Thursday, June 23, 2011

Geert Wilders verdict: INNOCENT


The implications will be seismic: the effects of this verdict will reverberate around the Netherlands, Benelux, the EU, Europe and all the world. Geert Wilders had never planted a bomb or fired a bullet: he is a democratically-elected politician who has written articles, delivered speeches and made a film (Fitna) which describes Islam as ‘fascist’ and compares the Qur’an to Hitler's Mein Kampf. Since Hitler’s tome is banned in the Netherlands, Wilders called for consistency in the application of Dutch law and so the banning of Mohammed’s. Both, he argues, incite violence and propagate hatred, and so both should be treated equally.

He has always insisted that his remarks on Islam were part of a legitimate political debate about the very survival of Christian Europe in a context of mass Muslim immigration and the ascent of cultural relativism. And the Courts have agreed: Geert Wilders may speak about such things openly, and so may we all. At last it is established that it is not a criminal offence to offend a group of people about their theology.

And not just theology, but political theology.

Geert Wilders wrote in 2006:
A moderate Islam does not exist. It does not exist because there is no distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam. There is Islam and that is it. And Islam means the Quran and nothing but the Quran. And the Quran is the Mein Kampf of a religion that intends to eliminate others and that refers to those others – non-Muslims – as unfaithful dogs, inferior beings. Read the Quran, this Mein Kampf, again. In whatever version, you will see that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit to us and themselves originates from this book.
In the same year, he wrote an article entitled: ‘The Pope is completely right’, in which he said:

The demographic composition of the population is the biggest problem of the Netherlands. I am talking about what comes to the Netherlands and what reproduces here. If you look at the figures and the development therein, Muslims will move from the big cities to the country. We must stop the tsunami of the Islamisation. This hits us in the heart, in our identity, in our culture. If we do not defend ourselves all other points from my programme will appear to be useless.
He said in 2008:
Islam wants to control, subdue and is out for the destruction of our Western civilisation. In 1945 Nazism was beaten in Europe. In 1989 communism was beaten in Europe. Now the Islamic ideology must be beaten. Stop the Islamisation. Defend our freedom.
There is much more expounded in the Court Summons.

Whatever you think of these statements, they should never have been grounds for arrest and trial. Either one is free or one is not. And it is no freedom at all which may not criticise or offend. All that Geert Wilders did is tell it as he sees it. And that isn’t so very far from how thousands if not millions of others see it. Ignorant of the nuances of Islamic theology they may be. Unaware of Islamic scholarship and the plethora of schools of thought they undoubtedly are. But all Geert Wilders did was to point out the fact that the Qur’an contains offensive passages and that some imams still preach it – and they are free to do so.

His Grace is sometimes called a bigot. The Pope is occasionally called the Antichrist. The Holy Bible is frequently defiled, Christians are mocked and reviled, and the name of Jesus is dragged through the mud. And we all have to live with it. There should be no special protection for Allah, Mohammed, the Qur’an or Muslim sensitivities. For that would be to treat people unequally and elevate Islam to that place in law once occupied by Christianity.

Geert Wilders has fought to defend the liberties of us all, and he won.

Rejoice! This is a marvellous day for democracy and for 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 have been 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.

But Geert Wilders has been vindicated. He will now be exalted, and his Party for Freedom poll rating will go stratospheric. Doubtless millions of Europeans will only be sorry that the Presidency of the European Council is not subject to the popular will. And the ruling class will breathe a sigh of relief.

156 Comments:

Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Best new in decades.

23 June 2011 09:25  
Anonymous Dean Roberts said...

Praise God for this victory!

How could free speech ever be put into question?

Whilst I don't agree with all views that Wilders holds, the crux of the matter is that he was going to be punished for exercising his right to a free mind.

http://deanroberts.net

23 June 2011 09:27  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

I agree the court has reached the right decision - but strangely enough you fail to miss the judges comment's about Wilder's views being "gross and degenerating".

23 June 2011 09:45  
Blogger Sam said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 June 2011 09:48  
Blogger Sam said...

A victory for freedom http://wintersnighttraveller.blogspot.com/2011/06/geert-wilders-acquittal-hup-holland-hup.html

23 June 2011 09:48

23 June 2011 09:49  
Blogger IJD said...

There are a lot of muslims that need to take a teaspoon of cement and accept an unadulterated form of free speech, including that no religion has a special exemption from criticism.

However, there is imho, a nasty under-current at play here that is anti-Muslim because Muslims are different, are an Other. That's not to say that what Wilders and co say isn't without validity sometimes, but don't be mistaken and think they are simply idealistic libertarians.

I was once of a Salafi persuasion, and now am libertarian. It is hard sometimes to see who is worse, the neo-crusaders who would see the genuinely fine Western traditions liberty and democracy saved by purging all those darkie saracens from within it (it is hard not to laugh at the home of liberte banning an item of religious expression and pretending it is not just focused on the Muslims), or those medieval nihilists who poison all they touch. Well, it is - the Islamists are a terrible plague on the Muslim world. A Muslim Baader-Meinhof writ large.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend though. The Far Right are still a bunch of asses whose language is often very reminiscent of that used in frenzies over minorities in centuries past in Europe and elsewhere (including my own Australia), and whose intentions bode ill for liberal democracy.

And if secular liberal democracy cannot survive on the force of its own ideas, well...

23 June 2011 10:03  
Blogger Span Ows said...

However, there is imho, a nasty under-current at play here that is anti-Muslim because Muslims are different, are an Other.

What utter rubbish IJD, have there been such incidents against the high level of Chinese immigrants - more differnet, more an "Other" - to the Netherlands or the UK or elsewhere? I suggest you look to the cause of the undercurrent, nasty or not and explain why other Others aren't so effected.

23 June 2011 10:09  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

Having read your extracts from his speeches, I must say that I am in full agreement with what he says. Now all we need is a British Politician to have the guts to stand up and say the same sort of thing.

PS Following yesterday's blog on Trevor Philips, I'd love to know his views on this verdict.

23 June 2011 10:09  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

"On Thursday, Judge van Oosten said about Wilders' statements: "The bench finds that although gross and degenerating, it dit not give rise to hatred."

The fact that a judge made this remark sounds more like a fit of pique at being denied the opportunity of another invitation to dinner.

www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Geert-Wilders-trial-faces-restart-after-judges-dismissed.html

23 June 2011 10:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great news.

Of course, the fact that it's taken two court trials (the first one abandoned because of prejudiced judges), demanded by no-one (the Dutch prosecution service had already declared there was no case to answer), lasting many months, cost many millions, to establish the fact that someone is free to criticise Islam is in itself quite telling.

What a colossal waste of everyone's time & money. I hope that whoever pursued this case so far is now prosecuted for malicious prosecution.

Islam is a dangerous, false, man-made religion and Mohammed was a false prophet. It should have no more credibility than Scientology. Thank God for Geert Wilders having the courage to say it.

23 June 2011 10:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good news indeed for the present. Anyone care to wager how long it will be before the EUSSR islamomarxists concoct another set of “hate crime” charges in an attempt to silence him?

The islamic cancer has been deliberately introduced into Europe by a treacherous political elite. And they still do all they can to encourage mass immigration, particularly islamic immigration.

Breeding at a rate three of four times faster than indigenous Europeans the continent will be majority moslem in another two or three generations. The sacrifices of our fathers, grandfathers and ancestors all discarded in an historical instant.

The Gates of Vienna have been well and truly breached. Rome is set to follow Constantinople’s Fall.

23 June 2011 10:14  
Blogger Andrew Denny said...

Presumably this trial was in Holland? I'd be interested to speculate what the verdict - judicial or public opinion would have been in the UK.

23 June 2011 10:16  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armour of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Ephesians 6:10-20
Excellent news for the true religion of peace. Made my day.

23 June 2011 10:19  
Anonymous MME said...

Please excuse my feebile mind but is this a defence of far-right wing bigotry that deliberately alienates a minority and creates fear through myth and rhetoric? Or is it a defense of right to express such views?

23 June 2011 10:20  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr AB Cranmer

Thank you for refering to the article by Geert Wilders - 'The Pope is completely right'. Always good to see His Holiness receive recognition! However, I'm not sure he or Catholicism would want to be associated with this particular person.

