Monday, October 04, 2010

Geert Wilders is on trial for us all

It is unfortunate that the opening day of the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham should be so comprehensively upstaged by the trial of the century. Of course, this blog like all the others could hail Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare revolution and the importance of being ‘Together in the National Interest’.

But liberty is rather more important than welfare.

And togetherness in the national interest is not simply a fiscal policy for the economic objective of sustaining the nation’s AAA credit rating, but a spiritual commitment for the political objective of sustaining the peace and security of the realm.

How can we coexist ‘together’ when our fundamental freedoms borne of religious strife are being systematically eroded in order that future strife may be prevented now?

The Conservative Party is focusing on empowering communities because the sense of political community is intrinsic to people’s sense of the need for social community. This is part of the ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ agenda. Community is a fundamental human good because commitments and values are shared; the good life demands participation in a political community, and this requires communal participation in a political organisation of the widest scope, such as the nation state.

‘Together in the national interest’ is not possible without a commitment to shared values.

Today, the ‘anti-Islamist’ Dutch MP Geert Wilders goes on trial in Amsterdam ‘on charges of inciting racial hatred against Muslims’.

That is the BBC’s cursory and casual mention of the event.

It is a curious juxtaposition, for which of us is not anti-Islamist?

What is this racial law which can now be used to protect a religio-political system from criticism?

The irony is that Geert Wilders has fast become the most popular politician in the Netherlands, and is about to enter a coalition government. His fame has spread far beyond his national confines of clogs, bulbs and dykes: indeed, if there were elections to the office of President of Europe, Mr Wilders would undoubtedly be in the running. Following last June’s election, his Party for Freedom (PVV) became the third largest group in the Dutch parliament with 24 members. His policies are popular; his concerns resonate. Yet, if found guilty, he faces years in prison and a considerable fine.

Mr Wilders is on trial for allegedly ‘inciting hatred and discrimination’ against Muslims, including calling Islam ‘fascist’ and likening Mohammed’s Qur’an to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. The prosecution adduces Mr Wilders’ short film Fitna as evidence.

As a result of this, he was refused entry to the UK last year by the Labour government, despite having committed no crime and despite having been invited by two British parliamentarians to screen his film in the House of Lords.

Mr Wilders naturally denies the charges against him, insisting that Islam represents a serious threat to democracy. His lawyers have demanded that academics and other experts who are critical of Islam might be permitted to testify at the trial in order to support his proposition.

It is not yet clear that he will be permitted to do this. The last thing the court will want is for Geert Wilders to turn a trial on allegations against him into a trial against the nature of Islam itself.

Yet if he is not even to be granted the freedom to make his case in his own defence, we have surrendered a sacred principle of our liberty. When a politician sounds the trumpet to warn a continent of the incursion of an antithetical ideology and an oppressive power, it is ironic indeed that he should be silenced not by that alien ideology or foreign power, but by the very agencies of government he seeks to guard and of which he is part.

It is not speech itself we stand to lose, but the freedom to articulate in our speech those thoughts or expressions which others might find offensive, whether or not any offence was intended.

If he loses, Geert Wilders faces a little impoverishment and a few years imprisonment.

But if he loses, Western civilisation itself will be impoverished as we are all confined by the diminution of our liberty.

One may not agree with an awful lot of what Mr Wilders says, but putting him on trial in order to silence and censor is no substitute for free debate and discussion. He has beliefs and opinions; he is entitled to them. He expresses thoughts and ideas; he should be free to do so, as long as he does not engage in violence or incitement.

If one can no longer be of the opinion that Islam is a backward religion, or that Mohammad was a criminal, or if one may not defame the Qur'an by placing it on the bottom shelf of a public library, or purchase meat which is not halal, or draw cartoons of the Prophet or put him on television, film or stage without being threatened or brutally murdered, then one is probably living in an Islamic country.

Geert Wilders is defending the liberties of us all.


Anonymous martin sewell said...


