French Human Rights organization sues Wilders over New York Speech
by Jerry Gordon, The Iconoclast, March 24, 2009
Geert Wilders, Dutch Freedom Party leader
Note this bizzare basis for the French legal action and Wilders response.
“Wilders made statements about French Muslims, about Muslims in Paris and Marseilles, which incite to racial hatred,” says lawyer Yassine Bouzrou. He lodged the complaint on behalf of the organization, which is being studied by the public prosecution. If Wilders is found guilty, he can be sentenced for one year in prison.
Wilders was not aware of the complaint yesterday evening. “I hear this for the the first time,” he said. “The wold is becoming small with trials and procedures everywhere: from the Netherlands, Jordan and England to France. Dreadful. But I’ll naturally fight back judicially. They won’t prevail over me.”
Last week the PVV head signed an official appeal against the UK’s refusal to let him into the country.
The French complaint is based on Wilders’ speech in New York last September. “Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods,” he said then. “Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves.”
He called the riots in the suburbs in 2005 a “Muslim intifada”. Bouzrou came to the conclusion that the expressions are criminal. “Wilders says in that speech also that one in three French Muslims supports suicide attacks. With that he suggests that one in three French Muslims is a potential terrorist. Where he does he get all of this? How did he get ot it? Wilders makes serious accusations which are based on nothing.”
Bouzrou made the complaint for the French human rights organization ADDH. They work together with the Collective against Islamophobia in the fight against Muslim hatred.
This is patently Kafkaesque and Orwellian. Since when does a French court have extraterritorial rights to muzzle free speech in the US. Sources close to Wilders inform us that the Dutch Supreme Court is currently reviewing a motion to dismiss the case brought by his lawyers. A recent Dutch supreme court decision has effectively de-crimninalized criticism of Islam the basis of the Amsterdam appeals court decision and criminal prosecution of Wilders. Wilders will speak via a video recording at the forthcoming New English Review symposium scheduled for May 29th and 30th in Nashville.
If Europe has laws against hate speech, why can’t we flood their courts with complaints about militant “Muslims” who chant things like “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas?” Our side could probably overload their courts with criminal complaints of this nature.
Comment by Bill Levinson — March 25, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Why not? Turkish courts also have that same right to muzzle free speech in the U.S.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — March 25, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
People speaking out in defense of freedom and human rights are being persecuted while fanatical islamists are free to march through the streets of European cities threatening the death of infidels. What is wrong with this picture?
The left is not merely giving moral support to the islamists as they wage war against the free world, but are actively engaged in aiding and abetting it. It is not only islam that needs to be destroyed but so does the left, which is ultimately worse because without the help of these internal enemies, the muslims could not succeed in their cultural as well as physical jihad against us.
Comment by Laura — March 25, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
@Bill Levinson:
Perhaps it is time to flood European courts with complaints about militant Europeans’ anti-American hate speech? I think that would make all of them busy for the rest of this century.
Comment by Per — March 25, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
Maybe the French should address some of their own illegalities and downright blood libels against an entire people: like the El Dura hoax that was thoroughly discussed here in Israpundit. Then the the French might get their courts to make real decisions to convict propagandists who purposely started regional violence and terrorism that left hundreds dead (even those miscreants in the protected left wing should be convicted). The French must reopen this El Dura case and not sweep it under the carpet as they have done.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/a-possible-hoax/
Comment by Gary — March 25, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Per, I think you are onto the right tactic to to destroy the whole basis for leftist dominance of all our western societies.
http://samsonblinded.org/blog/to-marry-a-sheep.htm
People are neither ethnic- nor culture-blind. Xenophobia is a natural, necessary trait that builds boundaries and cements societies. We dislike people with alien habits— dis-like rather than hate. Can we dislike those who engage in consensual sex with minors? With animals? With same-sex adults?
Non-reproductive incest is a private business. Societies have no reason to prohibit a father having sex with his adult daughter. In the age of contraception, that sex is not likely to produce and thus negatively affect the progeny. Civilized societies do not prohibit sex between mentally challenged people who may produce mentally challenged progeny. By the same token, liberal societies cannot prohibit incestuous marriage. Yet they do.