I agree the verdict was probably correct, upholding as it does the principle of free speech. However, whether what he said was accurate, constructive or reasonable is another matter entirely. And whether his policies for tackling the threat he perceives as coming from Islam are sensible is also questionable - closing the borders to Muslims, deportation of Muslims, denaturalisation of Muslim criminals? Muslims to renounce the Quran if they want to participate in Dutch society?!

I do hope the verdict does not result, as you predict, in him being 'exalted', and his Freedom Party going 'stratospheric'. President of the European Council -I think not!

Tell me, if I believed, based on a very selective reading of the Old Testament that the Jewish people were intent on building an earthly world kingdom, led by a Messiah, that they were plotting this, had the material resources to do so and that it flowed naturally from their holy book, would I be able to speak freely about it? Of course this would be 'neo-fascism' of a very nasty variety, but should it be outlawed? Should Mein Kampf be outlawed in Holland?

23 June 2011 10:21  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

MME

I don't think you are being feeble minded at all - this is really an attempt to conflate the two ideas. We need to be absolutely clear that people like Geert Wilders (and yes Islamists who are the other side of the same dirty coin) want to use free speech to promote and expand their cause which is all about the denial of free speech.

23 June 2011 10:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

‘Doubtless millions of Europeans will only be sorry that the Presidency of the European Council is not subject to the popular will. And the ruling class will breathe a sigh of relief.’

I wonder for how long the clocks will cease to strike thirteen in the Netherlands alone?

23 June 2011 10:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Denny asks:

‘I'd be interested to speculate what the verdict - judicial or public opinion would have been in the UK..’

In my opinion, based on in the evidence in the Court Summons, he would have been convicted and sentenced.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

28(1) An offence is… religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 if-

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence HOSTILITY based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a… religious group;

[My emphasis]

23 June 2011 11:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Denny asks:

‘I'd be interested to speculate what the verdict - judicial or public opinion would have been in the UK..’

In my opinion, based on in the evidence in the Court Summons, he would have been convicted and sentenced.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

28(1) An offence is… religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 if-

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence HOSTILITY based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a… religious group;

[My emphasis]

23 June 2011 11:20  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 10.21 said. 'Tell me, if I believed, based on a very selective reading of the Old Testament that the Jewish people were intent on building an earthly world kingdom, led by a Messiah, that they were plotting this, had the material resources to do so and that it flowed naturally from their holy book, would I be able to speak freely about it? Of course this would be 'neo-fascism' of a very nasty variety, but should it be outlawed? Should Mein Kampf be outlawed in Holland?'

This one of the most contrived and bizarre series of non-sequiturs yet posted on this site. If these sentences are read as statements without the question marks, which are only there to provide a degree of cover, the author's malicious intent becomes clear.

23 June 2011 11:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find Judge Van Oosten's comments about Mr Wilders' views gross and degenerating. These hand-wringing 'liberals' (who are usually completely illiberal and intolerant) are the best recruiting sergeants the extremists could wish for. Now, is there any chance of Europe's lawmakers being put on trial for treason?

23 June 2011 11:25  
Anonymous Elliot Kane said...

Absolutely agree, Your Grace.

Either we are all equal under the law, or there is no Justice. For this reason, Wilders must be allowed to make his case.

23 June 2011 11:42  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

His Grace thinks Mr Bluedog (@11:23) has a point. He says of your convoluted contribution (@10:21):

"This one of the most contrived and bizarre series of non-sequiturs yet posted on this site. If these sentences are read as statements without the question marks, which are only there to provide a degree of cover, the author's malicious intent becomes clear."

Interestingly, you have previously accused His Grace of being 'subtle and underhand', and of making comments which are 'filled with ineuendo and suggestion'. You said:

"That's the problem though, he doesn't always say what he means and weaves all sorts of prejudices in his ever so clever, witty observations."

You later said:

"Suggestion and innuendo is very clever especially when disguised and leaves plenty of wriggle room. I much prefer honest, straight forward talking being more 'Comprehensive School' than 'Public School'."

Could you please ask your question(s) again but do so in what you term a 'Comprehensive School' fashion, in order to obviate any suggestion of your being 'subtle' or 'underhand' about your 'malicious intent'? Many thanks.

23 June 2011 11:47  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr AB Cranmer

Nothing subtle about my post!

The obvious answer to the questions I asked is that without concrete evidence supporting my interpretation of the text cited, then my claims would be insensitive and ignorant, at best, and possibly incitement leading to civil unrest.

Geert Wilder's attack on Islam is, in my opinion, of the same order. To attribute the social issues in Holland, particulaly those concerning Moroccan youth, to Islam and to argue Muslims are plotting the take over of Europe is fanciful paranoia. Just like my hypothetical questions about Judaism.

Straight enough?

23 June 2011 11:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like we’ve got a fascist in our midst.

Dodo.

23 June 2011 12:01  
Blogger English Viking said...

English Pensioner,

You have, his name is Nick Griffin, who also went through a show-trial (twice) for exactly the same thing, and was found Not Guilty on both occasions. When Blair learned of the Not Guilty verdict, he stated that he would change the law to enable a successful prosecution in future.

Our friend Mr Phillips recently tried to bankrupt the BNP by dragging them through the courts and getting them to amend their legal constitution. He made such a mess of it, the EHRC now has to pay the defense's costs.

Regardless of what people think of the BNP, its members and leaders, the pernicious effects of 'equality' legislation are to seen and feared in the UK just as much, if not more so, than in Holland. when a legally constituted party is treated with such uuter contempt, and those who openly advocate the violent overthrow of the UK are treated with kid-gloves, something is very, very wrong. If you are unaware of these matters, it is because the MSM only mention such things in order to paint these people terrorists, if they mention them at all.

TBNGU, MME,

I hope the UK adopt some of Wilders' policies, and rid ourselves of the followers of this wicked and vicious 'faith', but if we do not, I will take a little pleasure in watching you two dhimmis getting beheaded on You-Tube, when the followers of the religion of peace have no further need of useful idiots.

PS Praise God for Wilders, and Praise God for his acquittal. If it pleases the Lord, may He raise this man up to a position of great power, to do those things which we ourselves ought to have done, years ago, and to undo the very great many things which we ought not to have done, also over many years.

Amen.

23 June 2011 12:04  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Anonymous said...
"It looks like we’ve got a fascist in our midst.
Dodo."

And you are a mindless coward hiding your identity. The policies of Geert Wilder are 'fascist'. Study them!

bluedog

Why not read and digest the paragraph above the one you have quoted? It sets it in context.

IJD made some interesting observations:

" ... a nasty under-current at play here that is anti-Muslim because Muslims are different, are an Other ... don't be mistaken and think they are simply idealistic libertarians."

"The Far Right are still a bunch of asses whose language is often very reminiscent of that used in frenzies over minorities in centuries past in Europe and elsewhere (including my own Australia), and whose intentions bode ill for liberal democracy."

23 June 2011 12:23  
Anonymous MrJ said...

To my mind Mr Dodo's comments (10:21 and 11:59) are obscure to the point of absurdity. Does that qualify for "fascist" (or maybe "nazi-ist"), or no more than confusionist?

Is there any information about Mr Wilders to show that he is doing other than he claims: opposing incitement to hatred and the promotion of reason and political honesty, among the peoples of the Netherlands, other European countries and of North America. If not, why are others (including some commenters here) asserting or presuming otherwise?

Or is that akin to the bigotry (casual or worse) against the late Norris McWhirter of The Freedom Association? That is the kind of bigotry which threatens free speech, not Mr Wilders and those who welcome the acquittal.

23 June 2011 12:23  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@English Viking

"I will take a little pleasure in watching you two dhimmis getting beheaded on"

That is of course assuming your lot don't get us first. As I said two sides of the same dirty coin. But at least you have answered MME's qustion about counter jihad being more important to you than freedom of expression, while others seem to be quite happy to envelop themselves in fog.

23 June 2011 12:24  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Freedom of speech: not dead yet. Not for want of the authoritarian retards trying though.

23 June 2011 12:32  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr AB Cranmer

Nearly forgot as I was distracted by your questions to me.

MME said...
"Please excuse my feebile mind but is this a defence of far-right wing bigotry that deliberately alienates a minority and creates fear through myth and rhetoric? Or is it a defense of right to express such views?"