4 October 2010 at 10:15  
Anonymous len said...

Will Truth be sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness? If Geert Wilders is found guilty it will expose the absolute hypocrisy of the Legal System.
For this trial ,in effect will put the Qura`n in the 'dock'along with Geert Wilders.

4 October 2010 at 10:44  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

For once Cranmer I can endorse your comments 100%.

His trial should indeed be front page news and of concern to all who care about freedom. He had wanted convicted Dutch Islamic terrorists to give evidence but this was not allowed. There is the same fear of Islam in Holland as there is here, both the political establishment and it seems the Dutch judiciary have taken the line of appeasement and we all know where that leads.

Fitna is a powerful film that juxtaposes images of atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists with verses from the Koran that explicitly sanction them.

It was a disgrace that Wilders (a sitting MP in a EU country) should have been banned from entering this country last year because so called Islamic community leaders threatened 10,000 protesters. I hope that the coalition has more spine than the previous supine administration.

4 October 2010 at 11:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Our country’s religious values have emerged from religious and political strife establishing democracy (Magna Carta (1215); the defeat of the doctrine of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’; the 1688 Bill of Rights). For example, all men are equal before the law emerged from all men are created in the image of God.

All British governments desire the Social Peace and so do the British people.

But in order to have the Social Peace there needs to be a consensus about shared values; for if there is no consensus then future strife cannot be prevented.

One example about the Social Peace illustrates the desire for shared values: youth putting its feet on bus seats to the anger of morally motivated passengers mindful of the elderly.

The Conservative Party can focus on ‘Together in the national interest’ but it cannot deliver. This is because there are in effect two governments in Britain implementing through legislation values that are hostile to the values that have been passed down to us by our fathers: the federal government (the EU) instructs the second government (the British) what values to enforce (for the sake of ‘ever closer union’ an objective unlikely to be obtained without coercion).

Hence the systematic erosion of traditional values through the implementation of EU Directives ensures the atomisation of society. This splintering of society is unlikely to lead to people seeing themselves as ‘European’. Instead society will fracture on the basis of class, race, religious and regional social reference-markers (as in Belgium and the Netherlands).

Each national government is faced with a dilemma: on the one hand to maintain a reasonable degree of freedom of speech and on the other to prevent social disintegration through conflict between groups (this approach assumes all thought is of equal value and should be accorded equal status).

In the past the decision as to where to strike the balance was relatively easy: the strike would be within the centre of the framework of a country’s traditional values as each society was largely homogenous and confident in its Judaeo-Christian values.

With the collapse of that confidence a new set of values was required to fill the vacuum; that set of values is humanistic (not to be confused with humanitarian) in nature. When one studies the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights one is struck by its humanistic values (for example, the reintroduction of the death penalty for riot and the prohibition on criticising the ‘rights’ it contains).

Given that humanism has no authority other than ‘because we say so’ and ‘we are in a position to enforce our values’ (calling the British constitution’s bluff (Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair, for example)); therefore, it is not considered an intellectual and ethical difficulty (by the Dutch liberal elite) that ‘he should be silenced not by that alien ideology or foreign power, but by the very agencies of government he seeks to guard and of which he is a part.’

Humanism puts not all men at the centre of the universe: it puts some men at the centre and the rest on the periphery.

All men cannot be equal before Humanism.

4 October 2010 at 12:14  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Bless you, Your Grace. I’d like to quote from the speech Mr Wilders made when he was finally allowed to visit Britain in March of this year:

❛First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.

Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don’t be afraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.

Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.❜

4 October 2010 at 12:16  
Blogger Preacher said...

As Edmund Burke said "For evil to triumph all it takes is for good men to do nothing". It's sinister that those elected to protect the people are now prosecuting those that exercise the rights of free speech. Whether one agrees with Geert Wilders or not is surely a matter of ones own conscience & not a matter for prosecution by the state.
The persecution of Christians continues unabated in Islamic countries without a voice raised in protest. Persecution that often leads to maiming & murder, yet the perpetrators walk free. Where is the right to choose ones faith or disbelief in these countries? Yet in the West to voice ones opinions is apparently a crime.
Holland the World is watching. Tread carefully not fearfully!

