«Onde fica Jerusalém Oriental?»

Nas últimas semanas foi tema quente o estulto e hipócrita incómodo da administração Obama supostamente causado pela intenção do município de Jerusalém de construir um complexo habitacional, alegadamente numa "zona da cidade disputada pelos palestinianos" ― a propósito desta expressão, diga-se que todo o território de Israel se encontra numa zona disputada pelos palestinianos, razão que os leva a rejeitar sistematicamente as proposta para o estabelecimento de dois estados: pretendem um só estado, muçulmano, judenrein (purificado de judeus) e com os cristãos subjugados, à semelhança do que acontece hoje nos territórios sob a autoridade palestiniana; um estado palestiniano, do rio (Jordão) ao mar (Mediterrâneo).

Onde se situa, então, Ramat Shlomo (רמח שלםה) o local do absurdamente controverso projecto habitacional?
É ver e confirmar noutras fontes, se não se acredita no disparate.
Repare-se, a talhe de foice, na localização um outro projecto, igualmente controverso há alguns meses, o de Gilo (גלה).

«We’ve heard a lot of talk about “Arab East Jerusalem” and how upset the Obama administration is about Israel building in it. The only problem is, the building that Israel announced last week is NOT East Jerusalem – Ramat Shlomo is North Jerusalem! And six months ago, the Obama administration was yelling about Gilo – that is in South Jerusalem. So, is the Obama administration trying to make Israel look bad by distorting the truth? Take a look at this map of Jerusalem, courtesy of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, of Jordanian East Jerusalem before Israel won the land back in 1967. Ramat Shlomo is clearly directly north of the city, and Gilo is southwest of the city.»

Map of Arab East Jerusalem, 1948-1967.
Note the locations of Israel's construction, far from East Jerusalem.

In Middle East Facts Weblog, sítio a seguir.

Pedofilia, Igreja, baixa política e sociedade

Para tratar deste tema, urge começar por fazer algumas declarações categóricas, para nos pormos a salvo de acusações de má-fé: o abuso sexual é uma prática abominável, independentemente do perfil da vítima; é-o ainda mais se cometido sobre menores; é especialmente agravado se cometido por pessoas incumbidas de zelar pelos interesses das vítimas; é ainda mais escandaloso quando aos abusadores está confiada a orientação moral e religiosa das vítimas; as principais vítimas são sempre os abusados; os abusos não-sexuais também são condenáveis.

Dito isto, passemos ao tema propriamente dito, através de excertos de um magnífico artigo de Massimo Introvigne, cuja leitura integral se recomenda.
Depois de uma apresentação do conceito sociológico de pânico moral e dos seus agentes, os empresários morais, Introvigne aborda os casos de abusos sexuais perpetrados por membros do clero que têm vindo a merecer ampla cobertura mediática. Para tal, apresenta as conclusões de um estudo realizado sobre a matéria pelo John Jay College of Criminal Justice, instituição pertencente à City University of New York:

«(...) Questo studio ci dice che dal 1950 al 2002 4.392 sacerdoti americani (su oltre 109.000) sono stati accusati di relazioni sessuali con minorenni. Di questi poco più di un centinaio sono stati condannati da tribunali civili. Il basso numero di condanne da parte dello Stato deriva da diversi fattori. In alcuni casi le vere o presunte vittime hanno denunciato sacerdoti già defunti, o sono scattati i termini della prescrizione. In altri, all’accusa e anche alla condanna canonica non corrisponde la violazione di alcuna legge civile: è il caso, per esempio, in diversi Stati americani del sacerdote che abbia una relazione con una – o anche un – minorenne maggiore di sedici anni e consenziente. Ma ci sono anche stati molti casi clamorosi di sacerdoti innocenti accusati. Questi casi si sono anzi moltiplicati negli anni 1990, quando alcuni studi legali hanno capito di poter strappare transazioni milionarie anche sulla base di semplici sospetti. Gli appelli alla “tolleranza zero” sono giustificati, ma non ci dovrebbe essere nessuna tolleranza neanche per chi calunnia sacerdoti innocenti. Aggiungo che per gli Stati Uniti le cifre non cambierebbero in modo significativo se si aggiungesse il periodo 2002-2010, perché già lo studio del John Jay College notava il “declino notevolissimo” dei casi negli anni 2000. Le nuove inchieste sono state poche, e le condanne pochissime, a causa di misure rigorose introdotte sia dai vescovi statunitensi sia dalla Santa Sede.

