21
feb
Seneste opdatering: 12/7-10 kl. 2216
11 kommentarer - Tryk for at kommentere!

og de tilbageværende hujer og klapper da præsident Vaclav Klaus sammenligner EU med Sovjet og nævner fy-ordet “demokrati”. Ret fantastisk opførsel af folk der får 1.3 mio. dkr. per hoved om året, for at sidde på deres pladser. Sammendrag af talen tekstet på engelsk med UKIP kommentarer. Hele talen findes med tolkoversætttelse i tre dele her.

Geert Wilders’ Speech in Rome

Video Roma: consegna del premio Oriana Fallaci a Geert Wilders, og Video: byvandring, med ex muslimen Sam Solomon,  Forum Romanum, Via Condotti, Den Spanske Trappe, Victor Emmanuel lagkagen og flere livvagter end der kan tælles.

Rome, February 19, 2009

Signore e signori, molte grazie. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

I feel very honoured to have been invited to speak here in Rome, to speak here in this splendid city, the cradle of our Western civilization. As you perhaps know, Oriana Fallaci is one of my heroes. She definitely was one of the greatest examples of bravery and honesty. Her brilliant books ‘The Rage and the Pride’ and ‘The Force of Reason’ are my guidelines that inspire me day after day. Mr. Manocchia, Una via per Oriana, thank you very much for remembering the great Oriana Fallaci. The world should remember her forever.

Ladies and gentlemen, following in the footsteps of Oriana Fallaci, I want to warn you for a great threat. This great threat is called Islam.

Islam is build on two rocks. First there is the Koran, Allah’s personal word, with orders that need to be fulfilled by Muslims regardless of place and time. As you know, the Koran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, terrorism, war, Jihad. The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill non-Muslims and he Koran considers Jews to be monkeys and pigs. That is why the great German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer called the Koran inferior. That is why former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Oriana Fallaci compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

Second, there is the so called perfect man: Muhammad. His deeds have to be imitated by all Muslims, and since Muhammad was a warlord and executed prisoners of war we know exactly what to expect. The brave American apostate dr. Wafa Sultan said: “The problem is that the Koran clearly says that Muhammad should be a role model for every Muslim. You are not allowed to criticise him, but you should follow in his footsteps. As a Muslim it is your mission to spread Islam by the sword”.

Please, ladies and gentlemen, let no one fool you: Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about its goal. There are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.

– – – – – – – – –

A total of 54 million Muslims live across Europe. In less than half a century the number of Muslims has increased rapidly. The Islamization of Europe affects the European achievements of the last century. The question is: Are we prepared to defend our achievements? Are we prepared to defend the equality of men and women? Are we prepared to defend the equality of homo- and heterosexuals? Are we prepared to defend the separation of Church and State? Are we prepared to defend freedom of speech?

Ladies and gentlemen, I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. Since then I am under 24-hour police protection. As if that is not enough, the most radical Dutch Imam claimed 55.000 euros in compensation for his hurt feelings because of ‘Fitna’. The State of Jordan is possibly going to issue a request for my extradition to stand trial in Amman. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my political views on Islam. And last week the British government refused my entrance into the United Kingdom because me showing ‘Fitna’ in the British House of Lords at the invitation of a British parliamentarian would be a threat to British public security. This is the alarming state of freedom of speech in today’s Europe: Criticizing Islam has become a dangerous activity, criticizing Islam has apparently become a criminal act.

You just saw ‘Fitna’. My name is on the credit roll, but like you have seen, ‘Fitna’ is actually not made by me, but is made by radical Muslims, the Koran and Islam itself. If ‘Fitna’ is considered to be hate speech, then what is the Koran? If I am considered to be a threat to public security, then what is Islam?

The Court’s decision and my ban by the British government are two major victories for Islam. Both institutions have sided with Islam. The first Soviet leader, Lenin, once labelled ignorant people that unknowingly aided his cause as ‘useful idiots’. Well, the Court and the British government are the ‘useful idiots’ of today, and I think they are even proud of it.

