My workweek begins today, and I have a lot to do this morning before getting out the door. Please read the two links below the fold.
Labels: Cartoonifada, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, silencing voices
(Hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance for the graphic below)
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.Read the whole link-rich essay HERE at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS. Worth your time.
[...]
Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years
[...]
270,000,000 [KILLED BY JIHAD]: THAT'S WAY MORE THAN STALIN, HITLER, MAO, POL POT, IDI AMIN, AND THE REST OF THE 20TH CENTURY'S GENOCIDAL SOCIALISTS!
Labels: Audios, Geert Wilders, genocide, History of Islam, Islam, Jihad, Video, World history
"This court is not interested in the truth. This court doesn't want me to have a fair trial." - Geert Wilders, February 4, 2010
It has come to my attention that some informed people don't even realize that Geert Wilders is on trial in what could well be the most important trial of the our time. Indeed, sometimes when I've mentioned the name "Geert Wilders," I've gotten a blank stare and the response, "Who?" and "What's going on?"The American media’s silence about the Geert Wilders trial is puzzling — the trial is explosive, much more so than most of America’s perennial “trials of the century.” Wilders, leader of the Freedom party, is arguably the Netherlands’s most popular politician, but for years he has had to live in safe houses, including on military bases. He now faces the possibility of imprisonment on charges of “group insult” and “incitement to hatred,” as defined by articles 137 (c) and (d) of the Dutch penal code, for his public speeches and op-eds criticizing Islam.Much more HERE in the article "Western Civilization on Trial"; contributors to the essay also include Bat Ye'or, Clifford D. May, Daniel Pipes, Nina Shea, and Robert Spencer.
Apart from its direct and immediate threat to free speech, the trial exposes the growth of political violence and repression in the Netherlands, long lauded as the most tolerant country in Europe, if not the world....
The media’s silence is also disturbing since it indicates their reluctance, even fear, when it comes to grappling with the West’s increasing censorship of anything that might be deemed offensive to some Muslims. So far, the effects in the U.S. are small — such as the Yale University Press’s removing the famous Danish cartoons from a book about those same cartoons — but they betray a mindset common to much of Europe: preemptive self-censorship.
The Geert Wilders trial ought to be an international media event; seldom has any court case anywhere had such enormous implications for the future of the free world. The case against him, which has all the legitimacy of a Stalinist-era Moscow show trial, is a manifestation of the global assault on free speech sponsored chiefly at the U.N. by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). If Wilders loses, the freedom of speech will be threatened everywhere in the West.Of course, thanks to the Internet, the most-publicized "offense" that Mr. Wilders committed was making the video Fitna, a short film using words from the Koran, news headlines, and news video footage to illustrate the threat that jihad and Islamization pose to the Netherlands. Watch the video for yourself. Exactly what in that video isn't true?
Even if he wins, a dangerous precedent has been set by the fact of the trial itself: It is a sad day for the freedom of speech when a man can be put on trial for causing another man offense. If offending someone were really a crime warranting prosecution by the civil authorities, the legal system would be opened up to absurdities even greater than the Wilders trial....
Geert Wilders is on trial for telling the truth.Furthermore, we have yet another disturbing aspect of the trial:
Wilders is being limited in the number of witnesses he can call: out of 18 requested, only 3 were approved by the court.Of note: one of the approved witnesses is Wafa Sultan, a former Muslim and the author of A God Who Hates.
Labels: Censorship, Current events, Geert Wilders, Islamification, Pat Condell speaks out, silencing voices, Video
(This is a long post)
From the UK Parliament: "A Private Notice Question - urgent question to the Government - was asked in the Lords Chamber on 12 February on the Government's justification for denying Dutch MP, Mr Geert Wilders, entry into the UK."
