Fragmentation in The Netherlands

The Rise of the PVV

The results of the Dutch municipal election had a big effect outside of The Netherlands. This is due to the good results of Geert Wilders' PVV (Freedom Party). The right-wing PVV came in second in the city of The Hague, the seat of the national government and today I read that Geert Wilders will actually take a seat in the municipal council. In the new city of Almere the PVV came in first and became the biggest party. Both cities saw the PVV litterally starting from zero seats. Nothing illustrates the fragmentation of Dutch society better. The older parties have lost much of their connection to their electorate. This fragmentation means that the political class of about 30.000 hard core party members are socially and ideologically isolated from the voters they are supposed to represent. They do not know what to do with the unhappiness of the voters. This unhappiness is an effect of cultural alieniation as a result of growing Muslim and other immigrant colonies amongst the ethnic Dutch, fear of crime and potential job loss as a result of the global crisis. The older parties want to appeal to the public on issues such as the economy, whereas the dominant and most urgently felt issue in The Netherlands is the threesome that starts with an I. Immigration, Integration and Islam. These issues are monopolized by Mr. Geert Wilders' PVV and he stands to gain from them, becoming the second biggest party. Or perhaps even first.

Why The Hague?

Mr. Wilders chose his battle grouds well. The four main cities in The Netherlands are Utrecht, The Hague, Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Amsterdam is quite prosperous. The city is 50 percent immigrant origin, who vote monopolistically for the Left. The ethnic Dutch in Amsterdam are quite prosperous and many support the Left feel like world citizens and have reason to do so. Their party of choice would be the Greens or D66, a quintessential Liberal party. The PVV could gain here as they start from zero, but not as much as elewhere. Rotterdam already has Leefbaar Rotterdam, a strong populist local party in Pim Fortuyn's track, so any effort in Rotterdam would result in canibbalisation on the right. Utrecht is relatively unaffected by immigration. The Hague has a strong tradition of voting for nationalist parties and a serious problem with immigrants. It was a good battle ground for the PVV and they got an excellent result.

Why Almere?

Then there is Almere. Almere is a new city built in the 1960ies on land that was reclaimed from the sea in 1942. It lies a bit to the East from Amsterdam. The city is populated by people who moved from Amsterdam in the 1970ies and later. A strong motive to move was the takeover of Amsterdam by Muslim immigrants. These days there is a influx of non-western immigrants into Almere and the people there do not want to be ethnically cleansed once more. Voters turned out in significant numbers to vote PVV, voting attendance was high in Almere compared to other years and relative to the rest of the country. The PVV mobilizes voters who used to not vote.

The effect of the municipal elections on the national elections

The PVV only participated in elections in the aformentioned two cities. Polling expert Maurice de Hondt analyzed the voting behaviour (Dutch) in the municipal elections and the expected effect on the national elections on June the 9th. It turns out that the PVV has big support amongst those who voted other parties in the municipal elections. Especially the Liberal-Conservative VVD party, the new right-wing splinter TON and voters for local parties will vote PVV. All together Maurice de Hondt estimates that the PVV will become the biggest party in the national parliament with 16.2 percent of the votes. Bigger than the CDA (Christian Democrats) and PvdA (Labour). This is a picture of incredible political fragmentation.

The Geert Wilders Hate Speech Trial

What does the fall of the coalition and the new national elections imply for the hate-speech trial against Geert Wilders? June is one month before the resumption of this trial against PVV leader Wilders in July. Firstly, it means that some dark influence behind the screens against Mr. Wilders was removed in the form of Interior Minister Guusje ter Horst (PvdA) stepping down. However on the Justice Ministry there is still a dark presence in the form of Hirsch Ballin (CDA). Hirsch Ballin is also the provisional Minister of the Interior so he can make life interesting for Mr. Wilders. It remains to be seen what he will do. Providing we ever really find out. After the elections in June formal or informal PVV support will be necessary to form a new right-wing coalition government which is the preferred option for the CDA. This means they will be directly in contact with Geert Wilders all the time and he will be able to influence his trial that way, while the top Christian-Dems will do some horse trading. The formation of the government will take months. In the end a three or four party coalition. Voters get an unrepresentative government again as the new coalition will be the result of political bartering behind closed doors.

A field of liberal destruction

In conclusion. The Netherlands is no political or social unit anymore. The nation has been destroyed by Liberla policies and has to be rebuilt or to be broken down and abandoned. The PVV may want to change that but it lacks the means to do so.

