How Do You Say “Kangaroo Court” in Dutch?

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.

John L. Work writes at Newsreal:

Even if you have never been involved in a criminal prosecution wherein your very freedom is at risk, I want you to now imagine that you and your attorney have prepared a defense that includes a list of witnesses that will provide a mountain of exculpatory evidence.  Then, imagine that the Court summarily and arbitrarily decides that it will not listen to nearly ninety percent of your case.

“This court is apparently not interested in the truth." Wilders told De Telegraaf (translations from Gates of Vienna). "I cannot conclude anything but that the court does not award me a fair trial.”

“I have no respect for this,” Wilders added. He pointed out that in a typical criminal case there are often dozens of witnesses heard.

But this is not a typical trial. This is a rigged game, a fixed fight, a show trial that is premised not on Dutch law but on Islamic law. Indeed, the trial of Geert Wilders is a test case for sharia in the Netherlands, the grafting onto a free Western country the repressive cage of Islamic rule.

Discussing Muslim progress against "Islamophobia" at the 35th meeting of foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Kampala, Uganda in 2008, Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu made the following statement:

In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. 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.

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.

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.


To Frank Lee RE: European "Expectations"

Frank Lee,

It is utterly false to claim that Europeans rely on the United States to “fight their wars for them”. The United States was drawn into both World Wars principally at the urging of Great Britain. British grand strategy had for centuries entailed balancing continental European great powers against one another, and forming coalitions to prevent any from gaining mastery over the others. These tactics compensated for British inferiority on the ground, and enabled Great Britain to be a superpower based on strength at sea and to establish a far-flung empire. The British regarded the United States as a counterbalance to both the German Empire and the Soviet Union. Whilst ignoring concerns in East-Central Europe over Russian and later Soviet “protection” or “liberation” from Germany, London was nevertheless suspicious of Moscow.

During World War I, no European power foresaw the Central Powers smashing the Russian “steamroller” so effectively, nor did Berlin envisage a drawn-out war of attrition in Belgium and France. Without question, American intervention brought the war to a conclusion sooner, although Germany was suffering due to the British blockade.

Prior to 1940, no European capital was remotely interested in Roosevelt’s attempts at diplomatic intervention, and indeed the Axis Powers could have been easily and quickly defeated by various Anglo-French coalitions up to the signing of the Germany-Soviet Treaty of Non-Aggression. Unable to rely upon Paris or Moscow, London naturally turned to Washington.

After 1945, the British view of NATO’s purpose was “to keep the Russians out…and the Germans down”, by keeping “the Americans in”. You will notice that in 1918, many vulnerable European countries sought security in alliances backed by Anglo-French power, but in 1945, the tendency to neutrality was more pronounced. Importantly, France withdrew from NATO and pursued an independent foreign policy and nuclear deterrent.

Bill Clinton used the United States’ “unipolar moment” to intervene in various failed or failing states, the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina included. Other than the United States, only Russia had both the inclination and logistical capacity to project power in the Balkans. In addition to humanitarianism and pure post-Cold War exuberance, NATO was denying Russia access to the Mediterranean and southeastern Europe.

I agree that the Americans should not interfere in any civil wars that break out in Europe on account of Islam. By the same logic, you would agree that the United States should bear the sole burden of Afghanistan and Iraq alone, no?

Appeasement 5



1.  Agreed.


2.  Agreed.  The Dutch judiciary could have interpreted Wilder’s expressions either way, given the problem of vagueness inherent in all “hate speech” legislation, as well as the restrictions on free speech imposed by both Dutch and EU law.  Therefore, rendering a legal defeat to Islam in the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent the EU, by upholding Wilders’ freedom of expression could be regarded as much an instance of activism as ordering the public prosecutor to bring Wilders to trial. 


3.  I was referring to Churchill’s description of the Second World War.  The war is not yet here, as it is so limited as to not constitute a war.  However, tensions between Europeans and Muslims will continue to worsen and risk escalating to total war.  Repatriation of Muslims or the prohibition of Islam in Europe will be more likely to prevent this escalation than further appeasement. 

Appeasement # 4

@ Kapitein Andre

1) Judicial activism is in principle 'wrong', because anti-democratic.  The people should rule (through their freely-chosen politicians) and not unelected judges.  Judges must faithfully follow (adhere to) the law.

2) If the Dutch judiciary has inappropriately engaged in "judicial activism" vis-a-vis homophobia and neo-national socialism, this is not an argument for more judicial activism against islamism and/or other -isms (be they deplorable, or not). The proper remedy is for the voters and the politicians to restore democratic Constitutional law, to begin with freedom of political speech. There is nothing that islamists hate and fear more than the freedom of/for others to criticise islam (or anything else for that matter).

