More bias in the Amsterdam Court

Bias, bias, BIAS

Last Friday 22 Oktober saw the culmination of the show trial against Geert Wilders. The show trial had become so obviously a show trial that even the Amsterdam Court had to admit it. A précís of the bias that the Amsterdam Court revealed during the trial:

1. The Judges allowed only three of the eighteen witnesses Geert Wilders and his Defense laywer had asked for.

2. The instruction by the Amsterdam Court's Judges ordering the Public Prosecutor (OM) to prosecute Geert Wilders for Hate Speech, discrimination and all that malarky was dripping with bias.

The Court of Appeal has considered that the contested views of Wilders (also as shown in his movie Fitna) constitute a criminal offence according to Dutch law as seen in connection with each other, both because of their contents and the method of presentation.

As can be seen the order was written in a way which presumes Geert Wilders' guilt. There is no presumtion of innocence in this instruction by the Judges of the Amsterdam Court. This was pointed out by Wilders' defense Bram Moskowicz on 22 October. One of these judges and the main author of the injunction was Justice Tom Schalken.

3. In the first days of the trial Judge Jan Moor used language which agreed with Geert Wilders' political opponents. When Wilders used his right to remain silent Moors needled him saying: "It is said that you avoid debate". In spite of all the evidence of Wilders being part of the debate by writing essays, books, debating in Parliament, his speeches, speaking to the press and making a film this biased Judge still accuses him of avoiding the debate. And the enormity of it is that while he said it Wilders was sitting in a courtroom under threat of fining and imprisonment. For Wilders to speak might land him in jail. Such conditions are not conditions for debate, but for interrogation, for cross-examination.

4. Judge Moors then showed his bias, by expressing his understanding when one of the plaintiffs wanted to leave the courtroom when Wilders' movie Fitna was about to be shown. Thus he expressed what his opinion was of Wilders expressions in Fitna. Fitna was offensive to Muslims.

5. Finally Judge Moors did not want to hear Arabist Hans Jansen, on his supper with supper club "Vertigo" where Justice Schalken tried to influence expert witness Professor Jansen by convincing him that the trial was a rightious cause.

The President of the Amsterdam Court: SUPER BIASED

Finally the substitution court substituted Judge Moors and the other the judges on account of their bias. Geert Wilders registered a complaint against Tom Schalken for influencing a key witness, which has to be the subject of another trial. That very evening a news program, Nieuwsuur, interviewed the President of the Amsterdam Court Leendert Verheij. President Verheij issued a CATEGORAL statement that there was in no aspect whatsoever that Mr. Schalken tried to influence the evidence of the expert witness (Hans Jansen) in the Wilders Trial.

BIAS! If the President of the Amsterdam Court categorically denies the charges that have been laid against Justice Schalken, how can the Amsterdam Court be considered neutral, an arbiter on whether Geert Wilders was wronged by Justice Schalken?

Bastards, bastards, bastards!

The whole Amsterdam is a sham from its decayed head to its rotten core. The judges are completely oblivious to the possibilty that there are other legitimate points of view apart from theirs.

Turkish EU Consul threatens Freedom Party (PVV)

Talking like a real Turk

Kleinverzet has a story on Freedom Party (PVV) EU MP Barry Madlener questioning the consul to the EU Egemen Bagis. MP Madlener asked why the government of Turkey refused to meet with PVV leader Geert Wilders, who is opposed to Turkey joining the EU. MP Madlener added:

You are good friends with Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad, while you shun my party's leader. It is a disgrace.

The consul of the Turks responded with a personal attack on Wilders and Madlener

Racism is a dangerous disease from which Europe suffers much. It is clear there are still people suffering from it. Mr. Madlener, we will cure you.

In addition to a personal smear, this is a direct threat against Mr. Madlener, Mr. Wilders and those who stand with them. How will the Turks "cure" those who oppose their joining the EU? Will they cure them with the cure the Armenians received less than a century years ago, when they were against remaining a part of the Ottoman Empire?