Care to answer? I would hate to accuse you of weaving prejudice within your clever, witty observations. Or of using suggestion and innuendo to disguise your opinions.

Do you agree with Geert Wilder's views or are you simply supporting his right to express them?

23 June 2011 12:34  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

If you bothered to google, you would find your answer. Doubtless his responses will be too nuanced or subtle for your taste, but the matter is not as black and white as you consistently sugguest.

23 June 2011 12:40  
Anonymous MrJ said...

To my mind Mr Dodo's comments (10:21 and 11:59) are obscure to the point of absurdity. Does that qualify for "fascist" (or maybe "nazi-ist"), or no more than confusionist?

Is there any information about Mr Wilders to show that he is doing other than he claims: opposing incitement to hatred and the promotion of reason and political honesty, among the peoples of the Netherlands, other European countries and of North America. If not, why are others (including some commenters here) asserting or presuming otherwise?

Or is that akin to the bigotry (casual or worse) against the late Norris McWhirter of The Freedom Association? That is the kind of bigotry which threatens free speech, not Mr Wilders and those who welcome the acquittal.

23 June 2011 12:40  
Blogger English Viking said...

TBNGU,

You are correct in one thing (you can't be wrong ALL the time, surely?) in that you and people like you represent a significant threat the survival of Western Democracies, and will need to be dealt with as well.

23 June 2011 12:51  
Anonymous MrJ said...

google searching has not yielded any information about Mr Wilders to show that he is doing other than he claims: opposing incitement to hatred and the promotion of reason and political honesty, among the peoples of the Netherlands, other European countries and of North America.

But if there is nothing reported, why are others asserting or presuming otherwise?

Or is that akin to the bigotry (casual or worse) against the late Norris McWhirter of The Freedom Association? That is the kind of bigotry which threatens free speech, not Mr Wilders and those who welcome the acquittal.

23 June 2011 12:52  
Blogger Jonathan Graham said...

Hallelujah!!

23 June 2011 13:03  
Anonymous MrJ said...

[inadvertent repeat at 12:40 and 12:52]

23 June 2011 13:07  
Anonymous Homo Hamed said...

Dhimmification has been halted, today.

At least for a while.

I wonder if the numpties in the British Parliament, police and judiciary are paying attention?

You are right.

Islam is just a violent cult and as such should not only have no special place in our society but be more closely scrutinised and criticised, as are all other religions.

The parallels between the Koran/Islamic practice and Nazism are too many to ignore - anti-semitism, homophobia, a belief that its followers are some kind of ubermensch and non-believers are kaffirs, pigs, dogs, monkeys.

They were even the first people to brand Jews (and Coptics, Zorastrians etc) with a sumptuary law defining their clothing and special badges to isolate them from mainstem mulim society - a practices adopted by the Nazis.

Now that Wilders has been exonerated his stock will rise. I wonder which British Party will see the advantage in growing a spine?

23 June 2011 13:08  
Anonymous Homo Hamed said...

Perhaps Wilders should give us this speech:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXGUNvIFTQw&feature=related

23 June 2011 13:17  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Archbishop Cranmer said...
"Mr Dodo,
If you bothered to google, you would find your answer. Doubtless his responses will be too nuanced or subtle for your taste, but the matter is not as black and white as you consistently sugguest (sic)."

Now the side-step!

It's your views and not those of Geert Wilders I'm asking you to clarify. Do you agree with the substantial quotes you've given in your post?

Do you support his views, (nuanced and subtle they most
assuredly are not) or his right to express them?

23 June 2011 13:18  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Archbishop Cranmer said ...

"All that Geert Wilders did is tell it as he sees it. And that isn’t so very far from how thousands if not millions of others see it. Ignorant of the nuances of Islamic theology they may be ... all Geert Wilders did was to point out the fact that the Qur’an contains offensive passages and that some imams still preach it – and they are free to do so."

He did an awful lot more - read his policies for responding to Islam! They're certainly not consistent with a liberal-democratic state.

23 June 2011 13:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hup, Holland, hup!

I can't believe the Dutch judges decided to grow a pair when the easy option would have been to hang Meneer Wilders out to dry.

Geert has decided to name the stinking elephant in the room of Dutch and European society. I'm so glad he's now been given carte blanche to continue his crusade (solecism itentional).

Islam IS an enemy to our way of life. Muslims have been good upright citizens in our nations for many generations, but the triple whammy of mass immigration, Wahabist teachings and Western radical relativism is now giving us a Jumbo of a civilizational headache.

Time to clean the muck out of the stables. Amen?

23 June 2011 13:27  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr J

Do people like you who bandy labels about such as 'Nazism' and 'Facism' actually comprehend these political creeds?

A short summary from Wiki:

"Fascists seek to purge forces, ideas, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood.

"Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.

"Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state."

Interesting and I think you'll detect many of these themes in a number of posts above rather than mine.

I accept the label 'confusionist' if this means I'm not entirely sure how we respond to militant Islamism whilst also preserving liberal democracy, the rule of law and the right of Muslim citizens to practice their religion and read the Quran.

23 June 2011 13:48  
Blogger ggeoff said...

This decision is important for trying to preserve our freedom of opinion. However, let's not pretend that we have much freedom of expression. One could compile a list of subject matter that writing or talking about might result in discrimination in the workplace, school, and in damage to one's business. Here is a list of topics to avoid: immigration, religion especially Islam, education - especially Multiculturism, politics, obesity, and gender.

One could argue that the reason why so many immigrants want to live in the "West" is because they want to live in a democracy and are escaping despotic regimes. However, there is definitely a small proportion of immigrants who have another agenda and will use terrorism to attain their aims. This minority is a danger to everyone and is hardly controllable.

23 June 2011 13:53  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr J

Meant to ask you if you are Mr Cranmer's personal secretary? You do seem to answer for him when he is 'unavailable for comment'.

23 June 2011 13:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus is great !

23 June 2011 14:10  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Wilders is a very brave man and as Cranmer says he is defending free speech for all of us. Obviously I don’t agree with Wilders Christian views but I am happy to make common cause with him in warning of the dangers posed by Islam and the fast growing Muslim population in Europe.

Despite my secular atheist views and my dislike of all religions I recognise that our history and much of Europe’s cultural heritage has developed within a largely Christian milieu. Islam is an alien in our midst, like the American crayfish or Japanese Knotweed that grows fast and has little biological control.

Islam is a direct threat to democracy as it doesn’t recognise any authority but itself. Wilders has made a stand and has been pilloried by the PC brigade as a racist. It is true that many Muslim immigrants to Europe come from North Africa and SE Asia and are therefore seen as “black”. But it is not the colour of their skin that is the problem it is their religion, after all the other large Muslim population is from Turkey and “white” like us so the race card cannot be played by those who claim that objections to Islam are racist.

We need a figure like Wilders in the UK, not a racist creep like Griffin but a figure whose character and fairness are beyond reproach and who is not seen as party political animal. Any suggestions?

23 June 2011 14:17  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr G Davis

English Viking?

He seems to be a fair representative of the political leader your calling for.

23 June 2011 14:26  
Anonymous MrJ said...

At the risk of boring any who have followed previous attempts to help Mr Dodo get over an unhappy tendency to make misguided comments:

MrJ disclaims the honour of being identified with "Mr Cranmer's personal secretary" (13:59) (or any other person who may be one of his staff, household or affiliates);

notes that Mr Dodo (13:48) once again replies in a manner ("people like you who bandy labels about such as 'Nazism' and 'Facism' ) which suggests a perverse misreading;

and notes that he is not entirely sure about responding to militant Islamism whilst preserving the right of Muslim citizens to practice their religion and read the Quran (while also preserving our liberal democracy and the rule of law).

23 June 2011 14:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://deenfeeds.com/2011/05/nazi-linked-flag-displayed-in-wilders-partys-parliamentary-offices/

23 June 2011 14:35  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Mr Dodo said...

English Viking? He seems to be a fair representative of the political leader your calling for.

Not quite who I had in mind. Do I discern a note* of sarcasm in your comment?

*great big dollop

23 June 2011 14:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

How do we respond to the right of Muslim citizens to practice their religion, read the Koran etc whilst preserving our liberal democracy?

