Diana West

US Representative Poe on Dutch Parliamentarian Wilders

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:59:00 GMT

On the floor of the House yesterday, Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican, had this to say about Geert Wilders:

Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech continues to be shouted down by the politically correct police. In the Netherlands, it is against the law to say something that offends someone else’s religion. That is why Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders is on trial for hurting people’s feelings.He made a movie about terrorists and radical Islamic clerics encouraging violence in the name hate. Now he is on trial for insulting Islam.

He is charged with discrimination and incitement to hatred. Because Dutch law is intolerant of intolerance.The Dutch courts say even truthful insult speech is a crime. Sounds like the law has become the enemy of free speech and a protector of the radicals.

Geert Wilders boldly brings to the world’s attention the dangers of religious radicals who believe in hateful violence, and he gets in trouble for it. He ought to be commended rather than condemned and charged with a crime.

Freedom of speech is a universal human right, granted by God, especially if that speech is political, religious or truthful. A free people won’t tolerate intolerance for freedom for very long.

And that's just the way it is.

Fox's Beck, Krauthammer & Kristol: Wrong on Wilders (Much to Talal's Delight)

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:49:00 GMT

Murdoch and Talal, together, in Abu Dhabi this week: It's a long way from Rudy Giuliani's Big Dis in Manhattan

This week's syndicated column:

When Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol each from their respective Fox News perches branded Dutch political phenom Geert Wilders as beyond the political pale, it was shocking and outrageously so, and for several reasons.

One. I’ve grown used to Fox News and all other media ignoring not just the Wilders story but also the cultural story of the century, altogether – namely, the Islamization of Europe, something Wilders, a great admirer of Ronald Reagan and a committed supporter Israel, is dedicated to halt and reverse. The survival instinct of the Dutch, who, earlier this month gave unprecedented electoral victories to Wilders and his party, is a strong indicator that this civilizational transformation is not irreversible. But covering the Islamization of Europe, as readers of this column know, usually makes for bad news. And worse, at least according to the powers-that-be, even half-way competent reporting on the subject puts Islam in a bad light because it reveals exactly what happens to Western-style liberty when Muslims enter a non-Muslim host country in sufficient numbers to enact and extend sharia (Islamic law) over a heretofore Judeo-Christian-humanist society.

Better safe (politically correct) than sorry (subject to potential boycott or worse), our media prefer, frittering away precious powers afforded by the First Amendment. This motto seems to go double at Fox ever since Rupert Murdoch, for reasons unknown, sold what is now a seven percent stake of Fox’s parent company News Corp. to a scion of the sharia-dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. For the Fox commentators, supposedly punditry’s bulwark of Western values, to bring it up just to slap it down -- and without factual care (to say the least) -- was disappointing but also irresponsible.

Two. Readers may recall that I’ve questioned Talal’s ownership stake before (previous column here, post here). This week, much too synergistically, after Murdoch’s and Talal’s all-stars warned Fox viewers about the Wilders threat, in effect, to Islam in Europe, Murdoch was in Abu Dhabi, along with Talal and 400 other media executives, announcing that key components of the News Corp. empire were moving into the Islamic world, into the United Arab Emirates.

Remember the UAE, notorious for enslaving Bangledeshi boys as camel jockeys, for its support of Hamas? It was the UAE whose ministers and princes were hunting with Osama bin Laden, preventing the Clinton White House from taking a cruise missile shot at the jihad kingpin. It was the UAE that was one of three countries (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) to recognize the Taliban. And it was the UAE’s Dubai Ports World that was thwarted in a pre-tea-party populist uproar about these connections and more (eleven of the 9/11 hijackers, including two UAE citizens, were deployed to the US from Dubai). The UAE is “not free” now, says Freedom House, and never has been. You get the picture. It is now complete with a macabre vision of a News Corp.’s Middle Eastern headquarters potentially rising into the skyline, the better to oversee, perhaps, Murdoch’s new 9.1 percent stake in Prince Talal’s Arab media company Rotana.