Seeing but not seeing

Indicative of the refusal of the EU elite to see reality of Turkish and Muslim irredentism for what it is, the EU secratariat ommitted the remarks by the consult of the Turks from the meeting notes. Quoting Kleinverzet:

Thomas Grünert, secretary of the EP, says the remarks made by the Turkish minister were not included, because it wasn't 'really a political point'. According to him it was something personal between the Bagis and Madlener.

We didn't think it was in the interest of the governance of the European Union to emphasise the confrontation between the Turkish minister and Madlener.

Judge Tom Schalken torpedoes trial against Geert Wilders

And in view of the harbour a ship goes under

Just before the hearings were to end the Geert Wilders Hate Speech trial run aground. Geert Wilders' Defense laywer Bram Moscowicz demanded again that the three judges presiding over the trial ought to be removed. The cause for the request by Wilders' Defense was an article by daily De Pers (Dutch) on a supper with one of the judges, Tom Schalken. Justice Schalken was one of the judges who had ordered the the public prosecutors (OM) to prosecute Geert Wilders for Hate Speech. This blog was the first English language blog to feature an article on witness Professor Hans Jansen's supper with Justice Tom Schalken and his friends. During the supper Justice Schalken tried to convince witness Hans Jansen that it was right to put Wilders on trial. This was three days before Hans Jansen had to witness in Court.

What happened? Who did what?

This dinner happened in early May. A few days ago, Hans Jansen wrote this piece for politically incorrect blog Hoeiboei (Dutch). Two days ago, on Wednesday this piece was published by the editor Annelies van der Veer, the owner of Hoeiboei. This Hoeiboei blog is a group blog that often features pieces on Islam by Professor Hans Jansen. The piece was also picked up by free newspaper De Pers which published some exerpts yesterday, just before midnight AND by Powned a right-liberal blog with a TV program yesterday at around 22:30.

Striking the iron while its hot

This morning Wilders' defense demanded from the three judges that they would be substituted, with the De Pers article to give his demand extra weight. The substitution chamber or Wrakingskamer was reconvened in the early afternoon and this time the request was granted. Thus the whole trial is a mistrial and has to be done over. Possibly the next time the fifteen witnesses which had been refused to speak on behalf of Geert Wilders' defense may now be allowed to add their testimony.

How could this happen?

It defies belief that the substitution chamber turned down the request for the judges to be substituted twice and finally granted it on account of a supper. Once when presiding judge Jan Moors attacked Geert Wilders for remaining silent, in words remniscent of Wilders' political opponents. Judge Moors made himself suspect of being biased again by saying that he understood that plaintiffs wanted to leave the Court room when "Fitna", a Islam critical documentary by Wilders was shown. The reason that a story about a supper where a Justice tried to convince a witness of the rightness of the trial against Wilders finally did make the substitution chamber to ask for new judges must be that they are starting to realize that the Court system are facing a mayor loss of trust form the Dutch public in this trial.

The emergence of critical media

This loss of trust is to a large extend the result of critical reporting on blogs such as GeenStijl, the associated Powned TV station, the emergence of smaller blogs such as Hoeiboei which give participants in the trial such as witness Hans Jansen a platform to speak from. Add to that the emergence of free newspapers such as De Pers which do not toe the party line of the Political and Judiciary elite. Finally the Justice Minister which puppeteered the prosecution of Geert Wilders for Hate Crimes and the rest was replaced by Ivo Opstelten. Mr. Opstelten has negotiated the new government including their tacit and essential support by Geert Wilders' Freedom Party (PVV). He is wont to be helpful to Geert Wilders.

A changed country

The Netherlands has changed considerably as far as media and politics are concerned and the Judiciary was caught napping. Perhaps they will make a come back against Geert Wilders in the new trial and catch Geert Wilders and his defense napping.