Dutch municipal election: coming on foot

Local politics influencing national politics

The 2010 municipal elections had been scheduled for March 3. The national coalition government of PvdA (Labour), CDA (Christian Democrats) and CU (Christian Union) fell apart just before these elections, due to the PvdA socialist seeking political advantage by making a pacifist gesture over Afghanistan to their core voters. This was a repeat of what they did over Srebrenica in 2001. Hence the municipal elections had a big impact on the national elections which are due in June.

Three trends

The municipal elections are notable for a number of trends appearing. The further weakening of trust in Dutch society, the increasing fragmentation of the public and the increasing polarization of ethnic Dutch against Muslims and vice versa.

The end of The Netherlands

Trust weakened in Dutch society as a result of voting irregularities in Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Political fragmentation reflecting a deeper social fragmentation is manifest in the weakening of main parties and the rise of the PVV (Freedom Party). The increasing ethno-religious polarization is evident in a number of coups by ethnic Turks and other Muslims in order to take over local chapters of Leftist parties such as PvdA. This phenomenon of local Muslim coups is becoming more and more widespread for a while now and I blogged about such a case on February 2, a month before the elections.

The way back

I suppose the most fundamental trend is the erosion of trust, caused by mass-immigration. A Chinese proverb states: trust comes on foot and goes on a horse. It will take generations to rebuilt the trust that was squandered in the last 20 years of mass immigration and multi-culturalism.

Is Europe dead or dieing?

Does Fortuyn's anger reflect the mood of the public?

In a comment on Lawrence Austers VFR I wrote about a clip of an angry Pim Fortuyn vowing not to take Islamization anymore:

This clip indicates the mood of a significant part of the European public.

Mr Auster replied:

Snouck says the clip reflects the mood of a significant part of the European public. I sadly disagree. No one EVER sees such ideas and feelings being expressed in public in Europe. If such ideas and feelings were being expressed by a significant part of the European public, Europe would be a different continent from what it now is, and would be on the path to saving itself, instead of being on the path to Islamization and death.

That is a big compliment to Mr. Fortuyn and Mr. Wilders. But is it true that such ideas or feelings are not EVER being expressed in public? Obviously the Islamisation of Europe is advancing in most European countries, including The Netherlands. But in Flanders the Vlaams Belang, in Italy the Lega Nord, in Denmark the People's Party, Switzerland the People's Party and in Germany Denmark's People's Party, Holland's Party for Freedom, Switzerland's People's Party, in Germany Pro-Deutschland are speaking up against Islamization and mass-immigration as VFR commenter Bjorn Larsen also points out.

How must opposition to Multi-culturalism be expressed?

As a proof of his statement Mr. Auster says:

If such ideas and feelings were being expressed by a significant part of the European public, Europe would be a different continent from what it now is, and would be on the path to saving itself, instead of being on the path to Islamization and death.

Is this really so? Would Europe be choosing live if this sentiment was expressed by the public? Firstly, the public is not able to express itself coherently, so it must be leaders who give words to the mood of the public. Secondly, the way to do it must be acceptable to the public. The reason why Fortuyn was acceptable was because he initially expressed himself as a defender of European freedoms and equality. If he had started off as he did in the video he would never have gathered a following. These expressions only became acceptable after he had become a electoral power. I do not even think it is all that important, that this sentiment is expressed in this way at all. It is important that the sentiment exists in the leadership and the public. But opposition must be expressed in a calm and deliberate way in order to not to preclude it from becoming respectable.

There is a decade of struggle ahead

I do not think Europe is as dead as Mr. Auster seems to think. An opposition is being built against Multiculturalism, which has the mainstream. Multiculturalism is losing ground as more and more bad news about immigrant communities is coming out. But it will take at least a decade of hard work before there will be a new consensus in the smaller countries and the bigger countries may even take two decades.

Turkish political language in municipal elections

On 3 March there will be municipal elections in The Netherlands. The PvdA (Labour) party is being embarrassed by Dutch and Turkish members who are campaigning in Turkish. Rotterdam PvdA candidate Fikri Demirtas has a Turkish language poster. Amsterdam PvdA candidate Lodewijk Asscher has a Turkish language poster. Amsterdam candidate Freek Ossel also has a Turkish language poster.