4 October 2010 at 12:16  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

D Singh

I think you will find that the Conservative Govt is prepared to go rather further than the EU in supporting Islamists.

If you want proof of Hague’s stinking hypocrisy you might wish to look here

4 October 2010 at 12:56  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Mr Singh

I agree that a cohesive society requires shared values. I disagree about the primary source of those values or the necessity for religious faith to inform them. However this country does have a distinctive set of values that other nations admire and respect as well as general characteristics like a sense of humour, a sense of fairness and tolerance. We also have an uncorrupted legal system and (until recently) a strong defence of the freedom of speech. So we should not be shy of asserting the superiority of those values as compared with other value systems like those associated with Islam.

My personal experience is that most of those values still exist amongst the population at large. The have been changes over the last 60 years but not sufficient to say that the British people are fundamentally different.

Finally your understanding of humanism if flawed, far from putting us at the centre of the universe it sees us simply another species but as the dominant one with special responsibility for the others.

4 October 2010 at 12:57  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Oh, your back? Welcome back then.

Seems you were back a little while ago but I was dealing with family matters and so off the radar.

Agree with the comments on this 100%.

4 October 2010 at 13:13  
Anonymous william hague's conscience said...

If only all Islamists were like our latest business partner

4 October 2010 at 13:25  
Anonymous JayBee said...

Most western mainstream politicians seem to be in the grip of some collective madness regarding Islamification. Are they blind to Islamic imperialist intentions, beguiled by its culture, beholden to its grip on oil reserves and seduced by its anti-Semitic/anti-Christian values or are they simply afraid of it?

There is indeed much more at stake here than the freedom of one man. Freedom to speak, freedom to believe, freedom to associate, freedom to think, and ultimately freedom to exist.

Liberty is in the dock and God help us all if it goes down.

4 October 2010 at 13:34  
Anonymous Michal said...

Despite being always wary of religious strife, I believe Geert Wilders ought to be free to express his views precisely for the reasons lined up in this thoughtful article. I appreciated this blog post, because I think there's some truth to it, when it's said that Islam is receiving disproportionately little criticism when compared to Christianity.

4 October 2010 at 13:42  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Your Grace, according to this source, Mr Wilders is being prosecuted under Articles 137d and 137c of the Dutch Penal Code.

Article 137d
He who publicly, verbally or in writing or in an image, incites hatred against or discrimination of people or violent behaviour against person or property of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their gender or hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.

Article 137c
He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.

In March, 2009, the European Union published its Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia, which calls for ‘racist and xenophobic behaviour’ to constitute an offence in all member states. Racist and xenophobic behaviour, to be punished as a crime, includes:

❛Public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin.❜

At precisely the time when Islam is becoming more and more entrenched in Europe, and at precisely the time when politicians like Geert Wilders, Jimmie Åkesson (and, dare I say it, Nick Griffin) should be free to speak their minds, the European establishment—the Conservative Party included—is moving to shut down free speech.

4 October 2010 at 14:03  
Anonymous Caedmon's Cat said...

Those of the elite's social engineering technicians who tinker about with Islam and favour it at the expense of other religions/ideologies are playing with fire. One extreme are trying to use another for their nefarious purposes; it'll end in tears..

4 October 2010 at 14:04  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Surely Mr Wilders must know that criticism of Islam is "fruitless." I think he should be told . . .

But being serious for a minute, I think it may be wrong to suggest that Western freedoms will be lessened if Wilders goes to prison. Another possibility is that there will be such a backlash, leading to the opposite effect. This never seems to occur to the dimwits who bring about these cases.

4 October 2010 at 14:10  
Anonymous i albion said...

Yes and if it does end in tears it wont be the bastard elite who will suffer.