Asked By Lord TaverneTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their justification for denying Mr Geert Wilders entry into the United Kingdom.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given private notice.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, under European law, a member state of the European economic area may refuse entry to a national of another EEA state if they constitute a threat to public policy, public security or public health.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I am aware that Mr Wilders holds views highly offensive to the Muslim community, but freedom of speech issues often raise awkward questions. Indeed, this ban has united in opposition the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the Dutch Government—unusual allies—and also a section of the Muslim community which cares about freedom of expression. Does the Home Office agree that causing offence, even deep offence, to particular religious groups is no reason for compromising on the principle of freedom of expression? Why else did we repeal the laws on blasphemy? Since this is a ban on an EU citizen and Member of Parliament who has been convicted of no offence, and who has been invited to a private showing of a film in this House—not a rally in Trafalgar Square—does it not set a deeply disturbing precedent for the vital question of freedom of expression?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the Government and I are great believers in freedom of expression. Indeed, I am constantly getting into trouble because I am too free with my expressions at times. But the decision was not based purely on the film “Fitna”, but also on a range of factors, including prosecution in the Netherlands for incitement and discrimination, and other statements. The Home Secretary has to make a decision, as was said, on anyone coming in if they are a threat to public policy or public security in particular. We are constantly looking at this and are very robust about it with all sorts of extremists, from whichever corner they come. I regularly, across my desk, have to give advice to the Home Secretary about stopping people coming into this country, because I do not think it is appropriate that they should be here. I think it is good that we are being robust about this, and absolutely appropriate that the Home Secretary should have made this decision.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there seems to be a bit of a lottery as to who is admitted and who is not. Are there any criteria by which the Home Secretary works, even if advised by the noble Lord, to justify who is refused admittance and who is not?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, there is effectively a list of things the Home Secretary will check through when she is making a decision about whether someone should be allowed into this country. Of course, as the House will well know, quite often we will say that someone should not come into this country, but they then appeal and, through our judicial system, it is decided that they should be allowed to do so. One of the great strengths and joys of this country is that there is a very robust approach to these things. Sometimes, it surprises many of us that that person is allowed to come in and continue to say things—that seems very strange, whatever persuasion they come from. There is a list, and it is checked through. As I said, the Home Secretary thought long and hard about this. The decision was based on a whole raft of things, not just on this film. I believe that it was the correct decision.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for asking this Question. I suggest to the Minister—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. I only have one question, because I know that we do not want to spend long on this. Does the noble Lord think that this situation would have occurred if Mr Wilders had said, “Ban the Bible”? If it would not have occurred, why not? Surely, the violence and the disturbance that may arise from showing this film in this country is not caused by the film, which merely attempts to show how the violent Islamist uses the Koran to perpetrate his terrible acts, but by the jihadist, the violent Islamist. In doing what the Government have done, surely they are therefore guilty of appeasement.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I certainly do not think that we are guilty of appeasement in any way whatever. I do not want to go down the route of discussing a hypothetical case about what if he had talked about this or that. I am afraid that I am rather constrained about exactly what I can say about him. He is under prosecution in the Netherlands for incitement and discrimination. Clearly, anything that I say in this House could become involved in that, and I would not wish that to happen. It would be wrong if that was the case. Also, he can appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision, and anything that I say could be used there.
As I said, we are very robust across the board. We take no sides on this. We treat people whom we believe are a threat to the security and safety of this nation in exactly the same way, from whatever cloth they come; that is extremely important. I believe that this was the right decision.
Lord Trimble: My Lords, the Minister has talked about incitement, and reference has been made to the possibility of counterprotests. These are public order matters. The criterion that the Minister should be operating under is public security, which is a different thing.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, again, I really cannot go too far down this route. These things will be looked at in the Court of Appeal and in the court of another nation. I do not wish to go down this route; I think that it would be wrong for me to do so.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister comment on one matter, which might enable us to make up our minds? Who brought this matter to the attention of the Home Secretary? Since this man is an EU citizen, he does not have to apply specially to come to our country. How did this become a matter of public policy?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend an answer to that question, because I am not quite sure how it came to the attention of the Home Secretary. I was first aware of this about a week ago. I do not know the answer. Perhaps I can write to my noble friend when I can discover the answer.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords—
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords—
Dutch MP Geert Wilders is "seriously considering" taking steps to sue Jacqui Smith over her decision to ban the controversial film-maker from the UKPlease take a few minutes to read the speech Geert Wilders would have given before the House of Lords, had he been allowed to:
The legal action would have the backing of the Dutch Government, in a move which could aggravate the diplomatic row over the ban between London and Amsterdam.