Vunerable right flank of Christian parties

There will be municipal elections on March 3. Two days ago on 15 February there was a political debate on Dutch public TV. Amongst others the PVV (Freedom Party) send Geert Wilders and the coalition party CU (Christian Union) was represented by Arie Slob.

The CU is part of the ruling coalition togehter with CDA (Christian Democrats) and PvdA (Labour). CU is supposed to be a Conservative party, but it moved to the left on many issues and is losing its right-wing profile. This makes the CU vunerable to competition from the right especially from the Geert Wilders' PVV. This became glaringly obvious during the debate. At some point Mr. Wilders launched an attack against CU's Arie Slob asking

Mr. Slob you represent a Christian Party in The Netherlands. Do you think Islamic culture is equal to Christian culture, can be combined with the rule of law in a democratic state, do you see Islam is a totalitarian ideology [more of the same from Wilders].... ?

Arie Slob answers for the CU:

There are a million Muslims in The Netherlands, they cannot be excluded, they have to obey the rules everybody has to obey our rules [waffles on]

Geert Wilders interrupts:

That is no answer to my question, you are not answering my question is Islam equal to Christianity ?

Arie Slob:

Do not turn groups of people against each other

Wilders [mockingly in a falsetto voice]:

He is not answering my question he is not answering my question!

The public laughs. In the studio a political commentators says that the question is clever and is impossible for the Christian Union to answer.

Snouck's Commentary: as the right-wing parties are moving to the left they become more and more vunerable to competition from the PVV. The PVV stands to make a lot of hay during the national elections from the failure from CDA and CU to champion the Duch Christian heritage. Polls show all parties a vunerable to competition for votes from the PVV, but the Christian parties more than the Leftist parties. In the municipal elections the effect will not be significant as the PVV is only participating in four municipalities.

The whole fragment of the debate can be viewed here (Dutch).

Pim Fortuyn shows his true colours

The night of Fortuyn

Two counter-jihadists who go by the nom de guerres of Vlad Tepes and VH have translated and subtitled many Dutch videos which have been given wider circulation on the GoV blog. One that really needed to be subtitled is a part from a documentary "The night of Fortuyn". This documentary shows the night of the coup against Pim Fortuyn on 10 February 2002. Fortuyn had been a leader and spokesman of the Leefbaar Nederland party. The party board had appointed Fortuyn in order to challenge the cartel of political parties that run the Netherlands. When Fortuyn during a Volkskrant interview showed himself hostile to mass immigration of Muslims the leadership demanded that he either resign or promise not to make any anti-immigration and anti-islamic remarks anymore. Fortuyn refused to shut up and at some point late at night he gave his motives for doing so in an tirade which was filmed. In this he gave vent not only to his own rage but to the rage of many Dutchmen and it explains the popularity of his platform and Geert Wilders' platform. If you are not Dutch and you wonder where the support for Geert Wilders and the PVV (Freedom Party) is coming from here is part of the answer.

Appeasement in Gouda

Gouda has a history of violence by Muslim youth

The Dutch town of Gouda has been plagued by violence by Muslim youth for a long time. Usually the violence is committed by groups of youngsters of Moroccan origin, as featured in posts on this blog in November 2008. Today De Telegraaf featured an article which showed how the Gouda authorities are dealing with troublemakers. They give the trouble makers money to organize a party on New Years Eve in order to avoid Muslim rioting. The De Telegraaf article revealed that the municipality had given 2,250 Euro to the rioters to hire a DJ and cater a party.

Moral Hazard

This a move is a moral hazard. It is an incentive to rioters and criminals. In another Dutch provincial town there were race riots on New Years Eve between Moluccan and Moroccan Muslim youth, which featured in the news prominently. Obviously reality diverges from the Multi-Cultural idyll. With the Wilders trial in the background news such as this provide a constant source of illustration of Geert Wilders and other opponents of the Multi-Cultural society.

Liberal Lying about benefits of immigration

Are immigrants public charges?

In July last year PVV (Freedom Party) MP Sietse Fritsma asked the Dutch Government by way of Integration Minister Eberhart van der Laan what the cost of immigration was to the Dutch taxpayer. Mr. Van der Laan refused to answer, which increases the suspicion many Dutchmen have that immigration is only a boon to the immigrants and not to the Dutch. Minister Van der Laan motivated the refusal by saying that it is wrong for the state to calculate the costs of immigrants broken down by country of origin. A parlementarian majority supported him.

Or are they an economic benefit?