What impact does the Islamization of News Corp. have on “fair and balanced” news Stateside? I don’t know. But when one of the big bosses is a Saudi prince, it doesn’t exactly encourage reporters to doodle spoofs of the Danish Motoons on their notepads, let alone engage in “offensive,” PC-busting debate in the news room or on the air.

Three. Regardless of cause or effect, the fact remains that in classifying Wilders as a fascist (Beck), denouncing his views as “extreme, radical and wrong” (Krauthammer), and slandering him as a “demagogue” (Kristol), Fox’s opinion-leaders expressed themselves in terms that surely thrilled not just Murdoch’s Islamic prince-cronies, but also the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). This is the organization driving the advance of sharia in the world, as, for example, at the United Nations, where it leads an endless campaign to outlaw all criticism of Islam – such as Wilders’ -- under the PC-sensitive rubric of banning “defamation of religion.”

Now, one thing you don’t want to do in this life is thrill the OIC, particularly on its smooth drive to extend sharia that is only now, according to OIC plan, unexpectedly blocked by Geert Wilders. But how it hurts to see Fox pushing in the wrong direction.

Andrew Bostom: "Qaddafi, Wilders and the Jihad against Switzerland"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:29:00 GMT

When Qaddafi's Libya is "satisfied" something is wrong.

Andrew Bostom has published an essential and timely essay at Pajama Media throwing the light of the ages, historically and Islamically speaking, on Qaddafi's declaration of jihad on Switzerland for its act of self-determination to ban construction of the tool and symbol of political Islam, the minaret. And yes, as the title of this post promises, he also sets the recent electoral successes of Geert Wilders into the context of European pushback against such outbursts of Islamic aggression and continuing demographic colonization.

Bostom's piece is mandatory reading, and particularly in order to appreciate the low-down depths to which the United States has sunk with its "apology" yesterday to Libya for State Department spokesman Philip Cowley's unfocused non-response to a question last month about Libya's declaration of jihad on Switzerland.

The AFP reports:

"Libya accepts US `apology' for Kadhafi joke"

TRIPOLI — Libya said on Wednesday it accepted the apology of a US official who had joked about Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi's call for jihad against Switzerland and that normal ties would resume.

The foreign ministry said it was "satisfied" with the remarks made by US State Department spokesman Philip Cowley on Tuesday, adding that "it accepts the apology and the deep regret," of the State Department.

Slurp, slurp, slurp.

"As a result ... (Libya is willing) to resume mutual visits by officials from the two countries ... and to promote bilateral relations in all areas, in a manner of mutual respect," the ministry said in a statement.

Thanks be for that.

Earlier, a Libyan newspaper had called Cowley's apology and Washington's decision to send a top envoy to Libya in a bid to limit the diplomatic fallout from the incident a "victory" for Tripoli.

"Libya has won a victory in the battle begun by the US State Department's spokesman," daily Al-Fajr Al-Jadid said.

Crowley told reporters on Tuesday he regretted that his comments had become an obstacle to the improvement in US-Libyan relations, although actually stopping short of a full apology.

Diplomacy 101: Give a regret and they'll take an apology.

"These comments do not reflect US policy and were not intended to offend. I apologise if they were taken that way."

Sounds like an apology to me.

Libya formally objected to Crowley's remarks on February 26, a day after Kadhafi called for a holy war and economic boycott in response to Switzerland's ban on the construction of minarets.

What did he say?

Crowley had said at the time: "I saw that (jihad) report and it just brought me back to the day of September, one of the more memorable sessions of the UN General Assembly that I can recall.

"Lots of words and lots of papers flying all over the place and not necessarily a lot of sense," the US official added.

He didn't say anything! (Here, have a dog.)

Kadhafi took the comments as a personal insult. Libya first summoned the US charge d'affaires in Tripoli and Libya's National Oil Corp called in US oil firms to express "indignation" over the remark.

