Geert Wilders: Fitna Producer Charged with Blasphemy by Jordan

Geert Wilders celebration was short-lived.

The Dutch politican's relief on Monday caused charges to be filed against him in another country on Tuesday.

Wilders, the Dutch politician/film producer, was charged by a Jordanian prosecutor with blasphemy and contempt of Muslims. The prosecutor cited Wilders' film "Fitna" as an anti-Koran film and ordered him to stand trial in Jordan, according to Reuters.

Yesterday, Dutch prosecutors stated that they decided that they wouldn't press charges against Wilders because his views in "Fitna" were protected by his right to free speech.

An order was issued to bring Wilders to trial through the Dutch Embassy in Amman, Reuters reported.

Wilders' film "Fitna," which appeared on the Internet on March 27, linked terror attacks by Muslim extremists to texts from the Koran, Islam's holy book.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, a league of 56 Muslim nations, said it was "deeply annoyed" by the Dutch decision, Reuters reported.

"The decision ... encourages and supports the irresponsible defamatory style followed by some media outlets and instigates feelings of hatred, animosity and antipathy towards Muslims," the Saudi Arabia-based organization said in a statement, according to Reuters.

ALSO at DBKP.com: * Terrorist "How-to" Videos Censors Geert Wilder's 'What the West Needs to Know' * YouTube's New Logo? ALSO at DBKP.com: Geert Wilders' 14-part "What the West Needs to Know" video series, banned by Muslim countries and called "racist" by the usual suspects, is at DBKP.com. * Video: Islam, What the West Needs to Know, Part 1 * Video: Islam, What the West Needs to Know, Part 2 See the above stories for the rest of the video parts; or, search DBKP in the upper right hand corner of the Front Page.

Wilders' film sparked protests in Malaysia, Indonesia and Pakistan, and several over countries. Several Muslim organizations called for countries to boycott Dutch goods after "Fitna" was released.

The Dutch government has said it disagrees with the tone of the film, but says Wilders has a constitutional right to air his views. The U.N. secretary-general and U.N. agencies have condemned the film. EU foreign ministers have also rejected Wilders' views.

Reuters reported the charges could land Wilders in jail for up to three years.

An order was issued through the Dutch embassy in Amman to bring Wilders to stand trial. The charges carry a maximum sentence of three years in prison, lawyers said.

Wilders, whose right-wing, anti-immigration Freedom Party has nine of the 150 seats in the Dutch parliament, welcomed the Dutch prosecutors' ruling and said he had been careful to limit his criticism to the religion of Islam and not Muslims.

Nothing contributes to a proper seething by Muslim countries like the exercise of free speech. Operators are standing by 24/7 to take your call.

While European freedoms have been pummeled by spineless political elites, PC and multicultural pimps--and an ever-vigilant victim class--occasionally free speech wins a round. Such a victory was delivered by Dutch prosecutor yesterday.

Of course, Jordan has no such history of freedom or concept of "free speech".

The charge in Jordan is another battle for Geert Wilders. If Europe is to survive in any recognizable form, there will have to be many such victories.

Concerned Americans will pray for those victories, while thankful that the USA is not in such dire straits.



Source:
* Report: Jordan Charges Dutch Politican With Blasphemy
* Jordan charges Dutch politician with blasphemy

Financial Jihad

[The message at Red Planet Cartoons read: "A color version of this cartoon will be available Tuesday." We don't think it affects the message of the cartoon. Color will just make it more vivid.]

Red Planet then goes on into detail.

Muslims — individually and in pressure groups — are using British libel laws and Canadian “human rights” laws to limit what is said about Islam, terrorists and the people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are funding groups such as al-Queda. The cases of Rachel Ehrenfeld and Mark Steyn prove the point.

So what's Freedom of Speech if you can be sued for calling a "terrorist" a "terrorist"?

Or calling "al-Queda"--"al-Queda"?

Or a "muslim" a "muslim"?

It goes on to lay out what happened in the ridiculous case of author Rachel Ehrenfeld.

