Showing posts with label Islam in Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam in Europe. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

The Islamic Future Of Europe

Authored by Guy Milliere via The Gatestone Institute,


  • European leaders accepted the transformation of parts of their countries into enemy territories. They see that a demographic disaster is taking place. They know that in two or three decades, Europe will be ruled by Islam.

  • Ten years ago, describing what he called "the last days of Europe," the historian Walter Laqueur said that European civilization was dying and that only old monuments and museums would survive. His diagnosis was too optimistic. Old monuments and museums might well be blown up. Look nowhere else than what the black-hooded supporters of "Antifa" -- an "anti-fascist" movement whose actions are totally fascistic -- are doing to statues in the United States.

The terrorist attack in Barcelona received the same reaction as all the large-scale terrorist attacks in Europe: tears, prayers, flowers, candles, teddy bears, and protestations that "Islam means peace ". When people gathered to demand tougher measures against the rising influence of Islamism across the continent, they were confronted by an "anti-fascist" rally. Muslims organized a demonstration to defend Islam; they claimed that Muslims living in Spain are the "main victims" of terrorism. The president of the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Societies, Mounir Benjelloun El Andaloussi, spoke of a "conspiracy against Islam" and said that terrorists were "instruments" of Islamophobic hatred. The mayor of Barcelona, ?? Ada Colau, cried in front of the cameras and said that her city would remain an "open city" for all immigrants. The governor of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, used almost the same language. Spain"s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, a conservative, was the only one who dared to call jihadist terrorism by its name. Almost all European journalists said Rajoy"s words were too harsh.



After the attack in Barcelona, Spain, when people gathered at the site to demand tougher measures against the rising influence of Islamism across the continent, they were confronted by an "anti-fascist" rally. Pictured: "Anti-fascists" beat a man who they claimed is a "right-wing sympathizer" at Las Ramblas, Barcelona, on August 18, 2017. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)


Mainstream European newspapers describing the horror once again sought explanations to what they kept calling "inexplicable". The leading Spanish daily newspaper, El Pais, wrote in an editorial that "radicalization" is the bitter fruit of the "exclusion" of certain "communities," and added that the answer was more "social justice". In France, Le Monde suggested that terrorists want to "incite hatred", and stressed that Europeans must avoid "prejudice". In the UK, The Telegraph explained that "killers attack the West because the West is the West; not because of what it does" -- but it spoke of "killers", not "terrorists" or "Islamists".


Anti-terrorism specialists, interviewed on television, said that the attacks, carried out across the continent at an ever-faster pace, will become deadlier. They noted that the original plan of the Barcelona jihadists had been to destroy the Sagrada Família Cathedral and kill thousands of people. The specialists parroted that Europeans will just have to learn to live with the threat of widespread carnage. They did not offer any solutions. Once again, many said that terrorists are not really Muslims -- and that the attacks "had nothing to do with Islam".


Many leaders of Western European countries treat Islamic terrorism as a fact of life that Europeans must get used to -- as some kind of aberration unrelated to Islam. They often avoid speaking of "terrorism" at all. After the attack in Barcelona,?? German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a brief reproach about a "revolting" event. She expressed "solidarity" with the Spanish people, and then moved on. French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted a message of condolence and spoke of a "tragic attack."


Throughout Europe, expressions of anger are conscientiously marginalized. Calls for mobilization, or any serious change in immigration policy, come only from politicians scornfully described as "populist."


Even the slightest criticism of Islam immediately arouses almost unanimous indignation. In Western Europe, books on Islam that are widely available are written by people close to the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Tariq Ramadan. Books that are "politically incorrect" also exist, but are sold under the counter as if they are contraband. Islamic bookstores sell brochures calling for violence without even hiding what they do. Dozens of imams, similar to Abdelbaki Es Satty, the suspected mastermind of the attack in Barcelona, continue to preach with impunity; if they are arrested, they are quickly released.