4 October 2010 at 14:16  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

YG, I agree entirely with your posting. I have long admired Geert Wilders for his commonsense and his courage. I wish him well in his battles with the anti-democtatic and anti-Christian European Union - for I believe that this prosecution is being promoted by the evil powers that purport to rule us; the EU.
If the EU elite had any sense of loyalty to our common European history they would begin to reduce the numbers of muslims living amongst us; and start by forbidding the building of any more mosques, which would be a clearly understood line being drawn in the sand for these usurpers.

4 October 2010 at 14:29  
Anonymous len said...

When free speech is silenced tyranny is given free rein.This is the whole objective of Political Correctness which is to control speech, expression of ideas and value systems.

Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
(George Orwell )

4 October 2010 at 15:42  
Anonymous Hamza Jennings said...

This man is totally ignorant of the facts relating to Islam and is very dangerous indeed.

The Nazis held similar unfounded views regarding Jews in Germany and look what happened.

If i were to speak about Jews and Judaism the way Wilders speaks about Muslims and Islam then i would be called anti-Semitic...

Why he isn’t called anti-Semitic anyway baffles me...

oh yeah, even though Arabs are semite people insulting them is ok isn't it?

4 October 2010 at 16:07  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

All true but the appeasement will continue sure enough. It's a great shame and I have no idea what the answer is.

Now, what's for tea?

4 October 2010 at 16:08  
Anonymous Hola Hamza said...

The Nazis held similar unfounded views regarding Jews in Germany and look what happened.


I don't recall Jews blowing up their fellow citizens, ramming car bombs into airports, ramming planes into skyscrapers, suicide bombing passenger trains, forcing their dietary laws on the general populace, building mega synagogues, plotting to overthrow democracy, or burning bonfires of books they disliked.

And while persecution of the Jews certainly was unfounded, anti-semitism is today promoted most vehemently by a wide range of Islamic leaders, from Qaradawi to Sheikh Nasrallah.

4 October 2010 at 16:39  

"But if he loses, Western civilisation itself will be impoverished as we are all confined by the diminution of our liberty."

Western civilisation is already very impoverished as witnessed by the increasing frequency of arbitrary detainement (mainly of Christians), for motives of political correctness. Consider the case of Melissa Busekros. A few years ago, German authorities sent 15 uniformed police officers to take custody of 15-year-old Ms Busekros who had committed the crime of being homeschooled in mathematics and Latin. Officials had her committed to a psychiatric ward, claiming that she exhibited "school phobia." She was later moved to a foster home and to a different mental hospital without her parents' knowledge and forbidden from revealing her location to them. The foster family didn't want Melissa because she did not "fit." They were bothered by her reading French. The government also threatened to remove the other five children in order to "resolve" the situation.

4 October 2010 at 16:42  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Douglas Murray at the Centre for Social Cohesion keeps a close eye on Islamist issues and it is worth signing up to their newsletter.

4 October 2010 at 17:11  
Blogger Oswin said...

Hamza Jennings @ 16.07

Not only are you wrong, but you are wrong at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

Well done, it is not given to everyone to be such an arse!

4 October 2010 at 17:27  

And here is an example of: Freedom of expression in the UK?

4 October 2010 at 17:30  
Blogger Oswin said...

Oh I forgot: I AM Geert Wilders!

4 October 2010 at 17:33  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Good Luck Geert, you are going to need it as you are up against the establishment from Hell.

4 October 2010 at 17:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No. I'm Geert Wilders!

4 October 2010 at 17:45  
Blogger Preacher said...

C.S.P.D @ 16.42
Thanks for the report. Same old Marxist plot for World rule, but this time no tanks or guns, just the stench of corrupt politics or maybe it's a whiff of sulphur from the pit.
I know a christian brother who suffered the same persecution in the USSR some years ago.
Thank the Lord for Dr Cranmers return to shine the light in the dark corners & make the roaches run.