We support measures such as Baroness Cox’s bill.

We argue against the EU and seek to wrench control of our borders back again.

We argue against h-sexuality as it encourages by destroying marriage as an institution and by implication opening the doors to polygamy.

23 June 2011 14:45  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

Wilder's ten point plan to Save Western Civilisation:

1. Stop cultural relativism. We need an article in our constitutions that lays down that we have a Jewish-Christian and humanism culture.
2. Stop pretending that Islam is a religion. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. In other words, the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.
3. Stop mass immigration by people from Muslim countries. We have to end Al-Hijra.
4. Encourage voluntary repatriation.
5. Expel criminal foreigners and criminals with dual nationality, after denationalization, and send them back to their Arab countries. Likewise, expel all those who incite to a ‘violent jihad’.
6. We need an European First Amendment to strengthen free speech.
7. Have every member of a non-Western minority sign a legally binding contract of assimilation.
8. We need a binding pledge of allegiance in all Western countries.
9. Stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries. Close all mosques where incitement to violence is taking place. Close all Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions and young children should not be educated an ideology of hate and violence.
10. Get rid of the current weak leaders. We have the privilege of living in a democracy. Let’s use that privilege and exchange cowards for heroes. We need more Churchills and less Chamberlains.


Seems to tick most of the boxes in the definition of fascism. Replace Islam with Jewish and you can see why Geert is so sensitive to Nazi comparisons.

23 June 2011 14:49  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr J

Thank you.

Pleased to note you do not regard me as a Facist or a Nazi.

You have correctly summarised my dilemma:

"...about responding to militant Islamism whilst preserving the right of Muslim citizens to practice their religion and read the Quran (while also preserving our liberal democracy and the rule of law)."

I wonder if you have any suggestions other than Geert Wilder's? These consist of mass repatriation, banning entry to Holland of Muslims, removal of citizenship for breaking the law, the wholesale banning of the Quran and forbidding the building of any more Mosques?

Your help with this would be very much welcomed.

23 June 2011 14:50  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

The point, apart from freedom of speech,is that we are no longer allowed to live according to OUR cultural norms,in a society that makes allowances for the weak,arrives at its decisions through reason and compromise,and is not overburdened with arbitrary laws,suddenly everything is subject to the wishes of a minority that is barbarous and cruel,whos plainly revealed ambitions are to destroy that way of life,and to subject us to that tyranny.The Dutch number in the order of five million,with a reproduction rate of little more than replacement,how long will it take for fast breeding muslims to render the indigenous dutch to a minority in thier own lands,the dutch like ourselves have never voted to destroy themselves and give thier country to hordes of illiterate parasites and quietly exit existence,and we have every right to object to being submerged in an alien religio-political system,wether the wooly limp-wrists object or not,my country ,like its people are not within the gift of any leader of any administration,though you would not believe it when you see just how over-mighty they have become,the fact is the peoples soverignty has been usurped,or we would never have come to this outrageous scheme of things.So have a drink geert,savour the moment,for in the same manner as "our"police force,if they can not get you for one thing they will get you for another,we await thier next attempt.

23 June 2011 14:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

Except for humanism and the right to suppress religious freedom for Islam - I can't see where he is being right-wing.

In any event, in this country, it is the Left-liberals who ahve suppressed freedom of religion consistent with national socialist doctrine.

23 June 2011 15:03  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@D Singh

Sign a legally binding contract of assimiliation?

ENCOURAGE voluntary repatirations?

23 June 2011 15:38  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@ D Singh

And what is a binding pledge of allegiance - how do you achieve the binding and how is allegiance defined. Would I be bound over not to say anything unpleasant about the ruling regime?

23 June 2011 15:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The principle of 'assimilation' is good. After all if you lived in Rome for some time would you not want to learn the language and customs and speak Italian?

He is not seeking compulsory but voluntary repatriation.

23 June 2011 15:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

What is wrong with a pledge of allegiance in principle?

I cannot see him making criticism of the govt. illegal.

23 June 2011 15:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

Why are you afraid that he might want to silence criticism of the ruling regime when under Art 54 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights - criticism is illegal?

Where were your protests?

23 June 2011 15:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr Davis,

Geert Wilders is not a Christian. He holds the same views as you that a society derived from Judeo-Christian values is infinitely preferably to one based on sharia, but is himself agnostic.

23 June 2011 15:56  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

English Viking

I stand corrected

23 June 2011 16:05  
Blogger DP111 said...

In the final analysis demography counts. When Muslims are a majority in any nation, it will not matter a whit if Islamists are a minority - sharia will be introduced quite legally via parliament. Churches will be destroyed or no permission given to maintain them, and non-Muslim women will be subject to all sorts of degradation, including kidnap and forced marriage to a Muslim.

From a rather unusual source

On The Massacre Of The Christians In Bulgaria

CHRIST, dost thou live indeed? or are thy bones
Still straightened in their rock-hewn sepulcher?
And was thy Rising only dreamed by Her
Whose love of thee for all her sin atones?
For here the air is horrid with men's groans,
The priests who call upon thy name are slain,
Dost thou not hear the bitter wail of pain
From those whose children lie upon the stones?
Come down, O Son of God! incestuous gloom
Curtains the land, and through the starless night
Over thy Cross the Crescent moon I see!
If thou in very truth didst burst the tomb
Come down, O Son of Man! and show thy might,
Lest Mahomet be crowned instead of Thee!


Oscar Wilde

23 June 2011 16:11  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@DSingh

Can you read - how can Article 54 be seen as doing anything other than protecting the rights to freedom of expression under Article 10. All this really demonstrates is your ability to read anything you want to read into anything.




Article 54
Prohibition of abuse of rights
Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform
any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or at their
limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.

23 June 2011 16:13  
Anonymous MrJ said...

"Replace Islam with Jewish..." (14:49) would turn a meaningful (if debatable) list into utter gibberish. Try it with the real world in mind, not merely an abstract word-game.

23 June 2011 16:14  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Wonderful news; thank you, Your Grace.

23 June 2011 16:17  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

MrJ

Just change the bogeyman/what is perceived as the alien element - I have little time for word games on this subject. If you cannot see the parallels with the Nazis (or with the Islamists for that matter) then I suggest you spend some time reading history.

23 June 2011 16:40  
Anonymous berserker-nkl said...

I listened to the BBC's World at One news at 1pm.

Looking forward to hearing their take on the 'Wilders' verdict. But nothing but 'Troops in Afghanistan" and the Coalition idea of giving shares in bailed out Banks.

You have to search their website News and find it hidden away under 'World'. Seems the Beeb think that this is of no relevance to the UK.

Surely the Beeb with its large fan base of 'Guardian readers' is degenerate and gross with its 'at al costs keep this news from the public'.

What will Polly T say?

23 June 2011 16:46  
Anonymous MrJ said...

A technique of political, social and cultural subversion is false comparisons -- camouflage, disguise, dissembling.

23 June 2011 16:50  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The right outcome, obviously but the Judges have passed his political argument, not a theological on.

Does that mean only politicians have the right to offend?

23 June 2011 16:53  
Anonymous MrJ said...

berserker-nkl (16:46)

BBC News Europe June 2011 Last updated at 11:34
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-1388333123]

"Mr Wilders is an enormously popular politician here" reports Lauren Comiteau of
BBC News, Amsterdam. "...it appears the radical views of Mr Wilders are now more mainstream.."

Why does the BBC describe him as "far right" with hints of unspecified "rightist tyranny"? Even if he sits at the far right of the chamber, what is the relevance to the charge and the acquittal?

That is using "far right" in a "gross and denigrating" way (translated words which the judge is reported to have used).

It has also been reported that the public prosecutor will not appeal the verdict, since the prosecutors had also asked for acquittal !

23 June 2011 17:16  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr AB Cranmer

Since you've failed to reply, am I being presumptious in concluding you support the policies of Geert Wilders to tackle the 'threat' of Islam in Europe and not just his right to free speech?

Mr J

Having correctly identified my concerns, I'm disappointed you are unable to offer any advice. How do we as a liberal democratic country respond to militant Islamism whilst preserving the rights of the majority of Muslim citizens to practice their religion peaceably?