Submission reigns. The discourse everywhere is that despite increasing threats, Europeans must live their lives as normally as possible. But Europeans see what threats exist. They see that life is not even slightly normal. They see policemen and soldiers in the streets, proliferating security checks, strict controls at the entrance of theaters and shops. They see insecurity everywhere. They are told just to ignore the source of the threats, but they know the source. They claim they are not afraid. Thousands in Barcelona shouted, "No tinc por" ("We are not afraid"). In fact, they are scared to death.


Polls show that Europeans are pessimistic, and think the future will be bleak. Polls also show that Europeans no longer have confidence in those who govern them, but feel they are left with no choice.


This shift in their lives has occurred in such a short time, less than half a century. Before then, in Western Europe, only a few thousand Muslims were present -- mostly immigrant workers from former European colonies. They were supposed to be in Europe temporarily, so were never asked to integrate.


They soon numbered hundreds of thousands, then millions. Their presence turned permanent. Many became citizens. Asking them to integrate grew unthinkable: most seemed to consider themselves Muslim first.


European leaders gave up defending their own civilization. They slipped into saying that all cultures should be viewed the same way. They appear to have given up.


School curricula were altered. Children were taught that Europe and the West had plundered the Muslim world -- not that the Muslims had, in fact, invaded and conquered the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa and the Middle East, most of Eastern Europe, Greece, Northern Cyprus, and Spain. Children were taught that Islamic civilization had been splendid and opulent before colonization supposedly came to ravage it.


Welfare states, established in the post-war period, began to create a large underclass of people permanently trapped in dependency, just when the number of Muslims in Europe redoubled.


Social-housing neighborhoods suddenly were Muslim neighborhoods. The rise in mass unemployment -- mainly affecting less qualified workers -- transformed Muslim neighborhoods into mass-unemployment neighborhoods.


Community organizers came to tell unemployed Muslims that after purportedly looting their countries of origin, Europeans had used Muslim workers to rebuild Europe and were now treating them as useless utensils.


Crime took root. Muslim neighborhoods became high-crime neighborhoods.


Extremist Muslim preachers arrived; they reinforced a hatred of Europe. They said that Muslims must remember who they are; that Islam must take its revenge. They explained to young, imprisoned Muslim criminals that violence could be used for a noble cause: jihad.


Police were ordered not to intervene lest they aggravate the tension. High-crime areas became no-go zones, breeding grounds for the recruitment of Islamic terrorists.


European leaders accepted the transformation of parts of their countries into enemy territories.


Riots took place; leaders made even more concessions. They passed laws restricting freedom of speech.


When Islamic terrorism first hit Europe, its leaders did not know what to do. They still do not know what to do. They are prisoners of a situation they created and cannot control anymore. They appear to feel helpless.


They cannot incriminate Islam: the laws they passed make it illegal to do that. In most European countries, even questioning Islam is branded as "Islamophobia". It leads to heavy fines, if not trials or prison time (as with Lars Hedegaard, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Geert Wilders or George Bensoussan). They cannot re-establish law and order in no-go zones: that would require the intervention of the army and a shift towards martial law. They cannot adopt the solutions proposed by parties they have pushed into opposition at the margins of European political life.


They cannot even close their borders, abolished in 1995 with the Schengen agreement. Re-establishing border controls would be costly and take time.


Europe"s leaders seem to have neither the will nor the means to oppose the incoming waves of millions of Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East. They know that terrorists are hiding among the migrants, but still do not vet them. Instead, they resort to subterfuges and lies. They create "deradicalization" programs that do not work: the "radicals," it seems, do not want to be "deradicalized."


Europe"s leaders try to define "radicalization" as a symptom of "mental illness"; they consider asking psychiatrists to solve the mess. Then, they talk about creating a "European Islam", totally different from the Islam elsewhere on Earth. They take on haughty postures to create the illusion of moral superiority, as Ada Colau and Carles Puigdemont did in Barcelona: they say they have high principles; that Barcelona will remain "open" to immigrants. Angela Merkel refuses to face the consequences of her policy to import countless migrants. She chastises countries in Central Europe that refuse to adopt her policies.