Lo studio del John Jay College ci dice, come si legge spesso, che il quattro per cento dei sacerdoti americani sono “pedofili”? Niente affatto. Secondo quella ricerca il 78,2% delle accuse si riferisce a minorenni che hanno superato la pubertà. Avere rapporti sessuali con una diciassettenne non è certamente una bella cosa, tanto meno per un prete: ma non si tratta di pedofilia. Dunque i sacerdoti accusati di effettiva pedofilia negli Stati Uniti sono 958 in cinquantadue anni, diciotto all’anno. Le condanne sono state 54, poco più di una all’anno.

Il numero di condanne penali di sacerdoti e religiosi in altri Paesi è simile a quello degli Stati Uniti, anche se per nessun Paese si dispone di uno studio completo come quello del John Jay College. Si citano spesso una serie di rapporti governativi in Irlanda che definiscono “endemica” la presenza di abusi nei collegi e negli orfanatrofi (maschili) gestiti da alcune diocesi e ordini religiosi, e non vi è dubbio che casi di abusi sessuali su minori anche molto gravi in questo Paese vi siano stati. Lo spoglio sistematico di questi rapporti mostra peraltro come molte accuse riguardino l’uso di mezzi di correzione eccessivi o violenti. Il cosiddetto rapporto Ryan del 2009 – che usa un linguaggio molto duro nei confronti della Chiesa Cattolica – su 25.000 allievi di collegi, riformatori e orfanatrofi nel periodo che esamina riporta 253 accuse di abusi sessuali da parte di ragazzi e 128 da parte di ragazze, non tutte attribuite a sacerdoti, religiosi o religiose, di diversa natura e gravità, raramente riferite a bambini prepuberi e che ancor più raramente hanno condotto a condanne.

(...)

Una domanda sgradevole – perché il semplice porla sembra difensivo, e non consola le vittime – ma importante è se essere un prete cattolico sia una condizione che comporta un rischio di diventare pedofilo o di abusare sessualmente di minori – le due cose, come si è visto, non coincidono perché chi abusa di una sedicenne non è un pedofilo – più elevato rispetto al resto della popolazione. Rispondere a questa domanda è fondamentale per scoprire le cause del fenomeno e quindi per prevenirlo. Secondo gli studi di Jenkins se si paragona la Chiesa Cattolica degli Stati Uniti alle principali denominazioni protestanti si scopre che la presenza di pedofili è – a seconda delle denominazioni – da due a dieci volte più altra tra i pastori protestanti rispetto ai preti cattolici. La questione è rilevante perché mostra che il problema non è il celibato: la maggior parte dei pastori protestanti è sposata. Nello stesso periodo in cui un centinaio di sacerdoti americani era condannato per abusi sessuali su minori, il numero professori di ginnastica e allenatori di squadre sportive giovanili – anche questi in grande maggioranza sposati – giudicato colpevole dello stesso reato dai tribunali statunitensi sfiorava i seimila. Gli esempi potrebbero continuare, non solo negli Stati Uniti. E soprattutto secondo i periodici rapporti del governo americano due terzi circa delle molestie sessuali su minori non vengono da estranei o da educatori – preti e pastori protestanti compresi – ma da familiari: patrigni, zii, cugini, fratelli e purtroppo anche genitori. Dati simili esistono per numerosi altri Paesi.

