How Do You Say “Kangaroo Court” in Dutch?
Written by: Diana West
Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:13 PM 
Behold (courtesy Tundra Tabloids) the very image of Dutch “justice.” After today’s “judicial” proceedings in Amsterdam, Holland itself is forever besmirched, its “judges” having made it clear that no semblance of fairness will enter into their proceeeding against Geert Wilders. As noted below, the “judges” slashed the roster of witnesses the Wilders defense team planned to call to the stand from eighteen to three.
John L. Work writes at Newsreal:
Even if you have never been involved in a criminal prosecution wherein your very freedom is at risk, I want you to now imagine that you and your attorney have prepared a defense that includes a list of witnesses that will provide a mountain of exculpatory evidence. Then, imagine that the Court summarily and arbitrarily decides that it will not listen to nearly ninety percent of your case.
“This court is apparently not interested in the truth.” Wilders told De Telegraaph (translations from Gates of Vienna). “I cannot conclude anything but that the court does not award me a fair trial.”
“I have no respect for this,” Wilders added. He pointed out that in a typical criminal case there are often dozens of witnesses heard.
But this is not a typical trial. This is a rigged game, a fixed fight, a show trial that is premised not on Dutch law but on Islamic law. Indeed, the trial of Geert Wilders is a test case for sharia in the Netherlands, the grafting onto a free Western country the repressive cage of Islamic rule.
Discussing Muslim progress against “Islamophobia” at the 35th meeting of foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Kampala, Uganda in 2008, Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu
made the following statement:
In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.
One reading doesn’t convey the chilling import of these words.
As Stephen Coughlin has pointed out to me, “we,” in the definition at the OIC website, are, of course, “the collective voice of the Islamic world” — the “ummah” as represented by the heads of state and foreign ministers of the 57 Islamic nations of the OIC. In other words, as Coughlin puts it, “real state actors” using “real state power” to further real state objectives.
The objective of the ummah? Always and eternally, the greater and wider and deeper imposition of Islamic law. The ummah indeed sent its message to the West regarding “red lines that should not be crossed” — namely, the Danish cartoons and Wilders’ film “Fitna.” Official protests, statements, riots, boycotts, murders, death threats, assassination attempts — a clear Islamic message, all right. And:
As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues.
Yes, and to the craven point where “the official West and its public opinion” are paralyzed and silenced by these same “sensitivities.”
They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.
When the OIC speaks about “freedom of expression,” it means freedom of expression as governed by the laws of Islam — sharia. When the OIC says we in the West have “started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility,” it means we in the West have started to regard expression from the perspective of sharia — from the perspective of the totalitarian Islamic system.
Trying Geert Wilders, a once-valiant Holland is leading the way, forsaking the freedoms of the West for the objectives of the ummah.
Comments
By Hard Rain on February 5th, 2010 at 6:16 am
Forgive me for reposting this… er… my finger slipped. Anyway…
There are those who say the trial of Geert Wilders is the most important event of the century. I find this attitude very disappointing. It’s much more serious than that (to paraphrase Bill Shankly).
The trial of Geert Wilders is nothing less than a fulcrum upon which history will turn. The civilised world can only hope that his judges are aware of the magnitude of the judgement they are about to pass down.
This trial is the prime test case for the so-called ‘hate speech’ laws, which appear to be specifically designed to automatically criminalise Geert Wilders personally. They are tailor-made for the job. ‘Hate speech’ is a legislative catch-all term which covers everything from openly inciting violence to insulting the followers of a religion. If this comes down to hurt feelings then on paper they have him bang to rights, Wilders is guilty as charged. His defence lies in a somewhat hopeful appeal to the courts sympathy for the concept of free-speech and their attachment to the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law.
Whatever the outcome, the ripples will radiate far beyond the courtroom, because not only will new legal precedents be set, but new social and political climates will be triggered. The wider the ripples spread, the more profound becomes the sociological impact.
Having exploded in popularity over the last few years, the Freedom Party under Wilders’ leadership is a political phenomenon in the Netherlands, topping the polls and winning seats at an exponential rate. If he wins this case he will emerge from court riding the crest of a wave of victorious publicity in a trajectory that will likely propel the Freedom Party into the winning seat at the next elections. Then he will begin the de-Islamification of the Netherlands. Rotterdam will become Shangri-La, Amsterdam become Camelot.
Seeing his star rise and encouraged by his success, the people of Europe will shout the house down, forcing their political leaders to begin listening to their constituents and follow suit, advancing similar policies, radically changing the future of Europe and reversing its long slide into demographic Muslim oblivion. Europe is saved.
However, if Wilders loses, the law stipulates that he must be fined or committed to prison. At the news of his sentencing, Muslim activists will be emboldened on all fronts and their lawyer allies will unleash a storm of follow-on legal actions to silence criticism of Islam across all the nations of the European Union. From Dublin to Bucharest and Naples to Helsinki, all of Europe will be nudged, case by case, towards a cultural event horizon, the point of no return, without a voice to speak out for fear of invoking the same fate as the felon Wilders.
Robbed of their birthright liberties, unable even to protest, 830 million people and 4 million square kilometres of Western civilisation will plunge inexorably towards submission under Islam.
When this trial is done and the ripples are riding out in the aftermath, Geert Wilders will either be the leader of his country or a numbered inmate within its prison system, but make no mistake, the entire future of Europe, possibly the world, rests on the outcome of this one single case.
By Hi on February 7th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
this website is totally racist and encourage the hatret between nations and people , islam is peace and compassion and killing anything in islam is big sin , some muslims may not know the religion and acting wrongly in society
should not judge overall and blame islam and all muslims , this centry is compassion and tolarance , the other way of living can cost the human being a lot pain and un justice so please whoever set up this website , try to be fair and keep justice in your heart , whoever you believe in will be your judge soon or later
Regards
By soothsayer on February 8th, 2010 at 7:33 am
I used to work for a real Free Press back in the sixties. You are not free, you are in the cell of your own prejudgments; or is it ideology?
First, you do not understand Dutch law. For instance: GW is a filthy liar with his statement about witnesses in criminal process. The man gets five days for his trial, for heaven’s sake; murder cases usually get one day, maybe two. Witnesses are unreliable, as everyone knows: Courts want facts and of those, GW has provided enough, to his own detriment. He wil hang, if he will, by the rope he has strung. Just like any suspect.
Second, who the … are you to judge the judicial system of the oldest still existing republic in the world?
And last, what do you call a man who calls head-honcho’s of Al Kaida and a convicted murderer for his defense? You tell me….
With all respect due,
I say sooth.
By Herman Van Keer on February 8th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
islam is not peace and compassion, islam is murder and rape, contempt and pedophelia.
One has only to look into quran and ahadit.
One verse actually summarizes it all:
bukhari Volume:4 Book:52 Number:220
allah’s apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.’
By neodsa on February 8th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Holland wasnt so bloody good in WW2 a lot of brave people died to ensure Dutch freedom. They are looking down now watching you , giving your country away to the muslims , what must they be thinking!
By Billy Bishop on February 19th, 2010 at 8:29 am
To soothsayer:
That old lady whose last name is Orange, used to have her picture on the guilders, what’s her role in the Netherlands again?
Speaking only for myself, I can say that I have no prejudments against the legal system of San Marino–the world’s oldest republic.
Trackbacks