* An idiotic accusation: how can Wilders be accused of ‘spreading hate’ when all he does is hold up a mirror forÂ the Muhammadan mob to see how vile, how hateful and demented they are?
Here’s the article from ‘Islam Online’
The Hague – A judge has ruled in a case against MP Geert Wilders brought by the Dutch Islamic Federation that Mr Wilders is not guilty of spreading hate, although his statements are provocative.
The Islamic Federation wanted a judgement on the Freedom Party’s leader after he compared the Qur’an to Mein Kampf. However the judge ruled that members of parliament have to be able to express their opinions strongly.
* Spencer comments: If jihadists didn’t use the Qur’an like Mein Kampf, it wouldn’t occur to anyone to make this comparison. No one is comparing the Bhagavad Gita to Mein Kampf.
The democrat party D66 want the Lower House to investigate exactly what Mr Wilders told the cabinet about his film Fitna. Two ministers and Mr Wilders disagreed during a Lower House debate on the anti-Qur’an film last week about what was said during a meeting in November.
A record of the meeting says the ministers were concerned about the end of the film in which Mr Wilders said he intended to tear out pages of the Qur’an and burn them in the fireplace. Mr Wilders accused the ministers of lying. D66 leader Alexander Pechtold says it is bad for the image of politics when an MP and the cabinet get into a situation like this. Last week the conservative VVD called for an investigation.
AMSTERDAM â€” A Dutch court ruled on Monday, April 7, that branding the faith of 1.5 billion Muslims as “fascist” and insulting their Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as “barbarian” do not incite religious hatred.
“The contested remarks are not seen as unlawful,” the court said in a four-page verdict cited by Agence France-Presse (AFP).
The Dutch Islamic Federation (NIF) had asked the court to ban MP Geert Wilders from making such comparisons, accusing him of inciting hatred and violence against Muslims.
The court said the far-right lawmaker was within his legal rights.
“The defendant’s freedom of speech has been the decisive factor in this matter.
“Seen in this light, it cannot be said that the defendant with the comments he made, although they are provocative, is inciting hatred or violence against Muslims.”
The court defined fascism as “a collective term for ideologies which fundamentally embrace a totalitarian political system which leaves no room for people with other ideas.”
The ruling seemed to suggest that the court believes Islam is one of these totalitarian ideologies.
The court also claimed that the Muslim group failed to disprove that Islam consists of beliefs that are in contradiction to democratic principles.