Societal values are developed through centuries and myriad interactions. Values are neither explicable nor formally provable. One option is to accept them as is, the other is to question them all. When questioned, values always fail.
The Apostle Paul famously struggled with the same problem: having abandoned the Jewish law, Paul was faced with the need to regulate his communities. He eventually developed a web of ad hoc ethical rules, arbitrary and no less restrictive than Jewish law.
The fact that the ethics is indispensable but impossible to formalize opens a way to oppose the leftists. Two millennia ago, the Sophists developed an approach that won them debates with philosophers who, like modern leftists, tried to formalize ethics. The Sophists logically extended their opponents’ views to the apparent absurdity.
If gay marriage is permitted, there is no formal reason to prohibit other non-conventional marriages. Why can’t a father marry his daughter? Why can’t three—or ten, for that matter—people enter into a marriage? Why can’t a person marry his lovely sheep?
The New Jersey court decided that people are equal and so have an equal right to marry. People are equal regardless of sex but then also regardless of number. Ten people are free to marry into one big happy family. A man is free to marry four women, or to heck with the sharia: even ten women! A person who does not find a human soul mate is still equal to everyone else, and society must protect his right to marriage—even to a dog. Homosexuality is ostensibly a natural urge, but so are zoophilia and necrophilia. Hey, we have a world of marriage opportunities!
Bizarre as it may sound, file the papers with your local court to marry your adult daughter, a few female pals, and a dog. Drive the leftist ideas over the edge. Let formal justice face the consequences of its silliness.
Comment by yamit82 — March 25, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
“incite to racial hatred”
What race are Muslims?
End of case.
Comment by bob23bob — March 25, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
Re: #2
Attention, Frogs and Turkeys, I mean Turks: I say that militant “Islam” is a phony death cult suitable for dirt-ignorant knuckle-dragging savages, subhuman (by behavioral choice, not birth or genetics) filth, vermin, and parasites on the societies they infest like leeches, and the absolute scum of the earth. It is a reflection on France that it allows them to scurry in its streets like plague-carrying rats, but then again France and hygiene, whether public or otherwise, have never gone together. And I will post visual images to that effect on the Internet where they may be seen and circulated by people in France and Turkey.
Go ahead and muzzle me–if you can.
Now I’m going to watch the entire Sharpe series again in which Bernard Cornwell’s hero gives the Frogs what they deserve. (Same with the Hornblower series.) By the way, when is the movie Victoria going to appear? It’s the one in which Jan Sobieski wastes a bunch of Turks at the Battle of Vienna.
Comment by Bill Levinson — March 25, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
Bayesian statistics, anybody? He is probably right. The fraction of people who identify themselves as Muslims and are terrorist sympathizers in the U.S. is relatively small, but it’s a lot larger in Europe. I am quite prepared to believe that one in three is a terrorist, rapist, robber, and/or murderer who ought to be expelled from the country in question.
Comment by Bill Levinson — March 25, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
I wonder if the French would elect a government that promises to expel all the immigrants.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — March 26, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Where is Charles Martel when they need him?
Comment by Bill Levinson — March 26, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
These so called “human rights”, are of the chief weapons ab/used by Islamists today, it’s called the ‘human rights propaganda’ [by anti Humans].
Comment by Reality — March 26, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
The fact that terrorists tend to bray to Allah while they cut throats, fly airplanes into buildings, blow things up, and stone women to death tends to promote fear of Muslims. So does the fact that French women dare not walk in certain areas without headscarves. Genuine Muslims need to do something about that.
Comment by Bill Levinson — March 27, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
[...] Israpundit Blog Archive French Human Rights organization sues Posted by root 5 days ago (http://www.israpundit.com) Turkish courts also have that same right to muzzle free speech in the u s comment by michael ejercito march 25 2009 12 02 pm israpundit is proudly powered by wordpress using a theme designed by someone no longer associated Discuss | Bury | News | Israpundit Blog Archive French Human Rights organization sues [...]
Pingback by Israpundit Blog Archive French Human Rights organization sues | outdoor rugs — June 19, 2009 @ 7:08 am