Свободу Геерту Уилдерсу!

[Брат по Разуму]

Шика, переведи эту хуйню плиз

[Frezy Grant]

http://clubb.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/% ... %82%d0%b5/

[Доцент]

Моня, ю а андер кат. ваши монериалы восстановлены в прежнем объёме.

[monteverdi]

ок спасибо

[Доцент]

незашто это ты незаслуженно поцтрадал от меня.
оцените что в спойлире теперь можно вставлять название

[Шико]

о, эт карашо, ценим

Шика, переведи эту хуйню плиз

хуйня - она и в Израиле хуйня

[monteverdi]

Spoiler!

OCTOBER 18, 2010 4:00 A.M.

What the Wilders Trial Means

EDITORIAL
The National Review

The trial of Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been altogether an extraordinary event. He is accused of saying rude and even hateful things about Islam, the prophet Mohammed, and the Koran — and people are not supposed to talk like that, in public at least. The case against him appears to be coming undone: Prosecutors have requested that the charges be dropped, but the final decision remains in the hands of the court.

A great deal turns on the outcome of this case, for the Netherlands, for Europe, and — not least — for the Muslim world.

Free speech is indispensable in a free society, and many a great man has fought for that principle, some of them going to prison for it. It is a longstanding if hard-won principle in the West that Wilders has a fundamental right to make whatever comment he likes about Islam, its prophet, or its scriptures, and so do all of us. To the extent that Dutch law contradicts that principle, it contradicts what is best in Europe’s heritage.
Furthermore, Wilders is an elected parliamentarian, leader of the third-largest party in his country. Public figures not only have a right to speak out, but a duty.

Wilders compares Islam to Nazism, a provocative stance, to be sure. But how should such provocative criticism be received? With open debate, or with the criminalization of opinion? It is extremely pertinent in the Wilders case to ask whether his trial means that Europe’s commitment to freedom is already dead.

Along with free speech, many a great man has also fought for the principle of the separation of powers, whereby issues are decided in the legislature, and courts are there only to ensure the proper application of the law. In the case of Wilders, the judiciary has flirted with imposing political decisions that are quite outside its powers. This is the road to antidemocratic show trials arranged to gag or eliminate anyone whom authority condemns as an enemy of the people.

The Wilders trial has also to be seen in the international context. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) purports to represent, and speak for, all Muslim countries. This body is now campaigning in various forums, including the United Nations, to criminalize all criticism of Islam. Any such privileging of Islam would block all possibility of reform and condemn Muslims to perpetual intellectual stagnation. Freedom of expression for Wilders also means freedom of expression for Muslims.

It is retrograde and shameful that a Dutch court should now be aligned with the OIC in the business of making criticism of Islam punishable by law. And highly dangerous, too.

[Брат по Разуму]

скажите кто нибудь, я один считаю моню немного не адекватным?

[monteverdi]

Spoiler!

Some Context on the Wilders Case
October 17, 2010 4:30 P.M.

By Nina Shea

Geert Wilders is the latest in a lengthening roster of Europeans who have been criminally prosecuted for criticizing Islam. Under the slogans of stopping “Islamophobia” and banning “defamation” or “insult” of Islam, for two decades a concerted demand has been made for the West to enforce Islamic blasphemy rules, as is customary in certain member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

The Netherlands has been among the many EU states struggling to comply. In the name of liberalism, it has enacted laws criminalizing “hate speech,” with grossly illiberal results. A sample of the Dutch cases shows that the desire to protect minorities is a self-deluding piety in these circumstances. What really lies at the root of these vaguely defined and arbitrarily adjudicated cases is fear of Muslim violence.

One of the earliest such Western cases occurred in the Netherlands in 1992, a few years after Iran’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie triggered murders of “blasphemers” connected with his book The Satanic Verses. A Muslim cabaret artist of Pakistani background, “Zola F,” was found guilty of authoring an unflattering book about Muslim immigration, entitled The Impending Ruin of the Netherlands, Country of Gullible Fools. This created the anomaly of a white court condemning a brown immigrant for “racist hate speech.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim of African heritage who became a Dutch parliamentarian, was similarly prosecuted. She was charged for criticizing the Islamic teaching on killing homosexuals. Already known for her role in co-directing Submission (the film on abuses against Muslim women that led to the 2004 murder by a Muslim extremist of her co-director, Theo Van Gogh), she announced plans for a sequel on the treatment of homosexuals in Islam. This prompted the Netherlands’ main Muslim lobby to register a complaint that her remarks were “blasphemous and have been received with a great deal of pain by the Muslim community.” In 2005, after two years of legal proceedings for “incitement” to hatred, during which time she received numerous death threats and had to go into hiding, a court finally decided that although she had “sought the borders of the acceptable,” her speech did not warrant prohibition, and she was let off.