The Court’s decision and my ban by the British government are also two major victories for all those who hate freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech — the dearest of our liberties — is under attack in today’s Europe. Oriana Fallaci herself had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her book ‘The Rage and the Pride’. Recently, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician, was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence for telling the truth about Muhammad. The Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot was arrested by ten police men because of his drawings, and on top of all that, we now have the decisions of the Inquisition-like Court in Amsterdam and the Dhimmi British government.

Freedom of speech is no longer a given in Europe. What we once considered to be a natural component of our existence is now something we have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most important issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?

I repeat the words inscribed on the headstone of the murdered Dutch anti-Islam politician dr. Pim Fortuyn, who lies buried here in Italy and would have celebrated his birthday today: ‘loquendi libertatum custodiamus’, let us guard freedom of speech.

That is why I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe. I propose a European First Amendment. Freedom of speech is the keystone of our Western civilization, it is the keystone of our democracies and the keystone of our freedom. That is why freedom of speech should be extended instead of restricted. Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’, Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s and Theo van Gogh’s film ‘Submission’, Kurt Westergaard’s cartoons and my documentary ‘Fitna’ should never be banned, but should be protected. As George Orwell once said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is five to twelve. In Europe, our freedom is at stake. Islam is Europe’s Trojan Horse. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and the Netherlands, between Iran and Italy are blurring. The first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at Poitiers in 732. The second Islamic invasion was halted at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Now we have to stop the current — stealth — Islamic invasion. Ladies and gentlemen, once Islam conquered Constantinople, now it wants to conquer Rome. We have to stop the Islamization of Europe, because if we don’t, Europe will become Eurabia.

Fortunately there is some hope. This hope does not come from governments, but from the people. In the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population considers mass immigration to be the number one policy mistake since the Second World War. Another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I am convinced that the public opinion in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain and here in Italy isn’t much different.

We have to maintain our values. We have to maintain our liberties. We have to maintain our civilization. We have to maintain the heritage of Rome, because we owe it to our children.

As Oriana Fallaci once said: “The moment you give up your principles, and your values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead”.

Thank you very much.   via  GoV

No Speech, Please , We’re British

by Christopher Caldwell

Britain’s politicians care so much about constitutional protections for human rights that they have two sets of them–the centuries-old traditions laid out by parliament and precedent and the newfangled European Convention on Human Rights, written into British law in 1998. Neither of these stopped Britain from becoming the first European Union country to bar an elected European legislator from its territory for his political opinions on February 12.

The Dutch MP Geert Wilders heads the Freedom party, which holds 9 of the 150 seats in the Second Chamber in The Hague. He has been preoccupied with militant Islam at least since November 2004, when the filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim fanatic in Amsterdam, and Wilders’s own name turned up on a jihadist hit list. In March 2008, Wilders released Fitna, a 15-minute film, on the Internet. It details contemporary Islamist outrages and locates their inspiration not in any perversion of Islam but in specific suras of the Koran itself, which Wilders likens to Mein Kampf and urges authorities to ban.

When two members of the House of Lords invited Wilders to give a screening of his film, the rabble-rousing Labour peer Lord Ahmed threatened to put 10,000 people in the streets. The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, warned Wilders that he would not be admitted to the U.K., since “your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the U.K.” Wilders came anyway, on a British Midlands flight packed with 50 journalists and cameramen. When he was turned away as promised, he called British prime minister Gordon Brown “the biggest coward in Europe.”

This episode, taken together with the ongoing attempt by Wilders’s opponents in the Netherlands to have him prosecuted for discrimination and incitement to hatred, reflects the European confusion about what free speech is and how it is best protected. Author Kenan Malik, a veteran of London antiracist movements, was most disturbed that “Wilders was penalized not for what he did but for what someone else may have done to him. That is neither logical nor just.” There was confusion on both sides of the Channel. Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen protested to the British government before and after Wilders’s arrival, but he had said of Fitna when it first came out: “Freedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend.” Many would say that freedom of expression is a synonym for the right to offend.