Anti-Wilders Judge pressure defense witness

The painting "Eminence grise" by François Leclerc du Tremblay

Trust of the Dutch public in judges

An opinion poll shows that only a third of the Dutch public trusts (Dutch) the independence of the Court which is conducting a trial against Geert Wilders. Fully a third DISTRUSTS the Court in the case against Geert Wilders. The trust in judges is generally low too, but not as low as in the Wilder trial. Forty-five percent of those polled generally trusts judges, 20 percent do not. Perhaps those who trust the Amsterdam Court are naive. Read the article and judge for yourself.

Old friends keep in touch

Now one of the witnesses called up by the defense, Orientalist Hans Jansen, reveals on the Hoeiboei blog (Dutch) that on May 3 2010 he was invited by an old friend Bertus Hendriks. Hendriks is a leftist journalist and an activist for the Palestinian cause. Mr. Hendriks invited him for a supper at which "other friends" would be present. They wanted to speak about the Wilders trial and Islam. Later in that week, Professor Jansen was to be heard as an expert-witness by the Court of Amsterdam.

The omens

Professor Hans Jansen writes that he turned up early for the supper, a habit "born out of uncertainty". If this reference to fear is not ominious enough Hans Jansen wrote earlier that his friend Hendriks has called him "a representant of a generation whose time is over". Both Jansen and Hendriks are from 1942.

Eminences grises make their appearance

The professor then meets one of the other guests. Justice or Raadsheer Tom Schalken. Justice Schalken is one of the members of the council chamber or raadskamer which ordered the Public Prosecutors (OM) Meester Velleman and Meester Van Roesel to put Geert Wilders on trial for hate speech, discrimination and all that malarky. The justice starts a conversation about Islam. Professor Jansen replies by asking whether he may be arrested for what he says and demands a guarantee he will not get a run in with the law, now that people can be tried and punished for voicing opinions on Islam. They came to the agreement that the professor would not be arrested for what he was going to say that evening. As the other guests arrived several of them turned out to be magistrates as well. All these powers in the land were members of Labour and the Greens or PvdA and GroenLinks as we know them.

Mr. Jansen keeps the rest of the conversation confidential.

The article by Professor Jansen elaborates that if speech is criminalized persuation and thusly politics by persuation becomes difficult.

Influence peddling

But the most damning aspect of the episode is that the judges that ordered the trial, tried to influence the trial by influencing one of the witnesses.

Standing up against Liberals requires a straight back

A Conservative dancing to the Liberal tune

Mr. Auster, who runs the VFR blog, features a reader's anecdote in a recent article:

A reader heard NY Republican candidate Carl Paladino tell Sean Hannity on the radio today that he has no problem going into homosexual bars......What a thing for a gubernatorial candidate--let alone a conservative gubernatorial candidate who has strongly criticized the normalization of homosexuality--to say.

Mr. Auster then draws a conclusion he has drawn before:

When he first appeared on the scene, Paladino seemed like a tough-guy Italian-American maverick ready to do battle with liberalism. In reality he's a babe in the liberal woods, helplessly eager to show himself a "good guy" by liberal and homosexual standards. This latest embarrassing statement of his is further support for my position that you cannot effectively challenge the ruling liberalism unless (a) you understand liberalism, and (b) you stand outside liberalism, on non-liberal ground that is independent of liberalism.

Where does Wilders stand?

On the same day I read a quote from a book "Choose Freedom" or Kies voor Vrijheid by Mr. Geert Wilders. The quote concerns his reasons for admiring his teacher of the political handwork Frits Bolkenstein. Mr. Bolkenstein opposed the excesses of Multi-Culturalism in the 90ies. Geert Wilders writes:

Bolkenstein taught me, choose a point of view, support it with a basis of good arguments, do not be afraid of criticism and do not yield an inch, certainly not when the Leftist community in political and media circles in the political centre of The Hague attack you and try to corner you.