Minister van der Laan visited Morocco from 7 to 11 February. During the visit he stated to newspaper "Le Matin" that

immigrants from Morocco are an economic benefit to The Netherlands.

In a reaction PVV leader Geert Wilders and MP Sietse Fritsma asked the Minister how he could know that, as he had refused to calculate it in July 2009.

Liberalism and equality

In conclusion: to the Liberal mind that everybody worldwide is equal and all cultures are equal is a foregone conclusion. So it does not have to be researched. When a Liberal is confronted with the question whether non-western immigrants he realizes that non-western immigrants cost more than they bring in material advantage. In order to remain liberal Liberals will the knowledge away. And soon they will revert to the belief that all people and cultures are equal.

The Wilders trial will not commence until July

At VFR Lawrence Auster wrote:

Oddly, there doesn't seem to be any news on any proceedings in the Geert Wilders trial for today, February 4, neither at Gates of Vienna, nor at the Wilders on Trial website. Stunning development: the Wilders trial has been adjourned for four months--correction: for up to nine months.

Snouck: I mailed Mr. Auster as follows:

The court has requested Mr. Geert Wilders to provide verhinderdata (can't-make-it-dates) from the three witnesses whom he's been permitted to call. The trial will resume in June if I am not mistaken. My notes say three to four months from now.

See how considerate and reasonable those who-have-been-appointed-over-us are, you cowboys?

LA replies:

Thanks for this information, which is entirely unexpected. I had no idea that the trial, which began less than two days ago, was about to adjourn for four months. I thought that the January 20 session had been a preliminary, procedural session, and that the trial proper had begun on February 3, as various sites including VFR reported on February 3. Everyone was geared up for the big event, which now we learn won't take place until the summer, if then. I can't imagine why this basic information was not reported or mentioned at any of the interested websites. And, by the way, what basis do we have for criticizing the American media's non-coverage of the trial, when the trial won't begin until June?

If there had to be a delay of four months in order to schedule the testimony of three witnesses, then it would not be unreasonable to suppose that if all of Wilders's eighteen proposed witnesses had been accepted, there would have been a delay of twenty-four months. A distant observer may be forgiven for thinking that the Wilders trial is shaping up to be the Dutch equivalent of the interminable case of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce, in Charles Dickens's Bleak House.

LA continues:

I've asked Snouck where he got the information that the trial had been adjourned until June, since I see no hint of that at any of the sites that are linked here.

Snouck writes:

This information was provided in the hearing. The full hearing in Dutch was put on the internet by the NOS (Dutch State Broadcasting) here at the end. I have not seen a full transcript in Dutch or English.

However, I made a mistake. Apologies. I listened to the last part of the hearing again and the trial will take place between 1st of June and 31 October. Not in June. The exact date will depend on the availability of the witnesses.

LA replies:

Unbelievable. So it will take place in June at the earliest.

Did the court give a reason for this enormous delay? Since when does it take up to nine months (from February 3 to October 31) to schedule the appearance of a a couple of witnesses at a trial? And if it takes this long to find a time when three witnesses can appear together, then a trial with 20 or 30 witnesses would take years.

And were the parties to the trial surprised by this announcement of the judges? Didn't they think that the trial had begun and was not about to be adjourned for between four and nine months?

And why do you think that neither the news services nor the Wilders website reported this information?

Also, when did the judges make this announcement? On Wednesday the third, or on Thursday the fourth?

Snouck replies:

The announcement was made in the hearing on Wednesday the third. It was published on TV by the NOS and on the NOS website.

Snouck continues:

I am embarrassing myself. It is NOT in June the earliest. It is between 1st of July and 31 October.

The reason given is that one of the scientists (Wafa Sultan) has to come from a foreign country.

Mr. Wilders was angry about something. I do not think it is the delay though. He mentioned to the press his anger over the turning down of his requests for witnesses and experts. He said the Court does not want to hear the truth.

Other facts. The court says the trial will take five days when it will be held. Mr. Wilders may request more time. The Court might grant the request. Some part of it will be heard by a Rechter-Commissaris, a Court functionary. I do not fully grasp why or what that implies. Also the Court has yet to take decision on the status of the experts Mrs. Sultan, Mr. Jansen and Mr. Admiraal. Right now they call the experts "scientists."

I do not know why the website of Mr. Wilders did not post the information. They seem to be posting mostly video. The PVV (Freedom Party) organisation is quite small and underfunded. I can speculate they are hard pressed to provide transcripts and translations.

