Gavin Orland » Quick letter to NSS

Quick letter to NSS

Tuesday 2nd February 2010 10:50 in Politics, Religion, Society | 70 views logged | 3 comments

“Geert Wilders (currently on trial for telling the truth in the Netherlands) has again been invited by members of the House of Lords to come and show his short film Fitna there.

The Telegraph reports here that Lord Ahmed has again threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to block Mr Wilders from entering the House of Lords. If this is true then Lord Ahmed should be arrested for breach of the peace. I’m tired of this man’s threats.

Best regards,

Gavin Orland”

3 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Perhaps something could be arranged in support of Wilders under the banner of promoting free speech.

I wonder whether the muslims from (the former) Islam4UK will turn up and be allowed to get away with displaying their vile values.

Comment by Dan the anti-theist — Wednesday 3rd February 2010 #
Hi Dan. Good points. Let’s see. Perhaps it would be worth going along there – if for no other reason then to photograph Islamists who will no doubt be (as you say) preaching hatred unrestricted.

I really think if Ahmed starts encouraging public unrest over this private screening then he should be arrested without any delay. Things are getting ridiculous now.

Comment by Gavin — Wednesday 3rd February 2010 #
I received the following reply from John Rushby-Smith in Newsline:

I forwarded Gavin Orland’s letter about the trial of Geert Wilders in Holland (Newsline, 22nd January) to my Dutch cousin, a former appeals court judge in that country. He prefers to remain anonymous, but has allowed me to post the following response:–

“The very top of the ‘Public Ministry’, our equivalent of your CPS, had amply pondered the desirability of a Wilders prosecution, especially vis-à-vis the chances of getting a conviction. It decided not to proceed. Unlike in Britain, there is no provision in Dutch law for anyone to bring a private criminal prosecution, but Dutch criminal procedure does provide for a ‘complaint against non-prosecution’ to be brought before the court of appeal. A prominent criminal lawyer and someone else filed such a complaint; the Amsterdam Court of Appeal upheld it and subsequently ordered the prosecution. This plays into the hands of Wilders who gets no end of free publicity, while a conviction is considered not at all certain. Contrary to Gavin Orland’s initial comment, Wilders is not ‘being tried by his own government’, but by judges who are indifferent to his opinions on Islam and will simply investigate whether or not his utterances infringed Dutch criminal law.”

I’m not surprised to see that the ex-judge is evidently unsympathetic towards Wilders (using phrases such as “playing into his hands”) as he was presumably part of the establishment that has brought about the state of affairs in the Netherlands as it is now. I am always puzzled, though, as to why people wish to remain anonymous if they are confident of what they are saying, especially when their job (or, in Wilders’ case, their life) is not at risk from them speaking their minds.

I have responded as follows:

Regarding John Rushby-Smith’s comment in Newsline last week, his anonymous cousin in the Netherlands objected to my opening remark that Geert Wilders is currently being tried by his own government. This remark was hardly the main import of my e-mail, nonetheless the exact same description has also been used by the lawyer David B. Harris, former Chief of Strategic Planning for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and that Wilders himself refers to his trial as “political”.

Obviously Mr Wilders is being tried under the laws of his land, however let’s not forget that 100% of Dutch judges are appointed by the government, the Dutch government is known to oppose Wilders’ views, the Dutch Court of Appeal authorised the prosecution, the summons was sent by the Public Prosecutor’s Office regardless of what the Public Ministry did, and the Public Prosecutor has actually exceeded the prosecution authorisation of the Court of Appeal, attempting to prosecute Wilders on additional charges.

It would be naïve to think that the government had no influence in this matter or indeed that judges are ever utterly impartial, as was suggested by the anonymous contributor. Judges have views like everybody else, and when they are appointed by the government of a country one can reasonably suspect where their sympathies might lie (indeed this commentator indicated his own position with his line “playing into [Wilders’] hands”).

I dare say the court is mainly deciding now which outcome is likely to increase Wilders’ profile and public support for him least. A tough call – they’ve messed up so badly that either is going to do him good. If he is found guilty there will be widespread public outrage and sympathy for him (already 30,000 people have signed a petition in his defence) and if he is found innocent he will be vindicated.

Comment by Gavin — Monday 8th February 2010 #

Note: This comment form is intended for use only by intelligent, courteous people who can write properly. Illiterate comments will be deleted. Threatening or abusive comments will be forwarded to your Internet Service Provider along with your I.P. address (in this case 38.107.191.82).