Discurso de Geert Wilders à Casa dos Lordes, 5 de Março de 2010 (2)

Publico a tradução do discurso de Gert Wilders feita pelo Rui, publicada em quatro entradas no seu blogue Neuromante, nas quais o Rui inseriu comentários que resolvi não publicar a fim de tornar mais fluente a leitura do discurso. Os leitores que desejarem, podem ler a tradução com os comentários no local da sua publicação original.
Resolvi, ainda, proceder a algumas pequenas adaptações formais do texto, que não do seu conteúdo ― a mais evidente das quais será a opção de grafar Alcorão e lugar de Corão ―, a fim de manter alguma concordância com o estilo da escrita por nós aqui usado.
Os meus agradecimentos ao Rui.

«Obrigado. É bom regressar a Londres. E desta vez posso ver mais desta maravilhosa cidade do que o centro de detenção do aeroporto de Heathrow.
Hoje apresento-me perante vós neste extraordinário local. Na verdade, é um lugar sagrado. Como Malcolm sempre disse, é a mãe de todos os Parlamentos, e sinto-me profundamente humilde por ter esta oportunidade de falar perante vós.
Obrigado Lord Pearson e Lady Cox pelo vosso convite (...).

Tenho grandes notícias. Pela primeira vez o meu partido, o Partido da Liberdade, participou nas eleições realizadas na Holanda na quarta-feira passada. Participámos em duas cidades. Em Almere, uma das maiores cidades holandesas, e em Haia, a terceira maior cidade (...). Em Almere ganhámos e em Haia, cidade onde vive a Rainha, conseguimos o 2ºlugar.
E tenho mais boas notícias. Há duas semanas o governo holandês colapsou e em Junho teremos eleições legislativas. O futuro do Partido da Liberdade parece promissor. De acordo com as sondagens seremos o maior partido holandês. Pretendo ser modesto, mas quem sabe, posso ser eleito Primeiro Ministro nos próximos meses.

Senhoras e Senhores, não longe daqui ergue-se a estátua de um dos maiores Primeiros Ministros que este país alguma vez teve (Winston Churchill). E eu gostaria de o citar aqui hoje:
"O maomedismo (islamismo) é uma fé militante dedicada ao proselitismo. Não existe força mais retrograda no Mundo. Já se espalhou pela África Central, criando guerreiros destemidos a cada passo (...) a civilização da Europa moderna pode cair, como caiu a civilização de Roma Antiga".

"O maomedismo (islamismo) é uma fé militante dedicada ao proselitismo. Não existe força mais retrograda no Mundo. Já se espalhou pela África Central, criando guerreiros destemidos a cada passo (...) a civilização da Europa moderna pode cair, como caiu a civilização de Roma Antiga".

Estas foram as palavras de Winston Churchill no seu livro ‘The River War’⁽¹⁾ escrito em 1899. Churchill tinha razão.

Senhoras e senhores, eu e o meu partido, não temos quaisquer problemas com os muçulmanos. Há muçulmanos moderados. A maioria dos muçulmanos são cidadãos que cumprem a lei e querem viver pacificamente como todos nós. É por isso que faço uma distinção clara entre as pessoas, os muçulmanos, e a ideologia, o Islão. Pode haver muitos muçulmanos moderados, mas não existe tal coisa como o Islão moderado. O Islão persegue a dominação do mundo. O Alcorão manda os muçulmanos estabelecer a lei da sharia. O Alcorão manda os muçulmanos exercer a jihad. O Alcorão comanda os muçulmanos a impor o Islão a todo o mundo. Como disse o ex-primeiro-ministro turco Erbakan: "Toda a Europa se tornará islâmica. Nós conquistaremos Roma." Fim de citação.

O ditador líbio, Gaddafi disse:

“Existem dezenas de milhão de muçulmanos na Europa e o seu número está a aumentar. Esta é uma clara indicação que a Europa será convertida ao Islão."

Na verdade, por uma vez na vida Gaddafi disse a verdade. Porque, lembrem-se, a imigração em massa e a demografia é o objectivo! O Islão não é meramente uma religião, é principalmente uma ideologia totalitária. O Islão quer dominar todos os aspectos da vida, do berço até à cova. A lei da sharia controla cada detalhe do dia a dia nas sociedades islâmicas. Desde a lei aplicada na família até ao crime. Determina como devemos comer, vestir e usar a casa de banho. Para eles, oprimir a mulher é bom, beber álcool é mau.

Eu acredito que os Islão não é compatível com o nosso estilo de vida Ocidental. O Islão é uma ameaça aos valores Ocidentais. A igualdade do homem e da mulher, a igualdade entre os homossexuais e os heterossexuais, a separação entre a igreja e o estado, a liberdade de expressão, estão sob pressão devido à islamização. Senhoras e senhores: o Islão e a liberdade, o Islão e a democracia não são compatíveis. São valores opostos.

Não admira que Winston Churchill tenha chamado ao ‘Mein Kampf’ de Hitler o novo Alcorão [“the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message”]. Como sabem, Churchill fez a comparação entre o Alcorão e o "Mein Kampf", no seu livro ‘The Second World War’, uma obra prima pelo qual recebeu o Prémio Nobel da Literatura. A comparação do Alcorão com o "Mein Kampf" é absolutamente evidente. O cerne do Alcorão é o apelo à jihad. Jihad pode significar muitas coisas mas é a palavra árabe para "batalha". Kampf é a palavra alemã para "batalha". Jihad e Kampf significam exactamente o mesmo.
Islão significa submissão, não há dúvidas relativamente ao seu objectivo. É um facto. O que está em causa é, se nós na Europa e vocês aqui na Grã Bretanha, com o vosso passado glorioso, se submeterão ou se se manterão firmes na vossa herança civilizacional. Nós vemos o Islão a sobrepor-se ao Ocidente a um ritmo incrível. A Europa está a islamizar-se rapidamente. Muitas cidades europeias possuem enormes concentrações islâmicas. Paris, Amesterdão, Bruxelas e Berlim são só alguns exemplos. Nalgumas zonas destas cidades, as regras muçulmanas são já obrigatórias. Os direitos das mulheres estão a ser destruídos. Burqas, lenços, poligamia, mutilação genital, crimes de honra. As mulheres são inclusivamente separadas nas aulas de educação física e de natação. Em muitas cidades existe já em vigor um apartheid.
Os judeus estão novamente a deixar a Europa em número cada vez maior.