LA replies:

Today is the fifth. The trial began on the third. I am dumbfounded that none of the reports about the first day of the trial--which were posted on the third--mentioned the adjournment.

In any case, now we now why, as I pointed out in an earlier entry, there was no news about the second day of the trial. There WAS no second day of the trial. But, notwithstanding all the attention that was focused on the trial, no one had told us that.

Paul Belien writes:

As I said in my previous email: court cases being adjourned for several months (sometimes years) is not unusual in Europe.

Europeans have waiting lists when they want to see the doctor, and they have to wait when they want to see a judge.

My guess is that in order to avoid Wilders electorally benefiting from a conviction, the Dutch establishment will try to delay the verdict until after the next general elections. The elections are due in June 2011 at the latest, but the general expectation is that they will take place this Fall.

LA replies:

Ok, but this still doesn't explain why this information was not reported anywhere. Not at Wilders's site. Not at GoV. Not in any news media source. It's surreal.

And then the news only comes from a Dutch blogger who saw the Dutch TV broadcast of the trial and wrote to me about it, a day and a half after the various reports on the first day of the trial had been posted.

We were all treating with great importance, and got into a pitch of intensity about, this historic and fateful trial that was starting. And now it turns out that it's not starting at all, and may not start for another nine months.

Paul Belien replies:

It was not reported because Europeans consider this to be normal. That is how courts work over here: as soon as it suits the court, they will send Wilders a message telling him when to come to court again. It may be next June, It may be next October, who knows.

(And GoV did not report it because they translate info which they get from Europe.)

You get annoyed and frustrated, but that is what the authorities hope to achieve: they want to get you so annoyed and frustrated that you just give up.

LA replies:

Yes, your explanation of the authorities' modus operandi makes sense.

But that still doesn't explain why Wilders's site did not report this. Wilders's supporters in America and England and elsewhere were closely following the trial. Didn't Wilders's staff think that this was slightly important information to tell us?

Paul Belien writes:

You say this is surreal. Of course it is surreal. The whole Wilders trial is surreal.

Want to live the surreal? Come and live in Europe.

Seen this?

"German homeschoolers get political asylum in the U.S."

Wilders, too, will have to apply for asylum in the U.S. one day.

Paul Belien writes:

One more thing: the court also said that the witnesses will be heard behind closed doors.

LA replies:

Did they give a reason for this?

Paul Belien replies:

No.

Snouck adds:

Something I noticed watching and listening to the judge is that he appears scared or intimidated. He pays attention to the non-verbal reactions of Geert Wilders. I think he is part intimidated by Mr. Wilders and perhaps partly does not agree with some decisions he reads out.

And I agree with Mr. Paul Belien. Europeans see nothing unusual in the long wait, because we are used to them. That is one of the reasons why the wait was not reported.

Police protection for threatened aeldermen

Multiculturalism and its champions

Most Western countries are under the spell of the multicultural ideology. Particularly the left-wing parties push this ideology. Critics of multicultural society and its ideology are attacked and pictured as the cause of any conflicts between minorities and Westerners.

The champion of multiculturalism splinter

It is therefore particularly interesting to see an organisation which is a champion of multiculturalism become a victim of ethnic conflict. In the Rotterdam borough of Feijenoord the multiculturalist idyll is in deep trouble. The local (PvdA) Labour faction in the borough council is splitting along ethnic lines. Violence is in the air.

The setting: Feijenoord

The Feijenoord neighbourhood has 70,000 inhabitants with a high percentage of those of immigrant origin. In the 2006 municipal election the Labour Party recovered a lot of the seats that had been lost to the local Fortuynist Party Leefbaar Rotterdam (LR). They got 14 of 21 seats in the borough council. Six of the fourteen are of Turkish origin.

Dutchmen in charge of Labour or not?

The executive of the Feijenoord Labour party went to three Dutchmen. On 4 May 2006 a former Labour party executive, Mr. Johan Henderson, insisted that there were constant conflicts within the Labour party and that the conflict had an ethnic dimension. He suggested that the conflict could be solved if the Turks in Feijenoord would be represented by a Labour Party Turk in the borough council. And indeed, a Gülami Yesildal was appointed as a fourth member of the executive of the Feijenoord council. In October 2007 a new scuffle broke out when a Dutch council member insisted that the Turkish councillors should speak Dutch amongst each other rather than Turkish.

