ScumbagWatch: Wilders

2

Comments

  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Updates: Wilder tried to get the judge removed and petulantly refused to speak until that happened.



    A conclave found no evidence the judge was biased and so the trial continues with Wilders still silent. Shame he hasn't been for the last years. Still he may have some time to think if he gets banged up which still seems highly unlikely.



    So the best thing to do is to keep the judge on the case and keep asking for continuances to delay the trial as long as possible.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer ? Mon Oct 4, 10:31 am ET

    Quote:

    AMSTERDAM ? Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders appealed for freedom of expression Monday as he went on trial for alleged hate speech at a time when his popularity and influence in the Netherlands are near all-time highs.



    Prosecutors say Wilders has incited hate against Muslims, pointing to a litany of quotes and remarks he has made in recent years. In one opinion piece he wrote
    Quote:

    "I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate," adding "I've had enough of the Quran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book."



    Wilders argues he has a right to freedom of speech and that his remarks were within the bounds of the law.



    Quote:

    "I am a suspect here because I have expressed my opinion as a representative of the people," Wilders told judges at the start of the trial.



    "Formally I'm on trial here today, but with me, the freedom of expression of many, many Dutch people is also being judged," he said, referring to more than 1.4 million voters who made his party the country's third-largest in June elections.



    If convicted he could face up to a year in jail, though a fine would be more likely. He could keep his seat in parliament regardless of the outcome.



    The trial was adjourned until Tuesday shortly after Wilders' opening remarks, when he declined to answer any questions from the three judges, invoking his right to remain silent.



    Presiding judge Jan Moors said Wilders is known for making bold statements but avoiding discussions, and added that "it appears you're doing so again."



    Wilders' lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz, said the remark showed Moors is biased against Wilders and moved to have him substituted. The move delayed the trial for at least a day as a separate panel considers the request.



    The move to delay comes at a delicate moment in Dutch politics, when Wilders is close to seeing many of his policy goals realized.



    Wilders' Freedom Party has agreed to support a new right-wing Dutch government set to take power with a tiny majority in parliament this month. The deal is not certain because several conservative lawmakers are hesitant to work with Wilders.



    In return for Wilders' support, his political allies have promised to turn away more asylum-seekers and cut immigration from nonwestern countries in half.



    They also plan to force new immigrants to pay for their own mandatory citizenship classes.

    Immigration-related issues have dominated politics in the Netherlands and much of Europe over the past decade. Wilders has drawn comparisons with populists such as the late Jorg Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France.




    His stances resound deeply with Dutch voters, who have reconsidered their famous tolerance amid fears their own culture is being eroded by immigrants who don't share their values. Around six percent of the Dutch population is now Muslim.



    Mohamed Rabbae, chairman of the moderate National Moroccan Council, said outside the court that he hoped judges would force Wilders to issue an apology for his past remarks.



    Quote:

    "We are not for getting Mr. Wilders in prison. We are for correcting him," Rabbae said.

    The formal charges are insulting a group on the basis of its religion and inciting discrimination and/or hatred.



    Convictions for discriminatory remarks are frequent in the Netherlands, but penalties are rarely greater than a small fine.



    Prosecutors were initially reluctant to bring Wilders' case to court, saying his remarks appeared directed toward Islam as an ideology rather than intended to insult Muslims as a group.

    But they were eventually ordered to do so by a judge.



    Prosecutors won't rule out dropping some or all charges or demanding no sentence when the trial comes to its concluding phase.



    A verdict is expected Nov. 4, though if the current panel of judges is replaced, the trial will be delayed for months.



    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101004/...ds_hate_speech
  • floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Any chance that the Dutch will prosecute Osama Bin Laden for inciting hatred of muslims?
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post


    Any chance that the Dutch will prosecute Osama Bin Laden for inciting hatred of muslims?



    No..no chance.