Como vocês incidentalmente sabem, melhor do que eu, também no vosso país a imigração em massa e a islamização estão a crescer rapidamente. E Isto está a colocar sobre enorme pressão a sociedade britânica. Vejam o que está acontecer, por exemplo em Birmingham, Leeds e aqui em Londres. Os políticos britânicos que se esqueceram de Winston Churchill adoptaram a via da menor resistência. Desistiram.
No ano passado, o meu partido requereu ao governo Holandês que fizesse uma análise de custos-benefícios desta imigração em massa. Mas o governo recusou sequer a responder-nos. Porquê? Porque tem medo da verdade. Os sinais são bons. Uma revista holandesa – Elsevier – calculou que os custos excediam os 200 mil milhões de Euros. Só ano passado, atingiu-se a quantia de 13 mil milhões de Euros. Mais cálculos se fizeram na Europa: De acordo com o Banco Nacional da Dinamarca, cada imigrante proveniente de um país islâmico custa ao estado dinamarquês mais de 300 mil Euros. Vemos o mesmo acontecer na Noruega e na França. Podemos tirar a seguinte conclusão: A Europa torna-se cada vez mais pobre a cada dia que passa. Mais pobre graças à imigração em massa. Mais pobre graças à demografia. Os esquerdistas estão ameaçados.

Não sei se é verdade, mas diversos jornais ingleses que eu li afirmavam que havia provas que o Partido Trabalhista abriu as portas à imigração em massa para mudar a face étnica da Grã-Bretanha, modificando a estrutura social com fins eleitorais. Andrew Neather, um ex-conselheiro do governo de Tony Blair e de Jack Straw disse que o objectivo do Partido Trabalhista relativamente á imigração em massa foi, e cito “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”, isto é, esfregar (esmurrar) o nariz à direita com a diversidade e tornar os seus argumentos desactualizados. Se isto é verdade, é sintomático da esquerda que temos.
Senhoras e senhores, não nos enganemos. A esquerda está a facilitar a islamização. Os esquerdistas brindam por cada banco sharia que é criado, por cada hipoteca islâmica, por cada nova escola islâmica, por cada novo tribunal islâmico. Os esquerdistas consideram o Islão igual à nossa cultura. Lei da sharia ou democracia? Islão ou liberdade? Verdadeiramente não lhes interessa. Mas interessa-nos a nós. Toda a elite esquerdista é culpada de praticar o relativismo cultural. Nas universidades, nos sindicatos, nos meios de comunicação, na política. Todos eles estão a trair as nossas liberdades tão dificilmente conquistadas.

Pergunto-me porque é que os esquerdistas deixaram de lutar por estes valores? Em tempos, os esquerdistas lutavam nas barricadas pelos direitos das mulheres. Mas onde estão eles hoje? Onde estão eles em 2010? Olham noutra direcção porque estão dependentes do relativismo cultural e dependentes do voto muçulmano. Estão dependentes dos votos trazidos pela imigração de massas.
Graças a Deus, Jacqui Smith já não está no governo. É uma vitória para a liberdade de expressão que um juiz do Reino Unido tenha varrido a sua decisão de me recusar a entrada neste país, há um ano atrás. Espero que os juízes no meu país sejam no mínimo tão sábios e me ilibem de todas as acusações que pendem sobre mim.
Infelizmente até ao momento isso não aconteceu. Pois eles não querem ouvir a verdade acerca do Islão, nem estão interessados em ouvir a opinião de especialistas no campo académico da liberdade de expressão. No mês passado, na sessão preliminar do julgamento, 15 dos 18 especialistas-testemunhas que eu requisitei para serem ouvidos, foram recusados pelo tribunal. Só 3 especialistas foram autorizados a serem ouvidos. Afortunadamente, a minha querida amiga e heróica psiquiatra americana, Dra. Wafa Sultan é um deles. Mas o seu testemunho vai ser ouvido à porta fechada. Aparentemente, a verdade sobre o Islão não é para ser dita e ouvida em público, a verdade sobre o Islão deve ser mantida em segredo.

Senhoras e Senhores, eu fui processado pelas minhas ideias políticas. Como sabemos, os processos políticos existem nos países do Médio Oriente, como no Irão, na Arábia Saudita, mas nunca na Europa, nunca na Holanda. Eu fui acusado por ter comparado o Alcorão ao ‘Mein Kampf’. É ridículo. Eu pergunto-me se os Britânicos poriam algum dia as crenças de Winston Churchill em tribunal.

Senhoras e senhores, o julgamento político que me moveram tem de acabar. Mas tudo isto não é sobre mim, não sobre Geert Wilders. A liberdade de expressão está a ser atacada. Deixem-me dar alguns exemplos.
Como provavelmente sabem, um dos meus heróis, a escritora Oriana Fallaci, teve que viver no medo de ser extraditada para a Suíça por causa do seu livro anti-Islão, A Raiva e Orgulho. O cartonista holandês Nekschot foi preso em Amsterdão por 10 polícias por ter desenhado caricaturas anti-islâmicas. Aqui na Grã-Bretanha, a escritora Rachel Ehrenfeld foi processada por negociante saudita, por difamação. Na Holanda, Ayaan Hirsi Ali e dois pastores cristãos australianos foram também processados... Poderiam continuar e continuar.