NOW, we're getting down to bizness. If only these "US oil firms" were drilling here at home in the good old USA they wouldn't have to be called in to talk to the likes of jihadis like Qadaffi .... Hmmmm.

NOC president Shokri Ghanem said the US firms in Libya, which include ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, had been advised of "the negative repercussions which such remarks could have on economic relations between the two countries."

US-Libyan ties have been improving since 2003, when Kadhafi renounced the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and agreed to compensate families of the victims of the 1988 plane bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The lifting of US sanctions in 2004 paved the way for US oil companies to return to Libya after being absent since 1986.

Joy. It also paved the way for the Lockerbie bomber to go home and live the life of Al-Reilly ...

Dhimmitude is plain disgusting.

Update: Ruth King has some choice words on the subject over at Ruthfully Yours.

Oh No, Not Again: Welcome to Our World

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:45:00 GMT

This sketch almost got a man killed. Sorry, Sharia-inspired assassins almost killed a man over this sketch.

Story -- not the picture, of course, because the MSM are chicken-dhimmis -- by the AP

STOCKHOLM — The point of a caricature depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was to show that artistic freedom allows mockery of all religions, including the most sacred symbols of Islam, the Swedish artist who created it said Wednesday.

Update: The essential backgrounder on the whole story at Gates of Vienna.

Lars Vilks — the target of an alleged murder plot involving an American woman who dubbed herself "Jihad Jane" — told The Associated Press he has no regrets about the drawing, which is considered deeply offensive by many Muslims.

Oh, please. There's a lot of things that deeply offenda lot of people, from smutty talk on the street to Rupert Murdoch moving key components of his empire to UAE Enough is enough -- isn't it?

"I'm actually not interested in offending the prophet. The point is actually to show that you can," Vilks said in an interview in Stockholm. "There is nothing so holy you can't offend it."

Certainly, that's one valid argument. There is a more particular argument to make, which is that we do not observe either Islamic prohibitions on imagery, or Islamic prohibitions on criticizing Islam or its prophet.

Vilks made his rough sketch showing Muhammad's head on a dog's body more than a year after 12 Danish newspaper cartoons of the prophet sparked furious protests in Muslim countries in 2006.

Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

Whatever.

Vilks submitted the drawing to an exhibit at a Swedish cultural heritage center, which turned it down, citing security concerns.

Fear of Cartoon Rage, Swedish-style.

The issue went largely unnoticed until a Swedish newspaper printed the drawing with an editorial defending the freedom of expression.

Good for them. Haven't seen that in these here United States newspapers, despite the robust protections offered by our First Amendment.

The publication led to protests from Muslim countries, and briefly revived a heated debate in the West and the Muslim world about religious sensitivities and the limits of free speech.

It also led to numerous death threats against Vilks, who was temporarily moved to a secret location after al-Qaida in Iraq put a $100,000 bounty on his head in September 2007.

The 63-year-old artist told AP he has now built his own defense system, including a "homemade" safe room and a barbed-wire sculpture that could electrocute potential intruders. He also has an ax "to chop down" anyone trying to climb through the windows of his home, in southern Sweden.

Ah, give me the medieval life.

"If something happens, I know exactly what to do," Vilks said.

He said he believes the suspects in the latest alleged plot to kill him — seven people arrested in Ireland and a Pennsylvania woman held in the U.S. — were not professionals but "rather low-tech."

He said he had learned from American media reports that Colleen R. LaRose, who called herself JihadJane in a YouTube video, had visited the area where he lives, but he didn't know whether that was correct. "I'm glad she didn't kill me," Vilks said, with a half-smile.

Nalin Pekgul, a moderate Muslim and high-ranking member of Sweden's opposition Social Democratic Party, told Swedish Radio the threats against Vilks were unacceptable but added his drawing had profoundly hurt Muslims.

