidan: That’s not liberty.

Audience member: It has conditions…

Al-Sweidan: What you are saying is: You have the right to become an apostate, but I will kill you.

Audience member: That’s right. I won’t tell him not to.

Al-Sweidan: What can be worse than being killed?

Audience member: That’s why he will not become an apostate.

This is how they educate their children.

One faint note of hope: another scholar on the program, the Egyptian Gamal al-Bana, argued for religious freedom:

That is very saddening. This result indicates a lack of knowledge regarding the essence of Islam, which is faith and liberty. If belief is not based on awareness and conviction, it is worthless. As the Koran says: "If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed." In other words, every Muslim has the right to change his religion as much as he likes, and nobody is allowed to stand in his way, because this is a question of freedom of conscience, and it is forbidden to intervene in matters of people’s conscience. Talk to him, persuade him, hold a dialogue with him, but do not force him. You presented three options: Dialogue, killing, or the legal system. What do the legal system or killing have to do with people’s conscience?

Irony: Gamal al-Bana is the younger brother of Hasan al-Bana, founder of the Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood. Want to bet he’s the black sheep of the family?

Islam and the world could use a lot more like him.

(hat tip for both stories: LGF)

UPDATE: That was fast. Here’s another: a father in Canada strangles his own daughter for refusing to wear the hijab. (via LGF)

UPDATE 2: She died.

Dutch disgrace

October 11, 2007

I’ve long admired Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch politician and writer and sharp critic of the treatment of women under Islam. Her books



…and especially…


…are powerful, moving testaments to the sufferings of Muslim women and her personal journey from near chattel status and "submission," the meaning of the word "Islam," to freedom, rationality, and control over her own mind and body. Her critiques of Islam and her work to help other Muslim women have placed her in mortal danger. Her friend Theo van Gogh, who collaborated with her on the film Submission, was shot to death and his throat cut by a Muslim killer angered at what he saw as an insult to his faith. A note he pinned to Van Gogh’s chest with a knife told Hirsi Ali she was next.

Even before that, she had been under police protection for threats against her life for criticizing Islam. As she relates in Infidel, her life became a nightmare of moving from place to place, always under the protective wing of the Dutch security services. Finally, after a churlish attempt by the Interior Minister to revoke her naturalization, she left for the US to take a position with the American Enterprise Institute. But, even in the US, she still had security paid for by the Dutch government.

Not any more.

In a move that should cause every Dutchman to hang his head in shame, the Balkenende government has told Hirsi Ali that they would no longer pay for her protection. This is effectively a death sentence for Hirsi Ali, because radical Muslims still want to kill her.

Why would the Dutch do this? I have no idea, but Dutch expatriate Pieter Dorsman offers several reasons:

There is not one reason for this. Firstly, on a cultural level the Dutch dislike heroes and outspoken success stories, more than once have I explained to foreigners that famous national mantra “act normal, that is strange enough’. Even at the height of her popularity Hirsi Ali was disliked by most Dutchmen. She was too outspoken, disrupted the existing order even though many felt she had a valid point. Hirsi Ali herself never grasped this and took her newfound freedom literally, never finding the right note that would allow her to really fit into the ‘Dutch debate’. Secondly, on a practical level the entire approach to her – her eviction from her apartment, the questions over her passport and her security – were all dealt with in purely administrative and legal terms. Not once did moral considerations or feelings enter a string of bizarre decisions that on its surface appear to be defensible yet upon closer examination lacked any reasonable basis and merely provided an easy justification for many to expedite Hirsi Ali’s exit. Thirdly, and that is something I have more than once addressed on my own blog, the Dutch are not tolerant by nature: at best they are pragmatic, at worst indifferent.

Whatever the motives, this stinks to high Heaven and the Dutch should be ashamed of themselves and their nation. If the government can say they are indifferent to threats against a citizen because she had the nerve to exercise her right of free speech, then Holland is lost to Western Civilization. It has submitted, and the Dutch government is run by dhimmis.

I’ve since read that private funds have been raised to continue Hirsi Ali’s protection in the US for a while, but how long can that last? Salman Rushdie has been under an Islamic death sentence since 1989, but at least the British recognize their obligation to protect their own citizens.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an invaluable person in the ideological fight against Islamism and the renewed jihad, and the West cannot afford to leave her vulnerable. I hope someone in our government has the wit to offer her citizenship and protection here in the US.

We need more people like her.

LINKS: Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post, Salman Rushdie and Sam Harris in the Los Angeles Times, Christopher Hitchens in Slate, Little Green Footballs here and here, Jihad Watch, and Power Line.


Yes, I’m secular

September 23, 2007

But I like Benedict XVI a lot: Pope in ‘freedom’ blast at Islam

The Pope has again risked provoking the wrath of the Islamic world, by criticising its treatment of Christians.

Benedict XVI attacked Muslim nations where Christians are either persecuted or given the status of second-class citizens under the Shariah Islamic law.

He also defended the rights of Muslims to convert to Christianity, an act which warrants the death penalty in many Islamic countries.

His comments came almost exactly a year after he provoked a wave of anger among Muslims by quoting a Byzantine emperor who linked Islam to violence.

Yesterday, near Rome, the 80-year-old pontiff made a speech in "defence of religious liberty", which, he said "is a fundamental, irrepressible, inalienable and inviolable right".

Mr. Jefferson couldn’t have said it better.

And the Pope was right a year ago, too.

Paging Islamic Rage Boy! Will Mr. Islamic Rage Boy please report to the nearest al-Reuters camera crew!

(hat tip: LGF)

LINKS: More at Captain’s Quarters, Sister Toldjah, Gateway Pundit (who links to the text of the Pope’s speech), The Van Der Galien Gazette, and Atlas Shrugs.