European leaders can see that a demographic disaster is taking place. They know that in two or three decades, Europe will be ruled by Islam. They try to anesthetize non-Muslim populations with dreams about an idyllic future that will never exist. They say that Europe will have to learn to live with terrorism, that there is nothing anyone can do about it.


But there is a lot they can do; they just do not want to -- it might cost them Muslim votes.


Winston Churchill told Neville Chamberlain, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, you will have war." The same is true today.


Ten years ago, describing what he called "the last days of Europe," the historian Walter Laqueur said that European civilization was dying and that only old monuments and museums would survive. His diagnosis was too optimistic. Old monuments and museums might well be blown up. Look nowhere else than what the black-hooded supporters of "Antifa" -- an "anti-fascist" movement that is totally fascistic -- are doing to statues in the United States.


Barcelona"s Sagrada Família Cathedral was spared only thanks to the clumsiness of a terrorist who did not know how to handle explosives. Other places may not be so fortunate.


The death of Europe will almost certainly be violent and painful: no one seems willing to stop it. Voters still could, but they will have to do it now, fast, before it is too late.

Friday, March 17, 2017

Turkish Foreign Minister: "Religious Wars Will Start Soon In Europe"

Turkey"s arch-nemesis - well, one of many -  Dutch politician Geert Wilders may have just suffered a major disappointment in his recent political career after yesterday"s Netherlands general election, but that did not mean that the diplomatic scandal between Turkey and the Netherlands has been put on hiatus; on the contrary: Turkey"s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu warned that Europe is headed for “wars of religion” and claiming Dutch politicians are taking the continent “to a cliff.”


Speaking at a rally in Antalya on Thursday, Cavusoglu assessed the outcome of the Dutch elections which saw a failure for the anti-Muslim, anti-EU Geert Wilders garnering a majority of the votes, after a campaign rallying for the closure of mosques and banning of the Koran.



However, instead of celebrating the defeat of the anti-Islam politician, and his defeated by Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s People"s Party for Freedom and Democracy, Cavusoglu warned that Wilders’ beliefs are shared by others across the Netherlands.


"Many parties have received a similar share of votes. Seventeen percent, 20 percent, there are lots of parties like this, but they are all the same," the Foreign Minister said adding “there is no difference between the mindsets of Geert Wilders and social democrats in the Netherlands. They all have the same mindset...that mindset is taking Europe to the cliff. Soon wars of religion may and will start in Europe,” Cavusoglu said, quoted by Reuters.


The comments come amid a bitter feud between the Netherlands and Turkey. Ankara suspended high-level relations with the European country on Monday, after it banned ministers from addressing Turks at a rally in Rotterdam, where they were expected to advocate for a constitutional referendum in Turkey. Following the ban, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused the Netherlands of acting like "fascists" and “Nazi remnants.”


Erdogan also accused the Netherlands of state terrorism and having a “rotten” character earlier this week, claiming the Dutch were responsible for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre during the Bosnian War. “We know how rotten their character is from their massacre of 8,000 Bosnians there. Nobody should try to give us lessons on morality, especially not those who have blood on their hands,” he said.


"Hey Rutte, you may have won the election as first party, but you have lost a friend like Turkey," Erdogan told flag-waving crowds at a pro-referendum rally in the northwestern province of Sakarya.


He also slammed the European Union for a ruling allowing companies to ban staff from wearing Islamic headscarves under certain conditions. "Shame on the EU," Erdogan said. "Down with your European principles, values and justice ... They started a clash between the cross and the crescent, there is no other explanation."


Erdogan is lobbying for 5.5 million expatriate Turks to vote ‘yes’ in an upcoming referendum which would give him sweeping new powers to issue decrees, declare emergency rule, appoint ministers and state officials, and dissolve parliament.