Conflicts persist

In 2008 two of the Labour executives had to step down as a result of conflicts, one Dutch and the other the Turkish aelderman Yesildal. In interviews with local press they spoke darkly of "nepotism" and "a sickness in the Labour Party in Feijenoord".

The current troubles

In December 2009 the simmering conflicts exploded. Usually party meetings are decided by a few core members, who turn up at all the meetings. Eighty to ninety percent of the party members are dormant. A Labour Party meeting was stacked with lots of Turkish Labour members who had never before attended any meetings. Seven Turkish and a Dutch member were promoted to the top of the list. The Dutch member, René Kronenberg, became the new local Labour leader.

Several of the demoted party members and their supporters were furious. A demoted Labour Party cadre said:

This was like a CPN - Dutch Communist Party - take over.

A Labour Party member, Jo den Haan, said

I do not want to be a part of this anymore. It is not about the public interest anymore. When I see stuff like this I think Wilders is right after all

Mr. Den Haan left the Labour Party. Many other members of the Feijenoord Labour Party have ended their membership.

Violence in the air

On 30 January tensions had run up so high that three former aeldermen felt compelled to request police protection. They feared for a threat against their safety from the Turkish Labour members. They mention intimidating looks and e-mails. The customs of Anatolia have settled in The Netherlands. This was reported by the Algemeen Dagblad (AD), a Rotterdam newspaper.

Source:

* This article was based on two articles by Carel Brendel, a former Labour Party member, author and blogger. Here and here.

Re-criminalizing political activism in The Netherlands

The effect on political activism of the Wilders' trial

In response to an article by Lawrence Auster about Geert Wilders' trial on VFR commenter Lydia Mc Grew wrote:

I assume he's being tried by a jury, so would it be jury nullification? Or would it actually be a statement that he hadn't violated the law? Generally an acquittal means that you didn't break the law in question, however awful the law might be. So if there were a law against going to church, being acquitted on the charge would mean you were "not guilty" of going to church. On the other hand, sometimes juries acquit someone as a kind of statement of protest against the law itself. It would be much better if the entire "incitement to hatred" law in Holland were overturned by whatever mechanism exists in Dutch law for that purpose. As it is, Wilders' aquittal would leave the law in place to be used to intimidate others. A jury nullification of a bad law means that the defendent was lucky to get away with it this time. That's an unsatisfactory outcome in the long run.

First this: Dutch Courts have no juries. AFAIK none of the continental European countries have juries.

Non-liberal political activism before Fortuyn

In the Wilders trial there is a Court of three judges. If they acquit Wilders this will have the effect to somewhat lessen the threat against those who want to criticize religion. As far as I know there is no defined threshold which must be crossed before a judge can penalize a politician or a political group who criticizes an ethnic or religious minority. In 1996 a political party was penalized even though the judge noted that it had not used discriminatory or racist language, but promised to "abolish the multicultural society". Around the same time the NVU, a "volk nationalist" party was banned from demonstrating in support of the expulsion of Mr. Gümüs, a Turkish illegal immigrant. So even expressing support for the state could be punished.

The watershed of 2002

After the meteoric rise of Mr. Pim Fortuyn the judiciary was much less ready to penalize critics of multiculturalism and multicultural society. In fact there is a tyrannical aspect to the employment of article 137. It depends on what the political echelon and the judiciary feel they can get away with and how much they need to get society in line. In the 80ies and 90ies the judiciary prosecuted and penalized multicultural critics out of a sense of moral rectitude and because they could. There were no drawbacks. Today the judiciary is in a state of confusion and the political elite is devided. The reason this trial is underway seems to be that diehards are trying to turn back the clock and to force the bad spirits of religion criticism and national self-assertion back in Pandora's box.

A new phase of of Dutch glasnost or its end?

If Mr. Wilders is convicted to a jail term of more than a few days this will dampen the debate on the dark side of multicultural society. If he is acquitted The Netherlands will have formalized its current pragmatic glasnost policy. This will cause the currently prevailing ideology of multi-culturalism to fail more quickly. Because multi-culturalism is based on the false premise that all races, cultures and religions are equally good in the long run multi-culturalism will fail anyway. The question is how much damage it will do before it is discredited and our elites will abandon it.

Is Truth a defense?