Hate-speech arrests occurred in the aftermath of the Van Gogh murder. When an artist in Rotterdam painted a street mural that included the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” next to the date of Van Gogh’s murder, a local mosque leader complained to police that the message was “racist.” The police, on orders of the mayor, sandblasted the mural and arrested a television reporter at the scene and destroyed his film. Another Dutch man hung in his window a poster for a far-right movement that stated, “Stop the tumor that is Islam. Theo has died for us. Who will be next?” After being convicted by two lower courts, he finally prevailed on appeal.

Widespread Muslim violence and protest over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed has put Dutch officials on high alert for provocative caricaturists. In 2008, after an Internet monitoring group reported him to authorities for cartoons deemed insulting to Muslims, the edgy Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot was arrested. Police seized his computer’s hard drive and cartoon sketches. The cartoons in question opposed Muslim immigration in various tasteless ways. Nekschot remains under suspicion of “insulting people on the basis of their race or belief, and possibly also of inciting hate,” and could face two years in prison or a $25,000 fine if prosecuted. During the course of this case, it was revealed that the Dutch government had established an “Interdepartmental Working Group on Cartoons,” apparently to apprise officials of any drawings that Muslims could find insulting.

The Wilders case is not unique, but it is important. It demonstrates the continued willingness of authorities in Europe’s most liberal countries to regulate the content of speech on Islam in order to placate Muslim blasphemy demands. Few such cases end in conviction, but their chilling effect on free speech within and on Islam continues to widen.

— Nina Shea directs the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and co-authored the forthcoming book Silenced (Oxford University Press), on contemporary blasphemy rules.

[tandberg]

2Брат по Разуму Немного это немного не тот эпитет.
З.Ы. Неадекватным в данном случае пишется слитно.
З.З.Ы. Извини не удержался.

[monteverdi]

учите езыки, исторею, мат часть и т.д.
форева!

[Брат по Разуму]

надо моню ассимилировать
для пользы Колектива

[Доцент]

улья!

[monteverdi]

The Lost Cause Against Wilders
The case against the Dutch politician has backfired in every way imaginable.

WSJ Editorial OCTOBER 26, 2010

Spoiler!

When even the prosecution calls for a defendant's acquittal and the trial judges have been disqualified for the appearance of bias, maybe it's time to drop the charges. Rather than a retrial, a dismissal would be the best outcome in the case of Geert Wilders, the Dutch lawmaker accused of insulting and inciting hatred against Muslims.

Mr. Wilders is not shy in his criticism of Islam. He has called for banning the Quran, which he has compared to Hitler's "Mein Kampf." Mr. Wilders became famous by making a short film, "Fitna," which juxtaposes Quranic verses calling for jihad with footage of the aftermath of Islamist terror attacks.

As unattractive as his expressed sentiments may be, they also qualify as free speech, which is why Dutch prosecutors initially dismissed complaints against Mr. Wilders. "No doubt his words are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims," prosecutors said in 2008, but "freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society."

That should have been the end if it. However, an appeals court overruled the prosecution last year, forcing Mr. Wilders to stand trial. But the prosecutors still believe that no crime has been committed. "Criticism of a religion is not punishable," prosecutor Birgit van Roessel told the Amsterdam district court 10 days ago.

Then the politically charged trial took another twist last week when one of Mr. Wilders' expert witnesses, the Arabist Hans Jansen, wrote on his website that a member of the judiciary had tried to influence him. He said that at a dinner party before he was supposed to testify, one of the appeals judges whose decision compelled the prosecutors to press charges tried to "convince me of the correctness of the decision to take Wilders to court."

To further complicate matters, the trial judges then denied a defense request to question Mr. Jansen in court about his allegations. An oversight panel of jurists finally granted the defense's request to dismiss the presiding judges, calling their colleagues' refusal to hear the witness "incomprehensible." The trial, which was supposed to end next month, theoretically must start over with new judges.

Prosecuting Mr. Wilders has backfired in every way imaginable, not least politically. The trial has seemed to confirm his charge that avoiding debate over the implications of Muslim immigration leads to the erosion of Western freedoms, most notably freedom of speech. Despite, or perhaps because of, the trial, Mr. Wilders' Party for Freedom became the third-strongest parliamentary faction in last June's elections. This allowed Mr. Wilders to become a political king-maker by backing the new center-right minority government.

