title: no. 1 -- trilogy on wilders “hate speech” trial -- the private letters -- re: european tyranny
related posts:
very complete details on the geert wilders “hate speech” prosecution in the nethlands. atlashrugs2000, the blog on the wilders situation.
geert wilders speaks against muslim immigration. wintersoldier2008.
euro-union restrictions on free speech: research notes . wintersoldier2008, on restricting opposition to euro-union immigration policies. article 52, charter of fundamental rights of the european union, on the regulation of “european right”:
article 52. 1. any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only [: a.]if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the union or [:b.]the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
european “free speech” protections: they are a sham. wintersoldier2008, on the regulation of “free speech” by euro government.
the complete list of european “hate speech” laws, nation by nation. wikipedia. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech . and, wintersoldier.
the essence of law, of legal standards, is precisely that. law is, that there be known standards of behavior to which one conforms, and with the understanding that exceeding the limits of acceptable behavior carries the threat of punishment with it. thus, you know that if you hit someone on the nose without legal excuse or personal license, that you are exposed to prosecution for assault.
law is knowledge, and a fairness of process. yes, law is ultimately in any system coercive: it is applied power, even when done most gently. but law which is applied wholly without standards, wholly by fiat, and which is arbitrary, capricious and based solely on the exercise of brute political power is tyranny.
it is as simple as that.
this fundamental quality of fairness and notice is precisely that which is lacking in the prosecutions of geert wilders in the netherlands, and of elisabeth wolff in austria. those who push wilders’ prosecution accuse him of being “un-dutch,” of all things: you may rest assured that in no statute or court decision is the term “un-dutch” defined, nor are the precise parameters of just what one must do or so in order to become “un-dutch” laid out.
it is purely an ad hoc determination, and no prior standard of conduct is established or recognized by which to judge the standards of behavior deemed “criminal.”
it is not a society of law that prosecutes wilders and wolff.
it is a society of men that prosecutes them. and, they are partisan in their zeal, and interested only in stamping out opposition to the policies they intend to impose on europe. and, they will eliminate anyone in their path under any pretext.
what is happening to geert wilders in europe, in a dutch court room tomorrow, is as naked a showing of tyrannical power as any show trial that ever occurred in stalinist russia: it is not a trial, it is a dumbshow, a farce, and stands as much a blanket condemnation of holland and the euro union as anything imaginable. it is naked tyranny.
it is naked tyranny. period.
it is a system adopted in canada.
it is a system some would import into this country.
this post consists of letters recently written by me re: wilders, and re: the euro union, and re: gun ownership. there is, in addition, a letter written in response by a correspondent in europe.
they speak for themselves. they are, however, inspired by events associated with geert wilders’s prosection, for being “un-dutch.” yes, you read that correctly.
the letters.--
1. letter to atlasshrugs, commenting on the wilder show “trial.” oh, yes, he will be convicted. link to the comments section, which is very good: atlasshrugs has good readers: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/01/january-20th-wilders-trial-all-could-be-lost.html#comments . the following is a link to the article, which is a very good post, btw: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/01/january-20th-wilders-trial-all-could-be-lost.html
choi, my friends:
to understand what is happening to wilders, you must understand the differences between american law and its well springs, and european law and its view of rights.
i will be brief.--
in american jurisprudence, and in american political philosophy, the liberty and right belonging to individuals derives from rights which exist prior to and independent of the formation of government. the formation of government does not diminish those rights. and, the formation of government does not confer such rights.
thus, it is in our bill of rights that government is prohibited from diminishing or infringing upon those rights. and, thus, it is in the 9th and 10th amendments that powers not expressly delegated to government are retained in the people, undiminished and inalienable, e.g., they can neither be taken nor given away. period.
european law, european government, is not premised upon such views.
in the european view of things, such things as rights and liberties are shaped by community, and by consensus.
the clearest expression of this is in the european union charter or universal declaration of human right. thus, in the articles in that charter, we find protected the rights of free speech, and freedom of association, and the rights of freedom of religious expression, association and faith.
well, what's the damn difference, you ask?
these rights are not absolute in the individual, they are rights of the community. and, as rights belonging to the community, they are regulated by the community.
if you will read the european union charter, or universal declaration of human rights, you will find in the final articles that none of the rights association with this case are absolute to the person who asserts them, but that the rights are expressly limited and regulable in order to uphold other values, such as community tranquility, community order, and also to protect those rights recognized in others.
thus, in our system of law, assuming a person does not comment defamation, e.g., speaks the truth, and further assuming creates no "clear and present danger" of violence or discord, oliver wendell holmes formulation, that person is free to say as he thinks on any subject. to attack islam. to defend christianity. to assert the importance of preserving heritage and values.