Mr Wilders said he was looking to take legal action against the Home Secretary for "blatant discrimination" in the High Court or International Court in the Hague.
[...]
Mr Wilders is being encouraged to sue the Government by Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister who is still furious with the Home Office's decision.
He said he would back Wilders in a possible decision to bring a case against the British Government's "disgraceful decision".
Mr Verhagen said: "Everybody, but especially a Parliamentarian from an European Union member country, has the right to freedom of speech."...
London, Feb. 12, 2009All those ideals of freedom Mr. Wilders so praised in the speech never given — where have they gone? HERE is the Telegraph's answer to that question.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.
This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.
The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.
In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.
What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.
Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.
Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.
There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.
Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.
We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.
Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated. For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.
Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.
But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.
I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.
You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all it’s calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews? Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.
I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trial.
The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.
Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?
We have to defend freedom of speech.
For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.
What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?
The choice is ours.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.
Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.
Thank you very much.
Geert Wilders MP
Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)
The Netherlands
Labels: freedom of expression, Geert Wilders
What a tragic day for freedom of speech as the West plunges further into dhimmitude!
Labels: Dhimmitude, Fitna The Movie, Geert Wilders, silencing voices
I'm in too much physical pain to post much right now. Nevertheless, I'm posting today because commenter Vlad left an update about further objections to the film Fitna.
Muslim countries call for action on WildersWhat other countries are in "the first batch"?
Wednesday 16 April 2008
Muslim members of the human rights commission of the United Nations want the Netherlands to take steps against Geert Wilders and his anti-Koran film Fitna, reports Trouw on Wednesday.
The comments came during a two-week meeting of the commission in which countries are being judged on their human rights.
Junior justice minister Nebahat Albayrak, who is part of the Dutch delegation, said the public prosecution department is looking into whether the film broke any laws.
Egypt had harsh words for the Dutch judge who said that as an MP Wilders had the right to criticise radical Islam and the Koran and that he was not inciting racial hatred. The judge's comments showed a lack of feeling for the duties and jurisprudence on human rights, the Egyptian delegate said.
The commission plans to hold three meetings each year until all 192 UN member countries have been judged on their human rights. The Netherlands is in the first batch of 16 countries.
Labels: Fitna The Movie, Geert Wilders, Muslims complain
From this source, on April 7, 2008:
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) - A Dutch lawmaker who sparked protests across the Muslim world with a film criticizing the Quran is entitled to express his anti-Islamic views, a court ruled Monday, rejecting a request to muzzle him.Caroline Webb, in this article in the Middle East Times, has posed this list of questions which Fitna: The Movie raised in her mind:
The court ruled that the views expressed by right-wing legislator Geert Wilders did not exceed the legal boundaries against inciting hatred or violence.
The Netherlands Islamic Federation withdrew its petition to ban Wilders' film "Fitna" after it appeared on the Internet March 27, the day before the case was heard in a heavily guarded courtroom. The movie, linking terror attacks by Muslim extremists with texts from Islam's holy book, triggered angry street protests in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia, and calls in other countries to boycott Dutch goods.
But the federation still asked the Hague District Court to order Wilders to stop making statements "in writing, on film or spoken" that are deemed insulting to Muslims, and to apologize for statements he has made repeatedly in the past. Wilders has called the Quran a fascist book and compared it to Hitler's "Mein Kampf."