4 October 2010 at 18:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are many muslims who are good people - but that usually means that they are not good muslims.

Why are islamists thought to object to being compared to nazis? They probably think it a compliment. They have a high regard for Adolf - they think he had the right ideas. But they regard him as rather a lily-livered liberal because he didn't go far enough.

4 October 2010 at 18:59  
Anonymous Descartes said...

I think therefore I am Geert Wilders!

4 October 2010 at 19:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I applaud you for raising this subject.

Firstly, because this case is a farce. How can one be on trial for racism when one is speaking against ideology?

Secondly, thank you for allowing this opportunity for people to voice their opinion on this issue. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, it would appear they don't want people to have their say, in case it becomes clear, Wilders has a great deal of support from a lot of people...and the powers that be, are frightened of this becoming too public....too late, it is being discussed across the world anyway.

4 October 2010 at 19:52  
Anonymous Sam Vega said...

Your Grace, you are right, and I am also Geert Wilders.

4 October 2010 at 20:21  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Perhaps some people are forgetting what a disgusting low life Wilders is. He belives in banning the Qu'ran and other books; he is against equality befor the law; he believes in giving some religions higher status than others (despite being an atheist himself); he wants the introduction of detention without trial in Holland; he believes the main aim of Dutch foreign policy should be the eradication of Islam and he would like to impose a 2000 Euro a year tax on wearing headscarves (not just burquas).

That said, however disgusting his views, freedom means that he should in nearly all circumstances be allowed to express them. However, I notice that Cranmer also believes that there should be a proviso regarding incitement (as well as violence on which nearly everyone would agree). Given that Wilders is being tried for incitement of racial hatred perhaps he should explain in more detail what he regards as acceptable and unacceptable incitement - or does he only mean incitement to do things in which he doesn't believe should be subject to restriction? Offending and incitement are two different things.

Also, I think perhaps we need to be a little careful regarding imposing of what acceptable and unacceptable incitement are on the Dutch. The Dutch who had rather more direct experience of Nazism might have a slightly different view than we would, especially given the similarities of many of Wilder's proposals to those of the Nazis.

4 October 2010 at 20:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis:
**However this country does have a distinctive set of values that other nations admire and respect as well as general characteristics like a sense of humour, a sense of fairness and tolerance.**

Well yes Mr. Davis, unless one is Irish, in which case you and yours are regarded as not only historically and culturally ignorant but humourless and full of yourselves. My God, I'm sick of hearing Englishmen tell of how fair and tolerant they are, and how the rest of the world loves them for it.

4 October 2010 at 21:24  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

I guess it's a universal conceit. Every country thinks that they're bloody marvellous, with the possible exception of Zimbabwe.

Well I for one am happy to apologise for everything we did to the Irish. I know it's a long list. I'm sorry.

I think this sort of national chauvinism is unhelpful, and just one of the areas where Wilders goes wrong.

4 October 2010 at 21:37  
Anonymous non mouse said...

I am Geert Wilders! [And I would have been Johnny Cash!! - ]

4 October 2010 at 22:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All the people who are prepared to apologise for the rest of us - presumably you're new-fangled Anglo-Norman aristocrats? You can't be Celts who've taken our share of trouble from the other Celts - over the millennia.. now can you?

4 October 2010 at 22:34  
Blogger Oswin said...

I like all these apologists ... they'll all be ahead of me in the queue; if the Islamists ever take over!

4 October 2010 at 23:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please see the full statement Geert Wilders made in court today here:

(includes English subtitles)

5 October 2010 at 00:46  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace makes some useful points respectfully and rather surprised at Graham Davies view although he would more than the reasoned discussions he has on here if he posted on an Islamic website.

My thoughts are a little unusal on this in part becuase of the sermon I listend to on sunday , which was about the church (as in the buildings) not really being where the authentic message of christ is located , and it is the love within that is the true power .

My earlier thoughts on pantheism being run by athiests also plays .