"A dog is unclean. To describe Muhammad as a dog is like saying you are unclean" to Muslims, said Pekgul, a Kurdish immigrant from Turkey.

Don't tell us about unclean when kafirs (non-Muslims) along with dogs, pigs, wine, and assorted bodily yuck have a standing condition of being "najis" or unclean according to the likes of Iranian Shiite Ayatollah Sistani.

An eccentric man with disheveled gray hair and thick-lensed glasses, Vilks referred to himself as "the artist" and described his life as a movie plot.

"It's a good story. It's about the bad guys and a good guy, and they try to kill him," he said.

Swedish winters are very long.

LaRose had discussions of her alleged plans with at least one of the suspects apprehended in Ireland, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official wasn't authorized to discuss details of the investigation.

Irish authorities said Wednesday those arrested there were two Algerians, two Libyans, a Palestinian, a Croatian and an American woman married to one of the Algerian suspects. They were not identified by name.

Swedish police have kept a close eye on threats against Vilks, but he doesn't have round-the-clock protection.

Vilks has said he was threatened shortly after an ax-wielding man on Jan. 1 broke into the home of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who drew one of the 12 Muhammad caricatures that prompted the 2006 uproar. Westergaard locked himself in a safe room, while police shot and wounded the attacker.

At least three Swedish newspapers reprinted Vilks' drawing Wednesday, citing its news value and the defense of free speech.

That's the only way to keep free speech free.

Out-foxing Fox

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:56:00 GMT

Perhaps in response to major viewer push-back, Fox News ("fair and halal") pulled its video clips of the two evening slams on Geert Wilders that appeared last night, first by Glenn Beck and then by Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. That's right: Fox pulled the videos from all Internet sight.

Well, not quite. Thanks to the invaluable Gates of Vienna, we can still watch the Beck outburst:

Oil Chic: Owning Western Media

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:36:00 GMT

Prince Talal has pals and they all have pockets filled with Westerners.

From the AP:

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — With an economy based on pumping oil and landmarks that include one of the Mideast's grandest mosques, buttoned-down Abu Dhabi has little obvious in common with freewheeling media magnets like Hollywood or midtown Manhattan.

This week, the Arab emirate is hoping the world takes another look. The city-state, best known of late for bailing out its flashier neighbor Dubai, is bringing together some of the industry's biggest names for a summit that will temporarily shift much of the world's media and entertainment elite to a luxury hotel on the Persian Gulf. Headliners at the event starting Tuesday include News Corp.'s Rupert Murdoch and Google Inc. chief Eric Schmidt.

Murdoch yesterday announced, by the way, that in addition to buying into Prince Talal's Rotana media company, News Corp. has "further extended our presence [in Dar al-Islam] by announcing a strategic partnership between Fox International Channels and Abu Dhabi’s twofour54."

He's pretty much moving in. As Murdoch explained:

"First, we will move some of our satellite channels from Hong Kong to here. Second, we will establish a production office here for one of our documentary filmmaking companies. And third, we will headquarter the Middle Eastern operations for our global online advertising network business in Abu Dhabi as well."

Back to the AP:

The idea is to entice "the best and the brightest media minds," said Edward Borgerding, a former Walt Disney Co. executive who is now CEO of the state-owned Abu Dhabi Media Co., the event's host. But the gathering is also a coming-out party for Abu Dhabi, which has seen its own star rise as nearby Dubai's fades, serving as a reflection of the emirate's growing weight in the media industry.

As in most of the Arab world, the government here has long controlled much of the domestic media, running television networks, newspapers and radio stations, including one devoted to readings from the Quran. Censors routinely black out nudity and politically sensitive topics, and block access to hundreds of Web sites. A media law passed last year stifles the press and increases self-censorship, rights groups say.