In a written judgment published Monday, the court said Wilders' right to free speech and role as a politician allow him to voice his criticisms of radical Islam and the Quran.
As a lawmaker, Wilders "must be able to — sometimes in sharp terms — express his opinions," the judgment said. "In this context, it cannot be said that (Wilders') statements — even though provocative — are an incitement to hate or violence against Muslims."...
1) Should Geert Wilders be living under a death threat for speaking up about the problem of death threats and actual murders being committed on a large-scale in the name of Islam?In my view, those questions are the important subtext of Fitna: The Movie.
2) Should Web hosting companies (and all other media companies) be threatened to the point that was done with Live Leak, and which caused Network Solutions to deny the film a space on its servers?
3) Should Muslim leaders be doing more to condemn the practice of death threats, suicide bombings everywhere in the world, murders on the streets of Europe such as that of Theo van Gogh?
4) Should Muslims in Europe be doing more to betray those who are betraying Islam and hand over to the police authorities rabid clerics and others who are fomenting hatred and zeal for inflicting more suffering on Western society – and who use the Koran to incite their audience?
These are the questions that I want to see more discussion of and more action on. Even the photograph in the online article about "Fitna" in the Middle East Times, showing an effigy of Wilders being burnt, indicates the double standards at work. Who is speaking to the crowd working itself into a frenzy of hatred and violence, and is able to say to them that this behavior is exactly what "Fitna" is critiquing? Where is the leadership leading people away from their worst and weakest and most destructive side towards something better?Instead of asking the hard questions, however, Western leaders and the mainstream media have done their best to ignore Fitna: The Movie, much in the manner of the government and the media in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, a futuristic novel about a dystopia in which censorship became the norm because the people simply did not want to face reality, compose analytical thoughts, or find solutions; instead, they wanted to be happy in their ignorance.
"Fitna" may be criticized for appearing to tar all Muslims with the same brush and that certainly does make it weak. I don't agree with that presentation, as it is grossly unfair. But I think its goal is to raise the question of internal self-regulation of extremism. It is holding up a mirror, composed of real footage from recent years, and asking hard questions about theology and morality in today's necessarily pluralistic world.
Labels: Anti-Dhimmitude, Fitna The Movie, Free speech, Geert Wilders
Islamic leaders in the Netherlands will ask a court later today to ban a film which accuses the Koran of inciting violence. Dutch MP Geert Wilders launched his film on the internet after local distributors refused to release it. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende added his criticism of the film, saying it was offensive to Muslims.Carl in Jerusalem said the following at his post, where I found the above video:
"The film shows images of violent acts, and holds Islam and the Koran responsible for them. The government condemns such acts and those who commit them. The film equates Islam with violence, and we reject this interpretation. The vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence. In fact the victims are often also Muslims."
The film is called "Fitna", a Koranic term sometimes translated as "strife."
It intersperses shots of the 9/11 attacks in New York City, and other bombings blamed on Islamic radicals, with quotations from the Koran.
There have already been widespread protests against the film, and the governments of Pakistan and Iran have made their displeasure very clear.
NATO fears an explosion of Muslim anger could threaten the security of foreign forces in Afghanistan, which include some 1,600 Dutch troops.
First of all, as far as I know, LiveLeak is housed on servers in the US or UK. How does anyone think a Dutch court is going to order a server in the US or UK to take it down? They might be able to order a UK server to take it down because of the EU, but I doubt most US-based servers would listen. Then again, given that Network Solutions declined to run the film and took down Wilders' site, I suppose anything is possible.However, we also have this in yesterday's Washington Post, apparently before the release of Fitna: The Movie:
More important, at this point, I am sure the film has been downloaded to dozens, if not hundreds of computers throughout the world. While I'm not much of techie, there are many other bloggers who are techies, and I am sure they would continue to host the movie. And no Dutch court can stop them.
The top U.N. rights body on Thursday passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging governments to prohibit it.Also, this appeared at Reuters this morning:
[...]