    The US weren't telling the truth when they swore to bring him to justice so...no....he'll be safe in his cave while the sheep will keep parroting their anti-Islam rhetoric and blindly follow their leaders till the next demonized minority comes along.
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer ? Mon Oct 4, 10:31 am ET

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101004/...ds_hate_speech



    Freedom of expression for a fascist who wants to ban a 'fascist' book



    Equal rights for all - I have the right to punch you in the face and you have the right to be punched!!
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Freedom of expression for a fascist who wants to ban a 'fascist' book



    Excerpted from Free speech: Westboro church Supreme Court case tests First Amendment @ http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...dment/(page)/5



    Quote:

    [T]he First Amendment's free speech clause is intended to be broadly permissive. Mere offense is not enough to trigger government censorship.



    Quote:

    "The problem is, once you start prohibiting speech that is offensive there is no limit to how far you can extend the concept of offensiveness," says Richard Parker, professor emeritus of communication at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff and editor of the 2003 book "Free Speech on Trial."



    The history of the first amendment is populated by a rogues' gallery of provocateurs, crusaders, ra*cists, and assorted scoundrels. These tend to be the kinds of people who exist at the outer edges of public discourse where the boundaries of constitutional protection of offensive speech may not be entirely clear.



    Consider the case of Frank Collin. In 1977, he was the leader of a Nazi group that wanted to conduct a protest march through Skokie, Ill., a Jewish community with a significant population of Holocaust survivors. The group sought a permit to parade through the village in their storm trooper uniforms displaying swastikas.



    Village officials objected, and the courts agreed to block it, ruling that such a march would be a blatant provocation, a form of fighting words, unprotected by the First Amendment.



    But the US Supreme Court had a different view. It reversed the lower courts and sent the case back. Ultimately, the dispute was decided by a federal appeals court in Chicago that found that free speech rights are broad enough to cover even a group of Nazis wearing swastikas marching through a community of Holocaust survivors.



    Quote:

    "If these civil rights are to remain vital for all, they must protect not only those society deems acceptable, but also those whose ideas it quite justifiably rejects and despises," the appeals court said.



    The case would not have been easy for any lawyer, but it was particularly tough for a Jewish lawyer defending a Nazi pitted against Holocaust survivors. "Some folks threatened to shoot me," he says.



    The ACLU lost members and financial support over the controversial case. But Mr. Goldberger, who has since retired after a career as a law professor at Ohio State's Moritz College of Law, says it was a battle well worth fighting.



    Quote:

    "It was important that a group identified as a liberal organization with a Jewish legal director would say the First Amendment doesn't turn on the offensiveness of the speech or the noxiousness of the political philosophy that drives the speech," he says.



    Another important figure in the development of free speech protections in America is Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg. In 1964, he was filmed delivering a speech in full white-robed regalia in the glow of a burning cross during a KKK rally in rural Ohio.



    Quote:

    "We're not a revengent [sic] organization," Mr. Brandenburg declared, "but if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengence [sic] taken."



    Brandenburg was charged with breaking an Ohio law by advocating violence during his speech. He was convicted and sentenced to serve one to 10 years in prison and pay a $1,000 fine.



    On appeal, the US Supreme Court reversed his conviction, announcing in a landmark decision that mere advocacy of unlawful action was fully protected by the First Amendment. What wouldn't be protected, the court said, was an intentional effort to incite imminent lawless action, like whipping a crowd into a riotous mob and sending them on a rampage.



    That 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio established a high standard for the protection of free speech. But, by necessity, it leaves unresolved the critical question of precisely where the line falls between unlawful incitement and mere impassioned advocacy.



    It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who in 1919 first gave voice to the task of separating speech deserving protection from dangerous speech that did not.



    Quote:

    "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent," Justice Holmes wrote. "It is a question of proximity and degree."



    This "clear and present danger" test was used for decades to uphold the arrest of perceived government opponents and suspected communists, who ? in retrospect ? never posed much of a threat to the nation. Over time, the standard evolved, beefing up free speech protections. The evolution eventually led to the 1969 Brandenburg landmark ruling protecting the advocacy of unlawful action.