Critics say the move would be a step backwards for democracy, removing the system of checks and balances. Although a majority Muslim country, Turkey is officially secular and headscarves were banned for decades in the civil service and universities. Erdogan and the Islamist-rooted AK Party he founded fought to overturn those bans, which they see as discriminatory, and to bring religion into public life.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Angry Turks Protest Near Rotterdam Consulate As Dutch Embassy In Turkey Closed Off

Update 3: The Mayor of Rotterdam has issued an order to vacate the city"s center, where the Turkish protesters are situated



* * *


Update 2: Dutch authorities have arrested Turkey"s family minister and are deporting her to#Germany according to RTL. The escalation may lead to a spike by Turks in the Netherlands, with some speculating that a curfew is imminent:



Update: As expected, Gert Wilders has just chimed in, responding to the Turkish Family Minister who earlier in the day was barred by Dutch police from entering the Turkish consulate:



* * *


Hundreds of demonstrators waving Turkish flags gathered outside the Turkish consulate in the Dutch city of Rotterdam on Saturday night, demanding to see the Turkish minister for family affairs as a diplomatic scandal between the two countries escalated.





Earlier in the day, Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu was barred from flying into Rotterdam to participate in pro-Erdogan rallies, to which the Turkish president responded by calling the Dutch "fascists" and his NATO partner a Nazi remnant" as the scandal over Ankara campaigning among emigre Turkish voters, which has recently swept Germany, Switzerland and Austria, intensified.



The Dutch quickly responded:



In any case, as a protest built up by the Turkish consilate, the Police erected metal barriers and patrolled on horseback to keep the demonstrators away from the consulate as the crowd grew with more pro-Turkish protesters arriving from Germany, according to Reuters. A video released by a Turkish camera operator shows him being attacked by a police dog after he refused to leave the area in front of the consulate.




Turkish Family Minister Fatma Betul Sayan Kaya traveled by road to the Netherlands from neighboring Germany after the Dutch government revoked the landing rights for the plane carrying the foreign minister earlier on Saturday. Dutch TV footage showed police stopping the minister"s convoy near the Turkish consulate in Rotterdam and preventing her from entering the building.




The Dutch government said it did not want Turkish politicians campaigning among Turkish emigres in the Netherlands, leading President Tayyip Erdogan to brand the fellow NATO member a "Nazi remnant". The government also said it does not object to meetings in the Netherlands to give information about the Turkish referendum, "but these meetings should not add to tensions in our society and everybody who wants to organize a meeting must adhere to instructions from authorities so that public order and security can be guaranteed." It said the Turkish government "does not want to respect the rules in this matter."


Meanwhile, over in Turkey, the Dutch embassy and consulate in Turkey were closed off "for security reasons" on Saturday following the latest diplomatic scandal. The residences of the Dutch ambassador, charge d"affaires and consul general were also closed off, according to Reuters.


The Turkish Foreign Ministry said earlier in a statement that Ankara did not want “the Dutch ambassador, currently on leave, to return to his post for some time.”


“It has been explained to our counterparts that this grave decision taken against Turkey and the Dutch Turkish community will cause serious problems diplomatically, politically, economically and in other areas," the statement said, as cited by Reuters.


Turkey"s president Erdogan is expected to make a statement to the nation momentarily in response to the Dutch "provocation."


The unexpected escalation in tensions between the Netherlands and Turkey comes just three days ahead of the critical Dutch general election on March 15, in which the anti-immigration, anti-EU, Freedom Party of Geert Wilders is expected to emerge as the largest party. Today"s tensions may boost support for his platform which has seen a modest drop in public approval in recent days. A full preview of the Dutch General Election can be found here.

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Erdogan Calls Dutch "Fascists" After Turkish Foreign Minister Barred Entry

One week after Turkey president, and wannabe tyrant, Tayyip Erdogan launched a new diplomatic scandal when he accused Germany of "fascist actions" reminiscent of "Nazi practices" after various rallies organized by Turkish minister in Germany were cancelled ahead of an April referendum on granting Erdogan sweeping new presidential powers, he doubled down on Saturday after the Netherlands barred Turkey"s Foreign Minister from flying to Rotterdam, to which Erdogan responded by calling the Dutch "fascists" and his NATO partner a Nazi remnant" as the scandal over Ankara campaigning among emigre Turkish voters intensified.