I have held the position for a number of years now that we have not really understood just how differnet culturally Islam is , and yet to use non civic langauge has recently been enshrined in law as incitement .
It is perhaps a good example of where a law can become a form of tax or perhaps even a sort of gagging order , the law by making humanity the basic element of civic life instantly requires a modern attitude , this being the end of "them and us" and replaces it with "us and different" . This perhaps is its self an athiest position or equation.

The trouble I have is not so much with the new guilt I am supposed to feel for my own bias , but that as a christian I cannot "proclaim" my gospel as the good news or indeed the best news. I have mentioned to others that I feared the consequences of undoing or trying to erase even and how so much of our culture is originated from christianity. I point them to islamic countries , where women dont drive , courts do not consider a female plantiffs evidence equal to the males and the proscribing of foods or drinks is law and moral but not the barbaric death of sibling who has offended family honour.
And yet they somehow think that Islam is just some sort of differnt dress or meal rather than mind.

Mr wilders sees the nationalist perspective and clearly the shooting/murder of Van cough the film director is not a deadly sin under Islam .we have of course have had the july bombers.

I have a feeling that the legislators have made an automatom judge who is uanble to comprehend the fear of loss of freedom as understood by a homogenius group who have explained there life through christ , and this judge cannot think beyond equality .

It is troubling as I can only see a nationalist outcome in order to stop an encroachment by a religion that is not only just differnet but shows no signs of enlightenment or receeding in numerical threat .
Mr wilders is perhaps doing somthing quite natural within a language group when faced with a potential cultural exchange or subversion .
I have heard some socialists start to see the matter differently , as they realise Islam isnt socialist and yet it is these same people who have enforced the change upon all in there vison of eutopia.

Whether Mr wilders is found innocent or guilty I doubt will affect the future , for even if venerated or fined , a bigger mutual crime has been committed which I doubt will be able to laughed off as mere oversight.

5 October 2010 at 01:31  
Anonymous The Observer said...

I'm Geert Wilders and I say damn the dutch for tyranny in Java. And I love the Englishmen. O stupid me.

5 October 2010 at 04:00  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Wilders was in Berlin last weekend expressing disdain for Merkel who had told Germans they should get used to seeing more mosques in German cities.

Just who is the firebrand ?

This trial is a farce. Wilders has called on the Presiding Judge to recuse himself for behaving like Roland Freisler of the Volksgerichtshof

5 October 2010 at 06:53  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

A very good article,but i am suprized that you think freedom is now under threat regarding speech crime,whereas when the dreaded griffin was on trial,although only a feeble shadow of geert,our rights were perfectly secure and there was no question of diminution of freedom,just the desire to put the boot up a nazi,who has been saying the same things as long,if not longer than geert,and many others have voiced the same opinions regarding the idiology of"i kill you"but are dismissed as nazi nutters because they come to close to the truth for our masters comfort and greed for "power".where were you all when the free speech rally was held in trafalgar square and less than five hundred people could be bothered to get of thier arses to attend?We must support our freedom ,support geert,support our culture which is vastly superiour to retarded islam,not with any more words,they have all been said,but action.

5 October 2010 at 09:11  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Wilders would get my vote.

5 October 2010 at 13:21  
Blogger Ir'Rational said...

Your Grace
I have, unusually (and I exempt Your Grace's communicants) actually watched Fitna. If the mere juxtaposition of images in left as opposed to right screens can be interpreted as .......
Words fail me.

6 October 2010 at 22:57  
Blogger Soothsayer said...

In a democracy freedom of expression/speech is one of it's most vital principles. Britain is not really a democracy, it is large party dictatorship. There has never been a referendum on issues of national importance, such as on EU membership or on immigration. The only trials that should take place in a democracy are criminal trials. If political comment is classified as criminal activity then we shall all be in trouble. The trial against Nick Griffin is a political trial.

7 October 2010 at 18:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm totally behind Geert Wilders. He's a modern-day hero for the West.

9 October 2010 at 12:28  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older