Disgusting Video of Geert Wilders death. Made with the Dutch tax payers money.

I am a little late in getting this up but it is really sad. Smacks of the movie that was made about President Bush getting killed. There is a feed from Gates of Vienna below the video. You do not need this in english as it is quite easy to follow what takes place.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


The death Muslims and Islam hope for:



It’s obvious that the Dutch government wants Geert Wilders out of the way, and doesn’t much care how it happens.

In bygone days the Queen might have murmured to herself, “Who will rid me of this troublesome blond?” And then, to please his monarch, some eager courtier would have dispatched Mr. Wilders to meet his maker.

But today’s tactics have to be different. First the government demonizes the head of the PVV, eroding his official legitimacy and making it seem as if he almost deserves a violent end. Then it puts him on trial on trumped-up charges, and declines to provide the same courtroom security for a member of parliament that it gives to Islamic terrorists.

And now the latest twist: a state-sponsored radio station has produced a fake movie trailer, “The Murder of Geert Wilders” (which can be viewed here). It seems to be in Italian with Dutch subtitles, of all the strange things. Mind you, this is supposed to be funny, And it probably is, if you happen to be a fourteen-year-old Moroccan-Dutch kid, such as the ones we saw in Vlad’s video last night.

(I had the video here a day or two ago with Dutch-Morrocan punks.)

Mr. Wilders’ party has complained about the use of public money for such purposes. Here’s what the PVV website says, as translated by VH:


Insipid murder movie about Wilders

The Party for Freedom wants Minister Plasterk to explain why tax money is used for a provocative film about the murder of Geert Wilders. The movie was made by Pezpaq, a part of FunX, a heavily subsidized multicultural radio station.

PVV media spokesman Martin Bosma: “This is truly tasteless. Geert Wilders lives under the heaviest possible security. That you would produce entertainment about the murder of someone like that is disgusting. Why the hell do people pay taxes for this? It would be good if FunX would use its grant money to participate in regular audience research. Then it would immediately be shown that almost no one listens to the channel and therefore it could be quickly abolished.”

Questions put to the Minister of Media Affairs, Mr. Plasterk [PvdA, Socialists, Labour], by Mr. Bosma, a Member of the PVV, concerning a murder movie about Geert Wilders:
- - - - - - - - -

February 4, 2010

1. Has the Minister become aware of the movie “The Assassination of Geert Wilders”?

2. Are cases known to you in which the state broadcaster has made “murder movies” about left-wing politicians, or is the aggression of the state broadcaster focused only against right-wing politicians?

3. How does the production of the movie relate to the Media Act, which requires the public broadcaster to be “of us all, and for us all”?

4. Will you find the state broadcaster partly responsible when someone actually turns the word into the deed?

Continue reading as Diana West has more on this.

Now it is a Kangaroo court in Holland. The Geert Wilders trial that is not a trial. It is a show to have all of Europe bow down to Islam and shariah law.

The trial that is not a trial. This is just a show to show all of Europe that freedom of speech will officially be dead, and Geert Wilders convicted. Islam will be vindicated and empowered all through Europe and beyond to other continents. One real danger no one has mentioned is the increased use of International judicial decisions and rulings under the administration of the mullah Obamaham. As Obama has always wanted to use and have the United States be part of and use more of the International courts. As America's first Muslim-born president(again under Islamic law) do not thin k for one second that his administration will not use a Wilder's conviction and a favorable ruling for Islam in this country. CAIR, MSA, MPAC are all watching how this trial will end. A Muslim president, Islamosympathizers in the swamp are just a bad combination.


_________________________________________________________________________

Brussels Journal

Diana West

How Do You Say “Kangaroo Court” in Dutch?

One reading doesn't convey the chilling import of these words.

As Stephen Coughlin has pointed out to me, "we," in the definition at the OIC website, are, of course, "the collective voice of the Islamic world" – the "ummah" as represented by the heads of state and foreign ministers of the 57 Islamic nations of the OIC. In other words, as Coughlin puts it, "real state actors" using "real state power" to further real state objectives.


The objective of the ummah? Always and eternally, the greater and wider and deeper imposition of Islamic law. The ummah indeed sent its message to the West regarding "red lines that should not be crossed" – namely, the Danish cartoons and Wilders' film "Fitna." Official protests, statements, riots, boycotts, murders, death threats, assassination attempts -- a clear Islamic message, all right. And:

As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues.

Yes, and to the craven point where "the official West and its public opinion" are paralyzed and silenced by these same "sensitivities."

They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

Behold (courtesy Tundra Tabloids) the very image of Dutch "justice." After yesterday's "judicial" proceedings in Amsterdam, Holland itself is forever besmirched, its "judges" having made it clear that no semblance of fairness will enter into their proceeeding against Geert Wilders. As noted below, the "judges" slashed the roster of witnesses the Wilders defense team planned to call to the stand from eighteen to three.

When the OIC speaks about "freedom of expression," it means freedom of expression as governed by the laws of Islam – sharia. When the OIC says we in the West have "started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility," it means we in the West have started to regard expression from the perspective of sharia – from the perspective of the totalitarian Islamic system.

Trying Geert Wilders, a once-valiant Holland is leading the way, forsaking the freedoms of the West for the objectives of the ummah. Continue reading


http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4301

The Geert Wilders trial. Recent reports and news.

Geert Wilders on trial

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is a very long report on Geert Wilders from the Dutch Government.

The report has been tranlated into English by VH and Baron Bodissey from

Gates of Vienna. I have read through the entire report and it is a

clunky affair as mentioned. That said it is quite clear that the report

accomplished what the government set out to do; and that is to

have sufficient grounds to achieve a conviction of Geert Wilders.