Senhoras e senhores, por todo o Ocidente, pessoas amantes da liberdade enfrentam esta jihad judicial. Isto é a lei islâmica a ser aplicada. E, senhoras e senhores, não há muito tempo o cartonista dinamarquês Westergaard foi quase assassinado por causa dos seus desenhos.
Senhoras e senhores, nós devemos defender a liberdade de expressão. Com todas as nossas forças. Com todo o nosso poder. A liberdade de expressão é a mais importante das nossas liberdades. A liberdade de expressão é a pedra de toque das sociedades modernas. A liberdade do discurso é a respiração da nossa democracia, e sem ela, a nossa maneira de viver morrerá."

Eu acredito na obrigação que temos de preservar a herança deixada pelos bravos e jovens soldados que desembarcaram nas praias da Normandia. Que libertaram a Europa da tirania. Aqueles heróis não podem ter morrido para nada. É nossa obrigação defender a liberdade de expressão. Como George Orwell afirmou: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”. [Se a liberdade significa alguma coisa, significa o direito de dizer ao povo aquilo que ele não quer ouvir].

Senhoras e senhores, eu acredito numa outra política, é tempo de mudança. Devemo-nos apressar. Não podemos esperar mais. O tempo está-se a esgotar. Se eu posso citar um dos meus presidentes americanos favoritos, Ronal Reagan: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. ["Precisamos de agir hoje para preservar o amanhã."].

Por isso eu proponho as seguintes medidas, e só mencionarei algumas, no propósito de preservar a nossa liberdade.
Primeiro, devemos defender a liberdade de expressão. É a mais importante das nossas liberdades. Na Europa e certamente na Holanda, precisamos de algo semelhante à Primeira Emenda da Constituição Americana.
Segundo, teremos que pôr fim e livrar-mo-nos do relativismo cultural. Aos culturais relativistas, aos socialistas da sharia, eu tenho orgulho em lhes dizer: a nossa cultura é de longe superior à cultura islâmica. Não tenho medo em no afirmar. Não se é racista por se dizer que a nossa cultura é melhor.
Terceiro, temos que por cobro à emigração de massas proveniente dos países islâmicos. Porque mais Islão significa menos liberdade.
Quarto, temos que expulsar os imigrantes criminosos, seguido da sua desnaturalização. Temos que expulsar os criminosos que tenham dupla nacionalidade. E há muitos deles no meu país.
Quinto, teremos que proibir a construção de novas mesquitas. Já existe demasiado Islão na Europa. Especialmente desde que os Cristãos na Turquia, Egipto, Iraque, Irão, Paquistão e Indonésia são ameaçados e mal tratados, deverá ser parada a construção de novas mesquitas na Europa.
E por último, mas não menos importante, temos que nos ver livres destes assim-chamados-lideres. Já disse isto antes: poucos Chamberlains, e mais Churchills. Vamos lá eleger verdadeiros lideres!

Senhoras e Senhores. Para a geração anterior, aquela dos meus pais, a palavra "Londres" é sinónimo de esperança e liberdade. Quando o meu país foi ocupado pelos nazis a BBC oferecia diariamente centelhas de esperança ao meu povo, durante as trevas da tirania nacional-socialista. As palavras "Daqui Londres" eram um símbolo de um mundo melhor que iria chegar em breve.
O que é que será difundido daqui a 20 anos? Será ainda "Daqui Londres"? Ou será "Daqui Londonistão"? Trar-nos-á esperança? Ou será um sinal dos valores de Meca e Medina? Será que Grã-Bretanha nos vai oferecer submissão ou perseverança? A escolha é vossa. E na Holanda a escolha é nossa.

Senhoras e senhores,nunca pediremos desculpa por sermos livres.Nós nunca nos renderemos. A liberdade deve prevalecer, a liberdade vai prevalecer.
Muito obrigado.»

Leia o discurso na versão original em língua inglesa.

⁽¹⁾ - In Google Books:

O discurso de Allen West legendado em português

Caros leitores,
não escrevam mais! Sem qualquer interferência da nossa parte, um compatriota, de nome Rui, já tratou de traduzir o discurso de Allen West para a nossa estimada língua. O video foi publicado por Vlad Tepes, i.a..

Para além deste meritório labor, o Rui dedica-se à mortificante prática de ler o jornal Público (sem hiperligação) e de comentar alguns disparates que lá se dizem. Um blogue a seguir.

Ficou muito contente por haver mais quem se preocupa com a ameaçadora islamização do Ocidente e não fica de braços cruzados.

Allen West Portugeuse from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

Ut Americana nec muslima nec atheista sed vera Christiana terra sit (2)

Homilia pronunciada pelo Padre Paulo Ricardo no dia 31/01/2010, a respeito do Plano Nacional de Direitos Humanos (PNDH-3). O decreto pretende impor ao Estado e aos Brasileiros que nele atuam, políticas desumanas e incompatíveis com o cristianismo. Trata-se de um instrumento para a criação de uma “nomenklatura”, uma casta de dirigentes alinhada com a ideologia governante e que, na prática, exclui os verdadeiros cristãos do “apparat” de governo.

Um aviso especialmente dirigido aos nossos amigos brasileiros.

Ouvi PNDH.mp3

Beato José de Anchieta, rogai por nós.

Discurso de Geert Wilders à Casa dos Lordes, 5 de Março de 2010

Algum leitor se dispõe a traduzir este discurso para a nossa língua?
Se sim, escreva-nos para tambemistoevaidade@gmail.com.
Estará prestando um inestimável serviço ao país e à liberdade.