Two things are being mixed up: freedom of speech and freedom of movement. Under the old, pre-EU dispensation, Britain would have been entitled to turn Wilders around at Heathrow. Just because a country protects free speech for its own citizens does not give it any obligation to admit any foreigner for any reason. During the Cold War, the United States permitted its citizens to spout Communist propaganda to their hearts’ content, but it also passed the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act in 1952 to bar foreigners considered ideologically undesirable. By the end of the Cold War, there were 368,000 people–Gabriel García Márquez and Pablo Neruda among them–to whom the government said: No pasarán. More recently, the State Department withdrew its visa to the Swiss Islam scholar Tariq Ramadan without feeling the need to explain its actions in detail.

The problem is that Britain has–by act of Parliament–subordinated its own laws to the European Convention on Human Rights. Brussels, not Westminster, sets the rules. In the human rights context Wilders is a fellow European. And the British action sets a new precedent for relations among EU citizens. That is why promoters of the European Union were so upset by Wilders’s exclusion, even on the left. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, for instance, called it “indefensible.”

There was a lot of huffing and puffing about the necessity of banning Wilders. Foreign secretary David Miliband and left-wing MP Keith Vaz were particularly insistent, although both admitted to not having seen the film, which is ubiquitous on the Internet. An Observer editorial called it a mistake to bar Wilders, but felt the need to add that he and his movie were “poisonous,” “brutal,” “shoddy,” “deluded,” “grotesque,” and “odious.” The most common criticism was that creating a cause célèbre played into the hands of Wilders, helping a publicity hound to spread his obnoxious ideas. But most politics today–from announcing mission accomplished in Iraq on the decks of the USS Abraham Lincoln to peddling a stimulus package in front of jobless people in Elkhart, Indiana–involves publicity. When you cut through the hemming and hawing and question-dodging, the only grounds for banning Wilders would be that he is a racist. Is he?

Wilders is not a crank (or not just a crank), and 84 percent of Dutch people object to the way the British handled him. Wilders is a politician of the center-right who drifted away from the market-liberal VVD (over the party’s EU policy) shortly before the murder of van Gogh. Like his former fellow party member Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who described Wilders as “definitely not a racist”), he went into hiding in the days after the van Gogh murder. His party took 6 percent of the vote in the last election, but a recent poll showed that if elections were held today it would win 25 seats in the Second Chamber, just two behind the country’s largest party.

He talks a mile a minute, and, when I interviewed him in 2005, he repudiated attempts to link him to the hard-right Belgian party then called the Vlaams Blok: “I would never do that,” he said. “I remember the Vlaams Blok from years ago, and many of the same people are in place.” Nor was he an ignoramus about Islam–he had read a lot of books by serious scholars. But he was insistent that there was a lot to worry about. “I’m not saying this out of xenophobia,” he said. “There are a million Muslims in the country, and they are heading all the wrong lists.”

In August 2007, Wilders wrote in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, “I’ve had enough of Islam in the Netherlands–not one more Muslim immigrant. I’ve had enough of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands–not one more mosque.” He announced that he was working on a film about the Koran, and rumors began to fly that a Koran would be torn onscreen. Or perhaps burned. The Malaysian ambassador to the Netherlands warned that violence would ensue that would make the Danish cartoon riots look “like a picnic.” The Dutch cabinet drew up emergency plans and practiced evacuations for its embassies. Queen Beatrix devoted her Christmas speech to tolerance.