"Listen Netherlands, you"ll jump once, you"ll jump twice, but my people will thwart your game," Erdogan said. "You can cancel our foreign minister"s flight as much as you want, but let"s see how your flights come to Turkey now. They don"t know diplomacy or politics. They are Nazi remnants. They are fascists."



Shortly after Erdogan"s comments, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan"s remark comparing the Dutch to the Nazis was "way out of line." 


"It"s a crazy remark of course," Rutte told journalists during campaigning for the March 15 election. "I understand they"re angry, but this of course was way out of line."


Rotterdam banned Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu from attending a Turkish rally in support of Erdogan"s drive for sweeping new powers, to be put to a referendum next month, Reuters reported.


Landing rights for the flight of Cavusoglu were withdrawn, the Dutch Foreign Ministry said Saturday in a statement. The government acted after an invitation to Turks to “participate in a public meeting” with Cavusoglu in Rotterdam put “public order and safety in jeopardy."


With Netherlands itself set to hold a national election on March 15, in which anti-immigration sentiment has played a prominent role with nationalist candidate Geert Wilders calling Erdogan a dictator, the Dutch have been especially careful how they tread vis-a-vis Turkey. However, today"s ban has prompted a lashing out which may well boost the recently deflated Wilders" anti-immigration campaign.


After being grounded, Cavusoglu said on Saturday morning he would fly to Rotterdam anyway and accused the Dutch of treating Turkish citizens in the country like "hostages".


"I sent them so they could contribute to your economy ... They"re not your captives," he told CNN Turk television.


"If my going will increase tensions, let it be. What damage will my going have on them? I am a foreign minister and I can go wherever I want," he said before the Dutch barred his flight.


Cavusoglu had threatened harsh economic and political sanctions if the Dutch refused him entry, a threat that proved decisive for the Netherlands government. According to Reuters, the Dutch cited public order and security concerns in withdrawing landing rights for Cavusoglu"s flight. But it said the sanctions threat made the search for a reasonable solution impossible.


Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte said that while the Netherlands and Turkey could search for "an acceptable solution", Turkey was not respecting the rules relating to public gatherings. "Many Dutch people with a Turkish background are authorized to vote in the referendum over the Turkish constitution. The Dutch government does not have any protest against gatherings in our country to inform them about it," he said on Facebook. "But these gatherings may not contribute to tensions in our society and everyone who wants to hold a gathering is obliged to follow instructions of those in authority so that public order and safety can be guaranteed," Rutte added.


In addition to Germany and the Netherlands, four other planned Turkish rallies in Austria and one in Switzerland have also been cancelled in the dispute. Chancellor Merkel, whose country Erdogan also compared last week with Nazi Germany, has said she will do everything possible to prevent any spillover of Turkish political tensions onto German soil.


Meanwhile, Cavusoglu said Turks in Germany were under systematic pressure from police and intelligence services.


The reason for the ongoing rallies which are alienating the already scandal-plagued Turkey from its (former) European allies is that Erdogan is looking to the large number of emigre Turks living in Europe, especially Germany and the Netherlands, to help clinch victory in next month"s referendum which will shape the future of a country whose location on the edge of the Middle East makes it of crucial strategic importance to NATO and explains why despite the ongoing diplomatic fallout, Western "leaders" have engaged in little more than polite diplomatic rebuttals.


Erdogan cited domestic threats from Kurdish and Islamist militants and a July coup bid as cause to vote "yes" to his new powers. But he has also drawn on the emotionally charged row with Europe to portray Turkey as betrayed by allies, facing wars on its southern borders and in need of strong leadership.


More importantly, Cavusoglu has made a veiled threat of possible realignment of Turkey in the world in a reference to Russia. "The Netherlands should stop this faulty understanding and approach...If they think Turkey will take whatever they do, that Turkey is gone. I told them this, stop this boss-like attitude. If Europe keeps this up, they will lose many places, including Russia and us.”