Ehrenfeld is American, her book was written and published in America and she has no business or other ties to Britain. Under American law, the Brit courts would have no jurisdiction over her. But about two-dozen copies of her book were sold there through the internet. Bin Mahfouz sued her for libel in the Brit courts where the burden of proof is the opposite of what it is in US courts: the author has to prove that what is written is true, rather than the supposedly defamed person proving it is false.

Think about that for a moment. Under the US Constitution political writing — free speech — is almost unlimited. To gain a libel judgment a politician — or someone suspected of terrorist ties — would have to prove that the story or book was false. If that person were a public figure such as Mahfouz, in order to get a libel judgment he’d not only have to prove that what was written was false, he’d also have to prove it was published maliciously.

The rest of the story, plus a Link-A-Palooza of other stories on this disturbing trend against Free Speech.

The entire Kafka-esque scenario is laid out at Red Planet Cartoons' Financial Jihad.

And later today, it will all be in surreal color.

by Mondoreb





Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Canada: Hockey, Maple Leafs and Thought Police

Canada's Thought Police by Red Planet Cartoons

Red Planet Cartoons has an excellent backstory on the Mark Steyn Vs. the Canadian Thought Police.

It relates the story of Steyn, author of #1 best-seller America Alone and five Muslim law-school students who utilize the one Western idea radical Muslims seem to embrace: the lawsuit.
[Note: I saw the "one Western idea radical muslims embrace" phrase somewhere the last few weeks and can't remember where.]

That a government agency would even hear this case is evidence of the grip that Political Correctness has on the Great White North, at least the portion that resides in Ottawa.

Read "Canada's Thought Police" at Red Planet Cartoons. And if you haven't already, read America Alone by Mark Steyn.

Then you'll better understand why elements of radical Islam, including law students north of the border, feel it necessary to shut up Mark Steyn.

As well as those who agree with him.

by Mondoreb
[image: redplanetcartoons]
Source: Canada's Thought Police





Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

At Least in America, We Have Free Speech, Right?

Mark Steyn highlights a right that Americans have that most of the rest of the world doesn't, Freedom of Speech. As it's enshrined in the First Amendment, most Americans are taught about it from an early age--or at least, they used to be.

Now, Americans are taught that some speech is free. Other speech is "hate" or "objectionable" or, on the internet, "spam". Especially if the person doing the labeling of the speech disagrees with it.

Americans have been lectured over the last six years that we "were out of touch" with the rest of the world, especially the European democracies. This supposed disconnect with the rest of the world was used as evidence that changes were needed.

As Steyn puts it in Dead Man Writing
[The Corner at National Review Online]:

One of the critical differences between America and the rest of the west is that America has a First Amendment and the rest don't. And a lot of them are far too comfortable with the notion that in free societies it is right and proper for the state to regulate speech.

He then goes on to list some of the countries Americans normally think of having free speech and how those countries have recently dealt with speech they considered 'disagreeable'.

* The response of the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security to the Danish cartoons was to propose a press charter that would oblige newspapers to exercise "prudence" on, ah, certain controversial subjects.

* The response of Tony Blair's ministry to the problems of "Londonistan" was to propose a sweeping law dramatically constraining free discussion of religion.

* At the end of her life, Oriana Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland and sundry other jurisdictions by groups who believed her opinions were not merely disagreeable but criminal.

* In France, Michel Houellebecq was sued by Muslim and other "anti-racist" groups who believed opinions held by a fictional character in one of his novels were not merely disagreeable but criminal.

* Up north, the Canadian Islamic Congress announced the other day that at least two of Canada’s “Human Rights Commissions” – one federal, one provincial – had agreed to hear their complaints that their “human rights” had been breached by this “flagrantly Islamophobic” excerpt from my book, as published in the country’s bestselling news magazine, Maclean’s.

He provides a chilling look at the Canadian government's method of dealing with disagreeable, upsetting speech. He also provides for the defense of his best-selling book, America Alone, which has upset Muslims north of the border.