Mr. Auster says that an attack on Liberalism must be mounted on a foundation of non-liberalism.

Is Wilders a Liberal or not?

Is Wilders' attack on Multi-Cultural Liberalism non-liberal or is his critique grounded in another, older or classical form of Liberalism. If it is the latter, than his attack is in danger to develop to the same stage that present day Multi-Cultural Liberalism has reached, namely of an anti-western movement, hostile to the Dutch nation and the other historic nations of the West. I will address this question in a second post.

Truth is a defense according to Geert Wilders' defense

Speaking the truth about Islam

One of the most worrying and totalitarian aspects of the Geert Wilders show trial occurred last Friday. Friday, on day five of the trial the Public Prosecutor (OM) advised the judges to drop the hate speech, racism and discrimination charges against Wilders. Which is nice for Wilders. But what about other Dutch citizens who want to use the Freedom of Speech? The trial is relevant for all citizens. A verdict that Geert Wilders' criticism of Islam is protected by the Free Speech provision would support all those who want to speak the truth about Islam and the Multi-Cultural society. For instance, Geert Wilders' defense, Moszkowicz, had argued that what he had said about Islam was the truth and could therefore not be the subject of legal proceedings against him.

Prosecution: EMOTIONS are fundamental

The reaction of the Prosecutors (OM) was in essence that speaking the truth, does not protects speech from the scutiny of the courts. Ferdy at Kleinverzet sums up the argument of the Prosecution (OM) as follows:

the prosecutor argues that truth is irrelevant. What's relevant is the emotion the speaker generates. Does the speaker generate a hate emotion? Does the speaker divide society in two groups and does he warn against a dangerous conflict between those groups? The [thought] crime depends also on how tense the situation in society is.

Truth is no defense

Truth is no defense. What is relevant is the judgement by the judges on the EMOTIONS speech may generate. This gives judges enormous leeway to prosecute and punish people who critizise Islam or any other ideology. This means that ideological debates are very difficult, because critics of an idea must always take into account the possibility that a judge may punish them for "Hate Speech" on the flimsiest of all grounds, namely on his perception of immaterial EMOTIONS of sections of the public.

The olichargs

Under such circumstances political debate is highly circumscribed by a narrow elite of 1,600 judges. The parliamentary democracy we have in The Netherlands is just for show, it is a legal olichargy that decides what is debated and what not.

Geert Wilders and Galileo

Today Geert Wilders defense attacked the idea that truth is no defense. He compared Geert Wilders to Galileo, who in the 17th century famously argued that the earth revolves around the sun. This earned him censure from the Roman Catholic Church who muzzled him. After Galileo's death however it became an accepted fact that the sun is the centre piece of the solar system. The church lost a lot of respect by attempting to smother ideas which helped to advance our knowledge of the natural world.

Persuation versus pure will

In the political world free debate is even more essential than in science. Politics avoids the use of violence. It is through persuation that thorny issues must be resolved. Persuation is impossible if certain truth are not permeitted out in the open. If the legal system impedes the free exchange of ideas in the political arena, politics becomes a matter of pure will. The political and legal elite attempt to make the public conform to its ideology and worldview by the use of force, the force of the police and the prisons.

Examples of the use of force

This is not theoretical. Last week a webmaster was convicted for publishing "Hate speech" made by a commenter on a forum that he owned: www.misdefinitie.nl (Dutch). Gregorius Nekschot, a Dutch cartoonist was arrested by a force of ten policemen, who impounded his PC and other possessions he needed for his work and then left him to wait on a verdict for two years. The verdict left him off the hook. For now. Others were convicted as well.

Defending principles

It is great that Mr. Wilders defense, Mr. Moszkowicz, is making a point of principle against the judges and the Public Prosecutor (OM). Mr. Wilders has always insited that he wants to effect his platform , without the use of violence. For him to defend Freedom of Speech (FOS) makes eminent sense, persuation is the only path open for him. Even if the judges deny the point in the verdict on Wilders, it helps that attention is asked for this essential part of the Freedoms which define te West. It is the duty of all patriots to defend the West, its abstract Freedoms and its concrete societies, in this case the Dutch nation.