that is not the case under either european union law, or under the domestic law of holland. a person may speak the truth, but if in so doing he threatens to interrupt domestic tranquility, or if infringes upon the rights of worship or freedom of association of others, then in order to preserve the values inhering in all members of the community, and in the preservation of the community itself, the european law may balance the interests involved, and may restrict the right of one to protect the interests of another.
in short, rights are not absolutely held by the individual, they are balanced and regulated between individuals by the community.
it is a profound difference. choi, the person who uttered the statement that caused you to grasp, accurately describes the state of the law in the "animal farm" that is europe. thus, a person may speak absolute truth about islam. it is no defense to a prosecution under the dutch "hate speech" laws, because even if the statement is true, it is regulable if it causes community discord or threatens the religious liberties of others.
and, who decides if wilders has done so, if he has upset the balance of the community values?
why, the dutch government, in the form of the judges and prosecutors who have brought this "case" before the court.
do they apply clearly enunciated and elucidated concepts, honed by centuries of jurisprudence honed against the rigors of real life politics and history? (as, i would suggest, is done in american law.)
they do not.
this is the danger, this is the tyranny of what wilders undergoes. it is not that he is charged with violating law. he is charged, in fact, with violating the political orthodoxy of the leftist community which prosecutes. there are no legal standards with which he is charged as having violated. he is simply charged with having violated "political correctness," for lack of a better word.
he is charged, literally and precisely, as related in pamela's post, for being "un-dutch," a concept which appears absolutely ridiculous on its face, but a concept which is serious enough to place geert wilders in prison, to have considerable economic penalty imposed upon him and his political party in criminal and civil fines, and which may cause his political party to be eventually "de-certified" from participation in dutch politics, and banned from the same.
phillipe de winter suffered this in belgian, including the de-certification of his party in which he had a leadership position, for saying, "i am an islamaphobe."
pamela and i have explained in recent posts the fact that the left, which controls the euro union and the euro-med, intends to bring massive islamic immigration into europe in the next years.
this aim cannot be successful in the governments of the euro union cannot quell social unrest and disturbance associated with "native" populations opposing such immigration, not to mention rallying political opposition to it.
who decides what is community tranquility? well, it is whatever the governmental apparatus operating through its judges decides what it is. and, to have tranquility while this immigration process is undergone, means that it cannot be upset by people who speak against it, or speak against the influence or impact of those whom the european union wants to bring into the continent.
wilders has no defense.
truth is not a defense.
justice is not a defense, because he is in no position to assert that which is in the absolute possession of his accusers.
legal standards offer no protection, precisely because there are no legal standards to assert. he simply will be found guilty of doing something to upset political and social tranquility, and quite likely it will never have been found against any person anywhere else. it doesn't matter.
and, it should be absolutely clear, wilders will have no ability to either assert his own view or criticize the view of his prosecutors, because they are the ones who decide if his conduct has violated the standards they have just made up.
choi.
you must understand.
wilders does not possess individual rights under the system as it is designed.
the community has the rights. the community decides how those rights are to be balanced between and amongst members of the community who may be in conflict, and resolves the conflict in order to suppress the conflict. "truth," as observed the "openbaar ministerie," is not a concern.
peace and quiet and order are the concerns.
as defined by the state of holland. and the euro union. did i mention that this is precisely who prosecutes wilders for being "undutch?"
wilders has no ground to stand on, because it shifts at the whim of his accusers.
they are the ones who decide, of course, what it is to be dutch. and, they have decided wilders ain't it, as they have already decided that he is "undutch."
friends, i will say what is repeated below.--
there is absolutely no law in this proceeding against wilders. there is only politics, and the will of the european left as it administers the european union. there is, moreover, lots of government.
the only thing left to the europeans if they are to resist this, is armed insurrection. they will have to kill their oppressors to rid themselves of their oppressors.
buy guns. buy ammunition. something evil this way comes. to a neighborhood near you. soon.
john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa
p.s. friends, you may google a listing of the european "hate speech" laws discussed here. you may also google a copy of the european union, treaty of lisbon, universal declaration of the rights of man.
i don't think that you will understand a word of what i have said, unless you understand these documents.
but, if you understand anything, understand this.--
there is no law in this proceeding. there is only politics, and political power.
2. a letter to elisabeth wolff, also under prosecution in austria for hate speech, in reply to her submission to a post at this blog:
elisabeth:
i was in attendance last year for geert wilders presentation [at the event put on by pamela geller of atlasshrugs], and it was an incredibly rousing event. the room was packed, and people were excited to see geert because pamela had done a lot of work with him before, including a couple of video logs.
