Amsterdam judge Marcel van Oosten accepted the Freedom Party leader’s statements were directed at Islam and not at Muslim believers. They were, the judge ruled, “acceptable within the context of public debate”…….. Members of minority groups who initiated the case had told the trial that Mr Wilders’ comments had led to a rise in discrimination and violence against Muslims.Plaintiffs had been seeking a symbolic one-euro fine. Before the court verdict, they had said they would consider taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights..Geert Wilders cleared of hate charges by Dutch court. – GoV: Geert Wilders Walks.

Der er ikke ubetinget tilfredshed. Politiken Wilders er lettet over blåstempling af »grove« udtalelser, Socialdemokratiske Avisen.dk: Geert Wilders må kalde islam fascistisk. CNN – “En opportunist, det er hvad han er.” og på svensk stort set denne model: Högerpopulisten Geert Wilders frikänd. Vi er alle populister for Vorherre og for den lyserøde anstændighed, vi ved det og vi forstår, at de ikke synes om, at Wilders gik fri.

Nu kan man så trække vejret frit indtil næste gang restvæsnet lader sig anvende som våben i den politiske kamp. 29 måneder måtte Wilders sætte af til det, plus de mange penge. Det er en glædelig dag for ytringsfriheden i Europa, men den er unægtelig opblandet med nogen forstemthed over at dette cirkus er muligt, for det kommer til at ske igen og igen. Mennesker der ikke kan klare sig i en fri og åben debat, skal ikke have denne legale mulighed for at snyde sig til fordele. At f.eks. Koranen er en langt mere hadefuld og voldsdyrkende bog, end Mein Kampf, er simpelthen er matematisk faktum, det er optalt og sammenlignet. Det er ikke noget der skal afhandles ved en domstol. Og så er den langt lettere læselig, fordi Muhammed ikke ville spille store Hegelsk filosof rent sprogligt, hvad malersvensvenden Hitler ville. Hans bog er ulæselig, jeg har læst den da den kom på dansk i 1972, dengang mit liv var langt nok til dårlige bøger. Koranen bør læses af alle, der vil forstå det århundrede de lever i. Der er endnu tid til en præventiv læsning. “Mein Kampf” er post festum-læsning siden 1939. – Nu vi er ved de dele, så har The Atlantic en fantastisk fotoserie idag: World War II: Before the War.

Mark Steyn: Selve retssagen er straffen

“On the edge of legal acceptability,” eh? As for the latter part — “the broad context of a political and social debate” — the genius “jurists” are effectively conceding what I said when this racket got going — that the Dutch state was attempting to criminalize the political platform of a popular opposition party. That’s the sort of thing free societies should leave to Mubarak & Co, and even then, you can only get away with it for a while before people draw the obvious conclusion.

Nevertheless, as in all these cases, the process is the punishment. The intent is to make it more and more difficult for apostates of the multiculti state to broaden the terms of political discourse. Very few Europeans would have had the stomach to go through what Wilders did — and the British Government’s refusal to permit a Dutch Member of Parliament to land at Heathrow testifies to how easily the craven squishes of the broader political culture fall into line.

And at the end the awkward fact remains: Geert Wilders lives under 24-hour armed guard because of explicit death threats made against him by the killer of Theo van Gogh and by other Muslims. Yet he’s the one who gets puts on trial. That’s the Netherlands, 2011. Shameful. As for the Islamic imperialists, they’re taking their case to the logical venue.[the United Nations Human Rights Committee.] Geert Wilders Acquitted

Professor Hans Jansen: “De vil prøve igen”

”Jeg er glad for, at dette mareridt nu er overstået. Dommen er et punktum for en retssag, der var fuldstændig unødvendig, og som ville få uoverskuelige følger, hvis systemet var konsekvent: Hvis det, Geert Wilders har sagt om islam, er tilstrækkeligt til at indlede en retssag mod ham, så må konsekvensen være, at alle universiteter må nedlægge deres islamforskning. Derfor var det fra starten en fejl at anlægge sag mod ham.” Kæmpenederlag for ytringsfrihedens fjender – men de vil nok prøve igen, frygter et af Geert Wilders’ hovedvidner.