Wilders strategy so far

As I wrote before the crux of the indictment against Wilders' is his comparing the Quran with Mein Kampf. Wilders insisted that the entire indictment was read out. The judges of the trial did not grant this, and allowed the public prosecutor to read a summary, leaving out parts that were doubly quoted in the indictment. Wilders intention must have been to get as much of his quotes verbatim publicized. The advantages he sought are:
1. Islam is shown in its full glory as the Wilders quotes are Quran quotes, red in tooth and claw. This turns Islam into the defendant.
2. The entire indictment speech becomes quotable even after a possible conviction of Wilders for hate speech. The indictment will prove a treasure trove for those who wish to continue to expose the truth about Islam. Wilders is aiming for a tactical advantage here.

The instruction of the Court of Amsterdam provides the indictment

The indictment has been written up by the Public Prosecutor acting on an instruction of the Amsterdam Court. A laywer, Mr. Hiddinga, pointed out on TV yesterday that the instruction by the Court of Amsterdam was written as a indictment. This shows the intent of the Amsterdam Court. For this reason Wilders tries to get the Amsterdam Court declare itself not the designated court for a trial against him on the ground that Dutch procedural law designates the trial to take place at the court in the place where the defendant resides. The public prosecutor argued that Wilders made his attacks on Islam on the national media and therefore the trial can take place anywhere in The Netherlands. It remains to be seen whether the Amsterdam court will indulge Wilders on procedural grounds.

Wilders' defense wants witnesses

Wilders has requested the judges to grant his requests for witnesses for the defense such as Arabists Hans Jansen and Simon Admiraal, in addition to the assassin of Theo van Gogh, Mohammed Bouyeri. He needs these witnesses in order to make his defense that he spoke the truth about Islam and it is absurd to be convicted for speaking a truth.

Truth was no defense in Belgium

In my opinion this will not work. In Belgium the nationalist party Vlaams Belang of Filip Dewinter was convicted for hate speech when they quoted government statistics on immigrant crime. "Truth was no defense" declared the Belgian court. Dutch judges are notoriously procedural. The law says that there are protected classes, classes which are protected due to their ethnicity, gender or religion. The adherents of Islam are one of these protected classes. This follows from the modified article 1 of the Constitution and article 137 of the Penal Code. In 2006 I have pointed out that these articles are similar in they way they work to articles in the Constitution of the Soviet Union. And this trial against Wilders is similar to the Stalin's trials against his enemies of the 1930ies. This trial against Wilders is a political trial. It is a show trial. The intent is to intimidate the Dutch population into acceptance of the Multicultural society and to stop critizising protected classes.

My take on the outcome of the trial

Truth will be no defense. Wilders WILL be convicted if the trial in Amsterdam goes on. The question is whether the judges will impose a heavy punishment on Wilder, such as two years in prison or a symbolic punishment say a 5.000 Euro fine.

The crux of Wilders' indictment

A legal expert speaks

Mr. Hiddema, a Dutch laywer interviewed (Dutch) on Dutch news and commentary TV show Netwerk yesterday explained what the long indictment against Wilders is about (HT Geenstijl). The centerpiece is Wilders' comparison of the Quran with Hitler's Mein Kampf.

Wilders at fault or the Quran?

According to Mr. Hiddema the trial against Mr. Wilders must prominently feature a comparison of Hitler's call for the use of violence against Jews and other minorities and Mohammed's prophesies of war against the unbelievers. Particularly the Jewish unbelievers.

Wilders says he speaks nothing but the truth

This is also the reason why Wilders insisted on having the indictment read out in full by the public prosecutor. The indictment consist of many Wilders quotes which in there turn are Quran quotes. With these quotes it is Islam that is the defendant. During his speech to the judges yesterday Wilders insisted that he had no objection to Muslims in The Netherlands personally. But that his objection was to Islam and the increase of Islamic power in The Netherlands. Wilders says that what he says about Islam is true, that his quotes truly represent what Islam is about.

The postion of the media

After the Netwerk news show ended it showed a kind of ad. The ad featured Ghislaine Plag, the presenter of the Netwerk show praising the virtues of the Multicultural society including footage of a happy headscarved Muslim women.

This makes it again clear that most of the media, who are subsidized and therefore owned by the state are in cahoots with the rest of the elite, the politicians and the judiciary. They are not independent, they want Wilders' viewpoint banished from the political discourse.

What does Wilders want?