The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."
[...]
The resolution "urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred. It also urges states to adopt laws that would protect against hatred and discrimination stemming from religious defamation.
It ["Fitna: The Movie"] starts and finishes with a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad with a bomb under his turban, originally published in Danish newspapers, accompanied by the sound of ticking.But take heart, infidels. Read this posting at Infidel Bloggers Alliance. Another film, "The Life of Mohammed," is supposed to be released on April 20. Of course, the objections have already begun.
Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who drew the image, said he planned to take legal action on Friday to have it removed from the film, saying it was taken out of context.
"(The cartoon) is aimed at the fanatical terrorists that use interpretations of Islam and the Koran as their spiritual dynamite," he told Danish news agency Ritzau on Thursday....
Labels: Fitna The Movie, Geert Wilders, Litigation-ifada, OIC, silencing voices, Video
[Hat-tip to Mark Alexander, who notified me of the film's release]
THE HAGUE (AFP)
Dutch MP Geert Wilders has posted his anti-Islamic film, which has sparked wide condemnation and fears of a backlash, on the Internet on Thursday.
The first minutes of the 15-minute movie show a Koran being opened and the text of a sura from Islam's holiest tome, which it translated from Arabic as imploring the faithful to "terrorize the enemies of Allah".
They were then followed by images of airplanes flying into the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, with soundbits from phone calls to the emergency services on that day.
The film continues with grizzly images of bloodstained bodies in the aftermath of the Madrid train bombings in March 2004 in which 191 people were killed.
Despite pressure from The Hague not to release the movie, Wilders pushed ahead.
Dutch officials fear a repeat of violent protests that erupted when European newspapers printed cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)
In comments to the Netherlands' domestic ANP news agency Thursday, Wilders, 44, said he felt "Fitna" is "a decent film".
He added that he can understand that Muslims could be upset about the film, but stressed: "It remains widely within the framework of the law".
"My film was not made to provoke violence," he said, adding that he hoped there would not be riots now that he had posted the film.
The movie includes images of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh who was killed in 2004 by a Muslim radical for also making a film critical of Islam.
After nearly 10 minutes of selected Quranic verses followed by gruesome images of attacks, beheadings, beatings, and speeches by unidentified Muslim clerics condemning infidels, Wilders turns to the situation in the Netherlands.
The film shows statistics of the growing Muslim population in the Netherlands and shows images of female genital mutilation, a hanging of suspected gay men, beheadings and bloodied children, all following the words: "The Netherlands in future?”
The film ends with someone leafing through the Koran, and a tearing sound is heard.
"The sound you heard was from a page (being torn out) of the phone book. It is not up to me, but up to the Muslims themselves to tear the spiteful verses from the Koran," says a text that appears on the screen.
"Stop Islamisation, Defend our freedom," the film concludes.
Labels: Fitna The Movie, Geert Wilders, Video
I didn't play to post anything on this Easter Sunday. But then I saw this posting by Pastorius at Infidel Bloggers Alliance:
Geert Wilders new film is being attacked as a hate crime by anonymous critics who have convinced his webhost, Network Solutions, to take the site down before the film has even been aired.
I guess he is guilty of "Pre-Crime."
Go read the story over at KleinVerzet.
Remember this; religion, business, and government are institutions of power in society. As such, they MUST be criticized.
If we are not allowed to criticize a seminal center of power like religion, then we are left helpless when religion becomes fascistic.
This is about more than Islam, or Wilders movie. This is our Freedom.
If Network Solutions will not play by the rules of Western Civilization, then Network Solutions should be taken down.
If you would like to contact Network Soltutions, click on this link.
Labels: Fitna The Movie, Geert Wilders, silencing voices
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible
for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or
harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP.
Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links
to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a
criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate
any applicable local, state, national or international law or
regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited.
The fact that particular comments remain on the site
in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.