Oh, is that what "rights groups say"? Thanks for mentioning. But there's more. A quick browse through a Freedom House report reveals there's also the fact that in the UAE there are no elections, never have been. Political parties do not exist, nor are independent human rights groups allowed to operate. Criticism of Islam is a "punishable offense, while women's rights are tenuous due to the sway of Islamic law. Little surprise, then, that female genital mutiliation is still "discreetly practiced" ... and on and on.

In other words -- the perfect place for Western media $ucklings to $eek $oothing $uccor.

Increasingly, though, the United Arab Emirates capital has been using its immense petroleum wealth to extend its media reach overseas, even as it shows little sign of easing restrictions on journalists or Internet users at home.

It has set up a company to bankroll Hollywood films, built an office park to house foreign news agencies, and spent billions to invest in microchips that power the electronic gadgets that increasingly serve as platforms for media consumption.

It is also partnering with established Western brands, including National Geographic and Comedy Central, to develop Arabic-language programming, and is splashing out on big-name concerts for eager audiences at home. Recent shows featured Rihanna, Aerosmith and Beyonce.

Always entertaining to see-no-sharia!

The investments are part of a broader push by Abu Dhabi's hereditary leaders to diversify the economy away from oil and provide a broader range of jobs for locals.

They serve another purpose too — to establish Abu Dhabi, the UAE's capital and the largest of the country's seven semiautonomous city-states, as a tolerant, cultured and internationally relevant Arab society.

The al-Potemkin city-state, courtesy its Western collaborators.

"We work to promote a more progressive point of view of this region," said Mike Fairburn, director of marketing and planning at Flash Entertainment, a government-created concert and events promoter. "A big part of popular entertainment is about challenging certain perceptions."

Abu Dhabi is not alone in its quest to become a regional media player.

Neighboring Dubai built its reputation on being a carefree business haven. Despite its well-publicized economic slump, the port city continues to host regional offices for hundreds of media companies, ranging from small ad agencies to international broadcasters such as CNBC and Showtime. And Doha, the capital of nearby Qatar, is home to the best-known group of Arabic satellite TV channels, al-Jazeera.

Abu Dhabi officials, however, insist they are creating something unique. A big part of that effort revolves around a project called TwoFour54, named after the city's geographical coordinates.

The project's sand-whipped office park in a rapidly developing corner of the city has already lured a number of international news agencies, including CNN, which also maintains an office in Dubai. The broadcaster is using its Abu Dhabi site to produce a daily news show for its international channel.

TwoFour54 also includes a media training academy primarily offering short skills-based courses, as well as production facilities and a venture capital arm to invest in promising Arabic media startups.

"We see ourselves ... as providing an environment that is supportive and conducive and stimulating for creative people to want to be here," said Wayne Borg, chief operating officer of TwoFour54.

You know, art for art's sake.

Other state-backed projects are aiming further afield.

Earlier this year, Abu Dhabi's Flash Entertainment bought a 10 percent stake in the parent of Ultimate Fighting Championship, the Las Vegas-based mixed martial arts producer that makes most of its money through pay-per-view sales and video game licenses.

Meanwhile, Abu Dhabi Media set up a film production and financing arm called Imagenation that aims to pump more than $1 billion into feature films over five years.

The company produced last year's family adventure film "Shorts" by director Robert Rodriguez, and has since announced co-production deals for a number of other movies, including the upcoming political thriller "Fair Game" starring Sean Penn.

The venture is symbiotic. Hollywood gets money it needs after funding sources like investment banks and hedge funds tightened purse strings amid the global meltdown. Abu Dhabi gets international cachet.

Isn't that the one about Faust??

"If you can just get the brand out there with the name Abu Dhabi in it, it promotes Abu Dhabi as a decent, legitimate business partner," said Christopher Davidson, a professor at the University of Durham who has written extensively about the UAE.

He said one goal might be to persuade a studio to set part of a major film in the city, though he added that freedom of expression remains a concern.

"The reality is it's still a traditional political system, and there are limits," he said.