Per quanto sia poco politicamente corretto dirlo, c’è un dato che è assai più significativo: per oltre l’ottanta per cento i pedofili sono omosessuali, maschi che abusano di altri maschi. E – per citare ancora una volta Jenkins – oltre il novanta per cento dei sacerdoti cattolici condannati per abusi sessuali su minori e pedofilia è omosessuale. Se nella Chiesa Cattolica c’è stato effettivamente un problema, questo non è stato il celibato ma una certa tolleranza dell’omosessualità nei seminari particolarmente negli anni 1970, quando è stata ordinata la grande maggioranza di sacerdoti poi condannati per gli abusi. È un problema che Benedetto XVI sta vigorosamente correggendo. Più in generale il ritorno alla morale, alla disciplina ascetica, alla meditazione sulla vera, grande natura del sacerdozio sono l’antidoto ultimo alle tragedie vere della pedofilia. Anche a questo deve servire l’Anno Sacerdotale.»

Estes dados estatísticos contrariam algumas ideias mais ou menos arreigadas no senso comum: que o abuso sexual de menores cometido por membros do clero é prevalente em relação ao cometido por membros de outras profissões ou ministérios; que se verifica uma relação entre o celibato e estas práticas; que não há relação entre a orientação sexual do abusador e a ocorrência de abusos.

Considerados estes dados estatísticos, Introvigne foca os casos recentemente trazidos a público:

«(...) Le polemiche di queste ultime settimane sulla Germania e l’Austria mostrano una caratteristica tipica dei panici morali: si presentano come “nuovi” fatti risalenti a molti anni or sono, in alcuni casi a oltre trent’anni fa, in parte già noti. Il fatto che – con una particolare insistenza su quanto tocca l’area geografica bavarese, da cui viene il Papa – siano presentati sulle prime pagine dei giornali avvenimenti degli anni 1980 come se fossero avvenuti ieri, e che ne nascano furibonde polemiche, con un attacco concentrico che ogni giorno annuncia in stile urlato nuove “scoperte” mostra bene come il panico morale sia promosso da “imprenditori morali” in modo organizzato e sistematico. Il caso che – come alcuni giornali hanno titolato – “coinvolge il Papa” è a suo modo da manuale. Si riferisce a un episodio di abusi nell’Arcidiocesi di Monaco di Baviera e Frisinga, di cui era arcivescovo l’attuale Pontefice, che risale al 1980. Il caso è emerso nel 1985 ed è stato giudicato da un tribunale tedesco nel 1986, accertando tra l’altro che la decisione di accogliere nell’arcidiocesi il sacerdote in questione non era stata presa dal cardinale Ratzinger e non gli era neppure nota, il che non è strano in una grande diocesi con una complessa burocrazia. Perché un quotidiano tedesco decida di riesumare questo caso e sbatterlo in prima pagina ventiquattro anni dopo la sentenza dovrebbe essere la vera questione.»

E Introvigne procura responder a esta questão:

«Perché riesumare nel 2010 casi vecchi o molto spesso già noti, al ritmo di uno al giorno, attaccando sempre più direttamente il Papa – un attacco, per di più, paradossale se si considera la grandissima severità del cardinale Ratzinger prima e di Benedetto XVI poi su questo tema? Gli “imprenditori morali” che organizzano il panico hanno un’agenda che emerge sempre più chiaramente, e che non ha veramente al suo centro la protezione dei bambini. La lettura di certi articoli ci mostra come – alla vigilia di scelte politiche, giuridiche e anche elettorali che un po’ dovunque in Europa e nel mondo mettono in questione la somministrazione della pillola RU486, l’eutanasia, il riconoscimento delle unioni omosessuali, in cui quasi solo la voce della Chiesa e del Papa si leva a difendere la vita e la famiglia – lobby molto potenti cercano di squalificare preventivamente questa voce con l’accusa più infamante e oggi purtroppo anche più facile, quella di favorire o tollerare la pedofilia. Queste lobby più o meno massoniche manifestano il sinistro potere della tecnocrazia evocato dallo stesso Benedetto XVI nell’enciclica Caritas in veritate e la denuncia di Giovanni Paolo II, nel messaggio per la Giornata Mondiale della Pace del 1985 (dell’8-12-1984), a proposito di “disegni nascosti” – accanto ad altri “apertamente propagandati” – “miranti a soggiogare tutti i popoli a regimi in cui Dio non conta”.