Geert Wilders Speech, House of Lords, London, Friday the 5th of March 2010

«Thank you. It is great to be back in London. And it is great that this time, I got to see more of this wonderful city than just the detention centre at Heathrow Airport.

Today I stand before you, in this extraordinary place. Indeed, this is a sacred place. This is, as Malcolm always says, the mother of all Parliaments, I am deeply humbled to have the opportunity to speak before you.

Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for your invitation and showing my film ‘Fitna’. Thank you my friends for inviting me.

I first have great news. Last Wednesday city council elections were held in the Netherlands. And for the first time my party, the Freedom Party, took part in these local elections. We participated in two cities. In Almere, one of the largest Dutch cities. And in The Hague, the third largest city; home of the government, the parliament and the queen. And, we did great! In one fell swoop my party became the largest party in Almere and the second largest party in The Hague. Great news for the Freedom Party and even better news for the people of these two beautiful cities.

And I have more good news. Two weeks ago the Dutch government collapsed. In June we will have parliamentary elections. And the future for the Freedom Party looks great. According to some polls we will become the largest party in the Netherlands. I want to be modest, but who knows, I might even be Prime Minister in a few months time!

Ladies and gentlemen, not far from here stands a statue of the greatest Prime Minister your country ever had. And I would like to quote him here today: “Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step (…) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” These words are from none other than Winston Churchill wrote this in his book ‘The River War’ from 1899.

Churchill was right.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.

As former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”. End of quote.

Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent”. End of quote. Indeed, for once in his life, Gaddafi was telling the truth. Because, remember: mass immigration and demographics is destiny!

Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.

I believe that Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to Western values. The equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization. Ladies and gentlemen: Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible. It are opposite values.

No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ “the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, bur pregnant with its message”. As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book ‘The Second World War’, a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill’s comparison of the Quran and ‘Mein Kampf’ is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.

Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That’s a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being destroyed. Burqa’s, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don’t get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.

As you undoubtedly all know, better then I do, also in your country the mass immigration and islamization has rapidly increased. This has put an enormous pressure on your British society. Look what is happening in for example Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and here in London. British politicians who have forgotten aboutWinston Churchill have now taken the path of least resistance. They have given up. They have given in.

Last year, my party has requested the Dutch government to make a cost-benefit analysis of the mass immigration. But the government refused to give us an answer. Why? Because it is afraid of the truth. The signs are not good. A Dutch weekly magazine - Elsevier - calculated costs to exceed 200 billion Euros. Last year alone, they came with an amount of 13 billion Euros. More calculations have been made in Europe: According to the Danish national bank, every Danish immigrant from an Islamic country is costing the Danish state more than 300 thousand Euros. You see the same in Norway and France. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: Europe is getting more impoverished by the day. More impoverished thanks to mass immigration. More impoverished thanks to demographics. And the leftists are thrilled.

I don't know whether it is true, but in several British newspapers I read that Labour opened the door to mass immigration in a deliberate policy to change the social structures of the UK. Andrew Neather, a former government advisor and speech writer for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was, and I quote, to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”. If this is true, this is symptomatic of the Left.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The left is facilitating islamization. Leftists, liberals, are cheering for every new shariah bank being created, for every new shariah mortgage, for every new islamic school, for every new shariah court. Leftists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Why I ask myself, why have the Leftists and liberals stopped to fight for them? Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women’s rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote. They are dependent on mass-immigration.

Thank heavens Jacqui Smith isn’t in office anymore. It was a victory for free speech that a UK judge brushed aside her decision to refuse me entry to your country last year. I hope that the judges in my home country are at least as wise and will acquit me of all charges, later this year in the Netherlands.

Unfortunately, so far they have not done so well. For they do not want to hear the truth about Islam, nor are they interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. Last month in a preliminary session the Court refused fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses I had requested to be summoned.

Only three expert witnesses are allowed to be heard. Fortunately, my dear friend and heroic American psychiatrist dr. Wafa Sultan is one of them. But their testimony will be heard behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must not be told in public, the truth about Islam must remain secret.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m being prosecuted for my political beliefs. We know political prosecution to exist in countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi-Arabia, but never in Europe, never in the Netherlands.

I’m being prosecuted for comparing the Quran to ‘Mein Kampf’. Ridiculous. I wonder if Britain will ever put the beliefs of Winston Churchill on trial… Ladies and gentlemen, the political trial that is held against me has to stop.

But it is not all about me, not about Geert Wilders. Free speech is under attack. Let me give you a few other examples. As you perhaps know, one of my heroes, the Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her anti-Islam book 'The Rage and the Pride'. The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot was arrested in his home in Amsterdam by 10 police men because of his anti-Islam drawings. Here in Britain, the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi businessman for defamation. In the Netherlands Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in Australia two Christian pastors were sued. I could go on and on. Ladies and gentlemen, all throughout the West freedom loving people are facing this ongoing ‘legal jihad’. This is Islamic ‘lawfare’. And, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago the Danish cartoonist Westergaard was almost assassinated for his cartoons.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. With all our strength. With all our might. Free speech is the most important of our many liberties. Free speech is the cornerstone of our modern societies. Freedom of speech is the breath of our democracy, without freedom of speech our way of life our freedom will be gone.

I believe it is our obligation to preserve the inheritance of the brave young soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy. That liberated Europe from tyranny. These heroes cannot have died for nothing. It is our obligation to defend freedom of speech. As George Orwell said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. We must make haste. We can’t wait any longer. Time is running out. If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.

Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don't be affraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.

Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.

Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalisation, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.

Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.

And last but not least, we will have to get rid of all those so-called leaders. I said it before: Fewer Chamberlains, more Churchills. Let's elect real leaders.