    Behind it all is a conviction expressed by various members of the Supreme Court through the years that what is being protected in the First Amendment's free speech clause is the free flow of ideas ? the lifeblood of a democracy. It is the principle that the best way to counter a stupid idea, a hateful idea, a dangerous idea, is through the expression of better ideas.




    Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis identified this dynamic in a 1927 case.



    Quote:

    "To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion," Justice Brandeis wrote.



    "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education," he said, "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."





    [QUOTE=segovius;1729316Equal rights for all - I have the right to punch you in the face and you have the right to be punched!![/QUOTE]



    Freedom of speech is not the same thing as having the right to punch someone's lights out--unless it is in self defense. If you decide to exercise your belief as having "the right to punch you in the face," for no other reason than your perceived right to do so, you will be arrested for an assault and battery charge and will be sued for personal injuries for the assault and battery.



    As offensive as Wilders is, he does have a right to express his opinions. I do take issue that this is an elected official and he might have therefore overstepped his bounds. Of course he is under the laws of the Netherlands and I have posted their Constitution earlier in this thread.
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Freedom of speech is not the same thing as having the right to punch someone's lights out--unless it is in self defense. If you decide to exercise your belief as having "the right to punch you in the face," for no other reason than your perceived right to do so, you will be arrested for an assault and battery charge and will be sued for personal injuries for the assault and battery.



    As offensive as Wilders is, he does have a right to express his opinions. I do take issue that this is an elected official and he might have therefore overstepped his bounds. Of course he is under the laws of the Netherlands and I have posted their Constitution earlier in this thread.



    You missed my irony...let's leave punching out of it...I'll rephrase:



    I have the right to stop you having the right to read a book you choose to.



    Or if you prefer:



    Freedom of expression means I am free to stop your expression.



    Whose freedom trumps whose?
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    You missed my irony...let's leave punching out of it...I'll rephrase:



    I have the right to stop you having the right to read a book you choose to.



    Or if you prefer:



    Freedom of expression means I am free to stop your expression.



    Whose freedom trumps whose?



    Your rights stop when it infringes upon my rights. I should be able to read any book of my choosing. No you are not free to stop me from expressing my opinions--that's censorship.



    Along with freedoms comes responsibility. By allowing freedom of speech or of the press, you hope that people will act responsibly and avoid hate speech or hate mongering, unfortunately this is not the case. But to place limitations upon freedom of speech or of the press, you start down a slippery slope that you don't want to happen.



    Please don't get me wrong--I really hate what Wilders is doing to the Netherlands. I still have a problem understanding why there's so much hatred out there against Muslims. My only guess is that this hatred is based upon fear and ignorance---but what's new in this???
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Daniel Makosky on October 16, 2010 11:51 AM ET



    Quote:

    The Dutch Public Prosecution Service (OM) [official website, in Dutch] on Friday concluded its case [prosecution materials, in Dutch] against right-wing politician Geert Wilders [personal website; JURIST news archive] by asking for Wilders' acquittal on all charges [materials, PDF]. The prosecutors' request is based on a determination that the politician's statements were directed at Islam and not Muslims themselves, and that they were within the realm of public debate as commentary on matters such as immigration. Additionally, prosecutors noted that the available evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Wilders intended to incite violence or create divisiveness amongst the Dutch population. Wilders, whose trial began earlier this month [AP report] before the Amsterdam District Court, frequently calls Islam "fascist," has compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf and advocates barring Muslims from immigrating to the Netherlands. The defense is scheduled to begin presenting its case [AP report] next week, and a verdict is expected next month. Wilders faces up to one year imprisonment or fines if convicted.