Burning down Mosques; a serious problem?

Lawrence Auster who blogs at VFR quotes an AP article on the laywers on behalf of the plaintiffs in the trial against Mr. Geert Wilders:

Mr Enait, from Rotterdam, said the mosque he attended as a child had been burned down. Dozens of mosques in the Netherlands were burned in 2004 in apparent retaliatory attacks after the killing of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by an Islamic radical who is now serving a life sentence.

Mr. Auster comments:

Dozens of mosques were burned in the Netherlands in 2004? If this were true, wouldn't we have, ah, heard something about it at the time?

Snouck's Commentary:
On 2 November 2004 Filmmaker Theo van Gogh was assassinated. The Dutch press reported a wave of attacks on mosques and Islamic schools. A number of churches was also attacked.

There are more than four hundred mosques in The Netherlands. Some attacks were very light, mere insulting graffiti texts. Schools and mosques were defiled with manure and (pigs) blood. There were also many more serious attempts at arson, by ethnic Dutch youngsters, who often added nationalist or neo-nazi graffiti. Several attacks were succesful. Schools and mosques were actually burned down. Although, the intensity of the violence lessened as time passed, it continues until today. Before 2004 there were already occassional attacks against mosques.

Recently arson was attempted against a mosque in the North (Selwerd) and a shot or shots were fired at a mosque in Dordrecht and other towns.

Looking at the pattern of the attacks I note that hardly any mosques are attacked in the mayor cities with large Muslim and non-white populations. The attacks are mostly in towns, where ethnic Dutch are the majority, but where there is a Muslim presence which is large enough to anger but not intimidate the local population.

Two days ago Mr. Geert Wilders tweeted on Twitter

the fewer mosques in The Netherlands, the better. But violence against existing mosques is unacceptable and must be fought and punished.

The Wilders show trial goes into its second week

Increasingly farcical proceedings

Today on Monday 18 October 2010 the Wilders show trial goes into its second week. The term "show trial" is a reference to the Moscow show trials, which Stalin used to eliminate his enemies, who met a tragic fate through them. The Wilders trial was intended by the Amsterdam judges to eliminate Wilders as an viable enemy of the Multi-Cultural society. But now the trial is descending into a farce, with the judges and plaintiffs ending up on the losing side. History repeats itself, first as a tragedy, then as a farce. Said Karl Marx.

The lineup of jokers

This week representatives of 17 organisations are lined up to complain about what Mr. Wilders has said in the past 5 years. A Moroccan, Mohammed Rabbae, former prominent politician for the Greens or GroenLinks made a statement this morning (Dutch). The statement consisted of a long summing up of encounters of "racism" by Muslim immigrants. According to Rabbae Muslims in the Netherlands feel hostility against them and their life becomes unbearable. This racism was supposed to be result of public statements by Mr. Geert Wilders. The 17 organisations demand that Geert Wilders is fined 1 Euro for making these statements.

The punchline

The target of Mr. Wilders' statements is not so much immigrants, but Multi-Cultural society and the ideology of Multi-Culturalism. Mr. Rabbae's statement that life in Multi-Cultural Dutch society is unbearable actually gives more thrust to Wilders' arguments that the Multi-Cultural ideology is a failure. People from such different ethnic and religious backgrounds cannot live together well. That is in my opinion the real joke of this trial and the "Hate Speech" legislation.

Eight Hundred Posts

The number of posts on this blog is now eight hundred.

German PM kills Multiculturalism

Christian-Democrat Prime Minister Angela Merkel has launched a frontal attack on the Germany's Multi-Culturalist ideology

Germany's attempts to create a multicultural society have "utterly failed", Chancellor Angela Merkel has said, urging immigrants to do more to integrate, including learning to speak German.