Meanwhile, as part of his defense Mr. Wilders has been putting the entire Muslim religion on trial. His defense includes not only invoking free speech but also calling expert witnesses to testify on the accuracy of his views of Islam. Before the judges could rule on whether it's a hate crime to compare the Quran to "Mein Kampf," Mr. Wilders wants them to rule on whether he was correct to make the comparison. This is only contributing to further religious animosity.

A retrial will achieve nothing but exacerbate these tensions. It's time to drop the charges against Mr. Wilders before it further undermines the credibility of the Dutch legal system and the country's tradition of free political discourse.

[monteverdi]

*Now it has resumed with the new judges who announced on Monday they will call Judge Schalken to answer questions. Geert Wilders says he is looking forward to personally questioning Mr Schalken in the courtroom.*

ахуеть!

Monday 14 February RNW (Radio Netherlands Worldwide)

Dutch legal system in dock at Wilders trial
Published on : 14 February 2011 - 6:26pm
By John Tyler

Spoiler!

What is the Geert Wilders trial about? Is it about the right to free speech, as Wilders' side attests? Or is it about protecting a minority - Muslims - against an atmosphere of hostility and hatred, as the other side would have us believe?

Neither. The trial now seems to be less about Wilders or Muslims and more about the entire Dutch legal establishment, as questions about the impartiality of the process overshadow the hate speech charges against the anti-Islam politician.

John Tyler retraces the steps that have led to this bizarre turn of events.

The trial could easily not have taken place. Even in the wake of Geert Wilders' comments comparing the Qur'an to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf and advocating the deportation of millions of Muslims from the European Union, the Dutch Public Prosecutor's Office repeatedly declared that no case could be made against the Freedom Party leader.

Hidden bias
As complaints against Wilders continued to pile up, the Public Prosecutor's Office maintained that he had not broken any law. Until that point, the Dutch legal system was clearly speaking with one voice.

Then the Amsterdam Appeals Court stepped in and decided there was a basis for a trial after all. A three-judge panel was named and proceedings began. Geert Wilders, through his lawyer Bram Moszkowicz, contended from the start that the court had a hidden bias and that he would not be granted a fair trial.

And, although this at first appeared to be typical defence grandstanding, some independent observers confirm this impression. The legal opinion underpinning the trial, they say, read more like a guilty ruling at the trial's conclusion rather than an unbiased starting document.

Suspicious
Even so, Wilders must have been pleased with the two prosecutors assigned to the case. Both had been involved in the earlier decisions not to bring him to trial. And, sure enough, they once again called for his acquittal on all charges.

For the prosecution this was an unusual, if not entirely unprecedented, move. One that should have brought the trial to a swift and anti-climactic conclusion. Even so, Wilders and Moszkowicz remained suspicious of the Amsterdam judges.

Then, on the last day of hearings, accusations emerged of potential witness tampering. Just days before he was called to testify, a witness for the defence had eaten dinner with the very judge, Tom Schalken, who wrote the controversial legal opinion underlying the trial.

Was the judge out of line? Had he tried to influence the witness? When the judges refused to hear from the witness on the final day of the trial, Moszkowicz challenged their impartiality and was backed by a review panel. The trial was suspended.

Balance of power
Now it has resumed with the new judges who announced on Monday they will call Judge Schalken to answer questions. Geert Wilders says he is looking forward to personally questioning Mr Schalken in the courtroom.

With this move, the balance of power in the trial has shifted completely. Wilders is now the defendant in name only and he seems likely to emerge from the trial unscathed and stronger than ever.

The real defendant now in the Geert Wilders trial is Dutch rule of law and the Amsterdam Appeals Court which called for his prosecution against the will of the Public Prosecutor's Office.

[HH]

так мы победили зелёных или как всигда ?

[monteverdi]

ссут ещё продолжаетсо. однако RNW грит показания (под присягой) будет давать судья кац торый пытался interfere with a witness. похоже зеленые получат пизды.

[HH]

они пизды а мы хуй.

[Tank77]

бл... это лишь помоему, конечно, но кажется, что моня всосал в себя , как губка боб, все самое идиотское, что есть в американском обществе:)

[Frezy Grant]

Та ни. Там ишшо осталось.

[Доцент]

конечно осталось - то что моня принес с собой. ведь что бы чтото всосать надо что то выссать вначале.

[monteverdi]

Geert Wilders has been acquitted of all charges!

[Frezy Grant]

Праздравляю Моню!