    Wilders' trial was suspended [JURIST report] earlier this month after a lawyer representing him accused one of the judges of bias. Days prior, Wilders announced [JURIST report] that the Dutch government will attempt to ban the burqa [JURIST news archive] and other full Islamic veils to secure the support of Wilders' Freedom Party [party website, in Dutch] in forming a coalition government. An Amsterdam trial court ruled in February that it had jurisdiction to try Wilders for anti-Islamic statements, rejecting [JURIST report] Wilders' claim that, as a member of parliament, he should be tried by the Supreme Court. That court found that his alleged crime was committed outside his capacity as an MP. Last year, the OM announced that they would prosecute Wilders following a January 2009 court order [press releases, in Dutch] by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals. Much of the controversy stems from Wilders' 15-minute film, Fitna, which shows images of the Quran alongside images of violence and says democratic values are threatened by the increasing number of Muslins in Europe.



    http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/10...statements.php
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer ? 23 mins ago



    Quote:

    AMSTERDAM ? Muslim witnesses said Monday that a Dutch lawmaker's anti-Islamic comments had led to attacks and intimidation, and they pleaded with judges to convict him and give him a symbolic fine of one euro ($1.40).



    Geert Wilders is facing charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims for statements that include comparing Islam with Nazism and calling for banning the Quran and taxing Muslim scarves, which he calls "head rags." His trial has been seen as testing the limits of free speech.



    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101018/...ds_hate_speech
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    22 October 2010 Last updated at 11:46 ET



    Quote:

    Judges in the hate speech trial of Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders have been ordered to step down by an independent appeals panel.



    The move follows a request by Mr Wilders' lawyers who said they feared the judges were biased against him.



    The legal process that began in January must now begin again with new judges. The trial itself started in October.



    Mr Wilders faces five charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.



    If found guilty, he faces a maximum sentence of one year in jail.



    Mr Wilders' lawyer Bram Moszkowicz had argued that the bench at Amsterdam District Court had created "an impression of partiality" by putting off a decision on the defence's request to recall a witness.



    Being denied the opportunity to recall the witness would "make it impossible for the defence to substantiate a crucial part of its case", he added.



    A hastily convened panel said on Friday that it found the trial judges' decision to be "incomprehensible in the absence of any motivation".



    They said that, as a result, Mr Wilders' fear of bias as a result was "understandable".



    "Under the circumstances, the request (for the judges' removal) is granted," said a statement from the panel.



    "Another chamber will handle the rest of the case."



    Party success



    Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops, an international criminal law professor at Utrecht University, told Reuters that the ruling meant there would be new judges and a new date.



    "This means that the trial has to start all over again. Not the investigation phase, but the court sessions as the new judges will not have been present at the hearings," he said.



    Under scrutiny in the trial are statements Mr Wilders made between 2006 and 2008, including calling Islam "fascist" and likening the Koran to Hitler's book Mein Kampf.



    Mr Wilders' Freedom Party is the third biggest in the Netherlands after elections in June, and is expected to play a key role in the next parliament.



    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11609589
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    The EDL - fresh from beating up some women and kids in a restaurant in Leicester after returning from an Islamophobic demo in NYC - have hotfooted it over to Amsterdam to support Wilders.



    Probably some aggro will ensue (you'll see that in the States soon as they've joined forces with leading Tea Party representatives) and that's maybe the only thing that prompted Wilders to distance himself from them.



    Rank hypocrisy actually - his is te very hate that inspired them. Why not just embrace it?



    Link
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member




    Not wild about Wilders? Populists' anti-Islam message has European Jewish leaders worried

    By Toby Axelrod

    Published: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:14 AM EDT



    Quote:

    BERLIN (JTA) -- Geert Wilders, the rock star of European politics, is riding the crest of a populist tsunami.



    As the pro-Israel founder of Holland?s Party of Freedom lets loose recently in Berlin, shouting that Islam is a threat to Germany?s identity, democracy and prosperity, his audience of 500 reacts with an evangelical zeal, offering big-time applause and standing ovations.



    ?Stand by the side of those who are threatened by Islam, like the State of Israel and its Jewish citizens,? he exhorts the crowd.



    This isn't a Jewish event, though a guest speaker is former Israeli Knesset member Eli Cohen of the nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu Party.



    Ethnic Germans comprise much of the crowd Oct. 2 at the Hotel Berlin. Their chief bugaboo? The failure of Muslims to fit in to mainstream society.