The scandal comes one day after Erdogan flew to Moscow for his latest summit with Vladimir Putin during which he said that "we can say with certainty that our countries have returned to the path of authentic multi-faceted partnership," Putin said at a news conference following expanded talks with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Moscow, to which Putin responded "I"d like to emphasize that we view Turkey as our key partner. We are ready to maintain active political dialogue at the highest level."

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Nexit Looms - Dutch Parliament To Debate Leaving The Eurozone

Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,


Potential Eurozone disruption possibilities keep compounding.


For example, the Netherlands Parliament will now debate leaving the Eurozone.


In long-winded wording for a potential “Nexit”, Reuters reports Dutch relations with euro up for debate after lawmakers commission probe





The Netherlands’ future relationship with the euro will be comprehensively debated by its parliament following elections in March after lawmakers commissioned a report on the currency’s future.



The motion approving the investigation by the Council of State, the government’s legal advisor, coincides with a rising tide of euroscepticism in Europe, which populist parties are hoping to tap into in a series of national elections this year also taking in eurozone powerhouses France and Germany.



The probe will examine whether it would be possible for the Dutch to withdraw from the single currency, and if so how, said lawmaker Pieter Omtzigt.



Omtzigt, of the opposition Christian Democrats, tabled the parliamentary motion calling for the investigation, which legislators passed unanimously late on Thursday.



It was prompted by concerns the ECB’s ultra-low interest rates are hurting Dutch savers, especially pensioners, and doubts as to whether its bond purchasing programs are legal, he said.



Its findings will be presented in several months, by which time the make-up of parliament will have changed dramatically.



While most Dutch voters say they favor retaining the euro, the eurosceptic far-right party of Geert Wilders is expected to book large gains though it is unlikely to win enough votes to form a government.



The most probable outcome of the March 15 vote is a new centrist coalition including some parties, such as Omtzigt’s Christian Democrats, that have been vocal in their opposition to current ECB policy.



“The problems with the euro have not been solved,” Omtzigt said. “This is a way for us to look at ways forward with no taboos.”



Analysis


Geert Wilders is likely to “win” the Dutch election. In this case, “win” means get more votes than any other political party.


However, the odds that Wilders can form a stable coalition with Wilders heading up the government is slim.


Netherlands Polls


dutch-elections-2017-02-24


The first line in the above table of Netherlands Polls is from the 2012 election, the rest of the lines are from February of this year.


History suggests those polls may be wildly inaccurate, but most of the parties ruled out a coalition with Wilders’ PVV.


In terms on “Nexit”, if Wilders can get 26% of the vote with another 24% agreeing, there just may be enough votes in parliament for the Netherlands to abandon the Euro, assuming the public would go along.


And "Nexit" odds are increasing...



h/t @Schuldensuehner

Monday, February 20, 2017

Holland's Wilders Slams "Moroccan Scum" As Paris Over-run By Antifa

Following the under-reported chaos in Paris this week, as muslims and Antifa took over the streets following allegations of police brutality, Holland"s outspoken anti-immigrant, anti-EU party leader Geert Wilders promised to crack down on "Moroccan scum" who he said were making the streets unsafe and urged the Dutch to "regain" their country as he launched his election campaign on Saturday.



Wilders was, as Reuters reports, surrounded by police and security guards during a walkabout in Spijkenisse, part of the ethnically diverse industrial area surrounding the vast port of Rotterdam and a stronghold of his Freedom Party.





"Not all are scum, but there is a lot of Moroccan scum in Holland who makes the streets unsafe," he told reporters, speaking in English.



"If you want to regain your country, if you want to make the Netherlands for the people of the Netherlands, your own home, again, then you can only vote for one party."



Crime by young Moroccans was not being taken seriously, added Wilders, who in December was convicted of inciting discrimination for leading supporters in a chant that they wanted "Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!" Moroccans in the country.



Wilders - who has lived in hiding since an Islamist murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 - pledges to ban Muslim immigration, close all mosques and take the Netherlands out of the European Union.