So when the film came out it was a bit of an anticlimax. It was a confused and choppy collage–a bit like the Beatles’ “Revolution 9.” Wilders didn’t use any incendiary language, only the footage of actual Islamist atrocities, interspersed with the text of a half-dozen suras. A lot of it was, to be sure, horrifying: clips of planes hitting the World Trade Center, bodies falling from the building, audio of the 911 calls (“I’m gonna die! I’m gonna die! I’m burning up!”), a 3-year-old girl saying she had learned in the Koran that Jews were “apes and pigs,” the beheading of a hostage in Iraq, the beheading of (one assumes) an adulteress, signs at marches reading God Bless Hitler and Freedom Go To Hell, and then the ripped page. But here Wilders struck a conciliatory note: “The sound you heard was a page being removed from the phonebook. For it is not up to me but to Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Koran.”

One suspects that Britain is excluding Wilders–and that the Netherlands is prosecuting him–not because his views are divorced from reality but because they make a certain contact with it. He is, after all, not the first to describe the Koran as a war manual: Schopenhauer, Renan, and Churchill said such things, and Afshin Ellian, the Iranian-Dutch legal philosopher, has noted in recent weeks that Erasmus–that great icon of the pan-European open society–was considerably tougher on Islam than is Wilders.

Of course, none of this makes Fitna a good film or a fair film. In calling for the Koran to be banned, Wilders runs into two big problems. The first might be called the grandfathering problem. It has recently occurred to censorious radicals that there is no particular reason that the monuments of our culture should be exempt from the ideological censorship we bestow on newer works. Thus, in recent years, evangelical Christians in Britain have been interrogated on suspicion of homophobia on the basis of the scriptures they were distributing. There is a similar obtuseness in Wilders’s denial that the Koran is a monument of a magnificently impressive culture, even if it is not our culture.

The second problem is the sauce-for-the-goose problem. Wilders has on many occasions urged that the Netherlands ban Muslim radicals. He even argued against admitting Khalid Yasin, a hardline Muslim preacher from Sheffield, England. As Ian Bur-uma notes: “For a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich.”

That’s quite right as an intellectual matter. But what is important about Wilders is the legal matter. He is not concerned about free speech. He is concerned about Islam. What makes this a free-speech issue is the actions of the Dutch and British government. Wilders’s arguments should be met with other arguments. They should not be met with threats of jail.

Do European speech laws now favor Islam? Has Britain, the cradle of free speech, ceased to care about it? People ask such questions as if they are rhetorical and can be answered only with a sigh or a sad nod. In fact, they are real questions with real answers.

Yes, there is increasingly a special regime for speech concerning Islam, or at least concerning religion. After the murder of van Gogh in 2004, the Dutch justice minister, Piet-Hein Donner, urged that blasphemy laws that had fallen into desuetude be revived to protect Muslims. He failed, but so did efforts to eliminate those laws, and Donner’s successor, Ernst Hirsch Ballin, has sought to strengthen them in recent weeks. Dutch elite opinion now leans towards the idea that one should try not to give the Muslim populations any cause for anger. In Britain, Muslims sought in 2006 a “law against incitement to religious hatred.” Before it passed, the House of Lords altered it to ensure that it would not chill critical discussion of any religion. Apparently they failed.

Yes, the British government has grown less interested in freedom. After the July 2005 transport bombings, and even more after the foiled airplane plot of the following summer, the government said so explicitly. “Traditional civil liberty arguments,” said Tony Blair, “are not so much wrong as just made for another age.” Since then, 270 people have been refused admission to Britain on grounds of sowing hate. Only four of these have been Europeans. This kind of disparate impact must leave Jacqui Smith feeling she has little to apologize for in banning Wilders.

The new European conception of freedom of speech, based on anti-racism, protects a lot less speech than did the old British and Dutch conceptions of freedom of speech, based on sovereignty. Maybe membership in the family of man relieves one of a certain amount of worry about the liberties of one’s fellow citizens.

Christopher Caldwell is a senior editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD. His Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West will be published by Doubleday in July.


Weekly Standard artiklen,

Annoncer fra Danske Partner-Ads:


Donér engangsbeløb?Kan du forpligte dig til fast betaling?