23 June 2011 17:26  
Anonymous not a machine said...

This judgement and Geert Wilders nuances ,have been a long time waiting . I consider it very unfortunate that mass immigration and the excellerated mass immigration seen in this country and in other european countries, has continued under the various scoialist guises ,until we have the disagreement through its consequential impact that some can see was the freedom indigenous people have been denied by the goverments and they elect and even the unelected EU.

The truth being there always would be a limit as to how much immigration was necessary , the tired ecnomic argument has been found to be at best creative macro ecnomic accountancey , and now the cultural change has thrown up its rites .
The dual laws eased into the UK under Tony Blair was about the most mis concieved treacherous action by a prime minister I can recall. presenting all as being la la happy land , may have been full of global hope, but he could not change the quoran , he could not change its Imans (who did not preach in English as arabic is the language of Islam ) sending a wedge into the constituant parts of judeao christian basis and understanding of goverment and the things of life that could not be legislated .

He is right in the sense that it is displacement of his countries culture , by somthing that seeks to change it into somthing else , without considering what the people prefer.

I will refrain from commentating on the justice that awaits this crime of pressurising and deluding a settled historic nation for a divisive bowl of pottage , but my first thoughts to all those ,some now not with us who persued this as benign enterprise to arrive at this feeling of conflicted and repressed culture ,"you bloody fools"

23 June 2011 17:31  
Anonymous MrJ said...

MrJ notes Mr Dodo's "disappointment" but declines to submit to his inquisition, and respectfully proposes that he gives himself a break.

23 June 2011 17:44  
Blogger Elby the Beserk said...

tory boys never grow up said...

What's your point? All the Judge says there is that HE finds it "gross and degenerative", but that that is permissible. That's the whole point. It IS permissible to offend. That that should ever be open to question simply shows what a perilous state our society is in as a result of 13 years of Frankfurt School dogma being applied willy nilly.

Splendid news. And Islam is NOT moderate. There are many many moderate Muslims, but that is another matter. Islam is, sadly, the enemy of our way of life.

23 June 2011 18:30  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

MrJ said...
"A technique of political, social and cultural subversion is false comparisons -- camouflage, disguise, dissembling."

Absolute nonsense. It is a legitimate method of debate and discusion. Indeed, Mr Cranmer used it recently in his attack on Freddy Gray

Mr J said ...
"MrJ notes Mr Dodo's "disappointment" but declines to submit to his inquisition, and respectfully proposes that he gives himself a break."

Unable or unwilling to answer the question? More likely the latter as it would expose the thin veneer of your religious tolerance.

23 June 2011 18:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Can't say I like his views one jot but freedom of speech is fundamentally important. The religious in the UK need to take note of this verdict too.

23 June 2011 18:58  
Blogger Elby the Beserk said...

@MME

Neither.

Next question?

23 June 2011 19:09  
Blogger George said...

Anyone that quotes religion has lost the argument.

All religions are forms of control and brain-washing.

Islam and Christianity are complete man-made nonsense and should be confined to the dustbin of common-sense.

It has been proved that Jesus is just the same old regurgitation of older religions worshipping the Sun.

As for Mohammed he was just another jumped-up control freek.

23 June 2011 19:26  
Blogger len said...

Geert Wilders innocent verdict is a victory for free speech.
People must be allowed to debate important issues without fear of prosecution.

'His Grace is sometimes called a bigot. The Pope is occasionally called the Antichrist. The Holy Bible is frequently defiled, Christians are mocked and reviled, and the name of Jesus is dragged through the mud.'

Well let us bring all these issues to the light ,let us examine them and put them to the test,let us give them a good shaking and see what falls apart and what remain 'rock solid'.
I know what I will be putting my 'money' on.

23 June 2011 19:28  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Mr Dodo is respectfully referred to: 12:23, 17:16, 17:44.

This is for his information, not reply.

23 June 2011 19:59  
Blogger len said...

George,
I think/know/ that you have thrown out the baby with the bath water , to coin a phrase.

23 June 2011 20:08  
Blogger ggeoff said...

@George

http://atheism.about.com/od/religiondefinition/a/definition.htm

The meaning of any word is in the dictionary. Even Common sense is difficult to define: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

But whatever you believe or think, we would be foolish to treat anyone who has a belief, a religious belief in particular, as being a fool as you seem to be suggesting. Especially if they are wielding a sword ready to behead the unbeliever.

23 June 2011 20:21  
Anonymous MrL said...

That's a neat answer (Mr) len, and memorable.

And in view of the one about leading a horse to water, superfluous to mention the Biblical citations which back it up.

23 June 2011 20:22  
Anonymous MrJ said...

20:22 is MrJ (typo)

23 June 2011 20:23  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

Elby

The point is that I agree with the judge on both counts - and I also agree that freedom of speech means that there is a freedom to offend. I also believe that Wilders is thoroughly offensive - and is a total hypocrite in that he is more than willing to withdraw the freedom of speech that he demands from others with divergent beliefs. Some here are quite happy to see this a victory for Wilders wider views rather than just freedom of speech.

I'm glad you can distinguish between moderate and extreme Moslems - I think you will also find that there are theologicians who are capable of different interpretions of Islam than your own. Given that there are an infinite number of different interpretaions of Christianity with varying degrees of moderation/extremism (especially if you add in a historical perspective) - I somehow doubt that the same doesn't apply to Islam. Given the state of Christianity 500 years ago and its relative exposure to democracy perhaps most differences can be explained by time.

23 June 2011 20:34  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

MrJ said...
"Mr Dodo is respectfully referred to: 12:23, 17:16, 17:44.
This is for his information, not reply."

With all the respect due, you really are a pompous little twerp.

Wilders anti-Islamic rhetoric stirs up hatred, division and fear. It is the worse form of popularim and history tells us this poses a significant threat to democracy and liberty.

His next project is reportedly a book describing Mohammed as an insane paedophile and rapist murder who was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia when he developed Islam.

A helpful academic thesis adding to our understanding of Islam and Muslims? Or designed to inflame passions and divide the majority of indigenous Dutch people from their Islam neighbours?

Never mind, go to your church on Sunday and say the Our Father and sleep easy at night comforting yourself that your 'neighbour' precludes Muslims.

23 June 2011 21:08  
Anonymous MrJ said...

MrJ would like to think that Mr Dodo could do better than that if he desired to be taken seriously here.

23 June 2011 21:26  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

By the likes of you?

A man who refuses to disclose his true opinions preferring instead to play games and avoid serious questions. Hide behind your facade of reasonableness and polite discussion.

You have a good mentor.

23 June 2011 22:05  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Wilders anti-Islamic rhetoric stirs up hatred, division and fear. It is the worse form of popularim and history tells us this poses a significant threat to democracy and liberty.

Classic, remove the first two words (before the dash; in bold for the dodos out there) and you have Islam defined.

23 June 2011 23:07  
Anonymous Petronius said...

Mr Dodo,
any book "describing Mohammed as an insane paedophile and rapist murder who was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia when he developed Islam" sounds like a perfectly reasonable and rational book to me, and furthermore, Mr Wilders' proposals for eliminating the evil influence of Islam from our European nations also strike me as perfectly reasonable. After all, his proposals do not include the murder or genocide of any person or group. Sure, let them practise their vile, barbaric, satanic faith as much as they want to - just let them do it elsewhere, not in our countries.
You seem to have some sort of problem with these perfectly reasonable assertions, for some unfathomable reason. As for me, I wish Wilders was our Prime Minister, instead of Cameron.

23 June 2011 23:09  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

A definition of Facism:

"Fascists seek to purge forces, ideas, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood.

"Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.

"Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state."

Sound familiar?

23 June 2011 23:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sound familiar?"

Yes very.

""Fascists seek to purge forces, ideas, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood."

= Caliphate

"singular collective identity"

= "The Muslims are like one man, if his eyes complains then the whole of him complains, and if his head complains then the whole of him complains"

and

"The example of the believers is like the body, if part of it hurts the rest of it is summoned"

"and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong"

= "the penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading"

and http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

24 June 2011 01:46  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Now geert your loins for what comes next, it's going to be wilder than before! (apologies)

A little ray of sunshine at long last.

24 June 2011 02:02  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

Good one Oswin! What is needed here is a little cheery badinage you provided.Nice to see that you
are still around firing away!