I watched the first session of the political trial of the Dutch state against Wilders. Wilders was insisting trough his laywer Moscowicz to have the whole indictment against him read by the Public prosecutor, rather than having the prosecutor summarizing the charges. Wilders' priority seems to be to make Islam the defendant in this trial.

Geert Wilders on trial for criticizing Islam

This morning the first session of the political trial against Mr. Wilders started at the Court in Amsterdam. The session started at 11:00 hours. In front of the Court demonstrators gathered to show their support for Mr. Wilders' opinion and the Freedom of Speech.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas people!

Wilders' defense uses Muslim assassin

The defense of Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders was recently summoned by the Court of Amsterdam on charges of hate speech. Mr. Wilders' laywer Mr. Bram Moszkowicz has announced (Dutch) that he will ask Mohammed Bouyeri to be a witness in the defense of Mr. Geert Wilders. Mohammed Bouyeri or Mohammed B. is the assassin of Theo van Gogh.

The proof is in the assassin

The point which the defense of Mr. Wilders will attempt to prove by the assassin's testimony is the inherent violence of Islam against those who do not submit to Islam, the Kufar or all non-muslims. Mohammed Bouyeri explained his motivation to murder Van Gogh at length in a letter which he pinned to the chest of his slain victim with a knive. The letter was analyzed by Professor Hans Jansen. A translation of Professor Jansen's lengthy and highly elucidating analysis of Mohammed Bouyeri's letter was published on Islam in Europe and is available here.

Wilders: showing up in force

Geert Wilders summoned for Insulting Islam

Geert Wilders is summoned by the Court of Amsterdam on December 4. The charge is insulting Islam.

Calling for a demonstration for FOS

The case is due on January 2010. Yesterday Mr. Wilders (Dutch) called for a demonstration supporting Freedom of Speech (FOS) at the the concrete Court of Amsterdam on the Parnassusweg. His hope is a show of force to persuade the judges to let him walk on account of "societal unrest" if anti-islamic views are surpressed by judges.

Turkey refuses to talk to Wilders

Dutch parlementarians will not go to Turkey over Wilders row. Dutch delegation's Turkey trip cancelled over Wilders.

The Dutch parliament said the MPs have decided to cancel a trip to Turkey after Turkish government said Geert Wilders is unwelcome in the Islamic country. A delegation of Dutch parliamentarians to visit Turkey in January has been cancelled after members of the Turkish government refused to meet anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders

Ministry spokesman Burak Ozugergin said:

We reject the racist views of this person... He is unwelcome in many European countries as well

The Turkish spokesman is probably referring to the UK, which refused entry to Wilders earlier in 2009. But a British judge refused to uphold that decision.

At the head of the Party for Freedom, he [Wilders] has also voiced fierce opposition to Turkey's European Union membership bid, likening the country to a Trojan horse whose accession would prompt more Muslims to immigrate to Europe.

The Turkish parlementarians probably thought that the other members of the Dutch delegation would not support Wilders and isolate him. The refusal of the Dutch MPs to make the trip to Turkey causes a dent in Turkish and Dutch relations and is a good thing for The Netherlands. I do sincerely hope that more meetings of Dutch politicians with politicians from Muslim countries will be severed and that the influence of Islam on Dutch politics will decrease accordingly. This is a good example of the positive influence Wilders already has, without even having any formal power.

Communist past in Eastern Europe higly suspect

Down with Hammer and Sickle

In Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states legislators are considering legislation to ban Communist symbols (HT Esther). Eastern Europe was occupied since 1945 or longer by Soviet Communist supported regimes who cloaked themselves in the Red Banner with the Hammer and Sickle. The Soviet-Communists furthered their ideology by murdering dozens of millions of people in their wars of the state against the people between 1917 and 1936. Particularly Poland wants to outlaw symbols of the Left similarly to the way that Nazi symbols are outlawed in many parts of Europe.

President Lech Kaczynski approved an amendment to the criminal code which outlaws production, possession, spread and sale of items or recordings containing symbols of communism. Anyone who disobeys the law – for instance, waves a red flag singing The Internationale in the centre of Warsaw – can be fined or even sent to jail for up to two years.

It is true that the totalialitarians were mass murderers irrespective of whether they came from the Left or the Right. To be precise Left-wing movements mass murdered on a far greater scale than the Nazis. It is good to see that nations such as Poland are cognizant of that.

Attacking windmills

It is also sad that this results in symbolic legislation. Evil can not be defeated by laws. Especially not laws attacking mere symbols.