Ladies and gentlemen. To the previous generation, that of my parents, the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope in my country, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my fellow country men listened to it, underground. The words ‘This is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon.

What will be broadcasted forty years from now? Will it still be “This is London”? Or will it be “This is Londonistan”? Will it bring us hope? Or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery? The choice is yours. And in the Netherlands the choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.»

In Atlas Shrugs.

Anti-sionismo ou anti-semitismo?

Diálogo ou imposição de uma perspectiva?
Universidade como centro de saber ou como terreno de propaganda?

Muçulmanos e direitos humanos

Excelente artigo de Sultan Knish sobre os muçulmanos e os direitos humanos:

«Over the last decade the treatment of Muslims has dominated discussions about human rights in Europe, the United States and Israel.

While left wing "human rights organizations" such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (...) have dived in to the business of protecting the rights of Muslims in the West with both feet, very little attention is paid to the rights of Hindus, Jews, Christians, Buddhists and others living in Muslim countries.

(...) the last Jews of Yemen are being evacuated after one of the community's few remaining leaders was murdered by a Yemeni Air Force Pilot who ordered him to convert to Islam or die. Yemen in turn fined the pilot and offered to build the remaining Jews their own ghetto for "their own protection". Naturally they chose to leave instead.

Yemeni Jews had been fleeing the country since the 19th century, a flow that only intensified when the Yemeni government began seizing orphaned Jewish children and converting them to Islam in the 20's (...). After the creation of the State of Israel, the majority of Yemen's Jews fled the tide of Muslim violence. And now that last handful of what had been a community of tens of thousands is departing.

But what makes the story of Yemen so damning is that it actually is fairly tolerant by Muslim standards. And that the Jews of Yemen are only a small part of the more than 800,000 Jewish refugees from Muslim lands in the Middle East whose plight is ignored (...)

The 800,000 Jewish refugees are themselves only part of the story. The Armenian genocide and the Assyrian Holocaust both offer eloquent testimony to how Muslims treat non-Muslim minorities. As do the modern day persecutions of the Zoroastrians in Iran and the Christian Copts in Egypt, who are denied basic rights and whose daughters are routinely kidnapped for forced Islamic conversion.

While Muslims incessantly shout about their "rights" in Europe, America and Israel ― it might be a good idea to take a look at how non-Muslim guest workers are treated in Muslim countries.

As much as 90 percent of Dubai is run by foreign guest workers who slave away for the Emirs. (...)




As much as 40 percent of Saudi Arabia consists of foreign guest workers who do everything for the fat bearded sons of Mahomet (...). Asian maids and African laborers (...) have their passports seized by their employers, which transforms them into slaves of their employers without the right to even leave the country. The Saudis have built such a nightmarish slave state that it is one of the few rich countries in the world where guest workers actually try to get themselves deported. Without success.

The Saudi and Dubai slave states are all the more relevant because so many of the organizations clamoring for the rights of Muslims in the West are either Saudi fronts, such as CAIR, or Saudi funded, such as Human Rights Watch. And just as the USSR lectured America on civil rights while running the Gulags, Saudi Arabia oversees a nightmarish Islamic oligarchy in which non-Muslims have no rights, while demanding through its front groups that America throw open the doors to Guantanamo Bay, stop detaining Muslims for suspicious behavior, that Europe open wide for Islamic immigration and ban any criticism of Islam, and that Israel turn over land to terrorist organizations again funded by the Saudis.

(...) Muslims enjoy legal equality in their host countries, even as they spread the poison of an Islamist ideology that calls for the murder of non-Muslim. And sometimes act on it.

Not only are Muslims treated far better than they treat others by America, Europe, Israel and the other non-Muslim countries that they routinely malign for "oppressing" them-- but they are treated far better than they themselves act while abroad.

Despite all the talk about hate crimes against mosques, Muslims abroad have committed far more violent attacks on other people's houses of worship, than have been committed against theirs. Muslim rapes far outweigh any rapes of Muslims. Muslim terrorist attacks on non-Muslims far outweigh any terrorist attacks carried out against Muslims.

Muslim countries invite in non-Muslim tourists only to jail (Dubai) and murder (Egypt) them, despising non-Muslims and yet greedy for their gold. They rely on slave labor and yet fund lawfare and propaganda campaigns denouncing the US detention of the same Taliban throatslitters that they funded as well. Egypt, where a third of the children are malnourished, Saudi Arabia, where even half the Muslim population has less legal rights than a dog (correction: dogs are actually forbidden in Saudi Arabia) or Pakistan, where it is easier for rapists to convict their victim of adultery, than for the victim to convict them of rape-- all somehow manage to find the time to denounce the human rights of non-Muslim countries whose level of jurisprudence they couldn't reach with all the skyscrapers in Dubai. (...)»

Indícios de resistência

Algumas almas, como este vosso servidor, não desistem de lutar contra o expansionismo islâmico, convencidos que estamos de que ainda não é tarde para lhe resistir.
Uma das formas de oposição pacífica a essa expansão são os esforços para dar a conhecer o islão tal como ele é, cada um na sua casa, na sua família, no seu escritório, no seu país, na sua língua. Pela minha parte, para além deste suporte, tenho vindo a traduzir um documento escrito por Robert Spencer, do Jihad Watch, no qual o referido autor comenta o Alcorão de fio-a-pavio. Outros fazem o mesmo para as respectivas línguas.

Descobri recentemente, via À Vrai Dire, que se encontra em-linha uma tradução colectiva para francês do The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), também da autoria de Robert Spencer.
Fica aqui a informação e a hiperligação para a versão francesa, bem como para o original no Google Books.
Se preferir comprá-lo, pode fazê-lo através da The Book Depository, sítio de comércio de livros que não cobra portes para entregas em vários países, entre os quais o nosso.
Os leitores que preferirem ler em castelhano, também podem comprar a versão nessa língua.