I am pleased that the issue of Freedom Of Speech won the day.

To preserve the Christian values of liberal democracies, the Christian Churches will have to lay aside their differences and unite some how in the future if they are to stave off the fast growing islamic influence which will affect all of our institutions
(power in numbers affect politics)

By its nature and practices Islam is the antithesis of Christianity. There is a place for it but not as a majority or even near majority share holder.

24 June 2011 02:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

'@DSingh

'Can you read - how can Article 54 be seen as doing anything other than protecting the rights to freedom of expression under Article 10. All this really demonstrates is your ability to read anything you want to read into anything.

'Article 54

'Prohibition of abuse of rights
Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform
any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or at their
limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.


You can't read; you don't undertsand and what am I to think? That you're a thicko?

‘Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform…’

Criticism (an activity) is verboten.

You have more in common with Wilders than any of the other posters here.

24 June 2011 07:21  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Glad to see that the comments here took a turn for the better in the early hours of the morning.

As the sun rises, it occurs to me to mention that much of the world's public and private ills would recede if the canonical Bible were considered as an extended meditation on the commandment against false witness (by some called the 8th by others the 9th).

24 June 2011 07:37  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

Grow up. You Leftists support the introduction of the EU's death penalty:

http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=867

24 June 2011 07:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Closed communities' and political correctness hamper investigations into Islamic pedophile networks: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13879584

24 June 2011 07:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

To Comrade TBNG

‘The eurozone bailouts are, in essence, another transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. As this blog never tires of pointing out, the bailout money isn’t going to the people of Greece, Ireland or Portugal; it is going to bankers and bondholders who made bad investments. The repayment, however, will indeed come from the people of these unhappy lands. No wonder they are out on the streets.

‘Lefties are wrong about a lot of things. Their refusal to understand that excessive spending and borrowing were the cause of this crisis, and won’t be its solution, is almost heroic in its mulishness. But they are absolutely right about one thing: the policies being pursued by EU leaders are indeed a form of class war against working people, in effect if not intention. As Brian Denny tells Britain’s Marxist newspaper, The Morning Star:

‘Struggling countries like Greece, Ireland and Portugal are spiralling into further crises due to EU policies. No amount of bail-outs and loans will stop it as they cannot devalue their currencies while locked into the eurozone.’

Dan Hannan, MEP

24 June 2011 08:07  
Anonymous MrJ said...

When nearly a lifetime ago, Angus Wilson published "Such Darling Dodos" (1950), another author's review included: "...bizarre, ...savage ...maudlin... rather as though a man ...was surveying [the human party] half- enviously, half- contemptuously... to strip off the comfortable pretences and show that this party is pretty horrifying after all ... " (C.P.Snow)

A generation or two later it could be said: "So what's new?"

24 June 2011 08:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr J

‘Glad to see that the comments here took a turn for the better in the early hours of the morning.’

The reason why this thread, yesterday, took a turn for the worse was because the Leftist idiots exchanged Islam for Judaism.

The assumption being (even made by some Christians such as Mr Dodo) and the representative of the hard Left, TBNGU, that all religions (in this case Islam and Judaism) are morally equivalent – which they are not.

They were then blinded by their desire to be morally consistent: if Islam then why not Judaism?

They are kids whose moral development was arrested during their undergraduate years at university.

24 June 2011 08:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wilders is of course right to point out the extreme danger emanating from that cult, the so called religion of that murderous pedophile, Mohamet. Islam is the arch-enemy of the West. It is the antiChrist that popes throughout history have execrated. Now if only Wilders shows the same urgency for the rights of the unborn and those slated for euthanasia in Holland, I would follow this man a long way.

Ivan

24 June 2011 09:03  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@D Singh

It is you who cannot read - you fail to read/quote the rest of the sentence which makes it absolutely clear what the restriction relates to. Article 54 is about people trying to use certain clauses in the Charter as a basis for attacking the rights and freedoms which are recognised in the Charter (one of which is freedom of speech as per Article 10) i.e. you cannot use the Charter as a basis for challenging the freedoms in the Charter. Apart from right wing nuts as yourself I don't think anyone interprets Article 54 as you do.

If you knew any history you would be aware how the Nazis and Soviets both used the law as a basis for challenging rights and freedoms embodied in legislation - this is why Article 54 exists.

As for me being "hard left" - I'm afraid my comrades would find such a description somewhat laughable.

And I haven't expressed any views as to the moral equivalence or otherwise of different religions. Pointing out similarities in how religions have developed and modified over time is not the same as forming a view as to their relative moral standings. I would have thought it is a question of historical fact as to whether or not advocates of Christianity have supported extreme and intolerant positions in the past and whether or not Christianity has modified itself as a doctrine to adapt to different times and circumstances. It is difficult to see why other religions cannot develop similarly.

If I were to pick a religion that had the nearest fit to my own values I would probably pick Nonconformist Christianity - but that is probably a factor of my own upbringing and many (not unhappy) hours in Methodist Sunday School. But that is not the same as beliving everything that I was told or believing that my views are morally superior to others raised in different circumstances.

24 June 2011 09:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

One of the main threats to civil liberties comes from a part of the Constitution conversely titled the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Only in the European Union!

The Charter's final paragraph, Article 54, reads,

Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.

This may threaten freedom, in particular freedom of speech, because it lists subjects that EU citizens have no right to question. The guidance notes as to how Article 54 must be interpreted can be used to defend the EU institutions themselves from those that want to undermine them (Eurosceptics?). Legal precedents justifying the banning of political parties in Austria and Turkey are used as examples as to how that article should be applied. Surely any liberal democratic government should oppose this? Just because some people's and group's opinions may be objectionable does not give others the right to prevent them being voiced. Where will it end? Lets not even start going down that road.

What is more, the provisions of the Charter will be interpreted by the notoriously activist European Court of Justice, removing the role of the British Courts, even the European Court of Human Rights, as the defenders of liberty. Of course there are as yet no penalties for those who challenge the Charter but it creates a blank space for lawmakers to fill.

R. Oulds, 23 june 2003

24 June 2011 09:52  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@D Singh

"They are kids whose moral development was arrested during their undergraduate years at university."

I marvel at the irony of this coming from someone who follows a moral creed that appears to have at best not developed since the days of Margaret Thatcher and at worst since over 2000 years ago and repeatedly states his own moral standpoint as though it were indistputable fact rather than his own rather dodgy opinion.

24 June 2011 09:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Still, at least I see your doctrine has developed:

From Methodist Sunday School to abortion and euthanasia.

24 June 2011 09:57  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Angus Wilson went on to publish the novel "Anglo-Saxon Attitudes" (making use in it of the name of Eorpwald of 7c. East Anglia, mentioned in Bede's "Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum"), later made into a TV/film drama and re-published as recently as 2005 in NYRB Classics.

To my mind the best part of it is the title and its source: "...the Messenger kept skipping up and down, and wriggling like an eel, as he came along, with his great hands spread out like fans on each side. [Alice exclaimed 'what curious attitudes he goes into!'] 'Not at all,' said the King. 'He's an Anglo-Saxon Messenger—and those are Anglo-Saxon attitudes. He only does them when he's happy.' "

24 June 2011 10:00  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@DSingh

Read and think rather than letting others do the thinking for you.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/libe/elsj/charter/art54/default_en.htm

The UN Declaration of Human Rights of course has a very similar anti abuse provision.

24 June 2011 10:04  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This is what started it:

Dodo:

‘Tell me, if I believed, based on a very selective reading of the Old Testament that the Jewish people were intent on building an earthly world kingdom, led by a Messiah, that they were plotting this, had the material resources to do so and that it flowed naturally from their holy book, would I be able to speak freely about it? Of course this would be 'neo-fascism' of a very nasty variety, but should it be outlawed?’

‘Tell me, if I believed, based on a very selective reading of the Old Testament…’

The comparison of Judaism with Islam is false.

It ignores the doctrine of precedent in Islamic jurisprudence.

This doctrine teaches that where meanings in verses conflict in the later part of the Koran with verese in the earlier part of the Koran – the later verses will assume precedence.

That is not selective reading by Moslems. The later verses speak of violence whilst the earlier verses are peaceful. This is so, beacuase when the Prophet of the Moon began preaching he met little resistance – whilst the later verses record a period of violent conflict.