3) "Next unnecessary general war"? What war are you talking about? In a sense the war is already here, but much of the Dutch public and politicians seem unaware of it. If it will ever come to 'open' warfare, and thus recognition of the war on both sides, then the war will clearly be regarded as 'necessary' to survive as a free people.

4) It is a total illusion to expect anything from "supranational judiciaries" in the struggle for human individual freedom. If the legal 'war' cannot be won INSIDE the political systems of the remaining free nations of Western civilisation, it cannot be won anywhere, and the war will be lost. Judiciaries and legal systems are always a part of a broader political system (that determines or governs how power is circumscribed). "Supranational judiciaries" are part of the contemporary international political system which is not - and cannot be - democratic in nature, and which does not promote democratic values of individual freedom (and conscience).

To Marc Frans RE: Appeasement 3

Courts practicing judicial activism cannot avoid some responsibility for “checking” Islam in the Netherlands.  Certainly, the Dutch judiciary has not shied away from challenging homophobia and neo-national socialism.  Of course, the bulk of the responsibility rests with the States-General and the electorate.  However, in the aftermath of the next unnecessary general war, it is my sincerest hope that at the very least a modicum of blame is apportioned to those national and supranational judiciaries that possessed both the opportunity and the means to resist Islam and its appeasers.


Lesser evil

From leftism to Islamism, this is undoubtedly step forward. The latter group run more respectable lifestyle. Many Muslims apart the fact that they worship false god aren't bad people. On other hand every single leftist is an ass. 

Lesser evil?

Taking as the ideal the "conservative Christian anarchist" of Henry Adams--who said that was the basic American political position--ah, those were the days!--it is difficult to say that Muslims are more likely to realize it than leftists. In both cases it requires a conversion. One advantage the Muslim has is an orientation towards the transcendent, but he aspires to a condition of submission with respect to the transcendent. He has no Incarnation lifting him up, and no Crucifixion freeing him from his sins. He does have a sense of the natural, created order that is closer to the Christian view of natural law. The leftist, in contrast, disdains the transcendent. He at least gives lip service to liberty, but his concept of it, as revealed by his favored policies, is really the Maoist ideal of being a cog in the machine of the Revolution. The leftist also gives lip service to science, which could provide an opening to appreciation of natural order and natural law, but the global warming fiasco shows how much he really cares about truth. The leftist also constantly adduces animal behavior to justify sexual perversity. Both have a long way to go. Both leftists and Muslims do convert to Christianity and they do convert to conservativism. God willing the conversions will multiply.

Sure, to convince to conversion is a difficult task

However I think that this is easier to convince people who share some concept of morality than those who always put personal pleasure over everything else. I dare to say that I would sooner be able to convince an average Muslim than most of TBJ writers who used to defend democracy and libertine views, never Christianity.


Kapitein Andre wrote:  "Islam will continue its relentless advance until war can no longer be avoided or delayed."  Since the Europeans are in the habit of expecting the Americans to fight their wars for them (most recently in Kosovo), this new threat of war probably doesn't concern the Dutch as much as it should.  I can only hope President Obama continues to snub the Europeans until they finally get the message:  you must take responsibility for yourselves.

@ Frank Lee

Mr HUESSEIN Obama's record seems to point to a thinly disguised partisanship to the Islamic cause. There's been signals galore.

Appeasement # 2

@ Wesley

If history is a reliable guide, your wish for the 'elites' will be granted. 

@ Kapitein

It's not really the job of the Dutch judiciary "to check Islam".  That is really part of the job of the Dutch political system, i.e. the politicians and their voters.   

The judiciary is supposed to follow and apply the law as it is written.  The blame here primarily rests with the Dutch parliament and the unconstitutional laws (violating freedom of political speech) that it has passed.  Ultimately, the blame goes to the voters who keep putting this kind of people in parliament.


Appeasement Redux

The prosecution of Geert Wilders is a token gesture meant to appease Islam rather than specifically curtail Dutch liberties.  Unfortunately, this act is premised upon the same faulty assumptions that lead to the Münchner Abkommen, and as with National Socialism, Islam will continue its relentless advance until war can no longer be avoided or delayed.  The Dutch judiciary could have elected to check Islam at this juncture by supporting Dutch liberties, thereby forcing Islam to react or accept the reverse.  It is instead marching the Netherlands to folly...

If I were younger and in

If I were younger and in better financial shape I would pack my belongings and get out of this perverted continent. I wish and want that when the ride is over, the self-declared "elites" will be rewarded with tenfold of what they're putting the populations through.

Dutch emigration

It would be interesting to see a graph of the emigration of indigenous Dutch over the years and how this curve will evolve after this trial. If I am not mistaken, the Netherlands has the highest percentage of indigenous people actually leaving their home country of any Western country, probably higher than most of the underdeveloped countries.