    Someone, in this case Wilders, has allowed them to vent their frustration (critics would say racist views). And for the crowd, having an Israeli join them seems to make things more kosher, as the anti-immigrant rhetoric has been associated typically with far-right extremists.



    Wilders? dismissal of ?so-called ?Islamophobia,?? as he calls it, also supports those who say the real problem is Muslim anti-Semitism.



    In recent weeks several populist parties -- including Wilders? -- have gained parliamentary seats or ministry positions in European countries. Even mainstream leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel have decided to weigh in on ?the Muslim integration problem.?



    Pure politics, critics say.



    So why are so many Jewish leaders in Europe not wild about Wilders and his ilk?



    Populists ?want a Sweden for the Swedes, France for the French and Jews to Israel,? says Serge Cwajgenbaum, secretary general of the European Jewish Congress.



    Quote:

    ?Islamism certainly is a danger to the Jews and to Western democracy,? offers Stephan Kramer, secretary general of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. ?The way to fight [Islamists] is not, however, to demonize and ostracize all Muslims.?



    Ron van der Wieken, the chairman of Amsterdam?s liberal Jewish congregation, says that ?perhaps more Jews support Wilders than they openly admit,? but ?when his party fiercely opposes halal slaughter, kosher butchering will not exist much longer as well. And if headscarves would be forbidden, how about yarmulkes? And circumcision??



    In Germany, emotions also run high over another purveyor of populism, author Thilo Sarrazin, who was fired from the board of the German Central Bank because of his comments about Muslim inferiority and Jewish superiority.



    Jewish leaders condemned Sarrazin?s remarks, but some Germans on the street, including some Jews, seem more forgiving. Meanwhile his book, "Germany Undoes Itself,? is a major best-seller.



    Quote:

    "His analysis of the socio-political situation in Berlin is 110 percent correct,? retiree Georg Potzies, 64, says at Bleiberg's kosher dairy restaurant here. ?A large part of the Muslims -- and he never said all of them -- have no interest in integration. Just open your eyes in Berlin and you will see it."



    As for the supposedly higher Jewish IQ, "I found that very good," Potzies adds, laughing.



    Quote:

    "What he said was a provocation designed to wake people up," says restaurateur Manuela Bleiberg, 56. Muslims living here ?don't have to totally assimilate, but they should keep German law."



    But Sarrazin is not really interested in integration, counters Jan Aaron Voss, 46, who runs a Jewish Internet portal.



    Quote:

    ?What he is really doing is pitting people from different groups against each other to incite them," Voss says, "and that's simply wrong."



    Populist doomsayers like Wilders predict a Muslim take-over of Europe, but experts says a gradual demographic shift is more likely. A 2005 study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life showed that about 5 percent of the EU population is Muslim, with the percentage growing because of higher birthrates among migrants and low birthrates among ?native Europeans.?



    The report concluded that ?the successful integration of European Muslims is crucial to the future of Europe.?



    Indeed, reports have shown there are serious challenges: language acquisition, unemployment, forced marriage, rare but horrific honor killings and anti-Semitism, especially among young men.



    But reports also show that most ?foreigners? contribute to society, and only a tiny minority of Muslims in Europe is thought to identify with banned extremist movements, like the German al-Qaida cell that spawned the 9-11 terrorists. Yet some "native Europeans" persist in labeling, observers say.



    Quote:

    "Youth of Turkish origin who were born here and have studied here feel they are being typecast," said Cicek Bacik, a board member of the Turkish Association of Berlin-Brandenburg. "They sometimes have the feeling that they will always be considered foreign, that they will never be at home.?



    They shouldn't get too comfortable, Yisrael Beiteinu?s Cohen suggests at the Wilders event, which launched a new Freedom Party in Berlin.



    Quote:

    ?Muslims seem to be about to take over Europe,? Cohen says, stoking the audience. ?Is that what you want??



    Increasing numbers of Europeans are embracing the message. And some Jewish leaders are worried.