It is difficult to gauge how much of its oil wealth Abu Dhabi is willing to lavish on the media business, which must compete with the government's plans to grow other sectors, such as technology, manufacturing, energy and tourism. Few details about the government's finances are made public, and none of the executives who agreed to speak with The Associated Press would discuss their companies' financial resources.

Davidson estimates the state will spend at least $2 billion to $3 billion over five years just on physical infrastructure and seed money for the media sector. But there is always more should things really take off.

"This is small change for Abu Dhabi," he said. "They can throw such massive resources at this."

News Corp.'s Wall Street Journal (kind of amazingly) put it this way:

"Why are the world's biggest media companies coming to one of the most closed media markets?" said Jim Krane, author of 'City of Gold: Dubai and the Dream of Capitalism' and a former journalist based in the U.A.E. with the Associated Press. "It's because that's where the money is."

The Journal also reported:

On the eve of the summit's opening day, News Corp.'s Fox International Channels said it was moving the Middle East operations of its global online ad network to Abu Dhabi and setting up an office here for its documentary-production arm.

The partnership comes after News Corp. last month said it would spend $70 million for a 9.1% stake in Arabic media giant Rotana Group, with an option to double that stake. Rotana is owned by Saudi billionaire Alwaleed bin Talal, a large, longtime investor in News Corp.

"Abu Dhabi sits at the nexus--of East and West, of developing and developed, of our media present and our future," Mr. Murdoch said in videotaped remarks to promote the media summit last November.

Ironically, the renewed sense of interest in Middle East media comes as international media companies face rising criticism in the U.A.E. over its coverage of Dubai's debt crisis.

The Sunday Times, published in the U.K., was ordered off shelves in the U.A.E. on Nov. 29 after the paper carried a double-page graphic illustrating Dubai's ruler, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, sinking in a sea of debt. Its sister publication, The Times, was censored in the U.A.E. on Dec. 5 for a story that described Sheik Mohammed as a "benign dictator" and criticized his management of the economy.

Question: Has the Sunday Times or The Times -- both News Corp./Prince Talal properties not incidentally -- run anything similar to this cartoon and story since? I don't know the answer -- but I can guess.

Fox News: Best Investment Saudi Prince Talal Ever Made

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:45:00 GMT

It was pile-on time at Fox News tonight as Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer, a gal whose name I missed [update -- A.B. Stoddard] and Bill Kristol all branded Geert Wilders beyond the pale tonight.

Beck classified Geert as a fascist.

Krauthammer said Geert didn't know the difference between Islam and Islamism -- never mind that according to Krauthammer's idea of Islamic scholarship, neither did Mohammed.

[Stoddard] said she agreed with Imam Krauthammer and added that if people like this (Geert) are elected to lead Holland it will suffer the consequences.

Kristol called Geert a demagogue.

In other words, a stomach-turning display -- or should I say halal?

Fact is, this anti-Geert pundit solidarity will only delight Newscorp stakeholder Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. That's because it is Wilders in the Netherlands who stands as the unexpectedly strong spearhead of resistance to the Islamization of Europe and the wider West. As a scion of the most powerful sharia dictatorship in the world, Prince Talal doesn't like that. How fortunate for him that Fox News doesn't like it, either.

On Geert on Russia TV

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:48:00 GMT

Never heard of Russia TV before I went on Friday but hey, at least they're interested in talking about the Wilders phenom -- as opposed to some fair and balanced most trusted names in news I could mention. (Don't miss host's wrap-up equating Islamic imperialism & Western imperialism -- the new moral equivalence?)

Geert Wilders at the House of Lords

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:40:00 GMT

AP photo: Geert Wilders arriving for a press conference in London today

Below is the text of Geert Wilders' address today in the House of Lords, where, at the invitation of Baronness Cox and Lord Pearson, both members of United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), he showed his film Fitna.

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 about Winston 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.