The Chairman of the Bavarian Christian Democrats went even further. Mr. Horst Seehofer,

has rejected any relaxation of immigration laws and said last week there was no room in Germany for more people from “alien cultures”.

Things are moving with lightning speed in Germany. It is an incredible sight to see leaders of mainstream parties attacking Multi-culturalist dogma. In the largest nation in Europe. This will have a major impact in Germany's neighbouring countries.

Dutch prosecutors want charges against Wilders to be dropped

Let him go

The prosecutors of Geert Wilders never wanted to prosecute him. They thought his remarks were not brazen enough and that he is too well funded, too powerful. They were dragged along kicking and screaming. The judges of the Amsterdam court had to ORDER the prosecutors Paul Velleman and Birgit van Roessel to prosecute Mr. Wilders. Now they have defied the judges and recommended dropping all charges, which they had gathered from the plaintiffs.

The judges have the last word

It were the judges of the Amsterdam Court who want to put him on trial. And they can still punish him for what he said about Muslims and Islam. They will need a lot of spine, though. With top level support for the trial from the eminence grise Hirsch Ballin gone just a few days ago, the judges will be instructed by the new Minister of Justice right-liberal, Mr. Ivo Opstelten. Mr. Opstelten was oppointed yesterday. He was the formateur who put the new Rutte government together. This government relies on support from Geert Wilders' Freedom Party (PVV).

Old friends

Mr. Wilders formerly belonged to the same party as Mr. Opstelten, te right-liberal VVD. Mr. Opstelten was formerly mayor of Utrecht, in the 1990ies. In this function he got to know Geert Wilders well, who was a member of the Utrecht municipal council or gemeenteraadslid learning the ropes of practical politics under the eyes of Mr. Opstelten.

We do not know what will happen, what the verdict of the judges will be. But I would daresay that it is not looking too bad.This is important because a harsh verdict for Mr.Wilders will mean that political speech on immigration, multicultural society and Islam will be stifled for years to come. If the judges let Mr. Wilders go as well, the debate will continue.

For further insights in the Wilders trial I point to today's Kleinverzet blogpost.

Hearing but not hearing

Persecution by rulers

King David, the Psalmist, wrote 3,000 years ago:

Psalm 119: 161-163

161 Rulers persecute me without cause,
but my heart trembles at your word.

162 I rejoice in your promise
like one who finds great spoil.

163 I hate and abhor falsehood
but I love your law.

Could have been written for Mr. Wilders

Enforcing the correct view of the elite

The previous week was the week of the Wilders Show Trial. It is a show trial because an important goal of the people who ordered that the Public Prosecutor (OM) should undertake a case against Geert Wilders for Defamation, Hate Crimes and Discrimination was to SHOW the public what would happen to them if they would voice negative opinions against classes protected by the law. These protected classes are women, gays and minorities including Muslims. Their protection is defined in Article 1 of the constitution, article 137 of the Penal Code and the Case Law pertaining to Dutch citizens voicing negative opinions about protected classes. These laws came in effect in the early 1980ies and earlier.

The complaints against Wilders by a large number of Dutch complainants consisted of the charge that, verbally, in writing and by making a film "Fitna":
-Mr. Wilders defamed Muslims as a group, on account of their religion;
-That he incited the public to have hateful feelings towards Muslims, discriminating against them;
-Called for a ban against the Koran, in the way of the ban of Mein Kampf;
-Discribing Islam as a violent, hateful and supremacist religion, a political ideology and a program of conquest;

Around eighty related charges, brought by around forty plaintiffs. Full text of Geert Wilders' summons in English.

It was also a show trial, because the judges already knew what to think about Mr. Wilders' opinions. Judge Jan Moors revealed in which camp he was at the first day of the trial. It was the intention of the court to cross-examine Geert Wilders. Through his laywer Mr. Geert Wilders told the court he would use his right to remain silent. Everything he wanted to say had been said he insisted. Mr. Wilders did read a prepared statement. He insisted that not only his person was on trial, but through him the freedom of speech.

