Dutch MP Wilders Prosecuted For Criticizing Radical Muslims Under "Hate Crime" Statutes


Similar Legislation In The U.S. On Near Horizon

By WILLIAM MAYER and BEILA RABINOWITZ

January 22, 2009 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - A Dutch court has ordered the prosecution of Dutch MP Geert Wilders [Party for Freedom] for making "anti Islamic" statements. [view decision, http://rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Amsterdam+Court+of+Appeal+orders+the+criminal+prosecution+of+the+Member+of+Parliament+of+the+Dutch+S.htm]

Wilders, a long-time critic of the radical Muslim jihad taking place in the Netherlands, last year produced a short film, Fitna, which seems to have been the main motivator behind the court's action, which is being advanced despite a contrary decision issued only last summer.

Wilders stated that we was "shaken" by the ruling.

Wilders is being prosecuted under Dutch "hate speech" laws and could face a very long sentence if he is found guilty.

Holland's regulations mimic similar legislation throughout Europe which have served to give governments the supreme prosecutorial tool; the ability to criminalize thought.

Though these strictures ostensibly grew out of the Nazi experience and the desire to prevent its recurrence, the blindness of dealing with such a complex phenomenon with reflexive legislation can't be underestimated. The supreme irony here is that the Islamists - many of whom are in large part in league ideologically with the Nazi fascists who preceded them - have now successfully used these laws to muzzle their critics such as Mr. Wilders.

The prospect of being jailed simply for speaking out about Europe's increasingly radical Muslim minority presents a daunting challenge in the struggle between civilization and barbarism.

The foundation for these laws is "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" [adopted post-Nuremberg in 1948] which became the foundation upon which all of Europe's anti-hate laws draw their sustenance.

As legal scholar Jieskje Hollander observed [when commenting on the specifics of article 10(2) of this legislation] though the UDHR generally recognized free speech, it was quantified and restrained free speech.

Genuine, unrestricted freedom of expression was not similarly protected.

"This paragraph gives us a range of reasons for which the right to freedom of speech can and should be restrained. The right to express oneself freely comes with certain special duties and responsibilities...If speech is used recklessly or with malicious intent it will threaten the security of society in various ways, it will threaten the constitutional state and it will harm the individual." [see, Hate Speech, a Historical Inquiry into its Legal Status, Jieskje Hollander, p. 31]

This duality leaves Holland and Europe in the grasp of an irreducible nexus, defining free speech in such a manner as to suppress it.

About the prosecution Wilders has written, "I stand accused not alone but with hundreds of thousands of Dutchmen who reject the Islamization of the Netherlands...I consider this a black day." [source, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057514.html]

Though this development is indeed a black day, it is by no means the first, with various political iconoclasts, not the least of which was Italian writer Oriana Fallaci whose criticism of radical Islam post 9/11 resulted in her having to go into hiding and eventually fleeing the Continent after being prosecuted under "hate crime" statutes. Efforts to institute similar rules in the United States have been largely rebuffed but there is still considerable support for them, largely among national Democrat legislators codified in the Matthew Sheppard act, which passed the House on May 3, 2007 by a vote of 237 to 180 and the Senate two months later on a similarly partisan tally.

Facing what seemed a sure veto by president George W. Bush and a firestorm of criticism by conservative grassroots organizations, the legislation was dropped after various legislative tactics [attaching it to a defense appropriations act for example] were tried.

An additional sobering fact regarding that legislation was that 31 out of 50 state attorneys general supported the bill.

As events play out in Holland the rest of the Western world must note how such laws can be used by its most committed enemies to advance the stealth jihad which will be greatly empowered if this prosecution is ultimately successful.

Given the ideological composition of the new administration, efforts to resurrect and enact these anti-First Amendment draconian schemes can't be that far off.

1999-2009 PipeLineNews.org LLC, William Mayer, Beila Rabinowitz. All rights reserved.