Ezra Levant interviewer Wilders om frikendelsen

Nationernes genfødsel
En passende dag at læse Roger Scrutons seneste essay:

All across Europe the nations are beginning to boil with frustration, at a political straitjacket that prevents them from asserting their ancient rights. The causes of this are many, but two in particular stand out: immigration and the European Union. The two are connected, since it is the EU’s non-negotiable insistence on the free movement of labor that has prevented the nation-states from exerting meaningful control over their borders. At a time when unemployment in Britain stands at more than 2 million, more than a million immigrants from Eastern Europe have come to take what jobs there are. It is impossible that such a situation should endure without strong sentiments of national entitlement among the indigenous people, and our governing elites are struggling hard to prevent those sentiments from emerging into the light of day.The Rebirth of Nations.

In Defense of ‘Hurtful’ Speech

By GEERT WILDERS (Wall Street Journal, log in.)

Though I am obviously relieved by yesterday’s decision, my thoughts go to people such as Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, Austrian human-rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and others who have recently been convicted for criticizing Islam. They have not been as fortunate.

Yesterday was a beautiful day for freedom of speech in the Netherlands. An Amsterdam court acquitted me of all charges of hate speech after a legal ordeal that lasted almost two years. The Dutch people learned that political debate has not been stifled in their country, and they learned they are still allowed to speak critically about Islam and that resistance against Islamization is not a crime.

I was brought to trial despite being an elected politician and the leader of the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament. I was not prosecuted for anything I did, but for what I had said. My view on Islam is that it is not so much a religion as a totalitarian political ideology with religious elements. While there are many moderate Muslims, Islam’s political ideology is radical and has global ambitions. I expressed these views in newspaper interviews, op-ed articles and in my 2008 documentary, “Fitna.”

I was dragged to court by leftist and Islamic organizations that were bent not only on silencing me but on stifling public debate. My accusers claimed that I deliberately “insulted” and “incited discrimination and hatred” against Muslims. The Dutch penal code states in its articles 137c and 137d that anyone who either “publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group of people” or “in any way that insults a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their hetero- or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished.”

I was dragged to court for statements that I made as a politician and which were meant to stimulate public debate in a country where public debate has stagnated for decades. Dutch political parties see themselves as guardians of a sterile status quo. I want our problems to be discussed. I believe that politicians have a public trust to further debates about important issues. I firmly believe that every public debate holds the prospect of enlightenment.

My views represent those of a growing number of Dutch voters, who have flocked to the Party for Freedom, or PVV. The PVV is the fastest-growing party in the country, expanding from one seat in the 150-seat House of Representatives in 2004, to nine seats in 2006 and 24 seats in 2010. My party’s views, however, are so uncommon in the Netherlands that they are considered blasphemous by powerful elites who fear and resent discussion.

That’s why I was taken to court, even though the public prosecutor saw no reason to prosecute me. “Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society,” the prosecutors repeatedly said during my trial. “That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable.”

The Netherlands is one of the few countries in the world where a court can force the public prosecutor to prosecute someone. In January 2009, three judges of the Amsterdam Appeals Court ordered my prosecution in a politically motivated verdict that focused on the content of the case. They implied that I was guilty and ordered my prosecution. The case was subsequently referred to the Amsterdam Court of First Instance.

The judges who acquitted me yesterday already had a peremptory ruling from the appeals court on their desk. They decided, however, to follow the arguments of the public prosecutor, who during the trial had once again reiterated his position and had asked for a full acquittal.

Though I am obviously relieved by yesterday’s decision, my thoughts go to people such as Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, Austrian human-rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and others who have recently been convicted for criticizing Islam. They have not been as fortunate. In far too many Western countries, it is still impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam.

The biggest threat to our democracies is not political debate, nor is it public dissent. As the American judge Learned Hand once said in a speech: “That community is already in the process of dissolution . . . where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists to win or lose.” It has been a tenet in European and American thinking that men are only free when they respect each other’s freedom. If the courts can no longer guarantee this, then surely a community is in the process of dissolution.

Legislation such as articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code disgraces our democratic free societies. On the basis of such legislation, I was prevented from representing my million-and-a-half voters in parliament because I had to be in the courtroom for several days, sometimes up to three days per week, during the past year-and-a-half. Such legislation should be abolished. It should be abolished in all Western countries where it exists and replaced by First Amendment clauses.

Citizens should never allow themselves to be silenced. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.

Geert Wilders: In Defense of ‘Hurtful’ Speech – WSJ.com