Davvero è questa un’ora di tenebre, che riporta alla mente la profezia di un grande pensatore cattolico del XIX secolo, il vercellese Emiliano Avogadro della Motta (1798-1865), secondo cui alle rovine arrecate dalle ideologie laiciste avrebbe fatto seguito un’autentica “demonolatria” che si sarebbe manifestata particolarmente nell’attacco alla famiglia e alla vera nozione del matrimonio. Ristabilire la verità sociologica sui panici morali in tema di preti e pedofilia di per sé non risolve i problemi e non ferma le lobby, ma può costituire almeno un piccolo e doveroso omaggio alla grandezza di un Pontefice e di una Chiesa feriti e calunniati perché sulla vita e la famiglia non si rassegnano a tacere.»

Conclusão: estes casos são projectados para a arena mediática quando se torna conveniente para algumas correntes de pensamento dito progressista ― as que se batem pelo aborto livre e pela equiparação das uniões civis ao casamento ― atacar as únicas vozes que se opõem a essas causas de suposto progresso social: a Igreja e o Papa.

São Wolfgang e o Diabo, de Michael Pacher (ca. 1435-1498)

Via O Cachimbo de Magritte.

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.

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 (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

Julgamento de Wilders: primeira sessão

«Islam critic Geert Wilders goes on trial in Netherlands

Amsterdam - The trial of Dutch member of parliament and Islam critic Geert Wilders for discrimination and incitement to hatred opened in an Amsterdam court on Wednesday. The court is to decide whether the leader of the liberal-rightist Freedom Party PVV violated Dutch law by calling the Koran a "fascist book" and Islam a "backward culture."

At the start of proceedings, the presiding judge said it had been "suggested" that the court had already convicted Wilders before its first hearings. He would therefore "like to emphasize that only after the last word in these hearings has been said, the court will deliberate about its decision."

In his opening statement, Wilders' lawyer Bram Moskowicz questioned why the trial was taking place in Amsterdam rather than in The Hague, where his client works.

Most of the complaints filed against Wilders since 2006 were related to remarks he made as a lawmaker in the Hague-based parliament, he said.

Moskowicz also argued that Wilders' remarks about Islam were made only in the context of his work as a lawmaker, and that he never spoke "a titre personnel," or in his personal capacity.

Prosecutors claim Wilders' 16-minute internet video Fitna, released in March 2008, incites people to hatred against Muslims. The film warns against the spread of radical Islam and the alleged "Islamization" of the Netherlands.

Wilders faces a maximum of 16 months imprisonment or a fine of 10,000 euros (14,000 dollars) if convicted on all the charges.

Almost 6 per cent of the Netherlands' 16.5 million inhabitants are Muslim.»

A propósito desta última frase, ler a entrada Efeitos corrosivos.

Acrescento um novo separador: Serviço Público.


Via Tundra Tabloids.

Julgamento de Wilders

Começa hoje o julgamento de Gert Wilders, o qual tentaremos acompanhar aqui e no twitter.

Podemos começar esse seguimento lendo um texto de Daniel Pipes publicado no sítio da National Review:

«Why I Stand with Geert Wilders

Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I do so because he is best placed to deal with the Islamic challenge facing the continent. He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure.

That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population’s withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: Will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari’a)?

Wilders, 46, founder and head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), is the unrivaled leader of those Europeans who wish to retain their historic identity. That’s because he and the PVV differ from most of Europe’s other nationalist, anti-immigrant parties.