Acrescento um video de apresentação desta obra pelo seu autor:

Dada a pertinência das questões e o alto nível das respostas, colo também a sessão de perguntas e respostas que ocorreu após a apresentação do livro:

Videoteca do islamismo: juventude universitária muçulmana nos EUA

Mujahidin da palavra.
Eis o que nos espera, aos portugueses, dentro de poucos anos: uma horda de muçulmanos agressivos e cheios de confiança, cientes de que os seus actos provocatórios e anti-sociais não terão consequências, que qualquer iniciativa para os punir ― quer na esfera académica, quer na judicial ― será mais uma ocasião de se reclamarem vítimas de discriminação.
É assim nos EUA; é assim em França, na Holanda, na Suécia e na Noruega.
Fossemos mais ricos, enquanto país; tivéssemos um estado social generoso como estes e outros países europeus para ser parasitado, e estaríamos por cá na mesma.
A nossa relativa pobreza material permite-nos estar alguns decénios atrasados no grau de islamização em relação aos EUA e à Europa abastada; espero que sejamos capazes de redescobrir a nossa riqueza cultural e moral para reagir a tempo.



Sobre a jihad cultural, ler Stealth Jihad, de Robert Spencer.

Via Jihad Watch.

Videoteca do islamismo: «Islamic third jihad final goal establishing a global Islamic state»

Excelente documentário narrado por um muçulmano americano, fundador de uma organização islâmica que procura compatibilizar o islão com a democracia ― tarefa muito pouco islâmica, diga-se.
O silêncio, quando não mesmo o apoio expresso dos muçulmanos americanos ao terrorismo; a infiltração do islão nos EUA e o seu propósito explícito de transformar os EUA num estado islâmico regulado pela sharia; a taqiyya como arma da jihad insidiosa, a jihad cultural; a investida prosélita nas prisões norte-americanas; os direitos humanos, entre os quais a liberdade religiosa; os direitos das mulheres; o adestramento de crianças para a realização de actos terroristas, são alguns dos pontos abordados neste documentário, essencial para conhecer o presente ponto do avanço do islão no mundo ocidental e para antever o que nos pode esperar caso persistamos em não querer reconhecer que estamos perante uma ameaça civilizacional de enorme magnitude.







Ler sobre jihad.

Julgamento de Wilders (7)

Acompanhe o julgamento de Gert Wilders através do Gates of Vienna, onde pode encontrar, entre outros meios de acompanhar o andamento do processo, notícias da imprensa holandesa traduzidas para inglês por colaboradores holandeses do blogue.
Não deixe, também, de visitar o sítio criado por Wilders para divulgação das vicissitudes do julgamento, análise das sessões e do seu impacto na liberdade de expressão e na democracia na Holanda, e não só.
Verdadeiro serviço público.

Julgamento de Wilders (6)

How wrong is Gert Wilders?



Via The Force of Reason no Twitter.

Fitna, de Gert Wilders

Julgamento de Wilders (5c)

Video do discurso.
Via e legendas Vlad Tepes.

Julgamento de Wilders (5b)

O discurso de Wilders, em castelhano, via La Yijad en Eurabia:

«Sr. Portavoz, jueces del juzgado,
me gustaría hacer uso de mi derecho a hablar durante unos pocos minutos.

La Libertad es el más precioso de todos nuestros logros, y el más vulnerable. La gente ha dedicado sus vidas a ella y ha dado sus vidas por ella. Nuetra libertad en este país es el resultado de varios siglos. Es la consecuencia de una historia que no conoce igul y nos ha traido a donde estamos ahora

Creo con todo mi corazón y mi alma que la libertad en los Países Bajos está en peligro. Que aquello que es nuestra herencia, aquello con lo cual generaciones pasadas sólo pudieron soñar, esta libertad, no es ya algo dado, ni algo patente.

Yo dedico mi vida a la defensa de nuestra libertad. Sé cuales son los riesgos, y pago un precio por ello todos los días. No me quejo al respecto; es por decisión propia. Lo veo como mi deber y por ello por lo que hoy estoy aquí.

Sé que las palabras que en ocasiones uso son en ocasiones duras. No es mi intención perdonar a una ideología de conquista y destrucción, pero no lo estoy más a ofender a la gente. No tengo nada en contra de los musulmanes. Tengo un problema con el Islam y con la islamización de nuestro país, porque el Islam está en oposición a la libertad.

Las generaciones futuras se preguntarán cómo nosotros, en el año 2010, en este lugar, en esta sala, nos ganamos nuestro más preciado logro. Se preguntarán si hay libertad en este debate para ambos bandos, y así también para los críticos del Islam, ¿o si sólo un bando de esta discusión tiene derecho a ser oído en Holanda?. Si la libertad de expresión en HOlanda se aplica a todos, ¿o sólo a unos pocos?. La respuesta a esto es a la vez la respuesta a si la libertad todavía tiene un hogar en este país.

La Libertad no ha sido nunca propiedad de un pequeño grupo, sino siempre la herencia de todos nosotros. Estamos todos bendecidos por ella.

La dama Justicia lleva una venda en los ojos, pero tiene muy buen oido. Espero que escuche las siguientes frases, alto y claro:

No es sólo un derecho, sino también un deber de la gente libre, el hablar en contra de cada ideología que amenace la libertad. Thomas Jefferson, el tercer presidente de los Estados Unidos, estaba en lo correcto: El precio de la libertad es la vigilancia eterna.

Espero que la libertad de expresión triunfe en este juicio.