Get it?

24 June 2011 10:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

You really are an apologist for the grandsons and daughters of Vichy France and Nazi Germany lodged in the EU.

24 June 2011 10:14  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@DSingh

If rather than throwing around insults you read the information at the link I provided - you will see youe "expert" of course got the legal precedent re Turkey the wrong way around - the ECHR found against the Turkish Government and for free speech.

When the facts change I change my mind - what do you do apart from throw insults?

24 June 2011 10:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

Why can't you think for yourself?

'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'

John Maynard Keyenes

24 June 2011 10:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

Are you pig ignorant as well?

'If rather than throwing around insults you read the information at the link I provided - you will see youe "expert" of course got the legal precedent re Turkey the wrong way around - the ECHR found against the Turkish Government and for free speech.'

We are discussing the EU not the ECHR.

24 June 2011 10:36  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@DSingh

"You really are an apologist for the grandsons and daughters of Vichy France and Nazi Germany lodged in the EU."

Well of coursec grandsons and daughters are differnt people from their grandparents and with different views. You of course share a position with the current day tyrant President Lukashenko of Belarus in opposing the provisions of the ECHR should you want to start playing the guilt by association game.

24 June 2011 10:36  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@DSingh

Please read what Mr Ould said - The EU Charter mirrored the ECHR - and its legal precedents are of relevance - or at least Mr Ould and the EU think so.

24 June 2011 10:39  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

MrJ said...
"As the sun rises, it occurs to me to mention that much of the world's public and private ills would recede if the canonical Bible were considered as an extended meditation on the commandment against false witness (by some called the 8th by others the 9th)."

Actually another part of the Bible occurs to me:

"Instead, let your message be 'Yes' for 'Yes' and 'No' for 'No.' Anything more than that comes from the evil one." (Mt 5:37)

24 June 2011 10:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

You're confused.

I've just told you the ECHR is not an EU institution.

The EU has its own supreme court: the Court of Justice.

A legal jurisdiction cannot have two supreme courts.

24 June 2011 10:40  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

"I've just told you the ECHR is not an EU institution."

Not arguing about this - but courts do use other courts when it comes to precedent particularly when the legislation is nearly identical and the courts share jurisdictions in part. Mr Ould also thought the precedent was of relevance - although he got it the wrong way around.

24 June 2011 10:48  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr D Singh

"This is what started it:

" ... the Leftist idiots exchanged Islam for Judaism.

"The assumption being (even made by some Christians such as Mr Dodo) and the representative of the hard Left, TBNGU, that all religions (in this case Islam and Judaism) are morally equivalent – which they are not."

"The comparison of Judaism with Islam is false. It ignores the doctrine of precedent in Islamic jurisprudence.

Missing the point!

What started it was a stubborn refusal by some to distinguish between Geert Wilders right to free speech and support for his far right policies.

So we're clear. Islam, in my view, is a hate filled and vengeful ideaology/religion. However, for whatever reason, it has captured the hearts and souls of millions and a good number of Muslims now reside in the West as citizens of liberal deomocracies. The majority of these are law abiding.

Geert Wilders words about Islam and his policies are dangerous and inflamatory and are likely to divide communities. As such, they are a threat to freedom.

My point about Judaism escaped you too. A reading of Judaism, based on Jewish canon, is that the Jews will have an earthly Kingdom and be exalted above all other nations once the Messiah arrives. Do you deny this?

24 June 2011 10:52  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

A great day for common sense and a kick in the teeth for the politically correct!

24 June 2011 10:55  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

MrJ said...
"When nearly a lifetime ago, Angus Wilson published "Such Darling Dodos" (1950), another author's review included: "...bizarre, ...savage ...maudlin... rather as though a man ...was surveying [the human party] half- enviously, half- contemptuously... to strip off the comfortable pretences and show that this party is pretty horrifying after all ... " (C.P.Snow)
A generation or two later it could be said: "So what's new?""

Now that must have taken some research. And so, so witty too! What a well read and intelligent person you must be.

Another example of public school jollies and coded double-speak? Such a shame people like you aren't running an Empire anymore. One day, eh?

24 June 2011 10:59  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU – ‘mirrors’ – nah mate – you just don’t get it.

Charter of Fundamental Rights EU’s Article 54:

‘Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.’

TBNGU:

‘Please read what Mr Ould said - The EU Charter mirrored the ECHR - and its legal precedents are of relevance - or at least Mr Ould and the EU think so.’

Article 17 European Convention on Human Rights:

‘Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the
destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.’

Article 54 CFR, however, is not identical to Article 17 ECHR. Article 17 says that "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity...", and then continues essentially as Article 54. The emphasised words do not appear in Article 54. That has no obvious effect on the meaning of Article 54, but it does makes it clear that the conversion of Article 17 ECHR into Article 54 CFR was not automatic: it has been thought about. The effect on freedom of speech of Article 54 is therefore unlikely to be a mistake-it is more likely that some person or persons thought through the free-speech implications of Article 54 and wanted them.

Nothing in this Charter. Article 54 therefore trumps Article 11, which grants EU citizens a "right to freedom of expression" and provides that they should be free "to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers". Article 11 should be annotated to say that its pretty sentiments apply only to ideas that don't challenge the content of the Charter.

24 June 2011 11:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Dodo:

Put it this way and not only will I not deny it – but welcome it:

A reading of Judaism, based on Jewish canon, is that the ‘Jews’ will have an earthly Kingdom and be exalted above all other nations once the Messiah arrives. Do you deny this?

24 June 2011 11:14  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

D Singh

Past experience has told me that you will read what ever you want into anything and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Please ask yourself why both the EU and Mr Ould consider ECHR precedents to be of relevance with regard to Article 54. You don't need to enlighten us with the answer we all know it already.

24 June 2011 11:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

'Please ask yourself why both the EU and Mr Ould consider ECHR precedents to be of relevance with regard to Article 54.'

You mean the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.

24 June 2011 11:35  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

From Wikipedia - explaining why the ECHR will be the "supreme" court to the ECJ and why precedents in ECHR cases in respect of the CHR are of relevance.


The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is not related to the European Court of Human Rights. However, since all EU states are members of the Council of Europe and have signed the Convention on Human Rights, there are concerns about consistency in case law between the two courts. Therefore, the ECJ refers to the case-law of the Court of Human Rights and treats the Convention on Human Rights as though it was part of the EU's legal system. Even though its members have joined, the European Union itself has not, as it did not have competence to do so under previous treaties. However, EU institutions are bound under article 6 of the EU treaty of Nice to respect human rights under the Convention. Furthermore, since the Treaty of Lisbon took effect on 1 December 2009, the EU is expected to sign the Convention. This would make the Court of Justice bound by the judicial precedents of the Court of Human Rights and thus be subject to its human rights law, resolving this way the issue of conflicting case law.

24 June 2011 11:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

'resolving this way the issue of conflicting case law.'

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did the same.

24 June 2011 11:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

"One of the most outstanding characteristics of our age is that ideas, even false and unworkable ideas, even ideas which are no longer believed in by their official guardians, rule the affairs of men and ride roughshod over stubborn facts. Ideas of enormous destructiveness, cruelty, and impracticality retain the allegiance of elites that benefit from them. The empirical record seems not to jut through into consciousness to break their spell. The class of persons who earn their livelihood from the making of ideas and symbols seems both unusually bewitched by falsehoods and absurdities and uniquely empowered to impose them on hapless individuals."

Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (1991)

24 June 2011 11:57  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

"The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did the same"

Rubbish - when did the Supreme Court of the USSR make itself bound by the legal precedents of an external court? Evidence please? This is the last thing totalitarian states do.

24 June 2011 12:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

I did not say that the USSR signed up to the ECHR.

24 June 2011 12:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

'This is the last thing totalitarian states do.'

Rubbish.

Russia is a signatory to the ECHR.

24 June 2011 12:10  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

D. Singh said...
"Mr Dodo:
Put it this way and not only will I not deny it – but welcome it:
'A reading of Judaism, based on Jewish canon, is that the ‘Jews’ will have an earthly Kingdom and be exalted above all other nations once the Messiah arrives. Do you deny this?'"