The PVV is libertarian and mainstream conservative, without roots in neo-Fascism, nativism, conspiricism, antisemitism, or other forms of extremism. (Wilders publicly emulates Ronald Reagan.) Indicative of this moderation is Wilders’s long-standing affection for Israel that includes two years’ residence in the Jewish state, dozens of visits, and his advocating the transfer of the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem.

In addition, Wilders is a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader who has rapidly become the most dynamic political force in the Netherlands. While he opines on the full range of topics, Islam and Muslims constitute his signature issue. Overcoming the tendency of Dutch politicians to play it safe, he calls Muhammad a devil and demands that Muslims “tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands.” More broadly, he sees Islam itself as the problem, not just a virulent version of it called Islamism.

The PVV has done well electorally, winning 6 percent of the seats in the November 2006 national parliamentary elections and 16 percent of Dutch seats in the June 2009 European Union elections. Polls now generally show the PVV winning a plurality of votes and becoming the country’s largest party. Were Wilders to become prime minister, he could take on a leadership role for all Europe.

But he faces daunting challenges.

(...)

Wilders must also overcome his opponents’ dirty tactics. Most notably, they have finally, after two and a half years of preliminary skirmishes, succeeded in dragging him to court on charges of hate speech and incitement to hatred. The public prosecutor’s case against Wilders opens in Amsterdam on January 20; if convicted, Wilders faces a fine of up to $14,000 or as many as 16 months in jail.

Remember, he is his country’s leading politician. Plus, due to threats against his life, he always travels with bodyguards and incessantly changes safe houses. Who exactly, one wonders, is the victim of incitement?

(...)

Ironically, were Wilders fined or jailed, it would probably improve his chances to become prime minister. But principle outweighs political tactics here. He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization. The outcome of his trial and his freedom to speak have implications for us all.»

Começou (2)

Das várias palavras inscritas pelos indivíduos que vandalizaram o Santuário de Nossa Senhora de Fátima, uma deixou-me intrigado; ou melhor, um par que se encontra associado: Lua/Sol.


O crescente lunar e a estrela são o símbolo tradicional do islão.
Alguns países muçulmanos, como a Malásia - onde presentemente se profanam igrejas em violentos tumultos devido ao uso da palavra "Alá" pelos não muçulmanos - integram esse símbolo na sua bandeira nacional.
A este propósito, refira-se que a palavra árabe Allah era usada para designar o deus-lua adorado pelas tribos árabes do tempo de Mafoma, entre as quais aquela a que ele pertencia.

Bandeira da Malásia

Onde é que quero chegar?
Pode tratar-se de uma brincadeira de mau gosto feita por ignorantes do islão, os quais, perante iconografia como esta identificaram o Sol onde viram uma estrela.
A outra hipótese, assente na iliteracia dos autores das pinchagens - bem patenteada na forma como escreveram muçulman - seria que os escrevinhadores, não dominando o idioma de Camões, não se dão conta da distinta nomenclatura usada em português para designar a estrela Sol e uma estrela genericamente.

Começou

Na noite de 11 de Janeiro de 2010, segundo informa o JN, edição online, o Santuário de Fátima foi vandalizado com inscrições consistindo das seguintes palavras: Sol, Lua, mesquita, islão e muçulman (sic).

(Foto Agência Lusa)

Enquanto os observadores mais incautos não se deterão um segundo que seja na ponderação destes acontecimentos, aqueles que seguem o avanço do islão na Europa e que não ignoram as aspirações muçulmanas à imposição da sua religião a todo o mundo - seja pelo proselitismo ou pela jihad -, os que estão a par de que é nos textos que os muçulmanos têm por sagrados - o Corão, a Sira (biografias do profeta do islão) e as Hadith (relato dos ditos e feitos do profeta e dos seus primeiros seguidores) - que se encontra o gérmen para a violência islâmica, não podem deixar de se sentir inquietos, ainda para mais tendo presente a pretensão islâmica, ainda recentemente renovada, de reconquistar a Península Ibérica, o mítico Al-Andalus.
Os muçulmanos em Portugal são uma pequena maioria que tem sabido viver em paz com todos. O seu número não faria prever este tipo de incidentes.
Fica, para os mais incautos, um sinal de que as coisas podem mudar a qualquer momento.