En conclusión, señor Portavoz, jueces del juzgado.

Este juicio trata claramente acerca de la libertad de expresión. Pero este juicio es también el procedimiento para establecer la verdad. ¿Son las afirmaciones que he realizado y las comparaciones que he hecho, como se citan en el requerimiento, verdaderas?. ¿Si algo es verdad, entonces puede ser todavía punible?, Esta es la razón por la que os insto a no sólo mi petición de que se pueda oir a los testigos y expertos sobre la materia de la libertad de expresión, sino que os pido explícitamente que honréis mi petición de escuchar a testigos y expertos sobre el Islam. No me refiero solamente al Sr. Jansen y al Sr. Admiraal, sino también a testigos y expertos de Israel, Estados Unidos, y el Reino Unido. Sin esos testigos, no puedo defenderme adecuadamente y, en mi opinión, este no sería un juicio justo.»

Julgamento de Wilders (5)

Discurso de Geert Wilders perante os juizes do tribunal onde começou hoje a ser julgado, no sítio do PVV:

«Mister Speaker, judges of the court,

I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.

Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.

I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial.»

Imagem: Bosch Fawstin

Julgamento de Wilders (4)

Via Tea and Politics, no site do PVV:

«Geert Wilders’ Trial: Who Will be Next?
By Harry Antonides

On January 21, 2009, Dutch authorities took another step toward the Islamization of Holland.

On that day the Amsterdam Court of Appeal overturned the decision of a lower court, which last year had found Geert Wilders, the controversial member of the Dutch parliament, not guilty of hate speech. This lower court acknowledged that some of his statements may be offensive but they contributed to a social debate that did not give cause for criminal prosecution.

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning for overturning this decision is a jumble of contradictions and doubletalk that brings to mind the newspeak of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The Court gives three reasons for its decision.

1984 is Now
One, Wilders’ views, including the message of his short film Fitna, in style and substance are ”characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created...” Wilders has indeed insulted Islamic worshipers by attacking the symbols of their belief.

Two, the Court finds that a possible criminal prosecution or conviction is admissible according to the norms of European jurisprudence, which at the same time “considers the freedom of expression of paramount importance.”

Then follows another sentence that is convoluted and without any sense because it is self-contradictory. It says that this Court has concluded that prosecution is warranted, “ provided that it is proportionate, does not necessarily conflict with the freedom of expression of Wilders, since statements which create hate and grief made by politicians, taken their special responsibility into consideration, are not permitted according to European standards either.”

Three, the Court finds that criminal prosecution is opportune in the Dutch situation because “the instigation of hatred in a democratic society constitutes such a serious matter that a general interest is at stake in order to draw a clear boundary in the public debate.”

The Court explains that the Dutch culture of public debate is based on tolerance of opposing views, while Islamic immigrants may be expected to have consideration for the existing sentiments among the Dutch for their (Islamic) belief, “which is partly at odds with Dutch and European values and norms.”

Instead of calling for Muslims to appreciate and respect the Dutch culture, the Court then reiterates its opinion that prosecution of Wilders is warranted because he compared radical Islam with Nazism, which is contrary to the general interest of society.

Here is a clear case of language that lacks any kind of rhetorical firmness and clarity. George Orwell was perceptive when he showed that the destruction of freedom goes hand in hand with the corruption of language. Then words are used not to communicate truth but to hide it with hollow words that say the very opposite to what is real.

Truth is Irrelevant
The Court does not concern itself with the truth of Wilders’ opinions, but with the claims of radical Islamists that their religion has been insulted, which in the eyes of many Muslims calls for the death penalty. Wilders has received many such threats, which in normal times would result in prosecution of those who issue such threats.

But these are not normal times, and though he is a member of the Dutch parliament, leader of the nine-member Freedom Party (VVD), he is forced to live like a fugitive, under 24 hours-a-day police protection, forced to move from place to place and deprived of all the normal benefits of citizenship in a free society.

He has a number of law suits pending, including one by an imam who is demanding damages of 55.000 Euros for his hurt feelings. The state of Jordan has requested that Wilders be extradited and tried in a Jordanian court for blaspheming Islam. Now Wilders no longer travels outside the country unless he receives assurance from the government of the country to be visited that he will not be charged or extradited.

His invitation from the British House of Lords to discuss his film was withdrawn after the Muslim Lord Ahmed is reported to have threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Wilders from entering the House. The Secretary-General of the UN condemned the airing of Fitna in the strongest terms. He said that “there is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence.” The irony is that this is exactly the point of Wilders’ position.

The bitter reality is that the persecution of this member of the Dutch parliament now living under a death threat proves the truth of his contention that radial Islam is incompatible with Western democracy.

Wilders’ unpardonable sin is that he insists on taking the Islamists at their words. He has simply stated the obvious. His brief film Fitna, though in a provocative way, quotes some of the warlike verses of the Koran and shows images of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. It also has clips of angry demonstrators shouting the praise of Allah while calling for the death of infidels.

In the Netherlands crowds have shouted an especially revolting expression of Jew-hatred: “Hamas, Hamas, Joden aan het gas” ( Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas). Last October, a Muslim radical with a long police record attacked two police officers in Amsterdam. One of the officers nearly died; the attacker was shot. This event touched off days of rioting and car burning, but the Dutch press avoided any mention of Islamic radicalism

In Copenhagen recently Muslim demonstrators were heard to scream Alla-hu Akbar while giving the “Heil Hitler” salute and calling for the death of Jews.

The United Nations: No Friend of Freedom
While such demonstrations are taking place in many parts of the world, the Islamic bloc at the United Nations is busy furthering the Islamization of the West. In 1990, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

While it pays lip service to the freedom of all people, it makes very clear that all rights and laws are to be interpreted and applied in accordance with Islamic law. For example, article 24 states: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.”