If the Canadian Islamic Congress wants to disagree with my book, fine. Join the club. But, if they want to criminalize it, nuts. That way lies madness.

America Alone was a bestseller in Canada, made all the literary Top Ten hit parades, Number One at Amazon Canada, Number One on The National Post’s national bestseller list, Number One on various local sales charts from statist Quebec to cowboy Alberta, etc. I find it difficult to imagine that a Canadian “human rights” tribunal would rule that all those Canadians who bought the book were wrong and that it is beyond the bounds of acceptable (and legal) discourse in Canada.

As I say, I find it difficult to imagine. But not impossible. These "human rights" censors started with small fry - obscure websites, "homophobes" who made the mistake of writing letters to local newspapers or quoting the more robust chunks of Leviticus - and, because they got away with it, it now seems entirely reasonable for a Canadian pseudo-court to sit in judgment on the content of a mainstream magazine and put a big old "libel chill" over critical areas of public debate.

The "progressive" left has grown accustomed to the regulation of speech, thinking it just a useful way of sticking it to Christian fundamentalists, right-wing columnists, and other despised groups. They don’t know they’re riding a tiger that in the end will devour them, too.

Hate speech, hate crimes: the whole idea that some groups or speech have a "special", extra-constitutional right to protection, oftentimes at the expense of the rest of society. That this speech, these groups need more protection than the Consitution itself can provide, is a recent one in America.

The entire category of hate crimes should offend Americans. It attempts to criminalize thought processes in a manner that smacks of political correctness and thought-policing. The criminality of murder springs from the loss of life, not from the motive. Regardless of whether a husband hates a wife or a stranger hates a minority, murder remains murder, assault remains assault, and all should be vigorously prosecuted regardless of apparent bigotry or lack of same.

Congress shouldn't expand hate-crime categories; they should eliminate them. Crimes like murder, assault, and the like don't belong under federal jurisdiction in any case. The states have jurisdiction over these crimes, unless someone can prove a violation of the Constitution, which usually applies to such crimes committed under color of authority.[1]

But surely, losing freedom of speech couldn't happen in America? Not with our First Amendment?

Think about it the next time an aggrieved group trots out the label "hate speech".

Think about this the next time a college or university disciplines, expels or suspends a student for saying something the college thinks will "foster an unfavorable environment".

Think about it the next time the NCAA disciplines a college sports team for using a Native American nickname--whether the tribe in question approved it or not.

Think about it the next time protesters disrupt a meeting, debate or speech-- conservatives are the targets at the moment, but it could be liberals in the future--by physically attacking them.

Think about it the next time some group calls on Congress or a state legislature to designate disagreeable speech as a "hate crime".

Think about it the next time Environmentalists compare any dissenting opinions, research or information that runs counter to "Global Warming" or "Man-made Climate Change" to Holocaust Denial, i.e., "hate speech".

Think about it the next time the headlines scream "Man Arrested for Child Porn" and a closer reading finds that his crime was not possessing any child porn, but images that "appeared" to be of the offending material.

And lastly, think about it VERY hard the next time you hear of a law being considered to outlaw various speech on the Internet--arguably, the freest forum left where Americans and others around the world can speak their minds.

It can't happen here in America?

Think about it.

by Mondoreb
Source: [1] Captain's Quarters - Hate Crime Expansion Dropped
[images:crystaljordan;oneyearbibleimages;thousandtyone]
Trackback




Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Anti-Nazis Use Nazi Methods to "Wreck" Oxford Debate

To the Left, a sense of irony has always been over-rated.

Socialists and others, proclaiming themselves anti-fascists, proceeded to use fascist tactics to shut down an Oxford Union debating club forum recently.

An eyewitness reports:

I was one of over a 1,000 protesters from all walks of life that gathered outside the Oxford Union debating club on Monday of this week to try and stop it from hosting a “forum” featuring two leading Nazis.

Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party(BNP) and Holocaust denier David Irving were to be two of the speakers at the debate. Neither is an appealing figure, but they weren't the only speakers who had their plans disrupted that night.

Their scheduled opponents never got to argue their cases either, thanks to the quick wits--and arms and legs--of the brave watchmen of British liberties.

The atmosphere at the protest was electric as people thronged around the Union building, arguing with those trying to attend the meeting.

The air was full of real political debate – in sharp contrast to the superficial rituals that the Union prides itself on.

The real debate of deciding if a real debate gets to take place. The witness has a real future if the Soviet Union is ever reconstituted.

Or Nazi Germany.

Getting to decide another's actions, or what is heard or said: it's enough to stir the blood of Socialist and Nazi alike.

People kept up a noisy presence by chanting and singing, when suddenly a gate swung open. Around 60 of us pushed our way into the Union compound past a pair of security guards that tried to rugby tackle us.

Eventually around 35 of us made it into the debating chamber – fending off attempts to physically block us by the Oxford Union’s champions of “free speech”.

We argued with the people inside, telling them that what went on in their chambers had real effects in the outside world.

At this point they decided to walk out of the debating chamber and hold their meetings with Nazis in two separate rooms elsewhere.

The atmosphere was getting ugly, so we negotiated to be let out.

One might remark that the atmosphere was plenty ugly well before that. But then that would spoil the mood.

The witness then recounts how he exited the building, "rejoining the protest outside to cheers."

Irony was not among the well-wishers, having long since departed.

It's disturbing whenever free and open debate is strangled. There's little doubt that had Griffin had 1000 of his cohorts and true-believers present, while the witness had tried to address a crowd, that the same results would have occurred.

Shout them down, shut them up: they're Nazis, they're Socialists, they're Jews.

The end justifies the means. What would Stalin do? Or Hitler or Mao or Che? What is Chavez doing at this very moment?

Tactics are tactics and totalitarian methods are totalitarian methods, no matter what the label.

The witness can slap some lipstick on his Nazi-like actions and pretend that they're now pretty and noble; just as he slapped some quotation marks around free speech and pretended that it wasn't.

The Brown Shirts excelled at disrupting the speech of anyone they disagreed with: breaking up meetings of opponents, shouting them down, hounding them in public until they silenced them. Physical violence shortly followed and grew.

As did the list of those whose speech they found disagreeable.

Once a group gets to decide who speaks and who is silenced, they develop a taste for it. Today's allies become tomorrow's enemies. And there's always a need for an enemy: a target's just the thing to produce an "electric atmosphere" among the faithful.

At least it can't happen in America. Can it?

Liberal zealots spend their days crafting Internet screeds against the coming Bush police state. The rants are so many, one would think they'd have time for little else.

But there's always time to be found to rush down to the College Union to fling a pie at the occasional conservative speaker who wanders on campus.

It's not really police state tactics if the target is Ann Coulter. After all, she's such a bitch.

A squelching of free speech is a squelching of free speech.

Hello Nick!
There's a reason that Nazis and White Supremacists and Socialists like our witness mainly flourish in the shadows with their cronies: when they come out into the light, most people can see how insanely ridiculous they are.

The issue of political elites not listening to their constituents is always a wild card in Europe, but I'll take the regular guy's good sense every time, Jerry Springer notwithstanding.

Give David Irving three hours of prime time every week and in less than six months, both he and his loony views will be as unpopular as any of the politicians who now hog the BBC's airwaves. As if they aren't already.

There'd be a line of historians from Oxford to Moscow forming up for a chance to debunk the nut.

If the Socialists are really interested in stamping out the BNP, they'd take up a collection so Nick Griffin could get his prime-time slot too. The British see through him. Let Nick have his chance to humiliate himself.

But then, that would be letting ordinary folk make up their own minds about what to hear.