While muslims, Black Lives Matter (France), and ANTIFA have been waging a continuous battle on the streets of Paris for several years now, Wilders" comments this past week come after the riots have escalated, and many areas, particularly the 18th Arrondissement, have become no-go zones for citizens, police, and medical professionals. The excuse this time was the false allegation that a Muslim Youth had been gang raped by Police.



Wilders hopes a global upsurge in anti-establishment feeling that has already helped to propel Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency and to persuade Britons to vote to quit the European Union will propel him to power in the March 15 parliamentary election.


A win for Wilders would boost French far-right leader Marine Le Pen and the Alternative for Germany party, both hoping to transform European politics in elections this year.


"Despite all the hate and fear-mongering of the elite both in Britain and Brussels, people took their fate in their own hands," he said. "I think that will happen in Holland, in France, Austria and in Germany."


Wilders" party leads in opinion polls with 17 percent, a whisker ahead of the pro-business Liberals of Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Thursday, December 15, 2016

What Was Really Behind The Trial Of Geert Wilders?

Submitted by George Igler via The Gatestone Institute,


  • If Europeans are ever to stand a chance of unravelling the coils of laws constricting their throats, preventing their ability to speak out against the demographic redrawing of their countries or any other potential danger they may note, it may prove helpful understanding how this slow strangulation took shape.

  • Although the gross unfairness of Geert Wilders"s prosecution is clear when compared with other Dutch politicians who have articulated far worse, there is also compelling evidence that much that is preached from the Koran in mosques daily would clearly fall under such a definition of hate speech -- also remaining curiously outside the attention of public prosecutors.

  • Are not elected Member of Parliament even more responsible to for the safety of the public than are other citizens? If elected officials are criminalized for speaking out, at what point do such restrictions start posing a national security problem?

  • How are ordinary, decent, native Europeans ever likely socially and politically to articulate how they never consented to being part of a "grand experiment," without incurring the stain of bigotry accompanying this reasonable assertion, from friends and co-workers alike?

  • Would it not be a remarkable irony if, instead of burying Wilders, as the conviction seemed intended to do, it propelled him instead to victory?

Much has been made of the 2016 populist revolt in the West, beginning with Britain"s June 23 decision to leave the European Union, and culminating with the victory of president-elect Donald Trump on November 8. The narrative of change is understandably seductive, but has recently been dealt successive blows by the domestic circumstances that so characterize European politics.


Despite traditions of liberty being placed at the heart of the successful Trump campaign, the promise of a new economic approach also enabled him to cross the line on election day.


The Brexit vote similarly took place under a referendum that allowed Britain"s voting populace to defy the stated preference of the majority of their elected parliamentarians.


The most disturbing recent development on the European continent, however, was Friday"s conviction of Geert Wilders on two charges, "inciting discrimination and insulting a minority group," for asking supporters whether they wanted "fewer Moroccans" in the Netherlands, at a small public rally in a bar in The Hague, on March 19, 2014.



Geert Wilders during his March 2014 speech, where he asked "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?" (Image source: nos.nl video screenshot)


This "hate speech" case against Wilders similarly pits popular alarm over the consequences of mass migration plus a principled politician who for years -- in the face of threats against his life, has agitated for genuine change -- against an untrustworthy, politicized legal system which appears at odds with both Wilders and popular alarm. Several Dutch Labour Party politicians, who said far more damaging things about Moroccans than Wilders did, yet were never prosecuted:


  • "We also have sh*t Moroccans over here." -- Rob Oudkerk, a Dutch Labour Party (PvDA) politician.

  • "We must humiliate Moroccans." -- Hans Spekman, PvDA politician.

  • "Moroccans have the ethnic monopoly on trouble-making." -- Diederik Samsom, PvDA politician.

Although Wilders"s trial clearly appears an orchestrated miscarriage of justice, it is arguably not helpful to view the basis for his prosecution through an absolutist defense of freedom of speech, intuitively understandable to Americans. No constitutional equivalent of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech, exists in Europe.