The OIC, now the largest voting bloc, is determined to use the UN as the wedge to silence all critics of Islam. Since 2005 the General Assembly has passed a so-called anti-defamation resolution, which until now has been non-binding. The OIC has begun a campaign to have the UN adopt a binding resolution, which in effect would criminalize all criticism of Islam.

Last year the UN Human Rights Council - including China, Angola, Cuba and Saudi Arabia - adopted a resolution that moved a step closer to such criminalization. It decided to mandate the Special Rapporteur of Freedom of Expression not only to report violations of this freedom but also to include cases in which that freedom is “abused.” Such “abuse” will include all criticism of Islam.

As the Canadian delegation noted: “instead of promoting freedom of expression the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise.” It is clear that the backers of this anti-defamation resolution want to silence all critics of Islam. Why have the delegations of the free nations not opposed this move in clear and unmistakable ways?

Only recently did the French ambassador on behalf of the European Union warn that the EU would not accept such a resolution which in fact would destroy the freedom of expression. But most of the Western UN members failed to condemn this attempt to silence the critics of Islam. Although the Canadian representative protested against this resolution, in the end Canada abstained rather than vote against it. The U.S. also abstained.

The next battle lines are now being drawn in preparation for he forthcoming 2009 Durban Review Conference (Durban II). This UN World Conference Against Racism shows all the signs of a repeat performance of Durban I, which in fact became a platform for vicious anti-Israel and pro-Islam propaganda. One of its agenda points will be a recommendation that the UN make defamation of Islam a criminal offence and thus no longer allowed under the “pretext of freedom of religion, counter terrorism or national security.”

That the UN has degenerated into a nest of scheming power blocs mostly tilted against the Western democracies, is bad enough. But that those very same democracies allow their own legislative and judiciary institutions to silence the critics of radical Islam is beyond belief.

The case of Geert Wilders is especially reprehensible, but the same thing is happening in England, France, Germany, Belgium, the U.S, Canada, and elsewhere. The biggest challenge is to distinguish truth from falsehood. Not a bad rule of thumb is to be very suspicious of the ruling majority, especially if they belong to the herd of the politically correct.

If you really want to understand the full scope of the controversy surrounding Geert Wilders, I can wholeheartedly recommend Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.»

Julgamento de Wilders (3)

Entrevista com o professor de direito Afshin Ellian⁽¹⁾, iraniano radicado na Holanda, in Gates of Vienna:

«(...) You said that the Wilders Trial reminds you of justice in your country of origin, Iran. Is that not somewhat exaggerated?

“The Netherlands, of course, is not comparable with Iran, it is but about the experience. If you cannot say that the Islam is a backward religion and that Muhammad is a criminal, then you are living in an Islamic country, my friend, because there you also cannot say such things. I may say Christ was a f** and Mary was a w****, but apparently I should stay off of Muhammad.” (...)»

Lede tudo.

⁽¹⁾ - Afshin Ellian was born February 17, 1966 in Tehran, Iran. In 1983 he fled the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. He had studied medicine in Kabul an came to the Netherlands in 1989, where he studied criminal law, constitutional law, and philosophy. At present he is a professor of law, a poet, a columnist (Elsevier, NRC Handelsblad), and a professor of citizenship, social cohesion and multiculturalism at the University of Leiden.

Julgamento de Wilders (2)

«Far-right MP Geert Wilders on trial for discrimination against Muslims

Geert Wilders, the far-right MP who likens the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, goes on trial today in a politically charged test of the limits of tolerance and free speech in the Netherlands.

Mr Wilders, 46, leader of the Freedom Party, is charged with incitement and discrimination against Muslims over his outspoken comments attacking Islam and for his film, Fitna, which juxtaposed images of 9/11 and beheadings with verses of the Koran. He has called the Koran “a fascist book” and described Islamic culture as retarded.

Mr Wilders (...) has called his indictment a political trial but the Amsterdam Court of Appeal decided that it was in the public interest to prosecute him because his comments have been “so insulting to Muslims”.

“I am being prosecuted for my political convictions,” Mr Wilders said this week.

“The freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing,” Mr Wilders added. “If a politician is not allowed to criticise an ideology anymore this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom. However, I remain combative: I am convinced that I will be acquitted.”

He faces up to two years in prison if convicted but his opponents fear that, win or lose, his Freedom Party will receive a boost in next year’s election where it is expected to challenge the ruling Christian Democrats for the largest party vote.

Mr Wilders has received numerous death threats for his campaign against the “Islamisation of our societies” views but has built a large following by exploiting a backlash against relaxed Dutch immigration policies, vowing to close Holland’s borders if he comes to power.

“My supporters say, ‘At last there is someone who dares to say what millions of people think’. That is what I do.” Today’s hearing in Amsterdam district court is a formal opening session to determine who will be called as witnesses and whether they will all be heard in public.

(...)

“The Court of Appeal determined that statements equating Islam to Nazism were a punishable insult to Islamic worshippers and therefore constituted ground for criminal prosecution,” she said.

In its judgment ordering the prosecution of Mr Wilders the Court of Appeal stated: “The court considers this so insulting for Muslims that it is in the public interest to prosecute Wilders. By attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion, he also insulted Muslim believers. In a democratic system, hate speech is considered to be so serious that it is in the general interest to draw a clear line.”»

Apenas uma observação: discordo em absoluto da classificação de Wilders e do PVV como partido de "extrema-direita". Nas declarações de Wilders nada aponta nesse sentido, como afirma Daniel Pipes no artigo hoje aqui divulgado.
De resto, a notícia foca alguns dos pontos essenciais deste caso.

Via Jihad Watch.

Imagem: Bosch Faustin