The three judges went into consultation in a backroom and when they returned Judge Moors spake thus:

The court has read the files, but the court also read newspapers and watches television these days. You have been accused by others of being good at stating an position but unwilling to debate it. It looks as if you’re doing the same thing today.

This charge has been leveled at him by his political opponents even at times when he had just debated his opponents and very ably too.


Hearing but not hearing


What is happening here is that the believers in the Multicultural fantasy do literally not believe their ears. Whenever a well spoken opponent of the Multicultural ideology and critic of the Multi-cultural society explains what is wrong with their ideology and its result, the Multi-cultural mess speaks to the pious Multi-culti believer they act in the following way.

Theology is not political science

After a critic has given his reasons they immediately dismiss what they just heard and even accuse the critic of not being willing to debate. So what is their definition of a debate? Their definition of a debate is a conversation in which both speakers eventually agree that Multi-cultural society is truly great and that Multiculturalism is the only valid way of thinking. The Multi-culturalist's belief in the earthly heaven of Multi-culturalism is theological, confusing an ideal and dreamed state of being with a political project and a legal framework for a real existing society.

They literally think they can bring heaven on earth, by their manipulations.

The judiciary and its power

Unfortunately the members of this deluded sect hold true power as the owners of the political parties and appointers of the judiciary.

The task of Geert Wilders is showing that this is so. He is trying to show his supporters and the population at large that the Courts are in a state of delusion.

What must be done?

The next step must be too gain enough power to be able to influence the selection and appointment of judges in order to get a magistracy which works for the Dutch nation and not against it.  

Christian Democrat MPs support minority government

MPs apply seal of approval

Three days ago on 5 October the Christian Democrat CDA parliamentary fraction supported the agreement or regeeraccoord between them, the right-liberal VVD and the populist Freedom Party or PVV. The support was moot because two members of the CDA fraction are opposed to a government with PVV support. The two unsupportive MPs are Kathleen Ferrier and Adriaan Koppejan.

I rather prematurely suggested that the agreement was a done deal, after a congress of CDA members approved it on Saturday. I hope it really IS finished now :-)

Geert Wilders addresses the Germans in Berlin

Geert Wilders addresses the biggest nation in Europe

From the International Freedom Alliance a clip of Mr. Geert Wilders addressing a audience of Germans in Berlin. This was on 2 October. Mr. Wilders is speaking in German. The clip is subtitled in English.

Islam and the Multi-Cultural elite

In the video Mr. Wilders addresses the danger posed by Islam to Germany and the West. The Multi-Culturalist elite that assist Islam in increasing its power in Germany. As an antidote he prescribes that Germans refuse to accept inherited guilt, take pride in the German nation, the Christian heritage and take upon themselves the burden of the duty to defend their nation and civilisation.

The video is below.

Geert Wilders, speech in Berlin, 2nd OCT 2010 (English subtitles) from International Freedom Alliance on Vimeo.

The video can be found here.

The Wilders hate speech trial is resumed

Geert Wilders Hate Speech trial
Today on Monday the Fourth of October 2010 the trial against Geert Wilders was resumed. There is an excellent write-up by Ferdy at KleinVerzet on this trial.

Attacking the squatter movement head on

Check the picture here for better focus.

Weak protection of property rights

More than a month ago I wrote about the weakness of the protection of property rights in The Netherlands, especially in Amsterdam. Now this blog will feature an article on the improvement in the protection of property rights.

You see, since the late 1960ies it had been so that squatters who took over someone's real estate would receive more protection from the courts and police than the owner of the property. If the owner would try to take back the property the squatters would be able to call the police and the courts would convict owners for the use of violence against people in their own house. The police would seldomly come to evict the squatters, as long as the squatters limited themselves to squatting in houses which had been unoccupied for half a year or longer.