……………………
she set the tone with introductory remarks, and when wilders took the stage he was greeted with shouts of "geert, geert, geert ... " from a crowd he had never met before. he was quite visibly moved.
when he explained his situation in holland, which most people knew from atlasshrugs, he received a lot of vocal support and encouragement, ... , and, again, i think that he was rather taken aback by the enthusiasm from an american crowd, on the issues that impact him vis a viz free speech, and that control all europeans from expressing their feelings on islam, and on muslim immigration.
we americans take our freedom of speech, and our rights to gun ownership, very seriously, and regard them as fundamental to any concept of liberty.
i have read and commented on the euro declaration of right, which ostensibly "guarantees" freedom of expression and freedom of association, and which is superficially modeled upon our own "bill of rights," itself derivative of the english magna charta.
but, american views of liberty find a different well spring than european views. our views our based upon john locke and william blackstone, and have their origins in english views of natural law. in our view, our philosophy of things, our rights as men devolved prior to the formation of government, and are not dependent upon the existence of government, and are not given to us by declaration of government.
these liberties and rights exist in us independently, and they are inalienable: they can neither be taken away, nor can they be given away. they cannot be alienated. thus, our bill of rights says that congress/government can make no law infringing on that right.
the right exists in each one of us.
as i have said many times, in my view, the extent & parameter of my expression of my views, and my freedom to express them, is determined by one person, and one person only, and that is me. i would look very dimly indeed on anyone who disagreed with me, or who tried to limit what i say.
in return, i speak civilly and respectfully, but, i speak.
the [view] now taken by english/british [the brits have basically extinguished the magna charta and have replaced it with their own “declaration of right”] and euro view are precisely the opposite.
the euro declaration of right says nice things, utters some platitudes about speech, but the telling remarks are saved for the last articles, wherein the declaration says that such rights of expression and association are to be balanced against the values and interests of the community in achieving and maintaining harmony, and equality and justice, and that anything that disturbs this harmony and community tranquility is forbidden, and can be deemed impermissible to utter.
here is precisely the rub. who determines this balance?
in your case, in geert wilder's case, it is manifestly obvious that those who are in control of the governmental apparatus are to determine what is permitted, and what is not, and when the community or a protected group within the community has been insulted or affronted by the remarks of another.
in your case, in wilder's, it is a panel of judges who decide, based upon the prosecutorial remarks of another member of the governmental apparatus, and the expression of hurt feelings by those who invoke the law in order to silence critics.
in short, the law is applied to protect islam because the euro union wants to foist muslim immigration into europe on a very massive scale, and wants to silence any unrest amongst the indigenous or native populations. as applied in europe right now, racism is any remark that tries to resist the imposition of the government's view of things is to be accepted, and that islam is the protected institution all over europe.
it is quite pernicious.
………………………………
[you should simply] shoot [your] oppressors. for that is precisely what they are. oh, they are [a] bland, pencil necked, buggy eyed, spineless wonders of [a] bureaucracy, perfect examples of orianna fallaci's european mollusks who have replaced manhood in government, ... , but, they are oppressors none the less.
in america we are armed. if the government thugs come to our doors to take our guns, or tell us what we cannot say when we know it is within acceptable parameters of civil discourse and political discussion, ... , why, we are prepared to just shoot the bastards, right at the threshold. i am entirely satisfied that the government will run out of thugs a long time before we run out of me. oh, i may not survive the combat to see the end, but i know when i take the weapon up that my judgment will be vindicated.
it is what locke called putting the trial of the issue before g_d, e.g., quite literally, a societal version of trial by combat. g_d's will to prevail. if man cannot decide, the great mandela will.
you are not in danger of being oppressed.
you are being oppressed in europe.
your freedom of speech is abridged, ... , in fact, it does not exist, because by definition [the parameters] what you say is determined by a "community standard" which is never defined, always shifting, and is always applied to suppress dissent in favor of whoever is favored by governmental apparatus. there is no defined or fixed standard by which a person can even gauge whether his speech is permitted or prohibited, sort of like having a vague sign saying "be nice to others" along the highway for a speed limit sign.
you have only the ad hoc judgment of agents of the state, intent on enforcing public opinion as to state policy.
you have no control over your politics or your elected and non-elected officials.
the euro union does treaties which bind all of europe without your approval or consultation. most of their arrangements with the euro-med partnership are done in private, hidden and the people not advised.
i have been absolutely amazed to find out that most european conservative bloggers, do not have a clue about euro med, or the fact that the president of the european commission, juan barroso has issued a communiqué to the e.u. parliament that his secretariat anticipates it will take 50 million north african muslims to fill absent worker's slots, due to the european propensity to engage in sexual intercourse for pleasure only and not to procreate any more europeans.
not a peep from the media, not a peep from the blogs, and sure as hell no peeps from the people. no twitter, as it were, from the twits. (in american slang, that is a pun and an insult. laughing. i think well turned, but you may disagree.)