This right, however, even in the U.S. is somewhat qualified, as laid out in Brandenberg vs. Ohio, but none of those exceptions would apply to Wilders (imminent danger and individual personalization). Under the strictures of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), freedom of expression is a "qualified" right in much broader terms -- from which "left-wing" members of the Dutch Labour Party issuing the far more objectionable statements quoted above are apparently excluded: "the state may lawfully interfere with the right to freedom of expression in certain defined and limited circumstances."[1]


The arguments qualifying the conviction of Wilders, in the courtroom of the military base at Schiphol Airport, according to the presiding jurist Hendrik Steenhuis, were that the PVV leader"s comments were "unworthy" of an elected member of parliament -- as Judge Steenhuis denied any assertion that the trial was politically motivated. Yet, are not elected Members of Parliament even more responsible to for the safety of the public than are other citizens? If elected officials are criminalized for speaking out, at what point do such restrictions start posing a national security problem?


Submitting to the questionable tenets of the ECHR, however, is a condition of EU membership. Dutch prosecutors expressed themselves "very satisfied" with the verdict, a spokeswoman adding, "the standard is set."


If Europeans are ever to stand a chance of unravelling the coils of laws constricting their throats, preventing their ability to speak out against the demographic redrawing of their countries or any other potential danger they may note, it may prove helpful understanding how this slow strangulation took shape.


The most compelling defense of hate speech laws was articulated by Prof. Jeremy Waldron, in 2012, who took issue with those believing that, "the bigoted invective that defiles our public environment, should be of no concern of the law."[2]


In a passage dedicated to expressions of opposition to Muslim immigration, in The Harm in Hate Speech, the NYU School of Law professor questioned those who maintain that:





There is nothing to be regulated here, nothing for the law to concern itself with, nothing that a good society should use its legislative apparatus to suppress or disown. The people who are targeted should just learn to live with it.



He counters:





...there is a sort of public good of inclusiveness that our society sponsors and that it is committed to. We are diverse ... And we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences. ... And each person, each member of each group, should be able to go about his or her business, with the assurance that there will be no need to face hostility, violence, discrimination, or exclusion by others.



This sense of security in the space we all inhabit is a public good ... Hate speech undermines this public good, or it makes the task of sustaining it much more difficult than it would otherwise be.



Although the gross unfairness of Geert Wilders"s prosecution is clear when compared with other Dutch politicians who have articulated far worse, there is also compelling evidence that much that is preached from the Koran in mosques daily would clearly fall under such a definition of "hate speech" -- also remaining curiously outside the attention of public prosecutors.


Given that "hate speech" damages the maintenance of dignity between groups and public safety, can a compelling case therefore not be made that "hate speech" laws mandated by the European Union are doing considerably more harm than good?


Is it not high time that lawmakers grasp how mass Muslim immigration, and the importation of the sectarianism unfortunately inherent in Islamic doctrine, undermine even more significantly these noble principles of "public good"?


How exactly are the terrorism, rape and crime waves that have accompanied such migration into Europe, likely to be addressed by the democratic process -- within the confines of such originally benign legislation -- when across the continent fundamental notions of security are already being so comprehensively undermined?


How are ordinary, decent, native Europeans ever likely socially and politically to articulate how they never consented to being part of a "grand experiment," without incurring the stain of bigotry accompanying this reasonable assertion, from friends and co-workers alike?


Are loyal citizens being cowed into silence, as in the world"s most totalitarian nations, by prosecutions that can justifiably be seen as "making an example" of those who fail to toe whatever is the current political line?


More sinisterly, with three months until the polls open in the Netherlands, the verdict against Wilders may have had little to do with either incitement or "hate speech," and everything to do with a desire to curtail precisely the sort of public rallies which were hallmarks of both victories led by Nigel Farage in Great Britain and Donald Trump in the United States.


It is precisely these kind of public gatherings that do so much to convince those with entirely legitimate grievances that they are not alone.


Would it not be a remarkable irony if, rather than burying Wilders as the trial seemed intended to do, it instead propels him to victory?