At one level, we might see his attempt at "free speech" in creating the movie Fitna as propaganda. Indeed it is that but it is much more. It is a wake- up call to those who might not see the obvious link between terrorism and the teachings of Islam. This is a fact but can it be said openly and without fear of retribution? The trial will determine that. Meanwhile we can contemplate what it means when religion becomes more important than an individuals right to express an opinion about that religion.
12 comments:
It is getting beyond ridiculous on this planet.
And yet there are people who have a problem with the fact that humans and chimps have common ancestors.
I hope if Gert Wilders loses this case, he will continue to speak as he does, but preface it with "The goverment doesn't want me to say..."
Instead of "The Koran is a terrorist manual and Muslims are scumbags" he could then say "The government prosecuted me for saying the Koran is a terrorist manual and Muslims are scumbags."
You can't kill free speech. You can only kill speakers.
Lexcen,
Did you see the transcript of the speech he gave before the the trail?
No, do you have a link?
Lexcen,
I do have a direct link to The Jawa Report where it was posted. But it has some childish commentary with a couple inappropriate words that goes along with it. I could show the speech by cutting and pasting it here through. If you would like that instead?
Okay Lexcen here Wilder's pretrial, in bold italicized text, with quotation marks added by me so you can see where the speech begins and a link to Wilder's personal site instead of the Jawa Report, so you don't have to deal with the childish commentary.
Geert Wilders' personal speech at pre-trial hearing
woensdag, 20 januari 2010
"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."
source
Thanks for providing that speech.
You're Welcome Lexcen! I take it you liked what Wilders said?
Damien, I not only agree 100% with his "free speech" but also with his concern on the dangers of Islam as a force other than just a religion.
Lexcen,
I sincerely hope he wins this thing. Bosch Fawstin called it the trial of the century and said it will be a victory for freedom or Islam. I sincerely hope its a victory for freedom.
I hope Geert Wilders lives to be an old man.
I fear for him.
Jen,
I do too, but I also hope that he doesn't spend the rest of his life in prison while his country and the rest of Europe is slowly Islamacized.
Post a Comment