Dutch prosecutors have rejected an Austrian request to prosecute MP Geert Wilders over true remarks about Islam during a visit to Vienna two years ago.
The decision comes after Austria requested judicial assistance from the Dutch following a March 2015 speech by Wilders at a gathering of Austria’s far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ).
“Insulting a religion or a religious community in the Netherlands, as opposed to Austria, is not punishable by law,” the public prosecutor’s office said, adding that incendiary words would have to target a specific group within that religion.
“Dutch prosecutors therefore turned down Austria’s request,” the prosecutors said.
The prosecution service conceded that “some individuals may have been insulted by the statements. But that’s a separate issue, and not something that can be prosecuted.”
Wilders told an audience that Islam is an ideology of war and hatred and Islam calls on people to become terrorists — the Koran leaves no doubt about it.
The speech spurred an Austrian-based stupid Muslim organization to file a complaint of incitement against Wilders.
Wilders told us: Good. The only correct decision. The truth must be able to be told, specifically about the Islam!
A local Dutch court convicted him of discrimination in December, but acquitted him on a charge of hate speech over comments he made about Moroccans living in the Netherlands during a 2014 campaign rally.
He has previously compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which he wants banned, and his Freedom Party (PVV) has vowed to close all mosques and Islamic schools in the Netherlands.
In March elections this year, the PVV failed to live up to early predictions that it would top the polls, though it still managed to come in second, increasing its number of MPs to 20 from 12 in the outgoing parliament.
For years, the Dutch mainstream media have spread hatred and defamation against Geert Wilders for trying to warn the Dutch people and Europe -about what their future will be if they continue their current immigration policies; in exchange, a panel of three judges found him guilty of inciting discrimination. Newspapers and politicians all over Europe unceasingly describe him as a dangerous man and a rightist firebrand. Sometimes they call him a fascist.
What did Wilders ever do to deserve that? None of his remarks ever incriminated any person or group because of their race or ethnicity. To charge him, the Dutch justice system had excessively and abusively to interpret words he used during a rally in which he asked if the Dutch wanted fewer Moroccans. None of Wilders’s speeches incites violence against anyone; the violence that surrounds him is directed only at him. He defends human rights and democratic principles and he is a resolute enemy of all forms of antisemitism.
His only pseudo-crime is to denounce the danger represented by the Islamization of the Netherlands and the rest of Europe and to claim that Islam represents a mortal threat to freedom. Unfortunately, he has good empirical reasons to say that. Also unfortunately, the Netherlands is a country where criticism of Islam is particularly dangerous: Theo van Gogh made an Islamically incorrect film in 2004 and was savagely murdered by an Islamist who said he would kill again if he could. Two years earlier, Pim Fortuyn, who had hoped to stand for election, defined Islam as a hostile religion; he was killed by a leftist Islamophile animal-rights activist. Wilders is alive only because he is under around-the-clock police protection.
More broadly, the Netherlands is a country where the Muslim community shows few signs of integration. There are now forty no-go zones in the country; riots easily erupt in Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Nijmegen. Ragheads repeatedly attack Dutch-born citizens. Some are so sure of their impunity that they publish online videos of their crimes. Throughout the country, an ethnic cleansing that Europeans are too scared to name is taking place in the suburbs, and non-Muslim residents often say they feel harassed.
Non-Muslim women are encouraged by local authorities to dress modestly. As in Islam dogs are haram (impure), dog owners are asked to keep their pets indoors. Ragheads demonstrate and shout slogans in support of Hamas and Jihadis.
Daily life has become particularly difficult for the 40,000 Jews still living in the country; districts long inhabited by members of the Jewish community have become almost entirely Muslim. Authorities recommend that Jews avoid any visible sign of Jewishness to avoid creating unrest. Muslim delinquency is high; the percentage of Muslims sent to jail for various crimes is notably higher than the percentage of Muslims in the population. Six percent of the country’s population are Muslim; about 20% of all inmates are Muslim. None of this is secret.
The only person talking about these problems is Wilders. Dutch political leaders and most journalists seemingly prefer to claim that Wilders is the problem; that if he were not there, these problems would not exist. At best, they utter fuzzy words intended to show strength; at worst, they turn their back. A large percentage of the Dutch population is anxious; the constant demonization of Wilders apparently tries to indoctrinate the people to settle for less.
In the years to come, the situation in the country is certain to deteriorate. The Muslim birth rate is higher than the non-Muslim one. Dozens of churches close each year due to the rapid decline in the number of practicing Christians; the churches are replaced by mosques. Radical preachers keep coming and proselytizing; Islamist organizations keep recruiting.
Islamic riots occur more and more often. Ethnic gangs are growing more violent. Ethnic cleansing is transforming neighborhoods. Jews are leaving for Israel or North America. The Muslim population is sharply increasing. Radical mosques are proliferating. Islamic organizations are everywhere. Politicians who dare to speak the way Geert Wilders does are treated the way Geert Wilders is treated : scorned, marginalized, put on trial.
A utopian vision of the world explains why in Europe, people such as Geert Wilders are seen as the incarnation of evil, but radical Islam is considered a marginal nuisance bearing no relation to the religion of peace. Meanwhile, Wilders is condemned to live under protection as if he were in jail, while those who want to slaughter him walk around free.