[re: the “agreement of association” executed between the euro union/euro-med and the state of egypt] i have found and printed excerpts from the pdf, and provided the web address for all 355 pages of it, which constitutes the euro-med agreement with egypt, signed in 2001 and ratified in 2004, which details muslim immigration into europe, and which recites that it is to fulfill the task of providing workers for european industry. it also guarantees equal wages to muslim immigrants, access to and participation in social welfare and pension rights/obligations,and secures free access and travel to such people admitted into europe under the program, to travel, live, settle and do whatever, all over europe.
and, the documents talk of integrating such people into european society.
50 million of them.
the fact that such agreements were made largely in secret, that they remain unpublicized, and that it is illegal to speak against islam, or the presence of muslims in your society, or to oppose the government's policy on immigration, should the government find that damaging to the tranquility and security of the community, .... , all those things are oppression.
no way around it.
and, you are not going to be able to talk the marxist and leftist who occupy you government to give up their slots, or change their policies.
am i extreme?
probably.
but my conviction to speak my mind and the social benefit of me doing so, is sacred, and whatever unrest a big mouth like me causes from time to time, however prickly and bumpy i may be, is nothing compared to the dust up that is gonna happen in europe in about ten years, when people figure out they have been had.
…………………………
[i have read of you.] you were threatened with prosecution after one speech, and under the threat or actual notice of prosecution, you gave another speech in which you spoke your mind.
[that] is courage that i find [inestimable] . that is the essence of courage.
…………………………….
john jay
p.s. europeans need guns, and lots of them, and somebody has got to wake them up to the fact that right now they are little more than sheep. just a herd of docile sheep, being herded right down the road to slaughter, if lucky, and to dhimmitude, eternal dhimmitude, if not so lucky.
… you are a person to lead them from this.
3. letter to the comment section of jewishodysseus, and a reply back from the commenter who inspired it. the link to the comment: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4585230548913609409&postID=133404214926379163&pli=1 . the link to jewishodysseus: http://jewishodysseus.blogspot.com/
juniper in the desert:
i find it odd that the europeans do not take umbrage over the rather naked attempt by their leftist masters to replace them with muslims.
it is all so odd.
english and european people made europe into a standard bearer of freedom, intellect, enterprise and enlightened politics.
now the left schemes to replace you with a people, ... , shall we say, decidedly less accomplished in all of those attributes, and decidedly savage in some.
the irony, the sad oh so predictable irony of all of this, is that when the immigrant contract killers shall have annihilated the europeans they shall simply turn on their "masters" the euro leftist elites, and kill them as well.
it is all so tiresomely predictable.
yet, why do the euro elites not see the "end game" of this whole silly scheme, the scheme that they initiate.
yet, why do the europeans not rise up, throw off their imagined shackles and throw out the politicians who betray them, and cast the muslims from their shores?
why?
not much of a hardy band of brothers across the pond, in my estimation. way too damned civil for their own good.
john jay
“juniper in the desert” said:
john jay, everything you say is correct. they will turn on them. in fact you are being polite: it is nazism with internet and nuclear technology. in europe we are eaten up with a sort of decadence like the weimar republic. my family already went through this twice, once fleeing from polish pogroms, 2nd time ww2.
dear g_d what dont they understand?
"we are going to kill all non-muslims."
i have close relations who live in seattle and am making plans. this year is going to be definitive.
poor brave geert wilders is on trial tomorrow.
january 19, 2010 6:01:00 am pst
key links:
john jay @ 01.10.2009
have you seen the You Tube video of Geert's brief speech?
He quotes Jefferson. Very moving.
Also, a Dutch citizen wrote an essay on the situation, which I published. Amazing that they have our language down so well and we tend to be monolingual.
Anyhow, he gave the best cultural explanation about Dutch guilt and how it fuels their passivity about the Muslim onslaught.
See here:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/01/trial-of-geert-wilders.html
Eight or more Wilders' posts up...it's been a loong day.
Posted by: dymphna | January 20, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Shoot, I forgot to leave you the video.
Vlad Tepes did a wonderful job with putting up the translated transcriptions. He's a marvel...this is the most complete version I've seen.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/01/does-freedom-still-have-home-in-this.html
Posted by: dymphna | January 20, 2010 at 10:18 PM