How the West Will Be Won

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:34:00 GMT

Author's photo: Antwerp, Belgium 2008

This week's syndicated column further unwraps the hijab and finds totalitarian ideology underneath:

When the Netherlands' Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders recently addressed voters in Almere, a Dutch city of 200,000 where his party handily won elections this week, he told them what to expect as his once-tiny, anti-Islamization party started flexing its new political muscle. Aside from lower taxes and other political staples, his plans for this city not far from Amsterdam include a ban on Muslim headscarves.

Wilders' ban would apply to "headscarves in municipal bodies and all other institutions (that) receive even one penny of subsidy from the municipality." He continued: "And for all clarity: This (ban) is not meant for crosses or yarmulkes because those are symbols of religions that belong to our own culture and are not -- as is the case with headscarves -- a sign of an oppressive totalitarian ideology."

Here, Wilders is distinguishing between the religions of Christianity and Judaism, and the religio-political ideology of Islam, noting not only the near-indigenous nature of the former, but also the encroaching totalitarianism of the latter. This is the crucial cultural argument to make if a cultural Reconquista of Europe from Islamization is to be successful.

Certainly, we have seen glimmers. Last year, Filip Dewinter of the Vlaams Belang party of Belgium led a winning campaign to ban the hijab - what he calls "the propaganda weapon of choice for the establishment of Islamic society in Europe" -- in the Flemish schools of his country, making the same vital judgment call that Wilders did.

"(He) who defends the headscarf out of reasons of tolerance and pluralism has little or no understanding of Islam," Dewinter said. "The hidden agenda behind the veil leads to segregation," a veritable apartheid-regime, he explained, with which Islam seeks to control and dominate the West. Equating the Muslim head scarf with the Christian cross or the Jewish yamulke is "therefore incorrect," Dewinter continued, identifying the headscarf as "the flag of a political ideology" in which it is not the individual religious experience that is central, but rather "the realization of a theocratic society based on sharia, or Islamic law."

Maybe that's a lot for Americans to take in, but they haven't lived through the Islamization Decades that their European cousins have. As Europe's neighborhoods, banlieues and cities have repeatedly seen, headscarf-friendly zones yield to other Muslim demands, from single-sex recreation and medicine, to a refusal to tolerate certain Western texts or foods, to the institution of Islamic banking, to the acceptance of jihadist treason in the mosques, to the entrenchment of Islamic marriage (forced and polygamous), to the ultimate recognition of Islamic courtrooms run according to sharia.

But take the French approach. After determining that the Muslim headscarf inserted religion into state-run secular schools, the French government in 2003 banned the headscarf in the public schools along with the Star of David, the yamulke, "large" crucifixes and the turban of the Sikhs. This decision made it appear as though the hijab hadn't been singled out as a symbol of a specifically Muslim way of life that seeks to extend sharia. Thus, in the name of tolerance, all religious symbols were deemed provocative. In the name of inclusion, all were banned. This is precisely how the traditional (pre-Islamic) society dismantles itself, symbol by symbol, law by law.

And this is precisely why acknowledging and affirming the differences -- "discriminating" -- between Western religions and Islamic religio-political ideology is so important. Alas, it is also unthinkable for the average post-modern, multicultural Westerner. Rather than reject the symbols of imperial Islam, he capitulates, further stripping his civilization of its own identity, further enabling the Islamization process.

Now, the French government seeks to ban the full veil, or burka, in public buildings, a measure, as a recent Harris Poll tells us, that garners support from a whopping 70 percent of French respondents. Large majorities also support a ban in Italy (65 percent), Spain (63 percent), and the United Kingdom (57 percent). (A burka ban draws 33 percent support in the United States.)

Notably, that support plummets when other religious symbols are included in the burka ban. French support drops to 22 percent. Italian (10 percent), Spanish (9 percent) and British (4 percent) support follows. (American support drops to about 1 percent.)

Defiance of the multicultural orthodoxy is more popular in Europe than anyone imagined.