Rolling back the squatter movement

With the Fortuyn revolt in 2001, which was copiously supported by real estate developers the squatter tide started to recede. Early in 2010 legislation was enacted that would make squatting illegal again and which in effect would give property owners the power of the police to get their property back if it was occupied without his consent. The legislation went into effect on 1 October 2010.

Evicting squatters

Today in Amsterdam the new legislation made itself felt. The riot squad of the police evicted squatters from occupied houses in the Spuistraat in Amsterdam. The squatters had demonstrated a few days before. The demonstration had turned into a riot and pavements, windows and cars had been damaged. More importantly two policemen and a squatter were injured. The major of Amsterdam, Eberhard van der Laan, announced that the squatters would have to pay the damage, including the health bills of the policemen.

Conclusion

After 1968 most of the Western world went off the rails. The knowledge of Good and Evil was surpressed. Damage to our societies is immense. One society worst hit by the progressive wave was The Netherlands. The return to the protection of property rights is one indication that our society is on the way back to sanity, one step at the time. Let us hope that more many more steps will follow!

Wilders bashes Islamisation of Germany

For Germany and Europe

Last Saturday, the same day that a Christian Democrat congress approved a cabinet dominated by him Wilders speeched for 500 invitees in Hotel Berlin in Berlin. Mr. Wilders spoke in good German of the need for Germans saying:

In these difficult times, where our national identity is under threat, we must stop feeling guilty about who we are. We are not "kafir," we are not guilty. Like other peoples, Germans have the right to remain who they are. Germans must not become French, nor Dutch, nor Americans, nor Turks. They should remain Germans. When the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan visited your country in 2008, he told the Turks living here that they had to remain Turks. He literally said that "assimilation is a crime against humanity." Erdogan would have been right if he had been addressing the Turks in Turkey. However, Germany is the land of the Germans. Hence, the Germans have a right to demand that those who come to live in Germany assimilate; they have the right--no they have a duty to their children--to demand that newcomers respect the German identity of the German nation and Germany's right to preserve its identity.

A new, German Freedom Party

These are great truths and they needed to be spoken. Mr. Wilders was in Berlin at the invitation of René Stadtkewitz. Mr Stadtkewitz is a former German Christian Democrat, who was expelled from the CDU (German Christian Democrat Party) for inviting Wilders and who founded a new party called "Die Freiheit" of Freedom in English.

This comes after a high ranking German Banker, Thilo Sarrazin published a book detailing the many failings of Multi-Cultural society. For the first time Multi-Culturalist orthodoxy  is under discussion in Germany, the biggest nation in Europe and its economic and political engine. Events are developing fast! The ideas of Sarrazin have great support amongst Germans. There is a great future for a populist movement in Germany too, just as in The Netherlands. If this will get Europe anywhere remains to be seen, but for now at least there is some movement, where there used to be inertia.

Right-wing government approved by CDA congress

Showing their colours

Well now the new Dutch cabinet has been put on a firm footing. The agreement or regeeraccoord that was negotiated between right-liberal VVD, Christian Democrat CDA and populist PVV was approved by a congress of CDA members in the city of Arnhem last Saturday. 4,000 members showed up and 68 percent of these approved of the participation of the CDA in the new cabinet.

Wilders and his movement becoming accepted

What is remarkable is that the ballot was not secret, but public and even live on TV. This means that 2,759 people showed their support for co-operation with Geert Wilders on TV. This breaks the ice for showing support for Wilders in a major way.

The future of the CDA

The CDA and its forerunners was the major political movement of the right in The Netherlands since the 1901 cabinet of Abraham Kuyper's ARP, the first true political party in The Netherlands. Due to ongoing secularisation the Christian Democrats have been weakening considerably. Especially in the last 20 years. With the acceptance of the populist movement the CDA is confining itself to the margin, while the PVV will take its place as the centre piece of Dutch politics.