  • Magga

    Tusind tak for videoen med Vaclav Klaus.

    Masseudvandringen var fin dokumentation for, hvilken umådelig undertrykkelse, vi er udsat for. Disse utålelige magtmennesker vil end ikke lytte til andres meninger. Og de kalder sig demokrater!

  • Pingback: NEWSFLASH! Wilders allowed to speak in Rome. NO RIOTS … tch tch « Tony Blair()

  • PeterK

    En stående applaus til Vaclav Klaus. Det er en tale – og en reaktion, der vil blive husket. Mest af dem der bevæger sig rundt på nettet hvor nyhederne findes, der der læser JyllandsPosten ved det slet ikke, og resten af MSM skrev ikke alverden om det. Søger man på JP.dk, er der ikke en lyd, mens politiken bringer et par kommentarer fra Dan Jørgensen og Mogens Camre. DR har lidt, og nævner til sidst at irerne får endnu en chance for at stemme om den flere gange nedstemte traktat igen senere på året. Til sidst makker de vel ret de dumme irere, der ikke kan se storheden i EU, og illustrerer derved ganske smukt Vaclav Klaus’ pointe at EU er et elitært udemokratisk projekt. Dem der stemte ja, eller slet ikke fik lejligheden, får næppe en chance for at stemme en gang til.

  • Som sagt næste gang bliver det ikke radio london der er lyset i mørket, nok nærmere Tjekkiet, here is Prag with the news in Danish !

    Vi bringer en særmelding til Tulle Holger og tante agathe.

  • Hanzi

    Det var ligesom i 1990-91 da Boris Jeltsin holdt tale i EU-parlamentet. Dengang hujede og piftede og masseudvandrede de “ærede” parlamentsmedlemmer også.
    Jeg var dybt rystet.
    Boris Jeltsins mangler ufortalt (alkohol-problemer og personlige fejl, der vel mere var menneskelige fejl end politiske, var jo i modsætning til Sovjets præsident Gorbatjov demokratisk valgt som Ruslands præsident).
    Og personligt synes jeg, at han er undervurderet. Det er da en fantastisk udvikling, som han var med til at gennemføre fra benhårdt kommunistisk diktatur over Gorbatjovs glasnost og bekæmpelse af et stalinistisk militærkup til demokratisk styre.
    Det gangster-vælde, som vi har fået med Putin/Medvedev sætter også Boris Jeltsins indsats i relief.
    Men frem for alt var det dybt rystende i 1990/91, at opleve EU-parlamentarikerne give den første demokratisk valgte leder fra Sovjet denne modtagelse i parlamentet.
    For dem var Gorbatjov jo den store helt. Gorbatjovs socialdemokrati har dog aldrig fået over 1% af stemmerne i en meningsmåling i Sovjet/Rusland.

  • Per N

    Kan kun sige et stort HURAAAAAA, vilken mand han er, og det viser hvor slemt at det står til i EU.

  • Pingback: Der skal være en opposition i et demokrati « Anna Lyttiger()

  • Danskeren

    Han kommer til at gå over i historien som en af de største statsmænd i det 21. årh.

  • Tak, Peter, Magga et. al.

    Det giver jo ingen mening at reproducere danske aviser, når man blogger. Der er fremragende ting, men vi regner med at vores besøgere er så velorienterede, så de selv ser dem. Det gør det sværere at blogge, men også sjovere. Tak.

  • Limewoody

    Orientering på DR1 foretog for nylig et (i egen selvforståelse) karaktermord på Klaus. Filtreret igennem sin egen mølle kaldte de ham bl. a. “nationalist”.

    Indslaget var blevet til på baggrund af “flagspørgsmålet”, men dette nævntes ikke med et ord – så indslaget fremstod som løsrevet fra enhver sammenhæng.

  • Janne

    Tak for kaffe som de udvandrer da Vaclav Klaus taler. Så meget for EU-dialog.