Indeed. Presumably you mean when the Messiah returns and, in my theology, the Kingdom will not be of this world!.

But you are avoiding the point I was making.

Within orthodox Judaism (not Christianity - a 'sect' arising from within Judiasm) there is an 'ideology' of world supremacy promised by God to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob if His commandments are followed. The Old Testament also justifies the conquest by force of a 'Promised Land' based on this covenant with God.

As Christians we know the Kingdom is not of this earth and that God's way is love. However, read wrongly or in the wrong hands or wrong circumstances, Judaism could have been as repressive as Islam - and Jesus often pointed this out to the Pharasees.

24 June 2011 12:11  
Anonymous MrL said...

I may be wrong (obviously), but while I can't help feeling (Mr) D. Singh has a good point or two, I have so far found it difficult to discover. (I am not here referring to attempts to elucidate what has been done by legislators, judges and commentators to declare and apply the meaning and purpose of "human rights" or "droits de l´homme".)

24 June 2011 12:20  
Anonymous MrJ said...

12:20 was MrJ (typo, again)

24 June 2011 12:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

MrL

Here is a link to a masterful essay written by a man who has clearly mastered his brief:

http://www.brugesgroup.com/eu/circle-of-barbed-wire.htm

Welcome to the debate.

24 June 2011 12:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Geert Wilders words about Islam and his policies are dangerous and inflamatory and are likely to divide communities. As such, they are a threat to freedom.

Whose freedom?

24 June 2011 13:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Dodo @ 10.21 said. 'Tell me, if I believed, based on a very selective reading of the Old Testament that the Jewish people were intent on building an earthly world kingdom, led by a Messiah, that they were plotting this, had the material resources to do so and that it flowed naturally from their holy book, would I be able to speak freely about it? Of course this would be 'neo-fascism' of a very nasty variety, but should it be outlawed? Should Mein Kampf be outlawed in Holland?'

‘However, read wrongly or in the wrong hands or wrong circumstances, Judaism could have been as repressive as Islam…’

This one of the most contrived and bizarre series of non-sequiturs yet posted on this site. If these sentences are read as statements without the question marks, which are only there to provide a degree of cover, the author's malicious intent becomes clear.

24 June 2011 13:31  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

bluedog

You've already posted the above and it's been responded to ...

24 June 2011 16:43  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

bluedog

Meant to say you really should be willing to identify yoursself rather than hide your identity. It's unbecoming and cowardly.

Just for you a further explanation of the point I was making that escaped you.

"Within orthodox Judaism (not Christianity - a 'sect' arising from within Judiasm) there is an 'ideology' of world supremacy promised by God to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob if His commandments are followed. The Old Testament also justifies the conquest by force of a 'Promised Land' based on this covenant with God.

As Christians we know the Kingdom is not of this earth and that God's way is love. However, read wrongly or in the wrong hands or wrong circumstances, Judaism could have been as repressive as Islam - and Jesus often pointed this out to the Pharasees."

Get it now?

24 June 2011 16:53  
Blogger neil craig said...

I doubt if his poll ratings will go "stratospheric" since it doesn't take a bunch of politically appointed judges to know that what Wilders was saying was perfectly true (though one sided Revelation os no less genocidal than anything in the Koran).

If everybody already knew not that many will need the court's approvalo to support him. His vote will go up and he is a permanent fixture in politics - at least until they shoot him.

Of course such disgraceful things could never happen here because we have a whollt corrupt electoral system that prevents opposition groups getting elected and even more corrupt media which lies and censors.

24 June 2011 17:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And you are a mindless coward hiding your identity.

24 June 2011 17:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like we’ve got a fascist in our midst.

Dodo.

24 June 2011 17:43  
Anonymous Blaydon said...

Could an erudite correspondent comment on the proposition that Islam is not a genuine religion but just a very distorted form of Judeo-Christianity?

24 June 2011 18:04  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

I'm reminded the Protestant Dutch resistance against Spanish rule in the 16th century used the slogan "Liever Turks dan Paaps" (Better a Turk than a Papist).

"Better the turban than the mitre", used also by Orthodox Christians in the Balkans during the rise of the Ottoman Empire.

Isn't history interesting!

24 June 2011 18:04  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Blaydon said...
"Could an erudite correspondent comment on the proposition that Islam is not a genuine religion but just a very distorted form of Judeo-Christianity?"

One might say it is both.

It is a "religion" as commonly defined and is a brew of Judeao-Christian concepts.

Whether it is a "genuine" religion or a "distorted" form of Judeao-Christianity depends on one's own faith and opinion.

Is Christianity a genuine religion or a distorted form of Judaism?

24 June 2011 19:39  
Blogger len said...

Islam and Catholicism both claim the authority of the Scriptures but then both blatantly contradict the scriptures.
When you start altering the scriptures as Catholicism and Islam do then you are in a lose lose situation.
If scripture is right (as they both claim) then Catholics and Muslims MUST both be wrong!.

24 June 2011 20:34  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

.... a bored sigh ....

24 June 2011 20:49  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Islam rewrote a 'new' version of 'scripture' the 'final revelation', supposedly dicated by the Angel Gabriel to God's last prophet.

Catholicism bases it's doctrines on scripture, reason and tradition. It has not 'altered' scripture'!

24 June 2011 20:53  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Islam is at least arguably the antithesis of the Jewish and the Christian religions in essential respects (godhead, revelation, scripture, doctrine, prayer), perhaps of any other sort of religion: its main tenet seems to be denial of both Judaism as a religion and Christianity as what (to others than who adhere to the Jewish religion) is a development of Judaism.

That puts it in too simple a way, but would be supported by erudition, and is not intended to contradict either (Mr) len (20:34) or Mr Dodo (20:53), (although each may see himself as opposed to the other about this).

24 June 2011 23:13  
Blogger len said...

Catholicism borrows from both Christianity and paganism and then for good measure throws in a few ingredients of its own.
This in no way is Biblical Christianity although it pretends to be, it is an unholy mixture which when consumed seems to addle the brain. (One of the symptoms is excessive yawning and inability to concentrate on anything relative to the Gospel and wild imagining of being an extinct bird.)

24 June 2011 23:25  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr J

Thought provoking and helpful.

len

You and I just see the Church diffently. The divide between Evangelical Christians and Catholics, especailly Roman Catholics, is just too wide. It is probably too big a gap too with regard to protestants sects and is increasingly widening with the Anglican Church.

Behind all the disputes we can agree that salvation lies in unity with Christ and the development of a relationship with Him. We can also agree the inspired word of God reveals His truth and His plans and purpose for us.

We disagree fundamentally on how all the above is achieved and sustained and the means God has put at our disposal.

The debate has been going on since the very first days in Jerusalem, It has continued within the Catholic Church, leading to protestations outside the Church, leading to schisms (East and West)and theological divisions(Reformation) within Christianity.

25 June 2011 01:56  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
If we cannot agree on Earth can you imagine what Heaven will be like ?.
There must be a common factor amongst denominations otherwise nothing is ever going to work.
The common factor must be a total submission to Christ and his teachings.
If you introduce different factors ie Popes and Catholic teachings which differ from Christ`s you have introduced division and discord.God is not the author of confusion and I would suggest to you that He will not tolerate it.
We all come together under the Headship of Christ or not at all!.
I have a sneaking feeling that God will have the last Word on this!.
We are not on a 'points system 'where if you get so many things right you enter Heaven(even Muslims believe this) but Jesus Christ said " I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH,AND THE LIFE,no one gets to Heaven without Christ, and if you are adding things it doesn`t make Christianity more but cancels it out.
Less is more as they say.

25 June 2011 10:04  
Anonymous MrJ said...

The Bible (i.e., to avoid any ambiguity or equivocation the canonical books collected and published as the Old and New Testaments) are much more than an extended allegory, but are at least that and could well be read and understood in that way by one who has not yet become convinced of the answer given to Thomas's question "Lord, we have no knowledge of where you are going; how may we have knowledge of the way?" (John 14:5)

25 June 2011 12:01  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

As I said we see things differently.

Catholic adherents, Roman and Anglican, and Orthodox followers do not deny the necessity of total submission to Christ and unity with Him. Doe any Christian?

God is most certainly not the author of confusion.

25 June 2011 13:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older