Source: Socialist Worker, "1000 Anti-Fascists Wreck Oxford's Sham Debate"

by Mondoreb



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Protesters At Dead Soldier's Funerals: Phelps-Ropers Trial Begins

[pinknews}
by Mondoreb & Little Baby Ginn

A church group that has been turning the funerals of dead servicemen into spectacles is on trial in Baltimore. The issue is whether their picketing and displaying signs with messages such as "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" inflicts distress on the families of the deceased.

The trial of Shirley Phelps-Roper begins. More from the Baltimore Sun:

A member of a Kansas-based anti-gay church told a federal jury Tuesday that America's acceptance of homosexuality spurred her and fellow parishioners to picket a Westminster Marine's funeral, one of the demonstrations by the group that have become so frequent that 22 states have enacted or proposed laws limiting the rights of protesters at memorial services.

Phelps-Roper is a member of Westboro Baptist, a 75-person congregation made up mostly of members of the same family in Topeka, Kan., and known for protesting at the funerals of soldiers. Members of the church also picketed outside several Baltimore religious services last weekend.

An unusual motive for the protests was given by the defendant to the jury.

"When the war started and the soldiers started dying, we saw that the funerals were turned into public spectacles," Phelps-Davis said. "We concluded that we need to go because this nation is proud of its sin."

Is this free speech or intentional infliction of emotional distress? That's the question the jury will have to answer.

Jurors will decide whether Westboro Baptist is liable for an intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the message from its members' signs and whether the family's expectation of privacy at Matthew Snyder's funeral at St. John Roman Catholic Church was violated.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett dismissed two of five counts against the church and three of its leaders, saying in part that their statements amounted to protected speech. Bennett is presiding over the case.

The families of soldiers killed in battle are understandably upset at the turning of their bereavement into a carnival sideshow. The protesters, no matter their stated motives, are taking advantage of another human's misfortune to make a political point. Being members of a church group, they should try to minister to spiritual needs instead of political ones.

Render unto Caesar.




Back to Front Page.

Obama Phoenix Campaign Stop: Ron Paul Supporter Asked to Leave

[image:Egraphics]


When is Free Speech Not Free?

by Mondoreb & Little Baby Ginn

A Ron Paul supporter felt the limits of free speech at an Barack Obama rally in Phoenix AZ last night. With the impetuousity of youth, the Paul supporter stuck to his guns and was allowed to stay. No comment from Obama on the incident.

From the East Valley Tribune:

An 18-year-old university student held his ground - and onto his Ron Paul t-shirt - despite efforts of security guards to remove him from Sen. Barack Obama’s rally Friday at Arizona State University campus.

Jacob Done, 18, stood atop a tower in the center of Hayden Lawn on ASU campus proudly displaying a “Ron Paul Revolution” T-shirt above his head as Obama, D-Ill., began to speak to the crowd. First, security approached Done asking him to step down from the window ledge on top of the tower for safety reasons, but then they insisted he leave after he stepped to a lower platform, Done said.

Three men wearing purple ProEM Security staff shirts attempted to remove Done by grabbing him, but Done resisted the force. At the time, Done was standing next to a reporter for the Tribune.

Bystanders yelled in support, saying “Let him stay,” and “It’s free speech!” Security guards eventually agreed to let him stay on the tower along with others who came to see Obama speak, as long as he kept his Ron Paul shirt no higher than his head, saying it would obstruct the views of others if held any higher.

Security guards did not appear to approach people holding Obama signs high above their heads.

“Once he got down, he wasn’t causing a disturbance,” said Maegan Kearns, 23, a secondary education major at ASU. “Everybody, even the Democrats, rallied around the Republican to support free speech.”

Although not speaking to the incident directly, Obama later talked about his appeal and how it crossed party boundaries--much as Paul's does.

In the Arizona Star:

"You've got Democrats, independents, and yes, you even have some Republicans," he said, which prompted a mixture of boos and cheers. "I know this because when I shake hands afterwards some people will whisper to me, 'Barack, I'm a Republican, but I support you.' And I say, 'Thank you very much, but why are we whispering?' "

Jacob Done wasn't whispering.



Back to Front Page.