There is also a link to previous reports that had been issued earlier

in the trial.

From Gates of Vienna

Baron Bodissey

We’ve posted a couple of recent articles on the pre-cooked report by the IVA Research and Consultancy on the “radical right” nature of the PVV and Geert Wilders. The Dutch government commissioned the “scientific” study, obtained exactly the result it desired, and released the report just in time for the second phase of the Wilders trial.

Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated an article from Het Vrije Volk about the now-notorious report. A caveat to our readers: this is very thick stuff. Editing it into something that approaches normal English was an immense challenge, and was impossible to achieve completely.

Most of the text below consists of excerpts from the official report. I have no idea whether the original Dutch version was written in the same sort of dense bureau-speak that VH’s translation and my editing produced, but there is no doubt that the raw material justifying a conviction of Geert Wilders may be readily found in the turgid prose of this document.

Here’s what Het Vrije Volk had to say:

Government Report says: condemn Wilders
by Joost Niemöller

Whoever reads the report will see that the advice to the court is above all: condemn Wilders.

Well, here it is, the much-discussed study on polarization and radicalization in the Netherlands, which is also simultaneously advice to the government, by four researchers: Moors, Lenke Balogh, Van Donselaar and De Graaff.

The report

Now to the contents of the report. The political question that is playing out here, which was also noted by Wilders himself, is how this report might contribute to the conviction of Wilders in the trial that is now being conducted against him. In other words, is the advisory report to the government in fact a political move to influence the judge and punish Wilders?

That is indeed seems to be the case. But in order to demonstrate it, a long road has to be taken. Fortunately shorter than the road the researchers themselves thought they should pursue, but nevertheless, fasten your seatbelts. We going on a roller coaster, it will be a rough ride.

There has been, as mentioned in the report, a substantial effort made to distinguish Wilders from the extreme right. But also… not entirely. For there is some overlap. For instance, see this blubbery quote, in which the authors of the report strongly distance themselves from any criminal aspect. But again: not quite. For there “appears” to be a discriminatory aspect:

The PVV and its leader Geert Wilders — depending on the chosen definition — are regarded as radical right, but with ifs and buts clearly connected to this classification. The most important is that with respect to ideology the PVV cannot be put on the same line with “racial revolutionaries” such as neo-Nazis. There is no sign at all of any anti-Semitism in the PVV.

It should be noted that Wilders and the PVV do not consider themselves as extreme right and distance themselves from right-wing extremism. Furthermore, neither among the founders of the PVV nor with the current Parliamentary group are found any people with a previous far-right “career”. Unlike the “traditional” radical right-wing parties or movements, the PVV does not derive from a right-wing extremist tradition.

Thus there is — as with the LPF / Leefbaar stream [named after the former party of Pim Fortuyn] — no question of a social genealogy. Ideologically, there are certain elements, however, of right-wing radicalism (in this case “national-democratic”‘) ideas to be found in the PVV, such as a positive orientation to “one’s own” [i.e. Dutch culture], a dislike of “the foreign” [i.e. Islam and immigrant Islamist radicals and criminals] and of political opponents [it is rather the other way round], and a leaning towards the authoritarian [promoting toughness against crime is viewed extremist in the Netherlands].

The rejection of “the foreign” concerns alleged “Islamization”, “non-Western immigrants”, and is reflected in a series of strong terms on this matter used in the public debate. These expressions, in which the criminalizing, the making of a social dichotomy, or the exclusion of rights are important themes, appear in a criminal sense to have a discriminatory nature. In that respect, the court has made a judgment.

Later the report talks about two important terms related to Wilders, “polarization” and “radicalization.” It is stated that in society there is talk of polarization, and that Wilders plays an important role in that. It seems to me that such is difficult to deny. Then again, the question is, is that important for a judge? Now comes the point where the report moves into quicksand. An “on the one hand other hand” hustle and bustle that will make you seasick: Continue reading

Thanks to Baron Bodissey, Dymphna, and VH

Gates of Vienna

The freedom of Europe is on trial with Geert Wilders'. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Geert Wilders' trial opened today in the Netherlands, he is on trial for
insulting Muslims, discrimination against Muslims, and incitement to
hatred. He is not guilty of any of these charges. Let us pray and hope
this will not be a kangaroo court. Islam is the guilty of all the charges
that have been levied against Mr. Wilders'.

Geert Wilders' opening speech.




Here is the complete transcript of Geert Wilders' opening speech:

00:00 Mister Wilders, do you have something on paper that can, or may be given to the registrar later on?


00:10 When I get it back.

00:12 Then we will make a copy of it and hand the original back to you.

00:16 Yes, thank you.

00:17 Mr. President, members of the court, I would like to only use a few minutes of my right to speak.

00:26 And I would like to begin by saying that of all our attainments, freedom is the most precious and most vulnerable.

00:36 It is what people have dedicated their lives to and what people have given their lives for.

00:45 Our freedom in this country is the fruit of centuries.

00:50 It is the result of a history that has no equal and has brought us to where we are today.

00:59 I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom is threatened in the Netherlands.

01:06 That heritage, which generations could only dream of…

01:12 … is precisely this freedom which is no longer a given fact, no longer a matter self-evidence.

01:20 I dedicate my life to defending our freedom. I know what the risks are and I every day again, pay the price for that.

01:31 I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see it as my duty and therefore I am standing here today.

Continue reading
Special thanks to Gates of Vienna, Vlad Tepes, and VH.