    Quote:

    ?We are quite upset about having a party [in the Parliament] that says they are only addressing Muslims and immigration,? says Lena Posner, president of the Official Council of Swedish Jewish Communities. ?History has taught us about where this can lead, and this is not necessarily good for the Jews.?



    But what?s wrong with a pro-Israel party that highlights Muslim anti-Semitism, asks Kent Ekeroth, 29, a new legislator with the right-populist Swedish Democrats.



    Ekeroth, whose mother is a Polish Jewish emigre, admits that his party?s opposition to circumcision of minors and to the import of halal or kosher meat is ?a sticking point.? But few Jews are observant, he says, ?And we feel that if those adaptations are too much to handle, then Israel is an alternative.?



    Europe's Jews aren't all about to move to Israel, but should they be a little more forgiving?



    Quote:

    ?It?s akin to the evangelical Christians,? says Abraham Foxman, national director of the New York-based Anti-Defamation League. ?On one hand they loved and embraced Israel. But on the other hand, we were not comfortable with their social or religious agenda.?



    Quote:

    ?Our goal has to be to build and help with the development of a moderate Islam that [Wilders] says doesn?t exist and can?t exist,? Daniel Pipes, a U.S. conservative pundit, says in a telephone interview. ?So we are allies, but there is a significant difference.?



    Maybe Wilders needs less treble and more bass, suggests Leon de Winter, a prominent Dutch Jewish novelist who publicly defended Wilders? right to compare the Koran to "Mein Kampf."



    Quote:

    ?What I like about [Wilders is that] he is a true friend of Israel and a true friend of America,? de Winter says in a call from his home in California. His ?opponents call him a racist and a Nazi, all of these things that he is clearly not. Still, often his ideas are over the top and I hope he will soften the way he expresses himself because the themes he touches on are really serious.?



    Pipes hopes populist parties will drop their ?neo-fascist conspiratorial ideas, strange economic ideas, anti-Semitic and racist ideas? and develop broader platforms.



    Quote:

    ?What is serving them [now] is to talk about Islam and related subjects,? he says. "And they are attracting votes because ... established parties are not dealing with the issues that are on people?s minds.?





    Police arrest 34 at pro-Wilders demo in Amsterdam



    Sunday 31 October 2010



    Quote:

    A small group of around 50 members of the English Defence League took part in a demonstration in support of anti-Islam campaigner Geert Wilders on the outskirts of Amsterdam on Saturday, the Parool reports.



    The demo had been moved to the edge of the city because police were concerned about the risk of clashes with anti-Wilders demonstrators.



    There was a very heavy police presence and the nearest metro station to the event, where anti-Wilders demonstrators had gathered, was sealed off by riot police with horses and dogs.



    Police arrested 34 people. Eighteen were picked up for not having id and were released after being fined. Fourteen were arrested for public order offences and were held overnight in custody. Five of those arrested were English, the Parool said.



  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Scandals plague Wilders' party



    Disciplining of right-wing Dutch MP avoids crisis for fragile government

    Quote:

    AMSTERDAM ? Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders disciplined a party member yesterday over a sex scandal but stopped short of expelling him from the party, avoiding a crisis for the minority government it supports.....



  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Wilders steps up attacks on Islam ahead of trial

    Quote:

    GEERT WILDERS, the Dutch far-right politician, stepped up his rhetoric against Islam and immigration at preliminary hearings before a trial for incitement to hatred and discrimination.



    He claimed yesterday that Islam was a ?totalitarian ideology? that ?distinguishes itself mainly through murder and killing?. Mr Wilders is facing a retrial on charges that his anti-Islamic remarks have led to discrimination against Muslims in the Netherlands.



  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    [QUOTE=edit out spmr
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member


    Ummm, The guy you are responding to is a spammer. Look at his signature and his topic title.
  • floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    Ummm, The guy you are responding to is a spammer. Look at his signature and his topic title.



    Forum awareness FAIL!
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    Ummm, The guy you are responding to is a spammer. Look at his signature and his topic title.



    thanks
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    thanks



    No problem man. I only said something because I had just reported the guy.
Sign In or Register to comment.