Entretanto, as autoridades policiais portuguesas parecem ter adoptado, desde já, uma postura dhimmi, esforçando-se por desvalorizar o incidente e por lhe retirar qualquer carga religiosa. Vejamos as declarações do comandante do destacamento de Tomar da GNR, Duarte da Graça, à Agência Lusa, tal como são relatadas em notícia do DN, edição online:

«(...) [O] comandante ressalvou que se tratou de "um acto absolutamente isolado, não organizado, nem respeitante a qualquer organização".»

Que se trata de um acto isolado é uma declaração que parece não merecer contestação. O que surpreende é que seja feita, ecoando as declarações de Obama e de membros da sua administração sempre que um acto jihadista é cometido nos EUA.
O facto do comandante Graça ter julgado necessário fazer semelhante afirmação não faz sentido,
a menos que acontecimentos semelhantes tenham ocorrido e não tenham sido noticiados; que tenha informações de que outros actos do género podem estar para ocorrer; ou que tenha instruções superiores, provenientes da tutela, para desvalorizar o incidente.
No fim das contas, esta expressão pode não resultar senão da contaminação do politicamente correcto na atitude, no comportamento e nas palavras dos agentes da autoridade.

Consideremos as restantes palavras do comandante Graça:

«(...) [Um acto] não organizado, nem respeitante a qualquer organização.»

Pergunta-se: com que base faz o comandante Graça estas declarações? A investigação está concluída?
Se sim, felicite-se a GNR de Tomar pela celeridade da sua actuação e peça-se a divulgação imediata das conclusões a que se chegou.
Se não, como podem semelhantes declarações ser feitas e por que razão?

A questão de não haver uma organização por trás deste acto, no sentido usado nas democracias ocidentais para o termo "organização" - partido, sindicato, grupo terrorista hierarquicamente constituído e coordenado -, revela um total desconhecimento do mandamento universal e intemporal dirigido a todos os muçulmanos individualmente para lutar pela implantação do islão - dissimuladamente, se as circunstâncias o exigirem; pela força se os kuffar se lhe opuserem -, até que o islão domine em todo o mundo.
Qualquer muçulmano, mesmo o mais pacífico, o mais exemplar cidadão, se optar por seguir os ensinamentos do islão - não de uma franja, de um ou outro grupúsculo, mas o islão ortodoxo, que segue de perto as escrituras e a tradição exegética - pode, a qualquer momento tornar-se um perigo para a sociedade democrática ocidental, se decidir seguir o islão escrupulosamente.
Note-se que a liberdade de expressão, a liberdade religiosa e de culto, o direito de propriedade, a escolher com quem casar, não são reconhecidas no islão.
Em última análise, até o direito à vida - basilar nas sociedades do Ocidente - no islão não advém do simples facto de se existir, de ser humano, mas decorre apenas do facto de se ser muçulmano.
No islão todos os direitos vêm da sharia.

Uma última palavra: se tudo isto não passar de uma brincadeira de mau-gosto - Deus queira que seja o caso - que sirva, ao menos, para que mais cidadãos portugueses se sintam levados a conhecer por si mesmos o islão.
Esperamos, aqui neste espaço e noutros, contribuir para isso, disponibilizando notícias sobre o avanço do islão no mundo ocidental e, sobretudo, através da publicação de textos e de hiperligações onde se estabelece a conexão entre a religião muçulmana e os actos hediondos que alguns dos seus seguidores praticam em seu nome.